AFGE Council 214 and Headquarters Air Force Logistics Command (Authority decision, June 26, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. On court remand, the Authority reaffirms that the union's proposed standard for employee liability for damaged or lost Air Force property is outside the duty to bargain. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review of a final Authority order by petitioning an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). Filing a petition does not stay the order unless the court orders a stay under § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

AFGE Council 214 proposed limiting employees' financial liability for lost, damaged, or destroyed Air Force property to gross negligence, willful misconduct, or deliberate unauthorized use, with no liability when doubt remained. The Authority had found the proposal inconsistent with management's right to set internal security practices. After a related case was remanded by a court, this case also returned to the Authority for review. The Authority concluded that its related remand decision did not change the result. It reaffirmed the proposal's nonnegotiability and issued no further order.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Management's internal security right under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(1).
• Outcome: Prior nonnegotiability finding reaffirmed on remand.
• Key point: The proposed standard for employee pecuniary liability interfered with the agency's internal security practices.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p814 ]

27:0814(87)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA No. 87

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL 214
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE LOGISTICS
COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR
FORCE BASE, OHIO
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-759
21 FLRA No. 34

DECISION ON REMAND

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority pursuant to a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The question involved is whether a proposal interferes with the management right under section 7106(a)(1) to determine internal security practices.

II. The Proposal

All AFLC employees may be held pecuniarily liable for the loss, damage, or destruction of Air Force property when it results from gross negligence, willful misconduct, or deliberate unauthorized use. If doubt exists, the individual is not held liable. (Only the underscored language is in dispute.)

III. Background

This proposal would establish the standard to be used in determining whether an employee will be held "pecuniarily liable" for the loss, damage, or destruction of Air Force property. In the previous decision in this case, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 214 and Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 21 FLRA No. 34 (1986), the Authority found that this proposal interfered with the Agency's right to determine its internal security practices. In doing so, the Authority relied upon its decision in National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29 and Department of the Army, Kansas City District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, 21 FLRA No. 23 (1986). In that case the Authority found that a proposal which would have limited the amount of pecuniary liability which the agency could impose on employees directly interfered with the right under section 7106(a)(1) to determine internal security practices. On appeal, the court remanded that case for resolution of an apparent inconsistency in the application to two different proposals in the case of the Authority's underlying finding that the Agency's internal security plan encompassed pecuniary liability -- a finding which the court characterized as reasonable. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29 v. FLRA, No. 86-1308 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 6, 1987). In view of the Authority's reliance in the initial decision in this case on the remanded case, we requested and the court granted remand of the decision in this case, also.

IV. Analysis and Conclusion

We have issued a Decision on Remand in National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29 and Department of the Army, Kansas City District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Missouri, 27 FLRA No. 56 (1987). Our Decision on Remand provides no basis for changing our original decision in this case. We reaffirm the finding that this proposal interferes with the Agency's right to determine its internal security practices and is not within the duty to bargain. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to issue a further order in this case.

Issued, Washington, D.C., June 26, 1987.
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY