American Federation of Government Employees, Local 916, AFL-CIO (Union) and Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma (Agency)

 



[ v07 p292 ]
07:0292(45)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 7 FLRA No. 45
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 916
 Union
 
 and
 
 TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-45
 
                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.).
 
    ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO THE MASTER
 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND AND THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL AGREEMENTS WERE TO REMAIN IN
 FORCE EXCEPT FOR THOSE PROVISIONS WHICH CONTAINED MATTERS PROHIBITED
 FROM BARGAINING BY SECTION 7106(A) OF THE STATUTE.  THE UNDERLINED
 PORTIONS OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE INSTANT DISPUTE WERE ALLEGED BY THE
 AGENCY TO BE IN THIS CATEGORY.  THE ISSUES PRESENTED ARE THE
 NEGOTIABILITY OF THESE PROVISIONS.
 
                             UNION PROVISION I
 
    ARTICLE XXVIII, DETAILS
 
    SECTION B:  . . . PROCEDURES FOR DETAILS TO HIGHER GRADE
 NONSUPERVISORY POSITIONS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
 
    (1) SELECTING SUPERVISORS WILL ESTABLISH ROSTERS WITHIN THE LOWEST
 ORGANIZATIONAL ENTITY IN WHICH FIVE QUALIFIED CANDIDATES CAN BE
 OBTAINED.  THE ROSTER WILL INCLUDE FIVE NAMES WITH SUPERVISORY
 APPRAISALS BEING THE DETERMINING FACTOR.
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (3) THE EMPLOYEE LISTED FIRST WILL BE SELECTED UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE
 DECLINES.  SUBSEQUENT DETAILS WILL BE MADE IN THE SAME MANNER IN EXACT
 DESCENDING ORDER OF THOSE EMPLOYEES ON THE ROSTER.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROVISION I IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES, TO ASSIGN WORK, OR TO MAKE
 SELECTIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS UNDER SECTIONS 7106(A)(2)(A), (B), AND (C)
 OF THE STATUTE, /1/ RESPECTIVELY, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROVISION I, PARAGRAPH (1), IS NOT
 INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A), TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B), OR TO
 MAKE SELECTIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE
 STATUTE, AND, THEREFORE, THE DUTY TO BARGAIN EXTENDS TO THIS MATTER.
 UNION PROVISION I, PARAGRAPH (3), IS CONSISTENT WITH SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE AND, THEREFORE, THE DUTY TO BARGAIN DOES
 NOT EXTEND TO THIS MATTER.  /2/ 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 PROVISION I, PARAGRAPH (1), /3/
 AND IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PORTION OF THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW
 RELATING TO UNION PROVISION I, PARAGRAPH (3), BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
 DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  UNION PROVISION I, PARAGRAPH (1), PROVIDES IN PART THAT:
 "SELECTING SUPERVISORS WILL ESTABLISH ROSTERS WITHIN THE LOWEST
 ORGANIZATIONAL ENTITY IN WHICH FIVE QUALIFIED CANDIDATES CAN BE
 OBTAINED." THE AGENCY ALLEGES THAT THE REQUIREMENT TO SELECT ONLY
 QUALIFIED CANDIDATES FOR DETAILS TO HIGHER GRADED NONSUPERVISORY
 POSITIONS WOULD INTERFERE WITH ITS RIGHT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES, TO ASSIGN
 WORK, AND TO MAKE SELECTIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS.
 
    THE UNION ANALOGIZES THE PROVISION TO ONE ESTABLISHING AN "AREA OF
 CONSIDERATION" FOR PROMOTION.  IT MAINTAINS THAT THE PROVISION IS
 DIRECTED AT ESTABLISHING AN EQUITABLE SELECTION SYSTEM UNDER WHICH THE
 "AREA OF CONSIDERATION" FOR FINDING CANDIDATES FOR SELECTION FOR DETAILS
 WOULD BE DEFINED AS THE LOWEST ORGANIZATIONAL ENTITY CONTAINING FIVE
 QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES.  FURTHER, THE UNION EXPLAINS THAT THE TERM
 "QUALIFIED" AS USED IN THE PROVISION, DOES NOT ONLY MEAN QUALIFIED FOR
 PERMANENT APPOINTMENT TO THE POSITION FOR WHICH A DETAIL IS NEEDED,
 ACCORDING TO OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT STANDARDS.  RATHER, IT ALSO
 MEANS HAVING THE REQUISITE SKILLS AND, THEREFORE, SUFFICIENTLY QUALIFIED
 TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES REQUIRED FOR THE TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OR DETAIL.
  FINALLY, THE UNION ASSERTS, THIS PROVISION DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONLY
 QUALIFIED CANDIDATES COULD BE SELECTED FOR DETAILS;  IT MERELY REQUIRES
 THAT THE SEARCH FOR CANDIDATES BE MADE WITHIN THE POOL OF CANDIDATES
 ESTABLISHED BY THE PROVISION.
 
    THE UNION'S INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
 PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION AND IS ADOPTED FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
 DECISION.  THAT IS, ACCORDING TO THE PROVISION, THE ROSTER FOR SELECTION
 FOR DETAILS "WILL INCLUDE FIVE NAMES WITH SUPERVISORY APPRAISALS BEING
 THE DETERMINING FACTOR." THUS IT IS APPARENT THAT "QUALIFIED" MEANS
 QUALIFIED IN THE JUDGMENT OF MANAGEMENT.  CLEARLY THE PROVISION DOES NOT
 EQUATE "QUALIFIED" WITH ANY QUALIFICATION STANDARDS FOR PERMANENT
 PROMOTION.  SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND
 AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, 5
 FLRA NO.  15 (1981) AT 5 OF THE DECISION.  ESSENTIALLY PARAGRAPH (1)
 ESTABLISHES A PROCEDURE WHEREBY A POOL OF CANDIDATES FOR DETAILS IS
 COMPILED BY MANAGEMENT TO BE READILY AVAILABLE WHEN THE NEED ARISES.
 THIS PORTION OF UNION PROVISION I STANDING ALONE IS NOT INCONSISTENT
 WITH THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES AND WORK UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B) OF THE STATUTE, RESPECTIVELY, AND SINCE A DETAIL
 IS THE TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE TO A DIFFERENT POSITION FOR A
 SPECIFIED PERIOD WITH THE EMPLOYEE RETURNING TO HIS REGULAR DUTIES AT
 THE END OF THE DETAIL, AND NOT A SELECTION FOR APPOINTMENT, /4/ SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE IS INAPPLICABLE TO THIS PROVISION
 CONCERNING DETAILS.
 
    UNION PROVISION I, PARAGRAPH (3), HOWEVER, CLEARLY IS INCONSISTENT
 WITH THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.  IT WOULD REQUIRE SELECTIONS FOR DETAILS
 TO BE MADE ONLY FROM THE ROSTER ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (1)
 AND "THE EMPLOYEE LISTED FIRST WILL BE SELECTED UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE
 DECLINES." THUS, IT WOULD DEPRIVE MANAGEMENT OF ANY DISCRETION IN
 SELECTING AND WOULD FORCE MANAGEMENT TO CHOOSE EMPLOYEES FOR DETAILS
 ACCORDING TO THE SEQUENCE ESTABLISHED BY THE ROSTER.  ADDITIONALLY, THIS
 PROVISION WOULD PERMIT EMPLOYEES TO DECLINE TO ACCEPT DETAILS.  THUS,
 MANAGEMENT COULD NOT DETAIL THE EMPLOYEE WHO WAS NUMBER FIVE ON THE
 ROSTER, UNTIL IT OFFERED THE ASSIGNMENT TO EMPLOYEES NUMBER ONE THROUGH
 FOUR ON THE ROSTER AND NONE OF THOSE ACCEPTED.  BY THE SAME TOKEN,
 MANAGEMENT COULD ONLY DETAIL EMPLOYEES LISTED ON THE ROSTER.  IT IS WELL
 ESTABLISHED THAT THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION INCLUDES
 THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHICH EMPLOYEE WILL BE ASSIGNED.  SEE
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR FORCE
 LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, 2 FLRA NO. 77
 (1980), AT 10 OF THE DECISION, ENFORCED SUB NOM.  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
 V. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, . . . F.2D . . . (D.C. CIR. 1981).
  UNDER THIS PROVISION, HOWEVER, MANAGEMENT WOULD NOT BE FREE TO CHOOSE
 THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE IT WANTED TO ASSIGN TO A DETAIL AND ITS RESERVED
 AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER THE STATUTE WOULD BE THEREBY
 NEGATED.  FOR THESE REASONS, PARAGRAPH (3) OF THE UNION PROVISION I IS
 INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE AND, THEREFORE, IS NOT WITHIN THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN.  /5/
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL II
 
    ARTICLE XXVIII, DETAILS
 
    SECTION C:  DETAILS THAT WILL NOT BE TO A HIGHER GRADE POSITION FOR
 THOSE EMPLOYEES BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE DETAILS WILL BE MADE BY THE
 EMPLOYER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING:
 
    (1) THE EMPLOYEES HAVING THE LEAST SENIORITY AMONG THOSE BEING
 CONSIDERED FOR THE DETAIL SHALL BE SELECTED FIRST.
 
    (2) THE REMAINING EMPLOYEES SHALL BE UTILIZED IN ASCENDING SENIORITY
 ORDER ACCORDING TO THE SENIORITY OF THOSE CONSIDERED FOR THE DETAIL.
 
    (3) SUCH DETAILS WILL NOT EXCEED SIXTY DAYS IN DURATION.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROVISION II IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES AND WORK UNDER SECTIONS
 7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B) OF THE STATUTE, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROVISION II IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF
 THE STATUTE, AND, THEREFORE, THE DUTY TO BARGAIN DOES NOT EXTEND TO THIS
 MATTER.  /6/ 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 PROVISION
 II BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  WITH REGARD TO UNION PROVISION II, PARAGRAPH (1) AND (2)
 PROVIDE THAT MANAGEMENT MUST CHOOSE EMPLOYEES FOR DETAILS THAT ARE NOT
 TO A HIGHER GRADE POSITION IN INVERSE ORDER OF SENIORITY.  THIS
 REQUIREMENT EFFECTIVELY WOULD PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM CHOOSING WHICH
 PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE WILL BE DETAILED AND, THUS, IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF
 THE STATUTE.  SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 AND AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO,
 2 FLRA NO. 77(1980), AT 9 AND 10 OF THE DECISION, ENFORCED SUB NOM.
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE V. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, . . . F.2D .
 . . (D.C., CIR. 1981).  ACCORDINGLY, PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2) OF UNION
 PROVISION II ARE NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.
 
    PARAGRAPH (3) OF UNION PROVISION II WOULD RESTRICT THE DURATION OF A
 DETAIL TO A POSITION OF THE SAME OR LOWER GRADE TO SIXTY DAYS.  INHERENT
 IN THE RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES IS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE
 WHEN SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT SHOULD BEGIN AND END, THAT IS, ITS DURATION, SO
 THAT THE WORK INVOLVED WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED.  THUS, THE PROVISION, WHICH
 DIRECTLY WOULD RESTRICT THIS ASPECT OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES, IS
 INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE AND, THEREFORE, IS NOT WITHIN THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN.
 
                            UNION PROVISION III
 
    ARTICLE XXIX, LOANS
 
    WHEN EMPLOYEES CONTINUE IN THEIR CURRENT STATUS AND PAY AND ARE
 TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED TO OTHER WORK AREAS AT DUTIES CLASSIFIABLE AT
 EMPLOYEES' CURRENT TITLES, GRADES, AND SERIES, THE ASSIGNMENTS WILL BE
 TREATED AS LOANS.  SUCH ASSIGNMENTS WILL NOT REQUIRE OFFICIAL PERSONNEL
 ACTIONS.  SELECTION FOR SUCH ASSIGNMENTS WILL BE MADE FROM AMONG THOSE
 EMPLOYEES DETERMINED BY THE EMPLOYER TO HAVE THE PARTICULAR SKILLS
 REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES.  THEY WILL BE TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED BY
 UTILIZING THE EMPLOYEES WITH THE LEAST SENIORITY FIRST AND THEN
 UTILIZING THE REMAINING EMPLOYEES IN ASCENDING SENIORITY ORDER ACCORDING
 TO THE SENIORITY ROSTER.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROVISION III IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES, TO ASSIGN WORK, OR TO MAKE
 SELECTIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS UNDER SECTIONS 7106(A)(2)(A), (B), AND (C)
 OF THE STATUTE, RESPECTIVELY, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROVISION III IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
 THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A)
 OF THE STATUTE, TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B), OR TO MAKE
 SELECTIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS FUNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C), AND,
 THEREFORE, THE DUTY TO BARGAIN EXTENDS 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 AGENCY SHALL UPON REQUEST (OR
 AS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES) BARGAIN CONCERNING UNION
 PROVISION III.  /7/
 
    REASONS:  UNION PROVISION III CONCERNS "LOANS" OF EMPLOYEES TO OTHER
 WORK AREAS AT DUTIES CLASSIFIABLE AT EMPLOYEES' CURRENT TITLES, GRADES,
 AND SERIES WHILE THE EMPLOYEES CONTINUE IN THEIR CURRENT STATUS AND PAY.
  THE PROVISION SPECIFIES THAT THESE LOANS DO NOT REQUIRE OFFICIAL
 PERSONNEL ACTIONS AND THAT SELECTION FOR THEM WILL BE MADE FROM AMONG
 THOSE EMPLOYEES HAVING THE PARTICULAR SKILLS REQUIRED, AS DETERMINED BY
 MANAGEMENT, ON THE BASIS OF INVERSE ORDER OF SENIORITY.
 
    THE AGENCY ALLEGES THAT UNION PROVISION III IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES, TO ASSIGN WORK, AND TO MAKE
 SELECTIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS BECAUSE IT REMOVES ALL DISCRETION FROM
 MANAGEMENT IN DETERMINING WHICH PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL WILL BE
 REASSIGNED.  MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE AGENCY ASSERTS THAT A LOAN CLEARLY
 FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A DETAIL AS SET FORTH UNDER FEDERAL
 PERSONNEL MANUAL (FPM), CHAPTER 300, SUBCHAPTER 8-1 WHICH STATES THAT "A
 DETAIL IS THE TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE TO A DIFFERENT
 POSITION FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD, WITH THE EMPLOYEE RETURNING TO HIS
 REGULAR DUTIES AT THE END OF THE DETAIL." AS SUCH, THE AGENCY CONTENDS
 THAT A LOAN, JUST AS A DETAIL, INVOLVES AN ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES AND
 WORK, AND SELECTIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS UNDER SECTIONS 7106(A)(2)(A), (B),
 AND (C) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    TURNING TO THE UNION'S RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT OF
 POSITION, IT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:
 
    FIRST, THE PROPOSAL ITSELF CLEARLY QUALIFIES THE TYPES OF DUTIES TO
 WHICH EMPLOYEES WOULD
 
    BE ASSIGNED UNDER THE TERM "LOAN" AS THOSE WHICH ARE CLASSIFIABLE AT
 EMPLOYEES' CURRENT
 
    TITLES.  THIS MEANS THAT A LOAN WOULD EXIST WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WAS
 TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED FROM ONE
 
    ORGANIZATIONAL ENTITY TO ANOTHER TO DUTIES WITHIN THAT (EMPLOYEE'S)
 JOB DESCRIPTION.  THIS IS
 
    MEANT TO DISTINGUISH THIS ACTION FROM A "DETAIL" WHICH PERMITS THE
 ASSIGNMENT OF . . . MUCH
 
    DIFFERENT DUTIES, E.G., THE DETAILING OF A MACHINIST TO DO SHEET
 METAL WORK . . . .  BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE UNION'S STATED INTENT IS
 THAT UNION PROVISION III BE APPLIED IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE EMPLOYEE
 REMAINS IN THE SAME POSITION, THAT IS, HE OR SHE HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED
 TO A DIFFERENT POSITION.
 
    ADDITIONALLY, THE UNION'S RESPONSE CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:
 
    A SIGNIFICANT POINT IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN A LOAN AND A DETAIL IS
 THAT A DETAIL IS
 
    CONSIDERED AN OFFICIAL PERSONNEL ACTION AND REQUIRES A FORM 50 TO
 DOCUMENT IT, WHILE A LOAN IS
 
    (A) MUCH MORE INFORMAL DEVICE -- USUALLY WORKED OUT AMONG THE
 MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS WITHIN
 
    AN ORGANIZATION AND THE ACTION DOES NOT NECESSARILY GO THROUGH THE
 PERSONNEL OFFICE.  WITH REFERENCE TO THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION OF A
 DETAIL, FPM CHAPTER 300, SUBCHAPTER 8-4(C) STATES THE FOLLOWING:
 
    C.  RECORDING DETAILS.  (1) DETAILS IN EXCESS OF 30 DAYS WILL BE
 REPORTED ON STANDARD FORM
 
    52 OR OTHER STANDARD FORM CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE BY THE AGENCY AND
 MAINTAINED AS A PERMANENT
 
    RECORD IN OFFICIAL PERSONNEL FOLDERS.
 
    (2) THIS REPORT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE DETAIL OF A CAREER OR
 CAREER-CONDITIONAL EMPLOYEE
 
    WHO IS BEING ASSIGNED TO PERFORM DUTIES OF A POSITION WHICH IS EITHER
 AN IDENTICAL ADDITIONAL
 
    POSITION OR A POSITION OF THE SAME GRADE, SERIES CODE, AND BASIC
 DUTIES AS THE POSITION HE IS
 
    REGULARLY ASSIGNED TO . . . .
 
    THE FOREGOING ILLUSTRATES THAT AS LONG AS THERE IS NO POSITION
 CHANGE, NO DOCUMENTATION, STANDARD FORM 52, OF A DETAIL IS REQUIRED.
 
    WHEN THE UNION'S STATED INTENT IS CONSIDERED ALONG WITH THE LANGUAGE
 OF FPM CHAPTER 300, SUBCHAPTER 8-4(C)(2), IT IS CLEAR THAT UNION
 PROVISION III CONCERNS EMPLOYEES WHO ARE TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED TO OTHER
 WORK AREAS TO PERFORM THE SAME DUTIES TO WHICH THEY ARE REGULARLY
 ASSIGNED.  THAT IS, THESE ASSIGNMENTS DO NOT INVOLVE DIFFERENT POSITIONS
 OR DIFFERENT DUTIES, BUT MERELY INVOLVE THE TEMPORARY PERFORMANCE BY
 EMPLOYEES OF THE DUTIES OF THEIR POSITIONS IN OTHER WORK AREAS.  IN THIS
 REGARD, UNION PROVISION III BEARS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE FROM THE UNION
 PROVISION WHICH WAS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY AND HELD TO BE WITHIN THE DUTY
 TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR
 FORCE BASE, OHIO, 5 FLRA NO. 15(1981).  IN THAT CASE, THE AUTHORITY
 DETERMINED THAT THE UNION PROVISION CONCERNING THE TEMPORARY
 PERFORMANCE
 BY EMPLOYEES OF THE DUTIES OF THEIR POSITIONS IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION
 DID NOT CONCERN THE ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES OR OF WORK AND WAS WITHIN
 THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.  THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS FULLY
 SET FORTH IN THE WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO CASE, THE
 PROVISION HERE IN DISPUTE MUST ALSO BE HELD TO BE WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE SINCE IT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH SECTIONS
 7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B) OF THE STATUTE AND FOR THE REASONS PREVIOUSLY
 STATED SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) IS INAPPLICABLE TO THIS PROVISION
 CONCERNING LOANS OF EMPLOYEES.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., DECEMBER 8, 1981
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ SECTIONS 7106(A)(2)(A), (B), AND (C) PROVIDE IN RELEVANT PART, AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    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 . . . ASSIGN . . . EMPLOYEES IN THE AGENCY . . .
 
    (B) TO ASSIGN WORK . . .
 
    (C) WITH RESPECT TO FILLING POSITIONS, TO MAKE SELECTIONS FOR
 APPOINTMENTS FROM--
 
    (I) AMONG PROPERLY RANKED AND CERTIFIED CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION;  OR
 
    (II) ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE(.)
 
    /2/ IN VIEW OF THE AUTHORITY'S CONCLUSION THAT UNION PROVISION I,
 PARAGRAPH (3), IS INCONSISTENT WITH SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE
 AND THUS IS NONNEGOTIABLE, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE AGENCY'S
 ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS AS TO THE NEGOTIABILITY OF THIS PROVISION.
 
    /3/ IN DECIDING THAT UNION PROVISION I, PARAGRAPH (1), IS WITHIN THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE
 PROVISION.
 
    /4/ SEE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL, CHAPTER 300, SUBCHAPTER 8-1 QUOTED
 INFRA AT 7.
 
    /5/ IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IF PARAGRAPH (3) OF UNION PROVISION I
 WERE REDRAFTED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE WRIGHT-PATTERSON DECISION, IT
 WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE MATTER FOR NEGOTIATION.  THAT IS, A PROPOSAL
 WHICH WOULD RESERVE TO AGENCY MANAGEMENT THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
 UTILIZE THE ROSTER DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (1) OF UNION PROVISION I, AND
 WHICH WOULD SET FORTH A PROCEDURE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
 7106(B)(2), FOR MANAGEMENT TO OBSERVE IN ASSIGNING EMPLOYEES ON THE
 ROSTER TO DETAILS, WOULD BE NEGOTIABLE.  SEE DISCUSSION OF
 WRIGHT-PATTERSON PROPOSAL III, AT 10 OF DECISION.  OF COURSE, THAT PART
 OF PARAGRAPH (3) OF UNION P