In its discussion regarding whether its proposals should be severed, the Union requests that Proposals 3, 4, and 5, and 11 and 12, be considered as two sets because the proposals in each proposed set concern the same subject matter. Response at 16-17. This request does not involve “severance” as that term is defined in § 2424.2(h) of the Authority’s Regulations because the Union is not requesting that the proposals be divided into separate parts. 5 C.F.R. § 2424.2(h). However, because the Agency does not object to the Union’s request, we will consider the proposals in each set together. See NATCA, AFL-CIO, 62 FLRA 174, 174-75 (2007) (Chairman Cabaniss concurring) (analyzing proposals together at union’s request when agency did not object). As a result, if we find one of the proposals in a set nonnegotiable, then all of the proposals in that set will be found outside the duty to bargain. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the petition as to Proposals 1 and 8.
It is also uncontested that the proposal is a procedure. The Union argues in its response that the proposal constitutes a procedure under § 7106(b)(2). Response at 14. The Agency did not address this claim in its SOP or file a reply. Therefore, the Authority finds that, consistent with the Agency’s concession that the proposal is a negotiable procedure under § 7106(b)(2), this proposal is a negotiable procedure. See 5 C.F.R. § 2424.32(c)(ii)(2) (failure to respond to an assertion raised by other party will, where appropriate, be deemed a concession to that assertion); NATCA, 61 FLRA at 339 (where union did not dispute that provisions affected a management right, but agency failed to address union’s claims that provisions constituted procedures, Authority determined that agency conceded that provisions constituted procedures and were therefore negotiable).
Based on the above, we find that Proposal 10 is within the duty to bargain.