NAGE Local R14-32 and Fort Leonard Wood (Authority decision, October 15, 1985)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order dismissing a negotiability petition. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). Filing a petition does not stay the Authority's order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

NAGE Local R14-32 proposed reimbursing employees for additional expenses caused by schedule changes at Fort Leonard Wood. The union described the proposal as addressing day care, but the text did not say that or identify the expenses to be reimbursed. The Authority found it could not determine whether payment of an unspecified expense was permitted by law. It dismissed the negotiability petition because the proposal lacked enough detail for review.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability petition requirements under 5 U.S.C. § 7117(c).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed for insufficiently specific proposal language.
• Key point: A proposal seeking reimbursement must identify the expenses to permit a negotiability decision.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v20 p501 ]

20:0501(57)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

20 FLRA No. 57

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL R14-32
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, HQ, U.S. ARMY
TRAINING CENTER ENGINEERING AND FORT
LEONARD WOOD, FORT LEONARD WOOD, MISSOURI
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1128

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

The petition for review in 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), and presents an issue concerning the negotiability of one Union proposal. Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination.

Union Proposal

Any employee who incurs additional expenses because of the change in schedule will be reimbursed for those expenses. Employees will be surveyed to determine what additional expenses will be incurred. Reimbursement may be claimed on a form to be devised by the employer. Disputes over the right to reimbursement will be referred to the negotiated grievance and arbitration procedure.

The Union contends that this proposal is intended to require the Agency to provide day care facilities for employees affected by a change in work schedules. Thus, the Union concludes that the proposal is negotiable under Authority precedent. /1/ However, since there is nothing in the express language of this proposal which relates to day care the Union's contention cannot be sustained. /2/

Moreover, the express language of the Union's proposal does not in any manner specify the particular "additional expenses" for which employees would be entitled to reimbursement from the Agency. In this respect, it is well established that a petition for review of a negotiability issue which does not present a proposal sufficiently specific and delimited in form and content as to permit the Authority to render a negotiability decision thereon does not meet the conditions for review set forth in section 7117(c) of the Statute and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. See Maritime/Metal Trades Council and Panama Canal Commission, 18 FLRA No. 43(1985) and Fort Bragg Unit of North Carolina Association of Educators, National Education Association and For Bragg Dependents Schools, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 12 FLRA 519(1983). Therefore, since the proposal herein refers only to "additional expenses," it lacks sufficient specificity to enable the Authority to reach a reasoned decision as to whether reimbursement for a particular expense is permitted /3/ or prohibited by law. /4/

Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and it hereby is, dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C., October 15, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

/1/ See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 32 and Office of Personnel Management, Washington, D.C., 6 FLRA 423(1981), aff'd mem. 706 F.2d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

/2/ The Authority has consistently held that it will not base a negotiability determination on a union's statement of intent which is inconsistent with the express language of the disputed proposal. E.g., American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2761 and U.S. Army Adjutant General Publications Center, St. Louis, Missouri, 17 FLRA No. 118(1985) at 5 n. 7 of the decision.

/3/ See 5 U.S.C. 5536(1982) which expressly provides that a Federal employee may not receive any additional pay or allowances "unless specifically authorized by law."

/4/ In this connection, the Authority has consistently determined that proposals requiring reimbursement for commuting expenses are inconsistent with Federal law. National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 9 FLRA 726(1982) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 236 and General Services Administration, 9 FLRA 825(1982) (Union Proposal 3).