National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 862 (Union) and Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah (Activity)
[ v03 p455 ]
03:0455(67)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
3 FLRA No. 67 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 862 (Union) and TOOELE ARMY DEPOT, TOOELE, UTAH (Activity) Case No. 0-NG-44 DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL 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.). DURING CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS, THE UNION SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE HAZARD PAY DIFFERENTIAL TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES: UNION PROPOSAL SECTION 2: HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY A. IT IS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THAT WHILE THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY LAW FOR HAZARD PAY DETERMINATION (FPM AND CPR) IS NOT A PROPER SUBJECT FOR NEGOTIATION, THE APPLICATION OF THAT CRITERIA TO SPECIFIC FACTUAL SITUATIONS IS A MATTER OF MUTUAL CONCERN. IT IS, THEREFORE, AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD THAT ENVIRONMENTAL DIFFERENTIAL PAY IS AUTHORIZED FOR AND LIMITED TO THE BELOW LISTED OCCUPATIONAL TASKS WHEN PERFORMANCE IS APPROPRIATELY CERTIFIED BY SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL: (TABLE OMITTED) THE AGENCY DECLARED THE PROPOSAL NONNEGOTIABLE ON THE BASIS THAT IT WOULD CONFLICT WITH 5 U.S.C. 5545(D), /1/ WHICH AUTHORIZES THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM) TO ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE OF PAY DIFFERENTIALS FOR CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES PERFORMING HAZARDOUS DUTIES ON AN IRREGULAR OR INTERMITTENT BASIS. IN THIS REGARD, THE AGENCY TOOK THE POSITION THAT THE HAZARDOUS DUTIES SPECIFIED IN THE UNION'S PROPOSAL WERE REGULAR AND RECURRING AND HAD ALREADY BEEN FACTORED INTO THE EVALUATION AND GRADE DETERMINATION OF THE GUARD AND FIREFIGHTER POSITIONS IN QUESTION. THE AGENCY ALSO ARGUED THAT NEGOTIATIONS OVER THE PROPOSAL WOULD THWART THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION PROCESS WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" AS DEFINED IN SECTION 7103(A)(14)(B) OF THE STATUTE /2/ OVER WHICH THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY. /3/ THE UNION, ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSERTED THAT THE HAZARDOUS DUTIES WERE IRREGULAR OR INTERMITTENT AND HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE CLASSIFICATION PROCESS. THE AUTHORITY THEREAFTER REQUESTED AN ADVISORY OPINION FROM THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 7105(I) (SECTION 7105(I) OF THE STATUTE) /4/ CONCERNING THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF RULES, REGULATIONS, OR POLICY DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE OPM, MORE SPECIFICALLY WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IN THE INSTANT CASE WOULD CONFLICT WITH LAWS, RULES OR REGULATIONS OVER WHICH OPM HAS RESPONSIBILITY. ON MARCH 11, 1980, THE OPM ISSUED ITS ADVISORY OPINION TO WHICH THE PARTIES WERE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2429.15(B) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. /5/ THE AGENCY AND THE UNION FILED SUBMISSIONS, WHICH SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITY. IN ITS ADVISORY OPINION, THE OPM CITED 5 U.S.C. 5545(D)(1)(SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA) AND THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF OPM'S IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN SUBPART I OF PART 550 IN THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS: SEC. 550.902 DEFINITIONS. IN THIS SUBPART: (D) "HAZARDOUS DUTY" MEANS A DUTY PERFORMED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN ACCIDENT COULD RESULT IN SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH . . . (E) "HAZARD PAY DIFFERENTIAL" MEANS ADDITIONAL PAY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF IRREGULAR OR INTERMITTENT HAZARDOUS DUTY . . . SEC. 550.904. AUTHORIZATION OF HAZARD PAY DIFFERENTIAL. (A) AN AGENCY SHALL PAY THE HAZARD PAY DIFFERENTIAL LISTED IN APPENDIX A TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS ASSIGNED TO AND PERFORMS ANY IRREGULAR OR INTERMITTENT DUTY SPECIFIED IN THE APPENDIX WHEN THAT DUTY IS NOT USUALLY INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT THE DUTIES OF HIS POSITION. HAZARD PAY DIFFERENTIAL MAY NOT BE PAID AN EMPLOYEE WHEN THE HAZARD DUTY HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF HIS (B) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION: (1) "NOT USUALLY INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT THE DUTIES OF HIS POSITION" MEANS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE HAZARDOUS DUTY MAY BE EMBRACED WITHIN THE EMPLOYEE'S POSITION DESCRIPTION IT IS NOT PERFORMED WITH SUFFICIENT REGULARITY TO CONSTITUTE AN ELEMENT IN FIXING THE GRADE OF THE POSITION. (2) "HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF HIS POSITION" MEANS THAT THE DUTY CONSTITUTES AN ELEMENT USED IN ESTABLISHING THE GRADE OF THE POSITION. APPLYING THESE REGULATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INSTANT DISPUTE, THE OPM THEREAFTER CONCLUDED: IN OUR VIEW, THE DISPUTE ESSENTIALLY CONCERNS POSITION CLASSIFICATION; I.E., WHETHER CERTAIN DUTIES ARE TYPICAL TO THE JOB SERIES, OR OTHERWISE CONSIDERED IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS AND/OR GIVEN SUFFICIENT WEIGHT. THESE MATTERS MAY BE RAISED AS INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP CLASSIFICATION APPEALS. IF THE USE OF THIS PROCEDURE SHOULD RESULT IN A FINDING THAT THE DUTIES REFERRED TO IN THE UNION PROPOSAL ARE NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN THE CLASSIFICATION PROCESS, THERE WOULD BE NO BAR IN LAW OR REGULATION TO NEGOTIATION ON THE APPLICATION OF OPM'S SCHEDULE OF PAY DIFFERENTIALS TO SUCH DUTIES. SECTION 7103(A)(14) OF THE STATUTE (NOTE 2, SUPRA), PROVIDES THAT MATTERS RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF ANY POSITION ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT." HENCE, SUCH MATTERS ARE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE WHICH IS LIMITED TO "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" BY SECTION 7103(A)(12) (NOTE 3, SUPRA). THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE INSTANT CASE, INCLUDING OPM'S ADVISORY OPINION, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE SUBJECT DISPUTE INVOLVES ISSUES WHICH WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR RESOLUTION THROUGH THE CLASSIFICATION APPEALS PROCESS RATHER THAN UNDER THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND PART 2424 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. THAT IS, AS NOTED ABOVE (SUPRA P. 3-4), THE PARTIES HEREIN ARE ESSENTIALLY IN DISAGREEMENT AS TO WHETHER SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS DUTIES ASSOCIATED WITH CERTAIN GUARD AND FIREFIGHTER POSITIONS ARE PERFORMED ON AN "IRREGULAR OR INTERMITTENT" BASIS AND WHETHER SUCH HAZARDOUS DUTIES HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF THESE POSITIONS. UNTIL THE FOREGOING QUESTIONS ARE RESOLVED THROUGH THE CLASSIFICATION APPEALS PROCESS, THE AUTHORITY HAS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DECIDE THE INSTANT NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE UNION'S APPEAL HAS BEEN PREMATURELY FILED AND THEREFORE MUST BE DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RENEWAL OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE MATTERS IN DISPUTE ARE NEGOTIABLE UNDER THE STATUTE IN A PETITION DULY FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY AFTER IT IS RESOLVED, UNDER APPLICABLE PROCEDURES, THAT THE HAZARDOUS DUTIES AT ISSUE ARE IRREGULAR OR INTERMITTENT AND HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CLASSIFYING THE POSITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE UNION'S PROPOSAL. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 25, 1980 RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY /1/ 5 U.S.C. 5545(D) PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, THAT: THE (OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT) SHALL ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE OR SCHEDULES OF PAY DIFFERENTIALS FOR IRREGULAR OR INTERMITTENT DUTY INVOLVING UNUSUAL PHYSICAL HARDSHIP OR HAZARD. UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE (OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT) MAY PRESCRIBE, . . . AN EMPLOYEE . . . IS ENTITLED TO BE PAID THE APPROPRIATE DIFFERENTIAL FOR ANY PERIOD IN WHICH HE IS SUBJECTED TO PHYSICAL HARDSHIP OR HAZARD NOT USUALLY INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT THE DUTIES OF HIS POSITION. HOWEVER, THE PAY DIFFERENTIAL-- (1) DOES NOT APPLY TO AN EMPLOYEE IN A POSITION THE CLASSIFICATION OF WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE DEGREE OF PHYSICAL HARDSHIP OR HAZARD INVOLVED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES THEREOF; . . . . /2/ SECTION 7103(A)(14)(B) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: SEC. 7103. DEFINITIONS; APPLICATION (A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER-- . . . . (14) "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" MEANS PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND MATTERS, WHETHER ESTABLISHED BY RULE, REGULATION, OR OTHERWISE, AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS, EXCEPT THAT SUCH TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND MATTERS-- . . . . (B) RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF ANY POSITION; . . . /3/ SECTION 7117(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES: SEC. 7117. DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; COMPELLING NEED; DUTY TO CONSULT (A)(1) SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH SHALL, TO THE EXTENT NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ANY FEDERAL LAW OR ANY GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR REGULATION, EXTEND TO MATTERS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF ANY RULE OR REGULATION ONLY IF THE RULE OR REGULATION IS NOT A GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR REGULATION. THE TERM "MATTERS" AS USED IN SECTION 7117(A)(1) IS EXPLAINED BY REFERENCE TO THE DEFINITION OF "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING" IN SECTION 7103(A)(12) OF THE STATUTE AS SET FORTH BELOW AND "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" IN SECTION 7103(A)(14), SUPRA NOTE 2: SEC. 7103. DEFINITIONS; APPLICATION (A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER-- . . . . (12) "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING" MEANS THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF AN AGENCY AND THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF EMPLOYEES IN AN APPROPRIATE UNIT IN THE AGENCY TO MEET AT REASONABLE TIMES AND TO CONSULT AND BARGAIN IN A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO REACH AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AFFECTING SUCH EMPLOYEES . . . /4/ 5 U.S.C. 7105(I) PROVIDES: IN THE EXERCISE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY UNDER THIS TITLE, THE AUTHORITY MAY REQUEST FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AN ADVISORY OPINION CONCERNING THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF RULES, REGULATIONS, OR POLICY DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH ANY MATTER BEFORE THE AUTHORITY /5/ 45 F.R. 3518(1980).