[ v03 p57 ]
03:0057(9)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
3 FLRA No. 9 ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS DELAWARE CHAPTER (Union) and NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU DELAWARE NATIONAL GUARD (Activity) Case No. O-NG-104 DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET SEG.). UNION PROPOSAL SECTION 3. POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT-- WHEN POSITIONS ARE ANNOUNCED, DISTRIBUTION OF THE ANNOUNCEMENTS WILL BE THROUGHOUT THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION AND WILL CONTAIN, AS A MINIMUM, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: . . . . E. AREA OF CONSIDERATION AS FOLLOWS (1) 1ST AREA-- ALL CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS (2) 2ND AREA-- ALL MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD (3) 3RD AREA-- ALL OTHERS QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE FILLING OF VACANT POSITIONS IS A MATTER OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN ESTABLISHED BY THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE OR VIOLATES SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE, /1/ AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY. OPINION CONCLUSION: THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE AND DOES NOT VIOLATE SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) THEREOF. ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ. (1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE. /2/ REASONS: THE AGENCY ALLEGES THAT THE PROPOSAL IS NONNEGOTIABLE BECAUSE IT ESTABLISHES A MANDATORY RANK ORDER PREFERENCE WHICH WOULD OPERATE AS A CONSTRAINT ON MANAGEMENT'S AUTHORITY TO RECRUIT AND SELECT EMPLOYEES FOR POSITIONS WITHIN THE AGENCY. TO THE CONTRARY, THE UNION'S PROPOSAL WOULD NOT PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM EXERCISING ITS RIGHT TO MAKE SELECTIONS FROM AMONG PROPERLY RANKED AND CERTIFIED CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION OR FROM ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE. RATHER IT MERELY PROVIDES A PROCEDURE FOR DEFINING THE INITIAL AREA OF CONSIDERATION FOR CANDIDATES UNDER THE AGENCY MERIT PLACEMENT PLAN AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF THAT AREA OF CONSIDERATION, A MATTER CLEARLY NEGOTIABLE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE. /3/ THE PROPOSAL IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE WHICH RESERVES TO MANAGEMENT THE AUTHORITY TO SELECT EMPLOYEES FROM AMONG PROPERLY RANKED AND CERTIFIED CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION OR FROM ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE. AS THE UNION ITSELF STATED IN ITS RESPONSE: WE DISAGREE WITH THE AGENCY'S CONTENTION THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IN THIS CASE ESTABLISHES A "PREFERENCE" METHOD OF SELECTION TO AVAILABLE POSITIONS IN THE AGENCY. THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF ANNOUNCEMENTS, AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE UNION'S PROPOSALS ARE NOT SELECTIVE IN NATURE AS THEY DO NOT REQUIRE SELECTION. SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 331 AND VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, PERRY POINT, MARYLAND, CASE NO. O-NG-17, 2 FLRA 59 (JANUARY 17, 1980), WHEREIN THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDED THAT A PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ONLY THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT IN FILLING VACANT POSITIONS BUT WOULD NOT PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM CONSIDERING OTHER APPLICANTS, OR EXPANDING THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION ONCE BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WERE CONSIDERED, OR USING ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE IN FILLING SUCH VACANCIES, DID NOT PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM EXERCISING ITS RESERVED RIGHT TO SELECT. IN THAT CASE THE AUTHORITY POINTED OUT THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS CONCERNED ONLY WITH LIMITING THE AREA OF SUCH INTENSIVE SEARCH AND WOULD REQUIRE ONLY THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT IN FILLING VACANT POSITIONS. THE AUTHORITY NOTED THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD EXPRESSLY PERMIT AGENCY EMPLOYEES FROM OUTSIDE THE MINIMUM AREA OF CONSIDERATION TO APPLY FOR POSITIONS COVERED BY THE PROVISION, AND WOULD NOT LIMIT MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATION OF SUCH APPLICANTS. MOREOVER, IT WOULD NOT PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM EXPANDING THE AREA OF INTENSIVE SEARCH FOR ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES OR FROM MAKING SELECTIONS FROM ANY APPROPRIATE SOURCE ONCE THE MINIMUM AREA OF CONSIDERATION WAS CONSIDERED. THE PROPOSAL HEREIN DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE AGENCY FROM EXPANDING THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION FOR ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES, NOR DOES IT REQUIRE THAT ANY EMPLOYEE BE SELECTED FROM ONE OF THE THREE DESIGNATED AREAS OF CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE PROPOSAL AT ISSUE IS A MATTER WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE, AND THE AGENCY'S DETERMINATION OF NON-NEGOTIABILITY MUST BE SET ASIDE. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 14, 1980 RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER, III, MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY /1/ SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE (92 STAT. 1198) PROVIDES: SECTION 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-- . . . . (2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS-- . . . . (C) WITH RESPECT TO FILLING POSITIONS, TO MAKE SELECTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT FROM-- (I) AMONG PROPERLY RANKED AND CERTIFIED CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION; OR (II) ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE . . . /2/ IN DECIDING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSAL. /3/ SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE (92 STAT. 1199) PROVIDES: SECTION 7106. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS. . . . . (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.