[ v22 p397 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
22 FLRA No. 39 ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS Union and THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS Agency Case No. 0-NG-1169 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE 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, dismissed. 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.