20:0495(55)NG - AFGE Local 3748 and Agricultural Research Service, North States Area; AFGE Local 3365 and Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest -- 1985 FLRAdec NG
[ v20 p495 ]
20:0495(55)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
20 FLRA No. 55
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3748, AFL-CIO
Union
and
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE,
NORTHERN STATES AREA
Agency
Case No. 0-NG-1133
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3365
Union
and
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST
SERVICE, BLACK HILLS NATIONAL
FOREST
Agency
Case No. 0-NG-1135
CONSOLIDATED DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
The petition for review in each of these cases 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 presents an issue concerning the negotiability of one
provision of a local agreement disapproved by the Agency head pursuant
to section 7114(c) of the Statute. /1/ Upon careful consideration of
the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority
makes the following determination.
Provision in Case No. 0-NG-1133
Article 16, Section 2. Supervisor will encourage employee
participation in the establishment of performance standards.
Performance Standards will be fair, objective, job-related, and
measurable. The application of Performance Standards and the
determination of acceptable level of competence will both be made
in a fair and objective manner. Factors beyond the control of
employees will not be used to evaluate performance. The employee
will be rated on these elements and not on representational
activities.
Provision in Case No. 0-NG-1135
Article 13, Section 6. Standards used for measurement of
performance for critical elements of the job will be fair,
objective and job related. When considering complaints of
enrollees in evaluating the performance of an Employee, those
complaints must be determined to be valid and reliable before such
complaints would adversely affect the Employee's evaluation.
The Authority has consistently held that proposals substantively
restricting management's authority to establish performance standards
are inconsistent with the rights to assign work and direct employees
pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute. National
Treasury Employees Union and Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the
Public Debt, 3 FLRA 769(1980), aff'd sub nom. NTEU v. FLRA, 691 F.2d 553
(D.C. Cir. 1982); American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Local 1968 and Department of Transportation, Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation, Massena, New York, 5 FLRA 70(1981) (Union
Proposals 1 and 2), aff'd sub nom. American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1968 v. FLRA, 691 F.2d 565 (D.C. Cir. 1982),
cert. denied 461 U.S. 926(1983). In this respect, the disputed language
in each of the provisions would have the net effect of permitting
arbitral review of management's determination of the content of
performance standards. That is, contrary to the Union's claim that the
disputed sentences are intended to concern the application and not the
content of standards, it is clear that they address only the content of
performance standards rather than the application of those standards.
For example, and as noted by the Agency with respect to the provision in
Case No. 0-NG-1133, the sentence immediately following the disputed
sentence expressly concerns the application of performance standards.
Similarly, the portion of the provision in Case No. 0-NG-1135 which is
not in dispute relates to application of standards meeting the
requirements set out in the disputed sentence. Thus, the provisions
herein are to the same effect as the disputed portion of a proposal
requiring performance standards to be "fair and equitable" which the
Authority found to be outside the duty to bargain in American Federation
of Government Employees, Local 32 and Office of Personnel Management, 16
FLRA No. 127(1984) (Union Proposal 3), petition for review filed sub
nom. Local 32, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v.
FLRA, No. 85-1038 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 16, 1985). In concluding that the
disputed portion of the proposal was inconsistent with management's
rights to assign work and direct employees, the Authority noted
particularly that such disputed portion of the proposal "would permit
arbitrators to substitute their judgments as to the proper content of
performance standards for that of the Agency." Similarly, the specific
language of the provisions herein also would permit arbitrators to
substitute their view of what is fair, objective, job-related and
measurable for management's determination of the appropriate content of
a performance standard. Therefore, based on Office of Personnel
Management and the reasons and cases cited therein, the disputed
provisions herein are outside the duty to bargain.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petitions for review in Case
Nos. 0-NG-1133 and 0-NG-1135 be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., October 15, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Since the disputed provision in each of these cases concerns a
common issue, the Authority deemed it appropriate to consolidate these
cases in the interest of expeditious processing.