27:0814(87)NG - AFGE Council 214 and Air Force, HQ Air Force Logistics Command, Wright- Patterson AFB, OH -- 1987 FLRAdec NG
[ v27 p814 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
27 FLRA No. 87 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL 214 Union and DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO Agency Case No. 0-NG-759 21 FLRA No. 34 DECISION ON REMAND I. Statement of the Case This case is before the Authority pursuant to a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The question involved is whether a proposal interferes with the management right under section 7106(a)(1) to determine internal security practices. II. The Proposal All AFLC employees may be held pecuniarily liable for the loss, damage, or destruction of Air Force property when it results from gross negligence, willful misconduct, or deliberate unauthorized use. If doubt exists, the individual is not held liable. (Only the underscored language is in dispute.) III. Background This proposal would establish the standard to be used in determining whether an employee will be held "pecuniarily liable" for the loss, damage, or destruction of Air Force property. In the previous decision in this case, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 214 and Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 21 FLRA No. 34 (1986), the Authority found that this proposal interfered with the Agency's right to determine its internal security practices. In doing so, the Authority relied upon its decision in National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29 and Department of the Army, Kansas City District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, 21 FLRA No. 23 (1986). In that case the Authority found that a proposal which would have limited the amount of pecuniary liability which the agency could impose on employees directly interfered with the right under section 7106(a)(1) to determine internal security practices. On appeal, the court remanded that case for resolution of an apparent inconsistency in the application to two different proposals in the case of the Authority's underlying finding that the Agency's internal security plan encompassed pecuniary liability -- a finding which the court characterized as reasonable. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29 v. FLRA, No. 86-1308 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 6, 1987).