26:0568(67)NG - FUSE Local R1-144 and Navy, Naval Underwater Systems Center -- 1987 FLRAdec NG
[ v26 p568 ]
26:0568(67)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
26 FLRA No. 67
FEDERAL UNION OF SCIENTISTS
AND ENGINEERS, LOCAL R1-144
Union
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL UNDERWATER SYSTEMS
CENTER
Agency
Case No. 0-NG-1327
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). The case concerns the
negotiability of the following proposal:
The activity will to the maximum extent possible accommodate
employees' requests for compensatory time off or work for
religious compensatory time, unless such modification in the
individual's work schedule would seriously interfere with the
efficient accomplishment of the activity's mission. (Note. The
activity is expected to accommodate to an employee's request to
work compensatory time. If no productive time is available to be
worked by the employee at such time as he or she may initially
request, alternative times shall be arranged for the performance
of the compensatory work.)
II. Position of the Parties
The Agency argues that the first sentence regarding the granting of
compensatory time is inconsistent with a Government-wide regulation,
specifically 5 CFR 550.1002, which governs the granting of compensatory
time for religious observances. The Agency states that the proposal's
requirement that it "to the maximum extent possible accommodate
employee's requests" unless it "would seriously interfere with the
efficient accomplishment of the activity's mission" is more restrictive
than the standard established by 5 CFR 550.1002. The Agency also argues
that the proposal violates management's right to assign work under
section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute, because it interferes with
management's right to approve or disapprove leave, and because it
compels management to provide some type of "make-work" if no work is
available.
The Union argues that the proposal allows management leeway to
arrange productive work at alternative times for the performance of the
compensatory work, and that in the case that no work were available, no
work would be assigned. The Union also states that the words "to the
maximum extent possible" allow management's right to assign work since
it may not be possible to accommodate the employee's request.
III. Analysis and Conclusion
This proposal requires the Agency to grant compensatory time off to
employees "to the maximum extent possible" unless it "would seriously
interfere with the efficient accomplishment of the activity's mission."
As such, this proposal is similar to the proposal found nonnegotiable in
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923 and Department
of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Baltimore,
Maryland, 17 FLRA 543 (1985). The proposal in that case required that
requests for religious compensatory time be granted unless doing so
"would seriously disrupt the agency's function." The Authority found
that the standard set out in the proposal for denying such requests was
inconsistent with the standard set out in 5 CFR 550.1002. In this
regard, 5 CFR 550.1002 requires an agency to grant an employee's request
for religious compensatory time and to modify the employee's work
schedule "to the extent that such modifications in work schedules do not
interfere with the efficient accomplishment of an agency's mission(.)"
Inasmuch as 5 CFR 550.1002 is a Government-wide regulation, the
Authority concluded that the proposal was nonnegotiable.
As previously set forth, the proposal in this case requires the
Agency to grant compensatory time off to employees unless this "would
seriously interfere with the efficient accomplishment of the activity's
mission." Like the proposal in Social Security Administration,
Baltimore, Maryland, this standard is inconsistent with the standard
established by 5 CFR 550.1002. Thus, the proposal in this case
conflicts with the Government-wide regulation and is outside the duty to
bargain under section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute.
The inclusion of the phrase "to the maximum extent possible" does not
alter our conclusion that this proposal is nonnegotiable. This language
does not modify in any manner the standard set out in the proposal for
denying requests for compensatory time for religious observances which
standard is inconsistent with 5 CFR 550.1002. Rather, this phrase
obligates the Agency to make maximum efforts to grant requests for
religious compensatory time if the standard for denying such requests
set out in the proposal is not met. Since the standard is inconsistent
with the applicable Government-wide regulation, the Agency cannot be
required to make maximum efforts to comply with it.
In view of this finding, it is unnecessary for us to consider the
Agency's additional contentions concerning the negotiability of this
proposal. Further, it is unnecessary for us to address the Union's
claim that the proposal is an appropriate arrangement under section
7106(b)(3) since that section applies only when management exercises one
of the reserved rights set out elsewhere in section 7106. See American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2484 and U.S. Army
Garrison, Fort Detrick, Maryland, 25 FLRA No. 75 (1987).
IV. Order
The petition for review is dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., April 9, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY