[ v02 p148 ]
02:0148(15)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
2 FLRA No. 15 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTERS 103 AND 111 (Union) and U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, REGION VII (Activity) Case No. 0-NG-16 DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE PROPOSAL ARTICLE 33, SECTION 2 A. (NO CHANGE) B. (NO CHANGE) C. (NO CHANGE) D. (NO CHANGE) E. (NO CHANGE) F. DELETE: " . . . FIFTEEN (15) DAYS TO FILE BY CERTIFIED MAIL OR BY HAND DELIVERY, A GRIEVANCE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 35. IF THE EMPLOYEE FILES A GRIEVANCE OF A SUSPENSION THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION SHALL BE STAYED PENDING EXHAUSTION OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE." INSERT: " . . . FIVE (5) DAYS TO INVOKE ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH G OF THIS SECTION BY CERTIFIED MAIL OR BY HAND DELIVERY. IF THE UNION INVOKES ARBITRATION OF A SUSPENSION THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION SHALL BE STAYED. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS NOT APPEALED UNDER PARAGRAPH F AND G OF THIS SECTION MAY BE APPEALED BY FILING A GRIEVANCE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 35." G. DELETE FIRST SENTENCE 1. DELETE FIRST SENTENCE AND INSERT: "THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) PERSONS SHALL SERVE AS ARBITRATORS FOR CASES UNDER THIS ARTICLE: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. THEY SHALL SERVE ON A ROTATING BASIS AND IF THE ARBITRATOR WHO WOULD BE SELECTED UNDER THE ROTATIONAL SYSTEM FOR A PARTICULAR CASE IS UNABLE TO HOLD THE ARBITRATION WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS OF SUBSECTION 4 OF THIS PARAGRAPH THE NEXT ARBITRATOR WILL BE CONTACTED IN TURN." 2. (NO CHANGE) 3. (NO CHANGE) 4. INSERT: "A HEARING SHALL BE SCHEDULED TO COMMENCE WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THE SELECTION OF THE ARBITRATOR. THE HEARING SHALL BE CONCLUDED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF ITS OPENING DATE. THE ARBITRATOR'S DECISION SHALL BE RENDERED WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING. 5. INSERT: "IF THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS NOT RENDERED WITHIN FIFTY (50) DAYS FOLLOWING RECEIPT BY THE EMPLOYEE OF THE EMPLOYER'S DECISION TO SUSPEND THE EMPLOYEE, THE EMPLOYER MAY IMPLEMENT THE SUSPENSION, NOTWITHSTANDING A STAY OF SUSPENSION. IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE PARTIES THAT THE ARBITRATOR MAY AWARD BACK PAY IF APPROPRIATE IN SUCH A CASE. FOR PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE FIFTY (50) DAY PERIOD, DELAYS AND/OR EXTENSIONS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYER WILL TOLL THE COUNTING PERIOD." QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PROPOSAL VIOLATES SECTION 7106(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) OR ESTABLISHES A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE. /1/ OPINION CONCLUSION: THE PROPOSAL ESTABLISHES A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.8 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (44 FED. REG. 44740 ET SEQ. (1979)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN BECAUSE IT VIOLATES SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE IS SET ASIDE. /2/ REASONS: THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL IN THE INSTANT CASE ESTABLISHES A PROCEDURE FOR THE ARBITRATION OF THE SUSPENSION OF EMPLOYEES. IN PARTICULAR, THE PROPOSAL PROVIDES FOR STAYING THE AGENCY'S SUSPENSION ACTION FOR A MAXIMUM OF 50 DAYS PENDING EXHAUSTION OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE BY THE EMPLOYEE. IT ESTABLISHES DEFINITE TIME LIMITS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE STEPS OF THE ARBITRATION PROCESS, AND ALLOWS THE AGENCY TO IMPLEMENT THE SUSPENSION ACTION IF THE ARBITRATION DECISION IS NOT RENDERED WITHIN 50 DAYS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF SUSPENSION. IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1999 AND ARMY-AIR FORCE EXCHANGE , FORT DIX, NEW JERSEY, CASE NO. O-NG-20, DECIDED ON THIS DATE, THE AUTHORITY CONSIDERED THE NEGOTIABILITY UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE OF A PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO SUSPEND OR REMOVE EMPLOYEES SIMILAR TO THE ONE AT ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE PROPOSAL AT ISSUE IN DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE PROVIDED FOR A STAY OF AGENCY ACTION PENDING EXHAUSTION OF THE GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCESS, BUT IN CONTRAST TO THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL HEREIN DID NOT ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS FOR COMPLETING THE ARBITRATION PROCESS OR PROVIDE FOR AGENCY ACTION WITHIN A DEFINITE TIME PERIOD. THE AUTHORITY, BASED ON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE, /3/ CONCLUDED THAT THE PROPOSAL IN THAT CASE WAS NEGOTIABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM ACTING AT ALL IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUSPEND OR REMOVE EMPLOYEES. SINCE THE PROPOSAL HEREIN, WHICH IS NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PROPOSAL AT ISSUE IN DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE, WOULD PERMIT THE AGENCY TO IMPLEMENT THE SUSPENSION OF THE EMPLOYEE WITHIN A DEFINITE TIME PERIOD, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ARBITRATION DECISION, IT WOULD HAVE A MORE LIMITED EFFECT ON THE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT'S STATUTORY RIGHT TO SUSPEND EMPLOYEES. A FORTIORI, IT MUST BE FOUND NEGOTIABLE. THAT IS, THE PROPOSAL HEREIN CLEARLY DOES NOT PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM ACTING AT ALL PURSUANT TO ITS RIGHT TO SUSPEND EMPLOYEES. ACCORDINGLY, BASED ON THE DECISION IN DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE, THE PROPOSAL IN THE INSTANT CASE SETS FORTH A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE AND, THEREFORE, THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION TO THE CONTRARY IS SET ASIDE. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 29, 1979 RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY /4/ /1/ SECTION 7106 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1198) PROVIDES, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS: SEC. 7106. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS (A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY-- (1) TO DETERMINE THE MISSION, BUDGET, ORGANIZATION, NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, AND INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE AGENCY; AND (2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS-- (A) TO HIRE, ASSIGN, DIRECT, LAYOFF, AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE AGENCY, OR TO SUSPEND, REMOVE, REDUCE IN GRADE OR PAY, OR TAKE OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST SUCH EMPLOYEES . . . . . . . . (B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION FROM NEGOTIATING-- . . . . (2) PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING ANY AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION . . . . /2/ IN SO DECIDING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSAL. /3/ SEE S. REP. NO. 95-1272, 95TH CONG., 2ND SESS. 158(1978). /4/ MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHICH HAD BEEN PROCESSED PRIOR TO HIS CONFIRMATION BY THE UNITED STATES SENATE AS A MEMBER OF THE AUTHORITY.