37:0836(69)NG - - International Association of Fire Fighters, Local F-159 and Navy, Naval Station Treasure Island, San Francisco, CA - - 1990 FLRAdec NG - - v37 p836



[ v37 p836 ]
37:0836(69)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


37 FLRA No. 69

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS

LOCAL F-159

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL STATION TREASURE ISLAND

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

(Agency)

0-NG-1728

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES

September 28, 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 under section 7105(a)(2)(D) and (E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute). It concerns the negotiability of two proposals relating to employees who are firefighters.

We conclude that Proposal 1, which limits the Agency's scheduling of drills, is nonnegotiable because it directly interferes with management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute and is not an appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3). We conclude that Proposal 2, which limits the particular duties that can be assigned on holidays and holiday weekends, is nonnegotiable because it directly interferes with management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) and the Union provides no basis for determining whether the proposal is negotiable as an appropriate arrangement.

II. Proposal 1

The employer agrees that training (drills) will not exceed two (2) hours in duration on any given work day, Monday through Friday of any work week.

A. Positions of the Parties

The Agency claims that, because Proposal 1 would restrict the assignment of training to Monday through Friday and limit the duration to 2 hours, the proposal interferes with management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B). The Union asserts that the proposal is intended to prevent fatigue that firefighters experience as a result of participating in drills that last longer than 2 hours.

B. Analysis and Conclusions

Proposal 1 concerns the Agency's scheduling of drills for firefighters. Drills are training activities assigned during the duty hours of firefighters and constitute an assignment of work. For example, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1931 and Department of the Navy, Naval Weapons Station Concord, California, 32 FLRA 1023, 1038 (1988) rev'd as to other matters sub nom. Department of the Navy, Naval Weapons Station Concord, California v. FLRA, No. 88-7408 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 1989) (Naval Weapons Station, Concord); International Association of Fire Fighters, Local F-61 and Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 3 FLRA 438, 439 (1980) (Philadelphia Naval Shipyard). The determination as to when and for what duration drills will occur is a matter encompassed by management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B). Id. Proposal 1 can be read to restrict the assignment of training to Monday through Friday and limit its duration to 2 hours per day, as claimed by the Agency, or simply to limit to 2 hours the duration of any training assigned on Monday through Friday. Under either interpretation, by limiting the Agency's scheduling of drills, Proposal 1 directly interferes with management's right to assign work. See id.

The Union does not expressly claim that its proposal is intended as an appropriate arrangement for employees adversely affected by the exercise of a management right within the meaning of section 7106(b)(3). Even if we assume, however, that the Union's claim that Proposal 1 is intended to prevent fatigue experienced by firefighters as a result of participating in drills that last longer than 2 hours is intended as an assertion that the proposal constitutes such an arrangement, the proposal is nonetheless nonnegotiable.

In Naval Weapons Station, Concord (Provision 12), the union proposed to limit firefighters' night drills to no more than one per month with at least half of the drills required to be scheduled prior to 10 p.m. in order to prevent undue interruption of firefighters' allotted hours for sleeping. The agency argued that the provision was not an appropriate arrangement because it would prevent the agency from conducting drills and training exercises during times and under circumstances necessary for it to accomplish its mission. The Authority agreed with the agency and determined that the provision eliminated management's discretion to determine the amount of training sufficient to correct deficiencies that are identified by the agency in performance or readiness. 32 FLRA at 1039. The Authority judged that the burden on the exercise of management's right to assign training and to ensure that firefighters are adequately prepared to meet the work demands of their positions was not outweighed by the benefit to employees of uninterrupted sleep time. Id. at 1039-40.

We similarly conclude here that the burden of Proposal 1 on the exercise of management's right to assign training and to ensure that firefighters are adequately prepared to meet the work demands of their positions is not outweighed by the benefit to employees of lessened fatigue. Accordingly, we conclude that Proposal 1 excessively interferes with the exercise of management's right to assign work and, therefore, is not an appropriate arrangement for employees adversely affected by the exercise of management's right to assign work. See Naval Weapons Station, Concord. Accordingly, we find that Proposal 1 is nonnegotiable.

III. Proposal 2

Holidays will be treated as a non-work day or stand-by day. If the Holiday falls on a Friday or Monday of a weekend, the Holiday will carry for the duration of that weekend.

A. Positions of the Parties

The Agency claims that because Proposal 2 would preclude management from assigning work when the employee is in a duty status, it interferes with management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B). The Union claims that its proposal seeks to schedule holiday weekends so that firefighters can enjoy them as do other Federal employees.

The Union maintains that, without such a schedule, firefighters are left with few other people on an isolated installation, which is closed to the public.

B. Analysis and Conclusions

Proposal 2 limits the particular duties that can be assigned on holidays and on weekends when Friday or Monday is a holiday. By proscribing the assignment of certain duties on certain days, Proposal 2 directly interferes with management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B). International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 726 and Naval Air Rework Facility, North Island, San Diego, California, 31 FLRA 158, 168-69 (1988) (Provision 6); Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 3 FLRA at 440 (Proposal II).

The Union does not expressly claim that its proposal is intended as an appropriate arrangement for employees adversely affected by the exercise of a management right within the meaning of section 7106(b)(3). However, the proposal is nonnegotiable even if we assume for purposes of this decision that the Union's claim that Proposal 2 is intended to enable firefighters to enjoy holiday weekends to the same extent as other Federal employees is meant as an assertion that the proposal constitutes an arrangement for employees who are adversely affected by the exercise of management's rights within the meaning of section 7106(b)(3). The Union did not file a response to the Agency's Statement of Position and has provided no evidence to support this assertion. Accordingly, we find no basis in the record upon which to determine that the proposal is negotiable as an appropriate arrangement. The Union asserts without further explanation that the proposal seeks to have firefighters enjoy holiday weekends like other employees. The record does not provide any additional information as to the nature and extent of any adverse effect that the Union perceives the assignment of duties will have on unit employees. The parties bear the burden of creating a record upon which we can make a decision. A party failing to bear this burden acts at its peril. For example, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 987 and U.S. Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Force Logistics Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, 35 FLRA 265 (1990). Accordingly, we find that Proposal 2 directly interferes with management's right to assign work and that the Union has not provided a basis for determining whether the proposal is negotiable as an appropriate arrangement. Therefore, Proposal 2 is nonnegotiable.

IV. Order

The petition for review is dismissed.