Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v47/47-068.html
Timestamp: 2016-05-07 01:06:47
Document Index: 588803686

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5901', '§ 5901', '§ 418', '§ 418', '§ 418', '§ 2424', '§ 418', '§\n418', '§ 418', '§ 418', '§ 5901']

47:0743(68)NG - - ACT and DOD, NG Bureau, RI NG, Providence, RI - - 1993 FLRAdec NG - - v47 p743 | FLRA
You are hereHome 47:0743(68)NG - - ACT and DOD, NG Bureau, RI NG, Providence, RI - - 1993 FLRAdec NG - - v47 p743 47:0743(68)NG - - ACT and DOD, NG Bureau, RI NG, Providence, RI - - 1993 FLRAdec NG - - v47 p743
[ v47 p743 ] 47:0743(68)NG
The decision of the Authority follows: 47 FLRA No. 68 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. _____ ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS (Union) and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU RHODE ISLAND NATIONAL GUARD PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND (Agency) 0-NG-1813 (38 FLRA 1005 (1990)) _____ DECISION AND ORDER ON REMAND May 26, 1993 _____ Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Rhode Island v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 982 F.2d 577 (D.C. Cir.
1993) (R.I. National Guard v. FLRA). The court remanded our decision
regarding parts a, h, and i of Proposal 2 in Association of Civilian
Technicians and U.S. Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau, Rhode Island
National Guard, Providence, Rhode Island, 38 FLRA 1005 (1990) (R.I.
National Guard). On remand, we conclude that the three parts are
negotiable. II. Background In R.I. National Guard, there were two proposals in dispute. As
relevant here, the Authority found that parts a, h, and i of Proposal 2 were
negotiable. These parts provide: (a) The Employer will provide seven (7) sets of uniforms which are
required to be worn in each functional work area, to all Bargaining Unit
Personnel. The Employer will provide a direct exchange program for worn, torn,
or clothing soiled too badly to be rendered clean and presentable in the
performance of day to day duties. (h) All uniforms will be worn as issued by the employer to the
bargaining unit employee's [sic]. (i) Uniforms issued to full time bargaining unit employee's [sic]
shall be separate and in addition to those issued to all Guard persons.
III. The Decision and Order in 38 FLRA 1005 As noted in our earlier decision, the Agency argued, with respect to
parts a and i, that "'[m]ilitary uniforms are provided free of charge to
technicians in sufficient numbers as provided for by military regulation."
R.I. National Guard, 38 FLRA at 1014. In this connection, the Agency
asserted that "'the issuance of uniforms, in specified quantities is controlled
by military policy and regulation, and since the wear of the military uniform
is a matter local management has chosen not to bargain, [parts a and i] are not
negotiable.'" Id. at 1011. The Agency also asserted that part h
concerned the wearing of military uniforms and, as such, was identical to
proposals the Authority had found nonnegotiable in prior decisions. We found that parts a and i concerned the number of uniforms that each
civilian technician would receive from the Agency and that part h required the
Agency to provide any additional items that it required technicians to wear. We
noted that the three parts were similar to a proposal found negotiable in
American Federation of Government Employees, Council 214, AFL-CIO and
Command, 30 FLRA 1025, 1034 (1988), petition for review denied sub
nom. American Federation of Government Employees Council 214 v.
FLRA, 865 F.2d 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (Air Force Logistics Command),
because it was not inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. § 5901.(1) We found that "[t]he Agency [did] not argue, and there [was] no basis on
which to conclude" that parts a, h, and i were inconsistent with 5 U.S.C.
§ 5901(a). R.I. National Guard, 38 FLRA at 1015.
Therefore, based on Air Force Logistics Command, we concluded that parts
a, h, and i were negotiable. IV. Court's Decision The court found that the Authority "generously translated" the Agency's
"reference to 'the wear of the military uniform' as 'a matter local management
has chosen not to bargain[,]'" into a claim that parts a, h, and i interfered
with the Agency's right to determine the method and means of performing work
under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute. R.I. National Guard v. FLRA,
982 F.2d at 580. The court also found, however, that the Authority had not
adequately explained why the three parts did not conflict with the Agency's
authority under section 7106(b)(1). Accordingly, the court remanded the case to
the Authority. The court refused to consider the Agency's claim that the three parts
conflicted with 37 U.S.C. § 418 because, according to the court, that
claim was made for the first time in court. The court stated that the question
of whether, on remand, the Agency could pursue this argument "is initially for
the FLRA to determine." R.I. National Guard v. FLRA, 982 F.2d at
580. V. Analysis and Conclusions The issues before us are whether: (1) parts a, h, and i directly
interfere with the Agency's right to determine the method and means of
performing work within the meaning of section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute; and
(2) the Agency may pursue its argument based on 37 U.S.C. § 418. A. Method and Means of Performing Work The Authority employs a two-prong test to determine whether a proposal
means was adopted. See American Federation of Government Employees,
Local 1923 and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Care
Financing Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 44 FLRA 1405, 1451
(1992). The requirement that technicians wear a prescribed uniform while
performing work constitutes the Agency's determination of the methods and means
of performing work under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute. See
National Association of Government Employees, Locals R12-122, R-12-222 and
38 FLRA 295, 304 (1990). Determinations regarding the composition of the
uniform also constitute an exercise of that right. See The Adjutant
General, Massachusetts National Guard, Boston, Massachusetts, 36 FLRA 312
(1990). In this case, however, the Agency has made no attempt to demonstrate a
direct and integral relationship between the requirements that it provide to
technicians a specified number of uniforms and additional items required as
part of the uniforms and the accomplishment of the Agency's mission, and no
such relationship is apparent to us. In this regard, we find that parts a, h,
and i do not involve or seek to limit the Agency's determination that a
specified uniform is required; its determination as to the composition of the
uniform; or its determination as to the circumstances where the uniform must be
worn. The Agency has not established any link between the three parts of the
proposal and the technicians' performance of work, and, thus, has not satisfied
the first prong of the test. The parties bear the burden of creating a record upon which the
Authority can make a negotiability determination. National Federation of
Federal Employees, Local 1167 v. FLRA, 681 F.2d 886, 891 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
(NFFE, Local 1167). A party failing to meet its burden acts at its
peril. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Government Employees, National Council of Social Security Administration,
Payment Center Locals, Local 1760, 36 FLRA 466, 475 (1990) (Payment
Center Locals, Local 1760). Based on the record in this case, we find that
the Agency has failed to establish that parts a, h, and i conflict with its
right to determine the methods and means of performing the Agency's work. B. 37 U.S.C. § 418 Pursuant to section 2424.6(a)(2) of our Rules and Regulations, 5 C.F.R.
§ 2424.6(a)(2), the Agency filed a statement of position in R.I.
National Guard. Although section 2424.6(a)(2) provides that a "statement
shall cite the section of any law, rule or regulation relied upon as a basis
for the allegation[,]" the Agency did not in its statement refer to, cite, or
otherwise rely on 37 U.S.C. § 418 as a basis for alleging that parts a, h,
and i were nonnegotiable. As noted previously, the court did not require the
Authority to address whether the proposal conflicts with 37 U.S.C. §
418 and, instead, held that the question of whether the Agency could pursue
that argument was for the Authority to determine. As stated previously, the parties bear the burden of creating a record
upon which the Authority can make a negotiability determination. A party
failing to meet its burden acts at its peril. For example, NFFE,
Local 1167, 681 F.2d 886; Payment Center Locals, Local 1760, 36 FLRA
466. In this case, the Agency raised the 37 U.S.C. § 418 for the first
time on appeal to the court. As the applicability of 37 U.S.C. § 418 was
never raised before the Authority, we will not address it here.(2) C. Summary We find that the Agency has not established that parts a, h, and i of
Proposal 2 interfere with the Agency's right to determine the methods and means
of performing work. Accordingly, we find that the three parts of the proposal
are negotiable. VI. Order The Agency must, upon request, or as otherwise agreed to by the
parties, negotiate over parts a, h, and i of Proposal 2.(3)
have footnotes.) 1. 5 U.S.C. § 5901, entitled
"Uniform allowances," authorizes agencies, whose employees are required by law
or regulation to wear a prescribed uniform, to furnish employees with uniforms
at a cost not to exceed $125 a year or to pay each employee an allowance for
uniforms not to exceed $125 annually. 2. We note that provisions in an
agreement that are contrary to the Statute or any other applicable law, rule,
or regulation are not enforceable under section 7114(c)(3) of the Statute.
See American Federation of Government Employees, National Mint
Council and U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Mint, San Francisco,
California, 41 FLRA 1004, 1010 n.4 (1991). 3. In finding parts a, h, and i to be