17:0362(55)NG - AFGE Local 3424 and Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Washington, DC -- 1985 FLRAdec NG
[ v17 p362 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
17 FLRA No. 55 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3424 Union and FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C. Agency Case No. O-NG-769 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 raises an issue relating to the negotiability of the following Union proposal: Examiners who travel 150 miles or more on official business will be permitted three hours overhead travel (OHT). The above proposal is meant to apply to employees of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board for voluntary travel to return home for week-ends. Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations. According to the Union's stated intent, the proposal would require the Agency to grant employees a maximum of 3 hours of duty time during workdays for the purpose of traveling to and returning from their places of residence on week-ends. Thus the express language of the proposal would preclude management from exercising its right to assign work to employees during that portion of the workday which is required for travel. In this regard, the Union Proposal herein has the same effect as Proposal 1 in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3424 and Federal Home Loan Bank Board, San Francisco, California, 14 FLRA No. 18 (1984). In that case, the proposal at issue required the Agency to grant a maximum of three hours of duty time for traveling, each way, when employees on temporary duty assignments returned to their residences on the weekends. The Authority held, based on its decisions in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3483 and Federal Home Loan Bank Board, New York District Office, 13 FLRA No. 80 (1983), and National Treasury Employees Union and NTEU, Chapter 80 and Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Central Region, 8 FLRA 197 (1982), that because the proposal in Federal Home Loan Bank Board, San Francisco would have precluded the assignment of work to employees during the duty time on which they were traveling to their residences, or returning to their temporary duty assignments, it directly interfered with management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. /1/ Thus, as the Union Proposal at issue herein similarly would preclude the Agency from assigning work to employees during that portion of the workday which they would use for travel to and from their residences, for the reasons set forth in the FHLBB, San Francisco, FHLBB, New York District and IRS, Central Region decisions, it directly interferes with management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) and is outside the Agency's duty to bargain. /2/ 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. /3/ Issued, Washington, D.C., March 28, 1985 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman William J. McGinnis Jr., Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ Section 7106(a)(2)(B) provides, in relevant part: Sec. 7106. Management rights (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, nothing in this chapter shall affect the authority of any management official of any agency-- . . . . (2) in accordance with applicable laws-- . . . . (B) to assign work(.) /2/ Of course, management must exercise its rights under section 7106(a)(2) in accordance with applicable laws. In this case, specifically, 5 U.S.C. 6101(b)(2) requires an agency to arrange travel during the scheduled workweek "to the maximum extent practicable." However, this proposal would require travel during the scheduled workweek even where not practicable and is thus inconsistent with management's right to assign work. /3/ In view of the decision herein, it is unnecessary to address the Agency's additional contentions.