20:0170(20)NG - AFGE Local 1931 and Navy, Naval Weapons Station, Concord, CA -- 1985 FLRAdec NG



[ v20 p170 ]
20:0170(20)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


20 FLRA No. 20

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1931
Union 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, CONCORD,
CALIFORNIA
 Agency

                                      Case No. 0-NG-1098

                DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

   The petition for review in this case comes before the Authority
pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and raises an issue
regarding the negotiability of the following Union proposal:

         Section 1:  Employees arrested for driving under the influence
      of alcohol/drugs will continue to maintain their driving
      privileges until such time as they are convicted by a civilian
      court.

         Section 2:  The Employer agrees that any suspension of driving
      privileges of employees suspected of drunk driving because of
      refusal to take a sobriety test will be in accordance with
      California State law.  No disciplinary action will be taken that
      is greater than that administered by the courts.

   Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination.
The disputed proposal in the instant case is to the same effect as the
proposal which the Authority held to be nonnegotiable in Defense
Logistics Council of American Federation of Government Employees Locals
and Defense Logistics Agency, 20 FLRA No. 19(1985).  The proposal in
that case would have created restrictions on the agency's choice of
preventive measures taken to guard against harm to its property and
personnel, in particular, the decision as to the circumstances under
which the privilege of driving on its premises should be suspended.  The
Authority found that the proposal interfered with the agency's right to
determine its internal security practices and concluded that it was not
within the agency's duty to bargain under section 7106(a)(1) of the
Statute.  In like manner, the instant proposal would restrict the
Agency's right to determine policies and actions which are part of its
plan to secure or safeguard its personnel and physical property.
Therefore, based on Defense Logistics Agency, supra, and the precedent
cited therein, the instant proposal is likewise outside the duty to
bargain under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute.

   Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.  /1/

   Issued, Washington, D.C., September 16, 1985
                                      (s) HENRY B. FRAZIER III
                                      Henry B. Frazier III, Actin