American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 331 (Union) and Veterans Administration Hospital, Perry Point, Maryland (Activity) (Authority decision, June 30, 1980)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denied a request to clarify its earlier negotiability ruling. The earlier decision remains in place; this order supplies no new ruling on the proposal. Judicial review of a final Authority order is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

The Veterans Administration asked the Authority to clarify its earlier decision finding an AFGE Local 331 promotion proposal negotiable at the Perry Point hospital. The proposal required consideration of bargaining unit employees before a wider search for applicants, while allowing management to select from other appropriate sources. The Authority recounted its earlier conclusion that this did not restrict management's statutory selection right. After citing related decisions, it found no further clarification necessary and denied the request. This order concerns clarification rather than a new negotiability determination.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(C).
• Outcome: Agency request for clarification denied; earlier negotiability ruling left in place.
• Key point: The Authority saw no need to clarify its prior reading of the applicant consideration procedure.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v02 p428 ]

02:0428(59)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

2 FLRA No. 59

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
LOCAL 331
(Union)

and

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
HOSPITAL, PERRY POINT,
MARYLAND
(Activity)

Case No. 0-NG-17

DECISION

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON A REQUEST BY THE VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION THAT THE AUTHORITY CLARIFY ITS DECISION IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE.

IN ITS DECISION OF JANUARY 17, 1980, IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE, THE
AUTHORITY FOUND NEGOTIABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) THE FOLLOWING UNION PROPOSAL:

ARTICLE 25, PROMOTION, SECTION A-- IT IS AGREED THAT AN EMPLOYER WILL
UTILIZE, TO THE

MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE THE SKILLS, AND TALENTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES.
THEREFORE, CONSIDERATION

WILL BE GIVEN IN FILLING VACANT POSITIONS, TO EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE
BARGAINING

UNIT. MANAGEMENT WILL NOT SOLICIT APPLICATIONS FROM OUTSIDE THE
MINIMUM AREA OF CONSIDERATION

OR CALL FOR A CIVIL SERVICE REGISTER OF CANDIDATES IF THREE OR MORE
HIGHLY QUALIFIED

CANDIDATES CAN BE IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE MINIMUM AREA OF
CONSIDERATION. THIS WILL NOT PREVENT

APPLICANTS FROM OTHER VA FIELD UNITS APPLYING PROVIDED THEY
SPECIFICALLY APPLY FOR THE VACANCY

BEING FILLED AND THAT THEY ARE RANKED AND RATED WITH THE SAME MERIT
PROMOTION PANEL AS LOCAL

EMPLOYEES.

CITING THE RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) OF
THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY FOUND THAT THE UNIONS PROPOSAL WOULD NOT
PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM EXERCISING ITS RESERVED RIGHT, IN FILLING
POSITIONS, TO SELECT FROM AMONG PROPERLY RANKED AND CERTIFIED CANDIDATES
FOR PROMOTION OR FROM ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE. RATHER, THE
AUTHORITY CONCLUDED THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE ONLY THAT
CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT IN
FILLING VACANT POSITIONS BUT WOULD NOT PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM
CONSIDERING OTHER APPLICANTS, OR EXPANDING THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION
ONCE BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WERE CONSIDERED, OR USING ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE SOURCE IN FILLING SUCH VACANCIES, AND THEREFORE DID NOT
PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM EXERCISING ITS RESERVED RIGHT TO SELECT. SEE
ALSO, THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CSA LOCALS, A.F.G.E., AFL-CIO AND THE
COMMUNITY SERVICE ADMINISTRATION, CASE NO. O-NG-127, 3 FLRA NO. 13
(APRIL 28, 1980), ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, DELAWARE CHAPTER
AND NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, DELAWARE NATIONAL GUARD, CASE NO. O-NG-104, 3
FLRA NO. 9 (APRIL 14, 1980), AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1451 AND NAVY EXCHANGE, NAVAL ADMINISTRATION COMMAND,
ORLANDO, FLORIDA, CASE NO. O-NG-160, 3 FLRA NO. 60 (JUNE 11, 1980), IN
WHICH THE AUTHORITY FURTHER DISCUSSED THAT DECISION IN THE CONTEXT OF
RELATED PROPOSALS.

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NOTING PARTICULARLY THE AUTHORITY'S
DECISIONS IN THE ABOVE-CITED CASES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT FURTHER
CLARIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT DECISION IS NOT INDICATED.

ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION IS DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 30, 1980

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY