[ v06 p508 ]
06:0508(97)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
6 FLRA No. 97
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Union
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Agency
Case No. O-NG-71
DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE
AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET
SEQ.). THE ISSUE PRESENTED IS THE NEGOTIABILITY OF SEVEN UNION
PROPOSALS.
UNION PROPOSAL I
ARTICLE 12, SECTION 10, TRAINING
EMPLOYEES IN THE GS-905 CLASSIFICATION WHO ARE, UNDER APPLICABLE
STATE LAW, REQUIRED TO
ATTEND CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COURSES IN ORDER TO BE LICENSED TO
PRACTICE LAW WITHIN THE
MEANING OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL 213, APPENDIX A, A-2(A), WILL BE
REIMBURSED FOR ALL COSTS
THUS INCURRED. THIS SHALL NOT APPLY TO EXPENSES ASSOCIATED ONLY WITH
MEMBERSHIP IN A STATE
BAR ASSOCIATION.
QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL I VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW AND IS
THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN AS SET FORTH IN SECTION
7117(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE, /1/ AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
OPINION
CONCLUSION AND ORDER: THE DUTY TO BARGAIN DOES NOT EXTEND TO UNION
PROPOSAL I UNDER SECTION 7117(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE TO THE EXTENT THAT
THE PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY, WITHOUT REGARD TO APPLICABLE
LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY 5 U.S.C.CHAPTER 41, TO REIMBURSE ITS ATTORNEYS
FOR ALL COSTS INCURRED IN ATTENDING CERTAIN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
COURSES. ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE
PORTION OF THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW RELATING TO UNION PROPOSAL I
BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
REASONS: THE PROPOSAL WOULD APPLY TO BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WHO
ARE ATTORNEYS SPECIALIZING IN THE FIELD OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXATION.
ADMISSION TO THE BAR IS A PRECONDITION OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT BY THE
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AS ATTORNEYS AND MAINTENANCE OF THEIR BAR
MEMBERSHIP IS NECESSARY FOR THEIR CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT IN SUCH
POSITIONS. SOME JURISDICTIONS REQUIRE ATTORNEYS TO PURSUE COURSES OF
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THEIR STATUS AS MEMBERS
OF THE BAR. THE COURSES OFFERED FOR THAT PURPOSE MAY OR MAY NOT RELATE
DIRECTLY TO THE WORK OF THE AGENCY'S ATTORNEY'S. UNION PROPOSAL I SEEKS
REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS INCURRED BY ATTORNEYS IN ATTENDING THESE
COURSES, WHEN REQUIRED TO DO SO IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO BE LICENSED TO
PRACTICE LAW.
CHAPTER 41 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, KNOWN AS THE "TRAINING
ACT," ESTABLISHES THE LEGAL BASIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES UNDERTAKING TRAINING PROGRAMS. SECTION 4109(A)(2) OF THE
TRAINING ACT AUTHORIZES AN AGENCY TO PAY, OR TO REIMBURSE AN EMPLOYEE,
FOR ALL OR PART OF THE EXPENSES OF TRAINING, INCLUDING "TUITION AND
MATRICULATION FEES." HOWEVER, SECTION 4101(4) DEFINES "TRAINING" FOR
PURPOSES OF THE ACT AS:
. . . THE PROCESS OF PROVIDING FOR AND MAKING AVAILABLE TO AN
EMPLOYEE, AND PLACING OR
ENROLLING THE EMPLOYEE IN, A PLANNED, PREPARED, AND COORDINATED
PROGRAM, COURSE, CURRICULUM,
SUBJECT, SYSTEM, OR ROUTINE OF INSTRUCTION OR EDUCATION, IN
SCIENTIFIC, PROFESSIONAL,
TECHNICAL, MECHANICAL, TRADE, CLERICAL, FISCAL, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR
OTHER FIELDS WHICH ARE OR
WILL BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PERFORMANCE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF
OFFICIAL DUTIES FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE KNOWLEDGE, PROFICIENCY, ABILITY,
SKILL, AND
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE EMPLOYEE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL
DUTIES(.)
THUS, UNDER THE TRAINING ACT, AN AGENCY IS LIMITED TO REIMBURSING AN
EMPLOYEE FOR THE EXPENSES OF TRAINING WHICH IS OR WILL BE "DIRECTLY
RELATED TO THE PERFORMANCE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES FOR THE
GOVERNMENT. . . . "
UNION PROPOSAL I, HOWEVER, DOES NOT, BY EXPRESS LANGUAGE OR INTENT,
INCORPORATE SUCH STATUTORY LIMITATION UPON REIMBURSEMENT. RATHER, THE
PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT FOR ANY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
COURSE ATTENDED AS REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO BE
LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE COURSE CONTENT IS OR
WILL BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE EMPLOYEE'S OFFICIAL DUTIES AS AN ESTATE
AND GIFT TAX ATTORNEY. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROPOSAL THUS FAILS TO
LIMIT REIMBURSEMENT IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAW, I.E., THE
TRAINING ACT.
FURTHER, SECTION 4106 OF THE TRAINING ACT CONTAINS LIMITATIONS ON THE
USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYEE TRAINING, E.G., THE NUMBER
OF MAN-YEARS OF TRAINING IN A FISCAL YEAR MAY NOT EXCEED ONE PERCENT OF
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS WORKED BY CIVILIANS IN AN AGENCY DURING
THE SAME FISCAL YEAR. UNION PROPOSAL I DOES NOT IN ANY MANNER
INCORPORATE THESE STATUTORY LIMITATIONS.
IN SUM, TO THE EXTENT THAT, AS DRAFTED, THE PROPOSAL WOULD CONFLICT
WITH THE STATUTORY LIMITATIONS DISCUSSED HEREIN, THE PROPOSAL IS
INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAW AND IS THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE AGENCY'S
DUTY TO BARGAIN AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 7117(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE. OF
COURSE, TO THE EXTENT THE PROPOSAL WERE REVISED TO REQUIRE ONLY PAYMENT
FOR TRAINING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE APPLICABLE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, IT
WOULD BE NEGOTIABLE.
UNION PROPOSAL II
ARTICLE 20, SECTION 10, ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
EMPLOYEES IN THE GS-905 CLASSIFICATION WHO ARE, UNDER APPLICABLE
STATE LAW, REQUIRED TO
ATTEND CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COURSES IN ORDER TO BE LICENSED TO
PRACTICE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL 213, APPENDIX A, A-2(A), WILL BE
GRANTED ADMINISTRATIVE
LEAVE TO ATTEND SAID COURSES. THE GRANTING OF ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
FOR REASONS OF ATTENDING
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COURSES SHOULD IN NO WAY BE DEPENDENT OR
CONTINGENT UPON A
DETERMINATION THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES COSTS OF ATTENDING
THESE COURSES CANNOT BE
MADE DUE TO LACK OF FUNDING OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON.
QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL II VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW AND IS
THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN AS SET FORTH IN SECTION
7117(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
OPINION
CONCLUSION AND ORDER: THE DUTY TO BARGAIN DOES NOT EXTEND TO UNION
PROPOSAL II UNDER SECTION 7117(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE TO THE EXTENT THAT
THE PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY, WITHOUT LIMITATION, AND IN
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, TO GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE TO ATTORNEYS IN
THE BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTENDING CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION COURSES, REGARDLESS OF THE CONTENT OF SUCH COURSES.
ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PORTION OF THE
UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW RELATING TO UNION PROPOSAL II BE, AND IT
HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
REASONS: UNION PROPOSAL II WOULD PERMIT ATTORNEYS IN THE BARGAINING
UNIT TO ATTEND, AS REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO BE
LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW, CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COURSES, DURING
DUTY HOURS WITHOUT LOSS OF PAY OR CHARGE TO LEAVE, I.E., ON
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.
THE TRAINING ACT AUTHORIZES AGENCY HEADS, IN SECTION 4109(A)(1), TO
"PAY ALL OR A PART OF THE PAY (EXCEPT OVERTIME, HOLIDAY, OR NIGHT
DIFFERENTIAL PAY) OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY SELECTED AND ASSIGNED FOR
TRAINING UNDER THIS CHAPTER, FOR THE PERIOD OF TRAINING(.)" AS HAS BEEN
NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSAL I, HOWEVER, "TRAINING," AS USED IN THE
TRAINING ACT, MUST BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE OFFICIAL DUTIES OF THE
EMPLOYEE UNDERTAKING THE COURSE OF STUDY. ALSO, AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED,
THE TRAINING ACT IMPOSES OTHER LIMITATIONS ON AGENCY EXPENDITURES FOR
TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES. SIMILAR TO UNION PROPOSAL I, THE INSTANT
PROPOSAL FAILS TO INCORPORATE IN ANY MANNER THE RELEVANT LIMITATIONS SET
FORTH IN THE TRAINING ACT. THEREFORE, UNION PROPOSAL II, TO THE EXTENT
THAT IT WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE LIMITATIONS OF THE TRAINING ACT, IS ALSO
NOT WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7117(A)(1) OF THE
STATUTE. IF IT WERE REVISED TO REFLECT THESE APPLICABLE LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS, PROPOSAL II, LIKEWISE, WOULD BE NEGOTIABLE.
UNION PROPOSAL III
ARTICLE 13, SECTION 3(B), POSITION CLASSIFICATION
WHENEVER AN EXISTING POSITION DESCRIPTION IS AMENDED THE EMPLOYER
WILL PROVIDE COPIES OF
THE AMENDED DESCRIPTION TO THE UNION, AND THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES AT
LEAST FOUR WEEKS IN
ADVANCE OF THE PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION.
QUESTIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
THE QUESTIONS ARE: (1) WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL III CONCERNS THE
AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) /2/ OF THE
STATUTE AND, IF SO, (2) WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT
SECTION, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY, OR WOULD ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE UNDER
SECTION 7106(B)(2), /3/ WHICH WOULD NOT PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM
ASSIGNING WORK.
OPINION
CONCLUSION AND ORDER: UNION PROPOSAL III CONCERNS A NEGOTIABLE
PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE WHICH THE AGENCY WILL
FOLLOW IN EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION
7106(A)(2)(B). ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED
THAT THE AGENCY SHALL UPON REQUEST (OR AS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE
PARTIES) BARGAIN CONCERNING UNION PROPOSAL III. /4/
REASONS: UNION PROPOSAL III WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO FURNISH THE
UNION AND CONCERNED EMPLOYEES WITH COPIES OF AMENDED POSITION
DESCRIPTIONS FOUR WEEKS PRIOR TO THEIR IMPLEMENTATION. THE AGENCY
CONTENDS THAT THE PROPOSAL, BY IMPOSING THE FOUR WEEK WAITING PERIOD,
EFFECTIVELY NEGATES ITS RESERVED RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK. HOWEVER, THE
PROPOSAL MERELY ADDRESSES A NOTICE PROCEDURE PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF REVISED POSITION DESCRIPTIONS. IT MAKES NO REFERENCE TO, AND IMPOSES
NO RESTRICTION ON, THE ASSIGNMENT OF WORK TO EMPLOYEES ON THE JOB DURING
THE INTERIM PERIOD BETWEEN NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE POSITION
DESCRIPTION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION.
THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF OFFICIAL POSITION DESCRIPTIONS WERE
PREVIOUSLY EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITY IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1999 AND ARMY-AIR FORCE EXCHANGE
SERVICE, DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE, FORT DIX, NEW JERSEY, 2 FLRA NO.
16(1979), AT 8 OF THE DECISION. IN THAT CASE, REFERRING TO PORTIONS OF
THE CHAPTERS 312 AND 511 OF THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL, IT WAS
OBSERVED THAT:
UNDER FEDERAL PERSONNEL REGULATIONS, A POSITION DESCRIPTION IS A
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ASSIGNED TO A POSITION. IT IS THE
OFFICIAL RECORD OF, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, THE WORK THAT IS TO BE PERFORMED BY THE INCUMBENT OF THE
POSITION, THE LEVEL OF
SUPERVISION REQUIRED, AND THE QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED TO PERFORM THE
WORK. FROM THE STANDPOINT
OF THE EMPLOYEE, THE POSITION DESCRIPTION DEFINES THE KINDS AND THE
RANGE OF DUTIES HE OR SHE
MAY EXPECT TO PERFORM DURING THE TIME HE OR SHE REMAINS IN THE
POSITION. IN THE ACTUAL JOB
SITUATION, HOWEVER, AN EMPLOYEE MIGHT NEVER BE ASSIGNED THE FULL
RANGE OF WORK COMPRISED
WITHIN THE POSITION DESCRIPTION. THAT IS, THE POSITION DESCRIPTION
MERELY DESCRIBES WORK
WHICH IT IS EXPECTED WOULD BE ASSIGNED, BUT IS NOT ITSELF AN
ASSIGNMENT OF WORK.
CONSIDERED IN THIS LIGHT, AND WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE FACT
THAT " . . . THE POSITION DESCRIPTION MERELY DESCRIBES WORK WHICH IT IS
EXPECTED WOULD BE ASSIGNED, BUT IS NOT ITSELF AN ASSIGNMENT OF WORK,"
UNION PROPOSAL III CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS MANDATING HOW OR WHEN WORK
WILL BE ASSIGNED TO AGENCY EMPLOYEES IN THE ACTUAL JOB SITUATION.
RATHER, THE PROPOSAL MERELY WOULD ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE THE AGENCY WILL
FOLLOW IN AMENDING POSITION DESCRIPTIONS, A MATTER APPROPRIATE FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE.
UNION PROPOSAL IV
ARTICLE 29, SECTION 5, INVOLUNTARY REASSIGNMENTS
WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO REASSIGN EMPLOYEES DUE TO A STAFFING
IMBALANCE, THE EMPLOYER WILL
FIRST ASK FOR VOLUNTEERS FROM AMONG THE QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES AT THE
AFFECTED POST OF DUTY. IF
THERE ARE TOO MANY VOLUNTEERS, THE EMPLOYEES WITH THE GREATEST IRS
SERVICE COMPUTATION DATE
SHALL BE GIVEN THE REASSIGNMENT. IF THERE ARE TOO FEW VOLUNTEERS,
THE EMPLOYEES WITH THE
LEAST IRS SERVICE COMPUTATION DATE SHALL BE GIVEN THE REASSIGNMENT.
QUESTIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
THE QUESTIONS ARE: (1) WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL IV IS OUTSIDE THE
BARGAINING OBLIGATION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ADDRESS A PERSONNEL POLICY,
PRACTICE, OR MATTER AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS; OR (2) WHETHER IT
CONCERNS THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) TO ASSIGN
EMPLOYEES /5/ AND UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE TO ASSIGN
WORK /6/ AND, IF SO, (3) WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
AUTHORITY OF THE AGENCY UNDER THOSE PROVISIONS, AS THE AGENCY ALLEGES,
OR WOULD ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) WHICH WOULD NOT
PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY.
OPINION
CONCLUSION AND ORDER: UNION PROPOSAL IV DOES ADDRESS A MATTER
AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT. THE
PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONCERN THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES
UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OR TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION
7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE AND, THEREFORE, IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN. /7/ ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED
THAT THE AGENCY SHALL UPON REQUEST (OR AS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE
PARTIES) BARGAIN CONCERNING UNION PROPOSAL IV. /8/
REASONS: THE AGENCY ALLEGES THAT UNION PROPOSAL IV IS NONNEGOTIABLE
ON TWO GROUNDS. FIRST, IT CONTENDS THAT " . . . THE DETERMINATION OF
WHETHER A STAFFING IMBALANCE EXISTS IS OUTSIDE THE OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN
SINCE THE DETERMINATION IS NOT A PERSONNEL POLICY, PRACTICE OR MATTER
AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS." SECOND, IT ASSERTS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS
INCONSISTENT WITH RIGHTS OF THE AGENCY, SPECIFICALLY TO ASSIGN WORK AND
TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES.
WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST CONTENTION, THE AGENCY HAS MISCONSTRUED THE
INTENT OF THE UNION PROPOSAL. THE PROPOSAL, ON ITS FACE, DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT A DETERMINATION THAT A STAFFING IMBALANCE EXISTS BE SUBJECT
TO NEGOTIATION. RATHER, THE PROPOSAL BECOMES OPERATIVE "(W)HEN IT IS
NECESSARY TO REASSIGN EMPLOYEES DUE TO A STAFFING IMBALANCE(.)"
MOREOVER, THE UNION STATES IN ITS RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT OF
POSITION:
. . . THE UNION HAS NOT PROPOSED THAT IT BE INVOLVED IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE WORKLOAD IS
NO GREATER OR INSUFFICIENT AT ANY POST OF DUTY. AGAIN, IN ORDER FOR
THE UNION TO BECOME
INVOLVED, THE (AGENCY) MUST MAKE THE DECISION TO REASSIGN AND THAT
DECISION MUST BE BASED ON
THE (AGENCY) DETERMINATION THAT SPECIFIC FACTORS RESULTING IN A
STAFFING IMBALANCE DO EXIST.
THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSAL ITSELF.
CONSEQUENTLY, THE STATEMENT IS ADOPTED FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DECISION.
THE PROVISIONS OF PROPOSAL IV, THEN, ONLY APPLY AFTER THE AGENCY HAS
DECIDED TO READJUST STAFFING LEVELS TO MEET CURRENT WORKLOADS. THUS,
THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE PROPOSAL, BY SEEKING TO INJECT THE
UNION INTO THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING AND ACTING ON STAFFING IMBALANCES,
FAILS TO ADDRESS A MATTER AFFECTING EMPLOYEE WORKING CONDITIONS, CANNOT
BE SUSTAINED.
THE AGENCY'S ASSERTION THAT UNION PROPOSAL IV IS INCONSISTENT WITH
ITS AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK IS LIKEWISE BASED ON A MISINTERPRETATION OF
THE PROPOSAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE UNION STATES THAT, UNDER ITS
PROPOSAL, "THE UNION NEVER BECOMES INVOLVED IN DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF
WORK OF AN OFFICE OR AN EMPLOYEE." THE UNION ALSO INDICATES THAT IT IS
IN ACCORD WITH THE AGENCY'S VIEW OF ITS AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK: "THE
UNION FURTHER AGREES WITH (THE AGENCY) THAT, "'THE DETERMINATION OF
WHETHER THE WORKLOAD AND THE WORKFORCE ARE IN PROPORTION, IS A
UNILATERAL MANAGEMENT DETERMINATION, WHICH MANAGEMENT MAKES BY DECIDING
HOW MUCH WORK TO ASSIGN TO PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES.'" NOTHING IN THE
PROPOSAL ITSELF CONTRADICTS THESE STATEMENTS, WHICH ARE ALSO ADOPTED FOR
PURPOSES OF THE DECISION HEREIN. THUS, IT IS CLEAR FROM BOTH THE
PROPOSAL AND THE CITED STATEMENTS THAT THE UNION DOES NOT INTEND TO USE
PROPOSAL IV AS A VEHICLE TO BECOME INVOLVED IN DETERMINING WHERE WORK
WILL BE ASSIGNED WITHIN THE AGENCY, NOR MAY THE PROPOSAL BE USED AS A
BASIS FOR CHALLENGING SUCH DETERMINATIONS. RATHER, AS NOTED ABOVE,
UNION PROPOSAL IV ONLY APPLIES AFTER THE AGENCY DETERMINES THAT STAFFING
LEVELS AT VARIOUS POSTS OF DUTY DO NOT COMPORT WITH THE WORKLOADS
ASSIGNED AT THOSE LOCATIONS. HENCE, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE
PROPOSAL DOES NOT, IN ANY MANNER, ADDRESS THE AGENCY'S RESERVED
AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK.
UNION PROPOSAL IV, LIKEWISE, DOES NOT INVOLVE THE ASSIGNMENT OF
EMPLOYEES TO POSITIONS IN THE AGENCY. IN THIS REGARD, THE UNION STATES:
NOR DOES THE UNION SEEK ANY PART IN THE INITIAL DECISION TO REASSIGN.
RATHER, THE UNION
SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A FAIR AND EQUITABLE PROCEDURE FOR REASSIGNMENT
WHEN MANAGEMENT DETERMINES
TO TRANSFER AN EMPLOYEE TO ANOTHER POST OF DUTY (BECAUSE OF A
STAFFING
IMBALANCE). REASSIGNMENT DUE TO A STAFFING IMBALANCE OCCURS WHEN
THERE ARE TOO MANY OR TWO
FEW EQUALLY QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO PERFORM THE SAME TYPE OF WORK. THIS
MEANS THAT ANY EMPLOYEE
COULD BE TRANSPLANTED AND BE EXPECTED TO PERFORM IN A SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR MANNER.
AGAIN, THE UNION'S EXPLANATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSAL ITSELF
AND IS ADOPTED FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DECISION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
ADDRESSED BY THE PROPOSAL, THE AGENCY WILL ALREADY HAVE DECIDED WHERE
ITS WORK IS TO BE ASSIGNED AND ALSO WILL HAVE DETERMINED THAT IT IS
NECESSARY TO READJUST STAFFING LEVELS, AMONG VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONAL
ELEMENTS, TO MEET WORKLOAD REQUIREMENTS. THUS, AS POINTED OUT BY THE
UNION, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT INHIBIT MANAGEMENT IN DETERMINING THAT
WORKLOAD CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRE EMPLOYEE REASSIGNMENTS NOR DOES IT
CONCERN THE NUMBERS OR TYPES OF EMPLOYEES WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY SUCH A
DECISION. THESE DECISIONS PLAINLY REMAIN WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF
MANAGEMENT.
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF UNION PROPOSAL IV, AS STATED IN THE PROPOSAL
ITSELF AND IN THE UNION'S EXPLANATION THEREOF, INVOLVES THE REASSIGNMENT
OF "QUALIFIED" EMPLOYEES FROM ONE POST OF DUTY TO ANOTHER TO PERFORM THE
SAME DUTIES AS WERE ASSIGNED AT THE PREVIOUS LOCATION. AS THE UNION
POINTS OUT, AN EMPLOYEE, TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE OPERATION OF THIS
PROPOSAL, " . . . COULD BE TRANSPLANTED AND BE EXPECTED TO PERFORM IN A
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR MANNER." THUS, UNDER THE PROPOSAL, SELECTION FOR
REASSIGNMENTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED WOULD BE FROM AMONG
EMPLOYEES ALREADY CHOSEN BY THE AGENCY TO PERFORM DUTIES SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR TO THOSE REQUIRED IN THE NEW ASSIGNMENTS. THE ONLY CHANGE, IN
INSTANCES WHERE PROPOSAL IV IS APPLICABLE, WOULD BE IN THE POST OF DUTY
AT WHICH THE WORK IS PERFORMED. THE PROPOSAL, THEN, WOULD APPLY TO
SITUATIONS NOT INVOLVING BASIC CHANGES IN DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES OR
RELATIVE LOCATION WITHIN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE. IN THIS RESPECT,
UNION PROPOSAL IV BEARS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE FROM THE UNION PROVISION
WHICH WAS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR
FORCE BASE, OHIO, 5 FLRA NO. 15(1981). IN THAT CASE THE PROPOSAL FOUND
TO BE 'WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN INVOLVED TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENTS.
THE AUTHORITY NOTED THAT SELECTION FOR SUCH ASSIGNMENTS, AS HERE, "WOULD
BE FROM AMONG EMPLOYEES ALREADY PERFORMING THE SAME DUTIES AND WOULD
NOT
IN ANY WAY CHANGE THOSE DUTIES. THE ONLY CHANGE WHICH WOULD RESULT
WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE IN WHERE THE EMPLOYEE WOULD PERFORM THOSE DUTIES."
THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS FULLY SET FORTH IN THE WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR
FORCE BASE, OHIO CASE, UNION PROPOSAL IV DOES NOT CONCERN THE AUTHORITY
OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE
STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY, UNION PROPOSAL IV IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN
UNDER THE STATUTE.
UNION PROPOSAL V
ARTICLE 11, SECTION 1, ASSIGNMENT OF WORK
THE EMPLOYER WILL RETAIN SELECTED CASES OF AN INDIVIDUAL REVENUE
OFFICER, REVENUE AGENT OR
TAX AUDITOR'S CASELOAD WHEN THE CASELOAD IS UNMANAGEABLE. THE
PARTIES RECOGNIZE THAT THE
NUMBER OF CASES EACH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE CAN MANAGE IS DEPENDENT ON
MANY FACTORS WHICH ARE
UNIQUE TO EACH AFFECTED EMPLOYEE.
QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL V IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
AUTHORITY OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF
THE STATUTE, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
OPINION
CONCLUSION AND ORDER: UNION PROPOSAL V IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
AGENCY'S RESERVED AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B)
OF THE STATUTE AND, THEREFORE, THE DUTY TO BARGAIN DOES NOT EXTEND TO
THIS MATTER. ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED
THAT THE PORTION OF THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW RELATING TO UNION
PROPOSAL V BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
REASONS: UNION PROPOSAL V WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO RETAIN
"SELECTED CASE," THAT IS, TO REFRAIN FROM ASSIGNING SUCH CASES TO THE
LISTED AGENCY EMPLOYEES "WHEN THE CASELOAD IS UNMANAGEABLE"-- A
SITUATION NOT FURTHER DEFINED IN THE PROPOSAL. THUS, THE PROPOSAL
IMPOSES A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF CASES TO CERTAIN
AGENCY EMPLOYEES: THE EMPLOYEES MUST HAVE "MANAGEABLE" CASELOADS.
UNDER UNION PROPOSAL V THE AGENCY WOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM ASSIGNING
CASES TO THE DESIGNATED BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES IF THEIR CASELOADS
WERE "UNMANAGEABLE." THE PROHIBITION WOULD APPLY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
AGENCY'S IMMEDIATE NEEDS OR OF STATUTORY OR REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.
THUS, THE PROPOSAL CONSTITUTES AN INFRINGEMENT UPON THE AGENCY'S
AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK IN THAT, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD
PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM MAKING CASE ASSIGNMENTS TO EMPLOYEES; IN VIEW
OF THIS INFRINGEMENT ON THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN WORK, UNION
PROPOSAL V IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.
UNION PROPOSAL VI
ARTICLE 14, SECTION 3, FACILITIES AND SERVICES
THE EMPLOYER AGREES TO PERMIT THE UNION TO DISTRIBUTE TO EACH
BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEE
ANNUALLY, DURING A PAY PERIOD SELECTED BY A CHAPTER, THE APPLICABLE
CHAPTER ANNOUNCEMENT CARD
REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 24, SECTION 3. DISTRIBUTION WILL BE MADE
WITHOUT CHARGE TO LEAVE OF
THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE.
QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL VI, PROVIDING FOR DISTRIBUTION
OF CHAPTER ANNOUNCEMENT CARDS BY A UNION REPRESENTATIVE ON OFFICIAL
TIME, VIOLATES SECTION 7131(B) OF THE STATUTE, /9/ AS ALLEGED BY THE
AGENCY.
OPINION
CONCLUSION AND ORDER: UNION PROPOSAL VI DOES NOT VIOLATE SECTION
7131(B) OF THE STATUTE AND THEREFORE IS WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO
BARGAIN AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 7117(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5
CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE AGENCY SHALL UPON REQUEST (OR
AS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES) BARGAIN CONCERNING UNION PROPOSAL
VI. /10/
REASONS: THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF SECTION 7131(B) WERE CLOSELY
EXAMINED IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL
2823 AND VETERANS ADMINISTRATION REGIONAL OFFICE, CLEVELAND, OHIO, 2
FLRA NO. 1(1979). BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE LANGUAGE OF THAT SECTION AND
OF ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT, " . . . IT IS CLEAR
THAT THE ACTIVITIES CITED IN THE STATUTE, I.E., SOLICITATION OF
MEMBERSHIP, COLLECTION OF DUES, AND ELECTION OF UNION OFFICIALS, WERE
INCLUDED AS EXAMPLES (OF ACTIVITIES TO BE CARRIED OUT DURING NON-DUTY
TIME) BECAUSE THE ONLY FUNCTION OF SUCH ACTIVITIES IS THE MAINTENANCE OF
THE UNION AS AN ORGANIZATION, I.E., THEY ARE RELATED SOLELY TO THE
INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE UNION."
TURNING TO THE INSTANT PROPOSAL, THE CARD ITSELF, SELF-ADDRESSED AND
POSTAGE PAID, WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE APPARENTLY ALREADY NEGOTIATED
WITHOUT DISPUTE, WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES,
NOTIFYING THEM OF THE CHAPTER NUMBER, THAT THE CHAPTER IS THE EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE UNIT, AND THAT THE CHAPTER IS A COMPONENT OF THE
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION. IT INVITES EMPLOYEES TO FURNISH THE
UNION WITH CERTAIN INFORMATION "(S)O THAT (THE UNION) MAY PROVIDE
MAXIMUM SERVICE TO EMPLOYEES(.)" THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IS THE
EMPLOYEE'S NAME, ADDRESS, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER,
NAME OF SPOUSE, ORGANIZATIONAL LOCATION WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT,
WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE IS A MEMBER OF THE UNION AND, IF SO, WHETHER DUES
ARE PAID BY PAYROLL DEDUCTION, AND WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE HAS UNION
INSURANCE.
IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE CARD IS NOT AN OVERT PLEA FOR
MEMBERSHIP AND THAT DISTRIBUTION OF THE CARDS WOULD SERVE THE FUNCTION
OF ADVISING OR REMINDING MEMBERS OF THE BARGAINING UNIT THAT THE UNION
IS THEIR EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE. BY ADVISING EMPLOYEES OF THE UNION'S
STATUS AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRIBUTING THE CHAPTER
ANNOUNCEMENT CARDS AIDS IN IMPLEMENTING THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONSHIP AND IS NOT SOLELY RELATED TO THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF
THE UNION. HENCE, DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH CARDS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
INTERNAL BUSINESS OF THE UNION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7131(B) OF
THE STATUTE AND, THEREFORE, UNION PROPOSAL VI IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN.
UNION PROPOSAL VII
ARTICLE . . . , SECTION 6, TELEPHONE MONITORING
A. EACH EMPLOYEE WILL BE INFORMED, AS PART OF HIS/HER TRAINING, THAT
THE MONITORING IS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF HELPING THEM TO PERFORM QUALITY WORK AND THAT THE
INFORMATION WILL BE USED FOR
TRAINING, NOT EVALUATION.
B. THE SERVICE CENTER QUALITY REVIEW MONITOR WILL PREPARE A SUMMARY
OF THE REVIEW RESULTS
ONCE A MONTH FOR TRAINING PURPOSES.
QUESTION BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL VII IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
AUTHORITY OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF
THE STATUTE AND THEREFORE, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY, IS NOT WITHIN THE
DUTY TO BARGAIN.
OPINION
CONCLUSION AND ORDER: UNION PROPOSAL VII IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
AUTHORITY OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF
THE STATUTE AND THEREFORE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN DOES NOT EXTEND TO THIS
MATTER. ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE
PORTION OF THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW RELATING TO UNION PROPOSAL
VII BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
REASONS: IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, 2
FLRA NO. 77(1980), THE AUTHORITY DETERMINED THAT DISPUTED PROPOSAL XI,
WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COUNSELING DUTIES TO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES
SELECTED BY THE UNION, TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER AGENCY EMPLOYEES,
VIOLATED SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE AND WAS NOT WITHIN THE
DUTY TO BARGAIN. IN SO CONCLUDING, THE AUTHORITY STATED: " . . . SINCE
THE DISPUTED PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY PRESCRIBES THE ASSIGNMENT
OF CERTAIN DUTIES TO PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES, AND, IN EFFECT, PRECLUDES THE
ASSIGNMENT OF THOSE DUTIES TO OTHER EMPLOYEES, IT CONFLICTS WITH SECTION
7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE."
TURNING TO THE PRESENT DISPUTED PROPOSAL, IT WOULD SIMILARLY OBLIGATE
THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN CERTAIN SPECIFIED DUTIES, I.E., PREPARATION OF
SUMMARIES OF TELEPHONE MONITORING REVIEW RESULTS ONCE EACH MONTH FOR
TRAINING PURPOSES, TO BE DESIGNATED AGENCY EMPLOYEE, I.E., THE SERVICE
CENTER QUALITY REVIEW MONITOR. THEREFORE, BASED ON THE REASONS SET
FORTH IN DETAIL IN THE AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR
FORCE BASE CASE, UNION PROPOSAL VII MUST ALSO BE HELD TO BE OUTSIDE THE
DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE. THAT IS, TO THE EXTENT THE PROPOSAL
WOULD REQUIRE THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE WORK OF PREPARING THE SUMMARY OF
REVIEW RESULTS TO A SPECIFIED AGENCY EMPLOYEE AND, IMPLICITLY, WOULD
PRECLUDE THE ASSIGNMENT OF THOSE DUTIES TO OTHER EMPLOYEES, IT IS
NONNEGOTIABLE.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 4, 1981
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
/1/ SECTION 7117(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
SEC. 7117. DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; COMPELLING NEED; DUTY TO
CONSULT
(A)(1) SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH SHALL, TO THE EXTENT NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ANY
FEDERAL LAW OR ANY GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR REGULATION, EXTEND TO MATTERS
WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF ANY RULE OR REGULATION ONLY IF THE RULE OR
REGULATION IS NOT A GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR REGULATION.
/2/ SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT 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--
. . . .
(B) TO ASSIGN WORK. . . (.)
/3/ 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(.)
/4/ IN SO DECIDING THAT UNION PROPOSAL III IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE
PROPOSAL.
/5/ SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT 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 HIRE, ASSIGN, DIRECT, LAYOFF, AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE
AGENCY(.)
/6/ NOTE 2, SUPRA.
/7/ IN VIEW OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL
DOES NOT CONCERN THE RIGHTS OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT UNDER SECTION
7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B), IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE UNION'S
CONTENTIONS AS TO PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF THOSE RIGHTS
UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2).
/8/ IN SO DECIDING THAT UNION PROPOSAL IV IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE
PROPOSAL.
/9/ SECTION 7131(B) PROVIDES:
SEC. 7131. OFFICIAL TIME
. . . .
(B) ANY ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY ANY EMPLOYEE RELATING TO THE INTERNAL
BUSINESS OF A LABOR
ORGANIZATION (INCLUDING THE SOLICITATION OF MEMBERSHIP, ELECTIONS OF
LABOR ORGANIZATION
OFFICIALS, AND COLLECTION OF DUES) SHALL BE PERFORMED DURING THE TIME
THE EMPLOYEE IS IN A
NON-DUTY STATUS.
/10/ IN SO DECIDING THAT UNION PROPOSAL VI IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE
PROPOSAL.