30:1025(112)NG - AFGE Council 214 and DOD, Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command -- 1988 FLRAdec NG

 30 FLRA NO. 112
   30 FLRA 1025 (1988)

   25 JAN 1988

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES COUNCIL 214, AFL-CIO

                Union

          and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND

                Agency

Case No. O-NG-1423

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES

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) and concerns
the negotiability of all or part of five proposals relating to
the Agency's mandatory uniform requirement. For the reasons which
follow, we find that Proposals 2h and 21 are negotiable and that
the remaining proposals are outside the duty to bargain. 1

II. Background

     On December 18, 1986, the Agency notified the Union of its
decision to implement a requirement that civilian employees of
the Base Operations Sections, Airfield Management Branches, at
each Logistics Center, wear uniforms. The affected employees are
Air Traffic Control Specialists who typically work behind
a counter in the Base Operations Section. One of the employees'
principal duties is to assist military flight personnel in filing
flight plans.

     After prolonged bargaining over the Agency's decision to
implement a uniform requirement for unit employees, the parties
were unable to reach agreement. During the mediation process, the
Union requested an allegation of nonnegotiability concerning the
Union's original and supplemental proposals. The Agency responded
by declaring Proposals 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the original and
supplemental submissions nonnegotiable. 2 The Union appealed that
allegation of nonnegotiability.

     Proposal 1 and Proposals 3, 4, and 5 require the Agency
either to refrain from implementing the uniform requirement or to
implement the requirement only on an experimental or volunteer
basis. Proposal 2 was submitted in the alternative and is
addressed to the impact and implementation of the requirement to
wear uniforms. Union Response to Agency Statement of Position at
2. We will frist address Proposals 1, 3, 4, and and 5, as
requested by the Union, and then determine the negotiability of
Proposal 2.

III. Proposal 1

     No change

     Proposal 3

     AFLC agrees to implement a prescribed uniform for AFLC Base
Operations semployees on a one year trial basis for volunteers
only. No unit employee will be coerce(d) into wearing a
uniform.

     Proposal 4

     During the one year trial basis, AFLC will try to influence
the non-volunteer unit employees into accepting the wearing of
uniforms through example. No unit employee will be discriminated
against in any way for not volunteering to wear a uniform. 

     Proposal 5

     Full disclosure of details/agreement on conditions for the
uniform requirement will be provided unit employees prior to
requesting for volunteers.

A. Positions of the Parties

     The Agency contends that Proposals 1, 3, 4, and 5 violate
the Agency's right under section 7106(a)(1) to determine internal
security practices and its right under section 7106(b)(1) to
determine the methods and means of performing the Agency's work.
The Agency argues that the ability to readily identify employees
by a prescribed uniform is essential in order for it to protect
its property. The Agency maintains that when emergency situations
occur in the "flightline area," it is essential that security
personnel be able immediately to identify the employees in the
Base Operations area. The Agency states that the uniform
requirement will enable security personnel to identify employees
easily and to apprehend persons who are not authorized to be in
the area.

     The Agency also contends that a prescribed uniform will
contribute to the accomplishment of the Agency's mission by
enabling flight personnel to readily identify employees and
enabling employees to better serve the flight personnel. The
Agency states that the Base Operations Section is the "front
door" for most visitors to the base. The Agency argues,
therefore, that the proposals relate to the methods and means of
performing work and are outside the duty to bargain under section
7106(b)(1).

     The Union states that Proposals 1, 3, 4, and 5 concern the
substance of the Agency's decision to require the wearing of
uniforms. The Union maintains that it may legitimately propose
that uniforms not be worn by the employees or that the wearing of
uniforms be implemented on a trial basis among volunteers. The
Union contends that the uniform requirement does not concern the
Agency's internal security practices because the affected
employees are not security personnel and currently wear badges
for ready identification. The Union also argues that since
employees work behind a counter in the Base Operations Section
they are easily recognized and it is evident what they do. The
Union argues further that the uniform requirement is inconsistent
with some of the duties performed by employees, such as washing
vehicles and picking up debris. 

B. Discussion

     We find that Proposals 1, 3, 4, and 5 are nonnegotiable
because they directly interfere with the Agency's exercise of its
right under section 7106(a)(1) to determine internal security
practices. We also find that the proposals concern the means by
which Agency operations are conducted.

     The record establishes that the employees involved in this
case work in a restricted and controlled area which "is a
strategic first line of defense for the protection of many
expensive aircraft, the prevention of terrorism, and the general
security of the flightline area." Agency Statement of Position at
4. See also Union Response at 1-2. The Agency states that in
emergency situations, it is essential that security personnel be
able immediately to identify these employees if the Agency is
effectively to protect its property. The Agency states further
that the distinctive uniform will enable security personnel
easily to identify and apprehend persons who are not authorized
to be in the area.

     We reject the Union's arguments that the uniform is not
necessary to achieve the Agency's goal of ready identification.
The Agency has shown a reasonable connection between the
requirement and the security of its operations. We will not
question the extent of the measures used by the Agency to achieve
its objective as long as they are reasonably related to the
purpose for which the particular security practice is adopted.
See National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29 and
Department of the Army, Kansas City District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, 21 FLRA  233, 235 (1986). We
find, therefore, that the requirement that Base Operations
employees wear a uniform is directly related to the Agency's need
to readily identify its employees in order to protect its
property and its operations.

     Proposal 1 prohibits the Agency from implementing its
uniform requirement. The proposal, therefore, directly interferes
with the Agency's right to determine its internal security
practices because it would preclude the use of uniforms for the
purpose of achieving ready identification of employees. See
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 217 and
Veterans Administration Medical Center, Augusta, Georgia, 21 FLRA
62 (1986) (Proposal A).

     Proposals 3 and 4 would require the Agency to implement the
uniform requirement only for volunteers and would make the
wearing of uniforms optional on the part of employees for a
1-year trial period. In AFGE, Local 217 and VA Medical Center,
Augusta, Georgia, the Authority found that a proposal 
which would make wearing the uniform optional on the part of
employees would effectively negate the Agency's decision to
require uniforms for the purpose of achieving ready
identification of employees and, therefore, that it directly
interfered with management's rights. The record in that case
established that the requirement for employees to wear
distinctive clothing was directly related to the agency's need to
readily identify such employees in order to, among other things,
protect its property. Proposals 3 and 4 in this case, likewise,
directly interfere with the Agency's right to determine its
internal security practices because they make the wearing of
uniforms optional on the part of employees and negate the
Agency's decision to require uniforms for the purpose of
achieving ready identification of employees. See also National
Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, AFL - CIO. District
1199 and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Dayton, Ohio, 28
FLRA  435, 479 (1987) (Proposal 21).

     Proposal 5 is directly dependent on Proposals 3 and 4. Since
we have found that there is no obligation to negotiate on
Proposals 3 and 4, which would make wearing the uniform optional
on the part of employees, we likewise find that Proposal 5, which
requires that employees be informed of that option, is
nonnegotiable. See National Federation of Federal Employees,
Local 2052 and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Boise District Office, 30  FLRA  No. 93 (1987)
(Proposal 11).

     We conclude that Proposal 1, which would require that the
Agency rescind the uniform requirement, and Proposals 3-5, which
would make the wearing of the uniform requirement optional on the
part of employees, are nonnegotiable because they would negate
the Agency's decision to require uniforms for the purpose of
achieving ready identification of employees. These proposals
directly interfere with the Agency's right to determine its
internal security practices under section 7106(a)(1) of the
Statute.

     Moreover, the Agency has determined that the nature of the
employees, jobs requires that they be readily identified if the
Agency is to accomplish its mission. The Agency has chosen
uniforms as the means of identification. We find that there is a
direct relationship between the uniform requirement and the
Agency's need to readily identify employees. See American
Federation of Government Employees Local 217 and Veterans
Administration Medical Center, Augusta, Georgia, 21 FLRA  62
(1986) (Proposal A). Thus, the Agency's uniform requirement
constitutes a decision as to the means of performing work under
section 7106(b)(1). By prohibiting the implementation of the
uniform requirement in this case, or by making its
implementation optional, these proposals directly interfere with
management's right to determine the means by which it will
perform its work. The means by which it will perform its work is
a matter about which the Agency may, but has chosen not to,
bargain under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute. For this reason
also, these proposals are outside the duty to bargain.

IV. Proposal 2

     In the event Union proposal one (1) above is not acceptable
by appropriate authority, the following will apply:

     a. AFLC will purchase three (3) navy blue blazers for each
employee tailored for proper fit at no cost to employees.

     b. AFLC will purchase seven (7) charcoal grey dress slacks
for each employee tailored for proper fit at no cost to
employees.

     C. AFLC will purchase twenty-two (22) white dress shirts for
each employee tailored for proper fit at no cost to employees.

     d. AFLC will purchase seven (7) matching ties for each
employee at no cost to employees.

     e. AFLC will purchase three (3) pairs of black dress shoes
for each employee at no cost to employees.

     f. AFLC will purchase one (1) tan overcoat for for each
employee tailored for proper fit at no cost to employees.

     g. AFLC will purchase twenty-two (22) summer dress shirts
for each employee tailored for proper fit at no cost to
employees.

     h. Paragraphs 2a., b., c., d., e., f., will be repeated on
an annual basis.

     i. Each bargaining unit employee will be authorized thirty
(30)  minutes at the beginning of his/her shift for changing into
the uniform. 

     j. Each bargaining unit employee will be authorized thirty
(30)  minutes at the end of his/her shift for changing out of the
uniform.

     k. AFLC will provide clean clothing for each employee each
time he/she reports for duty.

     l. AFLC will provide suitable private lo-cation(s) for
employees to change at the beginning and end of each shift.

     M. AFLC will provide appropriate clothing to each employee
to wear during inclement weather; such as: footwear, rain coat,
parka coat, etc.

     r. AFLC agrees to authorize appropriate uniform allowance
for each employee required to wear the prescribed uniform.

A. Positions of the Parties

     The Agency contends that Proposals 2e, 2f, and 2m are
nonnegotiable because they interfere with the Agency's right to
determine its internal security practices and involve the methods
and means of performing work. The Agency argues that inherent in
the Agency's right to implement a uniform policy must also be the
right to determine what items will comprise the uniform. The
Agency contends that Proposals 2h, 2k, and 2r do not concern
conditions of employment as defined in section 7103(a)(14)(C) of
the Statute and that they are also inconsistent with Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-30, which the Agency
asserts is a Government-wide regulation. As to Proposals 2i, 2j,
and 21, the Agency maintains that these proposals interfere with
management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B).
The Agency argues that the proposals would require management to
refrain from assigning employees normal duties during the times
set aside in the proposals for employees to change into and out
of the uniform.

     The Union contends that Proposals 2e, 2f, and 2m do not
interfere with the Agency's determination of what constitutes the
uniform. The Union states that the Agency's advisories to the union concerning the uniform do not prevent employees from
choosing the footwear and outerwear which is to be worn with the
uniform. The Union asserts that Proposals 2e, 2f, and 2m merely
require the Agency to furnish some of the "accouterments" which
can be worn with the uniform. The Union states also that
Proposals 2e, 2f, and 2m, as well as Proposals 2h and 2k, seek to
(1) assure that the clothing worn by employees is appropriate to
work and weather conditions and (2) specify the types and
quantities of uniform articles the Agency will provide. The Union
asserts that similar proposals have been found to be negotiable.
The Union argues that Proposal 2r is intended to cover certain
incidentals and merely requires the payment of whatever uniform
allowance is required by applicable law and regulations. The
Union describes Proposals 2i and 2j as appropriate arrangements
for employees adversely affected by the exercise of management's
rights. The Union asserts that the proposals merely require that
some time be allowed during the specified time frames for
employees to change clothes. Finally, the Union contends that the
requirement in Proposal 21 that the Agency furnish private
facilities for employees to change clothes does not interfere
with the Agency's right to assign work and therefore is
negotiable.

B. Discussion

     Proposals 2e, 2f, and 2m

     These proposals require the Agency to furnish certain items
of clothing and footwear which will be worn with the uniform. We
find that Proposals 2e, 2f, and 2m are outside the duty to
bargain.

     The Union states that Proposals 2e, 2f and 2m "have nothing
to do with the uniform, but instead involve other items which can
be worn in conjunction with it." Union Response at 4. The Union
does not assert that these items are necessary for the health,
safety or protection of employees and it appears from the record
that the union is merely concerned that outer clothing be the
same for all employees ' required to wear the prescribed uniform.
Therefore, these proposals would require the Agency to provide
personal items of clothing which the employees desire to wear
with the prescribed uniform.

     In National Federation of Federal Employees Local 827 and
Defense Mapping Agency, Aerospace Center, 26 FLRA  785, 786
(1987), the Authority discussed the general issue of when
appropriated funds may be spent for the purchase of items which
could be considered personal equipment. The Authority found that
under the rules established by the Comptroller General,
public funds may be spent for such items when it is determined
that: (1) the Government, rather than the employee, receives the
primary benefit from the equipment; and (2) the equipment is not
a personal item which the employee should furnish. See, for
example, 63 Comp. Gen. 278 (1984); 61 Comp. Gen. 634 (1982); 3
Comp. Gen. 433 (1924).

     We find, based on the record and consistent with applicable
case law, that the clothing specified in the proposals may not be
purchased by the Agency for unit employees because it is not part
of the prescribed uniform and is not intended to be used for the
primary benefit of the Government. Rather, the proposals require
the Agency to furnish personal items of clothing which are for
the primary benefit of employees. Proposals 2e, 2f and 2m are
inconsistent with law because they would require the Agency to
pay the cost of providing personal items of clothing which the
employee should furnish. See Federal Employees Metal Trades
Council, AFL - CIO and Department of the Navy, Mare Island Navy
Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 30  FLRA  No. 32 (1987). Compare
NFFE, Local 1827 and Defense Mapping Agency, Aerospace Center, 26
FLRA  at 790 (proposal requiring the agency to provide safety
glasses held negotiable where the Government, rather than the
employee, received the primary benefit).

     The Union asserts that Proposals 2e, 2f, and 2m are not
materially different from the proposals found negotiable in VA
Medical Center, Augusta, Georgia, 21 FLRA  at 65-66. The Union
states that the proposals in this case are designed to assure
that the clothing worn by employees is appropriate to the work
and weather conditions. Union Response at 4. We find, however,
that Proposals 2e, 2f, and 2m are distinguishable from the
proposals found to be negotiable in VA Medical Center. Augusta,
Georgia. Those proposals required the agency to provide suitable
items of clothing which were part of the prescribed uniform. The
Union specifically states that the proposals in this case "have
nothing to do with the uniform." Union Statement of Position at
4. Since we have found that Proposals 2e, 2f, and 2m concern
personal items of clothing which should be furnished by employees
and would require the Agency to make expenditures which are
inconsistent with law, we reject the Union's argument that these
proposals merely require clothing appropriate for inclement
weather. Compare American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees Local 2477, AFL - CIO and Library of
Congress, 23 FLRA  204, 206 (1986). 
     Proposals 2h and 2k

     Proposal 2h requires the Agency to replace, on a yearly
basis, specified items of clothing which comprise the uniform.
Proposal 2k requires the Agency to provide clean clothing for
each employee when he or she reports for duty. For the following
reasons, we find that Proposal 2h is negotiable and that Proposal
2k is nonnegotiable.

     Chapter 59, subchapter I of title 5 of the United States
Code, including specifically section 5901, authorizes
appropriations for agencies which require employees to wear
uniforms. The appropriations are made on an annual basis and may
be used either to provide the uniforms to employees or to provide
employees with an allowance to purchase the required uniform. The
amount appropriated may not exceed $125.00 per employee.

     Proposal 2h provides that the Agency will annually supply
each employee required to wear the uniforms with the items
specified in Proposals 2a-2d. The Agency objects to this proposal
on the ground that it would cost at least $735.00 per employee
beyond the statutory maximum. Agency Statement of Position at 16.
However, the proposal does not prescribe a particular amount to
be expended for uniforms. It specifies a certain number of each
item of uniform clothing. While these items must have some cost,
other than the Agency's unsubstantiated claim, we have no basis
on which to find that those items must cost more than the
statutory maximum. Indeed, if the Agency's claim is valid, we
fail to see why the Agency did not object on those same grounds
to the negotiation of Proposals 2a-2d. In our view, it is not the
role of the Authority to judge comparative costs of particular
items of uniform clothing. The statutory maximum allows the
parties considerable latitude for bargaining and we conclude that
it would best effectuate the Statute to permit them to explore
possibilities for agreement within the statutory maximum. We
find, therefore, that to the extent Proposal 2h may be
implemented consistent with 5 U.S.C. 5901, it is negotiable under
section 7117(a)(1) and within the duty to bargain.

     As to Proposal 2k, section 7103(a)(14) defines "conditions
of employment" as "personnel policies, practices, and matters,
whether established by rule, regulation, or otherwise, affecting
working conditions." Section 7103(a)(14) (C) excludes from that
definition policies, practices, and matters "to the extent such
matters are specifically provided for by Federal statute."

     In National Association of Government Employees, SEIU, AFL -
CIO and National Guard Bureau, Adjutant General, 26 FLRA  515,
525-26 (1987) (Proposal 9), after a review of its legislative
history, the Authority determined that the appropriations
authorized in chapter 59, subchapter I of title 5 of the United
States Code, which includes section 5901, were intended both for
the the purchase and the upkeep of the uniforms which agencies
required employees to wear. Id. at 683. See also Federal
Employees Uniform Allowance Act of 1954, Pub. L. No. 83-763, 68
Stat. 1114 (1954) and S. Rep. No. 1992, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess.,
reprinted in 1954 U.S. Code Cong._ & Admin. News 3816, 3826. The
Authority then found that a proposal which required that
employees be paid an allowance for the cleaning and maintenance
of the prescribed uniform concerned a matter which was
specifically provided for in 5 U.S.C. 5901 and concluded that the
proposal was not within the duty to bargain under section 7103(a)
(14)(C) of the Statute. Id. at 526. See also Association of
Civilian Technicians, Wisconsin Chapter and Wisconsin Army
National Guard, 26 FLRA  682 (1987) (Proposal 1) (proposal which
provided for sewing and laundering services for employees wearing
a prescribed uniform was outside the duty to bargain because it
concerned a matter which was specifically provided for in 5
U.S.C. 5901).

     Proposal 2k in this case is essentially the same as Proposal
1, section b. in Association of Civilian Technicians, Wisconsin
Chapter and Wisconsin Army National Guard, which was
nonnegotiable because it concerned a matter which was
specifically provided for by law--the cleaning and maintenance of
the prescribed uniform. For the reasons set forth in that
decision, Proposal 2k, which requires the Agency to provide
employees with clean uniforms when they report for duty, is not
within the Agency's duty to bargain because it concerns a matter
which is specifically provided for by Federal statute and is
excluded from "conditions of employment" under section
7103(a)(14)(C) of the Statute. Id. at 684.

     Proposal 2r

     Proposal 2r, which requires the Agency to authorize a
uniform allowance for each employee required to wear the uniform,
is nonnegotiable. The Union's statement of meaning as to Proposal
2r indicates that the proposal is intended to provide employees
"$125.00 a year clothing allowance." See Petition for Review,
Exhibit 5. In its Response to the Agency's Statement of Position,
the Union further explains that Proposal 2r "merely requires the
payment of whatever uniform allowance is required by applicable
law and regulations." Union Response at 4. 

     However, the record indicates that the Union is proposing
that the Agency provide the prescribed uniform. See Proposals
2a-2d and the discussion of Proposal 2h above. Section 5901(a) of
title 5 of the United States Code specifically states that monies
appropriated for the purchase of uniforms must be used by the
agency to purchase the uniforms or may be provided to employees
for the purchase of a uniform, but not both. In other words, the
Agency may supply a uniform or pay each employee an allowance to
purchase the prescribed uniform. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C.
5901(a), employees may not be provided with a uniform allowance
and with a uniform.

     Nothing in the record indicates that the Union intends this
proposal as an alternative to its proposals--Proposals 2a-2d and
2h--requiring the Agency to provide the uniform to employees.
Rather, the intended effect of the proposal is to pay employees a
uniform allowance in addition to being provided with the uniform
by the Agency. Proposal 2r is inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. 5901(a)
because it requires the payment of an allowance to employees
where the Union has also proposed that the Agency provide the
uniform. Proposal 2r is outside the duty to bargain under section
7117(a)(1), therefore, because it is inconsistent with law.

     The Agency additionally argues that Proposals 2h, 2k, and 2r
are nonnegotiable because they are inconsistent with OMB Circular
No. A-30 (revised). However, the Circular was rescinded in 1983.
OMB Memorandum No. 83-16 (April 27, 1983). Since OMB Circular No.
A-30 is no longer in effect, the Agency's arguments concerning
the applicability of the Circular have not been considered.

     Proposals 2i and 2i

     For the reasons which follow, we find that Proposals 2i and
2j are nonnegotiable.

     In AFSCME, Local 2477, AFL - CIO and Library of Congress 23
FLRA  204 (1986) (Proposal 3), the Authority found that a
proposal which allowed employees 10 minutes after the start and
before the end of the workday to change clothes directly
interfered with the agency's right under section 7106(a)(2)(B) to
assign work. In deciding whether the proposal in that case
excessively interfered with management's right, the Authority
considered: (1) whether and how the proposal would address or
compensate for the adverse effects; and (2) whether the negative
impact of the proposals on management's right is disproportionate
to the benefits to be derived. 

     As to the initial question, the Authority noted that the
agency did not prohibit employees from wearing their uniforms to
and from work and that the decision to change clothing at work
was purely a matter of employee preference. As to the second
question, the Authority noted that the proposals in that case
would result in a loss to the agency of 20 minutes each workday
during which it could not assign work. The Authority concluded
that the proposal was not an appropriate arrangement and was
outside the duty to bargain because the negative impact on the
agency outweighed the benefit to employees in not having to use
their own time to exercise their option to change clothes at
work. See id. at 207-08.

     Proposals 2i and 2j are materially identical to Proposal 3
in AFSCME, Local 2477 and Library of Congress. Based on the
reasons set forth in that case, we conclude that these proposals
are not appropriate arrangements because they excessively
interfere with management's right to assign work, and, therefore,
are outside the duty to bargain. We note that the Agency in this
case intends that "employees will wear their uniforms to and from
work," Agency Statement of Position at 18, and that the proposals
in this case would result in a loss to the Agency of up to 1 hour
each workday during which it could not assign work. See also
NAGE, SEIU, AFL - CIO and National Guard Bureau Adjutant General,
26 FLRA  at 524-25 (1987) (Proposal 8).

     Proposal 21

     Proposal 21 is negotiable. The proposal would require the
Agency to make available to employees a private location where
employees may change into and out of the uniform. We find that
Proposal 21 does not interfere with the Agency's right to assign
work, but is principally related to matters affecting the working
conditions of employees. See, for example, American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 2477 and
Library of Congress, 7 FLRA  578, 588 (1982), enforced sub nom.
Library of Congress v. FLRA,  699 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
(proposal found negotiable which required the agency to provide
showers and locker facilities because it was principally related
to matters affecting working conditions).

     The Agency has made it a condition of employment that
employees wear a prescribed uniform while in a duty status.
Although the Agency states that it intends that employees will
wear their uniforms to and from work, it cannot require that
employees wear the uniform while they are in a nonduty status.
Appropriate facilities where unit employees may change into and
out of the uniform before the start and after the end of their tour of duty, therefore, concern those employees'
working conditions. A proposal to provide private facilities for
employees to change into and out of the uniform is principally
related to matters affecting working conditions--the prescribed
uniform requirement--and accommodates those employees who are
unable to, or who prefer not to, wear the prescribed uniform when
they are not on duty. Since the Agency has not shown how the
proposal interferes with the assignment of work and has not
demonstrated that the proposal is inconsistent with applicable
laws and regulations, we conclude that Proposal 21 is within the
duty to bargain.

V. Order

     The Agency must upon request, or as otherwise agreed to by
the parties, negotiate over Proposals 2h and 21. 3 The Union's
petition for review as to Proposals 1, 2e, 2f, 2i, 2j, 2k, 2r, 3,
4, and 5 is dismissed.

     Issued, Washington, D.C., January 25, 1988.

     Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

     Jean McKee, Member

     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

FOOTNOTES

     Footnote 1 The Union's motion for a hearing pursuant to
section 2424.9 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations is denied
because there is sufficient evidence in the record on which to
base a reasoned decision. See American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, National Council of VA Locals and Veterans
Administration, 29 FLRA  515 (1987).

     Footnote 2 Proposals 1 and 2 were submitted on January 13,
1987. Proposals 3, 4, and 5 were submitted as supplemental
proposals on April 27, 1987.

     Footnote 3 In finding these proposals to be within the duty
to bargain, we make no judgment as to their merits.