19:0418(57)CA - GSA and AFGE Council 236 -- 1985 FLRAdec CA
[ v19 p418 ]
19:0418(57)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
19 FLRA No. 57
General Services Administration
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 236, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case No. 3-CA-30491
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 in this case, including the
stipulation of facts, accompanying exhibits, and the parties'
contentions, the Authority finds:
At all times material herein, the American Federation of Government
Employees, Council 236, AFL-CIO (the Union) has been the certified
exclusive representative for certain employees of the General Services
Administration (the Respondent) in a national consolidated unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. At all times
material herein, the Respondent and the Union have been parties to a
collective bargaining agreement. By letter dated April 7, 1983, during
the term of the parties' agreement, the Union requested negotiations
with the Respondent regarding the establishment of crediting plans for
use in the merit promotion of bargaining unit employees. In connection
with this request to negotiate, the Union requested copies of the
Respondent's existing model crediting plans on all job series within the
bargaining unit in order to draft bargaining proposals. In response,
the Respondent refused to negotiate over the issue of crediting plans
and to furnish the Union with the requested information. The complaint
alleges that the refusal to bargain constituted a violation of section
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. It further alleges that the refusal
to furnish the Union with the requested information constituted
noncompliance with section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute in violation of
section 7116(a)(8) of the Statute.
In Internal Revenue Service, 17 FLRA No. 103 (1985), petition for
review filed sub nom. National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, No.
85-1361 (D.C. Cir. June 14, 1985) issued subsequent to the parties'
stipulation in this case, the Authority found, in part, as follows:
. . . Congress intended that where parties are negotiating a
basic collective bargaining agreement, the bargaining obligation
shall exist with respect to negotiable proposals initiated by
either agency management or the exclusive representative.
However, outside this context, Congress intended the bargaining
obligation to exist only with respect to changes in established
conditions of employment proposed by management. This distinction
indicates that other than negotiations leading to a basic
collective bargaining agreement, there is no obligation to bargain
over union-initiated proposals. (footnote omitted.)
In the instant case, the record indicates that the Respondent and the
Union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. During the
term of the agreement, the Union requested to negotiate over crediting
plans, which were in existence and had been used prior to the effective
date of the agreement. It is neither alleged nor does the record
establish that the Respondent either proposed or initiated a change in
the existing crediting plans. Nor is it alleged or established that the
agreement contains an applicable "reopener" provision. Thus, the
Authority concludes that the Respondent was not obligated to bargain
concerning the crediting plans at the time that the Union's request was
made, /1/ and that its failure to do so did not constitute a violation
of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute as alleged in the
complaint. Further, as the Respondent was not under a duty to bargain,
and as the Union had requested that the Respondent furnish it with
copies of all model crediting plans solely in order to draft proposals
for such bargaining, the Authority concludes that the information sought
by the Union was not then "necessary" within the meaning of section
7114(b)(4) of the Statute, /2/ and that the Respondent therefore did not
violate section 7116(a)(8) of the Statute as alleged in the complaint
when it refused to furnish the Union with the requested information.
Accordingly, we shall order that the complaint be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 3-CA-30491 be, and it
hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
Issued, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Internal Revenue Service, supra. See also Missouri National
Guard, Office of the Adjutant General, Jefferson City, Missouri, 18 FLRA
No. 44 (1985). In view of this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to
pass upon the question whether the subject matter of the Union's request
to bargain was negotiable.
/2/ Section 7114(b)(4) provides:
Sec. 7114. Representation rights and duties
. . . .
(b) The duty of an agency and an exclusive representative to
negotiate in good faith under subsection (a) of this section shall
include the obligation--
. . . .
(4) in the case of an agency, to furnish to the exclusive
representative involved, or its authorized representative, upon
request and, to the extent not prohibited by law, data--
(A) which is normally maintained by the agency in the regular
course of business;
(B) which is reasonably available and necessary for full and
proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation of subjects
within the scope of collective bargaining; and
(C) which does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or
training provided for management officials or supervisors,
relating to collective bargaining(.)