---

 5 FLRA No. 40
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1733
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION,
 WASHINGTON, D.C.
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-335
 
                 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.).
 
                              UNION PROPOSAL
 
    SECTION 23
 
    THE EMPLOYER AGREES TO GRANT TO THE UNION A BLOCK OF 80 HOURS
 OFFICIAL TIME EACH YEAR FOR
 
    THE PURPOSE OF UNION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING UNION SPONSORED
 TRAINING WHICH IS OF MUTUAL
 
    BENEFIT.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL THAT THE ACTIVITY GRANT
 TO THE UNION A BLOCK OF 80 HOURS OFFICIAL TIME EACH YEAR FOR UNION
 REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND UNION SPONSORED TRAINING WHICH IS OF MUTUAL
 BENEFIT IS WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE OR, AS
 ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY, IS OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN BECAUSE IT WOULD
 VIOLATE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION AND ORDER:  THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY
 GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR REGULATION.  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 UPON
 REQUEST (OR AS OTHERWISE AGREED BY THE PARTIES) BARGAIN ON THIS
 PROPOSAL.  /1/
 
    REASONS:  THE PROPOSAL HERE IN DISPUTE, WHICH WOULD GRANT A BLOCK OF
 80 HOURS OFFICIAL TIME EACH YEAR TO THE UNION FOR UNION REPRESENTATIVES
 TO ATTEND UNION SPONSORED TRAINING WHICH IS OF MUTUAL BENEFIT BEARS NO
 MATERIAL DIFFERENCE FROM SIMILAR PORTIONS OF THE UNION PROPOSAL WHICH
 WAS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY IN NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 951 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
 MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, 3 FLRA NO.
 128(1980), AND THE UNION PROPOSAL WHICH WAS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY IN
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 238 AND DEPARTMENT OF
 THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WESTERN NEVADA INDIAN AGENCY,
 STEWART INDIAN SCHOOL, STEWART, NEVADA, 4 FLRA NO. 101(1980), BOTH OF
 WHICH WERE HELD TO BE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.  IN
 BOTH CASES, THE AUTHORITY REJECTED ARGUMENTS IDENTICAL TO THAT RELIED
 UPON BY THE AGENCY HERE (I.E., THAT THE PROPOSAL(S) WOULD VIOLATE
 STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL) AND DETERMINED THAT
 NEITHER THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSAL IN DEPARTMENT OF THE
 INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION NOR THE PROPOSAL IN DEPARTMENT OF THE
 INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, BOTH OF WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE
 OFFICIAL TIME FOR UNION SPONSORED TRAINING, VIOLATED ANY GOVERNMENT-WIDE
 RULE OR REGULATION.  IN DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF
 RECLAMATION, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDED THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL DID NOT
 VIOLATE ANY APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR REGULATION,
 
    (I)N VIEW OF THE DISCRETION WHICH AGENCIES MAY EXERCISE UNDER THE
 COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S
 
    RULINGS, AND NOTING THAT THE RULINGS CONTAIN NO SPECIFIC PROHIBITION
 WITH RESPECT TO OFFICIAL
 
    TIME FOR UNION-SPONSORED TRAINING FOR INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES, . .  .
 THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE REASONING SET FORTH IN GREATER DETAIL IN
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, THE PROPOSAL HERE IN
 DISPUTE MUST ALSO BE HELD NOT TO VIOLATE ANY APPLICABLE GOVERNMENT-WIDE
 RULE OR REGULATION.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 19, 1981
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ 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. 
 
 
 

---