Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard (Authority decision, August 14, 1986)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses the union's negotiability petition. An aggrieved person may petition an appropriate United States court of appeals for review within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

Mare Island Naval Shipyard required motorcycle safety training before issuing a decal allowing employees to drive motorcycles on the installation. The union proposed opposing any rider training requirement. The Authority held that the decal rule affected working conditions because employees without it could not bring motorcycles onto the installation. It nevertheless found the proposal nonnegotiable: a ban on training would interfere with management's right to set internal security practices protecting people and property. The Authority dismissed the petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Internal security practices under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(1).
• Outcome: Union's petition dismissed; proposal outside the duty to bargain.
• Key point: The training rule affected employment but could not be barred through bargaining because it served the agency's security plan.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v23 p154 ]

23:0154(18)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

23 FLRA No. 18

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL
TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD
VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1184

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 715(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute negotiability of a single Union proposal.

II. Union Proposal

Motorcycle Rider Training

(The Union) is opposed to any requirement for motorcycle rider training.

III. Positions of the Parties /*/

The Agency contends that the proposal concerns a matter which is not a condition of employment within the meaning of section 7103(a)(12) of the Statute. Rather, the Agency asserts that the motorcycle safety program is an exercise of the installation commander's general police powers pursuant to the mandates of Highway Safety Program Standards -- Applicability to Federally Administered Areas, 23 CFR Section 1230. The Agency also contends that its motorcycle safety training program is an exercise of its right to determine internal security practices, and since the proposal opposes any training, it thereby interferes with management's right pursuant to section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute to determine its internal security practices.

In its petition for review, the Union argues that the Agency has erroneously decided that the above mentioned Highway Safety Program Standards as delineated in a Department of Navy Instruction, OPNAVINST 5100.12B, apply to commuters when in actuality they only apply to those employees who use motorcycles while performing work for the Agency. The Union also argues that there is no compelling need for the proposed training program and that it does not implement a mandatory, Government-wide regulation.

IV. Analysis and Conclusion

The threshold issue in this case is whether the Union's proposal concerns a condition of employment as described under section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute. As noted by the Union and in the absence of any alternative explanation by the Agency, completion of the proposed motorcycle safety course is a prerequisite to the Agency's issuance of a motor cycle parking decal without which an employee would be denied access to the installation. Further, the proposal in this case relates to safety training which may or may not be given during working hours. Consequently, the Authority finds that this proposal concerns a condition of employment because a nexus exists between the penalty imposed for failure to complete the training, i.e. the employee cannot park or drive on the installation without a decal, and the employee's job. See 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 1); National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1363 and U.S. Army Garrison, Yongsan, Korea, 15 FLRA 134 (1984); National Treasury Employees Union and NTEU Chapter 70 and Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Atlanta Service Center, Georgia, 8 FLRA 37, 40 (1982) (Proposal 5). Therefore, contrary to the Agency's contention, the Union's proposal does concern a matter which is a condition of employment within the meaning of the Statute.

The Agency's remaining contention is that the Union's proposal interferes with the Agency's right to determine its internal security practices. The explicit language of the proposal opposes any requirement for motorcycle rider training. The Authority has held that an agency's right to determine internal security practices includes the right to determine policies and actions which are part of its plan to secure or safeguard its personnel and physical property. See Defense Logistics Council of American Federation of Government Employees Locals and Defense Logistics Agency, 20 FLRA No. 19 (1985), petition for review filed sub nom. Defense Logistics Council of American Federation of Government Employees Locals v. FLRA, No. 85-1743 (D.C. Cir. No. 13, 1985). In agreement with the Agency, the Authority concludes that the proposal at issue in the present case would conflict with a preventive safety measure taken by the Agency to guard against harm to its property and personnel and, hence, would directly interfere with the Agency's right to determine its internal security practices. The proposal would, by precluding the implementation of any motorcycle rider training program, impose a substantive limitation on management's exercise of its right to determine its internal security practices, in particular the decision as to whether and the circumstances under which a motorcycle decal granting the privilege of driving on its premises will be issued. The proposal would therefore directly interfere with the Agency's right under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute to determine its internal security practices, and is thus outside the duty to bargain.

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., August 14, 1986.
/s/ JERRY L. CALHOUN
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ HENRY B. FRAZIER III
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

(*) The Union did not file a Reply Brief in this case.