National Federation of Federal Employees, Council of Consolidated Social Security Administration Locals and Social Security Administration (Authority decision, November 17, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), an aggrieved person may generally seek judicial review in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance. A review petition does not itself stay the order.

Plain-English summary

The NFFE council appealed the Social Security Administration’s objections to four proposals. The Authority held that requiring calculators concerned work technology, which the agency had chosen not to bargain over. It found that limiting mandatory overtime to emergencies interfered with assigning work. Two paper recycling proposals were outside the duty to bargain because the union had not shown a direct connection to employees’ working conditions. The Authority dismissed all four petitions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(14).
• Outcome: All four petitions for review dismissed on the merits; none of the proposals was within the duty to bargain.
• Key point: Technology is negotiable only at agency election, and proposals must concern employment conditions or respect management rights.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v13 p422 ]

13:0422(73)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

13 FLRA No. 73

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL OF CONSOLIDATED
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION LOCALS
Union

and

SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
Agency

Case Nos. O-NG-511
O-NG-512
O-NG-513
O-NG-514

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES

The petitions for review in these cases before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and raise questions relating to the negotiability of four Union proposals. /1/ Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.

Union Proposal 1

All Claims Representatives, Service Representatives, and DRT's will be issued calculators, with memory and percentage functions in order to provide computational assistance to said personnel. Procedures for the issuance of these devices will be negotiated locally.

In agreement with the Agency, the Authority finds that Union Proposal 1, by expressly requiring the Agency to provide each employee specified equipment, clearly concerns the "technology of performing work" within the meaning of section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute. See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1858 and Department of the Army, U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 10 FLRA No. 74 (1982) (Union Proposal 3) and cases cited therein; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2477; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2910; Congressional Research Employees Association; and Law Library of Congress, United Association of Employees and Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 7 FLRA No. 89 (1982) (Union Proposal IX). Under section 7106(b)(1), such matters are negotiable only at the election of the Agency. Thus, in the light of the Agency's election not to bargain, Union Proposal 1 is nonnegotiable.

Union Proposal 2

Mandatory overtime will be limited to emergency situations only.

The second proposal, by its express terms, would prevent the Agency from determining that work will be performed during overtime except in emergency situations. However, the right "to assign work" under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute includes the right to determine when work which has been assigned will be performed. National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, 3 FLRA 769, 775 (1980), enforced as to other matters sub nom. National Treasury Employees Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 659 F.2d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Thus, Union Proposal 2, by limiting the Agency's right to determine in nonemergency situations that certain work will be performed on overtime, violates the Agency's right "to assign work" within the meaning of section 7106(a)(2)(B) and is outside the duty to bargain. See International Association of Firefighters, Local F-62 and Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 3 FLRA 438 (1980) at 441.

Union Proposal 3

The employer agrees to take action to ensure that the discarded paper products of a facility will be recycled to the maximum extent possible. Procedures for effectuating the intent of this provision will be established through local negotiations.

Union Proposal 4

The employer agrees to provide recyclable paper to local unions upon request. Procedures for effectuating this provision will be established through local negotiations.

Union Proposals 3 and 4 on their face do not concern personnel policies, practices or matters affecting working conditions of bargaining unit employees and the Union in this case did not provide any argument whatsoever to establish that such a relationship exists. In this regard, in the absence of any demonstration in the record of a direct relationship between the Union's proposals and unit employees' work situations or employment relationship, the Authority must find that proposals 3 and 4 do not concern matters which are "conditions of employment" within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute. See International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, CLC, Local F-116 and Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, 7 FLRA No. 18 (1981). Thus, Union Proposals 3 and 4 are outside the Agency's obligation to bargain. /2/

Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review in these cases be, and they hereby are dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C., November 17, 1983

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

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

/1/ The Union filed a separate petition for review for each of the four proposals. However, in the interest of expeditious processing of these four appeals which arose out of the same set of collective bargaining negotiations, the Authority has consolidated the four appeals in this decision.

/2/ In view of this decision, the Authority finds it unnecessary to reach the Agency's additional contention that proposals 3 and 4 violate applicable law.