AFGE Local 2022 and U.S. Army, Fort Campbell (Authority decision, August 11, 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

AFGE Local 2022 proposed putting union welcome signs near five entrance gates at Fort Campbell. The Army said the signs were unrelated to employees' working conditions. The Authority found no evidence that the signs would directly affect bargaining unit employees' work or facilitate communication with them. It held that the proposal was outside the duty to bargain and dismissed the union's petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(14), 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Union gate sign proposal found outside the duty to bargain; petition dismissed.
• Key point: A proposed use of agency property must directly affect unit employees' working conditions to be a condition of employment.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v23 p59 ]

23:0059(8)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

23 FLRA No. 8

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2022
Union

and

U.S. ARMY, HEADQUARTERS 101st
AIRBORNE DIVISION AND FORT
CAMPBELL
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1205

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 the following Union proposal:

Section 13-6. The union is authorized to prepare, hang, and maintain signs at/near entrance to Gates 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 of Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The signs will be restricted to three feet high and five feet wide. Words on signs will read as follows:

WELCOME TO FORT CAMPBELL COURTESY OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2022

II. Positions of the Parties

The Agency contends that the proposal is nonnegotiable because it does not concern a matter affecting working conditions of bargaining unit employees, within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute. The Union argues that this proposal involves communication with its members through the use of Agency facilities which is a negotiable condition of employment.

III. Analysis and Conclusion

Under the statutory scheme established by sections 7103(a)(12), 7106, 7114 and 7117 a matter proposed for bargaining which is consistent with Federal law, including the Statute, Government-wide regulations or Agency regulations is outside the duty to bargain unless than matter directly affects the conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. /1/ In Antilles Consolidated Education Association and Antilles Consolidated School System, 22 FLRA No. 23 (1986), the Authority stated that it will consider two basic factors in deciding whether a proposal involves a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees:

(1) Whether the matter proposed to be bargained pertains to bargaining unit employees; and

(2) The nature and extent of the effect of the matter proposed to be bargained on working conditions of those employees.

For the following reasons, we conclude that the proposal does not involve a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees.

Applying the first factor to the proposal we are not persuaded by the record that the proposal principally focuses upon or pertains to bargaining unit employees. See National Treasury Employees Union and Internal Revenue Service, 7 FLRA 275, 284 (1981). Rather, the sign would merely welcome all people, employees and non-employees alike, entering the specified gates and advise them of the Union's existence.

Even assuming that the proposed signs pertain to bargaining unit employees, we cannot conclude, applying the second factor, that hanging the signs at or near the Agency's entrances would directly affect those employees' working conditions. The fact that the Agency provided this service to the union in the past does not, standing alone, make this a condition of employment subject to the duty to bargain. Maritime Metal Trades Council and Panama Canal Commission, 17 FLRA 890, 892 (1985). Further, contrary to the Union's categorical assertion, the use of agency facilities by a Union is not necessarily a condition of employment within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute. The case the Union relies on to support this proposition, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3748 and Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Personnel Division, Hyattsville, Maryland, 11 FLRA 122 (1983), is distinguishable. In Department of Agriculture, the Authority found negotiable a proposal which provided the Union access to the agency's Federal Telecommunication System during negotiations in order to facilitate the collective bargaining process. Unlike this case, that proposal was intertwined with the collective bargaining process and had a clear and direct affect on working conditions of bargaining unit employees. Here, to the contrary, it is not apparent that hanging the proposed sign on Agency property would facilitate communication or in any other way directly affect the working conditions of bargaining unit employees.

For the foregoing reasons, the Union's proposal in this case concerns a matter which is not a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees and is outside the Agency's obligation to bargain. /2/

IV. Order

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

Issued, Washington, D.C., August 11, 1986.
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

(1) Section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute defines "condition of employment" as "personnel policies, practices, and matters whether established by rule, regulation, or otherwise, affecting working conditions . . . ."

(2) In reaching this conclusion Chairman Calhoun wishes to emphasize his belief that disputes over proposals such as this one should and can best be resolved at the bargaining table. The issue here clearly should not be raised to the level of the Authority. Chairman Calhoun believes that resolution of this case and others which are similar require the resources of each Governmental entity, including the Authority, to be expended in a manner which is inconsistent with the requirement of an effective and efficient Government. This proposal clearly does not concern working conditions of unit employees and the dispute over it serves only to trivialize the labor-management relations process.