17:0550(81)NG - AFGE Local 12 and Labor -- 1985 FLRAdec NG



[ v17 p550 ]
17:0550(81)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 17 FLRA No. 81
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 
 LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO
 Union 
 
 and 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-940
 
                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 two Union proposals.
 
                             Union Proposal 1
 
          EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK
 
          (T)he Union . . . proposes a joint committee be formed to meet
       separate from the Mid Term Bargaining forum to discuss the Union's
       objections to the proposed Employee Handbook with the goal of
       accepting the new handbook if the Union's concerns are
       satisfactorily addressed.
 
                             Union Proposal 2
 
          UPWARD MOBILITY AND TRAINING
 
          Change point 6 on page 6 to read as follows:
 
          Panels will use individual oral interviews as part of the Merit
       Staffing evaluation process in order to make a final determination
       on the employees to be certified.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.
 
    Based on the record in this case it appears that the Union submitted
 these proposals to the Agency pursuant to the parties' agreement in
 response to the Agency's issuance of a revised "Employee Handbook" and
 the "reissuance" of the Upward Mobility Training Agreement.  When the
 Agency refused to negotiate on the proposals, the Union requested an
 allegation of nonnegotiability and the Agency replied that it had no
 duty to bargain on the matters proposed.  The Agency's position is that
 these matters are not properly before the Authority because the
 Department of Labor has made no material change affecting conditions of
 employment and no duty to bargain exists with regard to these proposals
 under such circumstances.  The Agency did not assert that the two
 proposals were nonnegotiable, but, rather, that there is no duty on the
 Agency's part to bargain over these proposals.  The Union thereupon
 filed the instant appeal with the Authority seeking a negotiability
 determination.
 
    The Agency has not alleged or demonstrated in the record herein that
 these proposals are inconsistent with law or regulation, and since no
 basis for finding the proposals nonnegotiable is otherwise apparent, the
 Authority finds that Union Proposals 1 and 2 are within the Agency's
 duty to bargain under the Statute.  It is well established that the
 parties bear the burden for