AFGE Local 1603 and Department of the Navy, Navy Commissary Store, Patuxent River (Authority decision, September 28, 1984)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority on a negotiability petition. 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

The Navy proposed using an electric time clock at a commissary store, while AFGE Local 1603 proposed that employees report to the supervisor or shift lead instead. The Navy argued that time recording was outside negotiable working conditions and that the union's proposal interfered with management's control of work methods and assignments. The Authority held that time and attendance recording was a condition of employment and that the Navy had not shown the proposal would undermine accurate records. It also found that the proposal did not direct supervisors to perform any particular task. The Authority ordered bargaining on request. The outcome is vacated because it rejected the Navy's position that the sole proposal was outside the duty to bargain.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Conditions of employment under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(14); management rights under § 7106.
• Outcome: Proposal held negotiable; Navy ordered to bargain on request.
• Key point: A different time reporting method remained bargainable where it did not prevent accurate recordkeeping or prescribe supervisors' tasks.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v16 p96 ]

16:0096(22)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

16 FLRA No. 22

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1603
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
NAVY COMMISSARY STORE,
PATUXENT RIVER, MARYLAND
Agency

Case No. O-NG-885

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 raises issues relating to the negotiability of the following proposal:

Acknowledging that there is a problem with recording/keeping of time at the Commissary Retail Store, we, the Union, propose that each employee report to the supervisor or person in charge of the shift that he is assigned.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination. The record indicates that the instant appeal arose when the Agency proposed changing its policy of recording the time and attendance of employees. The Agency wanted to have employees utilize an electric time clock. The Union did not want to use a time clock. As an alternative, the Union made the proposal at issue in this appeal.

The Agency contends that the proposal is nonnegotiable because it does not concern a condition of employment as defined in section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute. This contention cannot be sustained. In Planners, Estimators and Progressmen Association, Local No. 8 and Department of the Navy, Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina, 13 FLRA No. 81 (1983), the Authority concluded that management policies regarding the recording of employee time and attendance constitute a condition of employment. For the reasons set forth in greater detail in that case, the Authority concludes that the instant proposal also concerns a condition of employment.

The Agency also claims that the manner of recording employees' time constitutes a method and means of performing its work which, pursuant to section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute, is negotiable only at the election of the Agency. In Charleston Naval Shipyard the Authority found that a proposal which allowed employees to record their time manually instead of through the use of a time clock was not inconsistent with the Agency's right to determine methods and means, because it did not interfere with the Agency's objective of attaining accurate and reliable time and attendance records. Similarly, in the instant case, the Agency has not shown that changing the manner of recording time will prevent it from keeping accurate records. Thus the Union proposal does not involve a matter which is negotiable only at the Agency's election under section 7106(b)(1).

Finally, the Agency claims that the Union proposal interferes with its right to assign work pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute because it would involve the assignment of work to supervisors. However, the case cited by the Agency in support of its argument is distinguishable from the proposal in this case. Proposal 2 in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1858 and Department of the Army, U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 10 FLRA 440 (1982), explicitly required supervisors to perform certain duties-- making work assignments to employees and evaluating employees' work. In contrast, the proposal in this case merely requires that employees will report to their supervisor or the person in charge of the shift. It does not require that the supervisor perform any particular task. Thus, the proposal does not interfere with the Agency's right to assign work pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Agency shall upon request (or as otherwise agreed to by the parties) bargain on the proposal. Issued, Washington, D.C., September 28, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY