American Federation of Government Employees, Local 225 and U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Command, Dover, New Jersey (Authority decision, March 18, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority resolved the union's negotiability petition. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review of this final order in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). A petition does not itself stay the order.

Plain-English summary

The union proposed that nonappropriated fund employees receive the same facility privileges as other Army command employees, including recreation areas, credit union access, and payroll deductions. The Authority held that the picnic and recreation provisions did not concern conditions of employment. The record was too thin to decide the credit union and payroll provisions separately, and the union had not requested a split ruling. It dismissed the petition on the merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Conditions of employment under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(14).
• Outcome: Agency's nonnegotiability position sustained for the proposal as a whole; petition dismissed.
• Key point: The proposal could not be divided for a separate ruling on its insufficiently developed financial provisions.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v11 p630 ]
11:0630(108)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

11 FLRA NO. 108

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 225

Union

and

U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMAND, DOVER, NEW JERSEY

Agency

Case No. 0-NG-438

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

The petition for review in this case comes before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and raises issues relating to the negotiability of the following Union proposal. 1

NAF employees will have the same privileges as other ARRADCOM employees in regard to the use of ARRADCOM facilities, i.e., credit union, picnic area, payroll deductions, recreational facilities.

All NAF employees will be allowed to use the NAF facilities without charge of membership or usage fees. [ v11 p630]

Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination.

Insofar as this proposal deals with the "picnic area" and recreational facilities, it is to the same effect as the proposal held to be outside the duty to bargain because it did not concern matters which are "conditions of employment" within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute in International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO-CLC, Local F-116 and Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, 7 FLRA No. 18 (1981). Based on Vandenberg Air Force Base and for the reasons stated therein, it is therefore concluded that the instant proposal is outside the duty to bargain.

Insofar as the proposal also concerns the "credit union" and "payroll deductions," the record in the case would not be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether such matters in the circumstances would be conditions of employment and, in any event, the Union has not asked the Authority to fragment the proposal. 2

Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and it hereby is, dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C., March 18, 1983

Ronald W. Haughton, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Leon B. Applewhaite, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

[ v11 p631 ]

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1 The Agency's request to dismiss the
Union's petition for review as being untimely filed is denied. In this regard, the record indicates that the Union, upon receiving an unrequested allegation of nonnegotiability, elected to exercise its right under section 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations to submit a written request for another allegation and, subsequently, filed its petition for review in this case with the Authority within 15 days of service on it of such written allegation in accordance with section 2424.3. See Production, Maintenance, and Public Employees Union, Local No. 1276, Affiliated with LIUNA, AFL-CIO and Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Depot Tracy, Tracy, California, 9 FLRA No. 127 (1982).

Footnote 2 For a discussion of the
considerations relevant to a determination of whether a matter affects conditions of employment see, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 2 FLRA 604 (1980) (Proposal I concerning day care facilities), enforced as to other matters sub nom. Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 659 F.2D 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom. AFGE v. FLRA, U.S., 102 S. Ct. 1443 (1982) and National Association of Air Traffic Specialists and Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, 6 FLRA No. 106 (1981)(Proposal IV concerning payroll deductions.)