American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1653 (Union) and United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Agency)

74 FLRA No. 57

AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF STATE, COUNTY, AND

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1653

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

MIKE MONRONEY AERONAUTICAL CENTER

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

(Agency)

0‑NG-3749

_____

DECISION AND ORDER

ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES

March 27, 2026

_____

Before the Authority:  Colleen Duffy Kiko, Chairman,

and Anne Wagner and Charles O. Arrington, Members

I.               Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority on a negotiability appeal filed by the Union under § 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute (the Statute).^[1]  The petition for review (petition) concerns eight proposals related to the Agency’s implementation of a new trash-pickup policy.  For the reasons discussed below, we:  (1) find that the petition fails to present a negotiability dispute under § 2424.2(c) of the Authority’s Regulations as to five of the proposals,^[2] and (2) under § 2424.32(d)(2) of the Authority’s Regulations,^[3] treat the Union’s failure to respond to the Agency’s management‑rights claims regarding the remaining proposals as a concession that those proposals are contrary to § 7106 of the Statute.^[4]  Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.

II.             Background

After the Agency provided the Union with notice of its intent to implement a centralized trash-pickup policy (centralized trash policy), the Union requested to bargain.  Under the Agency’s proposed policy, employees would dispose of trash in centrally‑located receptacles, with contractors responsible for collecting and removing any trash placed in the receptacles.  Previously, employees discarded trash in bins located at their individual work stations, and contractors performed desk‑side trash pickup and removal.

During negotiations, the Union submitted eight proposals regarding the impact and implementation of the centralized trash policy.  In response, the Agency provided the Union with a written allegation of nonnegotiability.

On July 23, 2025,^[5] the Union filed its petition with the Authority.  On July 30, the Authority’s Office of Case Intake and Publication issued an order directing the Union to show cause why the Authority should not dismiss the petition as to Proposals 2, 3, 5, and 6 because the parties’ dispute over those proposals appeared to “concern a bargaining‑obligation [dispute] rather than a negotiability dispute.”^[6]  Responding to the Authority’s order, the Union “consent[ed] to the Authority dismissing [P]roposals 2, 3, 5, and 6,” and noted that the Union intended to “refile . . . the proposal[s] as an unfair labor practice [(ULP)] against the Agency.”^[7]

Pursuant to § 2424.23 of the Authority’s Regulations, Authority representatives conducted a post‑petition conference (conference) with the parties and issued a written record of that conference.^[8]  At the conference, the Union stated that it filed a ULP charge regarding Proposals 2, 3, 5, and 6 with the Federal Labor Relations Authority’s Washington, D.C. Regional Office.^[9]  Thus, the parties agreed to discuss only Proposals 1, 4, 7, and 8 during the conference.^[10]  On September 29, the Agency filed its statement of position (statement), to which the Union did not file a response.

III.           Preliminary Matter:  We dismiss the petition as to Proposals 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8, without prejudice.

Under § 7117 of the Statute and § 2424.2(c) of the Authority’s Regulations,^[11] “the Authority will consider a petition for review only where there is a negotiability dispute.”^[12]  A negotiability dispute is a disagreement “concerning the legality of a proposal or provision.”^[13]  When there is no such disagreement concerning a proposal contained in a petition, the Authority will dismiss the petition as to that proposal.^[14]  Further, a petition that “concerns only a bargaining[-]obligation dispute may not be resolved” in a negotiability proceeding.^[15]

As noted above, the Authority’s July 30 order directed the Union to show cause why the Authority should not dismiss the petition as to Proposals 2, 3, 5, and 6 because the parties’ dispute over those proposals appeared to concern only a bargaining‑obligation dispute, not a negotiability dispute.  In its response to the Authority’s order, the Union does not assert that the proposals present negotiability disputes and, instead, “consents” to the proposals’ dismissal.^[16]  Given these circumstances, we dismiss the petition as to Proposals 2, 3, 5, and 6.

Regarding Proposal 8, in its allegation of nonnegotiability, the Agency asserted that the proposal conflicted with management’s rights under § 7106 of the Statute and that the proposal is covered by the parties’ agreement.^[17]  In its statement, the Agency does not repeat its § 7106 claim and, consequently, has “effectively withdr[awn] that allegation . . . by abandoning it before us now.”^[18]  The Agency also does not argue that the proposal is inconsistent with any other law, rule, or regulation.  Instead, in its statement, the Agency argues only that the proposal is covered by the parties’ agreement,^[19] which is a bargaining-obligation dispute.^[20]  Because the only argument that the Agency makes to the Authority with regard to Proposal 8 is a bargaining‑obligation dispute, we dismiss the petition as to that proposal.^[21]

Accordingly, we dismiss Proposals 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8, without prejudice to the Union’s right to refile, if the conditions governing review of negotiability appeals are satisfied.^[22]  Because we dismiss these parts of the petition on the ground that they do not present a negotiability dispute, it is unnecessary to resolve whether the Union’s pending ULP charge – which implicates Proposals 2, 3, 5, and 6 – warrants dismissing the relevant parts of the petition because those proposals are “directly related” to the ULP.^[23]

IV.            Proposals 1, 4, and 7^[24]

A.              Wording

1.           Proposal 1

AFSCME BUEs shall not be required to perform any janitorial services (including trash handling) unless janitorial services are explicitly listed in their JAT and job description.^[25]

2.           Proposal 4

The FAA will provide training on an annual basis to any employee required to engage in trash collection, transporting trash, or emptying trash cans on hazards associated with trash handling to include safe handling of trash that potentially contains bodily fluids, trash‑borne pathogens, and hazardous materials that may be contained in trash.  No AFSCME BUE will be required to perform any trash handling duties unless they have had this training within the previous 365 day period.^[26]

3.           Proposal 7

No AFSCME employee will be required to lift trash cans or bags that weigh more than twenty‑five (25) pounds.  The FAA will reasonably accommodate employees who have any disability which prevents them from performing trash handling duties by excusing them from duties.  No employees shall be retaliated against or discriminated against in performance, promotion, awards, transfer, or in any other way as a result of a reasonable accommodation that excuses them from trash handling duties.^[27]

B.              Meaning

The parties agree that these terms have the following meanings when used in Proposals 1, 4, or 7:  (1) “AFSCME” refers to the Union; (2) “BUEs” means bargaining‑unit employees; and (3) “JAT” stands for job‑analysis tool, which provides information regarding an employee’s job duties for classification purposes.^[28]  The parties also agree that Proposals 1 and 4 require the Agency to list trash‑handling duties in an employee’s official documents, and provide relevant training on an annual basis, as a prerequisite to assigning an employee those duties.^[29]  With respect to Proposal 7, the parties agree that the proposal, as explained in the petition, “ensure[s] that the Agency will adhere to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities [A]ct.”^[30]  The parties agree further that Proposal 7 bars the Agency from committing prohibited personnel practices against employees who, “due to physical limitations,” cannot perform trash‑handling duties.^[31]  Additionally, the parties agree that Proposal 7’s first sentence creates a restriction on the assignment of trash‑handling duties that operates independently from the reasonable‑accommodation process described in the second and third sentences.^[32]

C.              Analysis and Conclusion:  Proposals 1, 4, and 7 are outside the duty to bargain.

The Agency asserts that Proposals 1, 4, and 7 are contrary to management’s rights under § 7106(a) and (b) of the Statute.  As for Proposal 1 specifically, the Agency argues that the proposal “excessively interferes with management’s right to assign work under § 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute and to determine its method and means of performing work under § 7106(b)(1).”^[33]  Regarding Proposals 4 and 7, the Agency contends that these proposals are contrary to management’s rights to assign work and determine the methods and means of performing work, as well as management’s right to assign employees under § 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute.^[34]  The Agency also argues that Proposals 1, 4, and 7 are neither negotiable procedures under § 7106(b)(2) of the Statute, nor appropriate arrangements under § 7106(b)(3).^[35]

Section 2424.32(a) of the Authority’s Regulations states, in pertinent part, that unions have “the burden of . . . raising and supporting arguments that [a] proposal . . . is within the duty to bargain, within the duty to bargain at the agency’s election, or not contrary to law.”^[36]  The Regulations also provide that a “[f]ailure to respond to an argument or assertion raised by the other party may, in the Authority’s discretion, be treated as conceding such argument or assertion.”^[37]

Here, the Union did not file a response to the Agency’s statement, nor did it raise any arguments in its petition that address the negotiability of Proposals 1, 4, and 7.^[38]  In these circumstances, consistent with the above‑cited Regulations and Authority precedent, we find it appropriate to treat the Union’s failure to respond to the Agency’s management-rights claims as concessions that Proposals 1, 4, and 7 affect the asserted management rights,^[39] and that they are neither negotiable procedures under § 7106(b)(2) of the Statute nor appropriate arrangements under § 7106(b)(3).^[40]  Accordingly, we find that Proposals 1, 4, and 7 are outside the duty to bargain as contrary to management rights.^[41]  Because we find the proposals outside the duty to bargain on this basis, it is unnecessary to consider the Agency’s remaining argument regarding Proposal 7.^[42]

V.             Order

We dismiss the Union’s petition.