American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1760 (Union) and Social Security Administration, Northeastern Program Service Center, Flushing, New York (Activity) (Authority decision, March 7, 1980)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 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

Social Security officials assigned temporary employees to a mailroom, assigned certain work to union officials, and began auditing samples of employees' work. The local union sought bargaining over the changes and appealed the agency's refusal to bargain over the decisions themselves. The union supplied no written proposal specific enough for the Authority to decide its negotiability, and it did not dispute that omission. The Authority denied the appeal under the review requirements of section 7117 and its procedural rules without deciding whether any particular proposal was negotiable.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E); 5 U.S.C. § 7117.
• Outcome: Negotiability appeal denied for failure to identify a specific proposal; no merits ruling.
• Key point: The Authority needs a defined proposal before it can decide a negotiability dispute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v02 p779 ]

02:0779(99)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

2 FLRA No. 99

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1760
(Union)

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
BUREAU OF RETIREMENT AND SURVIVORS
INSURANCE, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE
CENTER, FLUSHING, NEW YORK
(Activity)

Case No. 0-NG-168

DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL

THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE
AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET SEQ.).

THE UNION IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF A UNIT OF EMPLOYEES AT
THE ACTIVITY. THE UNION AND THE ACTIVITY ARE PARTIES TO A MULTI-CENTER
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. DURING THE TERM OF THAT AGREEMENT, THE
ACTIVITY NOTIFIED THE UNION OF ITS DECISION TO ASSIGN CERTAIN TEMPORARY
EMPLOYEES TO THE MAILROOM, TO ASSIGN "TERMINAL DIGITS" WORK TO UNION
OFFICIALS AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER UNIT EMPLOYEES, AND TO AUDIT A RANDOM
SAMPLE OF THE WORK OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES. THE UNION THEREAFTER REQUESTED
AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER WITH REGARD TO THE FOREGOING PROPOSED
CHANGES. THE ACTIVITY REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE WITH REGARD TO THE FOREGOING
DECISIONS, WHICH WERE ASSERTED TO BE WITHIN MANAGEMENT'S RESERVED RIGHTS
AND THEREFORE NONNEGOTIABLE, BUT DID MEET AND CONFER WITH THE UNION
CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING SUCH DECISIONS AND THE
ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED THEREBY. THE UNION THEN
FILED THE INSTANT NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL WITH THE AUTHORITY.

IN ITS STATEMENT OF POSITION, THE AGENCY NOTED, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
THAT THE UNION HAD GENERALLY FAILED TO SUBMIT WRITTEN PROPOSALS TO THE
ACTIVITY DURING THE COURSE OF MID-TERM BARGAINING BETWEEN THE PARTIES
AND THEREFORE HAD FAILED TO SET FORTH ANY SPECIFIC PROPOSALS IN ITS
PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY. IN THIS LATTER REGARD,
THE AGENCY FURTHER STATED THAT THE AUTHORITY CANNOT RENDER A
NEGOTIABILITY DETERMINATION "UNLESS IT KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THE UNION'S
PROPOSAL IS," AND THAT THE UNION'S APPEAL IS THEREFORE DEFECTIVE UNDER
THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON THAT BASIS. IN
RESPONSE, THE UNION DID NOT DISPUTE THE LACK OF WRITTEN PROPOSALS BUT
ASSERTED THAT THE ACTIVITY "WAS FULLY COGNIZANT OF THE UNION'S
PROPOSALS" AND HAD REFUSED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN PROPOSALS TO THE UNION OR
TO REDUCE ANY MID-TERM AGREEMENTS TO WRITING.

IN ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, ALABAMA ACT AND STATE OF
ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD, CASE NO. O-NG-27, 2 FLRA NO. 39 (DEC. 28, 1979),
REPORT NO. , THE AUTHORITY DECIDED, WITH RESPECT TO A QUESTION
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT PRESENTED HERE, THAT A PETITION WHICH
DID NOT PRESENT A PROPOSAL SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN FORM
AND CONTENT AS TO PERMIT THE AUTHORITY TO RENDER A NEGOTIABILITY
DECISION FAILED TO MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW PRESCRIBED IN SECTION
7117 OF THE STATUTE AND SEC. 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES OF
PROCEDURE. FOR THE REASONS FULLY SET FORTH IN THAT DECISION, THE
AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE INSTANT PETITION DOES NOT MEET SUCH CONDITIONS
FOR REVIEW AND MUST THEREFORE BE DENIED.

IN CONCLUSION, THE INSTANT NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL DOES NOT MEET THE
CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND PART 2424 OF
THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS
DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 7, 1980

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY