FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

25:0622(50)NG - AFGE, National Council of SSA Field Operations Locals and SSA -- 1987 FLRAdec NG



[ v25 p622 ]
25:0622(50)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 25 FLRA No. 50
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO 
 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SSA FIELD 
 OPERATIONS LOCALS
 Union
 
 and
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-1304
 
                DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This petition for review comes before the Authority pursuant to
 section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute).  It raises issues concerning the negotiability of
 three Union proposals.  For the reasons discussed below, we find
 Proposals 1 and 3 to be outside the duty to bargain and Proposal 2 to be
 within the duty to bargain.
 
                              II.  Proposal 1
 
          The assignment of volunteers and stay-in-schools to SSA
       programs will be for the purpose of supplementing and not
       replacing SSA employees.  This will be accomplished consistent
       with applicable laws and Government-wide rules and regulations.
 
    A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that the proposal:  (1) is inconsistent with
 management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the
 Statute;  (2) does not concern unit employees insofar as it relates to
 volunteers and "stay-in-schools" /1/ who are not in the bargaining unit;
  and (3) improperly limits the Agency's right to lay off and/or make
 selections for appointment from any appropriate source.
 
    The Union contends that the intent of the proposal is not to deny
 management the right to hire "stay-in-schools" or to accept volunteer
 services but rather to provide a statement of purpose which is
 consistent with the Agency's own policy that the volunteer service will
 not be used to displace any employee or to staff a vacancy which is a
 normal part of SSA's work force.
 
    B.  Analysis
 
    As understood by the Agency and as the plain language states, the
 proposal provides that work assignments to volunteer and
 "stay-in-school" appointees can only be made for the purpose of
 supplementing SSA employees and may not be made in any way that results
 in replacing SSA employees.  Regarding the Agency's assertion that the
 proposal does not concern unit employees, we find that the assignment of
 bargaining unit work to volunteer and "stay-in-school" appointees who
 are not included in the bargaining unit relates to the working
 conditions of unit employees.  Volunteer and "stay-in-school" appointees
 work side-by-side with unit employees and are jointly engaged in the
 furtherance of a common agency objective.  They perform duties which
 "make the office operation more efficient and the regular employees'
 jobs less hectic." Union Petition at 1.  Proposal 1 therefore affects
 the working conditions of unit employees.  American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3748 and U.S. Department of
 Agriculture, Agricultural Reserach Service, Northern States Area, 23
 FLRA No. 20 (1986) (Proposals 1 and 2), petition for review filed sub
 nom.  Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service v. FLRA,
 No. 86-1533 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 1, 1986).  See also Antilles Consolidated
 Education Association and Antilles Consolidated School System, 22 FLRA
 No. 23 (1986).
 
    As noted above, the proposal states that work assignments to
 volunteer and "stay-in-school" appointees will not be made for the
 purpose of replacing SSA employees.  That language is mandatory.  The
 proposal is therefore in the nature of a work preservation requirement.
 That is, management could make no work assignments to volunteer and
 "stay-in-school" appointees which might result in the loss of work for
 unit employees.  By limiting the Agency's ability to make assignments to
 volunteer and "stay-in-school" appointees the proposal directly
 interferes with management's right to assign work.  We have previously
 held that a proposal prohibiting the assignment of work or duties to
 nonunit employees violates the Agency's right to assign work under
 section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.  American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals and
 Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Quality Service, Washington,
 D.C., 9 FLRA 663, 664 (1982) (Proposal 1).  See also Southwestern Power
 Administration and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
 Local 1002, 22 FLRA No. 48 (1986) (arbitrator's award prohibiting agency
 from assigning bargaining unit work to nonbargaining unit personnel
 deficient as contrary to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute).
 
    Moreover, even if, as the Union contends, the proposal simply
 requires adherence to an existing Agency policy, that policy is itself
 an exercise of management's right to assign work and any attempt to
 incorporate that policy in a negotiated agreement would constitute an
 independent limitation on that right.  See National Association of Air
 Traffic Specialists and Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
 Administration, 6 FLRA 588, 591 (1981).
 
    C.  Conclusion
 
    Proposal 1 is nonnegotiable because it conflicts with management's
 right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.  We do
 not reach the Agency's other contentions as to the nonnegotiability of
 the proposal.
 
                             III.  Proposal 2
 
          Union personnel will have access to SSA facilities in carrying
       out their labor relations responsibilities.
 
    A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that this proposal concerns access to facilities
 and services for individuals employed by the Union who are not
 bargaining unit employees and as a result, does not pertain to
 negotiable conditions of employment.
 
    The Union states that Union personnel are not limited to bargaining
 unit employees who hold Union positions.  It contends that the proposal
 establishes conditions under which the Union can accomplish its
 labor-management work.  The Union also argues that its proposal neither
 mandates nor precludes any controls by SSA in such areas as security,
 hours of work, or the like.
 
    B.  Analysis
 
    Representation of employees in matters concerning their employment
 clearly affects the working conditions of those employees.  National
 Treasury Employees Union and Department of Treasury, U.S. Customs
 Service, 21 FLRA No. 2, slip op. at 2-3 (1986), petition for review
 filed sub nom.  Department of Treasury, U.S. Customs Service v. FLRA,
 No. 86-1198 (D.C. Cir. March 27, 1986);  American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO and Air Force Logistics Command,
 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 2 FLRA 604 (1980) (Union Proposal
 II), enf'd as to other matters sub nom.  Department of Defense v. FLRA,
 659 F.2d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom.  AFGE v. FLRA, 455
 U.S. 945 (1982).  In Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, the Authority held
 that a proposal which provides union access to agency facilities for the
 purpose of carrying out labor-management relations activities is
 directly related to the conditions of employment of unit employees and
 is within the scope of the duty to bargain under section 7117 of the
 Statute.  The Authority has also held that a request by a union for
 sufficient personnel to allow it to carry out its representational
 responsibilities under the Statute is inextricably tied to the
 conditions of employment of the employees it represents.  Antilles
 Consolidated Education Association and U.S. Navy Department, Puerto
 Rico, 21 FLRA No. 114 (1986).
 
    Contrary to the Agency's claim, Proposal 2 is not outside of the duty
 to bargain because it provides for access to agency facilities for
 individuals employed by the Union who are not SSA employees.  The
 Union's request for access to Agency facilities for designated
 representatives and personnel directly affects the Union's ability to
 carry out its representational responsibilities and therefore is
 inextricably tied to the conditions of employment of unit employees.
 
    C.  Conclusion
 
    Proposal 2 is within the Agency's duty to bargain.
 
                              IV.  Proposal 3
 
          Each employee, upon request, will be granted up to one day's
       administrative leave for bereavement purposes for an immediate
       relative or dependent.
 
    A.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that the proposal attempts to add to the pay and
 allowances of employees without specific authorization by law and
 conflicts with 5 U.S.C. Section 5536.
 
    The Union contends that the proposal would allow an employee, in the
 case of an immediate relative's or dependent's death, administrative
 leave for one day to attend the funeral or memorial service, make
 necessary arrangements, or console another member of the family.
 
    B.  Analysis
 
    Chapter 63 of title 5 of the United States Code governs the
 accumulation of both annual and sick leave and further authorizes
 agencies "to grant administrative leave excusing an employee from work
 when it is in the public interest." 5 U.S.C. Section 6326(c).  5 U.S.C.
 Section 6311 states that "(t)he Office of Personnel Management may
 prescribe regulations necessary for the administration of this
 subchapter." The coverage of the relevant OPM regulations is coextensive
 with that of chapter 63, covering most employees in the executive branch
 of Government.  The OPM regulations governing leave are, therefore,
 "Government-wide" within the meaning of section 7117(a)(1) of the
 Statute.  See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
 Local 3804 and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Madison Region, 21
 FLRA No. 104 (1986) (Proposal 15).
 
    In American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2094, AFL-CIO
 and Veterans Administration Medical Center, New York, New York, 22 FLRA
 No. 81 (1986) (Proposal 7), petition for review as to other matters
 filed sub nom.  American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
 Local 2094 v. FLRA, No. 86-1521 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 22, 1986), we held that
 a proposal providing for administrative leave for personal emergency or
 illness was inconsistent with Government-wide regulations, including FPM
 chapter 630, subchapter 3-4.a(2), governing the administration of leave.
  We found that annual and sick leave were intended to cover the
 circumstances described in the proposal in that case and that the
 governing regulations did not contemplate personal emergencies or
 illness as justifiable grounds for granting administrative leave in lieu
 of annual leave or sick leave.  Likewise, Proposal 3, in this case, is
 inconsistent with OPM regulations governing leave.  Those regulations do
 not contemplate personal bereavement as justifiable grounds for granting
 administrative leave in lieu of annual leave.  /2/ Specifically, FPM
 chapter 630, subchapter 3-4.a(2) provides that annual leave is intended
 for use in situations which include "a death in the employee's family."
 Thus, for the reasons stated more fully in Veterans Administration
 Medical Center, New York, New York, 22 FLRA No. 81, we find that
 Proposal 3 is nonnegotiable because it is inconsistent with
 Government-wide regulations within the meaning of section 7117(a)(1).
 See also Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Madison Region, 21 FLRA
 No. 104 (1986) (Proposal 15), in which we held that administrative leave
 is to be granted for only short periods of time and for limited
 purposes, not including personal business.
 
    C.  Conclusion
 
    Proposal 3 is outside the Agency's duty to bargain under section
 7117(a)(1) because it is inconsistent with an applicable Government-wide
 regulation.
 
                                 V.  Order
 
    The petition for review as to Proposals 1 and 3 is dismissed.  The
 Agency shall upon request, or as otherwise agreed to by the parties,
 bargain on Proposal 2.  /3/
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., February 10, 1987.
                                       Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (1) "Stay-in-schools," as explained by the Union, are high school
 and/or college students hired by the Social Security Administration to
 perform miscellaneous clerical duties.
 
    (2) We find that Proposal 3 is not restricted to situations where
 funeral leave might be granted in accordance with 5 C.F.R. Section
 630.804.  The Union rejected a management proposal reflecting funeral
 leave available under that section.  Agency Response to Petition for
 Review at 5.
 
    (3) In finding that Proposal 2 is negotiable, we express no opinion
 as to its merits.