[ v16 p358 ]
16:0358(56)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
16 FLRA No. 56 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1904, AFL-CIO Union and UNITED STATES ARMY COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS MATERIEL READINESS COMMAND Activity Case No. O-AR-644 DECISION This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to the award of Arbitrator Thomas F. Carey filed by the Agency under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Union filed an opposition. /1/ The dispute in this matter concerns the grievance filed by the Union claiming that the Activity's decision to contract out certain support functions was violative of section 502 of P.L. 96-342, 10 U.S.C. 2304 note (which relates to contracting out in the Department of Defense) and agency regulations and directives, specifically AR 235-1 and DOD 4100.33-H (which also relate to contracting out). The parties separated a threshold issue of arbitrability under the parties' collective bargaining agreement and submitted that issue to arbitration for decision. The parties' collective bargaining agreement restated the definition of "grievance" from section 7103(a)(9) of the Statute, and the Arbitrator acknowledged in particular that the definition included any complaint concerning any claimed violation, misinterpretation, or misapplication of any law, rule, or regulation affecting conditions of employment. Concluding that the Union's grievance was a complaint claiming such a violation, the Arbitrator as his award ruled that the grievance was arbitrable under the parties' collective bargaining agreement. In its exceptions the Agency essentially contends that the award is contrary to the management rights provisions of the Statute, primarily section 7106(a)(2)(B), /2/ by subjecting management's decision to contract out to arbitral review and that the award is inconsistent with procurement law and regulations, primarily OMB Circular A-76 (which prescribes general policies for contracting out), that assertedly preclude grievances over an agency's determination with respect to contracting out. The Authority finds that the Agency's exceptions provide no basis for finding the award deficient. In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, National Council of EEOC Locals and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 10 FLRA 3 (1982) (proposal 1), enforced sub nom. EEOC v. FLRA, No. 82-2310 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 21, 1984), the Authority expressly addressed whether the disputed proposal (that the agency would comply with OMB Circular A-76 and other applicable laws and regulations governing contracting out) was within the duty to bargain. In terms of this case, contentions essentially identical to those made by the Agency in its exceptions to the Arbitrator's award were specifically rejected by the Authority and the court. In National Council of EEOC Locals the Authority expressly held that the requirement for management to exercise its right to make contracting-out determinations in accordance with whatever applicable laws and regulations exist at the time of the determination is not inconsistent with section 7106(a)(2)(B). Furthermore, in enforcing this decision of the Authority, the court in EEOC specifically rejected the contention that the proposal was contrary to section 7106(a)(2)(B) because the proposal would subject any contracting-out decision to grievance procedures and ultimately arbitral review. In this respect the court first rejected the assumption that absent such a proposal, a complaint asserting that a contracting-out determination was not made in accordance with applicable laws, including the Circular, would not be grievable. The court noted that under the expansive definition of grievance in section 7103(a)(9) and with no exclusion of 7121(c) of the Statute applicable to the subject of contracting out, a complaint that an agency failed to comply with the OMB Circular or with any other law or rule governing contracting out plainly is a matter within the coverage of the grievance procedure prescribed by the Statute. Id. at 12-13. After determining that such a matter was subject to grievance and arbitration, the court further concluded that "a grievance asserting that management failed to comply with its statutory or regulatory parameters in making a contracting-out decision is not precluded by the management rights clause." Id. at 15. As to the contention that OMB Circular A-76 bars grievances and arbitration over contracting-out determinations, the Authority specifically held that the Circular cannot limit the coverage of the grievance procedure prescribed by the Statute. Therefore, the Authority concludes that the Agency has not established that the Arbitrator's award, which essentially finds that the grievance in this case is arbitrable as a grievance permitted by the Statute and not excluded by the agreement, is contrary to section 7106(a) of the Statute or procurement laws and regulations. Accordingly, the exceptions are denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 31, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ In its opposition the Union has objected to the Agency's exceptions on various procedural grounds. The Authority however concludes that the exceptions are not procedurally deficient as alleged by the Union. /2/ Section 7106(a)(2)(B) pertinently provides: (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, nothing in this chapter shall affect the authority of any management official of any agency-- * * * * (2) in accordance with applicable laws-- * * * * (B) . . . to make determinations with respect to contracting out(.)