AFGE Local 32 and Office of Personnel Management (Authority decision, September 20, 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

AFGE Local 32 proposed that OPM use no lie detectors and treat entries in employee development plans as commitments to provide training or promotion. The Authority held that an absolute polygraph ban would interfere with management's right to choose internal security practices. It also held that requiring the specific training described in a development plan would interfere with management's right to assign work. It dismissed the petition as to both proposals. The outcome is affirmed because both proposals were held outside the duty to bargain on the merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Internal security right under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(1); work assignment right under § 7106(a)(2)(B).
• Outcome: Both proposals held nonnegotiable; petition dismissed.
• Key point: The proposals would bar a chosen security technique and require specific employee training assignments.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v16 p40 ]

16:0040(10)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

16 FLRA No. 10

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 32
Union

and

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Agency

Case No. O-NG-903

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES

This petition for review comes before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and raises questions relating to the negotiability of two Union proposals. Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.

Union Proposal 1

No lie detectors will be used.

Union Proposal 1 is to the same effect as Union Proposal 4 found to be outside the duty to bargain 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). In that decision, the Authority held that a proposal which prohibited the use of the polygraph violated management's right to determine its internal security practices under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute. The Authority determined that the proposal prevented management from utilizing investigative techniques which it had adopted to safeguard Agency personnel and property.

According to the Agency's uncontested contention, Union Proposal 1, herein, likewise prevents management from utilizing an investigative technique which it has adopted to safeguard personnel and property. Hence, based on U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal and the reasons and case cited therein, Union Proposal 1 is outside the duty to bargain.

Union Proposal 2

Entries in an individual development plan do constitute a commitment by the agency to promote or train.

The individual development plan referred to in the proposal consists of a form in which employees and supervisors outline the employee's training and developmental needs. The items to be completed by the supervisor include training needs in the employee's present position, developmental activities needed for career ladder advancement and developmental activities needed for movement to a new position. The supervisor also completes a more detailed plan for the achievement of each of these objectives, for example, a description of the exact type of training needed. The Agency asserts, without controversion, that this proposal would require it to provide the exact type of training specified in the individual development plan. In National Association of Air Traffic Specialists and Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 6 FLRA 588 (1981) (Union Proposals I through III) the Authority held that a proposal which prescribed "the type of training to be assigned as well as its frequency and duration" interfered with the Agency's right to assign work pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B). Since the instant proposal would in effect specify the type of training to be provided for each employee, it similarly interferes with the Agency's right to assign work and is outside 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., September 20, 1984 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

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