---

 30 FLRA NO. 59
 30 FLRA 472

 14 DEC 1987

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 15

                    Union

         and

U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT
MUNITIONS AND CHEMICAL COMMAND
ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL
ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS

                   Agency

Case No. O-NG-1436

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

     I. Statement of the case

     This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability
appeal filed under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute). It raises
issues concerning the negotiability of a single proposal which
involves safety clothing and equipment requirements for
motorcycle and moped operators on the Rock Island Arsenal (the
Arsenal). For the reasons which follow, we hold that the proposal
is outside the duty to bargain because it directly interferes
with the Agency's right to determine its internal security
practices under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute.

     II. Background

     The Agency sought to implement a Department of Army
regulation which contained various requirements which must be met
by employees who wish to operate motorcycles or mopeds on the
Arsenal. This Army regulation requires, among other things not
relevant to this dispute, that all riders of motorcycles on the
installation wear: 1) safety helmets which meet Department of
Transportation standards, 2) eye protection, 3) long trousers,
and 4) high-visibility garments. 

     The Arsenal is located in Illinois on an island in the
Mississippi river, which separates Illinois from Iowa. The
Arsenal draws employees from both Illinois and Iowa. At present,
neither Illinois nor Iowa requires motorcycle riders to wear such
safety items as helmets or high-visibility garments. Eye
protection, however, is required. See Agency Allegation of
Nonnegotiability at note 1 attached as enclosure 1 to the
Petition for Review; Statement of Position at 11.

     III. Proposal

     During impact and implementation bargaining on the
implementation of the Army regulation, the Union submitted the
following proposal:

     Clothing and equipment requirements shall conform to
applicable state statutes for motorcycle and moped operators.

     IV. Positions of the Parties

     The Agency contends that the Authority should dismiss the
Union's petition since it contains neither an explicit statement
of the meaning attributed to the proposal nor a copy of relevant
documentary material as required by section 2424.4(a)(2) and (3)
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Further, the Agency
contends that if the Authority finds that there is sufficient
detail to render a negotiability determination, the proposal is
nonnegotiable because it: (1) does not pertain to conditions of
employment of bargaining unit employees; (2) directly determines
the conditions of employment of nonbargaining unit employees; and
(3) interferes with the Agency's right under section 7106(a)(1)
of the Statute to determine internal security practices.

     In its petition for review the Union explained that the
proposal is intended to preclude the Agency from imposing safety
requirements for motorcycle or moped riders on the Arsenal which
are more stringent than currently applicable state highway
regulations governing the operation of a motorcycle or moped. The
Union did not file a Reply Brief.

     V. Analysis and Conclusion

     A. The Petition for Review is not Deficient

     Contrary to the Agency's claims, the Union did provide a
statement of the meaning of its proposal, as required by section
2424.4(a)(2) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

     Further, contrary to the Agency's other procedural argument,
we find that the record is sufficient for us to make a
negotiability determination. Even though the Union did not
include a summary or a copy of either the Illinois or Iowa
statutes relating to motorcycle operations, the Agency indicated
in its allegation of nonnegotiability and again in its statement
of position that other than eye protection neither Illinois nor
Iowa requires the specific safety items which are required by the
Agency's regulation.

     Based on the language of the proposal, its intended meaning,
as explained by the Union, and the record as a whole, we find
that the dispute in this case is sufficiently specific to enable
us to provide the parties with a negotiability determination.

     B. The Proposal Concerns Conditions of Employment of
Bargaining Unit Employees

     We find no  merit in the Agency's argument that the proposal
does not pertain to conditions of employment of bargaining unit
employees. We have previously determined that the enforcement of
traffic rules and regulations on an agency facility directly
affects working conditions of bargaining unit employees because
employees who violate such rules and regulations are subject to
being denied access to the facility in a motor vehicle and/or are
subject to discipline. See Department of the Navy, United States
Marine Corps, 26 FLRA  704 (1987); Federal Employees Metal Trades
Council, AFL - CIO and Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval
Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 23 FLRA  154 (1986). The failure
to comply with the requirements set out in the Army safety
regulation at issue in this case could result in an employee
being subjected to administrative procedures. Accordingly, we
find the proposal in this case pertains to conditions of
employment of bargaining unit employees. See also National
Association of Government Employees, SEIU. Local R7-51 and
Department of the Navy, Naval Public Works Center, Great Lakes,
Illinois, 30 FLRA  No.  53 (1987).

     C. The Proposal Interferes with the Agency's Determination
of its Internal Security Practices

     An agency's right to determine internal security practices
includes the right to determine policies and actions which are
part of its plan to secure or safeguard its personnel and
physical property. See Mare Island Naval Shipyard, 23 FLRA  154
and cases cited in that decision.

     According to the uncontroverted statements of the Agency,
the requirement that motorcycle and moped riders on the Arsenal
wear various safety equipment was adopted as a method of
preventing accidents and safeguarding agency personnel and
property. Statement of Position at 1-2. In support of its
decision to adopt the particular clothing and equipment
requirements set out in its regulation, the Agency cites
Department of Transportation studies indicating that the use of
high visibility clothing and helmets increases motorcycle safety.
Statement of Position at 10-11. In our view, the Agency has shown
a sufficient link between its goal of safeguarding personnel and
property and its chosen practice of requiring motorcycle riders
to wear particular safety clothing and equipment. We find,
therefore, that the Agency's requirement constitutes an exercise
of its right under section 7106(a)(1) to determine internal
security practices.

     This proposal, however, would preclude the Agency from
imposing any highway safety requirements which are more stringent
than current state highway safety regulations governing the
operation of a motorcycle or moped. Thus, this proposal is to the
same effect as Proposal 2 found nonnegotiable in National
Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1442 and Department of the
Army, Letterkenny Army Depot, 30 FLRA  No.  46 (1987). That
proposal provided that only the safety requirements applicable to
motorcycle operators under Pennsylvania state law could be
imposed on the Letterkenny Army Depot. We found that by
precluding the agency from imposing safety requirements other
than those which are adopted by the State of Pennsylvania, the
proposal directly interfered with the agency's right to determine
its internal security practices and, therefore, was
nonnegotiable. Consistent with the rationale in Letterkenny Army
Depot, we find that this proposal similarly interferes with the
Agency's right under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute to
determine its internal security practices.

     In view of this disposition, it is unnecessary to address
the Agency's contention that the proposal is outside its duty to
bargain because it would determine conditions of employment for
nonbargaining unit employees.

     VI. Order

     The petition for review is dismissed.

     Issued, Washington, D.C., December 14, 1987

     Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

     Jean McKee, Member

     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

---