[ v17 p11 ]
17:0011(6)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
17 FLRA No. 6
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
FIELD OPERATIONS LOCALS,
AFL-CIO
Union
and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS,
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Agency
Case No. O-NG-629
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 five Union proposals. The dispute arose in the
context of negotiations over the Agency's plan to establish a number of
Debt Collection Centers and to staff them by detailing employees from
various parts of the Agency. Upon careful consideration of the entire
record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the
following determinations.
Union Proposal 1
Employees detailed to Debt Collection Centers (DCC's) who are
otherwise covered by collective bargaining agreements, including
interim agreements, shall retain all rights under such agreements
while in the DCC's. All employees shall retain their rights under
5 USC 71. (Only the underlined portion is in dispute.)
Union Proposal 3
Leave policies for employees detailed to DCC's shall be those
of the employee's applicable agreements, unless superseded by a
DCC agreement.
Union Proposal 5
This Memorandum of Understanding shall become effective on the
date it is signed by the parties. This Memorandum of
Understanding shall terminate with the conclusion of the DCC
experiment. However, if management decides to establish
non-experimental DCC's, this Memorandum of Understanding shall be
extended until the effective date of an agreement by the parties
covering such non-experimental DCC's.
Grievances over the interpretation and application of this
Memorandum of Understanding shall be resolved via the applicable
negotiated grievance procedure. (Only the underlined portion is
in dispute.)
The Agency asserts that the Union does not hold exclusive recognition
for those employees who are detailed to the Debt Collection Centers.
Therefore, it contends that it has no obligation to negotiate with
respect to conditions of employment which pertain to those employees
while they are detailed to the Debt Collection Centers. The Union does
not refute this assertion. /1/ It is well established that proposals
are not within the duty to bargain if they apply to employees or
positions outside the bargaining unit. See, e.g., American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2 and Department of the Army,
Military District of Washington, 4 FLRA 450 (1980). /2/ The proposals
are, therefore, not within the duty to bargain.
Union Proposal 2
The assignment of personnel to DCC's will be accomplished in
compliance with appropriate personnel policies and procedures.
In making such assignments for less than 60 days, volunteers
will be solicited from within the service area of the DCC's
activity and no promotion point credit will be given. For details
of 60 days or more, since promotion point credit will be earned,
selection will be by means of applicable merit promotion plan with
the Area being the area of consideration. The announcement will
contain an estimate of the amount of overtime expected. (Only the
underlined portion is in dispute.)
The Agency contends, without contradiction by the Union, that the
disputed proposal would effectively compel it to select for detail any
volunteers regardless of whether or not they were capable of performing
the particular work involved in the detail. This interpretation is
compatible with the plain language of the proposal and is adopted by the
Authority for the purposes of determining whether the proposal is within
the duty to bargain. As noted by the Authority in American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and Air Force Logistics Command,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 2 FLRA 604, 613 (1980), enforced
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), regarding proposals involving the assignment of employees to
details:
The right to assign employees in the agency under section
7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute is more than merely the right to
decide to assign an employee to a position. An agency chooses to
assign an employee to a position so that the work of that position
will be done. Under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute, the
agency retains discretion as to the personnel requirements of the
work of the position, i.e., the qualifications and skills needed
to do the work, as well as such job-related individual
characteristics as judgment and reliability. Therefore, the right
to assign an employee to a position includes the discretion to
determine which employee will be assigned.
Inasmuch as the proposal in the instant case would compel the assignment
of particular employees to the details, it interferes with the Agency's
right under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute to assign employees.
It is, therefore, not within the duty to bargain.
Union Proposal 4
This agreement applies to DCC's established after November 30,
1981, in all SSA Regions. If management initiates any changes in
conditions of employment in DCC's covered by this agreement, the
union will be accorded all its rights under 5 USC 71 and
applicable agreements.
Management will also notify the Regional Vice President in
writing of such proposed changes.
Management will furnish a copy of the weekly District Office
Work Report (DOWR) or equivalent for each DCC to the National
Council President or designated Coordinator on the current basis.
The Council President or designee shall be entitled to request an
opportunity to review with the Associate Commissioner of Field
Operations quarterly the progress of the DCC's and related
matters. Upon request of either party they will bargain about the
concerns of either.
Impact and implementation issues not specifically covered by
the agreement will be negotiated with the appropriate Regional
Vice President or designee. (Only the underlined portion is in
dispute.)
The Agency asserts, among other things, that the disputed portion of
Union Proposal 4 does not concern "conditions of employment." In this
regard it contends that the DOWR is an internal management report on the
performance of the district offices which has no relevance to collective
bargaining. The Union has not provided the Authority any explanation as
to the intent of the proposal. Inasmuch as it is not readily apparent
from the face of the proposal as to how it bears a direct relationship
to personnel policies, practices, or matters affecting working
conditions of unit employees and the Union has provided nothing to
support such a finding, the Authority cannot find that the disputed
portion of Union Proposal 4 concerns conditions of employment.
Therefore, it cannot be found that the proposal is within the duty to
bargain.
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, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr. Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY