American Federation of Government Employees, Local 987 and Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Force Logistics Center, Robins Air Force Base (Authority decision, December 30, 1986)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses the union's petition because its proposal to keep Gate 12 open conflicts with the Air Force's flight-line security plan. 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

AFGE Local 987 wanted Robins Air Force Base to keep Gate 12 open on its existing schedule so employees could reach jobs near the Strategic Air Command area without a longer drive through traffic. The Air Force planned to close the gate to secure the flight line. The Authority found that the proposal would negate an essential part of the base's security plan. It held that the proposal interfered with management's right to determine internal security practices and dismissed the petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E) and internal security practices under § 7106(a)(1).
• Outcome: Proposal outside the duty to bargain; petition dismissed.
• Key point: A proposal requiring an agency to keep a gate open was not negotiable when it negated the agency's flight-line security plan.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v24 p940 ]

24:0940(91)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

24 FLRA No. 91

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 987
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WARNER ROBINS AIR FORCE LOGISTICS CENTER
ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1309

DECISION AND ORDER OF 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). The case concerns the negotiability of a Union proposal that Robins Air Force Base "allow Gate 12 (North end of Base) to remain operational on the current hours scheduled." We find that the proposal is not negotiable.

II. Positions of the Parties

The Agency states that, following the sharply increased terrorist activity beginning in the late 1970's, the Air Force began to tighten the security of its installations in order to better safeguard and protect its facilities, aircraft and employees. Gate 12 is located at the North end of the runway, and the Agency states that its closure is intended to prevent access to Robins AFB's flight line area from outside the base. The Agency argues that (1) the decision to close Gate 12 is an exercise of management's right to determine its internal security practices under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute, and that such determination is not negotiable; and (2) the proposal violates management's right to determine the numbers, types, and grades of employees assigned to a work project under section 7106(b)(1).

The Union states in its Petition for Review that the intent of its proposal is "to continue the manning of Gate 12 for the entrance and exit for personnel working in the SAC (Strategic Air Command) Location." According to the Union, before the Agency decided to close the gate, the gate had been staffed before work and at the end of the day shift "to allow employees easier access to their remote area jobs and also to be able to leave the area, without traveling some 3 1/2 miles through the heavy traffic on the main-stream of the work force." Union's Petition for Review. The Union did not provide any arguments in its petition for review supporting the negotiability of the proposal, nor did it file a reply brief.

III. Analysis

An agency's right to determine its internal security practices includes the right to determine what is necessary to safeguard its physical property against internal or external risks. See, for example, National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29 and Department of the Army, Kansas City District, U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, 21 FLRA No. 32 (1986) (Union Proposal 1), petition for review filed sub nom. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29 v. FLRA, No. 86-1308 (D.C. Cir. May 28, 1986). In this case, the Agency has determined that it is essential to the security of the flight line on the base to close Gate 12. The Union's proposal that the gate be kept open negates management's internal security plan, and therefore violates the Agency's right to determine its internal security practices. See American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2910 and The Library of Congress, 15 FLRA 612 (1984) (in which the Authority found that a union proposal that a roof door be accessible to employees by key effectively negated an essential component of the Agency's plan to secure its physical property, and was therefore outside the duty to bargain). Moreover, the proposal does not concern the impact and implementation of the Agency's decision to close the gate; rather, it would require the Agency to bargain over the substance of its decision.

IV. Conclusion

We find that the Union's proposal directly interferes with the Agency's right to determine its internal security practices and is therefore outside the duty to bargain. In view of this finding, it is unnecessary to pass on the Agency's further argument with regard to mangement's right to determine the numbers, types and grades of its employees.

V. Order

The petition for review is dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C., December 30, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY