American Federation of Government Employees, Local 32 and Office of Personnel Management (Authority decision, July 16, 1984)

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

AFGE Local 32 proposed that OPM first give reassigned employees training before holding them responsible for work they could not perform. The proposal also called for reference materials and future training before assigning the work again. The Authority found that the proposal would condition management's ability to direct and assign work, and to discipline poor performance, on prior training. It held the proposal outside the duty to bargain and dismissed the union's petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Management rights to direct employees, assign work, and discipline under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2).
• Outcome: Proposal held nonnegotiable; petition dismissed.
• Key point: The proposal made prior training a condition on management's work assignment and discipline decisions.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v15 p264 ]

15:0264(55)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

15 FLRA No. 55

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 32
Union

and

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Agency

Case No. O-NG-709

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 one Union proposal. Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination.

Union Proposal

Reassignees who are given work for which they have not been given either formal or on-the-job training will not suffer any adverse impact or negative or punitive action for their inability to perform that work. The work will be returned to the supervisor who will see that the employee receives training before assigning that work in the future to that employee. This also applies to documented inconsistent information received on any aspect of the work. All reassignees will be given adequate reference materials and forms for processing their work. Management will assure and make every attempt to provide on-the-job training which includes, but is not limited to, a detailed explanation of applicable procedures, legal precedents and governing rules and regulations.

The Authority concludes that the disputed proposal herein would improperly establish a condition (providing an employee with formal or on-the-job training) upon the Agency's rights pursuant to section 7106(a)(2) of the Statute to direct and assign work to employees and to discipline employees based on their substandard performance or nonperformance of their job duties. In this respect, the proposal in this case is to the same effect as the disputed proposal in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3004 and Department of the Air Force, Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts, 9 FLRA 723 (1982). The proposal in that case conditioned management's exercise of its right to determine the duties to be subject to performance appraisals on the prior exercise of management's right to determine whether employees were to be assigned formal training. The Authority found that this proposal directly interfered with the exercise of management's rights pursuant to section 7106(a) of the Statute. Specifically, the Authority determined in the cited case that the proposal concerned the substantive exercise of management's rights to assign training and to determine the duties and functions which would be subject to performance appraisals and was neither a "procedure" nor an "appropriate arrangement" which is negotiable under 7106(b)(2) or (3) of the Statute. Hence, based on Otis Air Force Base, and the reasons and cases cited therein, the disputed proposal herein is not within the duty to bargain. /1/

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., July 16, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ Based upon the Authority's conclusion that the proposal is outside the duty to bargain under section 7106(a)(2), it is unnecessary to consider other Agency contentions concerning the negotiability of the proposal.