21:0978(115)NG - NAGE, Local R7-23 and Air Force, HQ 375th ABG (MAC), Scott AFB, Ill. -- 1986 FLRAdec NG

[ v21 p978 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 21 FLRA No. 115
                                            Case No. 0-NG-837
                         I.  Statement of the Case
    This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability appeal
 filed under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and presents an issue
 concerning the negotiability of two Union proposals.
                           II.  Union Proposal 1
          Ranking Criteria.  The screening factors established by the
       Office of Personnel Management are applied to all competing
       employees.  Employees who meet the eligibility requirements of the
       Office of Personnel Management are considered to be at least
       minimally qualified and are eligible to be further evaluated and
       ranked.  The following criteria are applied to the competing
       employees who meet minimal eligibility requirements:
          a.  Experience:  1/2 point for each two weeks of experience
       directly related to the position being filled.  Directly related
       experience is that experience gained while doing like or similar
       jobs as that which is described in the position description of the
       job being filled.  1/4 point for each two weeks of experience
       indirectly related to the position being filled.  Indirectly
       related experience is that experience in the same job family or
       related families.
          b.  Training:  1/4 point for each two weeks of training
       received which can be directly related to the position being
       filled.  1/4 point for each two two weeks of training received
       which can be indirectly related to the position being filled.
          c.  Education:  Doctor's Degree Awarded 200 points Master's
       Degree Awarded 150 points Bachelor's Degree Awarded 100 points
       Each full year of college (no degree) 20 points Graduate Work 4
       points/credit hour ECI Courses (for each 40 hours) 1/2 point
          d.  Awards:  A maximum of 2 points is given for awards.  Such
       awards must be directly related to the position being filled.
       Credit is given only within 1 year of the effective date of the
          e.  Supervisor Appraisal:  Will only count for 5% additional
       points based upon a perfect appraisal.  Anything less than a
       perfect appraisal will be prorated.
          The employees will be ranked in accordance with the total
       number of points which they have received.  Those employees with
       the most points will be referred to the selecting supervisor in
       rank order in accordance with the other provisions of this
       article.  (Only the underlined portions of the proposal are in
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
    The Agency contends that the proposal violates 5 U.S.C. Section
 2301(c), Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Chapter 335, FPM Supplement
 Chapter 335, and Agency Regulation (AFR) 40-335 because the Agency must
 insure that personnel management is based on and embodies the merit
 system principles.
    The Union maintains that the intent of the proposal is to rank
 promotion candidates who meet minimum qualifications of the X-118 and
 Air Force standards by applying credit for training, education,
 experience and awards that are relevant to the job being filled along
 with the supervisor's appraisal.
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
    Under existing Authority precedent we find the proposal nonnegotiable
 for reasons other than those alleged by the Agency.  This proposal would
 prescribe certain abilities and accomplishments for which credit will be
 given, and the amount of credit, to candidates in the rating process.
 Essentially, the proposal would establish portions of the Agency's
 "crediting plan" and has the same effect as the proposal in The Montana
 Air Chapter of Association of Civilian Technicians and U.S. Department
 of the Air Force, Montana Air National Guard, 19 FLRA No. 112 (1985).
 In that case, adopting the decision of the United States Court of
 Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Department of the
 Treasury, U.S. Customs Service v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 762
 F.2d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the Authority held that a proposal which
 assigned points for crediting plan purposes solely on the basis of
 seniority was inconsistent with 5 CFR 300.103(a) because it was not
 derived from a job analysis which linked seniority to success in the
 particular position(s) in question.  /1/ Proposal 1 in this case
 similarly is not based on a job analysis which demonstrates a connection
 between performance in a current position and job-related training and
 success in the position(s) for which candidates are applying.  /2/
    Thus, for the reasons set forth in the Montana Air National Guard
 decision, we find that Union Proposal 1 is inconsistent with 5 CFR
 300.103(a) and outside the duty to bargain under section 7117(a)(1) of
 the Statute.  /3/
                          III.  Union Proposal 2