35:0642(72)NG - - NAGE Local R1-144 and Navy, Naval Underwater Systems Center, Newport, RI - - 1990 FLRAdec NG - - v35 p642



[ v35 p642 ]
35:0642(72)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


35 FLRA No. 72

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL R1-144

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL UNDERWATER SYSTEMS CENTER

NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND

(Agency)

0-NG-1755

DECISION AND ORDER ON A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

April 24, 1990

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority on a negotiability appeal filed by the Union under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute). The case concerns one proposal which specifies that the final decision as to an employee's performance standards and elements rests with the employee's supervisor.

We find that the proposal is nonnegotiable because it interferes with the Agency's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.

II. The Proposal

The final decision as to the employee's elements and standards rests with the employee's supervisor.

III. Positions of the Parties

The Agency contends that the proposal "requires that the employee's supervisor make the final decision on which performance standards and elements will be assigned to the employee." Statement of Position at 1. The Agency argues that this requirement "would preclude management from assigning the duty of establishing performance standards and elements to any other position" and that a proposal which assigns a specific task to a particular position is nonnegotiable because it interferes with management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B). Id.

The Union asserts that the proposal "concerns neither assignment of work, appraisal of work, nor delineation of work[.]" Response at 1. The Union contends that the proposal "does not assign tasks to supervisors" but "merely delineates the position in the chain of determination which an employee's supervisor will hold regarding that employee's elements and standards." Id. at 2. According to the Union, the proposal is negotiable because it "suggests a procedure for processing information pertaining to elements and standards[.]" Id. The Union further states that the proposal "does not mandate what the elements and standards will be" and that it "preserves management's right to define 'final.'" Id.

IV. Analysis

We conclude that the proposal is outside the duty to bargain.

Proposals which require that specific duties be assigned to particular individuals, including management officials, directly interfere with an agency's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. See, for example, Patent Office Professional Association v. FLRA, 873 F.2d 1485, 1488 (D.C. Cir. 1989), affirming sub nom. Patent Office Professional Association and Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, 29 FLRA 1389 (1987) (Proposal 1); and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1808 and Department of the Army, Sierra Army Depot, 30 FLRA 1236, 1255 (1988) (Provision 11). Compare Service and Hospital Employees International Union, Local 150 and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 35 FLRA No. 61 (1990) (Provision 3, Member Armendariz concurring in part and dissenting in part).

The proposal in this case states that the final decision on an employee's performance standards and elements rests with the supervisor. Although the proposal does not mandate what those standards and elements will be, it does clearly require that the employee's supervisor will be the individual who makes the final determination as to the content of those standards