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.         

18:0091(17)NG - AFGE Local 32 and OPM -- 1985 FLRAdec NG

[ v18 p91 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 18 FLRA No. 17
                                            Case No. 0-NG-961
    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
 concerning the negotiability of one Union proposal.  Upon careful
 consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions,
 the Authority makes the following determination.
          Employees will be allowed some flexibility in establishing the
       new work control system and desk organization as long as it is
       O.K.'d by their supervisor.  Any such approval of alternate plans
       will be noted and signed on the employee's copy of the training
    While not explained by the parties, the terms "work control system"
 and "desk organization" referred to in the proposal appear to concern
 the manner in which employees perform their assigned duties.  Thus, this
 proposal provides that proposed changes in the manner in which employees
 perform their assigned duties would be subject to approval by a
 designated individual, specifically, the employee's supervisor.  In this
 regard, this proposal is to the same effect as the third sentence of
 Union Proposal 2 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 Redstone
 Arsenal, the Authority relied upon Congressional Research Employees
 Association and the Library of Congress, 3 FLRA 737 (1980) (Section 8 of
 the Union's Proposal) to find the third sentence of the proposal which
 specified the personnel within an agency who would perform certain
 functions, including assigning work to bargaining unit employees, to be
 nonnegotiable.  The Authority reasoned that such portion of the proposal
 implicitly prevented management from assigning those functions to other
 agency personnel and thus directly interfered with the right to assign
 work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.  Similarly, the instant
 proposal, which requires that specified personnel, i.e., an employee's
 supervisor will approve changes in the manner in which employees perform
 their assigned duties, also directly interferes with management's right
 to assign work and is outside the duty to bargain.  See National
 Federation of Federal Employees, Local 943 and Department of the Air
 Force, Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, 16 FLRA No. 49 (1984)
 (Section D of the Union's Proposal).
    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.  Issued, Washington, D.C., May 22, 1985
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY