30:0373(46)NG - NFFE Local 1442 and Army, Letterkenny Army Depot -- 1987 FLRAdec NG



[ v30 p373 ]
30:0373(46)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


30 FLRA NO. 46
30 FLRA 373

 30 NOV 1987

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 1442

                    Union

      and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT

                    Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1418

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). The issues
presented concern the negotiability of two proposals regarding
the prerequisites for operating certain types of vehicles on the
installation. For the following reasons, we find that Proposal 1
is not negotiable because it violates management's right to
assign work; and Proposal 2 is not negotiable because it violates
management's right to determine its internal security
practices.

     II. Background

     To implement highway safety program standards prescribed by
higher level management, the Agency promulgated various
requirements which must be met by employees who wish to operate
their motorcycles, mopeds or motorbikes on the installation.
According to the uncontroverted statement of the Agency, the
requirements were adopted by the Agency as a method of preventing
accidents and to safeguard its personnel and property. Statement
of Position at 1.

     One of the requirements--addressed by both proposals--is
that all operators of the vehicles mentioned above must
successfully complete 8 hours of motorcycle training. The
training is given by Pennsylvania Motorcycle Safety Program
personnel during duty hours, at Government expense. Any
operators who do not pass this training must retake equivalent
training at their own expense and on their own time.

     III. Proposal 1

     If it is a requirement by Safety that the 8-hour course be
taken, then it will be given by the Safety Office to employees on
official time.

     A. Positions of the Parties 1

     The Agency contends that the proposal prescribes the
assignment of certain duties to a particular office and thereby
interferes with management's right to assign work under section
7106(a)(2)(B).

     The Union states that the proposal is negotiable because it
concerns a condition of employment and does not dictate the type
or length of training to be provided.

     B. Analysis and Conclusions

     The Agency claims that the proposal assigns the task of
conducting the "8-hour course" to the Safety Office. This
interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the
proposal and is not contradicted by the Union, which did not file
a response. Accordingly, for the purpose of this decision, we
adopt the Agency's interpretation that the proposal precludes
management from assigning those training duties elsewhere in the
Agency or to contract personnel.

     In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO,
Local 1858 and U.S. Army Missile Command, the U.S. Army Test,
Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment Support Group, the U.S.
Army Information Systems Command - Restone Arsenal Commissary, 27
FLRA  69, 80 (1987) the Authority reiterated the consistent
holding that:

     management's right to assign work under section
7106(a)(2)(B) encompasses the right to assign specific duties to
particular individuals, including management officials, and that
provisions which interfere with this right are nonnegotiable.


     Therefore, we conclude that Proposal 1 is nonnegotiable
because it prescribes that the Safety Office will conduct the
training.

     Furthermore, although the defect of prescribing that the
Safety Office must give the training is easily cured, this
proposal would be outside the duty to bargain even if the defect
were eliminated. Compare Redstone Arsenal Commissary, 27 FLRA  69
at 81-2. It is well established under Authority precedent that
proposals requiring management to provide specific types of
training during duty hours, are outside the duty to bargain. See,
for example, National Association of Air Traffic Specialists
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 6 FLRA  588
(1981) (Union Proposals I through III), in which the Authority
held that proposals which prescribed the type of training to be
assigned during duty hours interfered with the agency's right to
assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B). Insofar as Proposal 1
requires the Agency to provide motorcycle training during duty
hours it, likewise, directly interferes with section 7106
(a)(2)(B) and is nonnegotiable.

     IV. Proposal 2

     Local 1442 proposes that only State of Pennsylvania Motor
Vehicle Code be required at Letterkenny Army Depot. PA State Code
has provisions for mopeds and pedalcycles, at present the only
requirements for mopeds/pedalcycles is that they be licensed,
insured and the use of eye protection. There is no requirement
for the operator to be licensed to operate a moped/ pedalcycle
nor a requirement for the operator to have motorcycle safety
course.

     A. Positions of the Parties

     The Agency asserts that the Union's petition should be
dismissed because it is insufficiently specific to enable the
Authority to provide the parties with a negotiability ruling.
Alternatively, the Agency argues that the proposal is outside the
duty to bargain because it: (1) does not involve a condition of
employment of bargaining unit employees, within the meaning of
section 7103 (a)(14) of the Statute; (2) determines the
conditions of employment of nonbargaining unit employees; and (3)
interferes with management's right under section 7106(a)(1) of
the Statute to determine its internal security practices. The
Union claims the proposal is negotiable because "it is only
logical" for the requirements concerning motorcycle operation and
the use  of protective equipment to be the same on and
off the installation. Petition for Review at second unnumbered
page.

     B. Analysis and Conclusions

     1. The meaning of the Proposal

     The proposal limits the Agency's discretion to prescribe the
conditions under which certain vehicles will be allowed to
operate on its installation. In the petition for review the Union
explains that the proposal is intended to limit the Agency's
imposition of such requirements to those which conform to the
regulations currently governing operation of a motorcycle in the
State of Pennsylvania.

     2. The proposal is sufficiently specific

     Based on the language of the proposal and its intended
meaning, as explained above, we find that the proposal is
sufficiently specific to enable us to provide the parties with a
negotiability ruling.

     3. The Proposal Concerns Conditions of Employment

     The proposal concerns the prerequisites for operating
certain vehicles on the installation. Among other matters, it is
concerned with whether safety training will be required. The
proposal is substantively similar to a proposal opposing any
requirement for motorcycle training which the Authority found
concerned a condition of employment in Federal Employees Metal
Trades Council, AFL - CIO and Department of the Navy, Mare Island
Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 23 FLRA  154, 155 (1986). In
that case, the Authority found that the proposal concerned a
condition of employment because a nexus existed between the
penalty imposed for failure to complete the training--inability
to drive on the installation--and the employees' jobs. The same
nexus exists in regard to training and other requirements in this
case and we, therefore, find that this proposal likewise concerns
conditions of employment.

     4. The Proposal Interferes With the Agency's Determination
of Its Internal Security Practices

     The Authority consistently has held that an agency's right
to determine its internal security practices includes the right
to determine policies and take actions which are part of its plan
to secure or safeguard its personnel and physical property. See,
for example, Defense Logistics Council of American Federation of
Government Employees Locals and Defense Logistics
Agency, 20 FLRA  166 (1985), reversed in part as to other matters
sub nom. Defense Logistics Council of American Federation of
Government Employees Locals v. FLRA,  810 F.2d 234 (D.C. Cir.
1987).

     Proposal 2 limits the Agency's ability to determine the
conditions under which certain vehicles will be permitted to
operate on the installation. It would, as explained by the Union,
preclude the Agency from adopting any requirement which is not in
conformance with the requirements for operating a motorcycle in
the State of Pennsylvania.

     It appears from the record that the Agency has adopted
various safety requirements which are not required by the State
of Pennsylvania. It is uncontroverted that the requirements were
adopted as part of the Agency's plan to prevent accidents and
thereby to safeguard its personnel and property. Therefore, by
precluding the Agency from adopting safety requirements other
than those which are adopted by the State of Pennsylvania, the
proposal directly interferes with the Agency's right to determine
its internal security practices and is nonnegotiable. In view of
this disposition it is unnecessary to address the Agency's
contention that the proposal is outside its duty to bargain
because it would determine conditions of employment for
nonbargaining unit employees.

     V. Order

     The Union's petition is dismissed.

     Issued, Washington, D.C., November 30,  1987.

     Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

     Jean McKee, Member

     FEDE