Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v33/33-021.html
Timestamp: 2016-08-26 06:56:08
Document Index: 551537601

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6101', '§ 6101', '§ 6101', '§ 6101', '§ 6101', '§\n6101', '§ 610', '§ 6101', '§ 6101']

33:0187(21)NG - - Navy, Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, Boston, MA and IFPTE Local 15 - - 1988 FLRAdec NG - - v33 p187 | FLRA
You are hereHome 33:0187(21)NG - - Navy, Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, Boston, MA and IFPTE Local 15 - - 1988 FLRAdec NG - - v33 p187 33:0187(21)NG - - Navy, Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, Boston, MA and IFPTE Local 15 - - 1988 FLRAdec NG - - v33 p187
[ v33 p187 ] 33:0187(21)NG
The decision of the Authority follows: 33 FLRA No. 21 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, SUPERVISOR OF
SHIPBUILDING CONVERSION AND REPAIR, BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS and INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, LOCAL 15,
AFL-CIO 0-NG-1533 DECISION October 17, 1988 Before Chairman Calhoun and Member
of one provision of a negotiated agreement which was disapproved by the Agency
head in the course of review under section 7114(c) of the Statute. The
provision requires the Department of the Navy, Supervisor of Shipbuilding,
Conversion and Repair, Boston, Massachusetts (the Agency), (1) to record the
reasons for ordering mission-accomplishing travel during an employee's nonduty
hours, and, if requested, to provide those reasons to the employee affected;
and (2) to schedule employee travel during the employee's regular work hours
when the event causing the travel is within the Agency's control. We find this provision to be nonnegotiable because it is
inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. § 6101(b)(2). We also conclude that the
provision is not a negotiable procedure under section 7106(b)(2) of the
Statute, but, rather, violates management's right to assign work under section
7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. II. Provision When travel outside the regularly scheduled work hours
is necessary in order to accomplish the assigned mission, the Employer agrees
to record the reasons for ordering travel during non-duty hours and shall, upon
request, furnish a copy of the reasons to the employee affected; otherwise, for
events which are within the Employer's control, the Employer shall schedule the
time to be spent by a Unit employee in a travel status within the regularly
scheduled working hours of the employee. III.Positions of the Parties The Agency disapproved this provision on the ground that
it interferes with management's rights to direct employees and to assign work
under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute because it provides that
employee travel shall be scheduled during an employee's regular duty hours for
events within the Agency's control. In its Statement of Position, the Agency
asserts that the last clause of the provision is nonnegotiable because it
imposes a mandatory requirement to schedule travel during regular duty hours.
The Agency argues that the last clause of the provision violates 5 U.S.C.
§ 6101(b)(2), which requires the scheduling of business travel during the
normal workday only to the maximum extent practicable. The Agency also argues
that the last clause of the provision violates management's rights to assign
work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. The International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers, Local 15, AFL-CIO (the Union) contends that because the employees in
this case are professionals, they are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Therefore, they are not compensated for the time they spend traveling
outside of normal duty hours. Supplement to Petition for Review at 1. The Union
asserts that the intent of this provision is to ensure that a mission
requirement exists to schedule such uncompensated travel. Contrary to the Agency's claim, the Union argues that the
entire provision is in dispute. The Union contends that because the last clause
of the provision, when read in conjunction with the first clause of the
provision, does not impose an absolute prohibition on the scheduling of travel
outside regular working hours, the provision is consistent with Authority
precedent. The Union also argues that the Agency is obligated by 5 U.S.C.
§ 6101(b)(2) to schedule employee travel within the employee's regularly
scheduled workweek to the maximum extent practicable. The Union asserts that
this provision provides a negotiated definition of the appropriate reasons for
determining when the scheduling of travel within the regularly scheduled
workweek is not practicable. According to the Union, these reasons include a
mission requirement to schedule travel during nonduty hours and events outside
the Agency's control. In addition, the Union argues that the provision
constitutes a negotiable procedure under section 7106(b)(2) of the Statute by
which the Agency will exercise its authority under 5 U.S.C. § 6101(b)(2)
to schedule employee travel. IV.Analysis and Conclusions According to the Agency, the employees in this case are
frequently in a travel status performing their job duties away from their
normal duty station. See Statement of Position at 2. The scheduling of
employee travel is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 6101(b)(2) which provides as
follows: (2) To the maximum extent practicable, the head of an
agency shall schedule the time to be spent by an employee in a travel status
away from his official duty station within the regularly scheduled workweek of
the employee. Proposals which require travel during a scheduled workweek
even when such travel is not practicable are inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. §
6101(b)(2). See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
FLRA 870, 877-79 (1986) (Proposal 5) (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Madison Region). Moreover, a requirement that employee travel be scheduled
during an employee's duty hours prevents management from requiring an employee
to work a full day and to travel on nonduty time. This requirement interferes
Statute. See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Madison
Region, and cases cited in that decision; American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1770 and Department of the Army,
Carolina, 17 FLRA 752 (1985). The Union argues that the provision must be read as a
whole and, if so read, the entire provision does not prohibit the scheduling of
employee travel during nonduty hours. Contrary to the Union's claim, however,
we find that when read as a whole the provision prohibits the scheduling of
travel during an employee's nonduty hours in the specified circumstances and,
therefore, is nonnegotiable. The first clause of this provision merely requires that
the Agency record the reasons for ordering mission-accomplishing travel during
an employee's nonduty hours and, if requested, to furnish those reasons to the
employee affected. The second clause of the provision, to which the Agency
specifically objects, provides that when an event which necessitates employee
travel is within the Agency's control, the Agency is required to schedule that
travel during the employee's regular duty hours. The first clause, standing alone, is consistent with 5
C.F.R. § 610.123 which provides that when travel is scheduled during an
employee's nonduty time and the employee may not be paid overtime, an agency is
required to record the reasons for ordering such travel at those hours and, if
requested, to furnish those reasons to the employee concerned. Thus, standing
alone, the first clause would be negotiable. As we previously noted, the record establishes that
employees are frequently required to travel away from their normal duty
stations in order to perform assigned duties. Statement of Position at 2. In
the absence of any contention to the contrary, we find that all travel to which
this provision would apply is mission-accomplishing travel. Consequently, under
the first clause, if mission travel is necessitated by an event outside the
Agency's control the Agency could schedule the travel during the employee's
nonduty hours. Under the first clause the Agency only would be required to
provide the reasons for ordering such travel. On the other hand, under the second clause, if
mission-accomplishing travel is necessitated by an event within the Agency's
control, the Agency would be required to schedule such travel during an
employee's regular duty hours even if it were not practicable to do so. In
other words, the Agency would be prohibited from scheduling employee travel
during the employee's nonduty time. Therefore, by requiring employee travel to be scheduled
during an employee's workweek even if it is not practicable to do so, the
provision is inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. § 6101(b)(2) and with management's
right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. See
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Madison Region. Compare
926, 929-30 (1987) (Provision 2). Provision 2 required that employee travel
normally will be arranged within the employee's scheduled hours of work. We
found that because Provision 2 only required that travel normally be arranged
with the employee's scheduled hours of work when practicable it did not
prohibit travel outside regular duty hours. Thus, we concluded that Provision 2
was consistent with 5 U.S.C. § 6101(b)(2) and did not interfere with
In contrast, however, the provision in this case prohibits the scheduling of
employee travel during nonduty hours if the event necessitating the travel is
within the Agency's control. Because we find that the provision directly interferes
with management's right under section 7106(a)(2)(B) to assign work, it is not a
AFL-CIO, Local 1931 and Department of the Navy, Naval Weapons Station, Concord,
California, 24 FLRA 512 (1986). Further, although the Agency also
disapproved this provision on the ground that the provision interfered with
management's right to direct employees under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the
Statute, the Agency did not address or otherwise support this claim in its
Statement of Position. In view of our decision that the provision is
inconsistent with law and with management's right to assign work under section
7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute, we find that it is unnecessary to address this
additional claim further. V.Order The petition for review is dismissed. FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not