Fort Lewis and AFGE Local 1504 (Authority decision, August 5, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority resolving an unfair labor practice complaint under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. 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

Fort Lewis proposed limiting the scope of a negotiated grievance procedure, while AFGE Local 1504 wanted broader coverage. The parties reached impasse, and Fort Lewis suggested referral to the Federal Service Impasses Panel. On a transferred record, the Authority held that this bargaining position did not violate the statute and dismissed the complaint. There was no judge’s decision under review.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7121(a)(2).
• Outcome: Complaint dismissed on the merits.
• Key point: The grievance procedure’s scope was a mandatory bargaining subject subject to impasse procedures.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v09 p855 ]

09:0855(114)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

9 FLRA No. 114

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE ARMY, FORT LEWIS,
FORT LEWIS, WASHINGTON
Respondent

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1504
Charging Party

and

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Intervenor

Case No. 9-CA-46

DECISION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR'S "ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE AUTHORITY" IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 2429.1(A) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.

UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE
STIPULATION OF FACTS AND THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS, THE AUTHORITY FINDS:

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION
7116(A)(1), (5) AND (8) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) WHEN IT REFUSED TO AGREE TO A FULL SCOPE
NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE TO BE INCORPORATED IN ITS COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE CHARGING PARTY (THE UNION).

THE UNION IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF A BARGAINING UNIT
CONSISTING OF CERTAIN NON-SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT. IN
MARCH 1979 THE RESPONDENT AND THE UNION COMMENCED NEGOTIATIONS ON A NEW
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. IN THE COURSE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS THE
RESPONDENT SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE NEGOTIATED
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. THE UNION RESPONDED, EXPRESSING A DESIRE FOR A
BROAD SCOPE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. DESPITE DISCUSSIONS AND EXCHANGES OF
FURTHER PROPOSALS ON THE MATTER, THE PARTIES WERE UNABLE TO REACH
AGREEMENT ON THE SCOPE OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND REACHED IMPASSE.
THE RESPONDENT SUGGESTED THAT THE MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE FEDERAL
SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL (FSIP). THE UNION REJECTED THIS SUGGESTION,
INDICATING THAT IT WOULD PURSUE THE MATTER THROUGH OTHER FORUMS.

THE POSITIONS OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHARGING PARTY ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE POSITIONS TAKEN IN VERMONT AIR NATIONAL
GUARD, BURLINGTON, VERMONT, 9 FLRA NO. 92 (1982), WHEREIN WE HELD THAT
THE SCOPE OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE IS A MANDATORY SUBJECT FOR
BARGAINING AND, IF IMPASSE IS REACHED, IS SUBJECT TO IMPASSE RESOLUTION
PROCEDURES. BASED ON THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THAT DECISION, THE
AUTHORITY FINDS THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS HEREIN DID NOT VIOLATE THE
STATUTE AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 9-CA-46 BE, AND
IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 5, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY