[ v05 p83 ]
05:0083(15)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
5 FLRA No. 15 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO Union and AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO Agency Case No. 0-NG-70 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE 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. 7101 ET SEQ.). PROVISION /1/ ARTICLE 22 TRAVEL AND TDY SECTION 22.10 SELECTION PROCEDURES TDY WILL BE OFFERED TO QUALIFIED AND AVAILABLE EMPLOYEES WITH REQUISITE SKILLS ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY. IF THERE ARE NO VOLUNTEERS, TDY ASSIGNMENTS WILL BE ROTATED AMONG QUALIFIED AND AVAILABLE EMPLOYEES WITH REQUISITE SKILLS IN INVERSE ORDER OF SENIORITY. A. SEPARATE OVERSEAS AND STATESIDE TDY ROSTERS WILL BE MAINTAINED. B. EXCEPTIONS WILL BE MADE FOR COMPASSIONATE REASONS. C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO TRAINING ASSIGNMENT INVOLVING TDY. QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DISPUTED PROVISION OF THE LOCAL PARTIES' AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS DISAPPROVED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY, SUPRA, NOTE 1, CONCERNS THE RIGHTS OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B) OF THE STATUTE; AND, IF SO, WHETHER THE PROVISION IS INCONSISTENT WITH SUCH RIGHTS, OR ESTABLISHES A PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE WHICH AGENCY MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING SUCH RIGHTS. OPINION CONCLUSION AND ORDER: THE DISPUTED PROVISION OF THE LOCAL PARTIES' AGREEMENT DOES NOT CONCERN THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES IN THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE OR TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) AND, THEREFORE, IS WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN. /2/ ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10, AS AMENDED BY 45 F.R. 48575, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE AGENCY SHALL RESCIND ITS DISAPPROVAL OF THIS PROVISION, WHICH WAS BARGAINED ON AND AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. /3/ REASONS: THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY DISAPPROVED THIS PROVISION OF THE LOCAL PARTIES' AGREEMENT AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHORITY OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES AND ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B) OF THE STATUTE. /4/ IN RESPONSE, THE UNION CONTENDS ESSENTIALLY, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION BY THE AGENCY, THAT THE TDY ASSIGNMENTS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISPUTED PROVISION MERELY INVOLVE THE TEMPORARY PERFORMANCE BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DUTIES OF HIS OR HER POSITION AT A DIFFERENT DUTY STATION. SINCE NOTHING IN THE RECORD IS TO THE CONTRARY, THAT INTERPRETATION IS ADOPTED FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DECISION. /5/ THE UNION ARGUES, FURTHER, THAT IN THIS REGARD THE PROVISION IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE RIGHTS OF MANAGEMENT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES IN THE AGENCY AND TO ASSIGN WORK WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN. THE AUTHORITY AGREES. UNDER THE DISPUTED PROVISION, TDY ASSIGNMENTS ARE LIMITED TO ASSIGNMENTS WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE A POSITION CHANGE BY AN EMPLOYEE AND WHICH MERELY REQUIRE THAT THE EMPLOYEE TEMPORARILY PERFORM THE REGULAR DUTIES OF HIS OR HER POSITION IN A DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION FOR HIS OR HER NORMAL DUTY STATION. /6/ THEREFORE, THE PROVISION DOES NOT IN THE FIRST PLACE INVOLVE AN ASSIGNMENT OF WORK, BUT CONCERNS MERELY THE LOCATION WHERE WORK WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSIGNED TO AN EMPLOYEE WILL BE PERFORMED. THAT IS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ADDRESSED BY THE PROVISION, THE AGENCY ALREADY WILL HAVE EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION TO ASSIGN THE WORK INVOLVED TO PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES OR POSITIONS AND WILL ONLY BE DECIDING THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE AMONG THOSE WHO ARE DOING THAT WORK WHO WILL BE SELECTED FOR THE TDY ASSIGNMENT. FOR THIS REASON, THE PROVISION HEREIN IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PROPOSALS FOUND TO BE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 695 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, U.S. MINT, DENVER, COLORADO, 3 FLRA NO. 7(1980) AND INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL F-61 AND PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, 3 FLRA NO. 66(1980). THE PROPOSAL IN THE U.S. MINT CASE REQUIRED WEEKLY ROTATION OF WORK ASSIGNMENTS AND THE AUTHORITY HELD IT VIOLATED SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) INSOFAR AS IT WOULD REQUIRE ALL EMPLOYEES TO BE ROTATED THROUGH THE DUTIES LISTED IN THEIR POSITION DESCRIPTION EACH WEEK REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY WORK WAS AVAILABLE WHICH NECESSITATED THE PERFORMANCE OF THOSE DUTIES OR WHETHER THE WORK PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED HAD BEEN COMPLETED. THE INSTANT PROVISION, IN CONTRAST, ONLY TAKES EFFECT WHEN THE AGENCY HAS DETERMINED THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO TEMPORARILY ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF HIS OR HER POSITION AT A DIFFERENT DUTY STATION; IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED. MOREOVER, UNLIKE UNION PROPOSALS I AND II IN PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, WHICH PRECLUDED THE AGENCY FROM ASSIGNING WORK AT PARTICULAR TIMES, THE PROVISION HEREIN WOULD IN NO WAY LIMIT THE AGENCY'S DECISION AS TO WHEN THE DUTIES INVOLVED IN THE TDY ASSIGNMENT WOULD BE PERFORMED. LIKEWISE, THE PROVISION DOES NOT INVOLVE AN ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES TO POSITIONS IN THE AGENCY. THAT IS, THE PROVISION DOES NOT AFFECT THE AGENCY'S DISCRETION TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES TO PARTICULAR POSITIONS, BUT ONLY CONCERNS THE SELECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE TO TEMPORARILY PERFORM HIS OR HER ASSIGNED WORK IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION. UNDER THE PROVISION, THE AGENCY SIMPLY DETERMINES WHICH EMPLOYEE FROM AMONG THOSE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED TO CERTAIN POSITIONS TEMPORARILY WILL PERFORM THE WORK OF HIS OR HER POSITION AT A DIFFERENT DUTY STATION. THE DECISION OF THE AGENCY IN THIS REGARD IN NO WAY CHANGES THE DUTIES WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WILL PERFORM. FOR THIS REASON, THE PROVISION IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PROPOSALS FOUND BY THE AUTHORITY TO BE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, 2 FLRA NO. 77(1980). EACH OF THE PROPOSALS IN THAT CASE WHICH WERE FOUND TO INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES INVOLVED A DECISION BY THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A DIFFERENT POSITION RATHER THAN, AS HERE, A DECISION AS TO WHERE THE WORK OF A GIVEN POSITION IS TO BE PERFORMED. THUS, THE AUTHORITY STATED WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN PROPOSALS CONCERNING SELECTION OF EMPLOYEES FOR DETAILS, LOANS, AND TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENTS (AT 10 OF AUTHORITY DECISION): IN THUS COMPELLING THE SELECTION OF A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT TO ANOTHER POSITION, UNION PROPOSALS IV, V, AND VI EACH DIRECTLY INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES. THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES IN THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE IS MORE THAN MERELY THE RIGHT TO DECIDE TO ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION. AN AGENCY CHOOSES TO ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION SO THAT THE WORK OF THAT POSITION WILL BE DONE. UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE, THE AGENCY RETAINS DISCRETION AS TO THE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS OF THE WORK OF THE POSITION, I.E., THE QUALIFICATIONS AND SKILLS NEEDED TO DO THE WORK, AS WELL AS SUCH JOB-RELATED INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS AS JUDGMENT AND RELIABILITY. THEREFORE, THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION INCLUDES THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHICH EMPLOYEE WILL BE ASSIGNED. (CLEARLY, THE ASSIGNMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE ASSIGNMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE TO A SHIFT.) REGARDING MOBILITY ASSIGNMENTS, THE AUTHORITY STATED (AT 11 OF AUTHORITY DECISION): (T)HE AGENCY IS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROPOSAL, WITHOUT THE OPTION TO DO OTHERWISE, AS IN THE CASE OF UNION PROPOSAL III, TO SELECT FOR REASSIGNMENT THE LEAST SENIOR EMPLOYEE OF THE TITLE, SERIES, AND GRADE OF THE POSITION TO BE FILLED. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE DISCUSSION OF UNION PROPOSALS III-- IV, BY THUS REQUIRING THE AGENCY TO SELECT AN EMPLOYEE FOR ASSIGNMENT ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY THE PROPOSAL OBVIATES THE DISCRETION AS TO SELECTION WHICH IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE. IN SUMMARY, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROVISION HERE, I.E., TDY ASSIGNMENTS, INVOLVES AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF HIS OR HER POSITION IN A DIFFERENT PLACE. THUS, UNDER THE PROVISION, SELECTION OF AN EMPLOYEE FOR SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT WOULD BE FROM AMONG EMPLOYEES ALREADY PERFORMING THE SAME DUTIES AND WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY CHANGE THOSE DUTIES. THE ONLY CHANGE WHICH WOULD RESULT WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE IN WHERE THE EMPLOYEE WOULD PERFORM THOSE DUTIES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSIGNMENTS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROPOSALS IN WRIGHT-PATTERSON ARE TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENTS TO HIGHER, LOWER, OR SAME GRADED POSITIONS, LOANS, TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OUTSIDE THE BARGAINING UNIT, AND MOBILITY ASSIGNMENTS, ALL OF WHICH INVOLVE A CHANGE OF POSITION FOR THE EMPLOYEE ASSIGNED. IN THIS REGARD, THE AUTHORITY NOTES THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION RESTRICTING TDY ASSIGNMENTS TO "QUALIFIED" EMPLOYEES WITH THE "REQUISITE SKILLS" DOES NOT REFER TO OPM STANDARDS FOR QUALIFICATIONS TO FILL A POSITION ON A PERMANENT BASIS, BUT SIMPLY TO QUALIFICATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE PARTICULAR WORK INVOLVED IN THE TDY ASSIGNMENT. THEREFORE, THIS LANGUAGE, AS THE UNION INDICATES, WOULD NOT LIMIT MANAGEMENT'S DECISION TO SELECT AN EMPLOYEE FOR A TDY ASSIGNMENT, BUT WOULD SERVE INSTEAD AS A LIMITATION ON THE OPERATION OF THE SENIORITY CRITERION UNDER THE PROVISION. THAT IS, THE TERMS "QUALIFIED" AND "REQUISITE SKILLS" WOULD PERMIT THE AGENCY TO DECIDE THAT IT WOULD NOT SELECT THE MOST SENIOR EMPLOYEE WHO VOLUNTEERS IF THAT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT QUALIFIED OR DID NOT POSSESS THE NEEDED SKILLS. CORRELATIVELY, IF THERE WERE NO VOLUNTEERS, THE AGENCY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO ASSIGN THE LEAST SENIOR EMPLOYEE WHERE IT DETERMINED THAT SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS NOT QUALIFIED OR DID NOT POSSESS THE NEEDED SKILLS. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE DISPUTED PROVISION, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE SELECTION OF EMPLOYEES FOR CERTAIN TDY ASSIGNMENTS ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY, DOES NOT CONCERN THE AUTHORITY OF MANAGEMENT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES OR ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY ALLEGATION THAT THE DISPUTED PROVISION IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 9, 1981 RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ THE AGENCY HEAD DISAPPROVED THE DISPUTED PROVISION IN THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO REVIEW OF THAT AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 7114(C) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE. SECTION 7114(C) OF THE STATUTE (92 STAT. 1203) PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, AS FOLLOWS: SEC. 7114. REPRESENTATION RIGHTS AND DUTIES * * * * (C)(1) AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN ANY AGENCY AND AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY. (2) THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY SHALL APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED IF THE AGREEMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION (UNLESS THE AGENCY HAS GRANTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE PROVISION). (3) IF THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY DOES NOT APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITHIN THE 30-DAY PERIOD, THE AGREEMENT SHALL TAKE EFFECT AND SHALL BE BINDING ON THE AGENCY AND THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION. /2/ IN VIEW OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION THAT THE DISPUTED PROVISION DOES NOT CONCERN THE RIGHTS OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B), IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING ITS RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 7106 OR THE UNION'S CONTENTIONS AS TO PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF THOSE RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2). /3/ IN DECIDING THAT THE SUBJECT PROVISION WAS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE PROVISION. /4/ SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7106) PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT 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) TO ASSIGN WORK, TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CONTRACTING OUT, AND TO DETERMINE THE PERSONNEL BY WHICH AGENCY OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED(.) /5/ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PART J, TEMPORARY DUTY, PROVIDE, IN RELEVANT PART, AS FOLLOWS: C4451 WHAT CONSTITUTES TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL FOR AN EMPLOYEE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS: 1. ASSIGNMENT OF A TEMPORARY NATURE IN CONNECTION WITH OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUSINESS AWAY FROM AN EMPLOYEE'S PERMANENT DUTY STATION (SUCH ASSIGNMENTS WILL NOT BE OF SUCH FREQUENCY OR DURATION THAT A PLACE OF ASSIGNMENT IS, IN FACT, AN EMPLOYEE'S PERMANENT DUTY STATION EVEN THOUGH ADMINISTRATION JURISDICTION IS AT SOME OTHER LOCATION) . . . . /6/ CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION ADOPTED HEREIN, THE TERM "POSITION" AS USED HEREIN IS GIVEN THE MEANING COMMONLY ASCRIBED TO IT IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL PRACTICE. SEE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL, CHAP. 312, SUBCHAP. 1-3.