American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Locals 2477 and 2910 and Library of Congress (Authority decision, July 21, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed this negotiability petition after ruling that the proposal was outside the duty to bargain. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review of a final Authority order in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

Library of Congress unions proposed at least two series of management development details with a minimum of eight participants each. The Authority found the requirement would force temporary assignments even when suitable managerial work or positions were unavailable. That conflicted with management’s statutory right to assign employees. It dismissed the negotiability petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability and management assignment rights under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(A).
• Outcome: Proposal found outside the duty to bargain; petition dismissed.
• Key point: A fixed detail quota could not compel assignments without available work.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v12 p316 ]

12:0316(70)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

12 FLRA No. 70

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
LOCALS 2477 and 2910
Union

and

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Agency

Case No. O-NG-381

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 raises issues relating to the negotiability of the following Union proposal.

Administrative Detail Program

Special emphasis will be given to consideration of underrepresented groups identified for affirmative action. Two series of details will be offered in FY '81, with a minimum of 8 participants. (The underlined portion of the proposal is in dispute.)

The subject of the Union proposal, the Agency's Administrative Detail Program, is described by the Agency as follows:

The program is designed to provide employees who are motivated but who have had little, if any, previous management experience with a short-term opportunity (3 months) to exercise, develop, and evaluate their interest in, and potential for, management . . . . The number of details for each department (which has never exceeded (2) two) has been determined by the (Agency) based on availability of resources, work and overall opportunities.

The Union's proposal, however, would obligate the Agency temporarily to reassign in a fiscal year a minimum of 16 employees who meet the stated criterion. Based on the record and the specific language of the proposal, such reassignments would be to positions involving managerial duties and would be required regardless of whether positions or work of a managerial nature were available for the identified employees. In this regard, the proposal is to the same effect as Union Proposal I in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 695 and Department of the Treasury, U.S. Mint, Denver, Colorado, 3 FLRA 43 (1980), which the Authority found to violate management's right to assign under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute because, under the proposal's requirement that employees be rotated weekly to new work assignments irrespective of whether any new work was available which required the performance of such duties or whether previous work assignments had been completed, "management would be restricted in making new assignments, or in modifying, terminating, or continuing existing ones as deemed necessary or desirable." Hence, based on the U.S. Mint, Denver, Colorado decision, and the reasons stated therein, the instant proposal is outside the duty to bargain. /1/

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., July 21, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ In view of the decision herein, it is unnecessary to address the Agency's contentions concerning the applicability of section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute to the instant dispute.