17:0683(99)NG - AFGE Local 32 and OPM -- 1985 FLRAdec NG



[ v17 p683 ]
17:0683(99)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 17 FLRA No. 99
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 
 LOCAL 32, AFL-CIO
 Union 
 
 and 
 
 OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-966
 
                 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:
 
          Employees will not be asked to perform those duties in cases
       where the skills necessary or required are beyond the skills they
       possess.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination.
 
    The Union proposal would expressly prevent the Agency from assigning
 work to an employee unless that employee currently possessed the skills
 necessary or required to perform the work.  This would be true even if
 the assignment was for the purpose of training or to enhance the
 employee's current skills or abilities.  In this regard, the proposal is
 to the same effect as Union Provision 2 in National Federation of
 Federal Employees, Local 1622 and Department of the Army, Headquarters,
 Vint Hill Farms Station, Warrenton, Virginia, 16 FLRA No. 82 (1984),
 which provided, inter alia, that supervisors would, insofar as possible,
 attempt to avoid assigning duties to employees which were "inappropriate
 to their positions or qualifications." The Authority found that
 provision 2 in Vint Hill Farms Station interfered with management's
 right to assign work pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute
 because it expressly prevented the Agency from assigning duties to
 employees in the circumstances described in the provision.  Thus, based
 on Vint Hill Farms Station and the case cited therein, the instant
 proposal, which also expressly precludes the assignment of work in
 certain circumstances, directly interferes with management's right to
 assign work and is nonnegotiable.  /1/ See National Association of Air
 Traffic Specialists and Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
 Administration, 6 FLRA 588 (1981) (Union Proposal V).
 
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and
 it hereby is, dismissed.  Issued, Washington, D.C., April 23, 1985
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Chairman
                                       William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ In view of this disposition, it is unnecessary to address the
 Agency's additional contentions as to the nonnegotiability of the
 proposal