17:0945(123)NG - NFFE Local 1705 and GSA -- 1985 FLRAdec NG
[ v17 p945 ]
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 elected to bargain on such matter, it must be concluded, for the reasons stated in Office of Personnel Management, that the proposal is similarly outside the duty to bargain. 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. Issued, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1985 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ The Agency's request to file an additional submission in this case pursuant to section 2424.8 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations is denied. /2/ This OPM regulation is a Government-wide regulation within the meaning of section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute because, pursuant to 5 CFR 351.202 (1984), it applies to the Federal civilian work force as a whole. National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 6 and Internal Revenue Service, New Orleans District, 3 FLRA 748, 751-755 (1980).