17:0326(48)NG - AFGE Local 32 and OPM -- 1985 FLRAdec NG



[ v17 p326 ]
17:0326(48)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 17 FLRA No. 48
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 32, AFL-CIO
 Union
 
 and
 
 OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-675
 
                 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), and presents an issue
 relating to the negotiability of the following Union proposal.
 
                              Union Proposal
 
          Since review work will be included as a performance element in
       the performance standards for Claims Examiner, and since reviewers
       get an advantage when they screen the work and perform the easy
       work, which disadvantages all other employees on the team, review
       duties will be rotated equally to all staff members every 6 months
       based on an alphabetic listing of examiners by last name unless
       the performance appraisal and performance standards take into
       account the failure to rotate.  This will also apply to any
       changes to the assignment of work in ASD at this time.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination.
 The proposal, in effect, requires that the Agency rotate reviewing
 assignments equally among employees in the prescribed manner unless it
 is willing to revise performance standards and appraisals in some
 manner.  With regard to the aspect of the proposal requiring six month
 rotation of the review function, the Agency states, without
 contravention:  /1/
 
          It is essential that the reviewer be able to identify errors
       quickly and bring them to the attention of the management team and
       the employee who has erred.  A review function performed by those
       who are not sufficiently experienced or skilled to identify errors
       would be inimical to the accomplishment of (the Agency's) mission
       and not in the public interest.  /2/
 
 In this regard, the instant proposal is to the same effect as Union
 Proposal 1 in National Treasury Employees Union and Internal Revenue
 Service, Dallas District, 13 FLRA No. 9 (1983) which required that
 certain assignments be distributed among employees "on an equitable
 basis." In that case, the Authority, noting that the proposal would
 "prevent management from taking into account valid considerations in
 making work assignments," concluded that such proposal was inconsistent
 with management's right, pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the
 Statute, "to assign work." Thus, based on Internal Revenue Service,
 Dall