31:0856(61)NG - NTEU and Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt -- 1988 FLRAdec NG



[ v31 p856 ]
31:0856(61)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 31 FLRA NO. 61

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION

                           Union

         and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

                           Agency

                                            Case No. 0-NG-1453

            DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

     I. Statement of the Case

     This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability
appeal filed by the Union under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the
Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the
Statute) and concerns the negotiability of one Union proposal.
The proposal seeks payment of travel and per diem expenses, in
accordance with Federal Travel Regulations (FTRs), for members of
the Union Negotiating Committee while on official time. For the
reasons that follow, we find the proposal to be negotiable.

     II. Proposal

     Members of the Union Negotiating Committee who are on
     official time shall receive full travel and per diem allowances
     in accordance with current Federal Travel Regulations.

     III. Background

     On August 3, 1987, the Union requested an allegation of
nonnegotiability from the Agency regarding this proposal. The
Agency did not respond to the Union's request. On September 3,
1987, the Union filed its petition for review with the Authority.
Subsequently, the Agency informed the Union that it had not been
served with a copy of the petition for review and that,
therefore, it did not know that the 30-day period to file its
response had begun. On November 5, 1987, the Union served the
Agency with a copy of the petition for review. The Agency did not
file a statement of position with the Authority. Rather, on
December 18, 1987, it served on the Union its allegation of
nonnegotiability.

     IV. Positions of the Parties

     The Agency asserts in its allegation of nonnegotiability
that the proposal is nonnegotiable because it does not involve a
condition of employment and also because it is inconsistent with
Government-wide regulations. The Agency provided no  arguments in
support of its allegation.

     The Union argues that the proposal involves a condition of
employment, and that it is within the duty to bargain.

     V. Analysis and Conclusion

     A. The Proposal Concerns a Condition of Employment

     In National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the
Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, 21 FLRA  6 (1986) (U.S. Customs
Service), affirmed sub nom. Department of the Treasury, U.S.
Customs Service v. FLRA,  836 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the
Authority found that representation of employees in matters
concerning their employment affects the working conditions of
those employees. The Authority held that a propos