20:0501(57)NG - NAGE Local R14-32 and Army HQ, Army Training Center Engineering and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, MO -- 1985 FLRAdec NG



[ v20 p501 ]
20:0501(57)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 20 FLRA No. 57
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 
 LOCAL R14-32 
 Union 
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, HQ, U.S. ARMY 
 TRAINING CENTER ENGINEERING AND FORT 
 LEONARD WOOD, FORT LEONARD WOOD, MISSOURI 
 Agency 
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-1128
 
                 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 one Union
 proposal.  Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including
 the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following
 determination.
 
                              Union Proposal
 
          Any employee who incurs additional expenses because of the
       change in schedule will be reimbursed for those expenses.
       Employees will be surveyed to determine what additional expenses
       will be incurred.  Reimbursement may be claimed on a form to be
       devised by the employer.  Disputes over the right to reimbursement
       will be referred to the negotiated grievance and arbitration
       procedure.
 
    The Union contends that this proposal is intended to require the
 Agency to provide day care facilities for employees affected by a change
 in work schedules.  Thus, the Union concludes that the proposal is
 negotiable under Authority precedent.  /1/ However, since there is
 nothing in the express language of this proposal which relates to day
 care the Union's contention cannot be sustained.  /2/
 
    Moreover, the express language of the Union's proposal does not in
 any manner specify the particular "additional expenses" for which
 employees would be entitled to reimbursement from the Agency.  In this
 respect, it is well established that a petition for review of a
 negotiability issue which does not present a proposal sufficiently
 specific and delimited in form and content as to permit the Authority to
 render a negotiability decision thereon does not meet the conditions for
 review set forth in section 7117(c) of the Statute and section 2424.1 of
 the Authority's Rules and Regulations.  See Maritime/Metal Trades
 Council and Panama Canal Commission, 18 FLRA No. 43(1985) and Fort Bragg
 Unit of North Carolina Association of Educators, National Education
 Association and For Bragg Dependents Schools, Fort Bragg, North
 Carolina, 12 FLRA 519(1983).  Therefore, since the proposal herein
 refers only to "additional expenses," it lacks sufficient specificity to
 enable the Authority to reach a reasoned decision as to whether
 reimbursement for a particular expense is permitted /3/ or prohibited by
 law.  /4/
 
    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., October 15, 1985
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Chairman
                                       William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
 32 and Office of Personnel Management, Washington, D.C., 6 FLRA
 423(1981), aff'd mem. 706 F.2d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
 
 
    /2/ The Authority has consistently held that it will not base a
 negotiability determination on a union's statement of intent which is
 inconsistent with the express language of the disputed proposal.  E.g.,
 American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2761 and U.S. Army
 Adjutant General Publications Center, St. Louis, Missouri, 17 FLRA No.
 118(1985) at 5 n. 7 of the decision.
 
 
    /3/ See 5 U.S.C. 5536(198