International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, CLC, Local F-116 (Union) and Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California (Agency)

 7 FLRA No. 18
 
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
 OF FIRE FIGHTERS, AFL-CIO
 CLC, LOCAL F-116
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE,
 CALIFORNIA
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-341
 
                 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
 
    THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IN 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 (5 U.S.C.
 7101-7135) (THE STATUTE).  THE ISSUE PRESENTED TO THE AUTHORITY IS THE
 NEGOTIABILITY OF THE FOLLOWING UNION PROPOSAL:
 
                              UNION PROPOSAL
 
    THE EMPLOYER AGREES TO GRANT OFF-DUTY PERSONNEL, AND THEIR
 DEPENDENTS, HUNTING AND FISHING
 
    RECREATION ON VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
 CALIFORNIA STATE FISH AND GAME
 
    REGULATIONS.
 
                       QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY, THE PROPOSAL IS
 OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONCERN MATTERS WHICH
 ARE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  THE UNION'S PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONCERN MATTERS
 WHICH ARE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES;
 THEREFORE, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.
 ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PETITION FOR
 REVIEW OF THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    REASONS:  THE UNION'S PROPOSAL CONCERNS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES FOR
 EMPLOYEES WHO ARE OFF-DUTY AND FOR THEIR DEPENDENTS.  THE AGENCY
 CONTENDS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN BECAUSE IT
 IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF BARGAINING UNIT
 EMPLOYEES.  ACCORDING TO THE AGENCY, THE BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES
 INVOLVED HEREIN ARE EMPLOYED AS FIREFIGHTERS AT THE VANDENBERG AIR FORCE
 BASE AND THE AVAILABILITY OF THE BASE TO SUCH EMPLOYEES AND THEIR
 DEPENDENTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF HUNTING AND FISHING HAS NOTHING TO DO
 WITH THEIR EMPLOYMENT AS FIREFIGHTERS.  THE AGENCY'S CONTENTION MUST BE
 SUSTAINED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
 
    THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE EXTENDS ONLY TO THOSE
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, I.E., PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND
 MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS, WHICH AFFECT EMPLOYEES IN THE
 BARGAINING UNIT.  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 LOCAL 2 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, 4
 FLRA NO. 60(1980) AT 2-3.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE AUTHORITY HAS FOUND A
 PROPOSAL WHICH CONCERNED A MATTER AFFECTING "THE WORK SITUATION AND
 EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP" OF BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES TO BE WITHIN THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN.  NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, 3 FLRA NO. 112(1980).  SEE ALSO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND,
 WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, 2 FLRA 604, 606(1980), ENFORCED
 AS TO OTHER MATTERS SUB NOM.  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE V. FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY, F. 2D (D.C. CIR. 1981).  ON THE OTHER HAND,
 PROPOSALS WITH RESPECT TO MATTERS CONCERNING NON BARGAINING UNIT
 EMPLOYEES DO NOT CONCERN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF UNIT EMPLOYEES AND
 ARE NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.  SEE, E.G., NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1451 AND NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO,
 FLORIDA, 3 FLRA NO. 14(1980), ENFORCED, 652 F.2D 191 (D.C. CIR. 1981);
 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIELD LABOR LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON,
 D.C., 3 FLRA NO. 44(1980);  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MILITARY DISTRICT OF
 WASHINGTON, 4 FLRA NO. 60(1980).
 
    ON ITS FACE, THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL IN THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT
 CONCERN PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES, OR MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING
 CONDITIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.  SIMILARLY, AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE
 PROPOSAL, NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF
 OFF-DUTY EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS AND EMPLOYMENT AS FIREFIGHTERS
 AT THE BASE IS ADVERTED TO BY THE UNION OR IS OTHERWISE APPARENT.  THAT
 IS, NOTHING IN THE PROPOSAL ITSELF OR ELSEWHERE IN THE RECORD BEFORE THE
 AUTHORITY INDICATES THAT ALLOWING EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS TO HUNT
 AND FISH AT THE BASE WOULD RELATE TO CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  /1/ IN
 PARTICULAR, THE UNION HAS NOT PROVIDED THE AUTHORITY WITH ANY
 EXPLANATION AS TO THE INTENT OF THE PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A
 FINDING THAT SUCH A RELATIONSHIP EXISTS.
 
    THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DEMONSTRATION IN THE RECORD OF A
 DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNION'S PROPOSAL AND UNIT EMPLOYEES'
 WORK SITUATIONS OR EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS, THE AUTHORITY MUST FIND
 THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONCERN MATTERS WHICH ARE "CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(14) OF THE STATUTE.
 /2/ ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO BARGAIN WITH RESPECT TO
 THE PROPOSAL.  /3/
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 30, 1981
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ CF. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, SUPRA, WHERE THE AUTHORITY FOUND NEGOTIABLE A PROPOSAL
 ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR MANAGEMENT'S APPROVAL OF OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT
 APPLICATIONS BECAUSE THE MATTER OF OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT, IN THE
 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE, DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PERSONNEL POLICIES,
 PRACTICES, AND MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES;
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR FORCE
 LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, SUPRA, IN
 WHICH THE AUTHORITY FOUND NEGOTIABLE A PROPOSAL REQUIRING THE USE OF
 AGENCY SPACE FOR DAY CARE FACILITIES BECAUSE THE AVAILABILITY OF DAY
 CARE FACILITIES CONCERNED A MATTER AFFECTING THE WORK SITUATION AND
 EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP OF UNIT EMPLOYEES AND, THUS, IS A CONDITION OF
 EMPLOYMENT.
 
    /2/ SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL
 3402 AND NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C., 6 FLRA NO.
 114(1981).
 
    /3/ IN VIEW OF THIS CONCLUSION THAT THE PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY FINDS IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE
 ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE AGENCY CONCERNING THE NONNEGOTIABILITY OF
 THE PROPOSAL.