AFGE Local 1760 and Social Security Administration (Authority decision, August 4, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final Authority order. 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 1760 proposed delaying assignments to certain Entrex operators until all operators had module assignments, and providing training for employees unable to perform more physically demanding work. The Authority found the first proposal nonnegotiable because it restricted work assignments. It found the training proposal negotiable as an arrangement that left the agency control over training details, and ordered bargaining on request.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(B).
• Outcome: Work-assignment proposal rejected; training proposal negotiable.
• Key point: An arrangement could provide training without controlling the agency’s training schedule or methods.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v09 p813 ]

09:0813(103)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

9 FLRA No. 103

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, SOCIAL SECURITY
LOCAL NO. 1760
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Agency

Case No. O-NG-404

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES

THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF
THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) AND
PRESENTS ISSUES RELATING TO THE NEGOTIABILITY OF TWO UNION PROPOSALS.
UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE PARTIES'
CONTENTIONS, THE AUTHORITY MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS.

UNION PROPOSAL 1

5. AFGE LOCAL 1760 RECOGNIZES THE RIGHT OF NEPSC (NORTHEASTERN
   PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER)

MANAGEMENT TO ASSIGN DUTIES TO EMPLOYEES OF THE NEPSC IN ACCORDANCE
WITH APPLICABLE LAW

HOWEVER MANAGEMENT WILL NOT ASSIGN ANY DUTIES TO ENTREX OPERATORS
ASSIGNED TO THE MODULES

UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ALL ENTREX OPERATORS ARE ASSIGNED TO MODULES AND
IT AFFORDS THE UNION THE

OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER PURSUANT TO STATUTE.

UNION PROPOSAL 1 EXPRESSLY WOULD CONDITION THE ASSIGNMENT OF "ANY
DUTIES" TO ENTREX OPERATORS CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO MODULES UPON THE
ASSIGNMENT OF ALL ENTREX OPERATORS TO MODULES. I, THIS RESPECT, THE
INSTANT PROPOSAL IS NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM PROPOSAL V IN NATIONAL
TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE, 6 FLRA NO.97(1981), WHICH THE AUTHORITY HELD TO BE
NONNEGOTIABLE. THE PROPOSAL BEFORE THE AUTHORITY IN THAT CASE WOULD
HAVE ESTABLISHED, AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF CASES TO
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES, THAT SUCH EMPLOYEES HAVE MANAGEABLE CASELOADS. THE
AUTHORITY RULED THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM
ASSIGNING CASES TO EMPLOYEES WHOSE CASELOADS WERE "UNMANAGEABLE" AND
THEREFORE VIOLATED MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT "TO ASSIGN WORK" UNDER SECTION
7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE. UPON PROPOSAL 1 HEREIN SIMILARLY WOULD
PRECLUDE THE AGENCY FROM ASSIGNING ANY DUTIES TO ANY ENTREX OPERATORS
UNTIL ALL OF THEM ARE ASSIGNED TO MODULES. THUS FOR THE REASONS SET
FORTH IN INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, UNION PROPOSAL 1 HEREIN MUST LIKEWISE
BE HELD TO BE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.

UNION PROPOSAL 2

8. MANAGEMENT WILL AFFORD THE EMPLOYEES IN CLAUSE 5 (REFERRING TO
   EMPLOYEES WHO COULD NOT

PERFORM DUTIES WITH GREATER PHYSICAL EFFORT), WHO DO NOT QUALIFY FOR
OTHER POSITIONS, THE

TRAINING NECESSARY TO DO SO.

IN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THIS UNION
PROPOSAL WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH ANY RIGHTS RESERVED TO THE AGENCY BY
THE STATUTE. RATHER, THE PROPOSAL CONCERNS AN "APPROPRIATE
ARRANGEMENT," UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(3), FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED
BY MANAGEMENT'S EXERCISE OF ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES
AND/OR WORK. /1/ IN THIS REGARD, THE PROPOSAL IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE
AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO REASSIGN OR TO TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION WITH RESPECT
TO ITS EMPLOYEES OR POSITIONS. /2/ RATHER, IT MERELY WOULD OBLIGATE THE
AGENCY TO AFFORD EMPLOYEES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR TRAINING WHICH WOULD
ENABLE THEM TO QUALIFY FOR JOBS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THEIR PHYSICAL
CAPABILITIES. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL
WHICH WOULD MANDATE TRAINING DURING DUTY HOURS, OR OTHERWISE DEPRIVE THE
AGENCY OF DISCRETION CONCERNING THE METHODOLOGY, SCHEDULING, DURATION,
TYPE, CONTENT, AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TRAINING ITSELF. /3/

ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE PETITION FOR
REVIEW RELATING TO UNION PROPOSAL 1 BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED. IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE AGENCY SHALL UPON REQUEST (OR AS OTHERWISE
AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES) BARGAIN CONCERNING UNION PROPOSAL 2.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 4, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEM0ER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ SEE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL 121 AND U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., 8 FLRA
NO. 35(1982) (UNION PROPOSAL 2).

/2/ CF. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1624 AND AIR
FORCE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT DIVISION, HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND, 3 FLRA
142(1980) (PROPOSAL TO DETAIL EMPLOYEES OR TO REDESIGN THEIR JOBS TO
RENDER THEIR DUTIES COMPATIBLE WITH PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS HELD
NONNEGOTIABLE).

/3/ IN FINDING UNION PROPOSAL 2 NEGOTIABLE, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO
JUDGMENT AS TO ITS MERITS.