Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v34/34-145.html
Timestamp: 2017-01-23 10:27:09
Document Index: 162159294

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§ 531', '§ 531']

34:0873(145)NG - - Hawaii FEMTC and Navy, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, HI - - 1990 FLRAdec NG - - v34 p873 | FLRA
You are hereHome 34:0873(145)NG - - Hawaii FEMTC and Navy, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, HI - - 1990 FLRAdec NG - - v34 p873 34:0873(145)NG - - Hawaii FEMTC and Navy, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, HI - - 1990 FLRAdec NG - - v34 p873
[ v34 p873 ] 34:0873(145)NG
The decision of the Authority follows: 34 FLRA No. 145 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. HAWAII FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES
COUNCIL AFL-CIO and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
NAVY PEARL HARBOR NAVAL
SHIPYARD PEARL HARBOR,
HAWAII 0-NG-1660 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY
ISSUE February 15, 1990 Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by the Hawaii Federal
Employees Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO (the Union). The appeal concerns the
negotiability of one proposal pertaining to the performance appraisal system of
the Department of the Navy, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
(the Agency). The proposal concerns situations where management is unable to
evaluate employees, including Union officials, because the employees have not
performed work in assigned positions for the minimum period of time to receive
a performance appraisal. The proposal would require the Agency to give those
employees a performance rating of fully successful or higher depending on the
average rating of other employees within the same job description. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the
proposal is inconsistent with 5 C.F.R. § 430.206(e), a Government-wide
regulation, and is outside the Agency's duty to bargain under section
7117(a)(1) of the Statute. II. Proposal Employees who, for one reason or another, are unable to
be rated, such as full time union officials, will receive a rating that
reflects the average rating of all Shipyard personnel with the same JD/PD and
normally will not receive a rating less than "Fully
Successful". III. Positions of the Parties A. Agency The Agency contends that the proposal is nonnegotiable
because it is inconsistent with Government-wide regulations, 5 C.F.R. §§ 430.205(b) and 206(e), which require that: (1) an employee occupy
a position for at least 90 days before that employee is eligible for an annual
performance appraisal; and (2) the appraisal period shall be extended in those
circumstances in which an employee has not performed work in his or her
regularly assigned position for the minimum appraisal period. The Agency claims that the proposal would require it to
give ratings of fully successful or higher to employees whose performance could
not be appraised because they have not performed work in assigned positions for
the minimum period. The Agency also contends that, by requiring that employees'
ratings reflect the average rating of all shipyard personnel in the same job
description, the proposal "would result in a required rating above fully
successful in 75% of the cases." Agency's Statement of Position at 4. The
Agency, therefore, claims that the proposal is inconsistent with 5 C.F.R.
§§ 430.205(b) and 206(e) because it requires the Agency to give
ratings to employees who have not actually performed sufficient work under the
established elements for the minimum period. The Agency also claims that the proposal directly
under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute because it prescribes the
rating to be given employees who are unable to be rated. Id. B. Union The Union did not file a response to the Agency's
Statement of Position. However, in its petition for review, the Union disputes
the Agency's contention that the proposal is inconsistent with Government-wide
regulations. The Union contends that the proposal would allow "Union
Representatives and other . . . employees that are temporarily assigned duties
for which they could not be rated [to] be assigned a presumptive rating . . . ,
and in no case [would] they receive a rating of less than 'fully successful'."
Union's Petition for Review at 1. According to the Union, the proposal would
allow these employees to be given a rating, thereby allowing them to be
eligible to receive their normal within-grade increases without concern that
their participation in Union matters would prevent them from receiving those
increases. Id. at 2. IV. Discussion The proposal addresses situations where the Agency cannot
evaluate an employee's annual performance, including the performance of a Union
official, because the employee has not performed work in an assigned position
for the minimum period of time necessary for the Agency to appraise the
employee's work performance. The proposal would require the Agency to give such
an employee a rating of fully successful or higher depending on the average
rating of other employees within the same job description. Under applicable regulations, an agency must establish a
minimum appraisal period of at least 90 days but not more than 120 days. 5
C.F.R. § 430.205(b). When an agency cannot prepare a rating of record for
an employee at the time specified in the performance plan because the employee
has not performed work in an assigned position for the minimum appraisal
period, the agency must extend the appraisal period until the employee has
performed work in a position for the minimum amount of time necessary to meet
the minimum appraisal period requirement. 5 C.F.R. § 430.206(e).
We interpret the proposal as applying to circumstances in
which, under applicable regulations, the Agency would be unable to provide a
rating for employees on the date required by the performance plan because those
employees have not performed work in assigned positions for the minimum
appraisal period when the annual appraisal is due. The proposal would apply to circumstances where: (1)
employees have been detailed to positions and have not performed work in the
detailed positions for a sufficient period of time to permit an evaluation of
their performance; or (2) employees have not performed work in assigned
positions for a sufficient period to permit an evaluation of their performance
during the rating period because they have used official time for
representational functions for extensive periods. In these situations, 5
C.F.R. § 430.206(e) requires the Agency to extend the appraisal period until the
employee has worked in a position for the minimum amount of time necessary to
meet the minimum appraisal period requirement. By requiring the Agency to give
employees who have not performed work in assigned positions for the minimum
appraisal period a rating of fully successful or higher--instead of extending
the appraisal period--the proposal is inconsistent with 5 C.F.R. § 430.206(e), a Government-wide regulation. National Treasury Employees Union
and Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 28 FLRA 1052,
1055 (1987) (Proposal 2). Accordingly, it is outside the Agency's duty to
bargain under section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute. As to the Union's concern regarding the effect of the
absence of a performance rating on an employee's eligibility for a within-grade
increase, we note that 5 C.F.R. § 531.409(d) provides that within-grade
increases shall be granted when an employee has not served in a position for
the minimum appraisal period under an applicable agency performance appraisal
system during the final year of the waiting period because: (1) of absences
that are creditable service in the computation of a waiting period or periods;
(2) of paid leave; (3) the employee received service credit under applicable
backpay provisions; (4) of details to another agency or employer for which no
rating has been prepared; or (5) of long-term training. 5 C.F.R. § 531.409(d). Finally, because we find that the proposal is
inconsistent with a Government-wide regulation, we find it unnecessary to
address the Agency's contentions that the proposal is outside the duty to
bargain because it conflicts with management's rights. V. Order The petition for review is dismissed. FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not