U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

22:0664(73)NG - Hawaii FEMT Council and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard -- 1986 FLRAdec NG

[ v22 p664 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 22 FLRA No. 73
                                            Case No. 0-NG-1196
                         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 concerns the
 negotiability of a Union proposal affecting language in a recently
 changed Agency regulation (NAVSHIPYDPEARL INSTRUCTION 12750.1F).
                            II.  Union Proposal
          1.  Letter to FLRA dated September 27, 1985, in the
       NAVSHIPYDPEARLINST 12750.1F, in the table titled, "Delegation of
       Authority to Effect Disciplinary Action," under column, "Authority
       to Effect," in the "Removal" action row.
          HFEMTC proposes to have "Activity Head Level" inserted where
       presently "Shipyard Commander (Commanding Officer)" exists.
          2.  Letter to FLRA dated October 16, 1985 - That regarding the
       table in NAVSHIPYDPEARLINST 12750.1F, titled, "Delegation of
       Authority to Effect Disciplinary Action," under the "Authority to
       Sign Advance Notice" column, "Action" Removal row.
          HFEMTC proposal is to retain existing language.
                      III.  Positions of the Parties
    The proposal refers to two letters sent by the Union to the Authority
 in an attempt to comply with the requirements of the Statute and the
 Authority's Rules and Regulations.  It appears from the Union's petition
 for review that it intends the first part of its proposal to require the
 Activity Head, rather than the Shipyard Commander, to exercise final
 authority to effect the removal of employees.  The second part of the
 proposal would require the Group Superintendent or Department Head to
 exercise authority in proposing the removal of employees.  The Union
 asserts that its proposal is a negotiable procedure under section
 7106(b)(2) of the Statute.  The Union did not file a response to the
 Agency's statement of position in this case.
    The Agency contends that the proposal interferes with its right to
 assign work, under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.
                       IV.  Analysis and Conclusion
    It appears from the record that by regulation the Agency changed the
 level of authority for both proposing and effecting removal actions, and
 that the Union is proposing to raise the level of authority required for
 these actions.  The Authority has consistently held that proposals
 prescribing specific duties to be performed by particular non-bargaining
 unit personnel in an agency directly interfere with management's right
 to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute by eliminating
 the discretion inherent in that right.  See, for example, National
 Federation of Federal Employees, Local 78 and Veterans Administration
 Regional Office, Indianapolis, Indiana, 9 FLRA 819 (1982).  The proposal
 in this case would require certain non-bargaining unit personnel to
 perform duties which they otherwise would not be required to perform,
 and would have the same effect as the proposal held nonnegotiable in
 Veterans Administration Regional Office.  Therefore, the Authority
 concludes that the proposal would directly interfere with the exercise
 of the right to assign work and as a result, is not a negotiable
                                 V.  Order
    Accordingly, 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 24, 1986.
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY