15:0052(11)NG - NAGE Local R14-87 and Kansas Army NG, Topeka, KS -- 1984 FLRAdec NG

 15 FLRA No. 11
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R14-87
 Union
 
 and
 
 KANSAS ARMY NATIONAL
 GUARD, TOPEKA, KANSAS
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-667
 
                 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 raises an issue
 concerning the negotiability of the following Union proposal.  /1/
 
          Union recognizes managements (sic) position concerning
       compatibility.  However, as the past policy, of allowing 6 months
       for a technician, who voluntarily changes technician positions, to
       become compatible, and the proposed policy, of requiring immediate
       compatibility when a technician changes technician positions, are
       both discriminatory insofar as the regulation concerning
       compatibility, allows technicians who hold military ranks of
       officers, 1 year (12 months), during which time they do not have
       to be compatible.
 
          Union proposes that all technicians who voluntarily change
       technician positions, will have 1 year (12 months), from the time
       of technician change, in which to become compatible.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination.
 The employees represented by the Union herein are National guard
 technicians who, as a condition of their civilian employment, must
 become and remain military members of the National Guard and must
 maintain the military grade specified for their technician positions.
 32 U.S.C. 709(b), 709(e)(1).  In this connection, a regulation
 promulgated by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) requires that
 technicians' military assignments, to the extent possible, involve the
 same duties as their corresponding civilian technician positions, i.e.,
 the military and civilian assignments must be "compatible," so that
 technicians are performing the same work as civilians as they would
 undertake as military members subsequent to mobilization.
 
    The proposal herein resulted from a change in Agency policy governing
 the compatibility requirement.  Previously, when a change in technician
 assignment resulted in incompatibility with the technician's military
 assignment, there was a six month grace period to allow reassignment to
 a compatible military position.  The new policy requires that civilian
 and military assignments be compatible on the effective date of the
 change affecting the technician's assignment.  The proposal, however,
 would allow a technician to remain in an incompatible military
 assignment for a period of up to one year after having voluntarily
 changed his or her civilian assignment.  Thus, the disputed proposal
 concerns matters related to the military aspects of technician
 employment.  In Association of Civilian Technicians, Pennsylvania State
 Council and the Adjutant General, Department of Military Affairs,
 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 3 FLRA 50 (1980), the Authority noted,
 with regard to a portion of a Union proposal establishing procedures to
 be used by National Guard technicians in appealing appraisals of
 military performance, that the military aspect of technician employment
 is totally mandated by law and, therefore, is not a "condition of
 employment" within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute.
 Consequently, the part of the proposal concerning the military
 performance appraisals was held to be outside the duty to bargain.
 Hence, the disputed proposal herein, which addresses the timing of
 military assignments which must be made to maintain compatibility
 between military and civilian functions, likewise concerns the military
 aspect of technician employment and is, for the reasons set forth in
 Department of Military Affairs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, also
 outside the duty to bargain.
 
    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., June 8, 1984
 
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ The Union withdrew a second proposal in its Reply Brief to the
 Agency's Statement of Position.  Therefore, that proposal is not
 considered here.