[ v03 p109 ]
03:0109(16)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
3 FLRA No. 16 APRIL 28, 1980 Mr. Phillip R. Kete Special Representative, AFGE 2578 Gaffney, Anspach, Schember, Klimaski and Marks 1712 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Re: American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-cio, Local 2578 and General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service, Case No. 0-NG-163 DEAR MR. KETE: THIS REFERS TO YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE, DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1979, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2578. FOR THE REASONS INDICATED BELOW, YOUR PETITION DOES NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW ESTABLISHED IN THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS, AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED. THE UNION'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, REJECTED BY THE AGENCY AS NOT WITHIN ITS DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH, WAS AS FOLLOWS: EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER, OR AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE TECHNOLOGY OF CERTAIN ARCHIVAL WORK, THE TEMPERATURES IN ALL WORK AREAS WILL BE KEPT WITHIN THE RANGE OF 68 DEGREES AND 75 DEGREES AND THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY WILL BE KEPT IN THE RANGE OF 40 PERCENT AND 50 PERCENT. THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION OF NONNEGOTIABILITY, BASED PRINCIPALLY ON ITS VIEW THAT THE ABOVE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO GOVERNMENT-WIDE REGULATIONS, I.E., STANDBY CONSERVATION PLAN NO. 2, EMERGENCY BUILDING TEMPERATURE RESTRICTIONS (44 FED.REG. 39354 ET SEG. (1979)), WAS APPEALED TO THE AUTHORITY. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT OF POSITION, YOU SUBMITTED A BRIEF WHICH INCLUDED A REVISION OF THE ORIGINAL UNION PROPOSAL. THE REVISED PROPOSAL INCLUDED THE PHRASE "OR BINDING GOVERNMENT-WIDE REGULATION" AMONG THOSE AUTHORITIES WHICH WOULD PERMIT MANAGEMENT TO DEVIATE FROM THE TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY RANGES PRESCRIBED IN THE PROPOSAL. /1/ SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG. 3511, 3512), PERTAINING TO PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES, PROVIDES, IN PART: THE AUTHORITY WILL CONSIDER A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE UNDER THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY 5 U.S.C. 7117(B) AND (C), NAMELY: IF AN AGENCY INVOLVED IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE ALLEGES THAT THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY MATTER PROPOSED TO BE BARGAINED BECAUSE, AS PROPOSED, THE MATTER IS INCONSISTENT WITH LAW, RULE OR REGULATION, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE MAY APPEAL THE ALLEGATION TO THE AUTHORITY . . . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE RECORD BEFORE THE AUTHORITY CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE REVISED PROPOSAL CONCERNING WHICH YOU SEEK A NEGOTIABILITY DECISION FROM THE AUTHORITY WAS NOT THE SUBJECT OF AN ALLEGATION OF NONNEGOTIABILITY. IN FACT, YOU STATE THAT "THE OMISSION OF REFERENCE TO BINDING GOVERNMENT-WIDE REGULATIONS IN THE INITIAL PROPOSAL WAS AN OVERSIGHT." HENCE, THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW OF A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 2424.1 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE AUTHORITY IN THAT THE AGENCY HAS NOT ALLEGED THAT THE REVISED PROPOSAL WHICH YOU NOW ASK THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER IS OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE INSTANT APPEAL IS PREMATURE AND THEREFORE MUST BE DISMISSED WITHOUT A DETERMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY AS TO THE NEGOTIABILITY OF THE UNION'S REVISED PROPOSAL. FOR THE AUTHORITY, SINCERELY, SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CC: MR. W. M. PAZ GSA /1/ THE REVISED UNION PROPOSAL PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW, EXECUTIVE ORDER, OR BINDING GOVERNMENT-WIDE REGULATION, OR AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE TECHNOLOGY OF CERTAIN ARCHIVAL WORK, THE TEMPERATURES IN ALL WORK AREAS WILL BE KEPT WITHIN THE RANGE OF 68 DEGREES AND 75 DEGREES AND THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY WILL BE KEPT IN THE RANGE OF 40 PERCENT AND 50 PERCENT.