23:0059(8)NG - AFGE Local 2022 and Army, HQ 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell -- 1986 FLRAdec NG

 23 FLRA No. 8
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2022
 Union
 
 and
 
 U.S. ARMY, HEADQUARTERS 101st 
 AIRBORNE DIVISION AND FORT 
 CAMPBELL
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-1205
 
                 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 the following Union proposal:
 
          Section 13-6.  The union is authorized to prepare, hang, and
       maintain signs at/near entrance to Gates 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 of
       Fort Campbell, Kentucky.  The signs will be restricted to three
       feet high and five feet wide.  Words on signs will read as
       follows:
 
  WELCOME TO FORT CAMPBELL COURTESY OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2022
 
    II.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency contends that the proposal is nonnegotiable because it
 does not concern a matter affecting working conditions of bargaining
 unit employees, within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14) of the
 Statute.  The Union argues that this proposal involves communication
 with its members through the use of Agency facilities which is a
 negotiable condition of employment.
 
    III.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    Under the statutory scheme established by sections 7103(a)(12), 7106,
 7114 and 7117 a matter proposed for bargaining which is consistent with
 Federal law, including the Statute, Government-wide regulations or
 Agency regulations is outside the duty to bargain unless than matter
 directly affects the conditions of employment of bargaining unit
 employees.  /1/ In Antilles Consolidated Education Association and
 Antilles Consolidated School System, 22 FLRA No. 23 (1986), the
 Authority stated that it will consider two basic factors in deciding
 whether a proposal involves a condition of employment of bargaining unit
 employees:
 
          (1) Whether the matter proposed to be bargained pertains to
       bargaining unit employees;  and
 
          (2) The nature and extent of the effect of the matter proposed
       to be bargained on working conditions of those employees.
 
    For the following reasons, we conclude that the proposal does not
 involve a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees.
 
    Applying the first factor to the proposal we are not persuaded by the
 record that the proposal principally focuses upon or pertains to
 bargaining unit employees.  See National Treasury Employees Union and
 Internal Revenue Service, 7 FLRA 275, 284 (1981).  Rather, the sign
 would merely welcome all people, employees and non-employees alike,
 entering the specified gates and advise them of the Union's existence.
 
    Even assuming that the proposed signs pertain to bargaining unit
 employees, we cannot conclude, applying the second factor, that hanging
 the signs at or near the Agency's entrances would directly affect those
 employees' working conditions.  The fact that the Agency provided this
 service to the union in the past does not, standing alone, make this a
 condition of employment subject to the duty to bargain.  Maritime Metal
 Trades Council and Panama Canal Commission, 17 FLRA 890, 892 (1985).
 Further, contrary to the Union's categorical assertion, the use of
 agency facilities by a Union is not necessarily a condition of
 employment within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute.
 The case the Union relies on to support this proposition, American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3748 and Department
 of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Personnel
 Division, Hyattsville, Maryland, 11 FLRA 122 (1983), is distinguishable.
  In Department of Agriculture, the Authority found negotiable a proposal
 which provided the Union access to the agency's Federal
 Telecommunication System during negotiations in order to facilitate the
 collective bargaining process.  Unlike this case, that proposal was
 intertwined with the collective bargaining process and had a clear and
 direct affect on working conditions of bargaining unit employees.  Here,
 to the contrary, it is not apparent that hanging the proposed sign on
 Agency property would facilitate communication or in any other way
 directly affect the working conditions of bargaining unit employees.
 
    For the foregoing reasons, the Union's proposal in this case concerns
 a matter which is not a condition of employment of bargaining unit
 employees and is outside the Agency's obligation to bargain. /2/
 
    IV.  Order
 
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review be, and hereby
 is dismissed.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., August 11, 1986.
                                       Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (1) Section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute defines "condition of
 employment" as "personnel policies, practices, and matters whether
 established by rule, regulation, or otherwise, affecting working
 conditions . . . ."
 
    (2) In reaching this conclusion Chairman Calhoun wishes to emphasize
 his belief that disputes over proposals such as this one should and can
 best be resolved at the bargaining table.  The issue here clearly should
 not be raised to the level of the Authority.  Chairman Calhoun believes
 that resolution of this case and others which are similar require the
 resources of each Governmental entity, including the Authority, to be
 expended in a manner which is inconsistent with the requirement of an
 effective and efficient Government.  This proposal clearly does not
 concern working conditions of unit employees and the dispute over it
 serves only to trivialize the labor-management relations process.