Association of Civilian Technicians and Massachusetts Adjutant General (Authority decision, July 9, 1986)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 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

The union proposed that civilian technicians perform no integrated combat turns, involving simultaneous aircraft fueling, weapons loading, and maintenance. It described the proposal as a safety procedure. The Authority found that the proposal would prohibit assignment of that work and thus interfere directly with management’s statutory right to assign work. It dismissed the negotiability petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(B).
• Outcome: Proposal nonnegotiable; union petition dismissed.
• Key point: A complete ban on an assigned duty is not a negotiable procedure.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v22 p397 ]

22:0397(39)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

22 FLRA No. 39

ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN
TECHNICIANS
Union

and

THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF
MASSACHUSETTS
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1169

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability appeal filed under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and presents an issue concerning the negotiability of a single Union proposal. /*/

II. Union Proposal

Integrated Combat Turns (ICT)

No technician will perform ICTs while in a technician status.

III. Positions of the Parties

The Agency contends that the proposal interferes with its management rights under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute to assign employees and work because the proposal would restrict the Agency in making new assignments and would forbid the Agency from assigning duties to a military technician. In response, the Union asserts that the proposal concerns a safety issue, i.e., the fueling, loading of bombs and maintenance of aircraft being simultaneously performed. According to the Union, previously this function, which is an integrated combat turn, was a military requirement performed in military status and only recently was made a requirement of civilian technicians. Therefore, the Union maintains that the proposal is a procedure to be used in implementing the change in working conditions.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

The explicit language of the proposal requires that the Agency assign no ICT duties to civilian technicians. The Authority has held that a proposal prohibiting the assignment of work or duties is violative of the Agency's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2302 and U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, Fort Knox, Kentucky, 19 FLRA No. 95 (1985) (Proposal 2) and cases cited therein. Since the proposal in this case would also prohibit the assignment of work, i.e., ICT duties, it is also violative of the Agency's right to assign work under the Statute. Since the proposal directly interferes with the exercise of the Agency's right to assign work, it is not a negotiable procedure under the Statute.

V. Order

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., July 9, 1986

/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

(*) The Union has withdrawn a proposal concerning a voluntary physical fitness program. Therefore, the proposal will not be considered further here.