National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 422 and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Colorado River Agency (Authority decision, February 15, 1984)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed the union's negotiability petition on all four proposals. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), a person aggrieved by a final Authority order may generally seek judicial review within 60 days of issuance. A review petition does not itself stay the order.

Plain-English summary

NFFE Local 422 proposed specific training for electric meter reader trainees at the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Colorado River Agency. The topics included low voltage safety, reaching meters safely, first aid, and different meter types. The union argued that the proposals implemented workplace safety requirements. The Authority held that requiring particular training during specified stages would constrain management's right to assign work, even where the training addressed legitimate safety concerns. It dismissed the petition on all four proposals.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Management's right to assign work under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(B).
• Outcome: Four training proposals held nonnegotiable; petition dismissed.
• Key point: Specific required training at fixed stages directly affected management's assignment of work.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v14 p48 ]

14:0048(8)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

14 FLRA No. 8

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 422
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
COLORADO RIVER AGENCY,
PARKER, ARIZONA
Agency

Case No. O-NG-695

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES

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 the issue of the negotiability of the following four Union proposals. /1/

Union Proposal 1

Under, First 1,000 Hours:

Learns safety precautions to take in dealing with low voltage - O.J.T. with a journeyman.

Union Proposal 2

Under, First 1,000 Hours:

Learns what paths to take to reach individual meters, to know where dogs may be located and what action to take in these cases.

Union Proposal 3

Under, First 1,000 Hours:

The Trainee will be given First Aid Training, which will include snake bite training.

Union Proposal 4

Under, Second 1,000 Hours:

Under close supervision learns the different types of meters such as polyphase watt-hour, demand meters and the safety precautions to be taken with each type - OJT with a journeyman.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations. Each of the Union's proposals concerns the content of the Agency's "Training Plans for Electric Meter Readers and Installer Trainee." The Union asserts that as these proposals merely provide procedures to implement a training program that complies with Government-wide safety regulations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), they do not interfere with management's rights under the Statute. The Agency contends, however, that the proposals directly interfere with management's right to assign work pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. /2/

The Authority has consistently held that training assignments during duty hours are assignments of work, covered by section 7106(a)(2)(B). E.g., National Association of Air Traffic Specialists and Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 6 FLRA No. 588(1981). As such, any proposal addressing the substantive aspects of training is a direct interference with management's right to assign work. Here, contrary to the Union's contention that the proposals merely provide procedures to implement Government-wide safety regulations, these proposals, by requiring the Agency to provide specific training for bargaining unit employees at specific intervals of time, would impose an independent contractual requirement on management's discretion with respect to the assignment of work regardless of whether the safety regulations upon which they are based are later revised. /3/ Thus, these proposals are not negotiable even though, to some extent, they purport to deal with legitimate health and safety factors that management must take into account in assigning work. See National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1167 and Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, 31st Combat Support Group (TAC), Homestead Air Force Base, Florida, 6 FLRA 574(1981) (Union Proposal 6), affirmed as to other matters, sub nom. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1167 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 681 F.2d 886 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

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., February 15, 1984 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ The Agency's allegation that the Union's petition for review should be dismissed because the petition did not contain a statement of the meaning that the Union attributed to the proposals cannot be sustained. The Union was afforded the opportunity to cure its deficiency and did so in a timely manner. Thus, the Union's petition for review is properly before the Authority.

/2/ Section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute provides, in pertinent part:

Sec. 7106. Management rights

(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, nothing in this chapter shall affect the authority of any management official of any agency--

(2) in accordance with applicable laws--

(B) to assign work, . . .

/3/ See National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1167 and Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, 31st Combat Support Group (TAC), Homestead Air Force Base, Florida, 6 FLRA 574(1981) (Union Proposals 1 and 2), affirmed as to other matters, sub. nom. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1167 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 681 F.2d 886 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Accord, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, National Council of EEOC Locals and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 10 FLRA No. 1(1982), appeal docketed sub nom. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 82-2310 (D.C. Cir. November 1, 1982) (proposals merely requiring compliance with laws and regulations found negotiable).