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