American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Union) and Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio (Agency)
[ v05 p83 ]
05:0083(15)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
5 FLRA No. 15
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Union
and
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND,
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR
FORCE BASE, OHIO
Agency
Case No. 0-NG-70
DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE
AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET
SEQ.).
PROVISION /1/
ARTICLE 22
TRAVEL AND TDY
SECTION 22.10 SELECTION PROCEDURES
TDY WILL BE OFFERED TO QUALIFIED AND AVAILABLE EMPLOYEES WITH
REQUISITE SKILLS ON THE BASIS
OF SENIORITY. IF THERE ARE NO VOLUNTEERS, TDY ASSIGNMENTS WILL BE
ROTATED AMONG QUALIFIED AND
AVAILABLE EMPLOYEES WITH REQUISITE SKILLS IN INVERSE ORDER OF
SENIORITY.
A. SEPARATE OVERSEAS AND STATESIDE TDY ROSTERS WILL BE MAINTAINED.
B. EXCEPTIONS WILL BE MADE FOR COMPASSIONATE REASONS.
C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO TRAINING ASSIGNMENT INVOLVING TDY.
QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DISPUTED PROVISION OF THE LOCAL PARTIES'
AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS DISAPPROVED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY, SUPRA, NOTE
1, CONCERNS THE RIGHTS OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A)
AND (B) OF THE STATUTE; AND, IF SO, WHETHER THE PROVISION IS
INCONSISTENT WITH SUCH RIGHTS, OR ESTABLISHES A PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION
7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE WHICH AGENCY MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN
EXERCISING SUCH RIGHTS.
OPINION
CONCLUSION AND ORDER: THE DISPUTED PROVISION OF THE LOCAL PARTIES'
AGREEMENT DOES NOT CONCERN THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES
IN THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE OR TO ASSIGN
WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) AND, THEREFORE, IS WITHIN THE AGENCY'S
DUTY TO BARGAIN. /2/ ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10, AS AMENDED BY 45 F.R.
48575, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE AGENCY SHALL RESCIND ITS DISAPPROVAL OF
THIS PROVISION, WHICH WAS BARGAINED ON AND AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL. /3/
REASONS: THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY DISAPPROVED THIS PROVISION OF THE
LOCAL PARTIES' AGREEMENT AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHORITY OF AGENCY
MANAGEMENT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES AND ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION
7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B) OF THE STATUTE. /4/ IN RESPONSE, THE UNION
CONTENDS ESSENTIALLY, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION BY THE AGENCY, THAT THE TDY
ASSIGNMENTS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISPUTED PROVISION
MERELY INVOLVE THE TEMPORARY PERFORMANCE BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DUTIES OF
HIS OR HER POSITION AT A DIFFERENT DUTY STATION. SINCE NOTHING IN THE
RECORD IS TO THE CONTRARY, THAT INTERPRETATION IS ADOPTED FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS DECISION. /5/ THE UNION ARGUES, FURTHER, THAT IN THIS REGARD
THE PROVISION IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE RIGHTS OF
MANAGEMENT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES IN THE AGENCY AND TO ASSIGN WORK WHICH
HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN. THE AUTHORITY
AGREES.
UNDER THE DISPUTED PROVISION, TDY ASSIGNMENTS ARE LIMITED TO
ASSIGNMENTS WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE A POSITION CHANGE BY AN EMPLOYEE AND
WHICH MERELY REQUIRE THAT THE EMPLOYEE TEMPORARILY PERFORM THE REGULAR
DUTIES OF HIS OR HER POSITION IN A DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION FOR
HIS OR HER NORMAL DUTY STATION. /6/ THEREFORE, THE PROVISION DOES NOT
IN THE FIRST PLACE INVOLVE AN ASSIGNMENT OF WORK, BUT CONCERNS MERELY
THE LOCATION WHERE WORK WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSIGNED TO AN EMPLOYEE
WILL BE PERFORMED. THAT IS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ADDRESSED BY THE
PROVISION, THE AGENCY ALREADY WILL HAVE EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION TO
ASSIGN THE WORK INVOLVED TO PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES OR POSITIONS AND WILL
ONLY BE DECIDING THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE AMONG THOSE WHO ARE DOING THAT
WORK WHO WILL BE SELECTED FOR THE TDY ASSIGNMENT. FOR THIS REASON, THE
PROVISION HEREIN IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PROPOSALS FOUND TO BE
OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) IN AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 695 AND DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY, U.S. MINT, DENVER, COLORADO, 3 FLRA NO. 7(1980) AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL F-61 AND PHILADELPHIA
NAVAL SHIPYARD, 3 FLRA NO. 66(1980). THE PROPOSAL IN THE U.S. MINT CASE
REQUIRED WEEKLY ROTATION OF WORK ASSIGNMENTS AND THE AUTHORITY HELD IT
VIOLATED SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) INSOFAR AS IT WOULD REQUIRE ALL EMPLOYEES
TO BE ROTATED THROUGH THE DUTIES LISTED IN THEIR POSITION DESCRIPTION
EACH WEEK REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY WORK WAS AVAILABLE WHICH
NECESSITATED THE PERFORMANCE OF THOSE DUTIES OR WHETHER THE WORK
PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED HAD BEEN COMPLETED. THE INSTANT PROVISION, IN
CONTRAST, ONLY TAKES EFFECT WHEN THE AGENCY HAS DETERMINED THAT IT IS
NECESSARY TO TEMPORARILY ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF HIS
OR HER POSITION AT A DIFFERENT DUTY STATION; IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE SUCH
AN ASSIGNMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED. MOREOVER, UNLIKE
UNION PROPOSALS I AND II IN PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, WHICH PRECLUDED
THE AGENCY FROM ASSIGNING WORK AT PARTICULAR TIMES, THE PROVISION HEREIN
WOULD IN NO WAY LIMIT THE AGENCY'S DECISION AS TO WHEN THE DUTIES
INVOLVED IN THE TDY ASSIGNMENT WOULD BE PERFORMED.
LIKEWISE, THE PROVISION DOES NOT INVOLVE AN ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES
TO POSITIONS IN THE AGENCY. THAT IS, THE PROVISION DOES NOT AFFECT THE
AGENCY'S DISCRETION TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES TO PARTICULAR POSITIONS, BUT
ONLY CONCERNS THE SELECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE TO TEMPORARILY
PERFORM HIS OR HER ASSIGNED WORK IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION. UNDER THE
PROVISION, THE AGENCY SIMPLY DETERMINES WHICH EMPLOYEE FROM AMONG THOSE
PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED TO CERTAIN POSITIONS TEMPORARILY WILL PERFORM THE
WORK OF HIS OR HER POSITION AT A DIFFERENT DUTY STATION. THE DECISION
OF THE AGENCY IN THIS REGARD IN NO WAY CHANGES THE DUTIES WHICH THE
EMPLOYEE WILL PERFORM. FOR THIS REASON, THE PROVISION IS
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PROPOSALS FOUND BY THE AUTHORITY TO BE OUTSIDE
THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) IN AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND,
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, 2 FLRA NO. 77(1980). EACH OF THE
PROPOSALS IN THAT CASE WHICH WERE FOUND TO INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHT OF
MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES INVOLVED A DECISION BY THE
AGENCY TO ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A DIFFERENT POSITION RATHER THAN, AS
HERE, A DECISION AS TO WHERE THE WORK OF A GIVEN POSITION IS TO BE
PERFORMED. THUS, THE AUTHORITY STATED WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN PROPOSALS
CONCERNING SELECTION OF EMPLOYEES FOR DETAILS, LOANS, AND TEMPORARY
ASSIGNMENTS (AT 10 OF AUTHORITY DECISION):
IN THUS COMPELLING THE SELECTION OF A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL FOR
TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT TO
ANOTHER POSITION, UNION PROPOSALS IV, V, AND VI EACH DIRECTLY
INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT OF THE
AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES. THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES IN THE
AGENCY UNDER SECTION
7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE IS MORE THAN MERELY THE RIGHT TO DECIDE
TO ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO
A POSITION. AN AGENCY CHOOSES TO ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION SO
THAT THE WORK OF THAT
POSITION WILL BE DONE. UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE,
THE AGENCY RETAINS
DISCRETION AS TO THE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS OF THE WORK OF THE
POSITION, I.E., THE
QUALIFICATIONS AND SKILLS NEEDED TO DO THE WORK, AS WELL AS SUCH
JOB-RELATED INDIVIDUAL
CHARACTERISTICS AS JUDGMENT AND RELIABILITY. THEREFORE, THE RIGHT TO
ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A
POSITION INCLUDES THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHICH EMPLOYEE WILL BE
ASSIGNED. (CLEARLY, THE
ASSIGNMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE
ASSIGNMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE
TO A SHIFT.)
REGARDING MOBILITY ASSIGNMENTS, THE AUTHORITY STATED (AT 11 OF
AUTHORITY DECISION):
(T)HE AGENCY IS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROPOSAL, WITHOUT THE OPTION TO DO
OTHERWISE, AS IN THE
CASE OF UNION PROPOSAL III, TO SELECT FOR REASSIGNMENT THE LEAST
SENIOR EMPLOYEE OF THE TITLE,
SERIES, AND GRADE OF THE POSITION TO BE FILLED. FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN THE DISCUSSION OF
UNION PROPOSALS III-- IV, BY THUS REQUIRING THE AGENCY TO SELECT AN
EMPLOYEE FOR ASSIGNMENT ON
THE BASIS OF SENIORITY THE PROPOSAL OBVIATES THE DISCRETION AS TO
SELECTION WHICH IS AN
ESSENTIAL PART OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF
THE STATUTE.
IN SUMMARY, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROVISION HERE, I.E., TDY
ASSIGNMENTS, INVOLVES AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF HIS OR HER
POSITION IN A DIFFERENT PLACE. THUS, UNDER THE PROVISION, SELECTION OF
AN EMPLOYEE FOR SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT WOULD BE FROM AMONG EMPLOYEES
ALREADY
PERFORMING THE SAME DUTIES AND WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY CHANGE THOSE DUTIES.
THE ONLY CHANGE WHICH WOULD RESULT WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE IN WHERE THE
EMPLOYEE WOULD PERFORM THOSE DUTIES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSIGNMENTS
WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROPOSALS IN WRIGHT-PATTERSON ARE
TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENTS TO HIGHER, LOWER, OR SAME GRADED POSITIONS, LOANS,
TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OUTSIDE THE BARGAINING UNIT, AND MOBILITY
ASSIGNMENTS, ALL OF WHICH INVOLVE A CHANGE OF POSITION FOR THE EMPLOYEE
ASSIGNED.
IN THIS REGARD, THE AUTHORITY NOTES THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE
PROVISION RESTRICTING TDY ASSIGNMENTS TO "QUALIFIED" EMPLOYEES WITH THE
"REQUISITE SKILLS" DOES NOT REFER TO OPM STANDARDS FOR QUALIFICATIONS TO
FILL A POSITION ON A PERMANENT BASIS, BUT SIMPLY TO QUALIFICATIONS WITH
REFERENCE TO THE PARTICULAR WORK INVOLVED IN THE TDY ASSIGNMENT.
THEREFORE, THIS LANGUAGE, AS THE UNION INDICATES, WOULD NOT LIMIT
MANAGEMENT'S DECISION TO SELECT AN EMPLOYEE FOR A TDY ASSIGNMENT, BUT
WOULD SERVE INSTEAD AS A LIMITATION ON THE OPERATION OF THE SENIORITY
CRITERION UNDER THE PROVISION. THAT IS, THE TERMS "QUALIFIED" AND
"REQUISITE SKILLS" WOULD PERMIT THE AGENCY TO DECIDE THAT IT WOULD NOT
SELECT THE MOST SENIOR EMPLOYEE WHO VOLUNTEERS IF THAT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT
QUALIFIED OR DID NOT POSSESS THE NEEDED SKILLS. CORRELATIVELY, IF THERE
WERE NO VOLUNTEERS, THE AGENCY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ASSIGN THE LEAST
SENIOR EMPLOYEE WHERE IT DETERMINED THAT SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS NOT QUALIFIED
OR DID NOT POSSESS THE NEEDED SKILLS.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE DISPUTED PROVISION, WHICH PROVIDES FOR
THE SELECTION OF EMPLOYEES FOR CERTAIN TDY ASSIGNMENTS ON THE BASIS OF
SENIORITY, DOES NOT CONCERN THE AUTHORITY OF MANAGEMENT TO ASSIGN
EMPLOYEES OR ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE.
ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY ALLEGATION THAT THE DISPUTED PROVISION IS NOT
WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 9, 1981
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ THE AGENCY HEAD DISAPPROVED THE DISPUTED PROVISION IN THE
PARTIES' AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO REVIEW OF THAT AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION
7114(C) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
SECTION 7114(C) OF THE STATUTE (92 STAT. 1203) PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT
PART, AS FOLLOWS:
SEC. 7114. REPRESENTATION RIGHTS AND DUTIES
* * * *
(C)(1) AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN ANY AGENCY AND AN EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY.
(2) THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY SHALL APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS
FROM THE DATE THE
AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED IF THE AGREEMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER
AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION (UNLESS THE AGENCY
HAS GRANTED AN EXCEPTION
TO THE PROVISION).
(3) IF THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY DOES NOT APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE
AGREEMENT WITHIN THE
30-DAY PERIOD, THE AGREEMENT SHALL TAKE EFFECT AND SHALL BE BINDING
ON THE AGENCY AND THE
EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER
AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE
LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION.
/2/ IN VIEW OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION THAT THE DISPUTED PROVISION
DOES NOT CONCERN THE RIGHTS OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT UNDER SECTION
7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B), IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE AGENCY'S
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING ITS RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 7106 OR THE UNION'S
CONTENTIONS AS TO PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF THOSE RIGHTS
UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2).
/3/ IN DECIDING THAT THE SUBJECT PROVISION WAS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE
PROVISION.
/4/ SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7106) PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT
PART, AS FOLLOWS:
SEC. 7106. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
(A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE
AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--
(1) TO DETERMINE THE MISSION, BUDGET, ORGANIZATION, NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES, AND INTERNAL
SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE AGENCY; AND
(2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS--
(A) TO HIRE, ASSIGN, DIRECT, LAYOFF, AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE
AGENCY, OR TO SUSPEND,
REMOVE, REDUCE IN GRADE OR PAY, OR TAKE OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
AGAINST SUCH EMPLOYEES;
(B) TO ASSIGN WORK, TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
CONTRACTING OUT, AND TO
DETERMINE THE PERSONNEL BY WHICH AGENCY OPERATIONS SHALL BE
CONDUCTED(.)
/5/ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PART J,
TEMPORARY DUTY, PROVIDE, IN RELEVANT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
C4451 WHAT CONSTITUTES TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL
TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL FOR AN EMPLOYEE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING
SITUATIONS:
1. ASSIGNMENT OF A TEMPORARY NATURE IN CONNECTION WITH OFFICIAL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
BUSINESS AWAY FROM AN EMPLOYEE'S PERMANENT DUTY STATION (SUCH
ASSIGNMENTS WILL NOT BE OF SUCH
FREQUENCY OR DURATION THAT A PLACE OF ASSIGNMENT IS, IN FACT, AN
EMPLOYEE'S PERMANENT DUTY
STATION EVEN THOUGH ADMINISTRATION JURISDICTION IS AT SOME OTHER
LOCATION) . . . .
/6/ CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION ADOPTED
HEREIN, THE TERM "POSITION" AS USED HEREIN IS GIVEN THE MEANING COMMONLY
ASCRIBED TO IT IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL PRACTICE. SEE FEDERAL PERSONNEL
MANUAL, CHAP. 312, SUBCHAP. 1-3.