[ v15 p820 ]
15:0820(157)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
15 FLRA No. 157
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
UNION, CHAPTER 55
Union
and
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
COLUMBIA DISTRICT,
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
Agency
Case No. O-NG-604
DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
The petition for review in this case comes before the Authority
pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and raises issues
relating to the negotiability of six Union proposals. Upon careful
consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions,
the Authority makes the following determinations.
Union Proposal 1
Reassign the two Anderson Revenue Officers to the Greenville
POD. We feel that this is in the best interest of the Service,
since most of the workload is in the upper Anderson locality.
Union Proposal 2
Reassign the two Greenwood Revenue Officers to the Greenville
POD. We feel that the work in this area could be worked as
efficiently and productively out of Greenville as was possible
from the Greenwood location.
Union Proposal 3
Reassign the four Revenue Officers and one Revenue
Representative in Spartanburg to the Greenville Group. Leave the
employees physically located in the Spartanburg office. Since
most of the work is in the immediate Spartanburg area or in
Cherokee and Union counties, the additional manhours and travel
involved for these employees would seriously affect their morale
and decrease their productive work time.
Union Proposal 4
Retain the present Collection staffing in the Aiken office.
The closing of the Aiken office would have a disastrous impact on
the professionals and the public served by this office. Since
most of the work in this area is in lower Aiken and Edgefield
counties, the additional manhours and travel involved for the
Columbia POD personnel working this area would seriously affect
the morale of these employees and decrease their productive work
time.
This negotiability dispute arose out of a planned reorganization of
the Agency's Collection Division in its Columbia, South Carolina
District. Prior to the reorganization, there were five revenue officer
groups in that division. The planned reorganization was to result in
the consolidation of groups and reassignment of employees, which would
affect three of those groups.
Union Proposals 1-4 require the Agency to make employee assignments
to specify posts-of-duty (PODs). In this regard, the Agency contends
that the effect of these proposals is to prevent it from closing or
consolidating particular PODs, such as Aiken, Anderson, Greenwood, and
Spartanburg.
In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3805
and Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Boston District Office, 5 FLRA 693
(1981), the Authority determined that a proposal requiring the agency to
maintain certain official duty stations for incumbent employees and,
thus, preventing the agency from eliminating those duty stations
conflicted with the agency's right to determine its organization, that
is, with its right to determine where to establish and maintain official
duty stations, pursuant to section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute. In the
present case, in agreement with the Agency, the Authority finds that
Union Proposals 1-4 by requiring the Agency to assign particular
employees to specific PODs would have the effect of preventing it from
closing or consolidating certain PODs, as it has determined to do
pursuant to the Agency's reorganization plan. Thus, these proposals are
materially to the same effect as the proposal in Federal Home Loan Bank
Board, and for the reasons set forth in that decision, Union Proposals
1-4 herein must be found to be inconsistent with the Agency's right to
determine its organization under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute.
Therefore, these proposals are outside the duty to bargain.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review as to Union
Proposals 1, 2, 3 and 4 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Union Proposal 5
Announce the GS-5 OCR/Receptionist position for competitive
selection.
Union Proposal 6
Announce the Advisor Reviewer (GS-12) position for competitive
selection.
The Agency contends Proposals 5 and 6 are nonnegotiable /1/ because
they conflict with management's rights under section 7106(a)(2) of the
Statute. /2/ However, the Union states that these proposals are
negotiable because they do not require the Agency to fill the positions
in question through the competitive procedures, but merely require that
the Agency, prior to filling the position through whatever means it
chooses, first use the competitive procedure set forth in Article 7 of
the parties' contract. /3/ Thus, according to the Union, Proposals 5
and 6 are to the same effect as Proposal 2 in National Treasury
Employees Union and Internal Revenue Service, 7 FLRA 275 (1981), which
was found to establish a negotiable procedure pursuant to section
7106(b)(2) of the Statute. The language of the proposals is susceptible
to the Union's interpretation, which the Authority adopts for purposes
of its decision. Thus, contrary to the Agency's contentions, the
instant proposals would preserve the discretion inherent in management's
rights to assign employees, to assign work and to make selections under
section 7106(a)(2) of the Statute. Therefore, for the reasons set forth
in Internal Revenue Service, the Authority finds that Proposals 5 and 6
herein establish negotiable procedures and are within the duty to
bargain under section 7106(b)(2) of the Statute. /4/
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Agency shall upon request (or as
otherwise agreed to by the parties) bargain concerning Union Proposals 5
and 6. /5/
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 30, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ The Agency without contravention indicates that, although it
makes no difference as to its argument concerning negotiability, the
position in dispute as to Proposal 5 is a GS-5 lead clerk's position.
In this connection, whichever position the proposal actually concerns,
i.e., the receptionist or lead clerk, the Authority's determination with
respect to the negotiability of the proposal is based on whether it is
inconsistent with management rights under section 7106(a)(2), or whether
it establishes a negotiable procedure under section 7106(b)(2) of the
Statute.
/2/ Section 7106(a)(2) provides in relevant part:
Sec. 7106. Management rights
(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, nothing in this
chapter shall affect the authority of any management official of any
agency--
. . . .
(2) in accordance with applicable laws--
(A) to . . . assign . . . employees in the agency . . . ;
(B) to assign work . . . ;
(C) with respect to filling positions, to make selections for
appointments from--
(i) among properly ranked and certified candidates for
promotion; or
(ii) any other appropriate source(.)
/3/ Union Reply Brief at 2.
/4/ Section 7106(b)(2) provides:
Sec. 7106. Management rights
. . . .
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude any agency and any
labor organization from negotiating--
. . . .
(2) procedures which management officials of the agency will
observe in exercising any authority under this section(.)
/5/ In deciding that Union Proposals 5 and 6 are within the duty to
bargain, the Authority makes no judgment as to their merits.
Furthermore, the Authority decides only the negotiability issues
presented under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Statute. To the extent
that there are other factual issues in dispute between the parties
regarding the duty to bargain over these proposals in the specific
circumstances of this case, these issues may be raised in other
appropriate proceedings. See American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2736 and Department of the Air Force,
Headquarters, 379th Combat Support Group (SAC), Wurtsmith Air Force
Base, Michigan, 14 FLRA No. 55 (1984).