24:0178(24)NG - IFPTE Local 12 and Navy, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard -- 1986 FLRAdec NG



[ v24 p178 ]
24:0178(24)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 24 FLRA No. 24
 
 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL 
 AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, LOCAL 12
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
 PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-1003
 
                 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)(D) and (E) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and concerns the
 negotiability of a Union proposal to rescind changes in the Agency's
 regulations regarding administration of travel advances.  We find that
 the proposal is negotiable.
 
    II.  Union Proposal
 
    The Union in essence proposes that there be no changes in the
 Agency's practice regarding the payment of travel and per diem advances
 which existed prior to the issuance of proposed Shipyard Notice,
 NAVSHIPYDPUGETNOTE 4650.
 
    III.  Positions of the Parties
 
    Preliminarily, the Agency contends that the Union's petition for
 review is deficient and should be dismissed.  Substantively, the Agency
 contends that the Union has clearly and unmistakably waived its right to
 bargain over the matter at issue.  It also contends that the Union's
 proposal conflicts with an Agency regulation for which there is a
 compelling need.  The Union essentially argues that the Agency's
 contentions are all without merit.
 
    IV.  Analysis
 
    A.  Preliminary Contention
 
    The Agency contends that the Union's petition is deficient and should
 be dismissed because it does not set forth the matter proposed to be
 negotiated in sufficiently specific and delimited form as to be subject
 to a negotiability decision by the Authority.  However, it is clear from
 the record and the parties' submissions including the Agency's
 substantive contentions that the parties understood that the Union wants
 no change in existing practice regarding the administration of travel
 advances.  For example, the Union's petition includes a reference to
 correspondence between the parties indicating that the "Union's
 proposals will be no change in existing practice." See Union's Petition
 for Review, Enclosure 6.  Therefore, the Union's proposal is
 sufficiently specific and delimited so that the Authority can measure
 what is proposed for negotiation against specific statutory or
 regulatory provisions alleged to bar negotiations.  See National
 Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1363 and Headquarters, U.S. Army
 Garrison, Yongsan, Korea, 4 FLRA 68 (1980), remanded as to other matters
 sub nom. Department of Defense, Department of the Army v. FLRA, 685 F.2d
 641 (D.C. Cir. 198