AFGE Local 2272 (Union) and Department of Justice, U.S. Marshals Service, District of Columbia (Activity) (Authority decision, March 14, 1980)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denied this negotiability appeal without prejudice because a contract interpretation question had to be resolved first. The order does not decide whether the union's proposals are negotiable. Judicial review of final Authority orders is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 2272 proposed terms for a local agreement with the U.S. Marshals Service in Washington, D.C. The Service said five proposals conflicted with its nationwide master agreement, while the union disagreed about what that agreement allowed. The Authority held that the parties first had to resolve the meaning of the master agreement through their own applicable procedures. It denied the negotiability appeal without prejudice to a later petition if the contract question was resolved in the union's favor. It made no ruling on the proposals' statutory negotiability.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117.
• Outcome: Appeal denied without prejudice pending resolution of the master agreement dispute.
• Key point: Contract interpretation had to come before statutory negotiability review.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v02 p909 ]

02:0909(113)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

2 FLRA No. 113

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2272
(Union)

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. MARSHALS
SERVICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
(Activity)

Case No. 0-NG-101

DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL

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 (5 U.S.C. SEC. 7101 ET SEQ.).

THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2272
(THE UNION) IS ONE OF THE LOCAL UNIONS COMPRISING THE INTERNATIONAL
COUNCIL OF UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO (THE COUNCIL). IN 1976, THE COUNCIL
NEGOTIATED WITH THE U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE (THE AGENCY), OF WHICH THE
ACTIVITY IS A COMPONENT, A MASTER AGREEMENT COVERING A UNIT OF ALL
ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE NATIONWIDE. THE MASTER
AGREEMENT, WHICH IS STILL IN EFFECT ON AN EXTENSION BASIS, PROVIDES FOR
NEGOTIATING LOCAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS "SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
(THE) NATIONAL AGREEMENT . . . "

DURING THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS FOR A LOCAL SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE ACTIVITY, THE UNION SUBMITTED FIVE PROPOSALS
TO THE ACTIVITY CONCERNING CERTAIN SUBJECTS CONTAINED IN THE MASTER
AGREEMENT. /1/ IN RESPONSE, THE ACTIVITY DECLARED SUCH PROPOSALS
"NONNEGOTIABLE SINCE THEY ARE ALL COVERED IN THE NEGOTIATED MASTER
AGREEMENT." THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
(AFGE), ON BEHALF OF THE UNION, THEN FILED THE INSTANT NEGOTIABILITY
APPEAL WITH THE AUTHORITY. IN ITS STATEMENT OF POSITION, THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, ON BEHALF OF THE ACTIVITY, CONTENDS ESSENTIALLY THAT SUCH
PROPOSALS "WOULD ESTABLISH A POLICY OR PRACTICE WHICH WOULD BE
INCONSISTENT WITH, AND THEREFORE NOT AUTHORIZED BY, THE TERMS OF THE
CONTROLLING MASTER AGREEMENT . . . " IN RESPONSE, AFGE STATES, IN PART,
THAT " . . . WE DO NOT BELIEVE OUR PROPOSALS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
MASTER AGREEMENT, (AND) THEREFORE THEY ARE NEGOTIABLE AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL." FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH BELOW, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT
THE INSTANT DISPUTE IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION.

AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE PARTIES ARE ESSENTIALLY IN DISPUTE CONCERNING
THE THRESHOLD QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE MASTER AGREEMENT, NEGOTIATED AT
THE NATIONAL LEVEL, AUTHORIZES BARGAINING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL ON CERTAIN
MATTERS CONTAINED THEREIN. IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1661 AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF
PRISONS, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, DANBURY, CONNECTICUT, CASE
NO. O-NG-43, 2 FLRA NO. 56 (JAN. 9, 1980), REPORT NO. , THE AUTHORITY
DECIDED, WITH RESPECT TO A QUESTION SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT
PRESENTED HERE, THAT THE PROPER FORUM IN WHICH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES OVER
THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE MASTER AGREEMENT WOULD BE
THAT WHICH THE PARTIES THEMSELVES HAVE ADOPTED FOR SUCH PURPOSE. FOR
THE REASONS FULLY SET FORTH IN THAT DECISION, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT
THE INSTANT PETITION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR RESOLUTION UNDER THE
PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND PART 2424 OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.

ACCORDINGLY, AND APART FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, THE UNION'S APPEAL
IS HEREBY DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RENEWAL OF ITS CONTENTION
THAT THE MATTERS IN DISPUTE ARE NEGOTIABLE UNDER THE STATUTE IN A
PETITION DULY FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY AFTER IT IS RESOLVED, UNDER
APPLICABLE PROCEDURES, THAT BARGAINING ON SUCH MATTERS IS NOT PRECLUDED
BY THE CONTROLLING AGREEMENT.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 14, 1980

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

/1/ THE UNION ALSO SUBMITTED A SIXTH PROPOSAL INVOLVING, ESSENTIALLY,
THE DISTRIBUTION OF DOOR KEYS TO DEPUTY MARSHALS. ON JANUARY 7, 1980,
SUCH PROPOSAL WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AND IS THEREFORE
NOT BEFORE THE AUTHORITY FOR CONSIDERATION.