16:0358(56)AR - AFGE Local 1904 and Army Communications and Electronics Material Readiness Command -- 1984 FLRAdec AR
[ v16 p358 ]
16:0358(56)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
16 FLRA No. 56
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1904, AFL-CIO
Union
and
UNITED STATES ARMY COMMUNICATIONS
AND ELECTRONICS MATERIEL READINESS
COMMAND
Activity
Case No. O-AR-644
DECISION
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of
Arbitrator Thomas F. Carey filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of
the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Union filed an opposition.
/1/
The dispute in this matter concerns the grievance filed by the Union
claiming that the Activity's decision to contract out certain support
functions was violative of section 502 of P.L. 96-342, 10 U.S.C. 2304
note (which relates to contracting out in the Department of Defense) and
agency regulations and directives, specifically AR 235-1 and DOD
4100.33-H (which also relate to contracting out). The parties separated
a threshold issue of arbitrability under the parties' collective
bargaining agreement and submitted that issue to arbitration for
decision. The parties' collective bargaining agreement restated the
definition of "grievance" from section 7103(a)(9) of the Statute, and
the Arbitrator acknowledged in particular that the definition included
any complaint concerning any claimed violation, misinterpretation, or
misapplication of any law, rule, or regulation affecting conditions of
employment. Concluding that the Union's grievance was a complaint
claiming such a violation, the Arbitrator as his award ruled that the
grievance was arbitrable under the parties' collective bargaining
agreement.
In its exceptions the Agency essentially contends that the award is
contrary to the management rights provisions of the Statute, primarily
section 7106(a)(2)(B), /2/ by subjecting management's decision to
contract out to arbitral review and that the award is inconsistent with
procurement law and regulations, primarily OMB Circular A-76 (which
prescribes general policies for contracting out), that assertedly
preclude grievances over an agency's determination with respect to
contracting out. The Authority finds that the Agency's exceptions
provide no basis for finding the award deficient.
In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, National
Council of EEOC Locals and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 10
FLRA 3 (1982) (proposal 1), enforced sub nom. EEOC v. FLRA, No. 82-2310
(D.C. Cir. Sept. 21, 1984), the Authority expressly addressed whether
the disputed proposal (that the agency would comply with OMB Circular
A-76 and other applicable laws and regulations governing contracting
out) was within the duty to bargain. In terms of this case, contentions
essentially identical to those made by the Agency in its exceptions to
the Arbitrator's award were specifically rejected by the Authority and
the court. In National Council of EEOC Locals the Authority expressly
held that the requirement for management to exercise its right to make
contracting-out determinations in accordance with whatever applicable
laws and regulations exist at the time of the determination is not
inconsistent with section 7106(a)(2)(B). Furthermore, in enforcing this
decision of the Authority, the court in EEOC specifically rejected the
contention that the proposal was contrary to section 7106(a)(2)(B)
because the proposal would subject any contracting-out decision to
grievance procedures and ultimately arbitral review. In this respect
the court first rejected the assumption that absent such a proposal, a
complaint asserting that a contracting-out determination was not made in
accordance with applicable laws, including the Circular, would not be
grievable. The court noted that under the expansive definition of
grievance in section 7103(a)(9) and with no exclusion of 7121(c) of the
Statute applicable to the subject of contracting out, a complaint that
an agency failed to comply with the OMB Circular or with any other law
or rule governing contracting out plainly is a matter within the
coverage of the grievance procedure prescribed by the Statute. Id. at
12-13. After determining that such a matter was subject to grievance
and arbitration, the court further concluded that "a grievance asserting
that management failed to comply with its statutory or regulatory
parameters in making a contracting-out decision is not precluded by the
management rights clause." Id. at 15. As to the contention that OMB
Circular A-76 bars grievances and arbitration over contracting-out
determinations, the Authority specifically held that the Circular cannot
limit the coverage of the grievance procedure prescribed by the Statute.
Therefore, the Authority concludes that the Agency has not established
that the Arbitrator's award, which essentially finds that the grievance
in this case is arbitrable as a grievance permitted by the Statute and
not excluded by the agreement, is contrary to section 7106(a) of the
Statute or procurement laws and regulations.
Accordingly, the exceptions are denied.
Issued, Washington, D.C., October 31, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ In its opposition the Union has objected to the Agency's
exceptions on various procedural grounds. The Authority however
concludes that the exceptions are not procedurally deficient as alleged
by the Union.
/2/ Section 7106(a)(2)(B) pertinently provides:
(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, nothing in this
chapter shall affect the authority of any management official of
any agency--
* * * *
(2) in accordance with applicable laws--
* * * *
(B) . . . to make determinations with respect to contracting
out(.)