15:0264(55)NG - AFGE Local 32 and OPM -- 1984 FLRAdec NG



[ v15 p264 ]
15:0264(55)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 15 FLRA No. 55
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 32
 Union
 
 and
 
 OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-709
 
                 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 one Union proposal.  Upon careful consideration
 of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority
 makes the following determination.
 
                              Union Proposal
 
          Reassignees who are given work for which they have not been
       given either formal or on-the-job training will not suffer any
       adverse impact or negative or punitive action for their inability
       to perform that work.  The work will be returned to the supervisor
       who will see that the employee receives training before assigning
       that work in the future to that employee.  This also applies to
       documented inconsistent information received on any aspect of the
       work.  All reassignees will be given adequate reference materials
       and forms for processing their work.  Management will assure and
       make every attempt to provide on-the-job training which includes,
       but is not limited to, a detailed explanation of applicable
       procedures, legal precedents and governing rules and regulations.
 
    The Authority concludes that the disputed proposal herein would
 improperly establish a condition (providing an employee with formal or
 on-the-job training) upon the Agency's rights pursuant to section
 7106(a)(2) of the Statute to direct and assign work to employees and to
 discipline employees based on their substandard performance or
 nonperformance of their job duties.  In this respect, the proposal in
 this case is to the same effect as the disputed proposal in American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3004 and Department
 of the Air Force, Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts, 9 FLRA 723 (1982).
  The proposal in that case conditioned management's exercise of its
 right to determine the duties to be subject to performance appraisals on
 the prior exercise of management's right to determine whether employees
 were to be assigned formal training.  The Authority found that this
 proposal directly interfered with the exercise of management's rights
 pursuant to section 7106(a) of the Statute.  Specifically, the Authority
 determined in the cited case that the proposal concerned the substantive
 exercise of management's rights to assign training and to dete