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



[ v21 p978 ]
21:0978(115)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 21 FLRA No. 115
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R7-23
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 
 HEADQUARTERS 375th AIR BASE GROUP (MAC),
 SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-837
 
                DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
 
                         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
       award.
 
          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
       dispute.)
 
                       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
 
          That gross negligence continue to be the standard instead of
       just negligence.
 
                       A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that the proposal violates its rights to
 determine its internal security practices under section 7106(a)(1) and
 to determine the methods and means of performing work under section
 7106(b)(1) of the Statute.  The Union maintains that the proposal
 establishes the standard of negligence to be used in the Agency's
 regulation to assess pecuniary liability of employees.  The Union
 therefore contends that the proposal is procedural in nature and
 negotiable because it does not prevent the Agency from acting at all.
 
                        B.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    Union Proposal 2 would establish the standard to be used in
 determining whether an employee will be held "pecuniarily liable" for
 the loss, damage, or destruction of Air Force property.  The proposal,
 therefore, has the same effect as Union Proposal 1 in American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 214 and Department
 of the Air Force, Headquarters Air Force Logistics Command,
 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 21 FLRA No. 34 (1986).  In that
 case, relying on our decision in National Federation of Federal
 Employees, Local 29 and Department of the Army, Kansas City District,
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, 21 FLRA No. 32
 (1986), the Authority held that a proposal which established a standard
 of "gross negligence" directly interfered with management's right to
 determine its internal security practices under section 7106(a)(1).  For
 the reasons stated in Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and Kansas City
 District, we find that the proposal in this case likewise directly
 interferes with management's right to determine its internal security
 practices and is not within the duty to bargain under section 7106(a)(1)
 of the Statute.  /4/
 
                                IV.  Order
 
    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., May 23, 1986.
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (1) 5 CFR 300.103 reads in pertinent part:
 
                    Section 300.103 Basic requirements
 
          (a) Job analysis.  Each employment practice of the Federal
       Government generally, and of individual agencies, shall be based
       on a job analysis to identify:
 
          (1) The basic duties and responsibilities;
 
          (2) The knowledges, skills, and abilities required to perform
       the duties and responsibilities;  and
 
          (3) The factors that are important in evaluating candidates.
       The job analysis may cover a single position or group of
       positions, or an occupation or group of occupations, having common
       characteristics.
 
    The Authority has determined that Office of Personnel Management
 requirements codified at title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
 Government-wide regulations within the meaning of section 7117(a) of the
 Statute.  Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, AFL-CIO and
 Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 4 FLRA
 232, 233 (1980).
 
    (2) The Court stated in the Customs Service decision, 762 F.2d 1119,
 1122-23, as follows:
 
          Exclusion of non-job related education and experience is not
       the same as a job analysis before the measurement scheme is
       adopted, and cannot reasonably be said to assure the same results.
        The latter is apparent from the fact that, even as so limited,
       the proposal establishes the number of points to be awarded for
       each level of the various factors without any reference to the
       demands of specific occupations.  It r