25:0487(34)NG - AFGE Local 1603 and Naval Hospital Patuxent River, MD -- 1987 FLRAdec NG
[ v25 p487 ]
25:0487(34)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
25 FLRA No. 34 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1603 Union and U.S. NAVAL HOSPITAL PATUXENT RIVER, MARYLAND Agency Case No. 0-NG-1217 22 FLRA No. 60 DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Union's timely filed request for reconsideration of the Authority's Decision and Order on Negotiability Issue of July 15, 1986. In that decision the Authority held that the provision under review was not within the duty to bargain. In its request for reconsideration, the Union contends that the Agency failed to serve the Union with a copy of its statement of position, as required by section 2424.6(b) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Union contends that it was therefore denied an opportunity to set forth in full its position on the negotiability question prior to the Authority's decision. The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union's request for reconsideration. By letter of August 28, 1986, the Authority's Director of Case Management stated that it had been established that the Union was not served with a copy of the Agency's statement of position, a copy of which was enclosed. Subsequently, the Union filed its response. We find, pursuant to section 2429.17 of our Rules and Regulations, that the Union has established the requisite extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration of the Authority's decision. Because the Union did not have a copy of the Agency's statement of position, it was unable to respond to the Agency's contentions before the Authority issued its decision. Accordingly, we have granted the Union's motion so that we can consider the negotiability of the following provision based on the record now before us: Article IX, Section 5 An employee who believes that he/she has been adversely affected by the application of a performance standard may raise the issue of whether the performance standard, as applied to the employee, is fair and reasonable in any grievance proceeding or arbitration on the matter. In interpreting whether a performance standard is fair and reasonable, an arbitrator shall bear in mind that 5 USC 4302 states that the employer must establish performance standards which will, to the maximum extent feasible, permit the accurate evaluation of Job Performance on the basis of objective criteria related to the job in question. In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1603 and U.S. Naval Hospital, Patuxent River, Maryland, 22 FLRA No. 60 (1986), the Authority found, contrary to the Union's explanation, that the clear language of the provision was not limited to subjecting the application of performance standards to grievance and arbitral review. The Authority found the language of the second sentence of the provision would require an arbitrator to determine whether performance standards themselves are fair and reasonable by reviewing the criteria used by management in such standards to evaluate job performance. The Authority therefore concluded that to the extent that the provision required an arbitrator to determine whether performance standards themselves are fair and reasonable, it violated management's rights to assign work and direct employees under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute and was outside the duty to bargain. In its response to the Agency's statement of position, the Union alleges that the Agency erroneously concluded that the provision requires the performance standard itself to be fair and reasonable and provides for arbitral review to determine if it is fair and reasonable. The Union also alleges that the intent of its provision, as previously set forth in its petition for review of negotiability issue, was to have the performance standards applied in a fair and reasonable manner. It contends that the provision itself does not state that performance standards must be fair and reasonable. Finally, it alleges that the provision represents an appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3) of the Statute. We find that the Union's contentions cannot be sustained. The Authority has consistently held that it will not base a negotiability determination on a union's statement of intent which is inconsistent with the clear language of the disputed provision. See, for example, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 933 and Veterans Administration Medical Center, 20 FLRA No. 80 (1985), at n.2. We find that the language in the second sentence of the provision is clear and would require an arbitrator to determine whether performance standards themselves are fair and reasonable, in violation of section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute. Therefore, the Union's contention as to its intent in drafting the provision cannot overcome the clear language of the provision. Additionally, we find no merit to the Union's contention that the provision constitutes an appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3) of the Statute. We found in Patent Office Professional Association and Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, 25 FLRA No. 29 (1987) that provisions, like the one in this case, that determine the content of performance standards do not constitute appropriate arrangements under section 7106(b)(3). Thus, on review of the entire record in this case, including the Union's response to the Agency's statement of position, we find that the provision is outside the duty to bargain. ORDER The Union's petition for review is dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C. February 4, 1987. /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member /s/ Jean McKee, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY