---

 27 FLRA No. 87
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL 214
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE LOGISTICS
 COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR
 FORCE BASE, OHIO
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-759
                                              21 FLRA No. 34
 
                            DECISION ON REMAND
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This case is before the Authority pursuant to a remand from the
 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
 The question involved is whether a proposal interferes with the
 management right under section 7106(a)(1) to determine internal security
 practices.
 
                             II.  The Proposal
 
    All AFLC employees may be held pecuniarily liable for the loss,
 damage, or destruction of Air Force property when it results from gross
 negligence, willful misconduct, or deliberate unauthorized use.  If
 doubt exists, the individual is not held liable.  (Only the underscored
 language is in dispute.)
 
                             III.  Background
 
    This proposal would establish the standard to be used in determining
 whether an employee will be held "pecuniarily liable" for the loss,
 damage, or destruction of Air Force property.  In the previous decision
 in this case, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
 Council 214 and Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, Air Force
 Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 21 FLRA No. 34
 (1986), the Authority found that this proposal interfered with the
 Agency's right to determine its internal security practices.  In doing
 so, the Authority relied upon its decision in National Federation of
 Federal Employees, Local 29 and Department of the Army, Kansas City
 District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, 21 FLRA
 No. 23 (1986).  In that case the Authority found that a proposal which
 would have limited the amount of pecuniary liability which the agency
 could impose on employees directly interfered with the right under
 section 7106(a)(1) to determine internal security practices.  On appeal,
 the court remanded that case for resolution of an apparent inconsistency
 in the application to two different proposals in the case of the
 Authority's underlying finding that the Agency's internal security plan
 encompassed pecuniary liability -- a finding which the court
 characterized as reasonable.  National Federation of Federal Employees,
 Local 29 v. FLRA, No. 86-1308 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 6, 1987).  In view of the
 Authority's reliance in the initial decision in this case on the
 remanded case, we requested and the court granted remand of the decision
 in this case, also.
 
                       IV.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    We have issued a Decision on Remand in National Federation of Federal
 Employees, Local 29 and Department of the Army, Kansas City District,
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, 27 FLRA No. 56
 (1987).  Our Decision on Remand provides no basis for changing our
 original decision in this case.  We reaffirm the finding that this
 proposal interferes with the Agency's right to determine its internal
 security practices and is not within the duty to bargain.  Accordingly,
 it is unnecessary to issue a further order in this case.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., June 26, 1987.
                                       Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY 
 
 
 

---