National Federation of Federal Employees Local 1379 and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office (Authority decision, August 29, 1984)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final negotiability order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). Filing a petition does not stay the Authority's order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

NFFE Local 1379 proposed a competitive area for reduction in force actions at the Bureau of Land Management's Oregon State Office. The proposed area included bargaining unit employees and wage supervisors, and could affect other employees eligible to move into affected jobs. The Authority held that the proposal directly determined conditions of employment for employees outside the bargaining unit, which was beyond the union's statutory bargaining rights. It found the proposal outside the duty to bargain and dismissed the petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Proposal nonnegotiable; petition dismissed.
• Key point: The union could not require bargaining over a reduction in force area that directly covered nonunit employees.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v15 p796 ]

15:0796(151)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

15 FLRA No. 151

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1379
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
OREGON STATE OFFICE
Agency

Case No. O-NG-839

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) and presents an issue concerning the negotiability of the following proposal:

The competitive area in a reduction-in-force shall consist of the Bargaining Unit as described in Article II, and Wage Supervisors over the employees. In addition, any employee qualified to "bump" or eligible to "retreat" into such jobs shall also be eligible for inclusion in the competitive area for the purpose of bumping or retreating only.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination. The proposal seeks to define a competitive area within the Agency for purposes of reduction-in-force (RIF). The Agency asserts that the proposed competitive area would encompass non-bargaining unit employees, specifically, supervisors in addition to bargaining unit employees. The Agency concludes, based upon this fact, that it has no obligation to bargain over the proposal.

The Authority, in American Federation of Government Employees, Local 32, AFL-CIO and Office of Personnel Management, 14 FLRA No. 98 (1984), appeal docketed, No. 84-1250 (D.C. Cir. June 15, 1984) has addressed the negotiability of a proposal dealing with competitive areas for RIF purposes where an agency established that the proposed competitive area affected non-bargaining unit employees. In that case the Authority noted that it is well established that the duty to bargain does not extend to matters concerning positions and employees outside the bargaining unit. International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, NASA Headquarters Professional Association and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Headquarters, Washington, D.C., 8 FLRA 212 (1982) and cases cited therein at note 5. However, an agency generally may bargain over such matters if it so chooses. See, e.g., American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2 and Department of the Army, Military District of Washington, 4 FLRA 450 (1980). Insofar as the proposal defining a competitive area in Office of Personnel Management was established to directly determine conditions of employment of nonunit employees, it was found to concern matters beyond the representation rights of the union and, hence, not within the agency's obligation to bargain. See also Service Employees' International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 556 and Department of the Army, Office of the Adjutant General, Hale Koa Hotel, Honolulu, Hawaii, 9 FLRA 686 (1982).

Since, in this case, the proposal by its plain language would directly determine conditions of employment of employees not within the bargaining unit, it must be concluded, for the reasons stated in Office of Personnel Management, that the proposal is similarly outside the duty to bargain as alleged by the Agency.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for review be, and it hereby is, dismissed.

Issued, Washington, D.C., August 29, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY