Hawaii Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (Authority decision, July 24, 1986)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses the 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

A union proposed changing which managers could sign advance notices and make final removal decisions at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. The Authority found that the proposal would assign those duties to particular personnel outside the bargaining unit. That would interfere with management's right to assign work and was not a negotiable procedure. The Authority dismissed the petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(B), 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(2).
• Outcome: Proposal directing removal authority to specified managers found nonnegotiable.
• Key point: A union proposal cannot require particular managers to perform assigned removal duties.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v22 p664 ]

22:0664(73)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

22 FLRA No. 73

HAWAII FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL
TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Union

and

PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1196

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 concerns the negotiability of a Union proposal affecting language in a recently changed Agency regulation (NAVSHIPYDPEARL INSTRUCTION 12750.1F).

II. Union Proposal

1. Letter to FLRA dated September 27, 1985, in the
   NAVSHIPYDPEARLINST 12750.1F, in the table titled, "Delegation of Authority to Effect Disciplinary Action," under column, "Authority to Effect," in the "Removal" action row.

HFEMTC proposes to have "Activity Head Level" inserted where presently "Shipyard Commander (Commanding Officer)" exists.

2. Letter to FLRA dated October 16, 1985 - That regarding the
   table in NAVSHIPYDPEARLINST 12750.1F, titled, "Delegation of Authority to Effect Disciplinary Action," under the "Authority to Sign Advance Notice" column, "Action" Removal row.

HFEMTC proposal is to retain existing language.

III. Positions of the Parties

The proposal refers to two letters sent by the Union to the Authority in an attempt to comply with the requirements of the Statute and the Authority's Rules and Regulations. It appears from the Union's petition for review that it intends the first part of its proposal to require the Activity Head, rather than the Shipyard Commander, to exercise final authority to effect the removal of employees. The second part of the proposal would require the Group Superintendent or Department Head to exercise authority in proposing the removal of employees. The Union asserts that its proposal is a negotiable procedure under section 7106(b)(2) of the Statute. The Union did not file a response to the Agency's statement of position in this case.

The Agency contends that the proposal interferes with its right to assign work, under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.

IV. Analysis and Conclusion

It appears from the record that by regulation the Agency changed the level of authority for both proposing and effecting removal actions, and that the Union is proposing to raise the level of authority required for these actions. The Authority has consistently held that proposals prescribing specific duties to be performed by particular non-bargaining unit personnel in an agency directly interfere with management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute by eliminating the discretion inherent in that right. See, for example, National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 78 and Veterans Administration Regional Office, Indianapolis, Indiana, 9 FLRA 819 (1982). The proposal in this case would require certain non-bargaining unit personnel to perform duties which they otherwise would not be required to perform, and would have the same effect as the proposal held nonnegotiable in Veterans Administration Regional Office. Therefore, the Authority concludes that the proposal would directly interfere with the exercise of the right to assign work and as a result, is not a negotiable procedure.

V. Order

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., July 24, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY