International Association of Fire Fighters, Local F-109 and Department of the Army, Carlisle Barracks (Authority decision, February 4, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority held the entire work assignment proposal outside the Army's duty to bargain and dismissed the negotiability appeal. An aggrieved person may petition an appropriate United States court of appeals for review within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

Fire Fighters Local F-109 proposed limits on assignments at the Army's Carlisle Barracks. The proposal tied work to fire department functions and job classifications, required rotation of certain temporary assignments, and barred assigning firefighters specified maintenance and snow removal tasks. The Authority found that the proposal directly restricted management's right to assign work under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(B). It held the entire proposal nonnegotiable and dismissed the union's petition. The decision imposed no penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7105(a)(2)(E) and 7106(a)(2)(B).
• Outcome: Entire proposal held nonnegotiable; petition dismissed.
• Key point: The proposed assignment limits directly interfered with management's right to assign work.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v08 p35 ]

08:0035(7)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

8 FLRA No. 7

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL F-109,
AFL-CIO
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
HEADQUARTERS, CARLISLE BARRACKS,
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-298

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IN 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 (THE STATUTE),
AND RAISES THE QUESTION OF THE NEGOTIABILITY OF THE FOLLOWING UNION
PROPOSAL:

ARTICLE XIX WORK ASSIGNMENTS

SECTION 1 - THE EMPLOYER RECOGNIZING THE PRIMARY FUNCTIONS OF THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT WHICH ARE
FIRE PREVENTION, FIRE PROTECTION AND LIFE SAFETY.

SECTION 2 - THE EMPLOYER DETERMINING WORK SCHEDULES AND ASSIGNMENTS
WHEN REASONABLY USED
WITHIN POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS FOR FIRE FIGHTERS,
GS-081 SERIES, APRIL, 1976.

SECTION 3 - TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENTS NOT TO EXCEED 30 DAYS SUCH AS
ACTING DRIVER AND LEAD
FIRE FIGHTER-- SUCH ASSIGNMENTS WILL BE MADE ON A ROTATING BASIS
AMONG AVAILABLE CANDIDATES.

SECTION 4 - REPAIR, MAINTENANCE, REHABILITATION AND UPKEEP OF FIRE
PROTECTION QUARTERS AND
RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE THE DUTY OF UNIT EMPLOYEES. ALSO, THE
REMOVAL OF SNOW, EXCEPT

AROUND THE FIRE STATION, SHALL NOT BE THE DUTY OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.

UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS, THE AUTHORITY MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE PROPOSAL ITSELF, /1/ THE
AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL WOULD DIRECTLY INTERFERE
WITH MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK BY REQUIRING THAT "WORK
ASSIGNMENTS" BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIMARY FUNCTIONS OF THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT AND/OR POSITION CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS FOR FIRE FIGHTERS;
REQUIRING ASSIGNMENT OF DUTIES ON A ROTATIONAL BASIS TO EMPLOYEES
AVAILABLE FOR THE ASSIGNMENT; AND PROHIBITING THE ASSIGNMENT OF
SPECIFIED DUTIES TO FIRE FIGHTERS. FOR THE REASONS STATED FULLY IN
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL F-61 AND PHILADELPHIA
NAVAL SHIPYARD, 3 FLRA 438(1980); AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 695 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, U.S. MINT,
DENVER, COLORADO, 3 FLRA 43(1980); AND ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN
TECHNICIANS AND STATE OF GEORGIA NATIONAL GUARD, 2 FLRA 604(1980) THE
PROPOSAL IN THIS CASE MUST BE HELD TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S
RIGHT "TO ASSIGN WORK" PURSUANT TO SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE
AND, THEREFORE, OUTSIDE THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN.

ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE UNION'S
PETITION FOR REVIEW BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 4, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------

/1/ THE UNION IN THIS CASE PROVIDED NO EXPLANATION OF THE INTENT OF
ITS PROPOSAL. IN THIS REGARD, UNIONS ARE REMINDED THAT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 2424.4(A)(2) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR
2424.4(A)(2)(1981)), WHICH SECTION BECAME EFFECTIVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE
FILING OF THE UNION'S PETITION IN THIS CASE, A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A
NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE MUST CONTAIN "AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT OF THE MEANING
OF THE PROPOSAL BY THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE."