14:0459(75)NG - NFFE Local 1332 and HQ, Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command, Alexandria, Virginia -- 1984 FLRAdec NG

 14 FLRA No. 75
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1332
 Union
 
 and
 
 HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY MATERIEL
 DEVELOPMENT AND READINESS
 COMMAND, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-497
 
                 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
 
    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).  The issue presented
 is the negotiability of the following proposal:
 
                              Union Proposal
 
          Section J.  There will be three (3) levels of performance used
       in rating of employees.
 
          (1) Exceptional (Outstanding).  Performance which at least
       meets performance standards for all major elements and exceeds
       performance standards for some (more than 2) major elements.
       Performance in relation to performance standards is of such
       quality that it could only be achieved by the most exceptional
       employee.  This employee deserves special recognition.
 
          (2) Fully Successful (Satisfactory).  Performance which at
       least meets performance standards for all critical elements.
       Performance in relation to performance standards is of such
       quality that it would be expected only of a proven, competent,
       average employee.
 
          (3) Unsatisfactory.  Performance which fails to meet
       performance standards for one or more critical elements.
       Performance is clearly unacceptable and corrective action is
       required.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.
 The Union's proposal would establish the number of rating levels for an
 appraisal of overall performance and what quality of performance is
 required in order to achieve a particular overall rating.  As such, it
 is substantively identical in effect to a portion of the union's
 proposal which was before the Authority in American Federation of State,
 County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 26 and U.S. Department
 of Justice, 13 FLRA No. 96 (1984).  In that case, the Authority held
 that a portion of a proposal to set the number of rating levels for an
 appraisal of overall performance and to determine what quality of
 performance would be required to obtain a particular rating was
 inconsistent with management's rights to direct employees and assign
 work under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute.  In this
 regard, the Authority held that an essential aspect of management's
 assignment of work and the supervision and guidance of employees in the
 performance of their work was to establish the job requirements for
 various levels of performance so as to achieve the quality and amount of
 work needed to fulfill the agency's mission and functions.  Further, the
 Authority held that the number of rating levels was integrally related
 to the effectiveness of an agency's using performance standards to
 accomplish the work of the agency.  For the reasons more fully stated in
 Department of Justice, supra, the Union's proposal herein is not within
 the duty to bargain.  Of course, a proposal which would permit an
 employee to grieve the application to that employee of the performance
 requirements established by management would be within the duty to
 bargain.  American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
 1968 and Department of Transportation, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
 Corporation, Massena, New York, 5 FLRA 70 (1981) (Union Proposal 4),
 affirmed sub nom. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
 Local 1968 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 691 F.2d 565 (D.C. Cir.
 1982), cert. denied, . . . U.S. . . ., 103 S.Ct. 2085 (1983).
 
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review be, and it
 hereby is, dismissed.  Issued, Washington, D.C., May 9, 1984
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY