12:0545(104)NG - AFGE Local 2578 and GSA, National Archives and Records Service -- 1983 FLRAdec NG
[ v12 p545 ]
12:0545(104)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
12 FLRA No. 104
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 2578, AFL-CIO
Union
and
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND
RECORDS SERVICE
Agency
Case No. O-NG-640
DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
This petition for review comes before the Authority pursuant to
section 7105(a)(2)(D) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (the Statute) and presents issues relating to the negotiability
of the following Union proposal which arose in the context ; of
negotiations relating to a reduction-in-force (RIF) conducted by the
Agency:
Trust Fund employees will have the same retreat and bumping
rights of the competitive service. /1/
Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties'
contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations. Contrary
to the Agency's position, the Authority finds that the petition is
neither moot nor procedurally defective. Although service of a copy of
the petition on the Agency head may have been defective initially, the
Union later perfected service and, thus, cured the defect in accordance
with established Authority practice. See American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3804 and Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, Chicago Region, Illinois, 5 FLRA No. 71 (1981). Moreover,
the Authority finds that the Agency's actions in unilaterally extending
bumping and retreat rights to Trust Fund employees involved in the RIF
neither resolved nor rendered moot the question of whether such matters
are subject to bargaining. /2/
With respect to the merits of the negotiability issue, the Agency in
its declaration of nonnegotiability asserted that the proposal conflicts
with a higher level agency regulation, specifically GSA Order OAD P
5410.1, Paragraph 160(b). /3/ However, the Agency has not elaborated
upon this assertion in its statement of position. It appears that the
Agency is, in essence, contending that negotiation of the proposal is
barred inasmuch as a compelling need exists for the cited regulation.
/4/ However, the Agency has submitted no affirmative support upon which
the Authority could base a finding that a compelling need exists for the
regulation. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1928 and Department of the Navy,
Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, Pennsylvania, 2 FLRA 451
(1980), the Agency's argument in this regard must be rejected.
Noting particularly that no other grounds have been raised by the
Agency as barring negotiation of the proposal, and none are readily
apparent, the Authority concludes that the proposal is within the duty
to bargain. /5/
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Agency shall upon request (or as
otherwise agreed to by the parties) bargain on the proposal. Issued,
Washington, D.C., August 12, 1983
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ In its response to the Agency's statement of position, the Union
contends that, at the bargaining table, it modified the proposal to
read, "Excepted service including Trust Fund employees will have the
same retreat and bumping rights of the competitive service." However,
this Decision is limited to the proposal as it was presented in the
Union's petition and to which the Agency addressed its statement of
position.
/2/ The Trust Fund employees to which the proposal refers are
excepted service employees hired by the National Archives Trust Fund
Board.
/3/ OAD P 5410.1, Paragraph 160(b) provides:
b. Employees serving in excepted positions under excepted
appointments. Employees in the excepted service have rights only
to positions in their own competitive level. When reached for
reduction in force in their own competitive level, they may not
displace employees in any other competitive level.
/4/ See Section 7117(a)(2) and (3) of the Statute.
/5/ In deciding that the proposal is within the duty to bargain, the
Authority makes no judgment as to its merits.