National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23 (Labor Organization) and Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois (Activity) (Authority decision, May 8, 1980)

Final FLRA decision. This negotiability order ends the petition before the Authority. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review in a court of appeals within 60 days of issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

A union proposed mandatory placement rights for clerical employees downgraded after reclassification at Scott Air Force Base. Placement would follow their standing on a reduction in force roster. The Authority found the proposal conflicted with management’s statutory right to assign employees and therefore fell outside the duty to bargain. It also rejected the union’s objection to the timing of the agency’s statement of position.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(A).
• Outcome: Agency nonnegotiability allegation sustained.
• Key point: The proposed assignment restriction conflicted with management’s statutory right.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v03 p185 ]

03:0185(26)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

3 FLRA No. 26

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R7-23
(Labor Organization)

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS
(Activity)

Case No. 0-NG-174

DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

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.).

UNION PROPOSAL

ANY PERSONNEL DOWNGRADED AS A RESULT OF THE RECLASSIFICATION BE GIVEN
MANDATORY PLACEMENT

RIGHTS INTO A POSITION FOR WHICH THEY QUALIFY IN ORDER OF THEIR
STANDING ON THE

REDUCTION-IN-FORCE RETENTION ROSTER WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF AN
OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE

RATING.

QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL VIOLATES THE RIGHT OF
THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A) OF THE STATUTE, /1/
AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.

OPINION

CONCLUSION: THE UNION PROPOSAL VIOLATES THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN
EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45
FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ. (1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE PROPOSAL
IS NOT WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED. /2/

REASONS: THE UNION'S PROPOSAL ESSENTIALLY CONCERNS PLACEMENT RIGHTS
FOR EMPLOYEES DOWNGRADED AS A RESULT OF A NATIONWIDE APPLICATION OF
FEDERAL EVALUATION FACTOR SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS TO CLERICAL
EMPLOYEES AT THE ACTIVITY. THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSAL, ACCORDING TO
THE UNION, IS TO ESTABLISH SENIORITY AS THE CRITERION FOR FILLING
POSITIONS BY DOWNGRADED PERSONNEL.

THE AUTHORITY RECENTLY CONSIDERED WHETHER PROPOSALS WHICH COMPEL THE
SELECTION OF A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE FOR ASSIGNMENT VIOLATE THE RIGHT OF
AN AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE
STATUTE. IN CONSIDERING SUCH PROPOSALS, WHICH CONCERNED SELECTION OF
EMPLOYEES FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENTS ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY AS WELL AS
ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO A REDUCTION-IN-FORCE, THE AUTHORITY
STATED:

(T)HE RIGHT TO ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION INCLUDES THE
DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHICH

EMPLOYEE WILL BE ASSIGNED . . . . A PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING AN
EMPLOYEE FOR ASSIGNMENT SOLELY

ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY REMOVES FROM THE AGENCY THAT DISCRETION
WHICH . . . IS AN ESSENTIAL

PART OF THE DECISION TO ASSIGN . . . . PROPOSALS . . . (WHICH)
COMPEL THE CHOICE OF THE

PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE TO RECEIVE AN ASSIGNMENT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF
SENIORITY . . . THEREBY

DIRECTLY INTERFERE WITH THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHICH EMPLOYEE TO
ASSIGN, IN VIOLATION OF

SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE. (AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

AND AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE,
OHIO, CASE NO. O-NG-40, 2

FLRA NO. 77 (JAN. 31, 1980) AT 10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION. SEE
ALSO 24 OF THE DECISION

WHERE THE AUTHORITY APPLIED THE SAME REASONING.)

THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE INSTANT PROPOSAL IS NOT MATERIALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSALS IN THE CITED CASE, AS
DISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS MORE FULLY SET FORTH IN
THE ABOVE-CITED DECISION, THE UNION PROPOSAL HEREIN VIOLATES THE
AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE
STATUTE AND IS OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN. /3/

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 8, 1980

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

/1/ SECTION 7106(A) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART:

SEC. 7106. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS

(A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE

AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--

(1) TO DETERMINE THE MISSION, BUDGET, ORGANIZATION, NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES, AND INTERNAL

SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE AGENCY; AND

(2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS--

(A) TO HIRE, ASSIGN, DIRECT, LAYOFF, AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES IN THE
AGENCY, OR TO SUSPEND,

REMOVE, REDUCE IN GRADE OR PAY, OR TAKE OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION
AGAINST SUCH EMPLOYEES;

. . . .

(C) WITH RESPECT TO FILLING POSITIONS, TO MAKE SELECTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENTS FROM--

(I) AMONG PROPERLY RANKED AND CERTIFIED CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION; OR

(II) ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE(.)

/2/ THE AGENCY ALSO ALLEGES THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSAL VIOLATES
SECTIONS 7106(A)(1) AND 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE (NOTE 1 SUPRA) AND
FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL CHAPTER 335. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION HEREIN,
IT IS UNNECESSARY TO ADDRESS THESE ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTENTIONS.

/3/ THE UNION RAISES THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT OF
POSITION WAS TIMELY FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY. IN THIS REGARD, THE
AGENCY ASSERTS, UNCONTROVERTED BY THE UNION, THAT IT RECEIVED THE
UNION'S COMPLETED PETITION ON NOVEMBER 14, 1979. THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT
WAS FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY ON DECEMBER 12, 1979. THUS, BASED UPON THE
DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE COMPLETED PETITION AS ASSERTED BY THE AGENCY, IT
WOULD APPEAR THAT THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT WAS FILED WITHIN THE TIME
LIMITS SET FORTH IN SECTION 2424.6 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES. THE
UNION'S REQUEST, IN EFFECT, THAT THE AUTHORITY NOT CONSIDER THE AGENCY'S
STATEMENT, IS THEREFORE DENIED.