30:0275(32)NG - FEMTC and Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, CA -- 1987 FLRAdec NG



[ v30 p275 ]
30:0275(32)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 30 FLRA NO. 32
 30 FLRA 275

 30 NOV 1987


FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES
COUNCIL, AFL-CIO

                  Union

      and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MARE
ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD, VALLEJO,
CALIFORNIA

                  Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1429

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES

     I. Statement of the Case

     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 four proposals. 1 We find that the proposals
are nonnegotiable.

     II. Background

     The dispute in this case arose when the Agency implemented
revised traffic control regulations governing the vehicles of
military personnel, employees, contractors, dependents, vendors,
and visitors using the Shipyard. These regulations, which apply
to all motorcycle operators on the facility, including bargaining
unit employees, require the mandatory use of certain specified
personal protective equipment. The required equipment
includes a helmet and attached face shield, long-sleeved shirts
and long pants, gloves and appropriate footwear.

     III. Union Proposals

     Proposal 2. . . . (A)s it is customary for the employer to
provide all special safety equipment required by the employer,
the Council proposes that the employer provide face shields
suitable for the helmet selected by the employee.

     Proposal 3. . . . (T)he Council proposes that the employer
provide suitable jackets, preferably leather but, we will accept
parachute nylon.

     Proposal 5. Employer to provide suitable leather gloves.

     Proposal 6. If the safety shoes currently provided by the
employer meet the criteria, the Council proposes that safety
shoes be provided to all employees.

     (Only the underscored portions are in dispute.)

     A. Positions of the Parties

     The Agency contends that these proposals are non-negotiable
because they: (1) do not concern conditions of employment of unit
employees; and (2) conflict with the U.S. Constitution and Agency
regulations which have the "force and effect" of law. The Agency
states that unit employees are not required to use motorcycles in
performing their jobs.

     The Union claims that its proposals are not intended to
require negotiation on the content of the Agency's revised
traffic regulations. According to the Union, the proposals are
only concerned with the cost of providing the required personal
protective equipment to bargaining unit employees who operate
motorcycles. The Union also claims that the employer customarily
provides required safety equipment. The Union does not dispute
the Agency's claim that this equipment is