31:0355(31)NG - AFGE Local 3232 and HHS, SSA, Region II -- 1988 FLRAdec NG

[ v31 p355 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

  31 FLRA NO. 31
 31 FLRA 355

    23 FEB 1988




Case No. 0-NG-1445


     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 concerns
the negotiability of a proposal which requires the Agency to
grant administrative leave to cover certain commuting time for
employees on detail. For the reasons which follow, we find that
the proposal is outside the duty to bargain because it is
inconsistent with Government-wide regulations.

     II. Background and Proposal

     The Agency decided to detail certain claims representatives
from field offices in the Philadelphia Region to teleservice
centers also in the Philadelphia Region. This detail was for the
purpose of taking teleclaims and answering claimant's inquiries
regarding Title II of the Social Security Act. During impact and
implementation bargaining on the Agency's decision to detail
employees, the parties agreed, among other things, that the
employees would be detailed on a rotational basis among qualified
volunteers using seniority as the basis for the detail. However,
the  Agency objected to the underlined portion of the
following proposal:

     10 - If the office to which an employee is detailed is
further from the employee's residence than the original duty
station, the employee will be granted administrative leave to
cover the additional time required for the travel while on
detail. Travel expenses will be paid while on detail, minus the
normal expenses for getting to the original duty station. (only
the underscored portion is in dispute.)

     III. Positions of the Parties

     The Agency argues that the requirement to grant
administrative leave for a portion of an employee's commute to a
temporary duty location conflicts with provisions in the Federal
Personnel Manual (FPM). In addition, the Agency contends that the
disputed language directly and excessively interferes with
management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of
the Statute. The Agency also asserts that the proposal is
inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. 6101(b)(2) and 5 C.F.R. 610.123
because it requires that commuting time be during duty hours.

     The Union contends that the proposal is a negotiable
procedure which is consistent with law and Government-wide
regulations and is an appropriate arrangement for adversely
affected employees. The Union alleges that the proposal is
clearly within the Agency's duty to bargain since management
retains broad discretion to grant administrative leave under
applicable Government-wide regulations. The Union also claims
that this proposal does not require administrative leave to be
granted while employees are on detail. Rather, according to the
Union, administrative leave could be scheduled at a later date.

     IV. Analysis and Conclusion

     The Union here is seeking "administrative leave" to cover
the difference in commuting time between that spent by unit
employees in traveling from their homes to their regular duty
stations and that spent in commuting from their homes to their
temporary duty stations while on detail. The Union explained that
the Agency need not deduct the administrative leave from
the employees' regular 8-hour workday. Rather, the Union asserts,
". . . the union's proposal in the instant case allows management
complete discretion to assign workers for the full eight hours at
their temporary duty station. The clear unambiguous language of
the proposal merely requires that, in those situations where
employees have to travel much longer distances than they do, to
get to their assigned temporary duty stations, the agency will
grant administrative leave to cover the additional time." Reply
Brief at 5-6. The Union also explains that ". . . the leave is