18:0096(19)NG - NFFE Local 1437 and Army, Army Armament Research and Development Command, Dover, NJ -- 1985 FLRAdec NG



[ v18 p96 ]
18:0096(19)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 18 FLRA No. 19
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF 
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, 
 LOCAL 1437 
 Union 
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 
 U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH 
 AND DEVELOPMENT COMMAND, 
 DOVER, NEW JERSEY 
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-1001
 
                DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
 
    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
 raises issues concerning the negotiability of two Union proposals.  Upon
 careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties'
 contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.
 
                             Union Proposal 1
 
          The number of members on either negotiating team shall not
       exceed five and two observers.
 
    According to the Union, the proposal would not require the Agency to
 designate a particular number or representatives but instead, only sets
 a reasonable limit on the number of negotiators either party may have at
 collective bargaining negotiations.  However, the Union's proposal by
 its express terms would prevent the Agency from designating a team of
 Agency negotiators and observers in excess of the numbers specified in
 the proposal.  This proposal, therefore, is to the same effect as the
 proposal before the Authority in National Federation of Federal
 Employees, Local 1451, and Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida, 3
 FLRA 88 (1980), aff'd sub nom. National Federation of Federal Employees
 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 652 F.2d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1981),
 which sought to impose on the Agency a minimum number of representatives
 it could designate for collective bargaining negotiations.  In that
 case, the Authority held that the number of representatives an Agency
 chooses to designate for bargaining purposes is not a matter directly
 related to conditions of employment of unit employees.  Thus, the
 Authority concluded that the proposal was not within the Agency's duty
 to bargain.  In like manner, the instant proposal which establishes a
 maximum number of representatives the Agency may designate to carry out
 its bargaining obligations under the Statute also concerns matters which
 are beyond those directly affecting unit employees.  Therefore, based on
 Naval Training Center, Orlando and the reasons stated therein the
 Union's proposal is not within the duty to bargain.
 
                             Union Proposal 2
 
          The Commander shall appoint the Ch