48:1224(130)NG - - AFGE, Local 2782 and Commerce, Bureau of the Census - - 1993 FLRAdec NG - - v48 p1224



[ v48 p1224 ]
48:1224(130)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


48 FLA No. 130

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2782

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

(Agency)

0-NG-2162

_____

DECISION AND ORDER ON A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

December 28, 1993

_____

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)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and concerns the negotiability of a proposal obligating the Agency to allocate a reserved parking space for the Union's use. For the following reasons, we find that the proposal is negotiable.

II. Proposal

The UNION will have five (5) card keys. One will be for reserved Union parking under Building II and four card keys for the parking garage.

[Only the underlined portion is in dispute.]

III. Positions of the Parties

The Agency contends that the disputed portion of the proposal is inconsistent with portions of the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR), 41 C.F.R. §§ 101-20.104.1 and 101-20.104.2, which, according to the Agency, establish priorities for allocating parking spaces.(1) The Agency states that, of the 33 reserved parking spaces it controls under Building II, it has assigned 24 spaces to Government vehicles, handicapped employees, and executive personnel, in accordance with the priorities set forth in the FPMR. The Agency argues that, as the FPMR requires remaining spaces to be assigned first to carpools, the proposal would violate the applicable parts of the FPMR because, "if there are more carpools than available parking spaces under [Building II], the Agency would have to first assign one space for the use of the Union and deny a space to a carpool." Statement of Position at 6. The Agency asserts that, "if in the future additional handicapped or executive personnel are assigned to [Building II], the Agency would be in the untenable position of either having to disregard the FPMR or its agreement with the Union." Id. at 6-7 (footnote omitted).

The Union asserts that the disputed portion of the proposal can be applied consistent with the FPMR. The Union contends that, if the 33 parking spaces controlled by the Agency under Building II were filled as prescribed by the regulation, the Agency could arrange through the General Services Administration (GSA) to obtain an additional space to comply with the proposal. Additionally, in the Union's view, the FPMR "does not address preferred locations, but only whether an individual in the mandated priority will be provided a space[.]" Reply Brief at 11 (emphasis in original). According to the Union, the Agency could comply with the proposal and the FPMR by assigning employees entitled to reserved parking to spaces located in a general parking area controlled by the Agency.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

At the outset, we note that the portions of the FPMR establishing the allocation and assignment of parking spaces are Government-wide regulations within the meaning of section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute. See, for example, Coord