12:0354(76)NG - NAGE and VA Medical Center, Butler, PA -- 1983 FLRAdec NG
[ v12 p354 ]
12:0354(76)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
12 FLRA No. 76
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Union
and
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
MEDICAL CENTER
BUTLER, PENNSYLVANIA
Agency
Case No. O-NG-466
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 (the Statute),
and raises the question of the negotiability of two Union proposals
which arose within the context of negotiations at the local level over a
supplemental agreement.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.
Proposal No. 1
It should not be necessary for technicians on standby to have
to remain at his/her home. He/she should be able to leave a
telephone number with the Medical Administrative Assistant on duty
and still meet the 30 minute time limit.
The proposal is concerned with "standby duty" which is governed by 5
U.S.C. 5545. This section provides that, under certain circumstances,
an employee who is required "to remain at, or within the confines of,
his station during longer than ordinary periods of duty" shall receive
premium pay on an annual basis. The words "at, or within the confines
of, his station" have been defined in 5 CFR 550.143 as meaning one of
the following:
(1) At an employee's regular duty station.
(2) In quarters provided by an agency, which are not the
employee's ordinary living quarters, and which are specifically
provided for use of personnel required to stand by in readiness to
perform actual work when the need arises or when called.
(3) In an employee's living quarters, when designated by the
agency as his duty station and when his whereabouts is narrowly
limited and his activities are substantially restricted. This
condition exists only during periods when an employee is required
to remain at his quarters and is required to hold himself in a
state of readiness to answer calls for his services. This
limitation on an employee's whereabouts and activities is
distinguished from the limitation placed on an employee who is
subject to call outside his tour of duty but may leave his
quarters provided he arranges for someone else to respond to calls
or leaves a telephone number by which he can be reached should his
services be required.
Inasmuch as the proposal expressly seeks to obviate the requirement that
an employee on standby duty remain at his/her quarters, it conflicts
with the above referenced statutory provision and is, therefore, not
within the duty to bargain under section 7117 of the Statute. /1/
Proposal No. 2
The workweek shall consist of five (5) consecutive days, with
two (2) consecutive days may be worked, in order to receive long
weekends off, with every third weekend off. Where seven (7)
consecutive days are worked, these units will be listed in this
agreement. Those units working an administrative workweek will
not adhere to this Article.
The Union contends that bargaining at the local level on Proposal No.
2 has been authorized by virtue of language contained in the parties'
Master Agreement negotiated at the national level. /2/ However, the
Agency contends that Proposal No. 2 is integrally related to and
determinative of the numbers, types and grades of employees assigned to
a tour of duty and, therefore, pursuant to section 7106(b)(1) of the
Statute, is negotiable only at its election and that it has not elected
to negotiate such a proposal "by way of the Master Agreement or in any
other way." The Agency claims that the language in the Master Agreement
relied upon by the Union "does not mean that it (the Agency) has made an
affirmative election to negotiate" on the matters referred to in the
proposal.
Based on the positions of the parties, the Authority concludes that a
legitimate threshold question exists as to whether the Master Agreement,
negotiated at the national level, authorizes bargaining at the local
level on Proposal No. 2. This threshold question does not give rise to
a negotiability issue which may be resolved pursuant to Section 7117 of
the Statute. Rather, this question should have been processed through
whatever mechanisms the parties have adopted in their national agreement
for resolving such issues. See, e.g., American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1661 and Department of Justice, Bureau of
Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution, Danbury, Connecticut, 2 FLRA
412 (1980).
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., July 29, 1983
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ In view of this determination, the Authority finds it unnecessary
to address the Agency's contentions that the proposal is inconsistent
with management's section 7106(b)(1) right to determine "the numbers,
type and grades of employees assigned" or with any Government-wide rule
or regulation.
/2/ The Union cites Article XXVI, section 1, which provides:
This Master Agreement will not negate existing local
arrangements for scheduling consecutive days off, consecutive work
days, shift changes, weekends off, or requests for indefinite tour
assignments.