National Treasury Employees Union (Union) and Internal Revenue Service (Agency) 



[ v06 p522 ]
06:0522(98)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 6 FLRA No. 98
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 Union
 
 and
 
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-85
 
                DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
 
    THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IN 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 ET SEQ.) THE ISSUE PRESENTED IS THE NEGOTIABILITY OF EIGHT
 UNION PROPOSALS.  /1/
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL I
 
    ARTICLE 19, SECTION 7C
 
    IF AN EMPLOYEE REQUESTS ASSISTANCE FOR HIS/HER PROBLEM, THE
 RESPONSIBLE SUPERVISORY
 
    OFFICIAL MUST WEIGH THIS FACT IN DETERMINING APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINARY
 AND ADVERSE ACTION IF
 
    SUCH ACTIONS BECOME NECESSARY.
 
    SUCH DISCIPLINARY ACTION SHALL NOT BE INSTITUTED IF THE AFFECTED
 EMPLOYEE IS AN ACTIVE
 
    PARTICIPANT IN A RECOGNIZED DRUG/ALCOHOLISM PROGRAM, OR SHALL BE
 STAYED IF THE AFFECTED
 
    EMPLOYEE ENTERS SUCH A PROGRAM.  /2/
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DISPUTED PORTIONS OF UNION PROPOSAL I ARE
 INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE, /3/ AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  THE DISPUTED PORTIONS OF UNION PROPOSAL I ARE
 INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE AND THEREFORE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN
 DOES NOT EXTEND TO THESE MATTERS.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION
 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10 (1981)),
 IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PORTION OF THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW
 RELATING TO THE DISPUTED PORTIONS OF UNION PROPOSAL I BE DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  THE DISPUTED PORTIONS OF UNION PROPOSAL I WOULD (1)
 PROHIBIT THE AGENCY FROM DISCIPLINING AN EMPLOYEE AS LONG AS THE
 EMPLOYEE IS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN A RECOGNIZED DRUG/ALCOHOLISM
 PROGRAM, AND (2) REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO STAY ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION IF
 THE EMPLOYEE ENTERS SUCH A PROGRAM.  AS A RESULT, THE PROPOSAL WOULD
 PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM INSTITUTING DISCIPLINE WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEES
 WHO ARE ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN A RECOGNIZED DRUG/ALCOHOLISM PROGRAM AND
 WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO STAY DISCIPLINARY ACTION WITH RESPECT TO
 EMPLOYEES WHO ENTER SUCH A PROGRAM.  HENCE, UNDER THE DISPUTED PORTIONS
 OF THE PROPOSAL, AN EMPLOYEE COULD SECURE IN EFFECT COMPLETE IMMUNITY
 FROM DISCIPLINE, WITHOUT REGARD TO HIS OR HER BEHAVIOR OR PERFORMANCE ON
 THE JOB, SIMPLY BY ENTERING AND REMAINING A PARTICIPANT IN SUCH A
 PROGRAM.  THEN, THE AGENCY WOULD BE WHOLLY PRECLUDED FROM TAKING
 DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE STOPPED
 PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM.  THUS, THE PROPOSAL WOULD GRANT EMPLOYEES
 THE OPTION TO TOTALLY DENY THE AGENCY'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY BY
 PARTICIPATING IN SUCH A PROGRAM AND HENCE, EVEN IF CONSIDERED TO BE
 PROCEDURAL IN NATURE, THE PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF PREVENTING
 THE AGENCY FROM ACTING AT ALL IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS AUTHORITY TO
 DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.  /4/
 
    ACCORDINGLY, THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE
 AGENCY TO DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE
 STATUTE AND IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL II
 
    ARTICLE . . . , SECTION 1A
 
    TELEPHONE MONITORING WILL BE ASSIGNED TO QUALITY REVIEW PERSONNEL WHO
 HAVE RECEIVED QUALITY
 
    REVIEW TRAINING.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL II IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE
 STATUTE, /5/ AS ALLEGED BY AGENCY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSAL II IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE
 STATUTE AND THEREFORE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN DOES NOT EXTEND TO THIS
 MATTER.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 RULES AND REGULATIONS, (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE
 PORTION OF THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW RELATING TO UNION PROPOSAL II
 BE DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  UNION PROPOSAL II WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN
 TELEPHONE MONITORING DUTIES TO QUALITY REVIEW PERSONNEL ONLY IF THESE
 QUALITY REVIEW PERSONNEL HAVE RECEIVED QUALITY REVIEW TRAINING.  THUS,
 UNDER THE PROPOSAL THE AGENCY COULD NOT ASSIGN SUCH DUTIES TO EMPLOYEES
 WHO WERE NOT QUALITY REVIEW PERSONNEL OR TO QUALITY REVIEW PERSONNEL
 LACKING THE REQUISITE TRAINING.
 
    UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE, HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR THAT
 THE AGENCY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK, /6/ INCLUDING THE
 DISCRETION AS TO THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE TO WHOM THE WORK WILL BE
 ASSIGNED.  /7/ UNION PROPOSAL II, AS ALREADY INDICATED, PRESCRIBES THE
 ASSIGNMENT OF SPECIFIC DUTIES TO PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES AND PRECLUDES THE
 AGENCY FROM ASSIGNING THOSE DUTIES TO OTHER EMPLOYEES.  THUS, UNION
 PROPOSAL II WOULD ELIMINATE THE DISCRETION INHERENT IN THE AGENCY'S
 AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE.
 THEREFORE, IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT SECTION AND NOT WITHIN THE DUTY
 TO BARGAIN.  /8/
 
                    UNION PROPOSALS III, IV, AND V /9/
 
    ARTICLE . . . , SECTIONS 2A, 2B, AND 3B
 
    SECTION 2A.  THE EMPLOYER WILL MAKE NO WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION WHICH
 IDENTIFIES SPECIFIC
 
    EMPLOYEES NOR MAINTAIN ANY RECORDATIONS CONCERNING SPECIFIC
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    SECTION 2B.  THE MONITOR WILL NOT INTERRUPT TELEPHONE CALLS.  IF THE
 MONITOR BELIEVES THE
 
    EMPLOYEE IS GIVING OUT INCORRECT INFORMATION, THE MONITOR WILL
 DISCUSS THE ALLEGED
 
    MISINFORMATION WITH THE EMPLOYEE AFTER THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION HAS
 BEEN COMPLETED.  IF IT
 
    IS NECESSARY TO CALL THE TAXPAYER AFTER THE DISCUSSION, THE EMPLOYEE
 WILL DO SO.
 
    SECTION 3B.  THE EMPLOYER WILL NOT RECORD THE CONVERSATION OF A
 TAXPAYER AND EMPLOYEE
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSALS III, IV, AND V ARE
 INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE METHODS OF
 PERFORMING ITS WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE, /10/ AS
 ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.  /11/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSALS III, IV, V ARE INCONSISTENT
 WITH THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE METHODS OF PERFORMING ITS
 WORK AND ARE NEGOTIABLE ONLY AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION
 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE.  THEREFORE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN DOES NOT
 EXTEND TO THESE MATTERS.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF
 THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS
 ORDERED THAT THE PORTION OF THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW RELATING TO
 UNION PROPOSALS III, IV, AND V BE DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  THE AGENCY HAS ADOPTED TELEPHONE MONITORING FOR THE STATED
 PURPOSE OF INSURING THAT ACCURATE INFORMATION IS BEING GIVEN TO
 TAXPAYERS.  THE UNION DOES NOT DISPUTE THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO
 UNILATERALLY ADOPT TELEPHONE MONITORING AS A METHOD OF PERFORMING ITS
 WORK.  RATHER, UNION PROPOSALS III, IV, AND V CONCERN HOW THE AGENCY
 WILL IMPLEMENT ITS SYSTEM OF MONITORING THE WORK RELATED TELEPHONE
 CONVERSATIONS OF EMPLOYEES.  THEY ARE, THE UNION CLAIMS, PROCEDURES
 NEGOTIABLE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE, /12/ WHICH THE
 AGENCY WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY TO ADOPT THE MONITORING
 SYSTEM AS A METHOD OF PERFORMING WORK.  NEVERTHELESS, THE AGENCY
 CONTENDS THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSALS CONCERN MATTERS SO INTERTWINED WITH
 THE AGENCY'S CHOICE OF THIS PARTICULAR METHOD OF PERFORMING ITS WORK
 THAT THE PROPOSALS, IN EFFECT, WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE THE METHOD
 CHOSEN WAS INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH.
 
    IF TELEPHONE MONITORING IS TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS
 ADOPTED IN THIS CASE, THE AUTHORITY AGREES WITH THE AGENCY'S CONTENTION
 THAT MONITORING MUST ENCOMPASS MORE THAN MERELY LISTENING TO THE
 TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS.  THE AGENCY MUST BE ABLE TO USE THE INFORMATION
 IT HAS GATHERED TO INSURE THAT THE ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TAXPAYERS IS
 ACCURATE.  AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL BELOW, UNION PROPOSALS III, IV, AND V
 WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE AGENCY'S REASONABLE USE OF THE INFORMATION
 GAINED THROUGH TELEPHONE MONITORING TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THEY WOULD
 PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM ACTING AT ALL TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH
 THE AGENCY ADOPTED TELEPHONE MONITORING AS A METHOD OF PERFORMING WORK.
 /13/
 
    SECTION 2A, UNION PROPOSAL III, PROHIBITS THE AGENCY FROM MAKING ANY
 WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION WHICH IDENTIFIES SPECIFIC EMPLOYEES OR MAINTAINING
 ANY RECORDATIONS CONCERNING SPECIFIC EMPLOYEES.  WITHOUT SUCH
 DOCUMENTATION, THE AGENCY WOULD BE UNABLE TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO
 CORRECT THE DISSEMINATION OF INACCURATE INFORMATION BY PARTICULAR
 EMPLOYEES.  SIMILARLY, SECTION 3B, UNION PROPOSAL V, WHICH PROHIBITS THE
 AGENCY FROM RECORDING THE CONVERSATION OF A TAXPAYER AND EMPLOYEE,
 WOULD
 PREVENT THE AGENCY'S MAKING AN ACCURATE RECORD OF WHAT WAS SAID SO AS TO
 PROPERLY EVALUATE WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, IS APPROPRIATE TO TAKE.
 CONSEQUENTLY, THESE PROPOSED PROCEDURES WOULD PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM
 ACTING AT ALL TO INSURE THAT ACCURATE INFORMATION IS BEING PROVIDED TO
 TAXPAYERS, THUS DEFEATING THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH TELEPHONE MONITORING WAS
 ADOPTED.  THEREFORE, UNION PROPOSALS III AND V DO NOT CONSTITUTE
 NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURES WHICH THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING ITS
 AUTHORITY TO USE TELEPHONE MONITORING AS A METHOD OF PERFORMING ITS WORK
 AND ARE NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.
 
    SECTION 2B, UNION PROPOSAL IV, PROHIBITS THE AGENCY FROM CORRECTING
 THE DISSEMINATION OF MISINFORMATION BY INTERRUPTING TELEPHONE
 CONVERSATIONS WITH TAXPAYERS.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE
 PROPOSAL IS TO APPLY IT WOULD NOT ALWAYS BE POSSIBLE SUBSEQUENTLY TO
 RECONTACT THE TAXPAYER AND CORRECT MISINFORMATION.  THEREFORE,
 INTERRUPTING THE CONVERSATION WOULD BE THE ONLY MANNER OF INSURING THAT
 THE TAXPAYER RECEIVES CORRECT INFORMATION OVER THE TELEPHONE.  SINCE THE
 PROPOSED PROCEDURE WOULD PROHIBIT SUCH INTERRUPTIONS, IT WOULD PREVENT
 THE AGENCY FROM ACTING AT ALL TO ACHIEVE THIS PURPOSE.  ACCORDINGLY,
 UNION PROPOSAL IV DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE WHICH THE
 AGENCY WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY TO USE TELEPHONE
 MONITORING AS A METHOD OF PERFORMING WORK AND IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL VI
 
    ARTICLE . . . , SECTION 3A.
 
    THE TAXPAYER WILL BE NOTIFIED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CONVERSATION
 THAT THE CALL IS SUBJECT
 
    TO MONITORING.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL VI PERTAINS TO MATTERS WHICH
 ARE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSAL VI PERTAINS TO MATTERS WHICH
 ARE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN AND THEREFORE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN DOES
 NOT EXTEND TO THIS MATTER.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF
 THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS
 ORDERED THAT THE PORTION OF THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW RELATING TO
 UNION PROPOSAL VI BE DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  SECTION 7103(A)(12) OF THE STATUTE DEFINES "COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING" AS "THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF AN AGENCY AND THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 EMPLOYEES IN AN APPROPRIATE UNIT IN THE AGENCY TO . . . BARGAIN IN A
 GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO REACH AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT AFFECTING SUCH EMPLOYEES . . . " /14/ THUS, THE OBLIGATION
 IMPOSED BY SECTIONS 7114 AND 7117 OF THE STATUTE TO BARGAIN IN GOOD
 FAITH DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND MATTERS DIRECTLY AFFECTING UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    UNION PROPOSAL VI PROVIDES THAT THE TAXPAYER WILL BE NOTIFIED AT THE
 BEGINNING OF THE CONVERSATION THAT THE CALL IS SUBJECT TO MONITORING.
 THE PROPOSAL, BY ITS TERMS, CONCERNS MANAGEMENT ACTION CONCERNING THE
 TAXPAYER AND WOULD NOT HAVE ANY DIRECT EFFECT ON THE EMPLOYEE.  THE
 UNION TACITLY RECOGNIZED THE LACK OF DIRECT RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSAL
 TO THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES, WHEN IT STATED:  "NOTIFICATION
 OF MONITORING PUTS ALL PARTIES ON NOTICE THAT THEIR BEST BEHAVIOR IS
 REQUIRED.  THIS CHANGE IN THE TAXPAYER AFFECTS THE EASE AND EFFICIENCY
 WITH WHICH THE EMPLOYEE CONDUCTS HIS/HER JOB." SUCH A POSTULATE, EVEN IF
 VALID, CLEARLY ILLUSTRATES THAT THE INTENDED EFFECT OF THE PROPOSAL, TO
 MODIFY TAXPAYER BEHAVIOR, AS WELL AS THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE PROPOSAL
 DO NOT DIRECTLY RELATE TO CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 ACCORDINGLY, UNION PROPOSAL VI IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.  /15/
 
                            UNION PROPOSAL VII
 
    ARTICLE . . . , SECTION 6A
 
    EACH EMPLOYEE WILL BE INFORMED, AS PART OF HIS/HER TRAINING, THAT THE
 MONITORING IS FOR THE
 
    PURPOSE OF HELPING THEM TO PERFORM QUALITY WORK AND THAT THE
 INFORMATION WILL BE USED FOR
 
    TRAINING NOT EVALUATION.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL VII IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DIRECT EMPLOYEES, TO ASSIGN WORK, AND TO TAKE
 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2) OF THE STATUTE.  /16/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSAL VII IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DIRECT EMPLOYEES, TO ASSIGN WORK, AND TO TAKE
 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2) OF THE STATUTE.
 ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PORTION OF THE
 UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW RELATING TO UNION PROPOSAL VII BE DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  UNION PROPOSAL VII IS COUCHED IN TERMS OF INSURING THAT
 EMPLOYEES, WHO ARE BEING TRAINED TO RENDER ASSISTANCE TO TAXPAYERS OVER
 THE TELEPHONE, RECEIVE CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE MONITORING
 OPERATIONS THAT WILL BE PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR WORK.
 IMPLICITLY, HOWEVER, UNION PROPOSAL VII WOULD PROHIBIT THE AGENCY FROM
 USING INFORMATION GATHERED THROUGH THE TELEPHONE MONITORING PROCEDURE
 FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATING EMPLOYEES ON THEIR PERFORMANCE OF
 TELEPHONE ASSISTANCE DUTIES.  THE USE OF SUCH INFORMATION, HOWEVER, IS
 ESSENTIAL TO THE AGENCY'S EVALUATION OF THE JOB PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYEES
 WHOSE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO RENDER TELEPHONE ASSISTANCE TO
 TAXPAYERS.  THERE IS NO TANGIBLE WORK PRODUCT WHICH CAN BE REVIEWED AND
 EVALUATED EXCEPT FOR THE CONVERSATIONS OVER THE TELEPHONE.
 
    THE AUTHORITY RESERVED TO THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2) OF THE
 STATUTE, I.E., TO DIRECT EMPLOYEES, TO ASSIGN WORK, AND TO TAKE
 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS, WOULD BE VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS IF IT DID NOT
 ENCOMPASS THE ABILITY OF THE AGENCY TO REVIEW AND EVALUATE EMPLOYEE
 PERFORMANCE OF ASSIGNED DUTIES.  /17/ THEREFORE, CONTRARY TO THE UNION'S
 ASSERTION, THIS PROPOSAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE.
 RATHER, IT EFFECTIVELY PREVENTS THE AGENCY FROM ACTING AT ALL WITH
 REGARD TO EVALUATING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE OF TELEPHONE ASSISTANCE
 DUTIES.  ACCORDINGLY, UNION PROPOSAL VII IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN.  /18/
 
                            UNION PROPOSAL VIII
 
    ARTICLE . . . , RULES OF CONDUCT.
 
    SECTION 1
 
    IRM 0735 (HANDBOOK OF EMPLOYEES CONDUCT) PRESCRIBES THE RULES OF
 CONDUCT REQUIRED OF ALL
 
    EMPLOYEES OF THE REVENUE SERVICE.  THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC
 PUBLISHED RULE OF CONDUCT,
 
    CONCERNING AN ACT WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
 SERVICE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE
 
    SERVICES HAS WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO DISCIPLINE AN EMPLOYEE IF THE ACT
 DOES ADVERSELY AFFECT THE
 
    EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE.
 
    SECTION 2.
 
    A.  EACH EMPLOYEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCTING HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN
 A MANNER WHICH WILL
 
    NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE AND FOR OBSERVING
 THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
 
    OF THE REVENUE SERVICE AND THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT.
 
    B.  AN EMPLOYEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BECOMING FAMILIAR WITH CONTENTS OF
 THE HANDBOOK AND
 
    HE/SHE IS OBLIGATED TO ABIDE BY THOSE INSTRUCTIONS REASONABLY
 ASCERTAINABLE FROM THE TEXT.
 
    SECTION 3
 
    A.  AN ATTEMPT TO BRIBE IS AN OFFER TO GIVE SOMETHING OF VALUE WITH
 THE INTENT THAT THE
 
    RECIPIENT WILL DO SOMETHING IMPROPER, OR WILL FAIL TO DO SOMETHING OR
 SHOULD DO, IN
 
    DISCHARGING THE DUTIES OF HIS POSITION.
 
    B.  BRIBE OFFER ATTEMPTS MUST BE PROMPTLY REPORTED.
 
    SECTION 4
 
    THE EMPLOYER IDENTIFIES THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF RULES CERTAIN
 ACTIVITY WHICH IS
 
    PROHIBITED.  THAT ACTIVITY WHICH IS NOT IDENTIFIED BUT WHICH
 ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE EFFICIENCY
 
    OF THE SERVICE MAY BE THE BASIS FOR DISCIPLINE OR ADVERSE ACTION.
 
    SECTION 5
 
    A CONFLICT OF INTEREST SITUATION IS ONE IN WHICH A FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
 PRIVATE INTEREST,
 
    USUALLY OF A FINANCIAL OR ECONOMIC NATURE, CONFLICTS WITH HIS/HER
 PUBLIC DUTIES AND
 
    RESPONSIBILITIES.
 
    SECTION 6
 
    EMPLOYEES MAY PURCHASE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY NOT SUBJECT TO THE
 DIRECTION OR INCIDENT TO THE
 
    FUNCTIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
 
    SECTION 7
 
    AN EMPLOYEE MAY PURCHASE OR SELL CORPORATE STOCKS INCLUDING THE
 PURCHASE OR SALE OF STOCKS
 
    OR MARGIN, SELLING STOCKS SHORT OR TRADING IN THE SAME SECURITIES IS
 A VERY SHORT SPAN OF
 
    TIME.
 
    SECTION 8
 
    EMPLOYEES HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE WITH WHOMEVER THEY WISH DURING
 NON-DUTY HOURS.
 
    SECTION 9
 
    AN EMPLOYEE MAY ENGAGE IN ALL LEGAL FORMS OF GAMBLING.  EMPLOYEES MAY
 NOT GAMBLE ON
 
    GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
 
    SECTION 10
 
    AN EMPLOYEE'S USE OF INTOXICANTS WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE
 EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE MAY
 
    BE THE BASIS FOR DISCIPLINARY OR ADVERSE ACTION.
 
    SECTION 11
 
    A.  EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO MANAGE THEIR PRIVATE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS
 IN A MANNER WHICH WILL
 
    NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE.
 
    B.  EMPLOYEES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROMPT SETTLEMENT OF JUST
 FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS IN A
 
    PROPER AND TIMELY MANNER.
 
    1.  A "JUST FINANCIAL OBLIGATION" MEANS ONE ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE
 EMPLOYEE OR REDUCED TO
 
    JUDGMENT BY A COURT.
 
    2.  IN "PROPER AND TIMELY MANNER" MEANS IN SUCH A TIME SO AS NOT TO
 ADVERSELY REFLECT ON
 
    THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE.
 
    SECTION 12
 
    EMPLOYEES MAY ACCEPT INVITATIONS TO BE A NON-PAYING GUEST AT LUNCH BY
 TAXPAYERS,
 
    PRACTITIONERS AND OTHERS IF THE INVITATION IS IN THE CONTEXT OF A
 NORMAL BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
 
    AND AN ONGOING OFFICIAL ASSIGNMENT.
 
    SECTION 13
 
    EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN THE OFFICIAL
 RELATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC IN A
 
    WHOLLY IMPARTIAL MANNER AND SO AS NOT TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE
 EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE.
 
    SECTION 14
 
    AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE AN OFFICER OF NTEU AND RECEIVE COMPENSATION FROM
 NTEU WITHOUT SEEKING
 
    PERMISSION FROM THE EMPLOYER.
 
    SECTION 15
 
    SECTION 237.2(11) APPLIES TO EMPLOYEES WHOSE DUTIES PUT THEM IN
 DIRECT CONTACT WITH
 
    TAXPAYERS.
 
                      QUESTIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER, COLLECTIVELY, THE PROPOSED RULES OF
 CONDUCT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE
 EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE, AS PRINCIPALLY
 ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY OR, IF NOT, WHETHER, INDIVIDUALLY, ANY OF THE
 SECTIONS IS INCONSISTENT WITH CERTAIN LAWS OR GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULES OR
 REGULATIONS AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY AND, HENCE, OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7117(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  COLLECTIVELY, THE PROPOSED RULES OF CONDUCT
 ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES
 UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.  FURTHER, THE AGENCY HAS NOT
 ESTABLISHED THAT ANY OF THE SECTIONS, INDIVIDUALLY, IS INCONSISTENT WITH
 LAWS OR GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULES OR REGULATIONS AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
 HOWEVER, SECTION 15 OF UNION PROPOSAL VIII IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC
 AND DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT AS TO PERMIT THE AUTHORITY TO RENDER A
 NEGOTIABILITY DECISION THEREON.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION
 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)),
 IT IS ORDERED THAT THE AGENCY SHALL UPON REQUEST (OR AS OTHERWISE AGREED
 TO BY THE PARTIES) BARGAIN CONCERNING UNION PROPOSAL VIII, /19/ WITH THE
 EXCEPTION OF THE PORTION OF THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW RELATING TO
 SECTION 15 OF UNION PROPOSAL VIII WHICH IS DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  EXECUTIVE ORDER 11222 REQUIRES THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
 ADHERE TO CERTAIN STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.  THE GENERAL IMPLEMENTING
 REGULATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM), IN 5 CFR 735,
 REQUIRE AGENCIES TO PREPARE, AND SUBMIT TO OPM FOR APPROVAL, REGULATIONS
 WHICH SPECIFICALLY IMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE STANDARDS OF ETHICAL AND OTHER
 CONDUCT WITHIN AN AGENCY.  AGENCIES RETAIN SOME DISCRETION, UNDER 5 CFR
 735.201, IN FORMULATING THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THESE STANDARDS PRIOR
 TO SUBMITTING THEM TO OPM FOR APPROVAL.  WHILE UNION PROPOSAL VIII WOULD
 REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO NEGOTIATE OVER ITS EXERCISE OF THIS DISCRETION,
 NOTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATES AN INTENT THAT THE PRODUCT OF THESE
 NEGOTIATIONS SHOULD BYPASS THE OPM APPROVAL PROCESS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
 AUTHORITY INTERPRETS THE PROPOSAL AS SUBJECT TO, AND THEREFORE
 CONSISTENT WITH, THE APPROVAL PROCESS REQUIRED BY 5 CFR 735.104(A).
 
    THE AUTHORITY STATED IN NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 6
 AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT, 3 FLRA NO.
 118(1980), THAT EXCEPT WHERE PROVIDED OTHERWISE BY LAW OR REGULATION,
 "TO THE EXTENT THAT AN AGENCY HAS DISCRETION WITH RESPECT TO A MATTER
 AFFECTING THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF ITS EMPLOYEES, THAT MATTER IS
 WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN OF THE AGENCY."
 
    IN THIS CASE, AS ALREADY INDICATED, THE AGENCY ALLEGES GENERALLY THAT
 NEGOTIATING OVER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT WOULD VIOLATE LAW, I.E., THE
 AUTHORITY RESERVED TO THE AGENCY TO DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.  THE AGENCY STATES, "WORK RULES BY
 DEFINITION DELINEATE STANDARDS OF EMPLOYEE CONDUCT OR PERFORMANCE FOR
 WHICH AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE DISCIPLINED OR REMOVED FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW."
 THEREFORE, THE AGENCY ARGUES THAT UNION PROPOSAL VIII WOULD IMPROPERLY
 LIMIT THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    THE AUTHORITY HAS CONSIDERED WHETHER NEGOTIATING THE DISCRETIONARY
 ASPECTS OF AN AGENCY'S POLICY WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN CONDUCT IS
 INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE, IN NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
 UNION AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 3 FLRA NO. 112(1980).  IN THAT CASE
 THE AUTHORITY FOUND WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN A PROPOSAL THAT WOULD
 ESTABLISH THE CRITERIA TO BE USED IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO APPROVE OR
 DISAPPROVE APPLICATIONS FOR OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT SUBMITTED BY IRS
 EMPLOYEES.  IN FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE, UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE
 STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY STATED:
 
    THUS, NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL WOULD
 RESTRICT THE AGENCY'S RIGHT
 
    TO DISCIPLINE OR DENY A SECURITY CLEARANCE TO A UNIT EMPLOYEE WHO
 EITHER FAILED TO APPLY FOR
 
    OR TO OBTAIN PERMISSION TO HOLD OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT CONSISTENT WITH
 THE ESTABLISHED
 
    CRITERIA.  MOREOVER, CONTRARY TO THE AGENCY'S ASSERTION, NEITHER THE
 LANGUAGE NOR THE STATED
 
    INTENT OF THE PROPOSAL WOULD PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM DIRECTING AN
 EMPLOYEE TO DISCONTINUE
 
    OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT FOR WHICH PERMISSION HAD BEEN GRANTED BUT WHICH IS
 DEEMED NO LONGER
 
    CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED CRITERIA OR PRECLUDE DISCIPLINARY
 ACTION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE
 
    WHO REFUSED TO TERMINATE SUCH OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT.
 
    SIMILARLY, THE RULES OF CONDUCT HEREIN WOULD NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH
 THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE NOTHING IN UNION
 PROPOSAL VIII RESTRICTS THE AGENCY FROM DISCIPLINING EMPLOYEES FOR
 VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES OF CONDUCT.  MOREOVER, THE PROPOSAL IS NOT AN
 EXCLUSIVE ENUMERATION OF THE RULES OR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT APPLICABLE TO
 EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.  IN THIS REGARD, THE UNION'S INTENT
 BEHIND THE PROPOSAL, AS WELL AS THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSAL, INDICATE THE
 PROPOSAL PRESERVES THE AGENCY'S DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, IN THE ABSENCE
 OF A SPECIFIC RULE OF CONDUCT.  AS FOR THE UNION'S INTENT, THE UNION
 STATES AT PAGE 9 OF ITS PETITION FOR REVIEW, "IT IS NOT NTEU'S INTENT
 SPECIFICALLY OR IMPLICITLY TO LIMIT THE IRS PROTECTED MANAGEMENT RIGHT
 TO DETERMINE WHEN TO IMPOSE DISCIPLINE OR DISCHARGE." AS FOR THE
 PROPOSAL ITSELF, SECTION 1 OF THE PROPOSAL STATES, IN PART:  "THE
 ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC PUBLISHED RULE OF CONDUCT, CONCERNING AN ACT WHICH
 ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE
 SERVICE HAS WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO DISCIPLINE AN EMPLOYEE IF THE ACT DOES
 ADVERSELY AFFECT THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE." FURTHER SINCE SECTION 4
 OF THE RULES OF CONDUCT SPECIFIES, "(T)HAT ACTIVITY WHICH IS NOT
 IDENTIFIED BUT WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE MAY
 BE THE BASIS FOR DISCIPLINE OR ADVERSE ACTION," THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY
 TO DISCIPLINE, UNDER 5 U.S.C. 7503(A) AND SEC. 7513(A), "FOR SUCH CAUSE
 AS WILL PROMOTE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE" IS PRESERVED.
 
    THE QUESTION REMAINS, HOWEVER, WHETHER ANY ONE OF THE SECTIONS OF
 UNION PROPOSAL VIII, INDIVIDUALLY, IS INCONSISTENT WITH LAWS OR
 GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULES OR REGULATIONS AS CLAIMED BY THE AGENCY.  THE
 AUTHORITY HAS EXAMINED THIS CLAIM CAREFULLY AND CONCLUDES THE AGENCY HAS
 NOT ESTABLISHED THAT ANY OF THE PROPOSED RULES OF CONDUCT NECESSARILY
 CONFLICTS WITH THE LAWS, RULES OR REGULATIONS CITED BY THE AGENCY.
 SPECIFICALLY:
 
    1) THE STANDARD IN SECTIONS 1,2,4,10, AND 13 OF THE PROPOSAL THAT AN
 EMPLOYEE CONDUCT HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN A MANNER WHICH WILL NOT ADVERSELY
 AFFECT THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE IS NOT NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT
 WITH THE STANDARD IN 5 U.S.C. 7513(A) THAT AN AGENCY MAY TAKE
 DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE "ONLY FOR SUCH CAUSE AS WILL
 PROMOTE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE";
 
    2) THE DEFINITION OF "BRIBE" IN SECTION 3 OF THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT
 NECESSARILY IMPLICITLY COUNTENANCE EMPLOYEE CONDUCT VIOLATIVE OF 18
 U.S.C. 201;
 
    3) THE DEFINITION OF "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" IN SECTION 5 OF THE
 PROPOSAL IS NOT NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 18 OF
 THE UNITED STATES CODE;
 
    4) THE STANDARD FOR EMPLOYEE PURCHASE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND
 CORPORATE SECURITIES IN SECTIONS 6 AND 7 OF THE PROPOSAL IS NOT
 NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH 5 CFR 735.204, WHICH SERVES AS THE BASIS
 FOR THE FORMULATION OF AGENCY INTERNAL POLICIES GOVERNING EMPLOYEES'
 FINANCIAL INTERESTS;
 
    5) THE STANDARD IN SECTION 8 OF THE PROPOSAL ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO
 ASSOCIATE WITH WHOMEVER THEY WISH DURING NONDUTY TIME IS NOT NECESSARILY
 INCONSISTENT WITH 5 CFR 735.209, WHICH SERVES AS THE BASIS FOR THE
 FORMULATION OF AGENCY INTERNAL POLICIES GOVERNING EMPLOYEES' CONDUCT
 PREJUDICIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT;
 
    6) THE STANDARD ESTABLISHING PERMISSIBLE FORMS OF EMPLOYEE GAMBLING
 IN SECTION 9 OF THE PROPOSAL IS NOT NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH 5 CFR
 735.208, WHICH SERVES AS THE BASIS FOR THE FORMULATION OF AGENCY
 INTERNAL POLICIES GOVERNING EMPLOYEES' GAMBLING;
 
    7) THE STANDARD IN SECTION 10 OF THE PROPOSAL PROVIDING FOR THE
 DISCIPLINE OF EMPLOYEES WHOSE USE OF INTOXICANTS ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE
 EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE IS NOT NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH 5 U.S.C
 7352;
 
    8) THE STANDARD IN SECTION 11 OF THE PROPOSAL GOVERNING EMPLOYEE
 SETTLEMENT OF JUST FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS IS NOT NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT
 WITH 5 CFR 735.207, WHICH SERVES AS THE BASIS FOR THE FORMULATION OF
 AGENCY INTERNAL POLICIES GOVERNING SUCH SETTLEMENTS;  AND
 
    9) THE STANDARD IN SECTION 12 OF THE PROPOSAL GOVERNING EMPLOYEE
 ACCEPTANCE OF FREE LUNCHES IS NOT NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER
 11 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE.
 
    WHILE SECTIONS 1-14 OF UNION PROPOSAL VIII ARE WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY IS UNABLE TO DETERMINE FROM THE RECORD THE
 SUBSTANTIVE EFFECT OF SECTION 15 OF THE PROPOSAL, WHICH MERELY STATES,
 "(S)ECTION 237.2(11) APPLIES TO EMPLOYEES WHOSE DUTIES PUT THEM IN
 DIRECT CONTACT WITH TAXPAYERS." SINCE THE UNION DOES NOT IN ANY MANNER
 EXPLAIN THE REFERENCE TO SECTION 237.2(11), SECTION 15 OF THE PROPOSAL
 IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED TO FORM THE BASIS OF A
 NEGOTIABILITY DETERMINATION AND THE APPEAL AS TO SECTION 15 MUST BE
 DISMISSED.  /20/
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 4, 1981
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ DURING PENDENCY OF THIS APPEAL, THE UNION REQUESTED AND THE
 AUTHORITY GRANTED WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE FOLLOWING THREE
 ADDITIONAL PROPOSALS:  ARTICLE 12, SECTION 3;  ARTICLE 25, SECTION 22;
 AND ARTICLE 6, SECTION 3.
 
    /2/ ONLY THE UNDERLINED PORTIONS OF UNION PROPOSAL I ARE IN DISPUTE.
 
    /3/ SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
    (A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
 CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE
 
    AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS--
 
    (A) . . . TO SUSPEND, REMOVE, REDUCE IN GRADE OR PAY, OR TAKE OTHER
 DISCIPLINARY ACTION
 
    AGAINST SUCH EMPLOYEES(.)
 
    /4/ SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL
 1999 AND ARMY-AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE, FORT
 DIX, NEW JERSEY, 2 FLRA NO. 16(1979), ENFORCED SUB NOM. DEPARTMENT OF
 DEFENSE V. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, . . .  F.2D . . . (D.C.
 CIR. 1981).
 
    /5/ SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
    (A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
 CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE
 
    AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS --
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (B) TO ASSIGN WORK. . . (.)
 
    /6/ ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS AND STATE OF GEORGIA NATIONAL
 GUARD, 2 FLRA NO. 75(1980), AT 2 OF THE DECISION.
 
    /7/ AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR
 FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, 2 FLRA
 NO. 77(1980), AT 28 OF THE DECISION, ENFORCED SUB NOM. DEPARTMENT OF
 DEFENSE V. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, . . .  F.2D . . . (D.C.
 CIR. 1981).
 
    /8/ ID. AT 20 OF THE DECISION.
 
    /9/ FOR CONVENIENCE OF DECISION, THESE PROPOSALS ARE CONSIDERED
 TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY PRESENT THE SAME QUESTION FOR THE AUTHORITY TO
 RESOLVE.
 
    /10/ SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR
 ORGANIZATION FROM
 
    NEGOTIATING--
 
    (1) AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY, ON THE . . . METHODS . . .  OF
 PERFORMING WORK(.)
 
    /11/ NO QUESTION IS RAISED IN THIS CASE AND THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO
 JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER THE AGENCY'S METHOD OF PERFORMING WORK, I.E.,
 RECORDING CONVERSATIONS, IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS AND
 REGULATIONS.
 
    /12/ SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR
 ORGANIZATION FROM
 
    NEGOTIATING--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE
 IN EXERCISING ANY
 
    AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION(.)
 
    /13/ SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA.
 
    /14/ "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" IS DEFINED IN SECTION 7103(A)(14) OF
 THE STATUTE AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7103.  DEFINITIONS;  APPLICATION
 
    (A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (14) "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" MEANS PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES,
 AND MATTERS, WHETHER
 
    ESTABLISHED BY RULE, REGULATION, OR OTHERWISE, AFFECTING WORKING
 CONDITIONS, EXCEPT THAT SUCH
 
    TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND MATTERS--
 
    (A) RELATING TO POLITICAL ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED UNDER SUBCHAPTER III
 OF CHAPTER 73 OF THIS
 
    TITLE;
 
    (B) RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF ANY POSITION;  OR
 
    (C) TO THE EXTENT SUCH MATTERS ARE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY
 FEDERAL STATUTE(.)
 
    /15/ SEE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1451 AND
 NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO, FLORIDA, 3 FLRA NO. 14(1980) AND
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL F-61 AND PHILADELPHIA
 NAVAL SHIPYARD, 3 FLRA NO. 66 (1980), AT 7-8 OF THE DECISION.
 
    /16/ SECTION 7106(A)(2) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
    (A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
 CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE
 
    AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS--
 
    (A) TO . . . DIRECT . . . EMPLOYEES IN THE AGENCY, OR TO SUSPEND,
 REMOVE, REDUCE IN GRADE
 
    OR PAY, OR TAKE OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST SUCH EMPLOYEES;
 
    (B) TO ASSIGN WORK . . . (.)
 
    /1