National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1332 and Headquarters, U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command (Authority decision, May 9, 1984)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed the union's negotiability petition. 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

NFFE Local 1332 proposed three levels for employee performance ratings at the Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command. The proposal specified what performance would earn each overall rating. The Authority held that choosing the number of rating levels and the requirements for each was part of management's rights to direct employees and assign work. It dismissed the union's petition. The decision distinguished bargaining over a process for an employee to grieve how management applied its performance requirements.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Management rights under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B).
• Outcome: Union petition dismissed; rating level proposal outside the duty to bargain.
• Key point: Management could define overall performance rating levels and the performance needed for each.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v14 p459 ]

14:0459(75)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

14 FLRA No. 75

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1332
Union

and

HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY MATERIEL
DEVELOPMENT AND READINESS
COMMAND, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
Agency

Case No. O-NG-497

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). The issue presented is the negotiability of the following proposal:

Union Proposal

Section J. There will be three (3) levels of performance used in rating of employees.

(1) Exceptional (Outstanding). Performance which at least meets performance standards for all major elements and exceeds performance standards for some (more than 2) major elements. Performance in relation to performance standards is of such quality that it could only be achieved by the most exceptional employee. This employee deserves special recognition.

(2) Fully Successful (Satisfactory). Performance which at least meets performance standards for all critical elements. Performance in relation to performance standards is of such quality that it would be expected only of a proven, competent, average employee.

(3) Unsatisfactory. Performance which fails to meet performance standards for one or more critical elements. Performance is clearly unacceptable and corrective action is required.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations. The Union's proposal would establish the number of rating levels for an appraisal of overall performance and what quality of performance is required in order to achieve a particular overall rating. As such, it is substantively identical in effect to a portion of the union's proposal which was before the Authority in American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 26 and U.S. Department of Justice, 13 FLRA No. 96 (1984). In that case, the Authority held that a portion of a proposal to set the number of rating levels for an appraisal of overall performance and to determine what quality of performance would be required to obtain a particular rating was inconsistent with management's rights to direct employees and assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute. In this regard, the Authority held that an essential aspect of management's assignment of work and the supervision and guidance of employees in the performance of their work was to establish the job requirements for various levels of performance so as to achieve the quality and amount of work needed to fulfill the agency's mission and functions. Further, the Authority held that the number of rating levels was integrally related to the effectiveness of an agency's using performance standards to accomplish the work of the agency. For the reasons more fully stated in Department of Justice, supra, the Union's proposal herein is not within the duty to bargain. Of course, a proposal which would permit an employee to grieve the application to that employee of the performance requirements established by management would be within the duty to bargain. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1968 and Department of Transportation, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Massena, New York, 5 FLRA 70 (1981) (Union Proposal 4), affirmed sub nom. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1968 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 691 F.2d 565 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. denied, . . . U.S. . . ., 103 S.Ct. 2085 (1983).

Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C., May 9, 1984 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY