National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1451 (Labor Organization) and Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida (Activity) (Authority decision, April 28, 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 that each side designate at least three representatives for contract negotiations at the Naval Training Center in Orlando. The Authority found the proposal would control the number of management representatives, a matter outside conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. It sustained the agency’s nonnegotiability allegation.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117.
• Outcome: Agency nonnegotiability allegation sustained.
• Key point: The agency did not have to bargain over the size of its negotiation team.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v03 p88 ]

03:0088(14)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

3 FLRA No. 14

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1451
(Labor Organization)

and

NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO,
FLORIDA
(Activity)

Case No. 0-NG-75

DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL

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

EACH PARTY WILL HAVE A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) DESIGNATED
REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF

NEGOTIATIONS. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR ATTENDANCE OF ALL
REPRESENTATIVES TO BE

PRESENT AT ANY SPECIFIC NEGOTIATING SESSION.

QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL PERTAINS TO MATTERS
WHICH ARE OUTSIDE OF THE ACTIVITY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.

OPINION

CONCLUSION: THE PROPOSAL CONCERNS MATTERS WHICH ARE OUTSIDE OF THE
DUTY TO BARGAIN OF THE ACTIVITY. ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION
2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG.
3513(1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS NOT
WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.

REASONS: SECTION 7103(A)(12) OF THE STATUTE DEFINES "COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING" AS "THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF AN AGENCY AND THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
EMPLOYEES IN AN APPROPRIATE UNIT IN THE AGENCY TO . . . BARGAIN IN A
GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO REACH AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT AFFECTING SUCH EMPLOYEES . . . " THUS, THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED
BY SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT EXTEND
BEYOND MATTERS DIRECTLY AFFECTING UNIT EMPLOYEES.

THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL CONCERNS MATTERS WHICH ARE BEYOND THOSE
DIRECTLY AFFECTING UNIT EMPLOYEES. IT WOULD REQUIRE MANAGEMENT TO
DESIGNATE A PARTICULAR NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES TO NEGOTIATIONS. THESE
REPRESENTATIVES WOULD NOT, THEMSELVES, BE UNIT EMPLOYEES. /1/ MOREOVER,
THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES MANAGEMENT CHOOSES TO DESIGNATE TO CARRY
OUT ITS DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE IS NOT A MATTER DIRECTLY
RELATED TO THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF UNIT EMPLOYEES. /2/

ACCORDINGLY, INSOFAR AS THE UNION'S PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE MANAGEMENT
TO DESIGNATE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR NEGOTIATIONS, THE
PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE. /3/
THEREFORE, THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION TO THAT EFFECT IS HEREBY SUSTAINED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 28, 1980

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAIZER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR REVIEW

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON A REQUEST BY NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1451 (THE UNION) FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION IN NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1451 AND NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO,
FLORIDA, 3 FLRA NO. 14. THE ACTIVITY FILED NO OPPOSITION TO THIS
MOTION.

ON JUNE 26, 1980, A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE AUTHORITY'S
DECISION REFERRED TO ABOVE WAS FILED IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY THE UNION. SAID APPEAL IS
CURRENTLY PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AUTHORITY IS NOW
ESTOPPED FROM CONDUCTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER. GREATER
BOSTON TELEVISION CORP. V. F.C.C., 149 U.S.APP D.C. 322, 337, 463 F.2D
268, 283(1971), CERT. DENIED, 406 U.S. 950, 92 S.CT. 2042, 32 L.ED.2D
338(1972).

ACCORDINGLY, AS A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PENDING BEFORE THE
COURT, THE UNION'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE AUTHORITY'S
DECISION IN THE INSTANT CASE IS HEREBY DENIED.

FOR THE AUTHORITY

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 31, 1980

SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

/1/ UNDER SECTION 7103(A)(2) OF THE STATUTE, THE DEFINITION OF
"EMPLOYEE" SPECIFICALLY "DOES NOT INCLUDE," INTER ALIA, "A SUPERVISOR OR
A MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL."

/2/ SECTION 7103(A)(14) DEFINES "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" AS
FOLLOWS:

(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--

(A) RELATING TO POLITICAL ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED UNDER SUBCHAPTER III
OF CHAPTER 73 OF THIS

TITLE;

(B) RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF ANY POSITION; OR

(C) TO THE EXTENT SUCH MATTERS ARE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY
FEDERAL STATUTE(.)

/3/ ALBEIT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, A MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL THAT THE
UNION DESIGNATE A PARTICULAR NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES TO NEGOTIATIONS
LIKEWISE WOULD NOT BE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.