American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2298 and Department of the Navy, Naval Weapons Station Charleston (Authority decision, March 13, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority dismissing a negotiability petition. 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 2298 proposed that the Charleston Naval Weapons Station normally begin disciplinary action within 30 days of an incident or learning of it. The union argued the deadline was a negotiable procedure or an appropriate protection for employees. The Authority found that the provision could completely prevent the Navy from disciplining an employee once the period passed. That effect interfered too much with management's statutory right to discipline. It found the provision outside the duty to bargain and dismissed the union's petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Discipline right under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(A); procedures and arrangements under § 7106(b)(2) and (3).
• Outcome: Deadline provision found nonnegotiable; petition dismissed.
• Key point: A contractual deadline that can entirely bar discipline exceeds a negotiable procedure or arrangement.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v26 p174 ]
26:0174(19)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

26 FLRA NO. 19

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2298

Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1321

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 and concerns the negotiability of the following provision of a locally negotiated agreement disapproved by the Agency head under section 7114(c) of the Statute:

Disciplinary action will normally be initiated within thirty (30) calendar days after the event or occurrence warranting such discipline, or of the employer's becoming aware of such event or occurrence. It is understood that initiation of disciplinary action may be delayed pending com-pletion of an investigation.

We find the provision to be nonnegotiable.

II. Positions of the Parties

The Agency contends that this provision is outside the duty to bargain because it would effectively preclude management from acting at all to take disciplinary action under section 7106(a)(2)(A). The union contends that the provision does not preclude management from acting to take disciplinary action because the word "normally" permits reasonable extensions of time. Further, the Union contends the provision constitutes a negotiable procedure under section 7106(b)(2) for management to follow when it decides to take disciplinary action against an employee and an appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3) for employees affected by the exercise of management's right to discipline.

III. Analysis and conclusion

The provision in this case prohibits the Agency from taking disciplinary action against employees for offenses which occurred more than 30 days earlier or more than 30 days after the employer became aware of the alleged offense. In our opinion, this provision is to the same effect as a provision found nonnegotiable in National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 618 and National Park Service, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, U.S. Department of Interior, 17 FLRA 318 (1985) (Provision 2), affirmed sub nom. National Federation of Federation Employees, Local 615 v. FLRA, 801 F.2d 77 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The provision in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks required that investigations of incidents for which disciplinary action may be taken must normally be initiated within 60 days of the incident or within 60 days after the employer becomes aware of the incident. The Authority determined that the 60-day time limit constituted a contractual "statute of limitations" which would preclude the agency from investigating incidents for which employees could be disciplined. Thus, the Authority concluded that the provision would, in certain circumstances, prevent the agency from acting at all with respect to its right under section 7106(a)(2)(A) to discipline employees. See also American Federation of State, County and municipal Employees, Local 2478 and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 24 FLRA No. 10 (1986); American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 1770 and Department of the Army, Headquarters, XVII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 17 FLRA 752 (1985) (Proposal 3).

The provision in this case, likewise, would establish a contractual limitation which would prevent the Agency from disciplining employees when the 30-day period was exceeded. Thus, this provision substantively interferes with management's rights and does not constitute a negotiable procedure within the meaning of section 7106(b)(2) of the Statute. See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO and Air Force Logistics Command, Wright - Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 2 FLRA 604 (1980), enforced as to other matters sub nom. Department of Defense v. FLRA, 659 F.2d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom. AFGE v. FLRA, 455 U.S. 945 (1982).

In addition, the provision is not an appropriate arrangement under section 7106(b)(3). The provision would completely bar discipline if the 30-day period were exceeded. Such total abrogation of management's right to act in this regard excessively interferes with management's right to discipline and, therefore, is not an appropriate arrangement within the meaning of section 7106(b)(3) of the Statute. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 1931 and Department of the Navy, Naval Weapons Station, Concord, California, 24 FLRA No. 57 (1986). See also American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1799 and Department of the Army, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 22 FLRA No. 62, slip op. at 6 (1986).

For these reasons, the provision is outside the duty to bargain.

IV. Order

The Union's petition for review is dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C., March 13, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY