15:0825(158)NG - AFGE Local 32 and OPM -- 1984 FLRAdec NG



[ v15 p825 ]
15:0825(158)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 15 FLRA No. 158
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 32
 Union
 
 and
 
 OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-907
 
                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 presents issues
 concerning the negotiability of two Union proposals.  Upon careful
 consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions,
 the Authority makes the following determinations.
 
                             Union Proposal 1
 
          The employee has a right to union representation in all phases
       of the classification review process, including desk audits.
 
    Union Proposal 1 herein is to the same effect as Union Proposal 1 in
 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO,
 Local 2027 and Action, Washington, D.C., 12 FLRA No. 128 (1983) which
 provided that employees have the right to union representation in all
 meetings with management involving classification matters, including
 desk audits.  The Authority determined that proposal to be within the
 duty to bargain.  Specifically, the Authority held that the proposal in
 Action was not excluded from the definition of "conditions of
 employment" by section 7103(a)(14)(B) of the Statute /1/ because it only
 concerned an employee's right to union representation in meetings with
 management concerning classification matters, including desk audits,
 rather than classification itself.  /2/ Hence, based on Action, and the
 reasons stated therein, Union Proposal 1 herein is within the duty to
 bargain.
 
                             Union Proposal 2
 
          Employees will get at least 10 workdays notice of any change in
       duties or work assignments.
 
    The Agency's first contention that Union Proposal 2 directly
 interferes with management's right pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of
 the Statute to "assign work" cannot be sustained.  That is, the proposal
 merely would require the Agency to give a specified amount of advance
 notice of changes in work assignments.  In this regard, the proposal is
 to the same effect as Union Proposal 11 in American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2272 and Department of Justice,
 U.S. Marshals Service, District of Columbia, 9 FLRA 1004 (1982), which
 also required management to give prior notice of a change in work
 assignments.  The Authority found the proposal therein to be a procedure
 which management would observe in the exercise of its rights to assign
 work, and thus, within the du