16:0096(22)NG - AFGE Local 1603 and Navy, Navy Commissary Store, Patuxent River, MD -- 1984 FLRAdec NG

[ v16 p96 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 16 FLRA No. 22
                                            Case No. O-NG-885
    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 raises issues
 relating to the negotiability of the following proposal:
          Acknowledging that there is a problem with recording/keeping of
       time at the Commissary Retail Store, we, the Union, propose that
       each employee report to the supervisor or person in charge of the
       shift that he is assigned.
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination.
 The record indicates that the instant appeal arose when the Agency
 proposed changing its policy of recording the time and attendance of
 employees.  The Agency wanted to have employees utilize an electric time
 clock.  The Union did not want to use a time clock.  As an alternative,
 the Union made the proposal at issue in this appeal.
    The Agency contends that the proposal is nonnegotiable because it
 does not concern a condition of employment as defined in section
 7103(a)(14) of the Statute.  This contention cannot be sustained.  In
 Planners, Estimators and Progressmen Association, Local No. 8 and
 Department of the Navy, Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South
 Carolina, 13 FLRA No. 81 (1983), the Authority concluded that management
 policies regarding the recording of employee time and attendance
 constitute a condition of employment.  For the reasons set forth in
 greater detail in that case, the Authority concludes that the instant
 proposal also concerns a condition of employment.
    The Agency also claims that the manner of recording employees' time
 constitutes a method and means of performing its work which, pursuant to
 section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute, is negotiable only at the election of
 the Agency.  In Charleston Naval Shipyard the Authority found that a
 proposal which allowed employees to record their time manually instead
 of through the use of a time clock was not inconsistent with the
 Agency's right to determine methods and means, because it did not
 interfere with the Agency's objective of attaining accurate and reliable
 time and attendance records.  Similarly, in the instant case, the Agency
 has not shown that changing the manner of recording time will prevent it
 from keeping accurate records.  Thus the Union proposal does not involve
 a matter which is negotiable only at the Agency's election under section
    Finally, the Agency claims that the Union proposal interferes with
 its right to assign work pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the
 Statute because it would involve the assignment of work to supervisors.
 However, the case cited by the Agency in support of its argument is
 distinguishable from the proposal in this case.  Proposal 2 in American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1858 and Department
 of the Army, U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 10
 FLRA 440 (1982), explicitly required supervisors to perform certain
 duties-- making work assignments to employees and evaluating employees'
 work.  In contrast, the proposal in this case merely requires that
 employees will report to their supervisor or the person in charge of the
 shift.  It does not require that the supervisor perform any particular
 task.  Thus, the proposal does not interfere with the Agency's right to
 assign work pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Agency shall upon request (or as
 otherwise agreed to by the parties) barga