30:0497(66)NG - AFGE Local 683 and Justice, Federal Correctional Institution, Sandstone, MN -- 1987 FLRAdec NG
[ v30 p497 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
30 FLRA NO. 66
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 683
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL
Case No. 0-NG-1437
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 theFederal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute). It concerns the negotiability of a proposal addressing the shift rotations of cook foremen at a Federal correctional facility. We find that the proposal directly interferes with management's right to determine its internal security practices because the duration of the shift rotations under the proposal limits the ability of cook foremen to supervise inmates closely and detect possible breaches of security. We also find that the proposal is not a negotiable appropriate arrangement within the meaning of section 7106(b)(3) of the Statute. Therefore, the proposal is outside the duty to bargain.
The employees involved in this case are cook foremen who are responsible for food preparation, meal presentation, and the supervision of inmates who work in the food service department of the Agency's correctional facility. On December 8, 1986, the Agency notified the Union of its intention to revise a local regulation concerning the rotation of cook foremen to and from morning, evening, and relief shifts. Before the regulation was revised, cook [PAGE] foremen rotated duty stations every 90 days from kitchen to dining hall. Within this quarterly rotation, cook foremen rotated morning, evening, and relief shifts on a regular basis. 1 After the regulation was revised, cook foremen continued to perform the same duties and continued to rotate duty stations on a quarterly basis, but worked a morning, evening, or relief shift for the entire quarter, instead of rotating those shifts within the quarter. The Union's proposal was in response to the change in the regulation eliminating the rotation of work shifts within the quarter.
The union proposes that the Cook Rotation Roster not be changed as proposed by the Institution in Supplement 4705.1C. The union proposes to retain the former work schedules and rotation.
A. Positions of the Parties
The Agency argues that the proposal is nonnegotiable because it would
interfere with management's rights to:
1) carry out its mission under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute because the monthly shift rotation would severely limit the ability of cook foremen to perform their duties effectively and efficiently;
2) determine its internal security practices under section 7106(a)(1) by limiting the length of work assignments and thereby making it difficult for cook foremen to become familiar with their assigned inmates and observe suspicious patterns of inmate behavior that would serve to reveal security breaches;
3) assign work under section 7l06(a)(2)(B) by preventing management from assigning cook foremen to a particular shift and limiting the duration of the work project; and
4) determine the method of performing its work under section 7106(b)(1) because the 90-day rotation of shifts is a method of carrying out its correctional, custodial-related functions in a more efficient and effective manner.
The Agency also contends that the proposal does not establish a negotiable appropriate arrangement.
The Union contends that the proposal is negotiable because (1) it does not cancel or establish a shift or prevent the Agency from implementing its security arrangements, but would only continue a preexisting practice of rotating cook foremen to the three shifts within the quarterly rotation from kitchen to dining hall duties; and (2) it does not involve the assignment of work, since all cook foremen have similar duties and responsibilities and will continue doing them on different shifts within the Agency's 90-day rotation. The Union also contends that the proposal establishes a negotiable procedure or appropriate arrangement within the meaning of section 7106(b)(2) or (3) of the Statute.
We find that the proposal is nonnegotiable because it directly interferes with management's right to determine its internal security practices under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute.
As indicated in the record, in addition to their responsibilities for
preparing and serving food, cook foremen are responsible for supervising inmates
in the food service facility. As part of that responsibility, cook foremen
attempt not only to facilitate the rehabilitation of inmates but also to monitor
their conduct for actual or potential breaches of institutional security. The
Agency states that the quarterly rotation of shifts established by management
provides a longer period of time for cook foremen to establish working
relationships with, and observe the behavior of, a specific group of assigned
inmates and thus makes it easier for them to identify actual or potential