14:0048(8)NG - NFFE Local 422 and DOI, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Colorado River Agency, Parker, AZ -- 1984 FLRAdec NG

 14 FLRA No. 8
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 422
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
 COLORADO RIVER AGENCY,
 PARKER, ARIZONA
 Agency
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-695
 
                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 the issue of
 the negotiability of the following four Union proposals.  /1/
 
                             Union Proposal 1
 
          Under, First 1,000 Hours:
 
          Learns safety precautions to take in dealing with low voltage -
       O.J.T. with a journeyman.
 
                             Union Proposal 2
 
          Under, First 1,000 Hours:
 
          Learns what paths to take to reach individual meters, to know
       where dogs may be located and what action to take in these cases.
 
                             Union Proposal 3
 
          Under, First 1,000 Hours:
 
          The Trainee will be given First Aid Training, which will
       include snake bite training.
 
                             Union Proposal 4
 
          Under, Second 1,000 Hours:
 
          Under close supervision learns the different types of meters
       such as polyphase watt-hour, demand meters and the safety
       precautions to be taken with each type - OJT with a journeyman.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.
 Each of the Union's proposals concerns the content of the Agency's
 "Training Plans for Electric Meter Readers and Installer Trainee." The
 Union asserts that as these proposals merely provide procedures to
 implement a training program that complies with Government-wide safety
 regulations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
 (OSHA), they do not interfere with management's rights under the
 Statute.  The Agency contends, however, that the proposals directly
 interfere with management's right to assign work pursuant to section
 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.  /2/
 
    The Authority has consistently held that training assignments during
 duty hours are assignments of work, covered by section 7106(a)(2)(B).
 E.g., National Association of Air Traffic Specialists and Department of
 Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 6 FLRA No. 588(1981).
 As such, any proposal addressing the substantive aspects of training is
 a direct interference with management's right to assign work.  Here,
 contrary to the Union's contention that the proposals merely provide
 procedures to implement Government-wide safety regulations, these
 proposals, by requiring the Agency to provide specific training for
 bargaining unit employees at specific intervals of time, would impose an
 independent contractual requirement on management's discretion with
 respect to the assignment of work regardless of whether the safety
 regulations upon which they are based are later revised.  /3/ Thus,
 these proposals are not negotiable even though, to some extent, they
 purport to deal with legitimate health and safety factors that
 management must take into account in assigning work.  See National
 Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1167 and Department of the Air
 Force, Headquarters, 31st Combat Support Group (TAC), Homestead Air
 Force Base, Florida, 6 FLRA 574(1981) (Union Proposal 6), affirmed as to
 other matters, sub nom. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local
 1167 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 681 F.2d 886 (D.C. Cir.
 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 15, 1984
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ The Agency's allegation that the Union's petition for review
 should be dismissed because the petition did not contain a statement of
 the meaning that the Union attributed to the proposals cannot be
 sustained.  The Union was afforded the opportunity to cure its
 deficiency and did so in a timely manner.  Thus, the Union's petition
 for review is properly before the Authority.
 
 
    /2/ Section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute provides, in pertinent part:
 
    Sec. 7106.  Management rights
 
          (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 assign work, . . .
 
 
    /3/ See National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1167 and
 Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, 31st Combat Support Group
 (TAC), Homestead Air Force Base, Florida, 6 FLRA 574(1981) (Union
 Proposals 1 and 2), affirmed as to other matters, sub. nom.  National
 Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1167 v. Federal Labor Relations
 Authority, 681 F.2d 886 (D.C. Cir. 1982).  Accord, American Federation
 of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, National Council of EEOC Locals and
 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 10 FLRA No. 1(1982), appeal
 docketed sub nom.  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Federal
 Labor Relations Authority, No. 82-2310 (D.C. Cir. November 1, 1982)
 (proposals merely requiring compliance with laws and regulations found
 negotiable).