[ v18 p638 ]
18:0638(76)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
18 FLRA No. 76
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Respondent
and
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 556, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case No. 8-CA-30006
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Regional
Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Federal Labor Relations
Authority" in accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules
and Regulations.
Upon consideration of the entire record, including the stipulation of
facts, accompanying exhibits and the parties' contentions, the Authority
finds:
The complaint herein alleges that the Respondent, Department of the
Navy, Washington, D.C., promulgated a directive effective October 1,
1982, which instituted a change in the established policy of hand
delivering paychecks to employees located at four of its activities, (1)
United States Navy, Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii, (2) United States Navy, Naval Submarine Base, Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii, (3) United States Marine Corps, Marine Barracks, Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii, and (4) United States Navy, Naval Supply Center, Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii, hereinafter referred to collectively as the Naval Activities,
without affording the employees' exclusive representative, Service
Employees International Union, Local 556, AFL-CIO (the Union), an
opportunity to bargain over the change, thereby interfering with the
bargaining relationships between the Union and the individual Naval
Activities in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
/1/
The stipulated record shows that the Union is recognized as the
exclusive representative for units of employees located at the Naval
Activities which are subordinate activities of the Respondent. Each
Activity has a collective bargaining agreement with the Union covering
these employees. Prior to October 1, 1982, all employees had the option
of paycheck hand delivery. On October 6, 1981, the Respondent issued
SECNAV Instruction 7200.17, a directive applicable to the Naval
Activities, establishing a policy that civilian pay for all newly hired
employees be distributed by direct deposit to a financial institution or
by mail to a nonwork address. The directive specifically established
that the policies regarding pay services were "(t)o distribute civilian
pay by PDQ/Direct Deposit or mail upon entry of all civilian employees
hired within DON(,)" and "(w)here feasible, to discontinue hand delivery
of pay and leave earnings statements for current civilian personnel." In
addition, the SECNAV Instruction required addressees to "take
appropriate action to ensure that all activities under their command
comply with this instruction and with the implementing procedures . . ."
and take direct responsibility for "(s)upporting the establishment . . .
by PDQ/Direct Deposit or mail upon entry of all civilian employees hired
by any DON activity on and after 1 October 1982(.)"
On July 1, 1982, the Respondent issued a CNO Message to the Naval
Activities regarding "Policy for Military and Civilian Pay Services,"
referencing SECNAV Instruction 7200.17, which required the Naval
Activities to take appropriate action to inform all new hires beginning
October 1, 1982, that their pay would be forwarded to a designated
financial institution or mailed to a nonwork address along with leave
and earnings statements.
On August 4, 1982, the Naval Activities notified the Union by letter
that the Respondent had directed that all new hires, beginning October
1, 1982, be informed that their pay would be forwarded to a designated
financial institution or mailed to a nonwork address. The August 4,
1982, letter solicited the Union's comments by August 20, 1982, prior to
the implementation of the new policy.
On August 9, 1982, the Union made a request to bargain with the Naval
Activities on the substance of the proposed change in the pay policy.
On August 19, 1982, the Naval Activities, by letter, informed the Union
that the proposed change would be treated as a rule or regulation issued
by a primary national subdivision of an agency and, therefore, was not
negotiable in substance. The Naval Activities further indicated that
they would bargain with the Union over any negotiable impact and
implementation proposals submitted in writing by August 31, 1982.
On September 15, 1982, the Union renewed its request to the Naval
Activities to bargain over the substance of the proposed change in pay
policy. The Union did not submit proposals regarding impact and
implementation of the proposed change to the Naval Activities. On
October 1, 1982, the Naval Activities implemented the change in pay
policy without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain over the
substance of the change in pay policy.
The General Counsel alleges that by directing the Naval Activities in
its July 9, 1982, CNO Message to change the established policy and
practice of hand delivering employees' pay checks without affording the
Union an opportunity to bargain over the change with the appropriate
local activity, the Respondent interfered with the bargaining
relationships between the Union and the respective local activities in
violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
The Respondent contends, inter alia, that the change instituted by
Respondent's directive constituted a method of performing work under
section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute, /2/ and therefore was negotiable only
at its election.
The Authority has held that management's selection of the method of
paycheck distribution concerns the methods and means of performing work
within the meaning of section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute and thus is
negotiable only at the election of the agency. Federal Employees Metal
Trades Council, AFL-CIO and Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval
Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 16 FLRA No. 88 (1984), petition for
review filed, No. 85-7039 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 1985). Thus, the Authority
finds that the General Counsel has not met the burden of proving that
the Respondent's action in mandating a change in the method of paycheck
delivery to newly hired employees allegedly without permitting the local
Naval Activities to bargain with the Union concerning the substance of
such change in the method of paycheck delivery constituted a violation
of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. /3/ Accordingly, the
complaint shall be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 8-CA-30006 be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., June 21, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) provides:
Sec. 7116. Unfair labor practices
(a) For the purpose of this chapter, it shall be an unfair
labor practice for an agency--
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the
exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter;
* * * *
(5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a
labor organization as required by this chapter(.)
/2/ Section 7106(b)(1) provides in pertinent part:
Sec. 7106. Management rights
* * * *
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude any agency and any
labor organization from negotiating--
(1) at the election of the agency, . . . on the technology,
methods, and means of performing work(.)
/3/ The record does not indicate, nor does the General Counsel argue,
that terms of the various collective bargaining agreements included
provisions constituting an exercise by the Respondent or the Naval
Activities of the option under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute to
negotiate with regard to pay practices.