18:0358(47)CA - Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, Kansas City, MO and NFFE Local 29 -- 1985 FLRAdec CA



[ v18 p358 ]
18:0358(47)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 18 FLRA No. 47
 
 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 
 KANSAS CITY DISTRICT 
 KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 
 Respondent
 
 and 
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL 
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 29 
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 7-CA-30395
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Regional
 Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Federal Labor Labor Relations
 Authority" in accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules
 and Regulations.
 
    Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, including the
 stipulation of facts, accompanying exhibits, and the contentions of the
 parties, /1/ the Authority finds:
 
    The complaint herein alleges that the Respondent violated section
 7116 (a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute) by refusing to bargain over the procedures to be
 used for the collection of debts owed to the United States Government by
 unit employees under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, P.L. 97-365
 (hereinafter the Act).  /2/
 
    The record indicates that on or about April 18, 1983, the National
 Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29 (the Union) requested
 bargaining over "a change in conditions of employment as promulgated by
 (the Act)" and suggested that such bargaining take place in conjunction
 with other matters which were then the subject of mid-term bargaining
 under provisions of the parties' agreement.  The record indicates that
 the parties subsequently met but that the Respondent refused to bargain
 concerning the Act based on its view that there was no obligation to
 bargain until such time as Government-wide or agency rules or
 regulations were prescribed to implement the provisions of the Act.  /3/
 In this connection, the record indicates that since passage of the Act
 on October 25, 1982, and continuing through the date of the parties'
 stipulation, neither the Respondent nor higher level agency management
 has promulgated or implemented regulations concerning the Act.  Rather,
 the Respondent has continued to process debt collection actions under
 pre-existing regulations and law.
 
    As previously noted, the Union sought to bargain over an alleged
 change in conditions of employment stemming from passage of the Act, and
 the Respondent's refusal to bargain over the procedures used for the
 collection of debts was alleged to be violative of the Statute.  In the
 Authority's view, the record in this case fails to establish that there
 has been a change in conditions of employment affecting u