30:0686(86)NG - AFSCME Union Local 2477 and The Library of Congress -- 1987 FLRAdec NG

30 FLRA NO. 86
30 FLRA 686

31 DEC 1987

30 FLRA No. 86

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY
AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCAL 2477, AFL-CIO

                     Union

       and

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                     Agency

Case No. O-NG-1276

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

     I. Statement of the Case

     This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability
appeal filed under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and concerns
the negotiability of one proposal, which requires the retroactive
implementation of a reorganization. We find that the proposal is
outside the duty to bargain because it concerns the
classification of a position and, as such, does not concern
conditions of employment.

     II. Background

     In December 1985 the Agency notified the Union that it was
reorganizing the Subscription and Microform Section, Order
Division, Processing Services Department. The reorganization
plans included the, creation of a promotion plan for the
position, Processing Assistant, GS-5, to GS-5/6. During the
ensuing negotiations, the Agency's position was that (1) the
promotion plan could not be effected until the reorganization was
implemented, and (2) the incumbents of the GS-5 position could
not be promoted to GS-6 until their supervisor determined that
they had been performing at the higher level for 90 days. The
Union argued that the effective date of the promotion plan should
be the point at which the position descriptions for the regraded
position had been "certified" in November 1985. The Union sought
to accomplish this result by the following proposal. 
     III. Proposal

     The implementation of the reorganization for Local 2477
bargaining unit will be retroactive to November 22, 1985.

     IV. Positions of the Parties

     The Union asserts that the Processing Assistants had been
performing at the GS-6 level at the time that the GS-6 position
description was "certified" on November 21, 1985. It argues that
the Agency's decision to link the promotion plan to the
reorganization delayed the point at which the Processing
Assistants could be considered for promotion to the GS-6 level.
The Union contends that the proposal is negotiable as an
appropriate arrangement for the Processing Assistants who were
adversely affected by that decision. The Union also contends that
the proposal is negotiable as a procedure under section
7106(b)(2) and that it does not conflict with any management
rights.

     The Agency asserts that the proposal is not directed at the
reorganization as a whole. Rather, the Agency argues that the
proposal concerns the promotion of the Processing Assistants to
the GS-6 level. The Agency characterizes its decision to create a
promotion plan for the Processing Assistant position as a
"position management" action taken to provide the incumbents of
that position with promotion potential to another position after
the reorganization. The Agency argues that the proposal: (1)
interferes with its rights under 7106(a)(1) to determine its
organization and under 7106(a)(2)(B) to assign work; and (2) is
not an "appropriate arrangement" within the meaning of section
7106(b)(3). The Agency also argues that the proposal is related
to the classification of a position and, as such, does not
concern conditions of employment.

     V. Analysis and Conclusions

     Management has the right to determine its organization under
section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute. Pursuant to this right, the
Agency effected a reorganization resulting in the changing of the
Processing Assistant position from GS-5 to GS-5/6.

     As noted above, the Agency asserts that the Processing
Assistants are not eligible for promotion to GS-6 until the
reorganization is effected and the employees have performed  at the GS-6 level for 90 days. The union maintains that the
GS-6 classification was appropriate for the Processing Assistants
prior to the reorganization. By requiring the reorganization to
be implemented retroactively, the proposal would enable employees
to begin to complete the requirement that they demonstrate
performance at the GS-6 level prior to the actual date of the
reorganization. Therefore, the proposal would enable employees to
be considered for promotion at a date earlier than they otherwise
would be considered.

     The record indicates that the sole purpose of the proposal
is to allow Processing Assistants to be considered for promotion
to GS-6, under the promotion plan position description, at a date
earlier than that determined by the Agency. The real effect of
the proposal, therefore, is to require the retroactive
reclassification of the Processing Assistant positions from GS-5
to GS-5/6. Accordingly, we conclude that the proposal concerns
the proper classification of the Processing Assistant positions
as it existed prior to the reorganization date selected by the
Agency.

     Matters relating to the classification of any position are
not conditions of employment under the Statute. That is, section
7103(a)(14) of the Statute defines conditions of employment as
meaning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting
working conditions but specifically excludes policies, practices
and matters "relating to the classification of any position."
Since the proposal concerns the proper classification of certain
positions, it does not concern a condition of employment within
the meaning of the Statute and it is not within the duty to
bargain. See National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 862
and Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah, 3 FLRA  455 (1980). In view
of our conclusion that the proposal is outside the scope of the
duty to bargain, we do not reach the Agency's arguments that the
proposal is inconsistent with its management rights to determine
its organization and to assign work and the Union's related
claims that the proposal constitutes a "procedure" or an
"appropriate arrangement" in connection with the exercise of
management's rights. 

     VI. Order

     The Union's petition for review is dismissed.

     Issued, Washington, D.C.,December 31, 1987.

     Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

     Jean McKee, Member

     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY