17:0362(55)NG - AFGE Local 3424 and Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Washington, DC -- 1985 FLRAdec NG
[ v17 p362 ]
17:0362(55)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
17 FLRA No. 55
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3424
Union
and
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Agency
Case No. O-NG-769
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
relating to the negotiability of the following Union proposal:
Examiners who travel 150 miles or more on official business
will be permitted three hours overhead travel (OHT).
The above proposal is meant to apply to employees of the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board for voluntary travel to return home
for week-ends.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.
According to the Union's stated intent, the proposal would require
the Agency to grant employees a maximum of 3 hours of duty time during
workdays for the purpose of traveling to and returning from their places
of residence on week-ends. Thus the express language of the proposal
would preclude management from exercising its right to assign work to
employees during that portion of the workday which is required for
travel.
In this regard, the Union Proposal herein has the same effect as
Proposal 1 in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Local 3424 and Federal Home Loan Bank Board, San Francisco, California,
14 FLRA No. 18 (1984). In that case, the proposal at issue required the
Agency to grant a maximum of three hours of duty time for traveling,
each way, when employees on temporary duty assignments returned to their
residences on the weekends. The Authority held, based on its decisions
in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3483 and
Federal Home Loan Bank Board, New York District Office, 13 FLRA No. 80
(1983), and National Treasury Employees Union and NTEU, Chapter 80 and
Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Central Region, 8
FLRA 197 (1982), that because the proposal in Federal Home Loan Bank
Board, San Francisco would have precluded the assignment of work to
employees during the duty time on which they were traveling to their
residences, or returning to their temporary duty assignments, it
directly interfered with management's right to assign work under section
7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. /1/ Thus, as the Union Proposal at issue
herein similarly would preclude the Agency from assigning work to
employees during that portion of the workday which they would use for
travel to and from their residences, for the reasons set forth in the
FHLBB, San Francisco, FHLBB, New York District and IRS, Central Region
decisions, it directly interferes with management's right to assign work
under section 7106(a)(2)(B) and is outside the Agency's duty to bargain.
/2/
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review be, and it
hereby is dismissed. /3/ Issued, Washington, D.C., March 28, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Section 7106(a)(2)(B) provides, in relevant part:
Sec. 7106. Management rights
(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 assign work(.)
/2/ Of course, management must exercise its rights under section
7106(a)(2) in accordance with applicable laws. In this case,
specifically, 5 U.S.C. 6101(b)(2) requires an agency to arrange travel
during the scheduled workweek "to the maximum extent practicable."
However, this proposal would require travel during the scheduled
workweek even where not practicable and is thus inconsistent with
management's right to assign work.
/3/ In view of the decision herein, it is unnecessary to address the
Agency's additional contentions.