[ v02 p733 ]
02:0733(93)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
2 FLRA No.93 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2879 (UNION) AND SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA (ACTIVITY) Case No. 0-NG-208 DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) (5 U.S.C. 7171 ET SEQ.). THE RECORD BEFORE THE AUTHORITY SHOWS THAT DURING NEGOTIATIONS FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THE UNION REQUESTED NEGOTIATIONS ON THE FOLLOWING MATTERS: (1) FOR ANY PROMOTION WITHIN THE SELECTING AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT MANAGER, ANY BEST QUALIFIED LIST SHALL CONTAIN THE NAMES OF NO MORE THAN THREE CANDIDATES. (2) A FLEXITIME PLAN THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR FINAL APPROVAL WILL BE NEGOTIATED FOR EACH INSTALLATION WITHIN THE DISTRICT. ANY PLAN THAT IS SENT BACK FOR CHANGES WILL HAVE THE CHANGES RENEGOTIATED. FLEXIBLE BANDS WILL BE FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 9:00 A.M., 11:00 A.M. TO 1:00 P.M., AND 3:30 P.M. TO 5:30 P.M. CORE TIMES WILL BE FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 11:00 A.M. AND 1:00 P.M. TO 3:30 P.M. THE EMPLOYEES IN ANY INSTALLATION WITHIN THE DISTRICT MAY OPT FOR "COMPRESSED WORK SCHEDULING" IN LIEU OF, OR IN ADDITION TO, FLEXITIME. "COMPRESSED WORK SCHEDULING" WILL PROVIDE THAT EMPLOYEES MAY WORK A TOTAL OF 80 HOURS IN A TWO-WEEK PAY PERIOD IN OTHER THAN THE NORMAL 8 HOUR WORKDAY. (3) ANY CHANGES PROPOSED BY MANAGEMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL, UPON REQUEST OF THE UNION. THE ACTIVITY RESPONDED IN WRITING TO THE UNION'S REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE ON THESE MATTERS, STATING, GENERALLY, THAT IT DID NOT CONSIDER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED MATTERS NEGOTIABLE. THEREAFTER, ON BEHALF OF THE UNION, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFGE) FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE AUTHORITY. THE ACTIVITY FILED A STATEMENT WITH THE AUTHORITY ASSERTING, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT BECAUSE OF A UNIT CONSOLIDATION AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL INCLUDING THE UNION HEREIN AND OTHER LOCALS OF THE AFGE WITHIN THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IN NOVEMBER 1979, THERE IS NO LONGER A DUTY TO BARGAIN WITH AFGE LOCAL 2879, WHICH IS PART OF THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS FOR SAN FRANCISCO. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ACTIVITY ARGUES THAT FOLLOWING THE NOVEMBER 1979 UNIT CONSOLIDATION, IT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO NEGOTIATE LOCAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS BELOW THE NATIONAL LEVEL OF RECOGNITION, ABSENT AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO DO SO. IN ADDITION, THE ACTIVITY NOTES THAT THE UNION'S SECOND PROPOSAL CONCERNING FLEXITIME, AND ITS THIRD PROPOSAL TO NEGOTIATE CHANGES AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL, ARE SUBJECT TO NATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS AND A CONTROLLING SAN FRANCISCO MASTER AGREEMENT, RESPECTIVELY. IN ESSENCE, AFGE CONTENDS THAT THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED ITS BARGAINING OBLIGATION BY REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE ON THE PROPOSALS HEREIN. IN THIS REGARD, AFGE ASSERTS THAT AFGE LOCAL 2T879 BEGAN NEGOTIATIONS PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER 1979 UNIT CONSOLIDATION AS THE AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS AND CONTINUED TO DO SO AFTER THE UNIT CONSOLIDATION. IT ALLEGES THAT THE ACTIVITY HAS ENGAGED IN BAD FAITH BARGAINING WITH AFGE LOCAL 2879 BY REFUSING TO BARGAIN ON THE MATTERS HEREIN UNTIL THE TIME THE UNIT CONSOLIDATION BECAME EFFECTIVE AND THEN, "AS A STRATAGEM TO ESCAPE BARGAINING," ALLEGING THAT SUCH MATTERS WERE OUTSIDE ITS DUTY TO BARGAIN BECAUSE THE LEVEL OF RECOGNITION HAD CHANGED WITH THE AFGE LOCALS. IN SUM, THE AFGE CONTENDS THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE SUBJECT CASE IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY HAS COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND/OR VIOLATED THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT, AND, THAT THE UNION'S REDRESS LIES IN ANOTHER FORUM. WE AGREE. THE UNION'S CONTENTIONS FOCUS ON WHETHER THE ACTIVITY HAS ENGAGED IN BAD FAITH BARGAINING AND THE ACTIVITY'S DEFENSE IS THAT ITS OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN WITH AFGE LOCAL 2879 HAS CEASED ON SUCH MATTERS SUBSEQUENT TO THE AFOREMENTIONED UNIT CONSOLIDATION. THUS, THE ESSENCE OF THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS RELATE TO THE BARGAINING OBLIGATION OF THE PARTIES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HEREIN AND NOT TO WHETHER THE PROPOSALS THEMSELVES VIOLATE LAW OR REGULATION. THEREFORE, THE PROPER FORUM IN WHICH TO RAISE THESE ISSUES IS NOT A NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL, BUT WOULD BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE. SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1931 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. O-NG-55, 2 FLRA NO. 19 (DEC. 5, 1979), REPORT NO. . . ., AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1363 AND HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY GARRISON, YONGSAN, KOREA, CASE NO. O-NG-94, 2 FLRA NO. 50 (DEC. 31, 1979), REPORT NO. . . . . ADDITIONALLY, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE INSTANT CASE INVOLVES DISPUTES OVER WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL CONCERNING FLEXITIME IS SUBJECT TO NATIONAL NEGOTIATION ONLY, AND/OR WHETHER ITS PROPOSAL TO NEGOTIATE CHANGES AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SAN FRANCISCO MASTER AGREEMENT, THE PROPER FORUM IN WHICH TO RESOLVE THESE DISPUTES WOULD BE PURSUANT TO WHATEVER PROCEDURES THE PARTIES THEMSELVES HAVE ADOPTED FOR SUCH PURPOSES THROUGH SUCH AGREEMENTS. SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1931 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. O-NG-55, 2 FLRA NO. 19 (DEC. 5, 1979), REPORT NO. . . ., AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, BUREAU OF PRISONS, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, DANBURY, CONNECTICUT, CASE NO. O-NG-43, 2 FLRA NO. 56 (JAN 9, 1980), REPORT NO. . . . . BASED ON THE FOREGOING, THE UNION'S APPEAL DOES NOT PRESENT ISSUES THAT THE AUTHORITY CAN APPROPRIATELY RESOLVE AT THIS TIME UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND PART 2424 OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 29, 1980. RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY