Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v38/38-107.html
Timestamp: 2017-01-17 07:30:10
Document Index: 183149630

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 550', '§ 550', '§ 550', '§ 550', '§ 550', '§\n550', '§ 550', '§ 550', '§ 550', '§ 3321', 'art 315', '§ 315']

38:1366(107)NG - - NTEU and Treasury, IRS - - 1991 FLRAdec NG - - v38 p1366 | FLRA
You are hereHome 38:1366(107)NG - - NTEU and Treasury, IRS - - 1991 FLRAdec NG - - v38 p1366 38:1366(107)NG - - NTEU and Treasury, IRS - - 1991 FLRAdec NG - - v38 p1366
[ v38 p1366 ] 38:1366(107)NG
The decision of the Authority follows: 38 FLRA No. 107 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION (Union) and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Agency) 0-NG-1717 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY
ISSUES January 8, 1991 Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
(the Statute). It concerns the negotiability of three proposals.(1) Proposal 1 concerns the use of official time to prepare and maintain
records and reports required by Federal agencies. Proposal 2 concerns requests
for compensatory time off for religious observances. Proposal 3 concerns
certain procedures to be applied before probationary employees may be
terminated. For the reasons that follow, we find that Proposal 1 is negotiable
and Proposals 2 and 3 are nonnegotiable. II. Proposal 1 Article 9, Section 2(F)14 and 16 F. The activities referred to in subsection E. above (i.e.
those for which official time is granted), are those: 14. To prepare and maintain records and reports required of the
union by Federal agencies; 16. To maintain financial records and books required to complete
IRS reports; [Only the underscored portion is in dispute] A. Positions of the Parties The Agency contends that the disputed portion of the proposal violates
section 7131(b) of the Statute and is therefore outside the Agency's duty to
bargain under section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute. The Agency argues that the
compilation of the reports and records referenced in Proposal 1 relates solely
to the internal affairs of the Union and that section 7131(b) prohibits the use
of official time for such activities, citing American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 1778, AFL-CIO and Department of the Air Force,
Headquarters, 438th Air Base Group (MAC), McGuire Air Force Base, 10 FLRA
346 (1982); American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2823
and Veterans Administration Regional Office, Cleveland, Ohio, 2 FLRA 4
(1979) (VA, Cleveland). The Agency argues that the "preparation of
documents which the union is required by law to submit in order to retain
viability must be found to be prepared for internal [union] purposes." Agency
Statement of Position at 5. The Union contends that the records and reports contemplated by the
proposal are not activities which constitute internal business of a union
within the meaning of section 7131(b). The Union argues that such records and
reports are required strictly to promote the public interest and that the use
of official time to prepare and maintain the records and reports is consistent
with section 7131(d)(2) of the Statute. B. Analysis and Conclusion Section 7131(b) of the Statute states that "[a]ny activities performed
by any employee relating to the internal business of a labor organization
(including the solicitation of membership, elections of labor organization
officials, and collection of dues) shall be performed during the time the
employee is in a nonduty status." The legislative history of section 7131(b)
indicates that "Congress intended to proscribe the use of duty time for only
those activities relating to the union as an organization and pertaining to the
operation of that organization, such as union business meetings, communication
with members, contracting for goods and services, payment of bills, and other
similar and associated activities." VA, Cleveland, 2 FLRA at 8.
Preparation of reports that "function as an externally imposed disclosure
mechanism opening to view facets of the operations of the labor organization"
is not an activity "solely related to the institutional structure of a labor
organization and, thus, is not . . . related to the internal business of a
labor organization within the meaning of section 7131(b)." Id. at 9.
The Agency argues that the "preparation of documents which the union is
required by law to submit in order to retain viability must be found to be
prepared for internal [union] purposes." Agency Statement of Position at 5. We
disagree. Records, reports, and books that a union must prepare and maintain to
meet requirements established by Federal agencies are not related to the
internal business of a labor organization within the meaning of section
7131(b). In our view, Proposal 1 is similar to the proposal found negotiable in
VA, Cleveland, which concerned official time for the preparation of
financial and other reports required by the U.S. Department of Labor under
section 7120(c) of the Statute, concerning the operations of a labor
organization. In that case, the Authority found that, unlike the activities
expressly cited in section 7131(b) of the Statute as not eligible to be
conducted on official time, such reports did not solely relate to the structure
and institution of the labor organization. 2 FLRA at 8. Rather, they "make[]
available to the public information regarding the conduct of union affairs."
Id. Similarly, the records and reports referenced in Proposal 1 do not
solely relate to the structure and institution of the Union. Rather, the Union
must prepare and maintain these records and reports to meet requirements
imposed by Federal agencies upon the Union to disclose certain information
about its operations. Accordingly, Proposal 1 is not inconsistent with Federal
law and is, therefore, within the duty to bargain. III. Proposal 2 Article 23, Section 4(A)1 A. An employee whose personal religious beliefs require the
abstention from work during certain periods of time, including a religious
observance connected with a death in the immediate family, may elect to engage
in compensatory overtime work for time lost, without charge to leave, for
meeting those religious requirements. Such requests will be granted unless:
1. an employee[']s presen[c]e on a job at a time in question is
deemed absolutely essential and there is no suitable replacement; [Only the underscored portion is in dispute] A. Positions of the Parties The Agency contends that Proposal 2 is inconsistent with a
Government-wide regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 550.1002 (1989). The Agency argues
that the regulation requires the Agency to grant an employee's request to work
compensatory overtime only if it does not "interfere with the efficient
accomplishment of an agency's mission[,]" citing National Federation of
Federal Employees and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, 29 FLRA 1491 (1987) (Provision 11), enforced in part and
reversed in part as to other matters sub nom. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management v. FLRA, 873 F.2d 1505 (D.C. Cir.
1989); and Federal Union of Scientists and Engineers, Local R1-144 and
Department of the Navy, Naval Underwater Systems Center, 26 FLRA 568 (1987)
(Naval Underwater). Agency Statement of Position at 7. The Agency also
contends that the proposal interferes with its right to assign work under
section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. The Union contends that Proposal 2 would not interfere with the
efficient accomplishment of the Agency's mission and, therefore, is not
inconsistent with 5 C.F.R. § 550.1002. The Union argues that the proposal
allows the Agency flexibility by providing the Agency discretion to deny the
request if: (1) the employee's absence would interfere with the efficient
accomplishment of the Agency's mission, or (2) the replacement employee would
not suffice to maintain the function of the Agency. Therefore, the Union argues
that the proposal is not as restrictive as the proposals in the cases cited by
the Agency. B. Analysis and Conclusion The granting of compensatory time off for religious observances is
governed by 5 C.F.R. § 550.1002, which is a Government-wide regulation.
Naval Underwater, 26 FLRA at 569. An agency must afford an employee the
opportunity to work compensatory overtime "[t]o the extent that . . .
modifications in work schedules do not interfere with the efficient
accomplishment of an agency's mission[.]" 5 C.F.R. § 550.1002(b). In
Naval Underwater, a proposal was found to be nonnegotiable because it
was inconsistent with the standard for granting compensatory time off for
religious observances in 5 C.F.R. § 550.1002. That proposal required an
agency to grant compensatory time off to employees for religious observances
unless it "would seriously interfere with the efficient accomplishment of the
activity's mission." Naval Underwater, 26 FLRA at 568. The Union contends that Proposal 2 is not inconsistent with 5 C.F.R. §
550.1002 because it does not interfere with the efficient accomplishment
of the Agency's mission. We disagree. In contrast to the requirement of 5
C.F.R. § 550.1002(b), quoted above, Proposal 2 requires that an employee's
request for compensatory overtime work for time lost for meeting religious
observances will be granted unless an employee's presence on a job at a time in
question "is deemed absolutely essential and there is no suitable replacement."
Thus, Proposal 2 establishes a standard for denying requests for compensatory
time off for religious observances that is far more restrictive than the
standard in 5 C.F.R. § 550.1002(b). Consequently, Proposal 2 conflicts
with a Government-wide regulation and is nonnegotiable under section 7117(a)(1)
of the Statute because it is inconsistent with law or regulation.
Compare American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
National Immigration and Naturalization Service Council and U.S. Immigration
and Naturalization Service, 27 FLRA 467, 476-77 (1987) (Provision 4
incorporated essentially the same standard as in 5 C.F.R. § 550.1002(b)
and, therefore, was not in conflict with that regulation). In view of this
conclusion, it is not necessary for us to consider the Agency's additional
contention that the proposal interferes with its right to assign work. IV. Proposal 3 Article 37, Section 1(B), (C), and (E) B. The parties agree that when the Employer determines that a
probationary employee is to be terminated, the Employer will, if sufficient
probationary time remains, give the affected employee fifteen (15) days notice
of termination or such notice as the remaining probationary period permits.
C. The Employer agrees to meet with an affected probationary employee
upon request and/or accept a written statement relating to the termination,
whether or not the employee is on the rolls. If the employee elects both, the
written statement must be delivered to the Employer on or before the date of
the meeting. If the affected employee elects to request a meeting to submit a
employee may be accompanied by two representatives designated by the Union and
national representative of the Union. D. The affected employee will be advised by the Employer whether the
employee's written statement or oral statement made at the meeting. E. Those portions of C. and D. above which entitle an employee to a
meeting with the Employer to discuss the employee's termination will not apply
to probationary employees who have not completed the third month of their
probationary period. A. Positions of the Parties The Agency contends that Proposal 3 is inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. § 3321 and 5 C.F.R. Part 315, Subpart H, which concern, in part, the
termination of probationary employees. The Agency argues that Proposal 3
improperly would add procedural protections for probationary employees to those
provided by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations, citing
Department of the Navy, Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia, 30 FLRA 1105
(1988) (Navy, Oceana). The Union contends that Proposal 3 gives probationary employees only
one additional, discretionary procedural protection and is therefore not
inconsistent with law and regulation. The Union argues that the Authority's
holding in Navy, Oceana oversimplifies and overstates National
Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 848 F.2d 1273 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
(NTEU) and United States Department of Justice, Immigration and
Naturalization Service v. FLRA, 709 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (INS).
In this regard, the Union states that Proposal 3 does not conflict with
NTEU and INS because it does not impose third party review on the
Agency's decision to terminate a probationary employee, but instead creates
only a procedure for optional internal review by the Agency of its decision to
terminate a probationary employee. B. Analysis and Conclusions In INS, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit found that, in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Congress
employee, preserving for the probationary employee only minimal due process.
See Bremerton Metal Trades Council and Naval Supply Center Puget
Sound, 32 FLRA 643, 661 (1988). The Authority has also reiterated that "in
enacting the Statute, Congress did not intend that procedural protections for
probationary employees be established through collective bargaining under the
Statute." Navy, Oceana, 30 FLRA at 1127 (quoting Department of Health
and Human Services, Social Security Administration and American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 1923, AFL-CIO, 15 FLRA 714, 715 (1984) (HHS,
SSA)). Rather, "Congress instructed OPM, not FLRA, to implement the
probationary program and to provide whatever procedural protections were
necessary for probationary employees." HHS, SSA, 15 FLRA at 715 (quoting
INS, 709 F.2d at 729). Proposal 3 would require, among other things, that the Agency, prior to
terminating a probationary employee: (1) give 15 days' notice of termination to
the employee, under certain circumstances; (2) meet with the probationary
employee and/or accept a written statement relating to the termination whether
or not the employee is still employed by the Agency; and (3) consider the
employee's oral or written statements and advise the employee if the decision
to terminate is sustained or rescinded. By establishing such requirements,
Proposal 3 imposes procedural protections beyond those provided by OPM.
See Navy, Oceana, 30 FLRA at 1128. For example, the OPM
regulations at 5 C.F.R. § 315.804 require only that a notice of
termination be in writing and include certain specified information, whereas
Proposal 3 requires that the affected employee receive 15 days' notice if there
is sufficient remaining time in the probationary period to do so. The Union states that Proposal 3 "creates a procedure for optional
internal review by the [A]gency itself of a decision to terminate. . . . [T]he
triggering of the [A]gency's obligation to conduct reconsideration is entirely
within the [A]gency's control." Union Response to Agency Statement of Position
at 7. We disagree. Proposal 3 states that: "[t]he Employer agrees to
meet with an affected probationary employee upon request and/or accept a
written statement" and "[t]he affected employee will be advised by the
Employer whether the decision to terminate is sustained or rescinded after
considering the employee's written statement or oral statement made at the
meeting" (emphasis added). The option to request a meeting or to submit a
written statement is solely the affected employee's prerogative. Once such a
request has been made, the Agency must comply. In our view, the Union's
statement of the intent of the proposal is less restrictive than the plain
wording of Proposal 3 and, therefore, is inconsistent with the proposal.
Accordingly, we base our decision on the plain wording of the proposal, not on
the Union's statement of intent. See National Treasury Employees
Union and Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, 35 FLRA 26, 28 (1990) (the Authority will not adopt a union's
statement of intent that is inconsistent with the wording of the proposal, but
will base its decision on the interpretation that is consistent with the plain
wording of the proposal). Thus, Proposal 3 would establish procedural
protections for probationary employees beyond those provided by OPM's
Government-wide regulations. Accordingly, we find that Proposal 3 is inconsistent with Federal law
and government-wide regulation. Consequently, it is nonnegotiable under section
7117(a)(1) of the Statute. V. Order The Agency shall upon request, or as otherwise agreed to by the
parties, negotiate concerning Proposal 1.(2) The petition for review is dismissed insofar as it concerns
Proposals 2 and 3. FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.) 1. The Union's petition for review
contained one additional proposal, which the Union has withdrawn. Therefore, we
will not rule on the negotiability of that proposal. 2. In finding Proposal 1 to be within
the duty to bargain, we make no judgment as to its merits. Federal Labor Relations Authority