AFGE Grain Inspection Council and USDA Federal Grain Inspection Service (Authority decision, June 21, 1985)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority on a negotiability petition. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in 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 Authority's order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

The union proposed advance restrictions on changes to employee work schedules. The Authority found that the proposal could prevent the service from revising a workweek as required by a government wide regulation. It held the proposal outside the duty to bargain and dismissed the petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Government wide regulation limit under 5 U.S.C. § 7117(a)(1).
• Outcome: Work schedule proposal rejected.
• Key point: Advance notice could not block a legally required schedule revision.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v18 p530 ]

18:0530(70)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

18 FLRA No. 70

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF GRAIN
INSPECTION LOCALS
Union

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-894

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

The petition for review /1/ 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 an issue regarding the negotiability of the following Union proposal:

All full-time employees in the unit will be assigned to a basic workweek of five consecutive days; employees will be advised not less than two weeks in advance of the shift to which they will be assigned for the basic workweek. Variations in the scheduled daily duty hours during the basic workweek will be appropriate for negotiations at the field office level.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination. The disputed proposal in the instant case is to the same effect as Provision 1 in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2484 and U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Detrick, Maryland, 17 FLRA No. 106 (1985) which would have required two weeks advance notice of changes in tours of duty and which the Authority found to be inconsistent with an applicable Government-wide regulation. In the cited case, the Authority determined that 5 CFR 610.121(b)(2) (1984) obligates an agency head to revise an employee's administrative workweek to comport with the hours during which the employee will actually be required to work "(w)hen the head of an agency knows in advance of an administrative workweek" that such revision is necessary. Thus, the Authority concluded that as the provision therein would have prevented the agency head from revising an employee's work schedule unless he or she became aware of the need to change work schedules not less than two weeks prior to the rescheduling, it was inconsistent with that regulation, which the Authority found to be Government-wide, and outside the duty to bargain. Therefore, based on U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Detrick, since the instant proposal would also, in certain circumstances, prevent the Agency from complying with that Government-wide regulation, it is likewise outside the duty to bargain pursuant to section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute. /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., June 21, 1985

Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

/1/ The Agency in its Response raises a question as to the timeliness of the Union's petition for review because it had already provided unsolicited allegations of nonnegotiability to the Union prior to the Union's written request. In this case, however, in accordance with established precedent, the Authority finds that the Union's petition for review was timely from the date the Agency responded to the Union's written request for an allegation of nonnegotiability. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 121 and Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Washington, D.C., 10 FLRA 198 (1982).

/2/ In so deciding, the Authority finds it unnecessary to consider the Agency's other contentions concerning the nonnegotiability of the proposal.