30:0472(59)NG - NFFE Local 15 and Army Armament Munitions and Chemical Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, IL -- 1987 FLRAdec NG



[ v30 p472 ]
30:0472(59)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 30 FLRA NO. 59
 30 FLRA 472

 14 DEC 1987

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 15

                    Union

         and

U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT
MUNITIONS AND CHEMICAL COMMAND
ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL
ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS

                   Agency

Case No. O-NG-1436

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

     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). It raises
issues concerning the negotiability of a single proposal which
involves safety clothing and equipment requirements for
motorcycle and moped operators on the Rock Island Arsenal (the
Arsenal). For the reasons which follow, we hold that the proposal
is outside the duty to bargain because it directly interferes
with the Agency's right to determine its internal security
practices under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute.

     II. Background

     The Agency sought to implement a Department of Army
regulation which contained various requirements which must be met
by employees who wish to operate motorcycles or mopeds on the
Arsenal. This Army regulation requires, among other things not
relevant to this dispute, that all riders of motorcycles on the
installation wear: 1) safety helmets which meet Department of
Transportation standards, 2) eye protection, 3) long trousers,
and 4) high-visibility garments. 

     The Arsenal is located in Illinois on an island in the
Mississippi river, which separates Illinois from Iowa. The
Arsenal draws employees from both Illinois and Iowa. At present,
neither Illinois nor Iowa requires motorcycle riders to wear such
safety items as helmets or high-visibility garments. Eye
protection, however, is required. See Agency Allegation of
Nonnegotiability at note 1 attached as enclosure 1 to the
Petition for Review; Statement of Position at 11.

     III. Proposal

     During impact and implementation bargaining on the
implementation of the Army regulation, the Union submitted the
following proposal:

     Clothing and equipment requirements shall conform to
applicable state statutes for motorcycle and moped operators.

     IV. Positions of the Parties

     The Agency contends that the Authority should dismiss the
Union's petition since it contains neither an explicit statement
of the meaning attributed to the proposal nor a copy of relevant
documentary material as required by section 2424.4(a)(2) and (3)
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Further, the Agency
contends that if the Authority finds that there is sufficient
detail to render a negotiability determination, the proposal is
nonnegotiable because it: (1) does not pertain to conditions of
employment of bargaining unit employees; (2) directly determines
the conditions of employment of nonbargaining unit employees; and
(3) interferes with the Agency's right under section 7106(a)(1)
of the Statute to determine internal security practices.

     In its petition for review the Union explained that the
proposal is intended to preclude the Agency from imposing safety
requirements for motorcycle or moped riders on the Arsenal which
are more stringent than currently applicable state highway
regulations governing the operation of a motorcycle or moped. The
Union did not file a Reply Brief.

     V. Analysis and Conclusion

     A. The Petition for Review is not Deficient

     Contrary to the Agency's claims, the Union did provide a
statement of the meaning of its proposal, as required by section
2424.4(a)(2) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

     Further, contrary to the Agency's other procedural argument,
we find that the record is sufficient for us to make a
negotiability determination. Even though the Union did not
include a summary or a copy of either the Illinois or Iowa
statutes relating to motorcycle operations, the Agency indicated
in its allegation of nonnegotiability and again in its statement
of position tha