19:0418(57)CA - GSA and AFGE Council 236 -- 1985 FLRAdec CA
[ v19 p418 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
19 FLRA No. 57 General Services Administration Respondent and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 236, AFL-CIO Charging Party Case No. 3-CA-30491 DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Regional Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Federal 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 parties' contentions, the Authority finds: At all times material herein, the American Federation of Government Employees, Council 236, AFL-CIO (the Union) has been the certified exclusive representative for certain employees of the General Services Administration (the Respondent) in a national consolidated unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. At all times material herein, the Respondent and the Union have been parties to a collective bargaining agreement. By letter dated April 7, 1983, during the term of the parties' agreement, the Union requested negotiations with the Respondent regarding the establishment of crediting plans for use in the merit promotion of bargaining unit employees. In connection with this request to negotiate, the Union requested copies of the Respondent's existing model crediting plans on all job series within the bargaining unit in order to draft bargaining proposals. In response, the Respondent refused to negotiate over the issue of crediting plans and to furnish the Union with the requested information. The complaint alleges that the refusal to bargain constituted a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. It further alleges that the refusal to furnish the Union with the requested information constituted noncompliance with section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute in violation of section 7116(a)(8) of the Statute. In Internal Revenue Service, 17 FLRA No. 103 (1985), petition for review filed sub nom. National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, No. 85-1361 (D.C. Cir. June 14, 1985) issued subsequent to the parties' stipulation in this case, the Authority found, in part, as follows: . . . Congress intended that where parties are negotiating a basic collective bargaining agreement, the bargaining obligation shall exist with respect to negotiable proposals initiated by either agency management or the exclusive representative. However, outside this context, Congress intended the bargaining obligation to exist only with respect to changes in established conditions of employment proposed by management. This distinction indicates that other than negotiations leading to a basic collective bargaining agreement, there is no obligation to bargain over union-initiated proposals. (footnote omitted.) In the instant case, the record indicates that the Respondent and the Union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. During the term of the agreement, the Union requested to negotiate over crediting plans, which were in existence and had been used prior to the effective date of the agreement. It is neither alleged nor does the record establish that the Respondent either proposed or initiated a change in the existing crediting plans. Nor is it alleged or established that the agreement contains an applicable "reopener" provision. Thus, the Authority concludes that the Respondent was not obligated to bargain concerning the crediting plans at the time that the Union's request was made, /1/ and that its failure to do so did not constitute a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute as alleged in the complaint. Further, as the Respondent was not under a duty to bargain, and as the Union had requested that the Respondent furnish it with copies of all model crediting plans solely in order to draft proposals for such bargaining, the Authority concludes that the information sought by the Union was not then "necessary" within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, /2/ and that the Respondent therefore did not violate section 7116(a)(8) of the Statute as alleged in the complaint when it refused to furnish the Union with the requested information. Accordingly, we shall order that the complaint be dismissed. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 3-CA-30491 be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. Issued, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1985 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ Internal Revenue Service, supra. See also Missouri National Guard, Office of the Adjutant General, Jefferson City, Missouri, 18 FLRA No. 44 (1985). In view of this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the question whether the subject matter of the Union's request to bargain was negotiable. /2/ Section 7114(b)(4) provides: Sec. 7114. Representation rights and duties . . . .