14:0438(69)NG - AFGE Local 2761 and Army, Army Adjutant General Publication Center, St. Louis, MO -- 1984 FLRAdec NG

 14 FLRA No. 69
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2761
 Union
 
 and
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 U.S. ARMY ADJUTANT GENERAL
 PUBLICATION CENTER, ST. LOUIS,
 MISSOURI
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-411
 
                DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
 
    The petition for review in this case comes before the Authority
 pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and concerns the
 negotiability of one Union proposal.  /1/ Upon careful consideration of
 the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority
 makes the following determinations.
 
                              Union Proposal
 
          A. The training program will be developed with a committee,
       comprised of three (3) representatives from Management, and three
       (3) from the Union.
 
          B.  The committee will report annually, after a formal review
       of the training provided for the past year.
 
          C. The committee will establish goals which are consistent with
       the projected needs of the Center.
 
          D.  The committee will meet at least quarterly.
 
    In agreement with the Union, the Authority finds this proposal for a
 joint labor-management committee to develop the Agency's training
 program to be a negotiable procedure under section 7106(b)(2) of the
 Statute.  /2/ Insofar as appears from the record, the committee is
 intended to serve as a forum for Union participation in the evaluation
 of training needs and in the formulation of programs to meet those
 needs, but not to negotiate the content of the Agency's training.  /3/
 That is, the proposal would only provide the Union an opportunity to
 express its views regarding the Agency's training programs, rather than
 mandating joint determination of the substantive aspects of those
 programs.  Thus, similar to Union Proposal 2 which the Authority held to
 be negotiable in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
 AFL-CIO, Local 121 and U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
 D.C., 8 FLRA No. 35 (1982) (proposal to negotiate retraining programs
 incident to reductions in force), the present proposal would not require
 the retraining of any employee.  Cf. National Association of Air Traffic
 Specialists and Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
 Administration, 6 FLRA No. 106 (1981) (Proposals I-III) (proposals
 requiring management to provide training at stated intervals held
 nonnegotiable);  U.S. Government Printing Office, supra, (Proposal 1)
 (proposal requiring management to provide training to unit employees
 held nonnegotiable).  Furthermore, the present proposal would not limit
 or prescribe the duration of training assignments and the scheduling
 thereof, cf. International Association of Fire Fighters, Local F-61 and
 Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 3 FLRA 438, 439 (1980) (proposal specifying
 length of training sessions and limiting time periods for training held
 nonnegotiable);  International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO,
 CLC, Local F-116 and Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Air Force
 Base, California, 7 FLRA No. 122 (1982) (proposal limiting training to
 certain time periods held nonnegotiable);  and would not mandate
 specific training assignments to particular employees upon request, cf.
 Federal Aviation Administration, supra.  Rather, Section A of the
 proposal would only obligate the Agency to consider the Union's views in
 planning the training program.
 
    Thus, the Authority concludes from the record that the proposal would
 not interfere with the Agency's discretion concerning whether to assign
 employees to training programs.  The Authority concludes further that
 the proposed committee is a negotiable procedure under section
 7106(b)(2) since it would not prevent the Agency from acting at all to
 assign training in its discretion, pursuant to its right to assign work
 under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.
 
    Moreover, the Agency's remaining arguments in support of its claim
 that the proposal is outside the duty to bargain do not require a
 different result.  First, for the reasons stated in National Federation
 of Federal Employees, Local 541 and Veterans Administration Hospital,
 Long Beach, California, 12 FLRA No. 62 (1983), the present proposal
 would not, by requiring negotiation regarding Union participation on the
 committee, interfere with management's right to assign work under the
 Statute.  In the cited decision, the Authority rejected this claim with
 respect to a proposal, to the same effect as the one disputed herein,
 which required negotiation regarding union participation on a committee
 to design, develop and administer an incentive awards program.
 
    Second, the Agency contention that the Union's designation of members
 of the committee interferes with its right to assign employees under
 section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute /5/ is inapposite.  As the
 Authority has consistently held, the right to assign employees means to
 assign them to positions in the agency, see, e.g., American Federation
 of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 987 and Air Force Logistics
 Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 5 FLRA No. 15 (1981);
 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 916 and
 Tinker Air Force Base, Ohio, 7 FLRA No. 45 (1981) (Union Provision III).
  Designation of an employee to serve as a representative on the
 committee, however, would not constitute an assignment to a position
 and, hence, would not concern the right to assign employees under the
 Statute.  /6/
 
    Third, contrary to the Agency's contention that the proposed Union
 representation on the committee interferes with its right to determine
 the personnel by which Agency operations shall be conducted under
 section 7106(a)(2)(B), /7/ the Authority finds that, in this respect,
 the proposal is to the same effect as the proposal in American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1786 and Marine Corps
 Development and Education Command, Quantico, Virginia, 2 FLRA 423
 (1980), providing for union representation on wage survey teams, which
 was held not to prevent the agency from determining the personnel to
 represent it on those teams.  For the reaso