American Federation of Government Employees, Local 32, AFL-CIO (Union) and Office of Personnel Management, Washington, DC (Agency) 

 



[ v06 p44 ]
06:0044(15)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 6 FLRA No. 15
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 32
 Union
 
 and
 
 OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
 WASHINGTON, D.C.
 Agency
 
                                            Case Nos. O-NG-328 
                                                      O-NG-338 
                                                      O-NG-346
 
         CONSOLIDATED DECISION AND ORDER OF NEGOTIABILITY APPEALS
 
    THESE THREE CASES COME 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 ET
 SEQ.).  INASMUCH AS ALL THREE CASES INVOLVE THE SAME AGENCY (OPM) AND
 UNION (AFGE), AND RAISE THE IDENTICAL ISSUES, THE AUTHORITY'S ACTION
 WITH RESPECT TO EACH SUCH APPEAL IS EXPRESSED IN THE INSTANT
 CONSOLIDATED DECISION WHICH APPLIES INDIVIDUALLY TO EACH OF THEM.
 
    THE RECORD BEFORE THE AUTHORITY DISCLOSES THAT, DURING THE TERM OF
 THE PARTIES' NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, THE AGENCY NOTIFIED THE UNION OF AN
 INTERNAL REORGANIZATION AFFECTING THE AGENCY'S RETIREMENT INFORMATION
 OFFICE, COMPENSATION GROUP;  SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE BRANCH
 OF STAFFING SERVICES GROUP;  AND REVIEW AND CONTROL, ACCOUNTING AND
 COLLECTIONS SECTION, WITHIN COMPENSATION GROUP.  IN ALL THREE INSTANCES,
 THE UNION THEREAFTER REQUESTED "IMPACT BARGAINING" AND SUBMITTED
 SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
 TRAINING AGREEMENT COVERING CERTAIN POSITIONS IN THOSE OFFICES;  /1/ THE
 AGENCY REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE;  AND THE UNION FILED THE NEGOTIABILITY
 APPEALS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED HEREIN.  /2/
 
    IN ITS STATEMENT OF POSITION CONCERNING EACH APPEAL, THE AGENCY
 STATES:  "(W)E DO NOT ASSERT THAT THE SUBJECT PROPOSALS ARE
 NON-NEGOTIABLE PER SE.  WHAT WE DO ASSERT IS THAT THESE PROPOSALS ARE
 UNRELATED TO THE REORGANIZATION AND THAT THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY AFGE TO
 THE AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION INVOLVES A QUESTION CONCERNING THE
 OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN RATHER THAN A NEGOTIABILITY QUESTION.  THE
 AUTHORITY HAS CONSISTENTLY RULED THAT THE PROPER FORUM IN WHICH TO RAISE
 THESE ISSUES IS THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE. .  . . "
 
    THE UNION'S RESPONSE IN CASE NO. O-NG-328 /3/ CHARACTERIZES THE
 AGENCY'S ARGUMENT TO BE THAT MANAGEMENT "DOES NOT HAVE TO BARGAIN OVER
 THE (U)NION PROPOSALS BECAUSE THEY (DO) NOT RELATE TO CERTAIN CHANGES IN
 WORKING CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE (A)GENCY IN THE FORM OF A
 REORGANIZATION. . . . " THE UNION, HOWEVER, ASSERTS THAT "(T)HE
 OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN AT REASONABLE TIMES AND PLACES IS A CONTINUING
 ONE, AND LASTS