U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

18:0096(19)NG - NFFE Local 1437 and Army, Army Armament Research and Development Command, Dover, NJ -- 1985 FLRAdec NG

[ v18 p96 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 18 FLRA No. 19
 LOCAL 1437 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-1001
    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
                                       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.