Please note that Friday, January 20, 2017, is a federal holiday for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  The following FLRA offices will not be open to accept in-person case filings or to respond to phone calls on that day:  the Authority’s Case Intake and Publication Office, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Washington Regional Office, OGC Headquarters (Appeals), and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

15:0541(112)NG - AFSCME Local 2910 and Library of Congress -- 1984 FLRAdec NG

[ v15 p541 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 15 FLRA No. 112
                                            Case No. O-NG-612
    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 the
 question of the negotiability of the following Union proposal:
          When an employee is reassigned or transferred the employee will
       be given an appropriate training period of not less than ninety
       (90) days to acquire the skills and proficiency necessary to
       satisfactorily perform the duties and responsibilities of the new
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.
    According to the Union's statement of intent, under the proposal
 "employees who are reassigned or transferred into different positions
 are to be given 90 days to familiarize themselves with the duties and
 responsibilities of the new position before being required to meet the
 performance requirements of the position." Therefore, the proposal,
 based upon the Union's stated intent, would delay application of
 performance requirements during the first three months a reassigned or
 transferred employee is performing the duties of a new position.  The
 proposal only provides that employees will not be evaluated during their
 training period, not that employees will not be expected to perform the
 work assigned.  Based on such interpretation, which the Authority adopts
 for purposes of this decision, the Authority concludes, contrary to the
 Agency's argument, that the proposal provides for a "training period"
 but does not in any manner mandate that training be provided by the
 Agency.  /1/ Furthermore, contrary to the Agency's claims, there is
 nothing in the express language of the proposal which would render it
 outside the duty to bargain because it would deprive the Agency of
 discretion, if it chose to provide training, concerning the methodology,
 scheduling, duration, type, content, and other characteristics of any
 such training.  /2/ Thus, the proposal here does not interfere with
 management's right to assign work.
    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 concerning the Union's
 proposal.  /3/
    Issued, Washington, D.C., August 16, 1984
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
    /1/ Cf. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
 3004 and Department of the Air Force, Otis Air Force Base,
 Massachusetts, 9 FLRA 723 (1982) (wherein a proposal which would have
 conditioned employee evaluation on management's providing formal
 training was held violative of management's rights).
    /2/ See Otis Air Force Base and cases cited therein.
    /3/ In finding the proposal to be within the duty to bargain, the
 Authority makes no judgment as to its merits.