22:0664(73)NG - Hawaii FEMT Council and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard -- 1986 FLRAdec NG
[ v22 p664 ]
22:0664(73)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
22 FLRA No. 73
HAWAII FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL
TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Union
and
PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD
Agency
Case No. 0-NG-1196
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 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
procedure.
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