[ v18 p96 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
18 FLRA No. 19 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1437 Union and DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMAND, DOVER, NEW JERSEY Agency Case No. 0-NG-1001 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES The petition for review in this case comes before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (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 two Union proposals. Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations. Union Proposal 1 The number of members on either negotiating team shall not exceed five and two observers. According to the Union, the proposal would not require the Agency to designate a particular number or representatives but instead, only sets a reasonable limit on the number of negotiators either party may have at collective bargaining negotiations. However, the Union's proposal by its express terms would prevent the Agency from designating a team of Agency negotiators and observers in excess of the numbers specified in the proposal. This proposal, therefore, is to the same effect as the proposal before the Authority in National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1451, and Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida, 3 FLRA 88 (1980), aff'd sub nom. National Federation of Federal Employees v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 652 F.2d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1981), which sought to impose on the Agency a minimum number of representatives it could designate for collective bargaining negotiations. In that case, the Authority held that the number of representatives an Agency chooses to designate for bargaining purposes is not a matter directly related to conditions of employment of unit employees. Thus, the Authority concluded that the proposal was not within the Agency's duty to bargain. In like manner, the instant proposal which establishes a maximum number of representatives the Agency may designate to carry out its bargaining obligations under the Statute also concerns matters which are beyond those directly affecting unit employees. Therefore, based on Naval Training Center, Orlando and the reasons stated therein the Union's proposal is not within the duty to bargain. Union Proposal 2 The Commander shall appoint the Chief Negotiator and alternate to represent and commit the Command to agreements made through the collective bargaining process. The NFFE President shall appoint the Union Chief Negotiator and alternate to represent the Union and to reach agreement. Union Proposal 2 by its plain language would require the Agency to designate one member of its negotiation team as a chief negotiator and another member as the alternate both of whom have sole authority to speak for and commit the Agency to agreements reached through collective bargaining. /1/ The proposal, thus, has the effect of determining the organization of the Agency's negotiation team and the delegation of responsibility within that team. As such, and for the reasons stated in Naval Training Center, Orlando, the proposal is not within the duty to bargain because it concerns matters not directly related to conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review as to Union Proposals 1 and 2 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C., May 22, 1985 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ It is not disputed in this case that under section 7114(b)(2) of the Statute an agency has the obligation "to be represented at the negotiations by duly authorized representatives prepared to discuss and negotiate on any condition of employment . . . ." American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3656 and Federal Trade Commission, Boston Regional Office, Massachusetts, 4 FLRA 702, 703 (1980). Rather, the instant dispute concerns language in the proposal regarding the manner in which that obligation is vested and exercised by the Agency.