[ v16 p619 ]
16:0619(88)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
16 FLRA No. 88
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL
TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Union
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD,
VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
Agency
Case No. O-NG-768
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 raises issues
concerning the negotiability of the following proposal:
(P)ay distribution for new hires be handled in the same manner
as for current employees i.e., new hired will have the option of
selecting direct mail or hand delivery of their pay.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.
The dispute herein arose as a result of the Agency's implementation of a
new policy whereby it would only distribute paychecks of new employees
to designated addresses and not to the workplace. The Union's proposal
would require the Agency to maintain for new employees the manner of
paycheck distribution which is presently used in distributing paychecks
to current employees. That is, the Agency would be required to
distribute new employee's paychecks to the workplace and not to
employees' designated addresses. In agreement with the Agency, the
Authority finds that the disputed proposal concerns the technology,
methods and means of performing work within the meaning of section
7106(b)(1) of the Statute and thus is negotiable only at the election of
the Agency. /1/
The duty of an agency to bargain with a labor organization over
conditions of employment does not extend to those matters which involve
the technology, methods and means of performing work. National Treasury
Employees Union and U.S. Customs Service, Region VII, San Francisco,
California, 2 FLRA 255 (1979). In American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO and Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio, 2 FLRA 604 (1980) (Union Proposals VIII and IX),
enforced sub nom. Department of Defense v. FLRA, 659 F.2d 1140 (D.C.
Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom. AFGE v. FLRA, 455 U.S. 945, 102 S.Ct.
1443 (1982), the Authority ruled that those matters which directly and
integrally relate to the accomplishment of the mission of the agency
fall within the meaning of performing work under section 7106(b)(1).
In the instant case, the Agency's mission could not be accomplished
without the continued and steady operation of the Agency. Such
continuous operation is only ensured by the presence of a workforce
whose goal is to effectuate the Agency's mission, and whose presence is
only ensured when the Agency fulfills its payroll obligation.
Therefore, the process which the Agency adopts to fulfill its payroll
obligation so as to ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of the
Agency constitutes a support operation without which the Agency's
mission could not be accomplished. Thus, the Authority finds, herein,
that mission-related matters which fall within the meaning of
"performing work" under section 7106(b)(1) include support functions
which are integrally related to the Agency's mission and without which
the mission could not be accomplished.
Thus, insofar as the Union tacitly concedes that the proposal
involves the methods and means by which the Agency performs its payroll
function, and the Authority finds that the payroll function involves
performing work within the meaning of section 7106(b)(1), the Authority
concludes that the proposal interferes with the Agency's right to
determine its methods and means of performing work and is therefore
outside the duty to bargain.
The Authority's finding in this respect is consistent with
Congressional intent. The House-Senate Conference Committee Report
illustrates that the term "performing work" was intended to include
those matters which directly and integrally relate to the agency's
operations as a whole. In the House-Senate Conference Committee Report,
the Conferees noted the following:
The Senate (section 7218(a)(2)(E)) prohibits negotiations on
the methods and means by which agency operations are to be
conducted. The House permits-- but does not require-- the agency
to negotiate on such matters (House section 7106(b)(1)). The
Senate recedes. The conferees wish to emphasize, however, that
nothing in the bill is intended to require an agency to negotiate
on the methods and means by which agency operations are to be
conducted. /2/
The instant proposal is distinguishable from other proposals which
the Authority has found not to interfere with the agency's right to
determine its methods and means of performing work and therefore
negotiable. These proposals, unlike the instant proposal, do not
involve matters which constitute an integral part of an agency's
operation, but, rather, relate principally to matters affecting working
conditions of employees. /3/
In holding that the proposal directly interferes with section
7106(b)(1), the Authority finds, contrary to the Union's contention that
the proposal is procedural in nature, that the proposal instead concerns
the substantive exercise of management's right. By requiring the Agency
to distribute paychecks to the workplace, and thereby precluding the
Agency from distributing paychecks to employees' designated addresses,
the Union's proposal directly affects the Agency's determination as to
its methods and means of performing its payroll function. See
International Organization of Master, Mates and Pilots and Panama Canal
Commission, 13 FLRA No. 87 (1983) (Union Proposals 3 and 4).
The Authority's finding in this case does not, however, affect the
Agency's obligation to negotiate over the impact and implementation of
its proposed change. Clearly, the Agency is obligated to negotiate over
the impact and implementation of its change in the process which is
utilizes to distribute payroll. Headquarters, 77th U.S. Army Command,
Fort Totten, New York and American Federation of Government Employees,
Local 2739, AFL-CIO, 9 FLRA 762 (1982). Moreover, it should be noted
that the Agency does not perform its payroll function in an atmosphere
free of constraint but should conform to established pay principles as
prescribed by the General Accounting Office. /4/
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. /5/ Issued, Was4ington, D.C., November 30, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute reads in pertinent part as
follows:
Sec. 7106. Management rights
* * * *
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude any agency and any
labor organization from negotiating--
(1) at the election of the agency, . . . on the technology,
methods, and means of performing work(.)
/2/ S. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1272, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. 154 (1978).
/3/ See American Federation of Government Employees, Local 644,
AFL-CIO and U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Health and Safety
Administration, Morgantown, West Virginia, 15 FLRA No. 170 (1984) (work
facilities); and American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2477 and Library of Congress, 7 FLRA 578
(1982), enforced sub nom. Library of Congress v. Federal Labor Relations
Authority, 699 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (office designs); and Wright
Patterson Air Force Base, 2 FLRA 604, 615 (equal employment opportunity
plans).
/4/ The General Accounting Office Policy and Procedure Manual For
Guidance of Federal Agencies, Title 6, Section 16.6, only provides the
Agency with three options in the location to which paychecks can be
distributed. The GAO manual reads as follows:
16.6 Distribution of Paychecks and U.S. Savings Bonds
Checks and bonds to individuals shall be mailed by the
disbursing officer to the persons being paid or their designees or
delivered to designated agents in the employing offices for
delivery to the employees at the work locations.
/5/ In view of the decision herein, the Authority finds it
unnecessary to consider the other contentions of the Agency with respect
to the negotiability of the proposal.