NAGE Local R7-23 and Scott Air Force Base (Authority decision, June 25, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. On court remand, the Authority reaffirms that a union proposal to retain gross negligence as the standard for employee liability for lost or damaged 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

NAGE Local R7-23 proposed keeping gross negligence, instead of ordinary negligence, as the standard for making employees financially liable for loss or damage to Air Force property. The Authority had ruled that the proposal interfered with management's right to determine internal security practices. After a related decision was sent back by a court, this case was also remanded. The Authority found that its decision in the related remand did not change the result. It reaffirmed the proposal's nonnegotiability and issued no further order.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Internal security practices under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(1).
• Outcome: Prior nonnegotiability finding reaffirmed on remand.
• Key point: Setting the employee liability threshold interfered with management's internal security practices.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v27 p768 ]

27:0768(82)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

27 FLRA No. 82

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R7-23
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
HEADQUARTERS 357TH AIR BASE
GROUP (MAC), SCOTT AIR FORCE
BASE, ILLINOIS
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-837
21 FLRA NO. 115

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

That gross negligence continue to be the standard instead of just negligence.

III. Background

This proposal would establish the standard to be used in determining whether an employee will be held "pecuniarily liable" for loss, damage, or destruction of Air Force property. In the previous decision in this case, National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23 and Department of the Air Force, Headquarters 375th Air Base Group (MAC), Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 21 FLRA No. 115 (1986), the Authority found that this proposal (Proposal 2) 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 25, 1987.
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY