17:0945(123)NG - NFFE Local 1705 and GSA -- 1985 FLRAdec NG



[ v17 p945 ]
17:0945(123)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 17 FLRA No. 123
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL 
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1705 
 Union 
 
 and
 
 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-945
 
                 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
 
    The petition for review in this case comes before the Federal Labor
 Relations Authority (the Authority) pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of
 the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute),
 and presents an issue concerning the negotiability of the following
 Union proposal:
 
          The competitive area for bargaining unit employees shall
       consist of employees of FPRS, OIRM, GMA, and PBS located within
       the GSA Central Office organization, Metropolitan Washington, D.C.
       area.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination.
 The instant proposal seeks to define a competitive area within the
 Agency for purposes of reduction-in-force (RIF).  Based on the record it
 appears that the four organizational elements designated in the
 proposal, namely FPRS, OIRM, GMA and PBS are subordinate portions of the
 Agency's metropolitan Washington, D.C. Central Office and are composed
 of both bargaining unit employees and nonbargaining unit employees.
 
    The Union claims that its proposal is not intended to require either
 the inclusion of nonbargaining unit employees in the proposed
 competitive area or the exclusion of nonbargaining unit employees from
 the proposed competitive area.  Instead, the Union argues that its
 proposal is intended only to place all bargaining unit employees in a
 single competitive area.
 
    However, contrary to the Union's position, governing RIF regulations
 set out at 5 CFR 351.402(b) (1984) /2/ require a competitive area to be
 defined "solely in terms of an agency's organizational unit(s) and
 geographical location, and must include all employees within the
 competitive area so defined." Notwithstanding the Union's intention only
 to place all bargaining unit employees in a single competitive area the
 proposal directly affects the working conditions of nonbargaining unit
 employees since the establishment of a competitive area must necessarily
 include nonbargaining unit employees within its boundaries.
 
    The Authority, in American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 32, AFL-CIO and Office of Personnel Management, 14 FLRA 754 (1984),
 appeal docketed, No. 84-1250 (D.C. Cir. June 15, 1984) has addressed the
 negotiability of a proposal dealing with competitive areas for RIF
 purposes where the record established that the proposed competitive area
 affected non-bargaining unit employees.  In that case the Authority
 noted that it is well established that the duty to bargain does not
 extend to matters concerning positions and employees outside the
 bargaining unit.  International Federation of Professional and Technical
 Engineers, AFL-CIO, NASA Headquarters Professional Association and
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Headquarters, Washington,
 D.C., 8 FLRA 212 (1982) and cases cited therein at note 5.  However, an
 agency generally may bargain over such matters if it so chooses.  See,
 e.g., American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2 and
 Department of the Army, Military District of Washington, 4 FLRA 450
 (1980).  Insofar as the proposal defining a competitive area in Office
 of Personnel Management directly determined conditions of employment of
 nonunit employees, it was found to concern matters beyond the
 representation rights of the union and, hence, not within the agency's
 obligation to bargain.  See also Service Employees' International Union,
 AFL-CIO, Local 556 and Department of the Army, Office of the Adjutant
 General, Hale Koa Hotel, Honolulu, Hawaii, 9 FLRA 687 (1982).
 
    Therefore, since the record in this case establishes that the
 proposal directly determines conditions of employment of employees not
 within the bargaining unit and the Agency has not elec