U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

16:0040(10)NG - AFGE Local 32 and OPM -- 1984 FLRAdec NG

[ v16 p40 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 16 FLRA No. 10
                                            Case No. O-NG-903
    This petition for review comes before the Authority pursuant to
 section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute) and raises questions relating to the negotiability
 of two Union proposals.  Upon careful consideration of the entire
 record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the
 following determinations.
                             Union Proposal 1
    No lie detectors will be used.
    Union Proposal 1 is to the same effect as Union Proposal 4 found to
 be outside the duty to bargain in American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1858 and Department of the Army, U.S. Army
 Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 10 FLRA 440 (1982).  In that
 decision, the Authority held that a proposal which prohibited the use of
 the polygraph violated management's right to determine its internal
 security practices under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute.  The
 Authority determined that the proposal prevented management from
 utilizing investigative techniques which it had adopted to safeguard
 Agency personnel and property.
    According to the Agency's uncontested contention, Union Proposal 1,
 herein, likewise prevents management from utilizing an investigative
 technique which it has adopted to safeguard personnel and property.
 Hence, based on U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal and the
 reasons and case cited therein, Union Proposal 1 is outside the duty to
                             Union Proposal 2
          Entries in an individual development plan do constitute a
       commitment by the agency to promote or train.
    The individual development plan referred to in the proposal consists
 of a form in which employees and supervisors outline the employee's
 training and developmental needs.  The items to be completed by the
 supervisor include training needs in the employee's present position,
 developmental activities needed for career ladder advancement and
 developmental activities needed for movement to a new position.  The
 supervisor also completes a more detailed plan for the achievement of
 each of these objectives, for example, a description of the exact type
 of training needed.  The Agency asserts, without controversion, that
 this proposal would require it to provide the exact type of training
 specified in the individual development plan.  In National Association
 of Air Traffic Specialists and Department of Transportation, Federal
 Aviation Administration, 6 FLRA 588 (1981) (Union Proposals I through
 III) the Authority held that a proposal which prescribed "the type of
 training to be assigned as well as its frequency and duration"
 interfered with the Agency's right to assign work pursuant to section
 7106(a)(2)(B).  Since the instant proposal would in effect specify the
 type of training to be provided for each employee, it similarly
 interferes with the Agency's right to assign work and is outside the
 duty to bargain.  /1/
    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., September 20, 1984
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
    /1/ Based upon the Authority's conclusion that Union Proposal 2 is
 outside the duty to bargain pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B), it is
 unnecessary to consider the other Agency contentions concerning the
 negotiability of the proposal.