23:0056(7)NG - AFSCME Local 2027 and ACTION -- 1986 FLRAdec NG
[ v23 p56 ]
23:0056(7)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
23 FLRA No. 7
AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 2027
Union
and
ACTION
Agency
Case No. O-NG-1243
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 single Union proposal. /1/
II. Union Proposal
Details for less than thirty-one (31) calendar days will normally be
rotated among employees. Such details shall be documented with a
memorandum to the detailed employee's OPF.
III. Positions of the Parties
The Agency contends that because the Union's proposal would require
the Agency, under normal circumstances, to rotate details of less than
31 days, it would subject management's discretion concerning such
details to review by the Union and third parties. The Agency argues
that the proposal therefore would directly interfere with its right to
assign employees under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute and its
rights under section 7106(a)(2)(B) to assign work and to determine the
personnel by which Agency operations will be conducted.
The Union maintains that its proposal does not interfere with
management's rights and that the proposal is fully negotiable. In
support of its position, the Union contends that the proposal does not
mandate that details of less than 31 days must always be rotated and
that the requirement of the proposal that details "normally" will be
rotated acknowledges that deviations may be necessary for a variety of
reasons. The Union further contends that the proposal does not limit
management's discretion to establish the qualifications needed to
perform work on details or limit management's judgment in determining
whether a particular employee meets those qualifications.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
The Union's proposal expressly provides that details for less than 31
calendar days normally will be rotated among employees. Under this
proposal, as interpreted by the Union, employees would, in normal
situations, be selected for details of the prescribed duration by
rotation. Management would fully retain the discretion to determine the
qualifications necessary to perform any detail work and the
qualifications of any employees to be detailed. Management would also
retain the discretion to determine not to rotate details in other than
normal circumstances. The Authority finds that the Union's
interpretation of the proposal is consistent with the plain language of
the proposal.
The Authority has held that when two or more employees have been
determined by management to be equally qualified and capable of
performing work, the selection of any one of those employees to perform
the work is consistent with management's exercise of its discretion
under section 7106(a) of the Statute. In such circumstances, a proposed
procedure by which employees previously judged by management to be
equally qualified will be selected to perform the work does not directly
interfere with section 7106(a)(2)(A) or (B) of the Statute but, rather,
is a negotiable procedure under section 7106(b)(2). Laborers
International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 1276 and Veterans
Administration, National Cemetery Office, San Francisco, California, 9
FLRA 703, 706-07 (1982).
In this case, the Authority finds that the disputed proposal, as
interpreted by the Union, constitutes a negotiable procedure for the
selection of employees to perform work on details, that is, selection by
rotation among employees management has determined to be qualified to
perform the work involved. The Authority therefore concludes, contrary
to the Agency's position, that the proposal is consistent with
management's rights under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute
and is within the Agency's duty to bargain. /2/
V. Order
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Agency shall upon request (or as
otherwise agreed to by the parties) bargain concerning the disputed
proposal.
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 11, 1986.
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(1) In its appeal, the Union sought Authority review of a number of
other proposals. However, in its response to the Agency's statement of
position in the case, the Union withdrew its petition as to the other
proposals. Accordingly, those proposals will not be considered by the
Authority.
(2) In finding this provision to be within the duty to bargain, the
Authority makes no judgment as to its merits.