---

 7 FLRA No. 135
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
 REGION X, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-336
 
               DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
 
    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 (THE STATUTE),
 AND PRESENTS ISSUES INVOLVING THE NEGOTIABILITY OF THE FOLLOWING TWO
 UNION PROPOSALS CONCERNING "MERIT PROMOTIONS." UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE
 ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS, THE AUTHORITY MAKES
 THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS:
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL I
 
    (A) EXPERIENCE, AS DEFINED FOR RATING AND RANKING PURPOSES WILL BE
 NEGOTIATED FOR EACH 
    POSITION BETWEEN THE UNION AND MANAGEMENT.  THE WEIGHT TO BE ASSIGNED
 TO EACH EXPERIENCE
    FACTOR WILL ALSO BE NEGOTIATED.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL II
 
    (B) EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND FORM 171 - THE FACTORS OF THE
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
    AS WELL AS REVISION AND/OR REPLACEMENT OF FORM 171 SHALL BE
 NEGOTIATED BETWEEN UNION AND
    MANAGEMENT COMMENCING WITHIN 60 DAYS FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
 THIS AGREEMENT.
 
 
    THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT UNION PROPOSALS I AND II ARE NOT
 SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT TO MEET THE
 AUTHORITY'S CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW.  THE UNION IS SEEKING IN PROPOSAL I
 TO NEGOTIATE EXPERIENCE FACTORS AND WEIGHTS TO BE USED IN RATING AND
 RANKING CANDIDATES FOR MERIT PROMOTION;  IN PROPOSAL II, THE UNION IS
 SEEKING TO NEGOTIATE THE FACTORS OF THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TO BE USED
 IN MERIT PROMOTIONS.  THE AUTHORITY HAS PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT PROPOSALS,
 SUCH AS HERE INVOLVED, WHICH ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND WHICH DO NOT
 SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY THE FACTORS, METHODS AND FORMS TO BE USED IN THE
 EVALUATION, RANKING AND SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION, AND THE
 WEIGHTS TO BE APPLIED TO THE EVALUATION FACTORS, ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
 SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT FOR THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A
 DECISION THEREON, AND THEREFORE HAS DISMISSED PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WITH
 REGARD TO SUCH PROPOSALS ON THAT BASIS.  SEE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1167 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE BASE,
 FLORIDA, 6 FLRA NO. 105(1981) (PROPOSAL 5);  NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
 UNION, CHAPTER 66 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, KANSAS CITY SERVICE CENTER, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, 2 FLRA
 319(1979).
 
    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 BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 29, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY 
 
 
 

---