National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 15 and U.S. Army Armament Munitions and Chemical Command, Rock Island Arsenal (Authority decision, December 14, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority finds a union proposal limiting motorcycle and moped safety requirements at Rock Island Arsenal to state law outside the duty to bargain. It dismisses the petition for review. 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).

Plain-English summary

The Army planned to require motorcycle riders at Rock Island Arsenal to wear helmets, eye protection, long trousers, and high visibility garments. NFFE Local 15 proposed that clothing and equipment requirements instead follow the applicable state laws, which at the time imposed fewer of these requirements. The Authority found that the Army had linked its stricter rules to preventing accidents and protecting personnel and property. It held that the union's proposal would prevent the Army from choosing those internal security practices. The Authority found the proposal outside the duty to bargain and dismissed the petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Internal security practices under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(1).
• Outcome: State law safety limit outside the duty to bargain; petition dismissed.
• Key point: The Army could require motorcycle safety gear on the installation beyond what neighboring states required.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v30 p472 ]

30:0472(59)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

30 FLRA NO. 59
30 FLRA 472

14 DEC 1987

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 15

Union

and

U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT
MUNITIONS AND CHEMICAL COMMAND
ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL
ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS

Agency

Case No. O-NG-1436

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). It raises issues concerning the negotiability of a single proposal which involves safety clothing and equipment requirements for motorcycle and moped operators on the Rock Island Arsenal (the Arsenal). For the reasons which follow, we hold that the proposal is outside the duty to bargain because it directly interferes with the Agency's right to determine its internal security practices under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute.

II. Background

The Agency sought to implement a Department of Army regulation which contained various requirements which must be met by employees who wish to operate motorcycles or mopeds on the Arsenal. This Army regulation requires, among other things not relevant to this dispute, that all riders of motorcycles on the installation wear: 1) safety helmets which meet Department of Transportation standards, 2) eye protection, 3) long trousers, and 4) high-visibility garments.

The Arsenal is located in Illinois on an island in the Mississippi river, which separates Illinois from Iowa. The Arsenal draws employees from both Illinois and Iowa. At present, neither Illinois nor Iowa requires motorcycle riders to wear such safety items as helmets or high-visibility garments. Eye protection, however, is required. See Agency Allegation of Nonnegotiability at note 1 attached as enclosure 1 to the Petition for Review; Statement of Position at 11.

III. Proposal

During impact and implementation bargaining on the implementation of the Army regulation, the Union submitted the following proposal:

Clothing and equipment requirements shall conform to applicable state statutes for motorcycle and moped operators.

IV. Positions of the Parties

The Agency contends that the Authority should dismiss the Union's petition since it contains neither an explicit statement of the meaning attributed to the proposal nor a copy of relevant documentary material as required by section 2424.4(a)(2) and (3) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Further, the Agency contends that if the Authority finds that there is sufficient detail to render a negotiability determination, the proposal is nonnegotiable because it: (1) does not pertain to conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees; (2) directly determines the conditions of employment of nonbargaining unit employees; and (3) interferes with the Agency's right under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute to determine internal security practices.

In its petition for review the Union explained that the proposal is intended to preclude the Agency from imposing safety requirements for motorcycle or moped riders on the Arsenal which are more stringent than currently applicable state highway regulations governing the operation of a motorcycle or moped. The Union did not file a Reply Brief.

V. Analysis and Conclusion

A. The Petition for Review is not Deficient

Contrary to the Agency's claims, the Union did provide a statement of the meaning of its proposal, as required by section 2424.4(a)(2) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

Further, contrary to the Agency's other procedural argument, we find that the record is sufficient for us to make a negotiability determination. Even though the Union did not include a summary or a copy of either the Illinois or Iowa statutes relating to motorcycle operations, the Agency indicated in its allegation of nonnegotiability and again in its statement of position that other than eye protection neither Illinois nor Iowa requires the specific safety items which are required by the Agency's regulation.

Based on the language of the proposal, its intended meaning, as explained by the Union, and the record as a whole, we find that the dispute in this case is sufficiently specific to enable us to provide the parties with a negotiability determination.

B. The Proposal Concerns Conditions of Employment of Bargaining Unit Employees

We find no merit in the Agency's argument that the proposal does not pertain to conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. We have previously determined that the enforcement of traffic rules and regulations on an agency facility directly affects working conditions of bargaining unit employees because employees who violate such rules and regulations are subject to being denied access to the facility in a motor vehicle and/or are subject to discipline. See Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, 26 FLRA 704 (1987); Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, AFL - CIO and Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 23 FLRA 154 (1986). The failure to comply with the requirements set out in the Army safety regulation at issue in this case could result in an employee being subjected to administrative procedures. Accordingly, we find the proposal in this case pertains to conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. See also National Association of Government Employees, SEIU. Local R7-51 and Department of the Navy, Naval Public Works Center, Great Lakes, Illinois, 30 FLRA No. 53 (1987).

C. The Proposal Interferes with the Agency's Determination of its Internal Security Practices

An agency's right to determine internal security practices includes the right to determine policies and actions which are part of its plan to secure or safeguard its personnel and physical property. See Mare Island Naval Shipyard, 23 FLRA 154 and cases cited in that decision.

According to the uncontroverted statements of the Agency, the requirement that motorcycle and moped riders on the Arsenal wear various safety equipment was adopted as a method of preventing accidents and safeguarding agency personnel and property. Statement of Position at 1-2. In support of its decision to adopt the particular clothing and equipment requirements set out in its regulation, the Agency cites Department of Transportation studies indicating that the use of high visibility clothing and helmets increases motorcycle safety. Statement of Position at 10-11. In our view, the Agency has shown a sufficient link between its goal of safeguarding personnel and property and its chosen practice of requiring motorcycle riders to wear particular safety clothing and equipment. We find, therefore, that the Agency's requirement constitutes an exercise of its right under section 7106(a)(1) to determine internal security practices.

This proposal, however, would preclude the Agency from imposing any highway safety requirements which are more stringent than current state highway safety regulations governing the operation of a motorcycle or moped. Thus, this proposal is to the same effect as Proposal 2 found nonnegotiable in National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1442 and Department of the Army, Letterkenny Army Depot, 30 FLRA No. 46 (1987). That proposal provided that only the safety requirements applicable to motorcycle operators under Pennsylvania state law could be imposed on the Letterkenny Army Depot. We found that by precluding the agency from imposing safety requirements other than those which are adopted by the State of Pennsylvania, the proposal directly interfered with the agency's right to determine its internal security practices and, therefore, was nonnegotiable. Consistent with the rationale in Letterkenny Army Depot, we find that this proposal similarly interferes with the Agency's right under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute to determine its internal security practices.

In view of this disposition, it is unnecessary to address the Agency's contention that the proposal is outside its duty to bargain because it would determine conditions of employment for nonbargaining unit employees.

VI. Order

The petition for review is dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C., December 14, 1987

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY