12:0550(106)NG - NTEU Chapter 68 and Treasury, IRS, Andover Service Center, Andover, MA -- 1983 FLRAdec NG

 12 FLRA No. 106
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
 UNION, CHAPTER 68
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 ANDOVER SERVICE CENTER,
 ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-795
 
                   ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
 
    The petition for review in this case comes before the Authority
 pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and presents issues
 concerning the negotiability of six Union proposals.  /1/ For the
 following reasons, the Union's petition for review must be dismissed.
 
    The record indicates that the Union sought to negotiate at the local
 level over the furlough and recall of "when actually employed" (WAE)
 employees at the Service Center.  The proposals were made as a result of
 the Agency's announced plan to divide a single section at the Service
 Center into two sections.  In its statement of position, the Agency
 contends, inter alia, and the Union does not controvert, that procedures
 for the furlough and recall of WAE employees are set forth in the
 parties' national agreement, and alleges that the Union is using the
 proposed reorganization to demand negotiations on proposals which merely
 deal with procedures already established in the national agreement.
 Therefore, the Agency asserts that it is not obligated to bargain on the
 proposals.
 
    The Authority concludes that the circumstances herein do not give
 rise to a negotiability dispute which the Authority may properly review
 at this time pursuant to section 7117 of the Statute and part 2424 of
 the Authority's Rules and Regulations.  The essence of the dispute
 between the parties concerns the question of the Agency's obligation to
 bargain, i.e., whether the subject matter of the proposals has already
 been negotiated at the national level, and not the negotiability of the
 proposals themselves.  Thus, resolution of the dispute, which may hinge
 on the interpretation of provisions of the national agreement and
 related factual issues, should be accomplished by means of the unfair
 labor practice provisions of the Statute, or through the use of whatever
 dispute resolution mechanisms the parties have themselves established in
 their national agreement.  See, e.g., Overseas Education Association,
 Inc. and Department of Defense Dependents Schools, 12 FLRA No. 15
 (1983).
 
    Accordingly, apart from other considerations, IT IS ORDERED that the
 Union's petition for review be, and it hereby is, dismissed.  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/ The Agency's contention that the Union's petition for review
 should be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirement of
 section 2424.4(a)(2) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations that the
 Union furnish an explicit statement of the meaning of the proposals
 cannot be sustained.  One week after the petition was filed, the Union
 submitted a clarifying letter stating that "(t)he proposals are clear on
 their face." Further, it appears from the record that the parties
 reached an understanding as to the proposals' meaning and intent.