09:1004(140)NG - AFGE Local 2272 and Justice, Marshals Service, District of Columbia -- 1982 FLRAdec NG



[ v09 p1004 ]
09:1004(140)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 9 FLRA No. 140
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 LOCAL 2272
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
 U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE,
 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-63
 
                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).
 OF THE TWENTY-SIX PROPOSALS CONTAINED IN THIS NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL, THE
 AGENCY RAISES THE THRESHOLD QUESTION OF WHETHER FIFTEEN OF THE PROPOSALS
 ARE PROPERLY THE SUBJECT OF A NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL AT THIS TIME.
 
    THE UNION, HEREIN, IS ONE OF THE LOCAL UNIONS COMPRISING THE
 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE LOCALS, AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO (THE COUNCIL).  THE COUNCIL
 NEGOTIATED WITH THE U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE A MASTER AGREEMENT COVERING A
 UNIT OF ALL ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES OF THE AGENCY, NATIONWIDE.  THE MASTER
 AGREEMENT, WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE EXTENDED INDEFINITELY PENDING
 RENEGOTIATION, PROVIDES FOR NEGOTIATING LOCAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS
 "SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF (THE) NATIONAL AGREEMENT."
 
    THE UNION INITIATED NEGOTIATIONS ON FORTY PROPOSALS FOR A LOCAL
 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT;  ELEVEN WERE DECLARED TO BE NEGOTIABLE BY THE
 AGENCY AND THREE WERE WITHDRAWN BY THE UNION.  OF THE REMAINING
 TWENTY-SIX PROPOSALS, THE AGENCY, IN ITS SUBMISSION TO THE AUTHORITY,
 HAS ALLEGED THAT FIFTEEN PROPOSALS CONCERN MATTERS WHICH ARE COVERED BY
 THE MASTER AGREEMENT AND ARE CONSEQUENTLY NOT PROPER SUBJECTS FOR
 INCLUSION IN A LOCAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT.  THE REMAINING ELEVEN
 PROPOSALS ARE ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY TO BE NONNEGOTIABLE UNDER VARIOUS
 PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.
 
    AS TO THE FIFTEEN PROPOSALS CONCERNING WHICH THE DISPUTE IS OVER THE
 APPLICATION OF THE NATIONWIDE MASTER AGREEMENT, THE AUTHORITY DECIDED IN
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1661 AND
 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF PRISONS, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL
 INSTITUTION, DANBURY, CONNECTICUT, 2 FLRA 411(1980), WITH RESPECT TO A
 QUESTION SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THE ONE PRESENTED HERE, THAT THE
 PROPER FORUM IN WHICH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES OVER THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS
 CONTAINED IN THE MASTER AGREEMENT WOULD BE THAT WHICH THE PARTIES
 THEMSELVES HAVE ADOPTED FOR SUCH PURPOSE.  FOR THE REASONS FULLY SET
 FORTH IN THAT DECISION, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THIS PORTION OF THE INSTANT
 PETITION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR RESOLUTION UNDER THE PROCEDURES SET
 FORTH IN SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND PART 2424 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 RULES AND REGULATIONS.  SEE ALSO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2272 AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. MARSHALS
 SERVICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 2 FLRA 908(1980).
 
    ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS(5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PORTIONS OF THE
 UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW RELATING TO THOSE FIFTEEN PROPOSALS BE, AND
 THEY HEREBY ARE, DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE APPROPRIATE RENEWAL
 BY THE UNION OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE MATTERS IN DISPUTE ARE
 NEGOTIABLE UNDER THE STATUTE IN A PETITION DULY FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY
 AFTER IT IS RESOLVED, UNDER APPLICABLE PROCEDURES, THAT BARGAINING ON
 SUCH MATTERS IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE CONTROLLING AGREEMENT.
 
    THE REMAINING PROPOSALS IN DISPUTE ARE CONSIDERED BELOW.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL 1
 
    DEPUTIES WHO SERVE PROCESSES AND WORK IN THE SAME SECTION, AND (WHO)
 WANT TO WORK AS
 
    PARTNERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO AS LONG AS THEY GET THEIR JOB
 DONE SATISFACTORILY TO
 
    MANAGEMENT.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL 2
 
    THERE SHOULD BE AMPLE PERSONNEL WORKING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT AND
 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
 
    CELLBLOCKS FOR THE SAFETY OF THE DEPUTIES AS WELL AS OTHERS.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSALS 1 AND 2 ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
 THE AGENCY'S RIGHT, UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE, /1/ TO
 DETERMINE THE NUMBERS, TYPES, AND GRADES OF EMPLOYEES OR POSITIONS
 ASSIGNED TO ANY ORGANIZATIONAL SUBDIVISION, WORK PROJECT, OR TOUR OF
 DUTY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSALS 1 AND 2 ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
 THE AGENCY'S RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE.  THE
 MATTERS INVOLVED ARE BARGAINABLE, THEREFORE, ONLY AT THE ELECTION OF THE
 AGENCY AND THE AGENCY HAS DECLINED TO BARGAIN ON THEM.  ACCORDINGLY,
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5
 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PORTIONS OF THE UNION'S
 PETITION FOR REVIEW RELATING TO UNION PROPOSALS 1 AND 2 BE, AND THEY
 HEREBY ARE, DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  IN NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1167 AND
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, HEADQUARTERS, 31ST COMBAT SUPPORT
 GROUP(TAC), HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA, 6 FLRA NO.
 105(1981)(UNION PROPOSAL 6), AFFIRMED AS TO OTHER MATTERS SUB NOM.
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES V. FLRA, F.2D (D.C. CIR. 1982),
 THE AUTHORITY HELD THAT A PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD HAVE PREVENTED AN
 EMPLOYEE FROM BEING DIRECTED TO WORK ALONE, IN POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
 AREAS, DIRECTLY INTERFERED WITH THE AGENCY'S RIGHT UNDER SECTION
 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE TO DETERMINE THE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED
 TO ANY WORK PROJECT OR TOUR OF DUTY.  UNION PROPOSAL 1 SIMILARLY WOULD
 PREVENT, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, AN EMPLOYEE FROM BEING DIRECTED TO
 WORK ALONE AND BEARS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE FROM THE PROPOSAL HELD TO BE
 OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE.  FOR THE
 REASONS STATED THEREIN, IT ALSO IS OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.
 
    WITH REGARD TO UNION PROPOSAL 2, IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR
 FORCE BASE, OHIO, 2 FLRA 603, 620-622(1980), ENFORCED AS TO OTHER
 MATTERS SUB NOM. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE V. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY, 659 F.2D 1140(D.C.CIR. 1981), CERT. DENIED SUB NOM. AFGE V.
 FLRA, U.S.  , 102 S. CT. 1443(1982), THE AUTHORITY HELD THAT A PROPOSAL,
 WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE AGENCY, WHERE AUTHORIZED TO DO SO, TO
 PROVIDE AN "ADEQUATE NUMBER" OF OVERHIRES, DIRECTLY CONCERNED THE
 NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO ORGANIZATIONAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE
 AGENCY AND CONFLICTED WITH THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ELECT NOT TO BARGAIN ON
 SUCH MATTERS UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE.  UNION PROPOSAL 2,
 HEREIN, SIMILARLY WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO MEET AN "AMPLE" STAFFING
 LEVEL AND IN THIS REGARD BEARS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE FROM THE PROPOSAL
 HELD OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN THE WRIGHT-PATTERSON DECISION.
 HENCE, THIS PROPOSAL, ALSO, INTERFERES WITH THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO
 DETERMINE THE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY ORGANIZATIONAL
 SUBDIVISION AND IS BARGAINABLE ONLY AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY UNDER
 SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL 3
 
    THERE SHOULD BE NO TIME LIMITATION PLACED ON THE NUMBER OF PROCESSES
 SERVED IN AN HOUR OR
 
    IN A DAY.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL 3 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DIRECT EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) AND TO
 ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE.  /2/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSAL 3 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DIRECT EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) AND 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 3 BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE QUANTITY OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED
 BY EMPLOYEES IS ENCOMPASSED WITHIN MANAGEMENT'S STATUTORY RIGHTS TO
 DIRECT EMPLOYEES AND ASSIGN WORK.  NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT, 3 FLRA 768(1980),
 APPEAL DOCKETED SUB NOM. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION V. FLRA, NO.
 80-1895(D.C. CIR. AUG. 4, 1980).  IN THAT CASE THE PROPOSAL IN DISPUTE
 WOULD HAVE PRESCRIBED THE AMOUNT OF WORK EMPLOYEES MUST PRODUCE TO
 RETAIN THEIR JOBS.  THE AUTHORITY HELD THAT BY THUS ESTABLISHING THE
 MINIMUM OUTPUT WHICH THE AGENCY COULD REQUIRE OF EMPLOYEES, THE PROPOSAL
 DIRECTLY INTERFERED WITH THE RIGHTS OF MANAGEMENT TO DIRECT EMPLOYEES
 AND ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2) OF THE STATUTE.  THE INSTANT
 DISPUTED PROPOSAL, ACCORDING TO THE UNION, WOULD PRECLUDE MANAGEMENT
 FROM ESTABLISHING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PROCESSES WHICH COULD BE SERVED
 PER HOUR OR DAY.  WHILE THIS PROPOSAL CONCERNING A MAXIMUM OBVIOUSLY IS
 DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE IN NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION WHICH
 ESTABLISHED A MINIMUM, IN OUT VIEW, THE DISTINCTION IS NOT SIGNIFICANT
 FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DECISION.  UNDER BOTH PROPOSALS, MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT
 TO DETERMINE THE QUANTITY OF PRODUCTION WOULD BE DIRECTLY PRESCRIBED.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL 4
 
    DEPUTIES SHOULD BE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT ONLY ONE MEMORANDUM TO
 MANAGEMENT IF HE OR SHE DOES
 
    NOT WANT TO WORK OVERTIME, SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS, CELLBLOCK OVERTIME,
 ETC.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL 4 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DIRECT EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) AND TO
 ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE, AS ALLEGED BY
 THE AGENCY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSAL 4 IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DIRECT EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) AND TO
 ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE.  INSTEAD, IT IS
 A PROCEDURE, UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE, /3/ WHICH
 MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING THEIR
 RESERVED RIGHTS.  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 4.  /4/
 
    REASONS:  THE PROPOSAL WOULD ESTABLISH A FORMAT WHEREBY EMPLOYEES
 COULD INDICATE TO MANAGEMENT THAT THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN CERTAIN
 OVERTIME ASSIGNMENTS.  CONTRARY TO THE AGENCY'S ASSERTION, HOWEVER,
 NOTHING ON THE FACE OF THE PROPOSAL WOULD PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM
 ACCOMPLISHING OVERTIME WORK BY DIRECTING EMPLOYEES TO PERFORM IT
 NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR PREFERENCE AND THE UNION SPECIFICALLY INDICATES
 THAT ITS PROPOSAL SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO DENY THE AGENCY THIS
 ABILITY.  ACCORDINGLY, THE PROPOSAL WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHTS IN THIS REGARD.  RATHER IT WOULD ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE,
 UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE, WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF
 THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING THEIR RESERVED RIGHTS AND IS
 WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.  /5/
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL 5
 
    CITIZENS OR DEPUTIES FILING A COMPLAINT OR BRINGING A SERIOUS CHARGE
 AGAINST A DEPUTY
 
    U.S. MARSHAL SHOULD SIGN A PREPARED STATEMENT STATING THE ALLEGED
 CHARGE IN THE COMPLAINT ARE
 
    TRUE.  IF COMPLAINANT KNOWINGLY FALSIFIES, MISREPRESENT OR LIE
 (HE/SHE) SHOULD RECEIVE A HARSH
 
    DISCIPLINE, IF A DEPUTY, AND IF A CITIZEN SHOULD BE PROSECUTED BY THE
 U.S. ATTORNEY.  ANY
 
    COMPLAINT LEVIED AGAINST A DEPUTY BY ANOTHER DEPUTY OR CITIZEN SHOULD
 BE SHOWN TO HIM OR HER
 
    UPON REQUEST.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL 5 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.  /6/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSAL 5 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES.
 ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE UNION'S
 PETITION FOR REVIEW RELATING TO UNION PROPOSAL 5 BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
 DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  THE FIRST AND THIRD SENTENCES REQUIRE THAT COMPLAINTS
 AGAINST DEPUTIES BE BOTH SWORN TO BY THE COMPLAINANT AND AVAILABLE FOR
 INSPECTION BY THE DEPUTY BEING COMPLAINED ABOUT.  THE AGENCY STATES THAT
 BOTH THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE OBSERVED WHENEVER A COMPLAINT IS USED AS A
 BASIS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST A DEPUTY.  HOWEVER, THE AGENCY
 ASSERTS THAT BEING OBLIGATED TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS "BEFORE
 UNDERTAKING AN INVESTIGATION OF A COMPLAINT," AS THE PROPOSAL WOULD
 REQUIRE, WOULD INTERFERE WITH ITS DETERMINATIONS REGARDING ITS INTERNAL
 SECURITY PRACTICES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, NATIONAL
 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE COUNCIL AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
 JUSTICE, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, 8 FLRA NO. 75(1982),
 APPEAL DOCKETED SUB NOM. DOJ, INS V. FLRA, NO.  82-1622(D.C. CIR. JUNE
 3, 1982), AT 15-16 OF THE DECISION, THE AUTHORITY HELD THAT THE AGENCY'S
 DECISION TO REQUIRE SWORN STATEMENTS WHEN CONDUCTING DETERMINATION AS TO
 INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES WHICH WAS OUTSIDE THE OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN
 UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(1).  IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROPOSAL'S FIRST AND
 THIRD SENTENCES SIMILARLY WOULD INFRINGE ON THE AGENCY'S DETERMINATIONS
 CONCERNING THE RULES APPLICABLE TO INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS RELATING TO
 THE INTEGRITY OF AGENCY OPERATIONS.  ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS STATED
 IN THE CITED DECISION, THE FIRST AND THIRD SENTENCES, HEREIN, ARE
 INCONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHT RESERVED TO THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE AND ARE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.
 
    ALSO, WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE PROPOSAL, INHERENT
 IN THE AUTHORITY RESERVED TO THE AGENCY TO DETERMINE ITS INTERNAL
 SECURITY PRACTICES IS THE ABILITY OF THE AGENCY TO DECIDE TO PURSUE THE
 PROSECUTION OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO KNOWINGLY FILES A FALSE COMPLAINT OR TO
 DECIDE NOT TO PURSUE THE PROSECUTION IN RETURN, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE
 COMPLAINANT'S COOPERATION ON OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY MATTERS.
 ACCORDINGLY, THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE PROPOSAL, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE
 THE AGENCY TO PURSUE THE PROSECUTION OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO KNOWINGLY
 FILES A FALSE COMPLAINT, IS ALSO INCONSISTENT WITH SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF
 THE STATUTE.  /7/ ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH
 THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL 6
 
    HAVE THE GUN RANGE OPEN FOR THE DEPUTIES TO PRACTICE IN THE EVENINGS
 AND ON SATURDAYS, AND
 
    FOR QUALIFYING.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY, UNION PROPOSAL 6
 WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO NEGOTIATE OVER MATTERS CONCERNING THE
 AGENCY'S CHOICE OF THE TECHNOLOGY, METHODS, OR MEANS OF PERFORMING WORK,
 WHICH IS NEGOTIABLE ONLY AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION
 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSAL 6 DOES NOT REQUIRE NEGOTIATIONS
 OVER MATTERS BARGAINABLE ONLY AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY UNDER
 SECTION 7106(B)(1) 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 AGENCY SHALL UPON REQUEST (OR AS OTHERWISE AGREED
 TO BY THE PARTIES) BARGAIN CONCERNING UNION PROPOSAL 6.  /8/
 
    REASONS:  BOTH PARTIES TREAT THE PROPOSAL AS REQUIRING THAT THE GUN
 RANGE THAT IS TO BE OPEN IN THE EVENINGS AND ON SATURDAYS BE THE
 AGENCY'S OWN GUN RANGE.  THE AGENCY INDICATES ITS GUN RANGE WAS CLOSED
 FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS, THAT IT CURRENTLY HAS NO FUNDS FOR ITS RENOVATION
 AND THAT, AS A CONSEQUENCE, IT USES GUN RANGES BELONGING TO RENOVATION
 AND THAT, AS A CONSEQUENCE, IT USES GUN RANGES BELONGING TO OTHER
 AGENCIES.  THUS, THE AGENCY CONTENDS, THE PROPOSAL'S IMPLICIT
 REQUIREMENT THAT THE AGENCY REPAIR ITS OWN GUN RANGE CONCERNS HOW THE
 AGENCY CHOOSES TO USE CERTAIN WORKSPACE, A MATTER INTERFERING WITH THE
 AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE TECHNOLOGY OF PERFORMING ITS WORK
 UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE.  THE UNION CLAIMS, IN ESSENCE,
 THAT THE PROPOSAL CONCERNS A HEALTH AND SAFETY MATTER, I.E., AN
 APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENT FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY
 MANAGEMENT'S
 EXERCISE OF ITS RIGHT TO REQUIRE THAT EMPLOYEES CARRY FIREARMS AS A
 "MEANS" OF PERFORMING THE AGENCY'S WORK.  /9/
 
    AS TO THE AGENCY'S ARGUMENT THAT THE PROPOSAL INTERFERES WITH ITS
 AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE TECHNOLOGY OF PERFORMING ITS WORK, THE AGENCY
 HAS MADE NO SHOWING THAT REQUIRING IT TO USE A PORTION OF ITS WORKSPACE
 AS A GUN RANGE INTERFERES WITH A TECHNICAL METHOD USED BY THE AGENCY FOR
 ACCOMPLISHING OR FURTHERING ITS WORK.  /10/ MOREOVER, INSOFAR AS THE
 AGENCY'S USE OF GUN RANGES OF OTHER AGENCIES INDICATES THE USE OF A GUN
 RANGE, ITSELF, MIGHT REPRESENT THE EXERCISE OF THE AGENCY'S CHOICE OF A
 TECHNOLOGY OF PERFORMING WORK, THERE IS A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
 REQUIRING THE AGENCY TO PROVIDE A GUN RANGE FOR THE NON-WORK TIME USE OF
 EMPLOYEES AND REQUIRING THE AGENCY TO USE A GUN RANGE AS A PART OF ITS
 WORK.  THE FORMER, WHICH IS EMBODIED IN THE INSTANT PROPOSAL, WOULD NOT
 AFFECT HOW THE AGENCY CHOOSES TO ACCOMPLISH OR FURTHER THE PERFORMANCE
 OF ITS WORK.  /11/
 
    AS TO THE AGENCY'S ARGUMENT THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE THE
 EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS IT CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE, SUCH AN ARGUMENT DOES
 NOT RENDER THE PROPOSAL NONNEGOTIABLE.  /12/ INSTEAD, THIS FACTOR IS
 SOMETHING FOR THE AGENCY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING ITS
 BARGAINING POSITION.  /13/
 
    ACCORDINGLY, INSTEAD OF BEING OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN AS THE
 AGENCY ALLEGES, THE PROPOSAL REPRESENTS AN APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENT,
 UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(3) OF THE STATUTE, FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED BY MANAGEMENT'S DETERMINATION THAT, AS A MEANS OF PERFORMING
 THE AGENCY'S WORK, EMPLOYEES WILL CARRY FIREARMS.  /14/
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL 7
 
    THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY UNION OFFICIAL GOING ON DETAILS, SPECIAL
 ASSIGNMENTS, PC (PRISON
 
    CENTRAL) TRIPS, OR ANY OTHER OUT OF THE DISTRICT ACTIVITIES THAT
 WOULD TAKE UNION OFFICIALS
 
    OUT OF TOUCH WITH MANAGEMENT.  UNION OFFICIALS MUST BE FREE TO
 CONTACT MANAGEMENT ANY HOUR OF
 
    THE DAY OR NIGHT.  THIS SHOULD REMAIN IN FORCE UNLESS THE UNION
 OFFICIALS WANT TO GO ON
 
    DETAILS, SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS, ETC.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL 7 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE
 STATUTE.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSAL 7 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT 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 7 BE, AND IT
 HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF UNION PROPOSAL 7 WOULD DIRECTLY
 INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN CERTAIN WORK TO
 EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ALSO UNION OFFICIALS, UNLESS THE OFFICIALS CONSENTED.
 THIS, IN EFFECT, WOULD CREATE AN EXCEPTION TO THE MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 PROVISION BASED ON THE EMPLOYEES' STATUS AS UNION OFFICIALS.  THERE IS
 NO BASIS FOR SUCH AN EXCEPTION IN THE STATUTE OR ITS HISTORY.  THE
 AGENCY HAS THE RIGHT UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) TO ASSIGN WORK TO ALL
 EMPLOYEES, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE UNION OFFICIALS AND REGARDLESS
 OF WHETHER THEY CONSENT.  /15/ THEREFORE, UNION PROPOSAL 7 VIOLATES
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE.  HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR IN THIS
 CONNECTION THAT THE AGENCY MAY NOT ASSIGN WORK BASED ON UNION ANIMUS.
 /16/ MOREOVER, ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES COULD BE NEGOTIATED
 BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHICH WOULD NOT NEGATE THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN
 WORK AND AT THE SAME TIME WOULD ENABLE THE UNION TO IMPLEMENT ITS
 STATUTORY RIGHTS AND DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE REPRESENTATION OF
 EMPLOYEES.  /17/
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL 8
 
    MANAGEMENT SHOULD KEEP EVERYTHING AS IT IS UNTIL THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATIONS
 
    ARE COMPLETED, FINALIZED AND SIGNED, UNLESS THERE IS A DYING
 EMERGENCY AND AGREED TO WITH THE
 
    LOCAL AS REQUIRED BY LABOR LAWS.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL 8 VIOLATES THE AGENCY'S RIGHTS
 UNDER SECTION 7106(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSAL 8 IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 7106(A) OF THE STATUTE.  RATHER, IT WOULD
 ESTABLISH A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE
 WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING
 THEIR MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.  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 8.  /18/
 
    REASONS:  IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND
 AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, 2
 FLRA 603, 623(1980), ENFORCED SUB NOM. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE V. FEDERAL
 LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, 659 F.2D 1140(D.C.  CIR. 1981), CERT. DENIED
 SUB NOM. AFGE V. FLRA, U.S.  , 102 S.CT. 1443(1982), THE AUTHORITY
 DETERMINED THAT A UNION PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO HOLD
 IN ABEYANCE PROPOSED MID-TERM CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
 PENDING COMPLETION OF ANY IMPASSES PROCEDURES WHICH MIGHT ARISE, EXCEPT
 IN CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING AN "OVERRIDING EXIGENCY" OR "UNREASONABLE
 DELAY," WAS A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE
 STATUTE.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL SIMILARLY WOULD
 REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE ANY CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT UNTIL THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS IS COMPLETED, EXCEPT
 IN CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING A "DYING EMERGENCY." IN THIS REGARD, THE
 PROPOSAL'S USE OF THE LANGUAGE "DYING EMERGENCY," INSTEAD OF "OVERRIDING
 EXIGENCY" AS A WRIGHT-PATTERSON, IS NOT A MATERIAL DISTINCTION IN THAT
 THE PROPOSAL WOULD NOT PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM ACTING AT ALL.  /19/
 MOREOVER, THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THE PROPOSAL, "AND AGREED TO WITH
 THE LOCAL AS REQUIRED BY LABOR LAWS," EXPRESSLY REQUIRES THE AGENCY TO
 ADHERE TO ANY APPLICABLE LABOR LAWS.  THEREFORE, BASED ON THE REASONS
 SET FORTH IN GREATER DETAIL IN WRIGHT-PATTERSON, UNION PROPOSAL 8 MUST
 BE HELD TO BE A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE
 STATUTE WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE IN
 EXERCISING THEIR MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL 9
 
    THERE SHOULD BE NO LESS THAN 88 HOURS ON ALL SPECIAL DETAILS.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL 9 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 GENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES AND WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A)
 AND (B) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSAL 9 IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES AND WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A)
 AND (B) 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 AGENCY SHALL UPON REQUEST (OR AS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE
 PARTIES) BARGAIN CONCERNING UNION PROPOSAL 9.  /20/
 
    REASONS:  BASED ON THE RECORD IN THE CASE, IT APPEARS THE AGENCY HAS
 ESTABLISHED A ROTATION SYSTEM FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES TO
 "SPECIAL DETAILS." UNDER THE SYSTEM, WHEN AN EMPLOYEE REACHES THE TOP OF
 THE ROTATION LIST, THEREBY BECOMING THE EMPLOYEE TO BE CHOSEN FOR THE
 NEXT SPECIAL DETAIL, THE EMPLOYEE REMAINS AT THE TOP OF THE ROTATION
 LIST UNTIL HE OR SHE SPENDS A MINIMUM OF 40 HOURS IN SPECIAL DETAIL
 STATUS, I.E., IS ASSIGNED AS MANY SPECIAL DETAILS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO
 GIVE THE EMPLOYEE A MINIMUM OF 40 HOURS IN SPECIAL DETAIL STATUS.  AS
 EXPLAINED BY THE UNION, UNION PROPOSAL 9 MERELY WOULD EXPAND THIS
 MINIMUM TO 88 HOURS.  ADOPTING THIS INTERPRETATION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
 DECISION, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL, THE
 AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.  IT
 WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE DURATION OF
 PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENTS OF EMPLOYEES OR OF WORK UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B) OF THE STATUTE, AS THE AGENCY CLAIMS;  /21/
 NEITHER WOULD IT BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE NUMBERS, TYPES OR GRADES OF
 EMPLOYEES OR POSITIONS ASSIGNED AS FURTHER CLAIMED BY THE AGENCY.  /22/
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL 10
 
    IF A DEPUTY HAS PERMANENT PERMISSION TO TAKE A GOVERNMENT VEHICLE
 BACK AND FORTH TO HIS
 
    HOME, A CAR POOL CAN BE FORMED WITH OTHER DEPUTIES TO GET BACK AND
 FORTH TO WORK WHO LIVE IN
 
    THE GENERAL AREAS AND DIRECTIONS.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY, UNION PROPOSAL 10
 IS INCONSISTENT WITH 31 U.S.C. SEC. 638A(C)(2) /23/ SO AS TO BE
 NONNEGOTIABLE UNDER SECTION 7117(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE, /24/ OR IS
 INCONSISTENT WITH SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSAL 10 IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH 31
 U.S.C. 638A(C)(2) OR SECTION 7106(B)(1).  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
 10.  /25/
 
    REASONS:  THE AGENCY ARGUES THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH ITS
 RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE TECHNOLOGY OF PERFORMING WORK, UNDER SECTION
 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE, BY SUBJECTING TO THE DUTY TO BARGAIN THE
 DECISION AS TO WHETHER PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES WILL OR WILL NOT BE EQUIPPED
 WITH VEHICLES TO CARRY OUT PARTICULAR PORTIONS OF THEIR DUTIES.
 ADDITIONALLY, THE AGENCY CLAIMS THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH
 SECTION 638A(C)(2) BECAUSE, EVEN IF A VEHICLE WERE PROPERLY AUTHORIZED
 TO BE TAKEN HOME BY ONE EMPLOYEE BECAUSE HE IS ENGAGED IN "FIELD WORK"
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, THE USE OF THE VEHICLE TO TRANSPORT
 OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOT ENGAGED IN SUCH FIELD WORK WOULD PREVENT
 THE
 VEHICLE FROM BEING USED "EXCLUSIVELY FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES" AS REQUIRED
 BY THE STATUTE.
 
    AS TO THE AGENCY'S ARGUMENT THAT THE PROPOSAL REQUIRES THE AGENCY TO
 BARGAIN OVER THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES WILL OR
 WILL NOT BE EQUIPPED WITH VEHICLES, IT IS BASED UPON A MISUNDERSTANDING
 OF THE PROPOSAL.  THE PROPOSAL ONLY WOULD APPLY WITH REGARD TO A DEPUTY
 WHO HAD BEEN GRANTED "PERMANENT PERMISSION" TO TAKE A VEHICLE HOME:
 WHETHER, IF EVER, TO GRANT SUCH "PERMANENT PERMISSION" OR TO GRANT
 PERMISSION ONLY ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS WOULD BE WITHIN THE CONTROL OF
 THE AGENCY.
 
    AS TO THE AGENCY'S CLAIM THAT THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH
 SECTION 638A(C)(2) BECAUSE IT WOULD PREVENT THE VEHICLE FROM BEING USED
 "EXCLUSIVELY FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES," THE CLAIM IS BASED UPON AN
 INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 638A(C)(2) THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN
 REQUIRED.  THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SECTION 638A(C)(2), AS APPLIED BY THE
 COMPTROLLER GENERAL, IS TO PREVENT THE USE OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLES FOR
 THE PERSONAL CONVENIENCE OF EMPLOYEES.  THUS, IF A VEHICLE IS USED ONLY
 FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES AS DETERMINED BY THE AGENCY, TRANSPORTATION OF ANY
 OTHER EMPLOYEES WHICH WAS ONLY INCIDENT TO SUCH USE WOULD NOT BE
 INCONSISTENT WITH SECTION 638A(C)(2).  /26/ THAT IS, SECTION 638A(C)(2)
 WOULD NOT BE VIOLATED WHERE TRANSPORTATION OF EMPLOYEES IN A GOVERNMENT
 VEHICLE BETWEEN THEIR HOMES AND PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IS SUCH THAT THEY
 MERELY ACCOMPANY ANOTHER EMPLOYEE ON AN OTHERWISE ALREADY AUTHORIZED
 TRIP FOR THE TRANSACTION OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS, AND THE AGENCY DETERMINES
 THAT THE TRIP IS IN THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL 11
 
    WHEN DEPUTIES GO ON SPECIAL DETAILS, PC (PRISON CENTRAL) TRIPS, ETC.,
 A 48 HOUR NOTICE, AT
 
    LEAST, SHOULD BE GIVEN.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL 11 IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE
 STATUTE.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  UNION PROPOSAL 11 IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) BUT, INSTEAD,
 ESTABLISHES A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(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
 AGENCY SHALL UPON REQUEST (OR AS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES)
 BARGAIN CONCERNING UNION PROPOSAL 11.  /27/
 
    REASONS:  UNION PROPOSAL 11 WOULD NOT PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM
 ASSIGNING EMPLOYEES TO ANY SPECIAL DETAIL;  IT WOULD MERELY REQUIRE THAT
 THE AGENCY GIVE 48 HOUR NOTICE OF SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT.  THE AGENCY HAS
 MADE NO CLAIM THAT IT WOULD HAVE INSUFFICIENT ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF
 SPECIAL DETAILS SO THAT MEETING THE PROPOSAL'S 48 HOUR NOTICE
 REQUIREMENT WOULD IN ANY WAY PREVENT IT FROM REQUIRING THAT THESE
 DETAILS BE ACCOMPLISHED.  IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1999 AND ARMY-AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE,
 DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE, FORT DIX, NEW JERSEY, 2 FLRA 152, 155(1979),
 ENFORCED SUB NOM. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE V. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY, 659 F.2D 1140(D.C. CIR. 1981), CERT. DENIED SUB NOM. AFGE V.
 FLRA, U.S.  , 102 S.CT. 1443(1982), THE AUTHORITY STATED THAT SECTION
 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE "IS INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE AN EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE TO NEGOTIATE FULLY ON PROCEDURES, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT
 THAT SUCH NEGOTIATIONS WOULD PREVENT AGENCY MANAGEMENT FROM ACTING AT
 ALL." SINCE IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT UNION PROPOSAL 11 WOULD PREVENT
 THE AGENCY FROM ACTING AT ALL WITH RESPECT TO ASSIGNING WORK TO
 EMPLOYEES, IT IS A PROCEDURE NEGOTIABLE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE
 STATUTE.  /28/
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 16, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES:
 
    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 NUMBERS, TYPES, AND GRADES
 OF EMPLOYEES OR
 
    POSITIONS ASSIGNED TO ANY ORGANIZATIONAL SUBDIVISION, WORK PROJECT,
 OR TOUR OF DUTY, OR ON THE
 
    TECHNOLOGY, METHODS, AND MEANS OF PERFORMING WORK(.)
 
    /2/ SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, 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 . . . DIRECT . . . EMPLOYEES IN THE AGENCY . . . ;
 
    (B) TO ASSIGN WORK(.)
 
    /3/ SECTION 7106(B)(2) 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 (.)
 
    /4/ IN DECIDING THAT UNION PROPOSAL 4 IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN,
 THE AUTHORITY, OF COURSE, MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO ITS MERITS.
 
    /5/ SEE, E.G., AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, ALF-CIO,
 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE LOCALS AND DEPARTMENT OF
 JUSTICE, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, 4 FLRA NO. 52 (1980);  NATIONAL LABOR
 RELATIONS BOARD UNION AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, WASHINGTON,
 D.C., 3 FLRA 507(1980).
 
    /6/ SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, 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 --
 
    (1) TO DETERMINE THE . . . INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE
 AGENCY(.)
 
    /7/ OF COURSE, INSOFAR AS THE PROPOSAL CONCERNS THE PROSECUTION OF A
 "CITIZEN" WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE BARGAINING UNIT, IT DOES NOT
 CONCERN THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.  HENCE, IN ANY
 EVENT, THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN TO THIS EXTENT.
 
    /8/ IN DECIDING THAT UNION PROPOSAL 6 IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN,
 THE AUTHORITY, OF COURSE, MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO ITS MERITS.
 
    /9/ IN THIS REGARD, SECTION 7106(B)(3) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    (B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR
 ORGANIZATION FROM NEGOTIATING --
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    (3) APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE
 EXERCISE OF ANY
 
    AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION BY SUCH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS.
 
    /10/ SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2477 AND LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
 (AND OTHER CASE CONSOLIDATED THEREWITH), 7 FLRA NO. 89(1982).
 
    /11/ ID.  (UNION PROPOSAL XVI).
 
    /12/ SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVER4MENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL
 32 AND OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C., 6 FLRA NO.
 76(1981).
 
    /13/ SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL
 2875 AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
 ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, SOUTHEAST FISHERIES
 CENTER, MIAMI LABORATORY, FLORIDA, 5 FLRA NO.  55(1981)(UNION PROPOSAL
 4).
 
    /14/ CF. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE LOCALS AND DEPARTMENT OF
 JUSTICE, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, 4 FLRA NO. 52(1980)(UNION PROPOSAL
 I)(WHEREIN THE AUTHORITY FOUND THAT THE AGENCY HAD EXERCISED ITS RIGHT
 UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1) TO DETERMINE ONE OF ITS "MEANS OF PERFORMING
 WORK" WHEN IT REQUIRED EMPLOYEES TO CARRY FIREARMS).
 
    /15/ ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS AND STATE OF GEORGIA
 NATIONAL GUARD, 2 FLRA 580(1980).
 
    /16/ SEE 5 U.S.C. SEC. 7116(A)(1).
 
    /17/ SEE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, 7 FLRA NO. 42(1981)(UNION PROPOSAL 1).
 
    /18/ IN DECIDING THAT UNION PROPOSAL 8 IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN,
 THE AUTHORITY, OF COURSE, MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO ITS MERITS.
 
    /19/ 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 152(1979), ENFORCED SUB NOM. DEPARTMENT OF
 DEFENSE V. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, 659 F.2D 1140(D.C. CIR.
 1981), CERT. DENIED SUB NOM. AFGE V. FLRA, U.S.  , 102 S. CT.
 1443(1982).
 
    /20/ IN DECIDING THAT UNION PROPOSAL 9 IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN,
 THE AUTHORITY, OF COURSE, MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO ITS MERITS.
 
    /21/ SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR
 FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, 5 FLRA
 NO. 15(1981).
 
    /22/ SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL
 2875 AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
 ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE SOUTHEAST FISHERIES
 CENTER, MIAMI LABORATORY, FLORIDA, 5 FLRA NO.  55(1981), AT 4-5 OF THE
 DECISION;  BUT SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 3669, AFL-CIO AND VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, MINNEAPOLIS,
 MINNESOTA, 2 FLRA 640(1980)(WHEREIN A PROPOSAL ALLOWING NURSES EVERY
 OTHER WEEKEND OFF WAS FOUND VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 7106(B)(1) BECAUSE THE
 AGENCY DEMONSTRATED THE PROPOSAL WOULD NECESSITATE THE HIRING OF
 ADDITIONAL NURSES).
 
    /23/ 31 U.S.C. SEC. 638A(C)(2) PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED, NO APPROPRIATION AVAILABLE
 FOR ANY DEPARTMENT SHALL BE EXPENDED --
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    (2) FOR THE MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, AND REPAIR OF ANY
 GOVERNMENT-OWNED PASSENGER MOTOR
 
    VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT NOT USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES;  AND
 "OFFICIAL PURPOSES" SHALL
 
    NOT INCLUDE THE TRANSPORTATION OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES BETWEEN
 THEIR DOMICILES AND PLACES OF
 
    EMPLOYMENT, EXCEPT IN CASES OF MEDICAL OFFICERS ON OUT-PATIENT
 MEDICAL SERVICE AND EXCEPT IN
 
    CASES OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FIELD WORK THE CHARACTER
 OF WHOSE DUTIES MAKES SUCH
 
    TRANSPORTATION NECESSARY AND THEN ONLY AS TO SUCH LATTER CASES WHEN
 THE SAME IS APPROVED BY
 
    THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED . . . .
 
    /24/ SECTION 7117(A)(1) PROVIDES:
 
    SEC. 7117.  DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH;  COMPELLING NEED;  DUTY TO
 CONSULT
 
    (A)(1) SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH