American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2024 and Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (Authority decision, October 28, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority finds a proposal for a union representative on specified shipyard committees within the agency's duty to bargain and orders bargaining on request or as agreed. 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 order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 2024 proposed appointing a union representative to several committees at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, including an incentive awards rating board. The proposal said the union observer would monitor contract enforcement and would not participate in management deliberations. The Navy argued that membership on the awards board would interfere with its right to direct employees and assign work. Relying on an earlier decision about union membership on an incentive awards committee, the Authority found the proposal within the duty to bargain and ordered bargaining upon request.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability appeal under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E); management rights under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B).
• Outcome: Proposal within the duty to bargain; agency ordered to bargain on request or as agreed.
• Key point: A union observer on the incentive awards committee did not interfere with the cited management rights.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v29 p1218 ]
29:1218(90)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

29 FLRA NO. 90

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2024

Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD
PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE

Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1362

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

I. Statement of the Case

The petition for review in 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 one proposal. 1 We find this proposal to be within the duty to bargain.

II. Proposal 1

Article 9 - Committee Assignments

Section 1. It is agreed that the Union may appoint one representative to the following boards and committees:

Incentive Awards Performance Rating Board

Restaurant Board

Equal Employment Opportunity Committee

Light Conservation Committee

The Union observer on the rating panel is not intended to participate in any management deliberations. The observer's role during the proceedings is for contract enforcement purposes.

A. Positions of the Parties

The Agency claims that to the extent that the proposal pertains to the Incentive Awards Performance Rating Board, it violates management's right to direct employees and assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute. The Agency argues that the Incentive Award Committee is used among other things, to review certain recommended performance based incentive awards and make recommendations to the Commanding Officer concerning their adoption. Thus, this committee is an internal deliberative mechanism used by the agency to exercise its management's right. The Agency does not contest the negotiability of the other portions of the proposal.

The Union contends that this proposal does not infringe upon management's right, and that, even if it did, it would be an appropriate arrangement under the criteria established in National Association of Government Employees, Local R14-87 and Kansas Army National Guard, 21 FLRA No. 4 (1986).

B. Analysis and Conclusion

We find this proposal to be within the duty to bargain.

In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 1815 and Army Aviation Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama, 28 FLRA No. 152 (1987), we held that Provision 9 which required the Agency to select one employee to serve as the union representative on the incentive awards committee to be within the duty to bargain. We rejected the agency's contention that union membership on the incentive awards committee interfered with its rights under section 7106(a) of the Statute. Slip op. at 10.

The proposal in this case is substantially the same as Provision 9 in Army Aviation Center, Fort Rucker. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in that decision, we find Proposal 1 to be within the duty to bargain. See also National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 797 and Department of the Navy, 29 FLRA No. 36 (Provision 2). In view of our conclusion that this proposal does not violate management's rights, we find it is unnecessary to address the Union's argument concerning "appropriate arrangements."

III. Order

The Agency shall upon request, or as otherwise agreed by the parties bargain on Proposal 1. 2

Issued, Washington, D.C.,October 28, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1 The Agency withdrew its allegation of nonnegotiability concerning Proposal 2. Thus, that proposal will not be further addressed.

Footnote 2 In finding Proposal 1 to be within
the duty to bargain, we express no opinion as to its merits.