23:0154(18)NG - FEMT Council and Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, CA -- 1986 FLRAdec NG



[ v23 p154 ]
23:0154(18)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 23 FLRA No. 18
 
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL 
 TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
 MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD 
 VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-1184
 
                 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 715(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute negotiability of a single Union proposal.
 
                            II.  Union Proposal
 
                         Motorcycle Rider Training
 
       (The Union) is opposed to any requirement for motorcycle rider
       training.
 
                    III.  Positions of the Parties /*/
 
    The Agency contends that the proposal concerns a matter which is not
 a condition of employment within the meaning of section 7103(a)(12) of
 the Statute.  Rather, the Agency asserts that the motorcycle safety
 program is an exercise of the installation commander's general police
 powers pursuant to the mandates of Highway Safety Program Standards --
 Applicability to Federally Administered Areas, 23 CFR Section 1230.  The
 Agency also contends that its motorcycle safety training program is an
 exercise of its right to determine internal security practices, and
 since the proposal opposes any training, it thereby interferes with
 management's right pursuant to section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute to
 determine its internal security practices.
 
    In its petition for review, the Union argues that the Agency has
 erroneously decided that the above mentioned Highway Safety Program
 Standards as delineated in a Department of Navy Instruction, OPNAVINST
 5100.12B, apply to commuters when in actuality they only apply to those
 employees who use motorcycles while performing work for the Agency.  The
 Union also argues that there is no compelling need for the proposed
 training program and that it does not implement a mandatory,
 Government-wide regulation.
 
                       IV.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    The threshold issue in this case is whether the Union's proposal
 concerns a condition of employment as described under section
 7103(a)(14) of the Statute.  As noted by the Union and in the absence of
 any alternative explanation by the Agency, completion of the proposed
 motorcycle safety course is a prerequisite to the Agency's issuance of a
 motor cycle parking decal without which an employee would be denied
 access to the installation.  Further, the proposal in this case relates
 to safety training which may or may not be given during working hours.
 Consequently, the Authority finds that this proposal concerns a
 condition of employment because a nexus exists between the penalty
 imposed for failure to complete the training, i.e. the employee cannot
 park or drive on the installation without a decal, and the employee's
 job.  See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
 2302 and U.S. Army Armor Center, and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, Kentucky, 19
 FLRA No. 95 (1985) (Proposal 1);  National Federation of Federal
 Employees, Local 1363 and U.S. Army Garrison, Yongsan, Korea, 15 FLRA
 134 (1984);  National Treasury Employees Union and NTEU Chapter 70 and
 Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Atlanta Service
 Center, Georgia, 8 FLRA 37, 40 (1982) (Proposal 5).  Therefore, contrary
 to the Agency's contention, the Union's proposal does concern a matter
 which is a condition of employment within the meaning of the Statute.
 
    The Agency's remaining contention is that the Union's proposal
 interferes with the Agency's right to determine its internal security
 practices.  The explicit language of the proposal opposes any
 requirement for motorcycle rider training.  The Authority has held that
 an agency's right to determine internal security practices includes the
 right to determine policies and actions which are part of its plan to
 secure or safeguard its personnel and physical property.  See Defense
 Logistics Council of American Federation of Government Employees Locals
 and Defense Logistics Agency, 20 FLRA No. 19 (1985), petition for review
 filed sub nom. Defense Logistics Council of American Federation of
 Government Employees Locals v. FLRA, No. 85-1743 (D.C. Cir. No. 13,
 1985).  In agreement with the Agency, the Authority concludes that the
 proposal at issue in the present case would conflict with a preventive
 safety measure taken by the Agency to guard against harm to its property
 and personnel and, hence, would directly interfere with the Agency's
 right to determine its internal security practices.  The proposal would,
 by precluding the implementation of any motorcycle rider training
 program, impose a substantive limitation on management's exercise of its
 right to determine its internal security practices, in particular the
 decision as to whether and the circumstances under which a motorcycle
 decal granting the privilege of driving on its premises will be issued.
 The proposal would therefore directly interfere with the Agency's right
 under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute to determine its internal
 security practices, and is thus outside the duty to bargain.
 
                                 V.  Order
 
    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., August 14, 1986.
                                       /s/ JERRY L. CALHOUN