26:0059(7)NG - NAGE Local R14-62 and Army Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, UT -- 1987 FLRAdec NG



[ v26 p59 ]
26:0059(7)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 26 FLRA No. 7
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 
 LOCAL R14-62
 Union
 
 and
 
 U.S. ARMY DUGWAY PROVING 
 GROUND, DUGWAY, UTAH
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-727 
                                                     0-NG-912 
                                            18 FLRA No. 38
 
                 CONSOLIDATED DECISION AND ORDER ON REMAND
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    The Authority's previous decision in these cases held that two
 identical proposals conflicted with an agency regulation for which a
 compelling need existed.  18 FLRA No. 38 (1985).  While that decision
 was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we
 reconsidered and overruled the previous decision in Lexington-Blue Grass
 Army Depot, Lexington, Kentucky and American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 894, 24 FLRA No. 6 (1986).  We therefore
 requested and the Court granted remand of the decision.  The proposals
 involved, which were presented in response to the Agency's announcement
 of its intention to partially close its facilities during the Christmas
 -- New Year holiday period, stated as follows:
 
          Affected employees (shall) be placed on administrative leave
       without charge to annual leave for the period of partial closure.
 
    For the reasons which follow we find that the proposals are
 negotiable.  Accordingly, we reverse the Authority's previous decision.
 
                  II.  Analysis and Conclusion on Remand
 
          A.  Relationship of Monetary Savings to Compelling Need
 
    As we stated in Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot, 24 FLRA No. 6, a
 demonstration of monetary savings alone is not sufficient to establish
 that a regulation is essential, as distinguished from helpful or
 desirable, to the accomplishment of the mission or the execution of the
 functions of an agency in a manner which is consistent with the
 requirements of an efficient and effective Government.
 
    We do not believe that effectiveness and efficiency are to be
 measured solely in monetary terms.  Financial considerations, of course,
 can be relevant to a determination on whether an agency regulation
 satisfies the compelling need criterion set forth in section 2424.11(a)
 of the Authority's regulations.  See National Treasury Employees Union,
 Chapter 207 and FDIC, Washington, D.C., 21 FLRA No. 36 (1986) (finding a
 compelling need under section 2424.11(a) for agency regulations
 establishing a uniform system for determining employee salaries).
 However, in determining whether an agency's regulation is essential, as
 distinguished f