30:0029(7)NG - AFGE Local 1760 and HHS, SSA -- 1987 FLRAdec NG



[ v30 p29 ]
30:0029(7)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:



30 FLRA NO. 7
30 FLRA 29

12 NOV 1987


AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1760

                   Union

      and


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                   Agency

Case No. O-NG-1181
(28 FLRA NO. 26)

DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

     This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Agency's
request for reconsideration of the Authority's Decision and Order
on Negotiability Issues in 28 FLRA  No. 26, dated July 23, 1987.
In that decision, we determined that Provisions 1 through 6 were
within the duty to bargain and that Provision 7 was outside the
duty to bargain. The Agency also requests that we order a stay of
our decision in 28 FLRA  No. 26 pending our review of the
Agency's request for reconsideration. The Union opposed the
Agency's requests. For the reasons discussed below, we grant in
part the Agency's request for reconsideration and deny it in
part.

     In its request for reconsideration, the Agency first
contends that the Authority's decision in this case is based on a
nonfact and constitutes an erroneous interpretation of the record
evidence. In support of this contention, the Agency argues that
the Union's appeal resulted from the Agency's allegations of
nonnegotiability rather than, as stated in the decision, an
Agency head disapproval of a locally negotiated agreement.

     The Agency is correct in noting that the nature of this case
before the Authority was incorrectly set forth in our
decision. Accordingly, under section 2429.17 of our Regulations,
we grant this aspect of the Agency's request for reconsideration
and modify our Decision and Order as follows: (1) the Statement
of the Case is revised to 'show that the Union appealed to the
Authority from an Agency allegation of nonnegotiability rather
than from an Agency head disapproval of a locally negotiated
agreement; (2) "Provisions" 1 through 6 in the decision are
redesignated as "Proposals" 1 through 6; and (3) the Union's
petition for review as to the second sentence of Proposal 4 and
Proposal 5 is dismissed because the Agency has not alleged that
these proposals are inconsistent with law, rule or regulation and
thus there is no negotiability dispute concerning these proposals
as to which we can accept jurisdiction. Should the Agency
subsequently allege that the proposals are inconsistent with law,
rule or regulation, the Union is not foreclosed by our decision
from petitioning the Authority for review of the Agency's
allegations. See American Federation of Government Employees,
Local 12, AFL - CIO and Department of Labor, 26 FLRA  768
(1987).

     As its second contention, the Agency argues that the
Authority's decision is based on record evidence whi