National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1442 and Department of the Army, Letterkenny Army Depot (Authority decision, November 30, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority holds both union proposals outside the duty to bargain and dismisses the 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

Letterkenny Army Depot required motorcycle, moped, and motorbike operators to complete safety training before using those vehicles on the installation. The union proposed that the Safety Office provide the required course on official time and that the depot follow only Pennsylvania vehicle requirements. The Authority found that the first proposal would direct which office performed training and require training during duty hours, interfering with management's right to assign work. It found the second proposal would prevent the depot from applying additional safety rules adopted to protect personnel and property, interfering with its right to determine internal security practices. The Authority dismissed the union's petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Management rights to assign work and determine internal security practices under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a).
• Outcome: Both proposals found nonnegotiable; union's petition dismissed.
• Key point: The depot could choose who provides training and impose its own vehicle safety requirements on the installation.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v30 p373 ]

30:0373(46)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

30 FLRA NO. 46
30 FLRA 373

30 NOV 1987

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 1442

Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT

Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1418

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES

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 issues presented concern the negotiability of two proposals regarding the prerequisites for operating certain types of vehicles on the installation. For the following reasons, we find that Proposal 1 is not negotiable because it violates management's right to assign work; and Proposal 2 is not negotiable because it violates management's right to determine its internal security practices.

II. Background

To implement highway safety program standards prescribed by higher level management, the Agency promulgated various requirements which must be met by employees who wish to operate their motorcycles, mopeds or motorbikes on the installation. According to the uncontroverted statement of the Agency, the requirements were adopted by the Agency as a method of preventing accidents and to safeguard its personnel and property. Statement of Position at 1.

One of the requirements--addressed by both proposals--is that all operators of the vehicles mentioned above must successfully complete 8 hours of motorcycle training. The training is given by Pennsylvania Motorcycle Safety Program personnel during duty hours, at Government expense. Any operators who do not pass this training must retake equivalent training at their own expense and on their own time.

III. Proposal 1

If it is a requirement by Safety that the 8-hour course be taken, then it will be given by the Safety Office to employees on official time.

A. Positions of the Parties 1

The Agency contends that the proposal prescribes the assignment of certain duties to a particular office and thereby interferes with management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B).

The Union states that the proposal is negotiable because it concerns a condition of employment and does not dictate the type or length of training to be provided.

B. Analysis and Conclusions

The Agency claims that the proposal assigns the task of conducting the "8-hour course" to the Safety Office. This interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the proposal and is not contradicted by the Union, which did not file a response. Accordingly, for the purpose of this decision, we adopt the Agency's interpretation that the proposal precludes management from assigning those training duties elsewhere in the Agency or to contract personnel.

In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 1858 and U.S. Army Missile Command, the U.S. Army Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment Support Group, the U.S. Army Information Systems Command - Restone Arsenal Commissary, 27 FLRA 69, 80 (1987) the Authority reiterated the consistent holding that:

management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) encompasses the right to assign specific duties to particular individuals, including management officials, and that provisions which interfere with this right are nonnegotiable.

Therefore, we conclude that Proposal 1 is nonnegotiable because it prescribes that the Safety Office will conduct the training.

Furthermore, although the defect of prescribing that the Safety Office must give the training is easily cured, this proposal would be outside the duty to bargain even if the defect were eliminated. Compare Redstone Arsenal Commissary, 27 FLRA 69 at 81-2. It is well established under Authority precedent that proposals requiring management to provide specific types of training during duty hours, are outside the duty to bargain. See, for example, National Association of Air Traffic Specialists Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 6 FLRA 588 (1981) (Union Proposals I through III), in which the Authority held that proposals which prescribed the type of training to be assigned during duty hours interfered with the agency's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B). Insofar as Proposal 1 requires the Agency to provide motorcycle training during duty hours it, likewise, directly interferes with section 7106 (a)(2)(B) and is nonnegotiable.

IV. Proposal 2

Local 1442 proposes that only State of Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code be required at Letterkenny Army Depot. PA State Code has provisions for mopeds and pedalcycles, at present the only requirements for mopeds/pedalcycles is that they be licensed, insured and the use of eye protection. There is no requirement for the operator to be licensed to operate a moped/ pedalcycle nor a requirement for the operator to have motorcycle safety course.

A. Positions of the Parties

The Agency asserts that the Union's petition should be dismissed because it is insufficiently specific to enable the Authority to provide the parties with a negotiability ruling. Alternatively, the Agency argues that the proposal is outside the duty to bargain because it: (1) does not involve a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees, within the meaning of section 7103 (a)(14) of the Statute; (2) determines the conditions of employment of nonbargaining unit employees; and (3) interferes with management's right under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute to determine its internal security practices. The Union claims the proposal is negotiable because "it is only logical" for the requirements concerning motorcycle operation and the use of protective equipment to be the same on and off the installation. Petition for Review at second unnumbered page.

B. Analysis and Conclusions

1. The meaning of the Proposal

The proposal limits the Agency's discretion to prescribe the conditions under which certain vehicles will be allowed to operate on its installation. In the petition for review the Union explains that the proposal is intended to limit the Agency's imposition of such requirements to those which conform to the regulations currently governing operation of a motorcycle in the State of Pennsylvania.

2. The proposal is sufficiently specific

Based on the language of the proposal and its intended meaning, as explained above, we find that the proposal is sufficiently specific to enable us to provide the parties with a negotiability ruling.

3. The Proposal Concerns Conditions of Employment

The proposal concerns the prerequisites for operating certain vehicles on the installation. Among other matters, it is concerned with whether safety training will be required. The proposal is substantively similar to a proposal opposing any requirement for motorcycle training which the Authority found concerned a condition of employment in Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, AFL - CIO and Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 23 FLRA 154, 155 (1986). In that case, the Authority found that the proposal concerned a condition of employment because a nexus existed between the penalty imposed for failure to complete the training--inability to drive on the installation--and the employees' jobs. The same nexus exists in regard to training and other requirements in this case and we, therefore, find that this proposal likewise concerns conditions of employment.

4. The Proposal Interferes With the Agency's Determination
   of Its Internal Security Practices

The Authority consistently has held that an agency's right to determine its internal security practices includes the right to determine policies and take actions which are part of its plan to secure or safeguard its personnel and physical property. See, for example, Defense Logistics Council of American Federation of Government Employees Locals and Defense Logistics Agency, 20 FLRA 166 (1985), reversed in part as to other matters sub nom. Defense Logistics Council of American Federation of Government Employees Locals v. FLRA, 810 F.2d 234 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Proposal 2 limits the Agency's ability to determine the conditions under which certain vehicles will be permitted to operate on the installation. It would, as explained by the Union, preclude the Agency from adopting any requirement which is not in conformance with the requirements for operating a motorcycle in the State of Pennsylvania.

It appears from the record that the Agency has adopted various safety requirements which are not required by the State of Pennsylvania. It is uncontroverted that the requirements were adopted as part of the Agency's plan to prevent accidents and thereby to safeguard its personnel and property. Therefore, by precluding the Agency from adopting safety requirements other than those which are adopted by the State of Pennsylvania, the proposal directly interferes with the Agency's right to determine its internal security practices and is nonnegotiable. In view of this disposition it is unnecessary to address the Agency's contention that the proposal is outside its duty to bargain because it would determine conditions of employment for nonbargaining unit employees.

V. Order

The Union's petition is dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C., November 30, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1 The Union's position is as set forth in its petition for review since it did not file a response to the Agency's statement of position.