Federal Union of Scientists and Engineers, National Association of Government Employees and Department of the Navy, Naval Underwater Systems Center (Authority decision, March 31, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority finds the union's proposal outside the duty to bargain and dismisses its petition for review. 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).

Plain-English summary

A union proposed barring electronic devices that recorded entry times in a secured office area at the Naval Underwater Systems Center. The Navy used coded key cards to control access to an area handling classified information; the cards also recorded when someone entered. The Authority found that the proposal would prevent use of the existing security system and interfere with management's right to choose internal security practices. It distinguished a security access system from a time clock and dismissed the union's petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E) and internal security under § 7106(a)(1).
• Outcome: Proposal outside the duty to bargain; petition dismissed.
• Key point: Recording entry times did not turn a security access system into a time clock for bargaining purposes.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v26 p404 ]

26:0404(51)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

26 FLRA No. 51

FEDERAL UNION OF SCIENTISTS AND
ENGINEERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL UNDERWATER SYSTEMS CENTER
NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1349

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 the following proposal:

II. Proposal

No electrical or electronic timekeeping devices will be used in accessing office work area on second floor area of Building PO-40.

III. Background

The location addressed by the proposal is the Combat Control Systems Department, where a sophisticated electronic security system has been installed. This area houses a cryptography room, where coded messages related to national security are sent and received. The information handled by employees in this area ranges up to the "top secret" classification and all employees are required to have security clearances.

The security system requires the insertion of a "key card" which opens the door to enter the area. The "key card" activates a mechanism which records the time of entrance. Because each "key card" is coded, it can be ascertained whose card was used to enter the area. However, the card is not used to leave the premises.

IV. Positions of the Parties

The Agency argues that the proposal is not negotiable because it prevents management from exercising its right to determine policies and methods to assure internal security in violation of section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute. The Agency states that the electronic security system has the sole purpose of limiting access to the area by unauthorized personnel. According to the Agency, the system is not intended as a timekeeping device to record arrivals and departures of employees.

The Union states that the purpose of the proposal is "to maintain the status quo of no time recording devices" to monitor arrival and departure times of employees. Petition for Review at 1.

V. 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, to prevent improper or unauthorized disclosure of information, or to prevent the disruption of the Agency's activities or operations. See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 32 and Office of Personnel Management, Washington, D.C., 14 FLRA 6 (1984) (Proposal 2).

In this case, the Agency's decision to establish and maintain an electronic security system limiting access to the work area to authorized personnel is clearly a measure related to its internal practices. See American Federation of Government Employees, Local 12, AFL-CIO and Department of Labor, 17 FLRA 674 (1985) (Proposal 6). The proposal at issue would limit the Agency's choice of restrictive measures to guard against the entrance of unauthorized personnel to a specific work area to those which do not monitor arrival and departure times. The Union's proposal would therefore, bar the use of the existing security system, thus violating the Agency's right to determine its internal security practices. See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 987 and Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, 24 FLRA No. 91 (1986).

This case is distinguishable from the so called "time clock" cases where the Authority has determined that an agency must negotiate over the use of time clocks. See Planners Estimators and Progressman Association, Local No. 8 and Department of the Navy, Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina, 13 FLRA 455 (1983). Here there is no apparent intention by the Agency to use the system as a timekeeping measure, particularly since use of the "key card" is not necessary to leave the secured premises. The sole purpose of the system is to restrict the entrance of unauthorized personnel and to maintain documentation of entry for security reasons.

VI. Conclusion

We find that the Union's proposal directly interferes with the Agency's right to determine its internal security practices under section 1706(a)(1) and is therefore outside the duty to bargain.

VII. Order

The Union's petition for review is dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C., March 31, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY