[ v03 p330 ]
03:0330(52)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
3 FLRA No. 52 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION (Union) and DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. (Activity) Case No. 0-NG-92 DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET SEG.) THE U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., ANNOUNCED PLANS TO IMPLEMENT GUIDELINES CONCERNING INSPECTIONAL OVERTIME. IN RESPONSE TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT, THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION (NTEU) SOUGHT TO NEGOTIATE ON THE SUBSTANCE, IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF THESE GUIDELINES, ASSERTING THAT THEY CHANGED PAST PRACTICES AND INSTITUTED SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS. THEREAFTER, THE NTEU SUBMITTED 54 PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF THE GUIDELINES. THE PARTIES MET AND BARGAINED OVER THE UNION'S PROPOSALS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. DURING THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS, THE ACTIVITY NOTIFIED THE UNION OF ITS REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ON SIX OF THE PROPOSALS, STATING THAT THEY BORE NO RELATION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE NTEU FILED AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTIVITY'S ACTION. /1/ IN ITS STATEMENT OF POSITION, THE UNION ALLEGES THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ANNOUNCED POLICIES WILL CHANGE ESTABLISHED WORKING CONDITIONS BY REVISING WORK SCHEDULES AND REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF OVERTIME AVAILABLE TO UNIT EMPLOYEES. THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE PROPOSALS ON WHICH THE ACTIVITY REFUSED TO BARGAIN ARE REASONABLY RELATED TO THE MATTER UNDER NEGOTIATION. FURTHER, IT URGES THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT A POLICY WHEREBY PROPOSALS THAT ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF A PROPOSED AGENCY ACTION AND ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH MANAGEMENT RIGHTS ARE FULLY NEGOTIABLE IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTEXT. IN ITS SUBMISSION TO THE AUTHORITY, THE ACTIVITY ASSERTS THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT PRESENT A PROPER NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE, BUT RATHER THAT THE SIX PROPOSALS BEAR NO RELATION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER UNDER NEGOTIATION AND THAT THE ACTIVITY, CONSEQUENTLY, HAS NO OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN ABOUT THEM. THE ACTIVITY ALSO ASSERTS THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSALS ADDRESSED MATTERS ALREADY GOVERNED BY EXISTING POLICIES AND REGULATIONS THAT ARE UNAFFECTED BY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ANNOUNCED GUIDELINES. FINALLY, THE ACTIVITY ARGUES THAT THE ISSUE PRESENTED TO THE AUTHORITY AS A NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL ACTUALLY INVOLVES A QUESTION CONCERNING THE OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN. IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, HEADQUARTERS, AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, 2 FLRA NO. 55, (1980), THE AUTHORITY DISMISSED A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A NEGOTIABILITY DETERMINATION ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE PRESENTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ISSUE. IN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION, THE AUTHORITY FOUND THAT THE APPEAL CONCERNED A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ON AN ALLEGED UNILATERAL CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS, RATHER THAN THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PROPOSALS THEMSELVES WERE NEGOTIABLE. THUS, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDED: (T)O THE EXTENT THAT THE CASE AROSE OUT OF AN ALLEGED UNILATERAL CHANGE COUPLED WITH A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN AND A DEFENSE, ESSENTIALLY, THAT NO CHANGE HAS OCCURRED, THE PROPER FORUM TO RAISE THESE ISSUES . . . WOULD BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECORD IN THE INSTANT CASE THAT THE ESSENCE OF THE PARTIES' ALLEGATIONS AND CONTENTIONS RELATES TO WHETHER A PAST PRACTICE HAS BEEN CHANGED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDELINES DETAILED IN A MANUAL SUPPLEMENT. THUS, THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE, AS IN KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, SUPRA, CONCERNS THE ACTIVITY'S OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN. THE PROPER FORUM IN WHICH TO RAISE THESE ISSUES WOULD BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE. IN THIS REGARD, RESOLUTION OF THE INSTANT DISPUTE IS DEPENDENT UPON THE RESOLUTION OF FACTUAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE PARTIES' CONDUCT. SUCH FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS CAN BE BEST ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH USE OF THE INVESTIGATORY AND HEARING PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN PART 2423 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, WHICH GOVERN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS (45 F.R. 3506). BASED ON THE FOREGOING, THE UNION'S APPEAL DOES NOT PRESENT ISSUES THAT THE AUTHORITY CAN APPROPRIATELY RESOLVE AT THIS TIME UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND PART 2424 OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE UNION'S RIGHT TO RESUBMIT TO THE AUTHORITY ANY NEGOTIABILITY DISPUTE WHICH REMAINS CONCERNING THE UNION'S PROPOSALS, AFTER RESORTING TO THE PROCEDURES DISCUSSED ABOVE. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 30, 1980 RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY /1/ THE UNION SUBSEQUENTLY FILED THREE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGES, TWO OF WHICH CONCERN THE ISSUE OF THE OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN OVER THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES. PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.5 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, PROCEEDINGS ON THESE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGES HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THIS DECISION.