American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2578 and General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service
[ v03 p109 ]
03:0109(16)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
3 FLRA No. 16
APRIL 28, 1980
Mr. Phillip R. Kete
Special Representative, AFGE 2578
Gaffney, Anspach, Schember, Klimaski
and Marks
1712 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Re: American Federation of Government
Employees, Afl-cio, Local 2578 and
General Services Administration,
National Archives and Records Service,
Case No. 0-NG-163
DEAR MR. KETE:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE IN
THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE, DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1979, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2578.
FOR THE REASONS INDICATED BELOW, YOUR PETITION DOES NOT MEET THE
CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW ESTABLISHED IN THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS, AND,
THEREFORE, THE APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED.
THE UNION'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, REJECTED BY THE AGENCY AS NOT WITHIN
ITS DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH, WAS AS FOLLOWS:
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER, OR AS MAY BE
REQUIRED BY THE
TECHNOLOGY OF CERTAIN ARCHIVAL WORK, THE TEMPERATURES IN ALL WORK
AREAS WILL BE KEPT WITHIN
THE RANGE OF 68 DEGREES AND 75 DEGREES AND THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY WILL
BE KEPT IN THE RANGE OF
40 PERCENT AND 50 PERCENT.
THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION OF NONNEGOTIABILITY, BASED PRINCIPALLY ON ITS
VIEW THAT THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO GOVERNMENT-WIDE REGULATIONS,
I.E., STANDBY CONSERVATION PLAN NO. 2, EMERGENCY BUILDING TEMPERATURE
RESTRICTIONS (44 FED.REG. 39354 ET SEG. (1979)), WAS APPEALED TO THE
AUTHORITY. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT OF
POSITION, YOU SUBMITTED A BRIEF WHICH INCLUDED A REVISION OF THE
ORIGINAL UNION PROPOSAL. THE REVISED PROPOSAL INCLUDED THE PHRASE "OR
BINDING GOVERNMENT-WIDE REGULATION" AMONG THOSE AUTHORITIES WHICH WOULD
PERMIT MANAGEMENT TO DEVIATE FROM THE TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY RANGES
PRESCRIBED IN THE PROPOSAL. /1/
SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG.
3511, 3512), PERTAINING TO PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES,
PROVIDES, IN PART:
THE AUTHORITY WILL CONSIDER A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE UNDER THE
CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY 5
U.S.C. 7117(B) AND (C), NAMELY: IF AN AGENCY INVOLVED IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING WITH AN
EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE ALLEGES THAT THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD
FAITH DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY
MATTER PROPOSED TO BE BARGAINED BECAUSE, AS PROPOSED, THE MATTER IS
INCONSISTENT WITH LAW,
RULE OR REGULATION, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE MAY APPEAL THE
ALLEGATION TO THE AUTHORITY
. . .
IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE RECORD BEFORE THE AUTHORITY CLEARLY
INDICATES THAT THE REVISED PROPOSAL CONCERNING WHICH YOU SEEK A
NEGOTIABILITY DECISION FROM THE AUTHORITY WAS NOT THE SUBJECT OF AN
ALLEGATION OF NONNEGOTIABILITY. IN FACT, YOU STATE THAT "THE OMISSION
OF REFERENCE TO BINDING GOVERNMENT-WIDE REGULATIONS IN THE INITIAL
PROPOSAL WAS AN OVERSIGHT." HENCE, THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEET THE
CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW OF A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE AS SET FORTH IN SECTION
2424.1 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE AUTHORITY IN THAT THE AGENCY
HAS NOT ALLEGED THAT THE REVISED PROPOSAL WHICH YOU NOW ASK THE
AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER IS OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE
INSTANT APPEAL IS PREMATURE AND THEREFORE MUST BE DISMISSED WITHOUT A
DETERMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY AS TO THE NEGOTIABILITY OF THE UNION'S
REVISED PROPOSAL.
FOR THE AUTHORITY,
SINCERELY,
SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CC: MR. W. M. PAZ
GSA
/1/ THE REVISED UNION PROPOSAL PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW, EXECUTIVE ORDER, OR BINDING
GOVERNMENT-WIDE
REGULATION, OR AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE TECHNOLOGY OF CERTAIN
ARCHIVAL WORK, THE TEMPERATURES
IN ALL WORK AREAS WILL BE KEPT WITHIN THE RANGE OF 68 DEGREES AND 75
DEGREES AND THE RELATIVE
HUMIDITY WILL BE KEPT IN THE RANGE OF 40 PERCENT AND 50 PERCENT.