---

 3 FLRA No. 26
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R7-23
 (Labor Organization)
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-174
 
                      DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
 
    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 (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET SEQ.).
 
                              UNION PROPOSAL
 
    ANY PERSONNEL DOWNGRADED AS A RESULT OF THE RECLASSIFICATION BE GIVEN
 MANDATORY PLACEMENT
 
    RIGHTS INTO A POSITION FOR WHICH THEY QUALIFY IN ORDER OF THEIR
 STANDING ON THE
 
    REDUCTION-IN-FORCE RETENTION ROSTER WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF AN
 OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE
 
    RATING.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL VIOLATES THE RIGHT OF
 THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A) OF THE STATUTE, /1/
 AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  THE UNION PROPOSAL VIOLATES THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN
 EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY,
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45
 FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ. (1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE PROPOSAL
 IS NOT WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.  /2/
 
    REASONS:  THE UNION'S PROPOSAL ESSENTIALLY CONCERNS PLACEMENT RIGHTS
 FOR EMPLOYEES DOWNGRADED AS A RESULT OF A NATIONWIDE APPLICATION OF
 FEDERAL EVALUATION FACTOR SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS TO CLERICAL
 EMPLOYEES AT THE ACTIVITY.  THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSAL, ACCORDING TO
 THE UNION, IS TO ESTABLISH SENIORITY AS THE CRITERION FOR FILLING
 POSITIONS BY DOWNGRADED PERSONNEL.
 
    THE AUTHORITY RECENTLY CONSIDERED WHETHER PROPOSALS WHICH COMPEL THE
 SELECTION OF A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE FOR ASSIGNMENT VIOLATE THE RIGHT OF
 AN AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE
 STATUTE.  IN CONSIDERING SUCH PROPOSALS, WHICH CONCERNED SELECTION OF
 EMPLOYEES FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENTS ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY AS WELL AS
 ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO A REDUCTION-IN-FORCE, THE AUTHORITY
 STATED:
 
    (T)HE RIGHT TO ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION INCLUDES THE
 DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHICH
 
    EMPLOYEE WILL BE ASSIGNED . . . .  A PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING AN
 EMPLOYEE FOR ASSIGNMENT SOLELY
 
    ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY REMOVES FROM THE AGENCY THAT DISCRETION
 WHICH . . . IS AN ESSENTIAL
 
    PART OF THE DECISION TO ASSIGN . . . .  PROPOSALS . . . (WHICH)
 COMPEL THE CHOICE OF THE
 
    PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE TO RECEIVE AN ASSIGNMENT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF
 SENIORITY . . . THEREBY
 
    DIRECTLY INTERFERE WITH THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHICH EMPLOYEE TO
 ASSIGN, IN VIOLATION OF
 
    SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.  (AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 
    AND AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE,
 OHIO, CASE NO. O-NG-40, 2
 
    FLRA NO. 77 (JAN. 31, 1980) AT 10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION.  SEE
 ALSO 24 OF THE DECISION
 
    WHERE THE AUTHORITY APPLIED THE SAME REASONING.)
 
    THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE INSTANT PROPOSAL IS NOT MATERIALLY
 DIFFERENT FROM THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSALS IN THE CITED CASE, AS
 DISCUSSED ABOVE.  ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS MORE FULLY SET FORTH IN
 THE ABOVE-CITED DECISION, THE UNION PROPOSAL HEREIN VIOLATES THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE
 STATUTE AND IS OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.  /3/
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 8, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    /1/ SECTION 7106(A) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT 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--
 
    (1) TO DETERMINE THE MISSION, BUDGET, ORGANIZATION, NUMBER OF
 EMPLOYEES, AND INTERNAL
 
    SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE AGENCY;  AND
 
    (2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS--
 
    (A) TO HIRE, ASSIGN, DIRECT, LAYOFF, AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE
 AGENCY, OR TO SUSPEND,
 
    REMOVE, REDUCE IN GRADE OR PAY, OR TAKE OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
 AGAINST SUCH EMPLOYEES;
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (C) WITH RESPECT TO FILLING POSITIONS, TO MAKE SELECTIONS FOR
 APPOINTMENTS FROM--
 
    (I) AMONG PROPERLY RANKED AND CERTIFIED CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION;  OR
 
    (II) ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE(.)
 
    /2/ THE AGENCY ALSO ALLEGES THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSAL VIOLATES
 SECTIONS 7106(A)(1) AND 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE (NOTE 1 SUPRA) AND
 FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL CHAPTER 335.  IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION HEREIN,
 IT IS UNNECESSARY TO ADDRESS THESE ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTENTIONS.
 
    /3/ THE UNION RAISES THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT OF
 POSITION WAS TIMELY FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY.  IN THIS REGARD, THE
 AGENCY ASSERTS, UNCONTROVERTED BY THE UNION, THAT IT RECEIVED THE
 UNION'S COMPLETED PETITION ON NOVEMBER 14, 1979.  THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT
 WAS FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY ON DECEMBER 12, 1979.  THUS, BASED UPON THE
 DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE COMPLETED PETITION AS ASSERTED BY THE AGENCY, IT
 WOULD APPEAR THAT THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT WAS FILED WITHIN THE TIME
 LIMITS SET FORTH IN SECTION 2424.6 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES.  THE
 UNION'S REQUEST, IN EFFECT, THAT THE AUTHORITY NOT CONSIDER THE AGENCY'S
 STATEMENT, IS THEREFORE DENIED.
 
 
 

---