09:0855(114)CA - Army, Fort Lewis, WA and AFGE Local l504 and OPM -- 1982 FLRAdec CA
[ v09 p855 ]
09:0855(114)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
9 FLRA No. 114 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, FORT LEWIS, FORT LEWIS, WASHINGTON Respondent and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1504 Charging Party and OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Intervenor Case No. 9-CA-46 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 AGREE TO A FULL SCOPE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE TO BE INCORPORATED IN ITS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE CHARGING PARTY (THE UNION). THE UNION IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF A BARGAINING UNIT CONSISTING OF CERTAIN NON-SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT. IN MARCH 1979 THE RESPONDENT AND THE UNION COMMENCED NEGOTIATIONS ON A NEW COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. IN THE COURSE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. THE UNION RESPONDED, EXPRESSING A DESIRE FOR A BROAD SCOPE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. DESPITE DISCUSSIONS AND EXCHANGES OF FURTHER PROPOSALS ON THE MATTER, THE PARTIES WERE UNABLE TO REACH AGREEMENT ON THE SCOPE OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND REACHED IMPASSE. THE RESPONDENT SUGGESTED THAT THE MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL (FSIP). THE UNION REJECTED THIS SUGGESTION, INDICATING THAT IT WOULD PURSUE THE MATTER THROUGH OTHER FORUMS. THE POSITIONS OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHARGING PARTY ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE POSITIONS TAKEN 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 RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS HEREIN DID NOT VIOLATE THE STATUTE AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 9-CA-46 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