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.         

15:0796(151)NG - NFFE Local 1379 and Interior, Bureau of Land Management , Oregon State Office -- 1984 FLRAdec NG



[ v15 p796 ]
15:0796(151)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 15 FLRA No. 151
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1379
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
 OREGON STATE OFFICE
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-839
 
                 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
 concerning the negotiability of the following proposal:
 
          The competitive area in a reduction-in-force shall consist of
       the Bargaining Unit as described in Article II, and Wage
       Supervisors over the employees.  In addition, any employee
       qualified to "bump" or eligible to "retreat" into such jobs shall
       also be eligible for inclusion in the competitive area for the
       purpose of bumping or retreating only.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination.
 The proposal seeks to define a competitive area within the Agency for
 purposes of reduction-in-force (RIF).  The Agency asserts that the
 proposed competitive area would encompass non-bargaining unit employees,
 specifically, supervisors in addition to bargaining unit employees.  The
 Agency concludes, based upon this fact, that it has no obligation to
 bargain over the proposal.
 
    The Authority, in American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 32, AFL-CIO and Office of Personnel Management, 14 FLRA No. 98 (1984),
 appeal docketed, No. 84-1250 (D.C. Cir. June 15, 1984) has addressed the
 negotiability of a proposal dealing with competitive areas for RIF
 purposes where an agency established that the proposed competitive area
 affected non-bargaining unit employees.  In that case the Authority
 noted that it is well established that the duty to bargain does not
 extend to matters concerning positions and employees outside the
 bargaining unit.  International Federation of Professional and Technical
 Engineers, AFL-CIO, NASA Headquarters Professional Association and
 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Headquarters, Washington,
 D.C., 8 FLRA 212 (1982) and cases cited therein at note 5.  However, an
 agency generally may bargain over such matters if it so chooses.  See,
 e.g., American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2 and
 Department of the Army, Military District of Washington, 4 FLRA 450
 (1980).  Insofar as the proposal defining a competitive area in Office
 of Personnel Management was established to directly determine conditions
 of employment of nonunit employees, it was found to concern matters
 beyond the representation rights of the union and, hence, not within the
 agency's obligation to bargain.  See also Service Employees'
 International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 556 and Department of the Army,
 Office of the Adjutant General, Hale Koa Hotel, Honolulu, Hawaii, 9 FLRA
 686 (1982).
 
    Since, in this case, the proposal by its plain language would
 directly determine conditions of employment of employees not within the
 bargaining unit, it must be concluded, for the reasons stated in Office
 of Personnel Management, that the proposal is similarly outside the duty
 to bargain as alleged by the Agency.
 
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for review be, and
 it hereby is, dismissed.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., August 29, 1984
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY