12:0149(36)NG - AFGE Local 1749 and Air Force, 47th Flying Training Wing, Laughlin AFB, TX -- 1983 FLRAdec NG
[ v12 p149 ]
12:0149(36)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
12 FLRA No. 36
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1749
Union
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
47TH FLYING TRAINING WING,
LAUGHLIN AIR FORCE BASE,
TEXAS
Agency
Case No. O-NG-554
DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
This case comes before the Authority pursuant to section
7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
(the Statute) and raises an issue concerning the negotiability of the
following Union proposal.
All training/drills to be conducted after 1600 hours,
Saturdays, Sundays and on holidays must be pre-scheduled in
writing, and a copy provided to the designated union steward of
each shift and copies posted on appropriate bulletin boards thirty
(30) days prior to training being performed. Any deviation from
the scheduled training will be rescheduled thirty (30) days from
the scheduled date with a copy of the change provided to the union
steward of each shift and the change posted on the appropriate
bulletin boards.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.
The Union's proposal is intended to cover the scheduling and
notification of training of a unit of fire fighters at an Agency
location which conducts aircraft pilot training. In this regard, the
Agency states:
Training to prepare/qualify firefighters to operate as a team
during an emergency must of necessity be conducted in close
proximity to the aircraft runways; therefore, it is impossible to
conduct such firefighting training during the time student pilots
are flying or practicing takeoffs/landings. . . . It should also
be noted that firefighter training cannot be conducted during the
time student pilots are flying because the firefighters would then
be unable to perform their primary duty, that of immediate
response to an emergency. Consequently, there are occasions when
firefighter training can only be given after 1600 hours daily or
on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. /1/
With respect to the constraints which would be imposed by the Union
proposal, the Agency contends:
In order to be qualified as a firefighter and/or a team,
firefighters must be prepared to respond on a moment's notice.
The only way management has to assure itself of this preparedness
is through unscheduled training/drills.
Also in this connection, the Agency asserts, "It would be impossible for
management to schedule, 30 days in advance, training which would provide
firefighters with the necessary skills/abilities for responding to a
'middle-of-the-night' emergency during a driving rain storm." /2/
Thus, in the circumstances of this case as described by the Agency,
the instant proposal would prevent management from acting at all to
assign certain types of training to firefighters after 1600 hours and on
weekends and holidays, periods during which training must be conducted
on occasion, without the requisite notice. That is, it would not be
possible to schedule training in adverse weather conditions 30 days in
advance of its performance nor, under the notice required by the
proposal, would it be possible to conduct unannounced drills to assess
the readiness of employees to respond to emergencies. Hence, the Union
proposal, as written, is inconsistent with the Agency's right under
section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute "to assign work." See International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local F-61 and Philadelphia Naval
Shipyard, 3 FLRA 438 (1980). /3/
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and
it hereby is, dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C., June 7, 1983
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Agency Statement of Position at 2.
/2/ Id. at 4.
/3/ In its response to the Agency's statement of position, the Union
says that the proposal does not cover readiness tests or security
checks. This assertion is inconsistent with the plain language of the
proposal which covers "(a)ll training/drills to be conducted. . . . "
In finding the instant proposal nonnegotiable, the Authority does not
decide whether a more limited proposal, such as that described by the
Union, would be negotiable.