Police Association of the District of Columbia and National Park Service, National Capital Region (Authority decision, March 14, 1983)

Police Association of the District of Columbia and National Park Service, National Capital Region (FLRA 0-NG-525): Park Police special position proposal nonnegotiable

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
0-NG-525
Decided
March 14, 1983
Outcome
Upheld
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-06

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1983, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1983
The federal labor-relations law may have been amended, and later Authority or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FLRA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (flra.gov)

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 Park Police union proposed listing certain jobs as special assignment positions with added compensation. The Authority found that the proposal would classify positions as technician jobs for pay purposes, a matter excluded from conditions of employment under the labor statute. It dismissed that part of the petition on the merits. A separate provision became moot after the agency withdrew its objection to it.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: Position classification exclusion under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(14)(B).
  • Outcome: Agency's nonnegotiability position sustained for the classification proposal; separate provision moot.
  • Key point: A proposed pay category designation concerned position classification rather than bargaining conditions.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v11 p594 ]
11:0594(99)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

11 FLRA NO. 99

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Union

and

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

Agency

Case No. 0-NG-525

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 presents the issue of the negotiability of the underscored portion of the following Union proposal which is part of a proposed article entitled "Special Preferred Assignment Positions and Temporary Duty": 1

Section 1. For the purpose of this contract, Special Assignment Positions are U.S. Park Police Private positions to which additional compensation is added to the basic salary as provided by the current District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Act. Positions to be classed as "Special" are HMP, M/C, K-9, Helicopter, EMT, I.D., CIB (Plainclothes), Divers, Marine, Master Patrolman, SETT and Communications Officers.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination. [ v11 p594 ] The Union's proposal herein would designate certain U.S. Park Police positions as "Special" for pay purposes. As stated by the Agency, which statement is uncontroverted in the record, 2 the effect of the proposal would be to classify such positions as "technician" positions for salary purposes under provisions of the D.C. Code. 3

In National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 862 and Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah, 3 FLRA 454 (1980), the Authority essentially concluded that a proposal dealing with classification matters is not within the duty to bargain under section 7103(a)(14)(B) of the Statute. 4 The proposal here concerning which positions will be classified in the "Technician" category clearly concerns a matter relating to the classification of positions, which is not a condition of employment under section 7103(a)(14)(B) of the Statute. Therefore, the proposal is not within the duty to bargain. [ v11 p595 ]

Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations (5 CFR 2424.10), IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review as to the proposal be, and hereby is, dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C., March 14, 1983

Ronald W. Haughton, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Leon B. Applewhaite, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

[ v11 p596 ]

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1 In its Statement of Position, the
Agency withdrew its allegation that Section 2 of the proposed article is nonnegotiable. Therefore, the appeal as to Section 2 has been rendered moot and is therefore dismissed. See, e.g., Goddard Engineers, Scientists and Technicians Association, Local 29 and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, 8 FLRA No. 106 (1982).

Footnote 2 Because the Union did not file a
Response to the Agency's Statement of Position, the Authority may properly accept the Agency's uncontroverted assertions. See National Federation of Federal Employees v. FLRA, 681 F.2d 886 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

Footnote 3 Agency Statement of Position at
2.

Footnote 4 Section 7103(a)(14)(B) of the Statute provides as follows: 7103. Definitions; application (a) For the purpose of this chapter-- (14) 'conditions of employment' means personnel policies, practices, and matters, whether established by rule, regulation, or otherwise, affecting working conditions, except that such term does not include policies, practices, and matters-- (B) relating to the classification of any position(.)

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace