23:0056(7)NG - AFSCME Local 2027 and ACTION -- 1986 FLRAdec NG



[ v23 p56 ]
23:0056(7)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 23 FLRA No. 7
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION 
 OF STATE, COUNTY AND 
 MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, 
 LOCAL 2027
 Union
 
 and
 
 ACTION
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-1243
 
                 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
 
    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 concerns the
 negotiability of a single Union proposal.  /1/
 
    II.  Union Proposal
 
    Details for less than thirty-one (31) calendar days will normally be
 rotated among employees.  Such details shall be documented with a
 memorandum to the detailed employee's OPF.
 
    III.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that because the Union's proposal would require
 the Agency, under normal circumstances, to rotate details of less than
 31 days, it would subject management's discretion concerning such
 details to review by the Union and third parties.  The Agency argues
 that the proposal therefore would directly interfere with its right to
 assign employees under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute and its
 rights under section 7106(a)(2)(B) to assign work and to determine the
 personnel by which Agency operations will be conducted.
 
    The Union maintains that its proposal does not interfere with
 management's rights and that the proposal is fully negotiable.  In
 support of its position, the Union contends that the proposal does not
 mandate that details of less than 31 days must always be rotated and
 that the requirement of the proposal that details "normally" will be
 rotated acknowledges that deviations may be necessary for a variety of
 reasons.  The Union further contends that the proposal does not limit
 management's discretion to establish the qualifications needed to
 perform work on details or limit management's judgment in determining
 whether a particular employee meets those qualifications.
 
    IV.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    The Union's proposal expressly provides that details for less than 31
 calendar days normally will be rotated among employees.  Under this
 proposal, as interpreted by the Union, employees would, in normal
 situations, be selected for details of the prescribed duration by
 rotation.  Management would fully retain the discretion to determine the
 qualifications necessary to perform any detail work and the
 qualifications of any employees to be detailed.  Management would also
 retain the discretion to determine not to rotate details in other than
 normal circumstances.  The Authority finds that the Union's
 interpretation of the proposal is consistent with the plain language of
 the proposal.
 
    The Authority has held that when two or more employees have been
 determined by management to be equally qualified and capable of
 performing work, the selection of any one of those employees to perform
 the work is consistent with management's exercise of its discretion
 under section 7106(a) of the Statute.  In such circumstances, a proposed
 procedure by which employees previously judged by management to be
 equally qualified will be selected to perform the work does not directly
 interfere with section 7106(a)(2)(A) or (B) of the Statute but, rather,
 is a negotiable procedure under section 7106(b)(2).  Laborers
 International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 1276 and Veterans
 Administration, National Cemetery Office, San Francisco, California, 9
 FLRA 703, 706-07 (1982).
 
    In this case, the Authority finds that the disputed proposal, as
 interpreted by the Union, constitutes a negotiable procedure for the
 selection of employees to perform work on details, that is, selection by
 rotation among employees management has determined to be qualified to
 perform the work involved.  The Authority therefore concludes, contrary
 to the Agency's position, that the proposal is consistent with
 management's rights under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute
 and is within the Agency's duty to bargain.  /2/
 
    V.  Order
 
    Accordingly, p