33:0304(37)NG - - IFPTE Local 25 and Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, CA - - 1988 FLRAdec NG - - v33 p304



[ v33 p304 ]
33:0304(37)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


33 FLRA No. 37

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL

AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS

LOCAL 25

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

0-NG-1537

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

October 25, 1988

Before Chairman Calhoun and Member McKee.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability appeal filed by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 25 (the Union) under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute). The appeal concerns the negotiability of one Union proposal which seeks to determine how military guards at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California (the Agency) carry their weapons and ammunition. We conclude that the proposal is outside the duty to bargain because it would directly interfere with management's right to determine internal security practices under section 7106(a)(1).

II. Background

United States Marines guard and patrol the drydock areas of the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in order to safeguard highly sensitive national defense equipment which is serviced and repaired at the facility. The guards also patrol the area when sensitive materials are transported to and from the Shipyard. This dispute arose when the Agency changed its policy concerning the arming of Marines. Formerly, Marine guards were required to carry their weapons unloaded and on their shoulders when they patrolled the shipyard. The new policy requires the guards to patrol certain areas of the Shipyard with loaded weapons in hand.

III. Proposal

Marines carry loaded magazines in pouches, not in weapon. Marines carry weapons at sling arms.

IV. Positions of the Parties

The Agency contends that the proposal does not concern the conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees because it is directed at individuals who are not in the bargaining unit. The Agency also asserts that the proposal conflicts with management's right to determine internal security practices under section 7106(a)(1). According to the Agency, the proposal would prevent the Agency from implementing its determination that the carrying of loaded weapons by military guards is necessary for the security of the facility.

The Union contends that the proposal concerns the conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees because there is a direct relationship between the new procedure r