[ v11 p243 ]
11:0243(51)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
11 FLRA No. 51
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2375
Union
and
79th UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVE
COMMAND, WILLOW GROVE, PENNSYLVANIA
Agency
Case No. O-NG-102
DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
The petition for review in this case comes before the Authority
pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and raises issues
relating to the negotiability of ten Union proposals. Upon careful
consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions,
the Authority makes the following determinations.
The ten proposals at issue in this case were presented by the Union
in response to the Agency's implementation of a "Military Technician
Conversion Program." This program, initiated as a test on the
recommendation of Congress, lasted from March 1979 through June 1980.
Its purpose was to ascertain whether the military reserve components,
i.e., the Army and Air Force Reserves and the National Guard, could
attract and retain active duty military personnel to fill vacant
positions in the reserve components previously held by civilian
technicians. Six of the ten proposals herein, set forth in the
appendix, relate solely to the now terminated test program. Thus, these
six proposals became moot as of July 1980. However, as the record in
this case also indicates that Congress, after reviewing the test
results, authorized the Agency to continue converting civilian
technician positions, the remaining four proposals which are applicable
to such conversions are decided herein. See American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3742 and Department of the Army,
Headquarters, 98th Division (Training), Webster, New York, 11 FLRA No.
42 (1983), and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Local 1900 and Department of the Army, Headquarters, 76th Division
(Training), West Hartford, Connecticut, 11 FLRA No. 49 (1983).
Union Proposal 3
Guaranteed opportunities for advancement and lateral transfers
of civilian personnel (employees).
Union Proposal 4
Guaranteed opportunities for civilian technicians to advance to
first level supervisory/or management positions.
Union Proposal 5
Guaranteed opportunities for women and minorities to advance as
civilian technicians.
These three Union proposals are essentially similar to Union
Proposals 6, 6 and 7 in the 98th Division case. Noting that the Agency
would be required to structure its organization in a manner assuring
promotional opportunities for civilian technicians, the Authority, in
the cited case, concluded that those three proposals conflicted with
management's right to determine its "organization" under section
7106(a)(1) of the Statute. Thus, for the reasons set forth in that
decision and the cases cited therein, Union Proposals 3, 4 and 5 in this
case are outside the duty to bargain.
Union Proposal 7
There will be no annual conversion goals.
In the absence of an explanation by the Union, the Authority adopts
the Agency's reasonable interpretation that "this proposal refers to the
number of civilian technician positions either being established or
becoming vacant which will be converted to military slots." Thus, this
proposal would prevent management from determining the ratio between
civilian technician positions and military positions it desires to
attain at the end of any annual period. As the Authority noted
concerning Union Proposal 8 in the 98th Division decision, when an
Agency establishes the ratio between military and civilian positions in
an organizational element, it is exercising its right under section
7106(a)(1) of the Statute to determine its "organization." The instant
proposal, by preventing management from planning the future numbers of
civilian positions and positions to be occupied by military personnel,
respectively, directly interferes with management's section 7106(a)(1)
right to determine its "organization" and is, therefore, outside the
duty to bargain. See also National Federation of Federal Employees,
Local 1431 and Veterans Administration Medical Center, East Orange, New
Jersey, 9 FLRA No. 139 (1982).
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and
it hereby is, dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C., February 3, 1983
Ronald W. Haughton, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
Leon B. Applewhaite, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
APPENDIX - PROPOSALS WHICH ARE MOOT
Union Proposal 1
a. Only entry level positions will be utilized for the test
program GS-5, GS-6).
b. All other vacancies (GS-07 - up) above entry level will be
announced. If through competitive procedures no civilians fill
these vacancies, then and only then, the vacancies may be filled
by Military Technicians.
Union Proposal 2
There will be no abolishment of ART positions on TDA's, instead
entry positions will be reported as "Temporary Fills" by military
technicians.
Union Proposal 6
Any civilian employee(s) who are reassigned for the test
program purposes will be returned to his/her original position
upon completion of the test.
Union Proposal 8
It is agreed all present civilian employees of the 79th ARCOM
will be covered by a "grandfather" clause, effective 15 March
1979.
Union Proposal 9
The test period will run for a 12 month period.
Union Proposal 10
AFGE Local 2375 will be involved in the test evaluation
process.