[ v09 p848 ]
09:0848(112)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
9 FLRA No. 112 MINNESOTA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, STATE OF MINNESOTA, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA Respondent and ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, INC., TONY KEMPENICH MEMORIAL CHAPTER Charging Party Case No. 5-CA-718 DECISION AND ORDER THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S "ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE AUTHORITY" IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2429.1(A) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE STIPULATION OF FACTS AND THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS, THE AUTHORITY FINDS: THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1), (5) AND (8) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) WHEN IT REFUSED TO IMPASSE TO AGREE TO A FULL SCOPE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE TO BE INCLUDED IN ITS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE CHARGING PARTY (THE UNION). THE UNION IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF CERTAIN TECHNICIANS EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT. ON FEBRUARY 23, 1980, THE UNION CITING INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE, 2 FLRA 274(1979), REQUESTED THAT NEGOTIATIONS BEGIN ON A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. EVENTUALLY THOSE NEGOTIATIONS BECAME INTERTWINED WITH NEGOTIATIONS OVER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT TO REPLACE ONE WHICH HAD EXPIRED IN 1978. ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT INITIALLY TOOK THE POSITION THAT A UNION PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD INCLUDE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE MATTERS GOVERNED BY SECTION 709(E) OF THE NATIONAL GUARD TECHNICIANS ACT OF 1968 WAS NONNEGOTIABLE, /1/ IT SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED ITS POSITION AND PROPOSED THAT SUCH MATTERS BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. THE UNION REJECTED THIS PROPOSAL AND INSISTED ON A FULL SCOPE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. THE PARTIES REACHED IMPASSE ON, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THIS ISSUE AND THE RESPONDENT REQUESTED, ON OCTOBER 15, 1980, THE SERVICES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL (THE PANEL). /2/ THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES HEREIN ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE PARTIES IN VERMONT AIR NATIONAL GUARD, BURLINGTON, VERMONT, 9 FLRA NO. 92(1982), WHEREIN WE HELD THAT THE SCOPE OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE IS A MANDATORY SUBJECT FOR BARGAINING AND, IF IMPASSE IS REACHED, IS SUBJECT TO IMPASSE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES. BASED ON THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THAT DECISION, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS HEREIN DID NOT VIOLATE THE STATUTE AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT. /3/ ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 5-CA-718 BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 5, 1982 RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ SECTION 709(E) PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: (E) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW AND UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY CONCERNED-- (1) A TECHNICIAN WHO IS EMPLOYED IN A POSITION IN WHICH NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERSHIP IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WHO IS SEPARATED FROM THE NATIONAL GUARD OR CEASES TO HOLD THE MILITARY GRADE SPECIFIED FOR HIS POSITION BY THE SECRETARY CONCERNED SHALL BE PROMPTLY SEPARATED FROM HIS TECHNICIAN EMPLOYMENT BY THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE JURISDICTION CONCERNED; (2) A TECHNICIAN WHO IS EMPLOYED IN A POSITION IN WHICH NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERSHIP IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WHO FAILS TO MEET THE MILITARY SECURITY STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE SECRETARY CONCERNED FOR A MEMBER OF A RESERVE COMPONENT OF THE ARMED FORCE UNDER HIS JURISDICTION MAY BE SEPARATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT AS A TECHNICIAN AND CONCURRENTLY DISCHARGED FROM THE NATIONAL GUARD BY THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE JURISDICTION CONCERNED; (3) A TECHNICIAN MAY, AT ANY TIME, BE SEPARATED FROM HIS TECHNICIAN EMPLOYMENT FOR CAUSE BY THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE JURISDICTION CONCERNED; (4) A REDUCTION IN FORCE, REMOVAL, OR AN ADVERSE ACTION INVOLVING DISCHARGE FROM TECHNICIAN EMPLOYMENT, SUSPENSION, FURLOUGH WITHOUT PAY, OR REDUCTION IN RANK OR COMPENSATION SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE JURISDICTION CONCERNED; (5) A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHICH MAY EXIST WITH RESPECT TO CLAUSE (1), (2), (3), OR (4) SHALL NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE JURISDICTION CONCERNED; AND (6) A TECHNICIAN SHALL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF THE TERMINATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AS A TECHNICIAN AND SUCH NOTIFICATION SHALL BE GIVEN AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION DATE OF SUCH EMPLOYMENT. /2/ PURSUANT TO SECTION 2429.5 OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS, THE AUTHORITY TAKES OFFICIAL NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT BY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 19, 1980, THE PANEL DECLINED TO ASSERT JURISDICTION OVER THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ISSUE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ISSUE FORMED "THE BASIS OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE, FILED BY THE UNION, WHICH IS NOW BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY . . . . " /3/ IN VIEW OF THIS CONCLUSION, THE AUTHORITY FINDS IT UNNECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT SECTION 709(E) OF THE NATIONAL GUARD TECHNICIANS ACT OF 1968 REQUIRES AS A MATTER OF LAW THE SPECIFIC EXCLUSION OF MATTERS GOVERNED BY THAT SECTION FROM COVERAGE UNDER THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. (BUT SEE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R12-132 AND CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD, 5 FLRA NO. 25(1981); AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3486 AND NEW JERSEY AIR NATIONAL GUARD, 177TH FIGHTER INTERCEPTOR GROUP, 5 FLRA NO. 26(1981), REVERSED SUB NOM. NEW JERSEY AIR NATIONAL GUARD, 177TH FIGHTER INTERCEPTOR GROUP AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE V. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, NO. 81-1592 (3RD CIR. APR. 12, 1982).)