American Federation of Government Employees, Local 32 and Office of Personnel Management (Authority decision, April 23, 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 32 proposed that the Office of Personnel Management not assign employees duties requiring skills they did not already possess. The Authority found that the proposal would also bar assignments intended to train employees or develop their skills. It held that this directly interfered with management's right to assign work. The proposal was nonnegotiable, and the Authority dismissed the union's petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Management's right to assign work under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(B).
• Outcome: Negotiability petition dismissed.
• Key point: A rule limiting assignments to existing skills would improperly prevent work assignments used for training.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v17 p683 ]

17:0683(99)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

17 FLRA No. 99

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 32, AFL-CIO
Union

and

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-966

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

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 presents an issue relating to the negotiability of the following Union proposal:

Employees will not be asked to perform those duties in cases where the skills necessary or required are beyond the skills they possess.

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

The Union proposal would expressly prevent the Agency from assigning work to an employee unless that employee currently possessed the skills necessary or required to perform the work. This would be true even if the assignment was for the purpose of training or to enhance the employee's current skills or abilities. In this regard, the proposal is to the same effect as Union Provision 2 in National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1622 and Department of the Army, Headquarters, Vint Hill Farms Station, Warrenton, Virginia, 16 FLRA No. 82 (1984), which provided, inter alia, that supervisors would, insofar as possible, attempt to avoid assigning duties to employees which were "inappropriate to their positions or qualifications." The Authority found that provision 2 in Vint Hill Farms Station interfered with management's right to assign work pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute because it expressly prevented the Agency from assigning duties to employees in the circumstances described in the provision. Thus, based on Vint Hill Farms Station and the case cited therein, the instant proposal, which also expressly precludes the assignment of work in certain circumstances, directly interferes with management's right to assign work and is nonnegotiable. /1/ See National Association of Air Traffic Specialists and Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 6 FLRA 588 (1981) (Union Proposal V).

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., April 23, 1985 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ In view of this disposition, it is unnecessary to address the Agency's additional contentions as to the nonnegotiability of the proposal.