20:0354(36)NG - NFFE Local 405 and Army Aviation and Army Troop Support Command -- 1985 FLRAdec NG
[ v20 p354 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
20 FLRA No. 36 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 405 Union and DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY AVIATION SYSTEMS COMMAND AND U.S. ARMY TROOP SUPPORT COMMAND Agency Case No. 0-NG-1078 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: /1/ Article VII, Section 1, 1.: Representational duties to bargaining unit employees of other Commands having an exclusive with the Union. Official time for this function will be authorized by the Commander on an individual basis. Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination. The record in this case indicates that the Union holds exclusive recognition for four separate bargaining units of Department of the Army employees in St. Louis as follows: the U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command (AVSCOM); the U.S. Army Troop Support Command (TROSCOM); a detachment of the U.S. Army Information Systems Command (ISC); and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District. As relevant herein, Article VII, Section 1 of the AVSCOM-Local 405 collective bargaining agreement authorizes official time for Union representatives employed by AVSCOM for various representational functions listed in the agreement concerning AVSCOM employees. An identical provision in the TROSCOM-Local 405 collective bargaining agreement applies to representation of TROSCOM employees by Union representatives employed by TROSCOM. The proposal here in dispute would amend both the AVSCOM and TROSCOM collective bargaining agreements to authorize official time on an individual basis for a Union representative employed by either AVSCOM or TROSCOM to represent employees in bargaining units other than the one in which such Union representative is employed. While the Union claims that the intent of the proposal was only to permit Union representatives employed by AVSCOM to represent TROSCOM employees and vice versa, the express language of the proposal is not limited to AVSCOM and TROSCOM but applies to other commands in which the Union holds an exclusive recognition. However, such distinction is not relevant in this case since under either interpretation of the proposal the essential issue to be addressed concerns whether section 7131(d) of the Statute /2/ authorizes negotiation of official time for union representatives employed in one bargaining unit to represent employees employed in a different bargaining unit. In this respect the disputed proposal herein is to the same effect as the proposal found nonnegotiable by the Authority in American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1698 and Department of the Navy, Aviation Supply Office, Consolidated Civilian Personnel Division, 17 FLRA No. 84(1985), petition for review filed sub nom. American Federation of Government Employees v. FLRA, No. 85-3341 (3rd Cir. June 17, 1985). In that case, the union sought to authorize official time pursuant to section 7131(d) of the Statute for a union official employed in one of four bargaining units represented by the union at a single activity to inter alia, represent the employees in the other three units. The Authority, relying on its earlier decision in Department of the Navy, Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California and National Association of Government Employees, Local R12-29, 14 FLRA 360(1984), determined that no bargaining obligation arose pursuant to section 7131(d) of the Statute in such circumstances. Hence, contrary to the Union's contention in this case, and, based on Aviation Supply Office and Port Hueneme, and the reasons and cases cited therein, section 7131(d) does not authorize bargaining on the disputed proposal herein. 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. Issued, Washington, D.C., September 26, 1985 (s) HENRY B. FRAZIER III Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman (s) WILLIAM J. MCGINNIS JR.