Please note that Friday, January 20, 2017, is a federal holiday for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  The following FLRA offices will not be open to accept in-person case filings or to respond to phone calls on that day:  the Authority’s Case Intake and Publication Office, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Washington Regional Office, OGC Headquarters (Appeals), and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

12:0172(41)NG - NFFE Local 943 and Air Force, Technical Training Center, Keesler AFB, MS -- 1983 FLRAdec NG

[ v12 p172 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 12 FLRA No. 41
                                            Case No. O-NG-556
    This case comes before the Federal Labor Relations Authority pursuant
 to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute (Statute) and raises the question of the negotiability
 of the following Union proposal:
          Section 1.  It is the desire of both management and the Union
       that a viable promotion evaluation pattern hereinafter called PEP,
       exist for the mutual benefit of both management and labor.  To
       assure that a viable PEP exists, a Joint Union/Management PEP
       Committee shall be established to study, make ground rules, and
       procedures for fulfilling the functions of establishing standards
       and guidelines in regards to the primary ranking factors relating
       to the PEP for promotion of GS-9 to GS-11, GS-11 to GS-12, and
       GS-12 to GS-13 in the 1712 series in the Technical Training
       School.  This committee shall consist of 11 members, one of whom
       shall serve as chairman.  Five of the members shall be selected by
       the employer and five of the members shall be selected by the
       Union.  The non-voting chairman shall be selected by the Union.
       Actions of the committee will be forwarded to the COP for
       authentication for conformance with applicable laws and
       establishment of implementation procedures.  Technical advisors
       without vote can be selected and used by management and/or the
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 contentions of the parties, the Authority makes the following
 determinations.  The proposal provides for a joint labor-management
 committee to develop a promotion evaluation pattern (PEP) to establish
 standards and guidelines with regard to primary ranking factors to be
 used in evaluating candidates for promotions to certain positions.  /1/
 Specifically, according to the Union's statement of intent, under the
 proposal "the PEP committee (has the) authority to determine which
 factors shall be considered for promotion . . . and the relative weight
 to be assigned to each factor."
    In thus providing for a joint committee to develop a "promotion
 evaluation plan" including determining the selective factors, i.e., the
 knowledge, skill and ability necessary to successful performance of the
 work of a position, to be used in merit promotion, the instant proposal
 would involve the Union in the Agency's selection process.  Hence, it is
 materially to the same effect as Proposals 1 and 2 in National
 Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1497 and Headquarters, Lowry
 Technical Training Center (ATC), Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado, 11 FLRA
 No. 92 (1983).  In that case, the Authority held that the proposals
 involved, which established a joint labor-management panel to develop
 "promotion evaluation patterns," including designation of "selective
 factors," were outside the duty to bargain because they directly
 interfered with management's rights under section 7106(a)(2)(C) of the
 Statute by involving the union in the agency's selection process.  Based
 on Lowry Technical Training Center and for the reasons stated therein,
 it is concluded that the instant proposal would also directly interfere
 with management's rights under section 7106(a)(2)(C) of the Statute.
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations (5 CFR 2424.10), IT IS ORDERED that the 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/ A brief summary of the relevant aspects of merit promotion
 procedures and of their use in the selection of candidates for
 appointment to vacant positions is to be found in National Treasury
 Employees Union and NTEU Chapters 153, 161 and 183 and U.S. Customs
 Service, Region II, 11 FLRA No. 47 (1983).  For a more detailed
 discussion of such procedures, see Federal Personnel Manual (FPM)
 Supplement 335-1, Appendix B, which distinguishes between "selective
 factors" and "crediting plans."