[ v08 p192 ]
08:0192(36)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
8 FLRA No. 36 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3004 Union and DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, MASSACHUSETTS AIR NATIONAL GUARD, OTIS AIR FORCE BASE, MASSACHUSETTS Case No. 0-NG-485 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IN 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), AND PRESENTS ISSUES RELATING TO THE NEGOTIABILITY OF THE FOLLOWING UNION PROPOSAL. AFTER THE TRAINING HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, THE UNION, AT ITS ELECTION, SHALL BE ALLOWED TO HAVE AN OBSERVER PRESENT DURING THE PROCESS OF PEP (PROMOTION EVALUATION PATTERN) DEVELOPED FOR POSITION WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT. THIS STATUS WILL BE ALLOWED FOR UP TO 10 DIFFERENT PEP'S WITH THE SELECTION OF THE PEP'S AT THE UNION'S OPTION. THE UNION WILL BE NOTIFIED AS TO WHEN PEP'S ARE TO BE DEVELOPED. SUGGESTED CHANGES SUBMITTED BY THE UNION AT THIS STAGE SHALL BE NEGOTIATED PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PEP. (ACCORDING TO THE PARTIES, ONLY THE UNDERLINED PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS IN DISPUTE.) UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS, THE AUTHORITY MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION. THE UNION PROPOSAL IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT TO MEET THE AUTHORITY'S CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW. THE AGENCY DESCRIBES "PEP," REFERENCED IN THE PROPOSAL, AS " . . . AN OBJECTIVE STATEMENT OF POSITION REQUIREMENTS AGAINST WHICH EMPLOYEES ARE EVALUATED" IN COMPETITION FOR VACANT POSITIONS. THE PROPOSAL, HOWEVER, DOES NOT IDENTIFY WHAT ASPECTS OF THE PEP'S THE UNION WISHES TO NEGOTIATE OR WHAT SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS ARE SOUGHT. IN THIS RESPECT, THE DISPUTED PORTION OF THE INSTANT PROPOSAL DOES NOT DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THE ONE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY IN NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEE UNION, CHAPTER 66 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, KANSAS CITY SERVICE CENTER, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, 2 FLRA 320(1979), CONCERNING THE WEIGHTS TO BE ASSIGNED TO EVALUATION FACTORS FOR A SPECIFIC POSITION. THE AUTHORITY FOUND, INTER ALIA, THAT THE UNION'S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE WEIGHTS IT SOUGHT TO APPLY TO THE EVALUATION FACTORS RENDERED THE PROPOSAL INSUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT TO PERMIT A NEGOTIABILITY DETERMINATION AND, HENCE, DID NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW SET FORTH IN SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND PART 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.1 ET SEQ.(1981)). CONSEQUENTLY, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE CITED KANSAS CITY SERVICE CENTER DECISION, /1/ PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 11, 1982 RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES: --------------- /1/ SEE ALSO ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, ALABAMA ACT AND STATE OF ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD, 2 FLRA 314(1979).