International Association of Fire Fighters Local F-215 and Fort Polk, Louisiana (Authority decision, April 30, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority resolved a negotiability appeal and dismissed the union’s petition. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review in a United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

A firefighters’ union proposed limits on security work, rotating temporary duties, and barring several maintenance and other assignments at Fort Polk. The Authority found that all four proposals would prevent or dictate assignments that management had the statutory right to make. It held them outside the duty to bargain and dismissed the petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(B).
• Outcome: All four work-assignment proposals held nonnegotiable; petition dismissed.
• Key point: Management’s right to assign work barred mandatory bargaining over these duty restrictions.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v08 p417 ]

08:0417(89)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

8 FLRA No. 89

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL F-215
Union

and

HEADQUARTERS, 15TH INFANTRY
DIVISION (MECHANIZED), FORT
POLK, LOUISIANA
Agency

Case No. O-NG-453

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 RAISES QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE NEGOTIABILITY OF THE FOUR FOLLOWING
UNION PROPOSALS.

UNION PROPOSAL 1

ARTICLE XXI

SECURITY

SECTION 4. THE EMPLOYER AGREES THAT SECURITY ACTIVITIES THAT DO NOT
DIRECTLY PERTAIN TO PHYSICAL SECURITY OF THE FIRE STATION SHALL NOT BE
PERFORMED BY UNIT EMPLOYEES.

UNION PROPOSALS 2-4

ARTICLE XXII

WORK ASSIGNMENTS

SECTION 1. THE EMPLOYER RECOGNIZES THAT THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF UNIT
EMPLOYEES ARE FIRE PREVENTION, FIRE PROTECTION AND LIFE SAFETY.

SECTION 3. TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENTS NOT TO EXCEED THIRTY (30)
DAYS, SUCH AS ACTING DRIVER-OPERATOR AND CREW CHIEF AT THE FIRE HOUSES
WILL BE MADE ON A ROTATING BASIS AMONG AVAILABLE PERSONNEL.

SECTION 4. THE REPAIR, MAINTENANCE, REHABILITATION AND UPKEEP OF
FIRE PROTECTION QUARTERS, HYDRANTS, FIRE HOSES AND RELATED EQUIPMENT,
WORK ORDER PHONES, AND OPEN AND CLOSING GATES, GASING VEHICLES AFTER
HOURS OTHER THAN F.D., SHALL NOT BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNIT
EMPLOYEES. THE UNIT EMPLOYEES WILL BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE ICE FROM THE
POST ONLY IN EMERGENCY. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE REMOVAL OF ICE FROM
AROUND THE FIRE STATION TO WHICH ASSIGNED.

UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS, THE AUTHORITY MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS.
UNION PROPOSALS 2-4, HEREIN, ARE NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM SECTIONS
1, 3 AND 4, OF THE PROPOSAL WHICH WAS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY IN
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL F-109, AFL-CIO AND
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, HEADQUARTERS, CARLISLE BARRACKS, CARLISLE,
PENNSYLVANIA, 8 FLRA NO. 7 (1982). IN THAT CASE THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDED
THAT:

(T)HE ENTIRE PROPOSAL WOULD DIRECTLY INTERFERE WITH MANAGEMENT'S
RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK BY

REQUIRING THAT "WORK ASSIGNMENTS" BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIMARY
FUNCTION OF THE FIRE

DEPARTMENT AND/OR POSITION CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS FOR FIRE
FIGHTERS; REQUIRING ASSIGNMENT OF

DUTIES ON A ROTATIONAL BASIS TO EMPLOYEES AVAILABLE FOR THE
ASSIGNMENT; AND PROHIBITING THE

ASSIGNMENT OF SPECIFIED DUTIES TO FIRE FIGHTERS.

SIMILARLY, UNION PROPOSAL 1, HEREIN, WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THE
PERFORMANCE BY UNIT EMPLOYEES OF VARIOUS SECURITY ACTIVITIES, LIKEWISE
WOULD DIRECTLY INTERFERE WITH THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK BY
"PROHIBITING THE ASSIGNMENT OF SPECIFIED DUTIES TO FIRE FIGHTERS." HENCE
ALL OF THE DISPUTED PROPOSALS IN THIS CASE ARE, FOR THE REASONS SET
FORTH IN CARLISLE BARRACKS, SUPRA, AND THE DECISIONS CITED THEREIN,
INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S RIGHT "TO ASSIGN WORK" PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE AND, THEREFORE, OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN.

ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10 (1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE UNION'S
PETITION FOR REVIEW BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 30, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY