41:0056(6)AR - - Army, HQ, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, NC and AFGE Local 1770 - - 1991 FLRAdec AR - - v41 p56



[ v41 p56 ]
41:0056(6)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


41 FLRA No. 6

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

HEADQUARTERS, XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS

FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA

(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1770

(Union)

0-AR-2020

DECISION

June 6, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an award of Arbitrator C. Allen Foster filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union's exception.

The grievance in this case concerns the Agency's decision to expand the lunch period and workday of certain employees. The Arbitrator denied the grievance, which alleged that management's conduct in implementing the change violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union failed to establish that the Arbitrator's award is deficient. Accordingly, we will deny the Union's exception.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

Sometime after March 24, 1989, the Agency notified the Union of its intent to expand the lunch period of certain employees from one-half hour to one hour, thereby expanding the length of the standard workday from 0730 to 1600 hours to 0730 to 1630 hours. The change was to become effective on April 23, 1989.

On April 3, 1989, the Union "made a proposal for negotiations of the change." Arbitrator's Award at 6. On the following day, the Union requested information concerning the change. The Agency responded on April 7, advising the Union that the change in the employees' tour of duty involved the exercise of management's right under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute, and that the Agency would not bargain over the change but would consider impact and implementation proposals. In support of its position the Agency relied on a provision of the agreement and the Authority's decision in Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 33 FLRA 532 (1988) (Scott Air Force Base), aff'd as to other matters sub nom. National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23 v. FLRA, 893 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Additionally, the Agency explained that the change in the tour of duty was designed to prevent an adverse impact on the mission of the Agency by standardizing the tours of duty.

Thereafter, the Union submitted four proposals to the Agency. The Agency agreed to one proposal, indicating that such agreement "did not constitute negotiation on the aspects of the tour change." Id. at 8. The Agency also indicated that the change in the lunch period and workday would be implemented on May 8, 1989. The Union thereupon filed the instant grievance.

The Union argued before the Arbitrator that the Agency violated Article XI, section 4(d) of the parties' agreement by changing employee work hours. Article XI, section 4(d) provides as follows:

The Employer reserves the right to return to the one (1) hour lunch period and subsequent adjustment of the hour of departure in the event the shortened lunch period and resulting adjusted hour of departure adversely impacts on the Department/Division's ability to perform its mission. The Employer will notify the Union in advance of these actions and the parties will meet and confer, as appropriate.

The Union asserted that a change in an employee's hours of work does not constitute a change in the employee's tour of duty. The Union also maintained that the Agency failed to demonstrate "an adverse impact to justify a change." Id. at 3.

The Agency argued that it did not violate the agreement or applicable statutes when it implemented the change in tour of duty. The Agency argued, in this regard, that Article XI, section 4(d) was not applicable to the grievance. The Agency also maintained that the change in tour of duty was negotiable at the discretion of the Agency, that the Agency had elected not to bargain, and that the Agency did not invite negotiations over the change.

The Arbitrator determined that Article XI, section 4(d) did not apply to this case because it related only to situations in which employees had petitioned for and received approval for a lunch period of less than one hour. The Arbitrator also found, however, that assuming Article XI, section 4(d) applied to this case, that provision is simply indicative of management's intent to reserve its right to control the length of the lunch period, to the extent that the length of the lunch period affects the performance of the Agency's mission. The Arbitrator found that the absence of a standardized tour of duty prior to the change had an adverse impact on the Agency's mission and that the 30 minutes that was added to the workday would increase the service provided by the Agency. The Arbitrator also found, consistent with Article XI, section 4(d), that the Agency had provided the Union with advance notification of the change.

The Arbitrator next found that the parties' agreement provided that both the agreement and the Statute "control the policies between the parties." Id. at 9. The Arbitrator found that as there was no provision in the agreement that specifically addressed the issue in dispute, that "the case is controlled by 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71[,] [s]pecifically, section 7106(b)(1) of the [S]tatute . . . ." Id. at 9. Relying on Scott Air Force Base, the Arbitrator found that the change in the employees' work hours constituted a change in the tour of duty that was "within the Agency's discretion and was not negotiable." Id. at 10. The Arbitrator also found that the Agency "met [the] section 7106(b)(2) and (3) obligations to bargain over the procedures that must be followed when management exercises its authority and to make appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by management's exercise of it[s] authority." Id.

Based on the foregoing, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

III. The Union's Exception

The Union does not except to the Arbi