23:0003(1)NG - NFFE Local 1450 and HUD -- 1986 FLRAdec NG
[ v23 p3 ]
23:0003(1)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
23 FLRA No. 1
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1450
Union
and
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Agency
Case No. 0-NG-1171
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 one provision of a negotiated agreement which was
disapproved by the Agency head pursuant to section 7114(c) of the
Statute. /1/
II. Provision
Section 26: Performance Appraisals
Annual performance appraisals will be frozen at the time of the
general RIF Notice.
This provision does not determine the date on which the
Employer will freeze other personnel actions. In addition,
Employer agrees to fill vacancies, for which affected Employees
meet minimum X-118 standards, only with affected employees after
issuance of the general RIF notice to maximize the number of
positions available to affected employees.
A. Positions of the Parties
The Agency argues that the underline portion of this provision would
interfere with its right, under section 7106(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the
Statute, to fill positions from any appropriate source.
The Union did not file a response in this case.
B. Analysis
The disputed portion of this provision, by its terms, would require
the Agency to fill vacancies in a RIF situation only with affected
employees who meet minimum X-118 standards. In this regard, the
provision herein is to the same effect as a provision in National
Treasury Employees Union and Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs
Service, 9 FLRA 983 (1982), remanded as to other matters sub nom.
Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service v. Federal Labor
Relations Authority, No. 82-2225 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 19, 1984), vacated by
FLRA as to other matters, May 3, 1984, which provided in Article 12,
sections 12A and B that for a 3-month period following a RIF affected
employees be placed in vacant positions for which they qualify. In that
decision, the Authority held that the provision violated the Agency's
right to choose among candidates from "any appropriate source" pursuant
to section 7106(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Statute. Hence, for the reasons
cited in U.S. Customs Service, the provision here in dispute must also
be found to be outside the duty to bargain.
While the Union does not argue that the disputed provision is an
appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3) of the Statute, /2/ the
Authority notes that the provision is similar to union proposal 2 in
National Association of Government Employees, Local R14-87 and
Department of the Army, Kansas Army National Guard, 21 FLRA No. 105
(1986), which the Authority found to be an excessive interference with
management's right to fill positions and, thus, not an appropriate
arrangement under section 7106(b)(3). As indicated in Kansas Army
National Guard, management's right to make selections for vacant
positions includes the right to decide to fill or not fill a position
and the right to determine the qualifications necessary to perform the
work of the position. Management therefore retains the right in filling
a position to determine whether any qualifications, in addition to basic
qualification requirements such as those set forth in the X-118
standards, are necessary to accomplish the work of a position.
In this case, the provision in dispute would effectively preclude the
Agency from determining the requisite qualifications for vacant
positions, that is, any qualifications beyond the minimum requirements
of the X-118 standards. Such a total abrogation of management's right
to act in this respect excessively interferes with management's right to
fill positions and, therefore, is not an appropriate arrangement within
the meaning of section 7106(b)(3) of the Statute. See American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1799 and Department of the
Army, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 22 FLRA No. 62, slip op. at
6(1986). Furthermore, the provision is inconsistent with a
Government-wide regulation, Requirement 4 of subchapter 1-4, chapter 335
of the Federal Personnel Manual, because it would prevent the Agency
from making selections from any appropriate source in filling vacant
positions. See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Local 2677 and Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
Community Services, 21 FLRA No. 22 (1986).
C. Conclusion
Therefore, for the above reasons, the Authority finds that the
provision in dispute is not within the duty to bargain.
III. Order
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 6, 1986.
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(1) The Agency withdrew its allegation that the duty to bargain did
not extend to a second provision concerning criteria to be used when
taking an adverse action based on unacceptable performance. Hence, that
provision will not be considered herein.
(2) The Authority has determined that proposals which concern
"arrangements" for employees adversely affected by the exercise of
management rights are negotiable unless the arrangement excessively
interferes with the exercise of those rights. National Association of
Government Employees, Local R14-87, and Kansas Army National Guard, 21
FLRA No. 4 (1986).