American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 2477 and Library of Congress (Authority decision, December 31, 1987)

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

AFSCME Local 2477 proposed making a Library of Congress reorganization retroactive to November 1985. That change would let Processing Assistants begin qualifying earlier for promotion from GS-5 to GS-6. The Authority found that the proposal's real effect was to reclassify the positions retroactively, before the date chosen by the library. Position classification was excluded from conditions of employment under the statute and was outside the duty to bargain. The Authority dismissed the union's petition without reaching the parties' management rights arguments.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Classification exclusion under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(14).
• Outcome: Proposal outside the duty to bargain; petition dismissed.
• Key point: A retroactive reorganization date sought to change when positions were classified at the higher grade.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v30 p686 ]

30:0686(86)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

30 FLRA NO. 86
30 FLRA 686

31 DEC 1987

30 FLRA No. 86

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY
AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCAL 2477, AFL-CIO

Union

and

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Agency

Case No. O-NG-1276

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

I. Statement of the Case

This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability appeal filed under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and concerns the negotiability of one proposal, which requires the retroactive implementation of a reorganization. We find that the proposal is outside the duty to bargain because it concerns the classification of a position and, as such, does not concern conditions of employment.

II. Background

In December 1985 the Agency notified the Union that it was reorganizing the Subscription and Microform Section, Order Division, Processing Services Department. The reorganization plans included the, creation of a promotion plan for the position, Processing Assistant, GS-5, to GS-5/6. During the ensuing negotiations, the Agency's position was that (1) the promotion plan could not be effected until the reorganization was implemented, and (2) the incumbents of the GS-5 position could not be promoted to GS-6 until their supervisor determined that they had been performing at the higher level for 90 days. The Union argued that the effective date of the promotion plan should be the point at which the position descriptions for the regraded position had been "certified" in November 1985. The Union sought to accomplish this result by the following proposal. III. Proposal

The implementation of the reorganization for Local 2477 bargaining unit will be retroactive to November 22, 1985.

IV. Positions of the Parties

The Union asserts that the Processing Assistants had been performing at the GS-6 level at the time that the GS-6 position description was "certified" on November 21, 1985. It argues that the Agency's decision to link the promotion plan to the reorganization delayed the point at which the Processing Assistants could be considered for promotion to the GS-6 level. The Union contends that the proposal is negotiable as an appropriate arrangement for the Processing Assistants who were adversely affected by that decision. The Union also contends that the proposal is negotiable as a procedure under section 7106(b)(2) and that it does not conflict with any management rights.

The Agency asserts that the proposal is not directed at the reorganization as a whole. Rather, the Agency argues that the proposal concerns the promotion of the Processing Assistants to the GS-6 level. The Agency characterizes its decision to create a promotion plan for the Processing Assistant position as a "position management" action taken to provide the incumbents of that position with promotion potential to another position after the reorganization. The Agency argues that the proposal: (1) interferes with its rights under 7106(a)(1) to determine its organization and under 7106(a)(2)(B) to assign work; and (2) is not an "appropriate arrangement" within the meaning of section 7106(b)(3). The Agency also argues that the proposal is related to the classification of a position and, as such, does not concern conditions of employment.

V. Analysis and Conclusions

Management has the right to determine its organization under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute. Pursuant to this right, the Agency effected a reorganization resulting in the changing of the Processing Assistant position from GS-5 to GS-5/6.

As noted above, the Agency asserts that the Processing Assistants are not eligible for promotion to GS-6 until the reorganization is effected and the employees have performed at the GS-6 level for 90 days. The union maintains that the GS-6 classification was appropriate for the Processing Assistants prior to the reorganization. By requiring the reorganization to be implemented retroactively, the proposal would enable employees to begin to complete the requirement that they demonstrate performance at the GS-6 level prior to the actual date of the reorganization. Therefore, the proposal would enable employees to be considered for promotion at a date earlier than they otherwise would be considered.

The record indicates that the sole purpose of the proposal is to allow Processing Assistants to be considered for promotion to GS-6, under the promotion plan position description, at a date earlier than that determined by the Agency. The real effect of the proposal, therefore, is to require the retroactive reclassification of the Processing Assistant positions from GS-5 to GS-5/6. Accordingly, we conclude that the proposal concerns the proper classification of the Processing Assistant positions as it existed prior to the reorganization date selected by the Agency.

Matters relating to the classification of any position are not conditions of employment under the Statute. That is, section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute defines conditions of employment as meaning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions but specifically excludes policies, practices and matters "relating to the classification of any position." Since the proposal concerns the proper classification of certain positions, it does not concern a condition of employment within the meaning of the Statute and it is not within the duty to bargain. See National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 862 and Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah, 3 FLRA 455 (1980). In view of our conclusion that the proposal is outside the scope of the duty to bargain, we do not reach the Agency's arguments that the proposal is inconsistent with its management rights to determine its organization and to assign work and the Union's related claims that the proposal constitutes a "procedure" or an "appropriate arrangement" in connection with the exercise of management's rights.

VI. Order

The Union's petition for review is dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C.,December 31, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY