U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

22:0397(39)NG - ACT and The Adjutant General of Massachusetts -- 1986 FLRAdec NG

[ v22 p397 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 22 FLRA No. 39
                                            Case No. 0-NG-1169
                         I.  Statement of the Case
    This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability appeal
 filed under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and presents an issue
 concerning the negotiability of a single Union proposal.  /*/
                            II.  Union Proposal
                       Integrated Combat Turns (ICT)
          No technician will perform ICTs while in a technician status.
                      III.  Positions of the Parties
    The Agency contends that the proposal interferes with its management
 rights under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute to assign
 employees and work because the proposal would restrict the Agency in
 making new assignments and would forbid the Agency from assigning duties
 to a military technician.  In response, the Union asserts that the
 proposal concerns a safety issue, i.e., the fueling, loading of bombs
 and maintenance of aircraft being simultaneously performed.  According
 to the Union, previously this function, which is an integrated combat
 turn, was a military requirement performed in military status and only
 recently was made a requirement of civilian technicians.  Therefore, the
 Union maintains that the proposal is a procedure to be used in
 implementing the change in working conditions.
                       IV.  Analysis and Conclusions
    The explicit language of the proposal requires that the Agency assign
 no ICT duties to civilian technicians.  The Authority has held that a
 proposal prohibiting the assignment of work or duties is violative of
 the Agency's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the
 Statute.  American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
 2302 and U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, Kentucky, 19
 FLRA No. 95 (1985) (Proposal 2) and cases cited therein.  Since the
 proposal in this case would also prohibit the assignment of work, i.e.,
 ICT duties, it is also violative of the Agency's right to assign work
 under the Statute.  Since the proposal directly interferes with the
 exercise of the Agency's right to assign work, it is not a negotiable
 procedure under the Statute.
                                 V.  Order
    Pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations,
 IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and it hereby is,
    Issued, Washington, D.C., July 9, 1986
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
    (*) The Union has withdrawn a proposal concerning a voluntary
 physical fitness program.  Therefore, the proposal will not be
 considered further here.