18:0638(76)CA - Navy, Washington, DC and Service Employees International Union Local 556 -- 1985 FLRAdec CA



[ v18 p638 ]
18:0638(76)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 18 FLRA No. 76
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 
 Respondent 
 
 and 
 
 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL 
 UNION, LOCAL 556, AFL-CIO 
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 8-CA-30006
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Regional
 Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority" in accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules
 and Regulations.
 
    Upon consideration of the entire record, including the stipulation of
 facts, accompanying exhibits and the parties' contentions, the Authority
 finds:
 
    The complaint herein alleges that the Respondent, Department of the
 Navy, Washington, D.C., promulgated a directive effective October 1,
 1982, which instituted a change in the established policy of hand
 delivering paychecks to employees located at four of its activities, (1)
 United States Navy, Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor,
 Hawaii, (2) United States Navy, Naval Submarine Base, Pearl Harbor,
 Hawaii, (3) United States Marine Corps, Marine Barracks, Pearl Harbor,
 Hawaii, and (4) United States Navy, Naval Supply Center, Pearl Harbor,
 Hawaii, hereinafter referred to collectively as the Naval Activities,
 without affording the employees' exclusive representative, Service
 Employees International Union, Local 556, AFL-CIO (the Union), an
 opportunity to bargain over the change, thereby interfering with the
 bargaining relationships between the Union and the individual Naval
 Activities in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
 /1/
 
    The stipulated record shows that the Union is recognized as the
 exclusive representative for units of employees located at the Naval
 Activities which are subordinate activities of the Respondent.  Each
 Activity has a collective bargaining agreement with the Union covering
 these employees.  Prior to October 1, 1982, all employees had the option
 of paycheck hand delivery.  On October 6, 1981, the Respondent issued
 SECNAV Instruction 7200.17, a directive applicable to the Naval
 Activities, establishing a policy that civilian pay for all newly hired
 employees be distributed by direct deposit to a financial institution or
 by mail to a nonwork address.  The directive specifically established
 that the policies regarding pay services were "(t)o distribute civilian
 pay by PDQ/Direct Deposit or mail upon entry of all civilian employees
 hired within DON(,)" and "(w)here feasible, to discontinue hand delivery
 of pay and leave earnings statements for current civilian personnel." In
 addition, the SECNAV Instruction required addressees to "take
 appropriate action to ensure that all activities under their command
 comply with this instruction and with the implementing procedures . . ."
 and take direct responsibility for "(s)upporting the establishment . . .
 by PDQ/Direct Deposit or mail upon entry of all civilian employees hired
 by any DON activity on and after 1 October 1982(.)"
 
    On July 1, 1982, the Respondent issued a CNO Message to the Naval
 Activities regarding "Policy for Military and Civilian Pay Services,"
 referencing SECNAV Instruction 7200.17, which required the Naval
 Activities to take appropriate action to inform all new hires beginning
 October 1, 1982, that their pay would be forwarded to a designated
 financial institution or mailed to a nonwork address along with leave
 and earnings statements.
 
    On August 4, 1982, the Naval Activities notified the Union by letter
 that the Respondent had directed that all new hires, beginning October
 1, 1982, be informed that their pay would be forwarded to a designated
 financial institution or mailed to a nonwork address.  The August 4,
 1982, letter solicited the Union's comments by August 20, 1982, prior to
 the implementation of the new policy.
 
    On August 9, 1982, the Union made a request to bargain with the Naval
 Activities on the substance of the proposed change in the pay policy.
 On August 19, 1982, the Naval Activities, by letter, informed the Union
 that the proposed change would be treated as a rule or regulation issued
 by a primary national subdivision of an agency and, therefore, was not
 negotiable in substance.  The Naval Activities further indicated that
 they would bargain with the Union over any negotiable impact and
 implementation proposals submitted in writing by August 31, 1982.
 
    On September 15, 1982, the Union renewed its request to the Naval
 Activities to bargain over the substance of the proposed change in pay
 policy.  The Union did not submit proposals regarding impact and
 implementation of the proposed change to the Naval Activities.  On
 October 1, 1982, the Naval Activities implemented the change in pay
 policy without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain over the
 substance of the change in pay policy.
 
    The General Counsel alleges that by directing the Naval Activities in
 its July 9, 1982, CNO Message to change the established policy and
 practice of hand delivering employees' pay checks without affording the
 Union an opportunity to bargain over the change with the appropriate
 local activity, the Respondent interfered with the bargaining
 relationships between the Union and the respective local activities in
 violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
 
    The Respondent contends, inter alia, that the change instituted by
 Respondent's directive constituted a method of performing work under
 section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute, /2/ and therefore was negotiable only
 at its election.
 
    The Authority has held that management's selection of the method of
 paycheck distribution concerns the methods and means of performing work
 within the meaning of section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute and thus is
 negotiable only at the election of the agency.  Federal Employees Metal
 Trades Council, AFL-CIO and Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval
 Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 16 FLRA No. 88 (1984), petition for
 review filed, No. 85-7039 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 1985).  Thus, the Authority
 finds that the General Counsel has not met the burden of proving that
 the Respondent's action in mandating a change in the method of paycheck
 delivery to newly hired employees allegedly without permitting the local
 Naval Activities to bargain with the Union concerning the substance of
 such change in the method of paycheck delivery constituted a violation
 of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.  /3/ Accordingly, the
 complaint shall be dismissed.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 8-CA-30006 be, and it
 hereby is, dismissed.  
 
 Issued, Washington, D.C., June 21, 1985
 
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Chairman
                                       William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) provides: