American Federation of Government Employees, Local 225 (Union) and Army Armament Research and Development Command, Dover, New Jersey (Agency)

 



[ v04 p148 ]
04:0148(24)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 4 FLRA No. 24
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 225
 Union
 
 and
 
 U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH
 AND DEVELOPMENT COMMAND,
 DOVER, N.J.
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-88
 
                      DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
 
    THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE
 AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE), 5 U.S.C. 7101.
 
                              UNION PROPOSAL
 
    ALL PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS AND IMPASSE RESOLUTION SHALL BE ON DUTY
 TIME.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH
 SECTION 7131(B) AND (D) OF THE STATUTE AND, THEREFORE, IS NOT WITHIN THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH SECTION 7131 OF THE
 STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE
 DISPUTED PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE.  /1/
 
    REASONS:  AS EXPLAINED BY THE PARTIES, THE PROPOSAL HERE IN DISPUTE,
 WHICH WOULD PROVIDE THAT THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES' PREPARATION OF
 PROPOSALS AND IMPASSE RESOLUTION MATTERS WILL BE CONDUCTED ON OFFICIAL
 TIME, BEARS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE FROM THE PROPOSALS WHICH WERE BEFORE
 THE AUTHORITY FOR DECISION IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1692 AND HEADQUARTERS, 323RD FLYING WING
 (ATC), MATHER AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, CASE NO.  O-NG-183, 3 FLRA NO.
 47(MAY 30, 1980), AND FEDERAL UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL F-169 AND
 U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMMAND, DOVER, NEW JERSEY,
 CASE NO. 0-NG-73, 3 FLRA NO. 49 (MAY 30, 1980) AND HELD TO BE WITHIN THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.
 
    IN THOSE CASES, THE AUTHORITY HELD THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSALS FOR
 THE USE OF OFFICIAL TIME BY UNION REPRESENTATIVES TO PREPARE FOR
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND IMPASSE RESOLUTION CONCERNED A MATTER WHICH
 FALLS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7131(D) OF THE STATUTE,
 RATHER THAN A MATTER WHICH IS EXCEPTED FROM THE DUTY TO BARGAIN AS
 "INTERNAL BUSINESS OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION" UNDER SECTION 7131(B).  IN
 REACHING ITS DECISION, THE AUTHORITY DID NOT RULE ON THE QUESTION OF
 WHAT ACTIVITIES WOULD PROPERLY CONSTITUTE "PREPARATIONS" UNDER THE
 OFFICIAL TIME PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.
 
    THEREFORE, BASED ON THE REASONS SET FORTH IN GREATER DETAIL IN THE
 MATHER AIR FORCE BASE CASE, THE PROPOSAL HERE IN DISPUTE MUST ALSO BE
 HELD TO BE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 4, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 
    COPIES OF THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY IN THE SUBJECT PROCEEDING HAVE THIS DAY BEEN MAILED TO THE
 PARTIES LISTED:
 
    MR. RONALD D. KING
 
    DIRECTOR
 
    CONTRACT & APPEALS DIVISION
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
 
    1325 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW.
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
 
    MR. W. J. SCHRADER
 
    CHIEF
 
    OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
 
    FOR PERSONNEL
 
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
 
    ROOM 2C655, THE PENTAGON
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20310
 
    DR. CAROLYN A. L. WESTERDAHL
 
    PRESIDENT
 
    LOCAL 1437
 
    NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
 
    BUILDING 30, ARRADCOM
 
    DOVER, NEW JERSEY 07801
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ IN SO DECIDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN,
 THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MATTERS OF THE PROPOSAL. 
 
 
 


<