[ v14 p183 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
14 FLRA No. 38 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1694 Union and OKLAHOMA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA Agency Case No. O-NG-633 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE 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 an issue relating to the negotiability of the following Union proposal. The following sentence is to be deleted from described position descriptions: "Specific MOS/AFSC may be included when essential for successful performance of the job." Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations. National Guard technicians are employed pursuant to the National Guard Technicians Act of 1968, 32 U.S.C. 709(1970), in full-time civilian positions to administer and train the National Guard and to maintain and repair the supplies issued to the National Guard or the armed forces. Such technicians must, as a condition of their civilian employment under the Act, become and remain members of the National Guard (i.e., in a military capacity) and hold the military grade specified for the technician position pursuant to 32 U.S.C. 709(b) and (e). In other words, the law requires a compatibility between the civilian and military sides of technicians' dual status employment. The proposal would delete from the description of the civilian positions held by technicians a sentence referring to "MOS/AFSC." Insofar as the record indicates, the MOS/AFSC means "Military Occupational Specialty/Air Force Specialty Code." It refers to a five digit code, pertaining to a technician's military employment, representing an occupational field, a level of experience and, as pertinent herein, a specialty within the occupational field which the Union calls the "shred." The "shred" is designated in the proposal as the "specific" MOS/AFSC. The proposal is intended to preclude the Agency's requiring that a candidate for a civilian technician position be holding, at the time, one or more particular "specific" MOS/AFSC in his or her military position. The purpose of the proposal is to enable positions. As the Union states, in essence, the Agency's use of a specific MOS/AFSC, "specifically matched in a particular shred with the technician's military position," as a selective factor for a civilian position limits the civilian positions for which a technician candidate is deemed eligible to compete. It does not, however, take account of the actual qualifications of the candidate in relation to those which management has established for the job in question. In this latter regard, the Union states without contradiction by the Agency that the fact that a technician does not hold a particular specific MOS/AFSC in his or her military position, at the time, does not indicate that the technician necessarily lacks the actual qualifications which such code would purport to reflect. The Agency, for its part, does not claim that the use of specific MOS/AFSC which is the subject of the proposal is necessary to insure compatibility between the military and civilian positions technicians hold; nor are there facts in the record to support a finding to that effect. Hence, the Authority finds it unnecessary to further consider this matter herein. /1/ Rather, the Agency focuses on its claim that management must be allowed to include specific MOS/AFSC in civilian position descriptions in order to identify military specialities which are essential to successful job performance in certain civilian technician positions. 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), the Authority decided that management's right to select a candidate for appointment to a position under section 7106(a)(2)(C) of the Statute includes the discretion to determine the particular factors, i.e., the knowledges, skills, and abilities necessary to successful performance of the work of a position, to be utilized in the process of making a selection. In the present case, the Agency essentially claims that it uses the MOS/AFSC in position description to identify specific qualifications, i.e., knowledges, skills, and abilities, which it has determined are necessary for successful performance of the work of the technician position being filled, and, which can only be identified by these codes. The Authority concludes that the proposal herein would not limit the right of the Agency to establish qualifications including selective factors for civilian technician positions. In this regard, the Authority has ruled that a proposal which would have eliminated the exclusive use of "SKAP" code numbers in ranking bargaining unit employees who applied for vacancies was within the duty to bargain. The effect of that proposal was only to prevent the summary disqualification of otherwise eligible bargaining unit candidates based on their failure to be registered in the applicable career program, but the proposal did not eliminate any skills, knowledges, abilities, and personal characteristics (SKAP) as elements in ranking candidates for vacancies. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1332 and Headquarters, U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command, Alexandria, Virginia, 6 FLRA No. 66 (1981) (Union Proposal V). The proposal at issue herein is to the same effect as Proposal V in the cited case. That is, its effect would be only to require the Agency to evaluate the actual qualifications of a candidate instead of merely relying on a code which may or may not have been assigned to the candidate for another purpose. Hence, it is within the duty to bargain. /2/ 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 Union's proposal. Issued, Washington, D.C., April 6, 1984 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ The Authority need not sua sponte supplement a party's incomplete analysis with respect to matters foreign to the Authority's area of expertise. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1167 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 681 F.2d 886, 891 (D.C. Cir. 1982). /2/ In so deciding, the Authority makes no judgment as to the merits of the proposal.