American Federation of Government Employees, Local 225 (Union) and Army Armament Research and Development Command, Dover, New Jersey (Agency) (Authority decision, September 4, 1980)

Army proposal-preparation official time found negotiable (FLRA O-NG-88)

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
O-NG-88
Decided
September 4, 1980
Outcome
Set aside
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-06

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1980, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1980
The federal labor-relations law may have been amended, and later Authority or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FLRA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (flra.gov)

Final FLRA decision. This negotiability order ends the petition before the Authority. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review in a court of appeals within 60 days of issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

A union at an Army research command proposed that preparation of bargaining proposals and impasse work occur on duty time. The Army argued that the proposal conflicted with the statute’s official-time provisions. The Authority found no conflict and set aside the nonnegotiability allegation, leaving the proposal’s policy merits to bargaining.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7131, 5 U.S.C. § 7117.
  • Outcome: Agency nonnegotiability allegation set aside.
  • Key point: The official-time proposal did not conflict with the cited statute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v04 p148 ]

04:0148(24)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

4 FLRA No. 24

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 225
Union

and

U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMAND,
DOVER, N.J.
Agency

Case No. O-NG-88

DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE
AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE), 5 U.S.C. 7101.

UNION PROPOSAL

ALL PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS AND IMPASSE RESOLUTION SHALL BE ON DUTY
TIME.

QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH
SECTION 7131(B) AND (D) OF THE STATUTE AND, THEREFORE, IS NOT WITHIN THE
DUTY TO BARGAIN, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.

OPINION

CONCLUSION: THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH SECTION 7131 OF THE
STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE
DISPUTED PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE. /1/

REASONS: AS EXPLAINED BY THE PARTIES, THE PROPOSAL HERE IN DISPUTE,
WHICH WOULD PROVIDE THAT THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES' PREPARATION OF
PROPOSALS AND IMPASSE RESOLUTION MATTERS WILL BE CONDUCTED ON OFFICIAL
TIME, BEARS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE FROM THE PROPOSALS WHICH WERE BEFORE
THE AUTHORITY FOR DECISION IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1692 AND HEADQUARTERS, 323RD FLYING WING
(ATC), MATHER AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. O-NG-183, 3 FLRA NO.
47(MAY 30, 1980), AND FEDERAL UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL F-169 AND
U.S. ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT COMMAND, DOVER, NEW JERSEY,
CASE NO. 0-NG-73, 3 FLRA NO. 49 (MAY 30, 1980) AND HELD TO BE WITHIN THE
DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.

IN THOSE CASES, THE AUTHORITY HELD THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSALS FOR
THE USE OF OFFICIAL TIME BY UNION REPRESENTATIVES TO PREPARE FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND IMPASSE RESOLUTION CONCERNED A MATTER WHICH
FALLS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7131(D) OF THE STATUTE,
RATHER THAN A MATTER WHICH IS EXCEPTED FROM THE DUTY TO BARGAIN AS
"INTERNAL BUSINESS OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION" UNDER SECTION 7131(B). IN
REACHING ITS DECISION, THE AUTHORITY DID NOT RULE ON THE QUESTION OF
WHAT ACTIVITIES WOULD PROPERLY CONSTITUTE "PREPARATIONS" UNDER THE
OFFICIAL TIME PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.

THEREFORE, BASED ON THE REASONS SET FORTH IN GREATER DETAIL IN THE
MATHER AIR FORCE BASE CASE, THE PROPOSAL HERE IN DISPUTE MUST ALSO BE
HELD TO BE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 4, 1980

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

COPIES OF THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY IN THE SUBJECT PROCEEDING HAVE THIS DAY BEEN MAILED TO THE
PARTIES LISTED:

MR. RONALD D. KING

DIRECTOR

CONTRACT & APPEALS DIVISION

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

1325 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005

MR. W. J. SCHRADER

CHIEF

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF

FOR PERSONNEL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ROOM 2C655, THE PENTAGON

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20310

DR. CAROLYN A. L. WESTERDAHL

PRESIDENT

LOCAL 1437

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

BUILDING 30, ARRADCOM

DOVER, NEW JERSEY 07801

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

/1/ IN SO DECIDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN,
THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MATTERS OF THE PROPOSAL.

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace