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 ]
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.