American Federation of Government Employees, Local 12, AFL-CIO and Department of Labor (Authority decision, April 15, 1985)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority in a negotiability case. 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

AFGE Local 12 proposed a joint committee to discuss objections to a revised Department of Labor employee handbook and oral interviews for merit staffing evaluations. The department argued that it had made no material change affecting working conditions, so it had no duty to bargain. The Authority found no claim or apparent basis that either proposal conflicted with law or regulation and held both proposals negotiable under the statute. It ordered bargaining upon request while leaving disputed facts about a duty to bargain in these particular circumstances for a possible unfair labor practice case.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Both proposals found negotiable; bargaining ordered upon request.
• Key point: A claimed absence of changed working conditions did not establish that either proposal was nonnegotiable under the statute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v17 p550 ]

17:0550(81)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

17 FLRA No. 81

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-940

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES

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 raises issues concerning the negotiability of the following two Union proposals.

Union Proposal 1

EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK

(T)he Union . . . proposes a joint committee be formed to meet separate from the Mid Term Bargaining forum to discuss the Union's objections to the proposed Employee Handbook with the goal of accepting the new handbook if the Union's concerns are satisfactorily addressed.

Union Proposal 2

UPWARD MOBILITY AND TRAINING

Change point 6 on page 6 to read as follows:

Panels will use individual oral interviews as part of the Merit Staffing evaluation process in order to make a final determination on the employees to be certified.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.

Based on the record in this case it appears that the Union submitted these proposals to the Agency pursuant to the parties' agreement in response to the Agency's issuance of a revised "Employee Handbook" and the "reissuance" of the Upward Mobility Training Agreement. When the Agency refused to negotiate on the proposals, the Union requested an allegation of nonnegotiability and the Agency replied that it had no duty to bargain on the matters proposed. The Agency's position is that these matters are not properly before the Authority because the Department of Labor has made no material change affecting conditions of employment and no duty to bargain exists with regard to these proposals under such circumstances. The Agency did not assert that the two proposals were nonnegotiable, but, rather, that there is no duty on the Agency's part to bargain over these proposals. The Union thereupon filed the instant appeal with the Authority seeking a negotiability determination.

The Agency has not alleged or demonstrated in the record herein that these proposals are inconsistent with law or regulation, and since no basis for finding the proposals nonnegotiable is otherwise apparent, the Authority finds that Union Proposals 1 and 2 are within the Agency's duty to bargain under the Statute. It is well established that the parties bear the burden for creating a record upon which the Authority can make its decision. See National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1167 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 681 F.2d 886, 891 (D.C. Cir. 1982), aff'g National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1167 and Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, 31st Combat Support Group (TAC), Homestead Air Force Base, Florida, 6 FLRA 574 (1981). See also American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 2477 and Library of Congress, 14 FLRA 59 (1984).

Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Agency shall upon request (or as otherwise agreed to by the parties) bargain concerning the disputed proposals. /1/ Issued, Washington, D.C., April 15, 1985 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ The Authority decides herein only the negotiability of Union Proposals 1 and 2 under the Statute. To the extent that there are factual issues in dispute between the parties regarding the duty to bargain in the specific circumstances of this case, these issues may be raised and litigated in an unfair labor practice proceeding. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2736 and Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, 379th Combat Support Group (SAC), Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan, 14 FLRA 302 (1984).