Methods and Standards Association (Union) and Naval Air Rework Facility, Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida (Activity)
[ v02 p286 ]
02:0286(34)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
2 FLRA No. 34
METHODS AND STANDARDS
ASSOCIATION
(Union)
and
NAVAL AIR REWORK FACILITY,
NAVAL AIR STATION,
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
(Activity)
Case No. 0-NG-41
DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
UNION PROPOSAL
UNIT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NON-COMPETITIVELY, TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED THE
DUTIES OF A HIGHER GRADE
POSITION FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE DAYS OR MORE WILL RECEIVE THE PAY
AUTHORIZED FOR THE HIGHER
GRADE POSITION.
QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEUNION'S PROPOSAL IS OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS (FSLMR)
STATUTE, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY, BECAUSE IT WOULD PRESCRIBE PROCEDURES
FOR FILLING THRESHOLD SUPERVISORY POSITIONS OUTSIDE THE BARGAINING UNIT.
OPINION
CONCLUSION: THE PROPOSAL CONCERNS MATTERS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN
IN GOOD FAITH UNDER SECTION 7117(A) OF THE FSLMR STATUTE. /1/
ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.8 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS (44 FED.REG. 44740 ET SEQ.(1979)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION
THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET
ASIDE. /2/
REASONS: THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IN THIS CASE PROVIDES IN ESSENCE THAT
IF AN EMPLOYEE IN THE UNIT IS NONCOMPETITIVELY, TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED BY
MANAGEMENT TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF A HIGHER GRADE POSITION, I.E.,
SELECTED FOR A DETAIL, FOR FIVE DAYS OR MORE, THAT EMPLOYEE WILL RECEIVE
THE PAY FOR THAT POSITION.
THE AGENCY ALLEGES THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN
BECAUSE IT INVOLVES PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO USE
IN FILLING SUPERVISORY POSITIONS OUTSIDE THE BARGAINING UNIT. ACCORDING
TO THE AGENCY, THE OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN IS CONFINED TO THOSE PERSONNEL
POLICIES AND PRACTICES RELATING TO POSITIONS WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT
AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DUTY TO BARGAIN ON THIS PROPOSAL.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE AGENCY HAS
MISINTERPRETED THE PROPOSAL; THAT ITS PROPOSAL IN NO WAY LIMITS OR
ATTEMPTS TO DETERMINE THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT MUST USE IN
FILLING SUPERVISORY POSITIONS. INSTEAD, THE UNION ASSERTS, THE PROPOSAL
ONLY SEEKS TO INSURE THAT UNIT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE TEMPORARILY PLACED BY
MANAGEMENT IN POSITIONS OF GREATER RESPONSIBILITY WILL RECEIVE THROUGH
TEMPORARY PROMOTION THE HIGHER PAY COMMENSURATE WITH THOSE POSITIONS.
THE AUTHORITY FINDS MERIT IN THE UNION'S CONTENTION.
ON ITS FACE THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT SEEK TO LIMIT MANAGEMENT IN ANY
MANNER WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEDURES MANAGEMENT WILL USE
TO
FILL POSITIONS. IT DOES NOT CONCERN MANAGEMENT'S DECISION TO SELECT AN
EMPLOYEE, IF ANY, FOR NONCOMPETITIVE ASSIGNMENT TO A HIGHER GRADED
POSITION ON A TEMPORARY BASIS. RATHER, THE PROPOSAL, BY ITS EXPRESS
LANGUAGE AS WELL AS THE UNION'S STATEMENT AS TO THE INTENDED MEANING OF
SUCH LANGUAGE ALREADY MENTIONED, SOLELY IS CONCERNED WITH THE LEVEL OF
COMPENSATION THE EMPLOYEE WILL RECEIVE ONLY AFTER MANAGEMENT HAS
SELECTED THAT EMPLOYEE, PURSUANT TO PROCEDURES OF ITS OWN CHOICE.
IN THIS REGARD, THE ACT CALLED FOR BY THE PROPOSAL, OF PROVIDING
COMPENSATION TO THE EMPLOYEE AT THE LEVEL COMMENSURATE WITH THE JOB HE
OR SHE IS PERFORMING (I.E., TEMPORARILY PROMOTING THE EMPLOYEE), SIMPLY
IS A MINISTERIAL ACT IMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT'S DECISION TO SELECT AND
ASSIGN THE EMPLOYEE INVOLVED TO THE HIGHER GRADE POSITION. AS
PREVIOUSLY INDICATED, NOTHING IN THE PROPOSAL WOULD INTERFERE WITH
MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH DECISION TO SELECT AND ASSIGN. THUS,
NOTHING IN THE PROPOSAL WOULD IMPAIR MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE
WHETHER AND WHOM TEMPORARILY TO PROMOTE.
FOR THE REASONS STATED, AND SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE
DISPUTED PROPOSAL OTHERWISE IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANY APPLICABLE LAW OR
REGULATION, THE PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7117(A) OF THE STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION TO
THE CONTRARY IS SET ASIDE.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., DECEMBER 21, 1979
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
/1/ THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, SEC.
7117 (92 STAT. 1205) PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
SEC. 7117. DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; COMPELLING NEED; DUTY TO
CONSULT
(A)(1) SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH
SHALL, TO THE EXTENT NO INCONSISTENT WITH ANY FEDERAL LAW OR ANY
GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR
REGULATION, EXTEND TO MATTERS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF ANY RULE OR
REGULATION ONLY IF THE RULE
OR REGULATION IS NOT A GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR REGULATION.
(2) THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH SHALL, TO THE EXTENT NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL
LAW OR ANY GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR REGULATION, EXTEND TO MATTERS
WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT TO ANY
AGENCY RULE OR REGULATION REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH (3) OF THIS
SUBSECTION ONLY IF THE
AUTHORITY HAS DETERMINED UNDER SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION THAT NO
COMPELLING NEED (AS
DETERMINED UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE AUTHORITY) EXISTS FOR
THE RULE OR REGULATION.
(3) PARAGRAPH (2) OF THE SUBSECTION APPLIES TO ANY RULE OR REGULATION
ISSUED BY ANY AGENCY
OR ISSUED BY ANY PRIMARY NATIONAL SUBDIVISION OF SUCH AGENCY, UNLESS
AN EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTS AN APPROPRIATE UNIT INCLUDING NOT LESS THAN
A MAJORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES IN THE ISSUING AGENCY OR PRIMARY NATIONAL SUBDIVISION, AS
THE CASE MAY BE, TO WHOM
THE RULE OR REGULATION IS APPLICABLE.
/2/ IN SO DECIDING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE
PROPOSAL.