17:0550(81)NG - AFGE Local 12 and Labor -- 1985 FLRAdec NG
[ v17 p550 ]
17:0550(81)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
17 FLRA No. 81
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO
Union
and
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Agency
Case No. 0-NG-940
DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
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 issues
concerning the negotiability of the following two Union proposals.
Union Proposal 1
EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK
(T)he Union . . . proposes a joint committee be formed to meet
separate from the Mid Term Bargaining forum to discuss the Union's
objections to the proposed Employee Handbook with the goal of
accepting the new handbook if the Union's concerns are
satisfactorily addressed.
Union Proposal 2
UPWARD MOBILITY AND TRAINING
Change point 6 on page 6 to read as follows:
Panels will use individual oral interviews as part of the Merit
Staffing evaluation process in order to make a final determination
on the employees to be certified.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.
Based on the record in this case it appears that the Union submitted
these proposals to the Agency pursuant to the parties' agreement in
response to the Agency's issuance of a revised "Employee Handbook" and
the "reissuance" of the Upward Mobility Training Agreement. When the
Agency refused to negotiate on the proposals, the Union requested an
allegation of nonnegotiability and the Agency replied that it had no
duty to bargain on the matters proposed. The Agency's position is that
these matters are not properly before the Authority because the
Department of Labor has made no material change affecting conditions of
employment and no duty to bargain exists with regard to these proposals
under such circumstances. The Agency did not assert that the two
proposals were nonnegotiable, but, rather, that there is no duty on the
Agency's part to bargain over these proposals. The Union thereupon
filed the instant appeal with the Authority seeking a negotiability
determination.
The Agency has not alleged or demonstrated in the record herein that
these proposals are inconsistent with law or regulation, and since no
basis for finding the proposals nonnegotiable is otherwise apparent, the
Authority finds that Union Proposals 1 and 2 are within the Agency's
duty to bargain under the Statute. It is well established that the
parties bear the burden for creating a record upon which the Authority
can make its decision. See National Federation of Federal Employees,
Local 1167 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 681 F.2d 886, 891 (D.C.
Cir. 1982), aff'g National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1167
and Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, 31st Combat Support Group
(TAC), Homestead Air Force Base, Florida, 6 FLRA 574 (1981). See also
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 2477
and Library of Congress, 14 FLRA 59 (1984).
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 disputed
proposals. /1/ Issued, Washington, D.C., April 15, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ The Authority decides herein only the negotiability of Union
Proposals 1 and 2 under the Statute. To the extent that there are
factual issues in dispute between the parties regarding the duty to
bargain in the specific circumstances of this case, these issues may be
raised and litigated in an unfair labor practice proceeding. American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2736 and Department
of the Air Force, Headquarters, 379th Combat Support Group (SAC),
Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan, 14 FLRA 302 (1984).