Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v43/43-091.html
Timestamp: 2017-01-22 16:12:36
Document Index: 453906282

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 610', '§ 6323', '§ 2024', '§ 6323', 'art 2424', '§ 2024', '§ 6323', '§ 2024', '§ 6323', '§ 2024', '§ 6323', '§ 2024', '§ 6323', '§ 2024', '§ 6323', '§ 2024', '§ 6323', '§ 2024', '§ 6323', '§ 2024', '§ 6323', '§ 2024', '§\n6323', '§ 2024', '§ 353', '§ 610', '§ 610', '§ 610', '§ 2024', '§\n6323', '§ 610', '§ 610']

43:1140(91)NG - - NAGE Local R1-109 and VA Medical Center, Newington, CT - - 1992 FLRAdec NG - - v43 p1140 | FLRA
You are hereHome 43:1140(91)NG - - NAGE Local R1-109 and VA Medical Center, Newington, CT - - 1992 FLRAdec NG - - v43 p1140 43:1140(91)NG - - NAGE Local R1-109 and VA Medical Center, Newington, CT - - 1992 FLRAdec NG - - v43 p1140
[ v43 p1140 ] 43:1140(91)NG
The decision of the Authority follows: 43 FLRA No. 91 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES LOCAL R1-109 (Union) and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER NEWINGTON, CONNECTICUT (Agency) 0-NG-1965 DECISION AND ORDER ON A NEGOTIABILITY
ISSUE January 24, 1992 Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
proposal, which requires the Agency to adjust employee work schedules so that
the employees can attend weekend National Guard drills during their off-duty
time rather than on annual leave or on leave without pay. For the following
reasons, we find that the proposal is negotiable. II. Proposal This agreement is entered into by and between the Parties, the
National Association of Government Employees, Local R1-109, hereinafter
referred to as the Union, and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Center, Newington, Connecticut, hereinafter referred to as the
Employer. It is the purpose of this agreement to outline procedures to be
followed by the Employer, regarding weekend guard drills performed by
bargaining employees. The Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. When given at least two (2) weeks notice, and when there are
qualified employees available to perform the necessary work, the Employer shall
provide through advanced scheduling, days off for employees in the bargaining
unit to attend military training drill. 2. If, because of emergency, the Employer is unable to schedule time
off for bargaining unit employees to attend drills, the Employer shall afford
the employee with an alternate work day within the administrative work week to
prevent loss of pay or other benefits [annual leave]. 3. Upon request the Union will be afforded a written and specific
reason as to why the Employer is unable to schedule time off for an employee to
attend a weekend drill. (Brackets in original). III. Positions of the Parties A. The Agency In its declaration of nonnegotiability, the Agency alleged without
elaboration that the proposal was inconsistent with its right to assign work
under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. In its statement of position, the
Agency contends that the proposal is inconsistent with law and Government-wide
regulation. In particular, the Agency argues that the proposal is inconsistent
with 5 C.F.R. § 610.121(b)(1), which, according to the Agency, requires it
to schedule an employee's workweek to correspond with the employee's actual
work requirements. The Agency contends that as membership in the National Guard
is not a requirement to maintain a position in the Agency, there is "no basis
upon which the [U]nion can claim that weekend military drills are a work
requirement within the meaning of this regulation, thus necessitating workweek
schedule adjustment." Statement of Position at 7. Second, the Agency argues that the proposal is inconsistent with
Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Chapter 353, subchapter 1. According to the
Agency, although subchapter 1-4 of Chapter 353 obligates the Agency "to grant
leave to an employee attending . . . military training . . . '[t]he agency is
not required to reschedule the employee's work to accommodate his or her
military training obligation.'" Id. at 9 (quoting FPM Chapter 353,
subchapter 1-4.(b)) (emphasis added by the Agency). Third, the Agency contends that the proposal is inconsistent with 5
U.S.C. § 6323(a). In this connection, the Agency claims that in order to
accommodate an employee's requirement to attend military training, an agency is
obligated by 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d) "to grant a leave of absence . . . of
which only 15 days will be paid leave [a]s stated in [5] U.S.C. § 6323."
Id. at 10. According to the Agency, "[h]ad Congress intended to
accommodate military training beyond the type of leave to grant, it would have
done so." Id. The Agency claims that, as the "omission of accommodation
beyond a mandatory grant of leave places no further mandatory duty on the
employer to accommodate military training[,]" the proposal "is inconsistent
with Congress' intent to only accommodate to the extent of granting paid versus
unpaid leave." Id. Finally, the Agency claims that the parties "have clearly and
unmistakably waived their right to bargain mid-term through express language in
the collective bargaining agreement." Id. at 11. The Agency asserts
that, as "the [Union] has waived its right to bargain mid-term, . . . the
petition should be dismissed." Id. at 12. B. The Union First, the Union disputes the Agency's claim that the Union waived its
right to bargain mid-term. The Union argues that the proposal "is properly
before the Authority." Reply Brief at 1. Next, as to the merits of the proposal, the Union contends that the
proposal is "intended to be [an] appropriate arrangement[ ], and constitute[s]
procedures pertaining to employees who are adversely impacted by the exercise
of [m]anagement's reserved rights." Petition for Review at 1. Further, the
Union argues that none of the statutes or regulations cited by the Agency bars
negotiation over the proposal. According to the Union, "[i]n order to bar
negotiations any law or regulation would have to do so by specific reference,
not as in the instant case by suggestion." Reply Brief at 2. IV. Analysis and Conclusions A. Preliminary Matter We reject the Agency's claim that the Union's petition for review
should be dismissed because the Union waived its right to bargain mid-term. A
union is entitled to a decision on a negotiability issue under part 2424 of our
regulations if the parties are in dispute over whether the union's proposal is
inconsistent with law, rule or regulation, and the union's petition is
otherwise procedurally correct. In particular, a union is entitled to a
decision despite the claimed existence of additional duty to bargain issues,
including whether an agency is obligated to bargain under the terms of a master
agreement. See American Federation of Government Employees, Local
2736 v. FLRA, 715 F.2d 627, 631 (D.C. Cir. 1983); National Federation of
1272, 1275 (1991), request for reconsideration denied, 40 FLRA 1009
(1991). Issues regarding the duty to bargain should be resolved in other
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2736 and Department of the Air Force, Headquarters
379th Combat Support Group (SAC), Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan, 14
FLRA 302, 306 n.6 (1984). Here, the Agency declared the Union's proposal nonnegotiable on the
ground that the proposal was inconsistent with law, including the Statute, and
Government-wide regulation. The Union disagreed with the Agency's allegation
and filed a petition for review. The conditions governing review of a
negotiability appeal, set forth in section 2424.1 of our regulations, have been
met. Consequently, we conclude that the petition for review is properly before
us. B. The Merits 1. 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d) and 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a) All employers, including the Federal Government, are obligated by 38
U.S.C. § 2024(d) to accommodate employee participation in National Guard
and Reserve military training which is scheduled during the time the employee
otherwise would be at work by granting the employees leaves of absence to
attend the training. In addition, 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a) provides, with
certain exceptions not relevant here, that Federal employees are entitled to 15
days of paid leave (military leave) per year in order to participate in
military training. Taken together, these two provisions of law require the
Agency to grant an employee who is obligated to perform National Guard and
Reserve training a leave of absence, of which the first 15 days is without loss
of pay or benefits. Once an employee exhausts his or her entitlement to
military leave, the employee would be obligated to use annual leave or leave
without pay to attend military training scheduled during the time the employee
otherwise would be at work. See FPM Chapter 353, subchapter
1-4.c.(4). As relevant here, the record establishes that some unit employees are
members of the National Guard or Reserve and, as such, are required to
participate in weekend military training. The record also establishes that
these employees are assigned to tours of duty which regularly or occasionally
include weekends. Based on the statutes cited above, employees who have
exhausted their entitlement to military leave would be obligated to use annual
leave or leave without pay in order to attend military training scheduled for a
weekend on which they are scheduled to work. The proposal would require the
Agency to revise employees' work schedules, in certain circumstances, so that
they may attend military training during their normal off-duty time. Contrary to the Agency's claims, we find that the proposal is not
inconsistent with either 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d) or 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a).
We note that nothing in 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d) or 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a)
concerns work schedule adjustments for employees obligated to attend military
training. In particular, 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d) involves only the obligation
to grant employees leaves of absence to attend military training; 5
U.S.C. § 6323(a) involves only the accrual and use of military leave for Federal
employees required to attend military training. Neither statute addresses other
methods of accommodating employees' military training. We also note that the
Agency has provided no support for its contention that, by authorizing a leave
of absence for military duty in 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d) and providing for 15
days paid military leave in 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a), Congress intended to
prohibit other methods of accommodating employees' military training. As
indicated above, neither statute addresses other methods of accommodating
employees' military training. In addition, the Agency refers to no provision in
either statute's legislative history, and our research has disclosed no such
provision, which indicates that Congress intended to prohibit other methods of
accommodating employees' military training. Further, nothing in the proposal obligates the Agency to take any
action inconsistent with either 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d) or 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a). The proposal applies only to those employees who are required to
attend National Guard or Reserve military training and concerns only work
schedule adjustments. Nothing in the proposal obligates the Agency to grant a
leave of absence under 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d) for any matter other than
military training. Similarly, nothing in the proposal obligates the Agency to
grant an employee more than the 15 days' paid military leave provided for in 5
U.S.C. § 6323(a). Consequently, we conclude that the Agency has not established that the
proposal is inconsistent with either 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d) or 5 U.S.C. §
6323(a). 2. FPM Chapter 353, Subchapter 1-4 FPM Chapter 353 was promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management
to implement 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d) with respect to Federal employees.
See 5 C.F.R. § 353.101. As relevant here, FPM Chapter 353,
subchapter 1-4.(b) provides that an "agency is not required to reschedule an
employee's work in order to accommodate his or her [military training]
obligation, and may not require the employee to reschedule his or her work in
order to perform such military duty on his or her own time." This FPM provision makes it clear that an agency may not force an
employee to reschedule his or her work to attend military training on their own
time. The provision also makes it clear that an agency is not required by law
or regulation to reschedule an employee's work so that the employee may attend
military training on his or her own time. However, nothing in FPM Chapter 353,
subchapter 1-4 precludes an agency, at an employee's request, from rescheduling
the employee's work to accommodate the employee's military training obligation.
Rather, such matter is left to an agency's discretion. Consequently, a
requirement that the Agency reschedule an employee's work so that the employee
may attend military training on his or her own time is not inconsistent with
FPM Chapter 353, Subchapter 1-4. 3. Right to Assign Work Management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the
Statute includes the right to determine the particular qualifications and
skills necessary to perform the work and the right to make judgments in
determining whether particular employees meet those qualifications. See,
R1-109 and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Administration Medical
Center, Newington, Connecticut, 35 FLRA 513, 519-20 (1990). However,
proposals providing for selection of particular employees to perform work, from
a group of employees who are determined by management to be qualified to
perform that work, do not directly interfere with management's right to assign
work and, therefore, are negotiable. See, for example, id.
Further, where management establishes more than one shift during which the same
work is performed and the affected employees have the required qualifications
and skills to perform the duties, a proposal concerning which employees will be
assigned to the shifts does not directly interfere with the agency's right to
assign work. Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO-CLC,
Local 1267 and Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Depot Tracy, Tracy,
California, 14 FLRA 686, 687 (1984). The proposal provides that, if the Agency is given 2 weeks' notice and
other qualified employees are available to perform the necessary work on a
particular weekend, the Agency will reschedule the work of employees who are
scheduled for both weekend work and weekend military training so that they may
attend the training on their own time. In effect, the proposal would require
the Agency to assign qualified employees who are not scheduled for weekend
military training to weekend work, if requested 2 weeks in advance, to enable
other employees to attend such military training during off-duty time. In other
words, the proposal concerns only which qualified employee will work particular
weekends. As noted, the proposal applies only if there are other qualified
employees available to work a weekend in question. The Agency contends that
only four employees in different types of positions would be affected by the
proposal. The Agency makes no claim, however, that these four employees are the
only employees who occupy the positions they encumber. Further, nothing in the
plain wording of the proposal or in the record indicates that the Agency would
be restricted in any manner from determining the particular qualifications and
skills necessary to perform the work on a particular weekend or from
determining whether particular employees meet those qualifications. In this
regard, the Agency has not shown, or alleged, that there are work-related
distinctions between individual employees which would affect the assignment of
those employees to a particular shift or tour of duty or weekend. Finally, the
proposal permits the Agency to deny an employee's request for a work schedule
change in emergencies, even if other qualified employees are available. In these circumstances, we find no basis on which to conclude that the
section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. Accordingly, we need not address the
Union's contention that the proposal constitutes an appropriate arrangement,
within the meaning of section 7106(b)(3). 4. 5 C.F.R. § 610.121(b)(1) Under 5 C.F.R. § 610.121(b)(1),(1) an agency is
required to schedule: (1) employees' work so as to accomplish the agency's
mission, and (2) employees' administrative workweeks to correspond with actual
work requirements. Contrary to the Agency's claim, the proposal does not
prevent the Agency from satisfying either requirement and, accordingly, is not
inconsistent with the regulation. First, we find nothing in the proposal that would interfere with the
Agency's ability to schedule work so as to accomplish its mission. For example,
nothing in the proposal would interfere with the Agency's determination as to
the number of shifts, the starting and ending times of a shift, the work days
and non-work days within a shift, or the number of employees assigned to a
shift in order to meet mission requirements. Rather, as noted above, the
proposal concerns only which qualified employee will work on particular
weekends. Also as noted above, the Agency has not established, or alleged, that
there are work-related distinctions between individual employees which would
affect the assignment of those employees to a particular shift or tour of duty.
Further, nothing in the proposal would result in the scheduling of an
employee's administrative workweek in a manner that does not correspond with
actual work requirements. For example, the Agency has not established, or
alleged, that the proposal would result in scheduling an employee to work on a
day when there is no work to perform. We find no basis on which to conclude that the proposal would interfere
with the Agency's ability to schedule employees' work so as to accomplish the
Agency's mission, in a manner that corresponds with actual work requirements.
Therefore, we conclude that the Agency has not established that the proposal is
inconsistent with 5 C.F.R. § 610.121(b)(1). V. Summary The proposal is not inconsistent with 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d), 5 U.S.C. §
6323(a), section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute, 5 C.F.R. § 610.121(b)(1) or FPM Chapter 353, Subchapter 1-4. As no other basis for finding
the proposal nonnegotiable is argued or apparent, we conclude that it is
parties, bargain over the proposal.(2) FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.) 1. 5 C.F.R. § 610.121(b)(1) provides, as follows:
The head of an agency shall schedule the work of his or her employees
to accomplish the mission of the agency. The head of the agency shall schedule
an employee's regularly scheduled administrative workweek so that it
corresponds with the employee's actual work requirements.
2. In finding the proposal negotiable, we make no judgment