29:1218(90)NG - AFGE, LOCAL 2024 VS NAVY, NAVAL SHIPYARD, PORTSMOU
[ v29 p1218 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
29 FLRA NO. 90 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2024 Union and DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE Agency Case No. 0-NG-1362
I. Statement of the Case
The petition for review in this case is before the Authority because of a negotiability appeal filed under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and concerns the negotiability of one proposal. 1 We find this proposal to be within the duty to bargain.
II. Proposal 1
Article 9 - Committee Assignments
Section 1. It is agreed that the Union may appoint one representative to the following boards and committees:
Incentive Awards Performance Rating Board
Equal Employment Opportunity Committee
Light Conservation Committee
The Union observer on the rating panel is not intended to participate in any management deliberations. The observer's role during the proceedings is for contract enforcement purposes.
A. Positions of the Parties
The Agency claims that to the extent that the proposal pertains to the Incentive Awards Performance Rating Board, it violates management's right to direct employees and assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute. The Agency argues that the Incentive Award Committee is used among other things, to review certain recommended performance based incentive awards and make recommendations to the Commanding Officer concerning their adoption. Thus, this committee is an internal deliberative mechanism used by the agency to exercise its management's right. The Agency does not contest the negotiability of the other portions of the proposal.
The Union contends that this proposal does not infringe upon management's right, and that, even if it did, it would be an appropriate arrangement under the criteria established in National Association of Government Employees, Local R14-87 and Kansas Army National Guard, 21 FLRA No. 4 (1986).
B. Analysis and Conclusion
We find this proposal to be within the duty to bargain.
In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 1815 and Army Aviation Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama, 28 FLRA No. 152 (1987), we held that Provision 9 which required the Agency to select one employee to serve as the union representative on the incentive awards committee to be within the duty to bargain. We rejected the agency's contention that union membership on the incentive awards committee interfered with its rights under section 7106(a) of the Statute. Slip op. at 10.
The proposal in this case is substantially the same as Provision 9 in Army Aviation Center, Fort Rucker. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in that decision, we find Proposal 1 to be within the duty to bargain. See also National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 797 and Department of the Navy, 29 FLRA No. 36 (Provision 2). In view of our conclusion that this proposal does not violate management's rights, we find it is unnecessary to address the Union's argument concerning "appropriate arrangements."
The Agency shall upon request, or as otherwise agreed by the parties bargain on Proposal 1. 2
Issued, Washington, D.C.,October 28, 1987.
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTH