---

 19 FLRA No. 75
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL R5-168
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 HEADQUARTERS 5th INFANTRY
 DIVISION AND FORT POLK, LOUISIANA
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-1010
 
                 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 an issue concerning the negotiability of the following
 Union proposal:
 
          Pursuant to Army regulations civilian employees may use Morale
       Support Activities Facilities on a space available basis.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination.
 The Union's proposal concerns civilian employee use of the Agency's
 recreational facilities as provided for by Army regulations.  /1/
 
    In this regard, the duty to bargain under the Statute extends only to
 "conditions of employment," i.e., personnel policies, practices, and
 matters affecting working conditions.  /2/ In construing that statutory
 phrase, the Authority has found proposals which concern matters directly
 affecting "the work situation and employment relationship" of bargaining
 unit employees to be within the duty to bargain.  E.g., National
 Treasury Employees Union and Internal Revenue Service, 3 FLRA 693
 (1980).  See also American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
 and Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio,
 2 FLRA 604, 606 (1980), enforced as to other matters sub nom. Department
 of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 659 F.2d 1140 (D.C.
 Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom. AFGE v. FLRA, 455 U.S. 945 (1982).
 Conversely, proposals which relate to activities of employees involved
 in non-work activities while in a non-duty status, such as proposals
 concerning employee access to agency recreation facilities, have been
 determined to be outside the duty to bargain because they do not concern
 matters which are conditions of employment.  American Federation of
 Government Employees, Local 225 and U.S. Army Armament Research and
 Development Command, Dover, New Jersey, 11 FLRA 630 (1983);
 International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, CLC, Local F-116
 and Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California,
 7 FLRA 123 (1981).
 
    The Union does not dispute that employee access to the subject
 recreation facilities in this case would relate to activities of
 employees involved in non-work activities while in a non-duty status.
 Rather, the Union contends that it "is not attempting to negotiate which
 if any facilities may be used by civilian employees, but, merely (to)
 advise unit employees that such facilities may be available and used as
 governed by Army regulations." /3/ As to such regulations, however, no
 claim is made that they implement an Agency policy requiring, as a
 precondition to the employment relationship itself, the provision of
 essential facilities and services so as to ensure reasonable standards
 of health decency for unit employees.  /4/ Thus, the Agency having
 regulated access to its recreation facilities in this case does not
 alter the fact that based on U.S. Armament Research and Development
 Command and Vandenberg Air Force Base, matters related to such access do
 not directly affect conditions of employment of bargaining unit
 employees and are outside the duty to bargain.
 
    Consequently, while the Union in this case may have intended only to
 inform employees of the existence of regulations governing employee
 access to Agency recreation facilities, adoption of the disputed
 proposal expressly concerns matters not directly related to conditions
 of employment of unit employees within the meaning of section
 7103(a)(14) of the Statute and is outside the duty to bargain.
 
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review be, and it
 hereby is, dismissed.  Issued, Washington, D.C., August 12, 1985
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Chairman
                                       William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ Army regulation AR 28-1 and Fort Polk Policy Issuance No. 85
 provide that while the Agency's Morale Support Activities Facilities are
 primarily intended for use by military personnel, civilian employees may
 utilize these facilities in accordance with an established priority
 system on a space available basis.
 
 
    /2/ Section 7103(a)(14).
 
 
    /3/ Union Reply Brief at 2.
 
 
    /4/ See National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1363 and
 Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Yongsan, Korea, 4 FLRA 139 (1980),
 enforced sub nom. Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations
 Authority, 685 F.2d 641 (1982), (matter of ration control governed by
 regulation is a condition of employment of unit employees in overseas
 command since it is directly related to reasonable standards of health
 and decency for unit employees which the agency required as a
 precondition to their employment in an overseas command.) 
 
 
 

---