National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 951, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (Union) and United States, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento, California (Agency) and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 2152, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (Union) and United States, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento, California (Agency)

[ v61 p459 ]

61 FLRA No. 88

NATIONAL FEDERATION
OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 951
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
CALIFORNIA STATE OFFICE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
(Agency)

0-NG-2682

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION
OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 2152
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
CALIFORNIA STATE OFFICE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
(Agency)

0-NG-2685
(59 FLRA 951 (2004))

_____

DECISION AND ORDER ON REMAND

January 31, 2006

_____

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

I.      Statement of the Case

      This case is before the Authority on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, IAMAW, Local 951 v. FLRA, 412 F.3d 119 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (NFFE v. FLRA). In that decision, the court granted the Union's petition for review and reversed the Authority's finding that the proposals in dispute in NFFE, Local 951, IAMAW, 59 FLRA 951 (2004) (Member Pope dissenting) (NFFE, Local 951) were not within the Agency's duty to bargain. The court remanded the case to the Authority "with instructions to direct [the Agency] to bargain over the union proposals." 412 F.3d at 125.

II.     Background

      The disputed proposals require the Agency to provide the Union with copies of certain documents. In NFFE, Local 951, the Authority concluded that the proposals would affect management's right to assign work since "the Agency would have to remove several employees from their regularly assigned duties for several weeks to collect, collate and redact approximately 9,800 documents . . . [and the Agency] would be precluded from assigning to those employees their regularly assigned duties." 59 FLRA at 953-54.

      In NFFE v. FLRA, the court found, for reasons stated fully in its opinion, that the proposals fall within the Agency's duty to bargain. As relevant here, the court stated that "because nothing in the union proposals would require any particular [Agency] employees to process the documents, the FLRA should have directed [the Agency] to present its concerns about the proposals' burden at the bargaining table and, should it fail to resolve those concerns satisfactorily, to bring the dispute to the [Federal Service] Impasses Panel." 412 F.3d at 125. The court granted the Union's petition for review and remanded the case to the Authority "with instructions to direct [the Agency] to bargain over the union proposals." Id.

III.     Analysis and Conclusions