09:0855(114)CA - Army, Fort Lewis, WA and AFGE Local l504 and OPM -- 1982 FLRAdec CA



[ v09 p855 ]
09:0855(114)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 9 FLRA No. 114
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
 THE ARMY, FORT LEWIS,
 FORT LEWIS, WASHINGTON
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1504
 Charging Party
 
 and
 
 OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
 Intervenor
 
                                            Case No. 9-CA-46
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR'S "ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE AUTHORITY" IN ACCORDANCE WITH
 SECTION 2429.1(A) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.
 
    UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE
 STIPULATION OF FACTS AND THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS, THE AUTHORITY FINDS:
 
    THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION
 7116(A)(1), (5) AND (8) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) WHEN IT REFUSED TO AGREE TO A FULL SCOPE
 NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE TO BE INCORPORATED IN ITS COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE CHARGING PARTY (THE UNION).
 
    THE UNION IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF A BARGAINING UNIT
 CONSISTING OF CERTAIN NON-SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT.  IN
 MARCH 1979 THE RESPONDENT AND THE UNION COMMENCED NEGOTIATIONS ON A NEW
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  IN THE COURSE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS THE
 RESPONDENT SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE NEGOTIATED
 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.  THE UNION RESPONDED, EXPRESSING A DESIRE FOR A
 BROAD SCOPE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.  DESPITE DISCUSSIONS AND EXCHANGES OF
 FURTHER PROPOSALS ON THE MATTER, THE PARTIES WERE UNABLE TO REACH
 AGREEMENT ON THE SCOPE OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND REACHED IMPASSE.
 THE RESPONDENT SUGGESTED THAT THE MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL (FSIP).  THE UNION REJECTED THIS SUGGESTION,
 INDICATING THAT IT WOULD PURSUE THE MATTER THROUGH OTHER FORUMS.
 
    THE POSITIONS OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHARGING PARTY ARE
 SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE POSITIONS TAKEN IN VERMONT AIR NATIONAL
 GUARD, BURLINGTON, VERMONT, 9 FLRA NO. 92 (1982), WHEREIN WE HELD THAT
 THE SCOPE OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE IS A MANDATORY SUBJECT FOR
 BARGAINING AND, IF IMPASSE IS REACHED, IS SUBJECT TO IMPASSE RESOLUTION
 PROCEDURES.  BASED ON THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THAT DECISION, THE
 AUTHORITY FINDS THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS HEREIN DID NOT VIOLATE THE
 STATUTE AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 9-CA-46 BE, AND
 IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 5, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER