Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v35/35-030.html
Timestamp: 2016-07-27 02:17:41
Document Index: 454845103

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

35:0254(30)NG - - NTEU and Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service - - 1990 FLRAdec NG - - v35 p254 | FLRA
You are hereHome 35:0254(30)NG - - NTEU and Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service - - 1990 FLRAdec NG - - v35 p254 35:0254(30)NG - - NTEU and Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service - - 1990 FLRAdec NG - - v35 p254
[ v35 p254 ] 35:0254(30)NG
The decision of the Authority follows: 35 FLRA No.
30 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
UNION (Union) and DEPARTMENT OF
SERVICE (Agency) 0-NG-1662 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY
ISSUE March 27, 1990 Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Armendariz. I. Statement of the Case This case is before the Authority as the result of a
negotiability appeal filed by the Union under section 7105(a)(2)(D) and (E) of
appeal concerns the negotiability of one proposal which requires that (1)
periodic reviews of all performance elements be provided to employees not more
than 3 workdays prior to the end of the appraisal period and (2) supervisors
discuss performance ratings with employees within 3 workdays of the initial
preparation of the ratings of record. For the following reasons, we find that
the first paragraph of the proposal is negotiable, but the second paragraph is
not. II. Proposal Performance ratings shall not be reduced due to
budgetary considerations. A periodic review in all elements shall be
provided to each employee no more than 3 workdays prior to the end of the
appraisal period. Employees may provide a copy of this periodic review to
the union. Supervisors shall discuss with each of their employees about
their appraisal of performance no more than 3 workdays prior to the initial
preparation of the rating of record by the
supervisor. [The Agency contends that the underlined portions of the
proposal are nonnegotiable.] III. Preliminary Matter A. Positions of the Parties The Agency contends that the petition for review is
untimely and should be dismissed. The Agency asserts that the Union's proposal
is "substantially identical" to a Union proposal involved in a prior
negotiability appeal that was withdrawn by the Union and argues that the Union
could have "perfect[ed] its petition for review [in the previous case] simply
by filing the the [sic] Union's response." Statement of Position at 4. The
Agency contends that the Union's withdrawal of the prior appeal renders the
instant appeal untimely. The Union asserts that the prior proposal provided
employees with "a preliminary, non-binding rating." Reply Brief at 2. The Union
states that because of its concern over the proposal's negotiability, it
elected to withdraw the petition for review and modify the proposal. The Union
states that the current proposal concerns "a 'periodic review' which is
provided for in the Agency's Performance Appraisal Plan." Id. The Union
asserts that because it submitted the petition for review with a revised
proposal, the petition is timely and appropriate for Authority
review. B. Analysis and Conclusion The Union's proposal concerns periodic reviews and
discussions about employee performance. The Union's previous proposal concerned
a "preliminary non-binding rating." Statement of Position at 2. It is clear
that both proposals concern the same general subject matter. We reject,
however, the Agency's assertion that the two proposals are "substantially
identical[.]" Id. at 4. We do not address whether the previous proposal would be
found to be negotiable. We note, however, that both parties rely on 5
C.F.R. § 430.206(c), which prohibits disclosure of "[r]atings of record" in
certain circumstances but does not "preclude communication about appraisal of
performance between a supervisor and an employee prior to the determination of
the rating of record." In addition, 5 C.F.R. § 430.205(e) defines
"progress review[s]" separately from "ratings." The Union's previous proposal referred to "rating[s]."
The Union's current proposal does not. Because applicable regulations appear to
distinguish between ratings and other performance documents or discussions, we
conclude that the two proposals are not so similar as to require dismissal of
the Union's petition for review. Compare American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 2303 v. FLRA, 815 F.2d 718 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
(dismissal of appeal affirmed where proposal contained no changes in the
substance or language when compared with prior proposal alleged in writing by
the agency to be nonnegotiable). IV. Positions of the Parties A. The Agency The Agency argues that the proposal is inconsistent with
a Government-wide regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 430.206(c), prohibiting
communication of performance ratings of record to employees prior to approval
by the final reviewer and, therefore, is nonnegotiable in accordance with
section 7117(a) of the Statute. The Agency also asserts that, to the extent
that the proposal requires supervisors to undertake a specific task, the
proposal violates its right under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute to
assign work. The Agency acknowledges that it is obligated "'to bargain
on procedures which management officials will observe in the development and
implementation of performance standards and critical elements; and, under
section 7106(b)(3), on appropriate arrangements for employees adversely
affected by the application of performance standards to them.'" Statement of
Position at 9 (quoting National Treasury Employees Union and Department of
the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, 3 FLRA 769, 770 (1980),
affirmed sub nom. National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 691
F.2d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). The Agency argues, however, that the proposal is
not a negotiable procedure under section 7106(b)(2) because it conflicts with a
Government-wide regulation and because it "does not relate to the development
and implementation of performance standards and elements." Id. at 10.
The Agency also asserts that the proposal does not constitute an "appropriate
arrangement" under section 7106(b)(3) because it "would excessively interfere
with the exercise of management's right to accomplish its mission."
Id. Finally, the Agency contends that the proposal is
inconsistent with an Agency regulation for which a compelling need exists. The
Agency argues that by requiring periodic reviews to be held no earlier than 3
days prior to the end of the appraisal period, the proposal conflicts with an
Agency regulation which requires that progress reviews be conducted within 6 to
9 months of the beginning of the appraisal period "to make the employee aware
of any deficiencies and to encourage continuation of acceptable or better
performance." Id. at 11. The Agency asserts that there is a compelling
need for its regulation because "[i]t is essential that the requirements of the
[Agency's] Plan be maintained, to assure consistency with Governmentwide
regulations issued by OPM [Office of Personnel Management], and to assure
equity for all employees." Id. at 12. B. The Union The Union contends that the proposal is consistent with 5
C.F.R. § 430.206(c) because that regulation "plainly states that a
supervisor and an employee are allowed to discuss the appraisal of performance
prior to the determination of the rating of record." Reply Brief at 4
(emphasis in original). Further, the Union argues that the proposal "does not
require the supervisor to communicate the 'rating of record.'" Id. The
Union disputes the Agency's assertion that the proposal is inconsistent with
the Agency's right to assign work and argues that the proposal's requirement
that "this communication take place within 3 workdays is merely a procedural
time limit[.]" Id. at 5. The Union also denies any conflict with an
Agency regulation, asserting that the proposal "calls for an additional
periodic review and in no way prevents the Agency from proceeding with its
Performance Appraisal Plan." Id. at 6. V. Analysis and Conclusions A. The Proposal Does Not Violate 5 C.F.R. § 430.206(c) The Government-wide regulation relied on by both parties
is 5 C.F.R. § 430.206(c). That regulation provides, in relevant part, as
follows: Ratings of record and performance-based personnel actions
shall be reviewed and approved by a person(s) at a higher level in the organization than that of the
appraising official. Ratings of record may not be communicated to employees
prior to approval by the final reviewer. This does not preclude communication
about appraisal of performance between a supervisor and an employee prior to
the determination of the rating of record. A proposal requiring disclosure of ratings of record to
employees prior to approval by the final reviewer is nonnegotiable under
section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute because such disclosure violates 5
C.F.R. § 430.206(c). Patent Office Professional Association and Patent and
Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, 29 FLRA 1389, 1409-10 (1987)
(Patent and Trademark Office) (first disputed sentence of Proposal 10,
requiring that a determination that an employee's performance was not at an
acceptable level of competence be given to the employee in writing before the
personnel office was notified of the determination, held to be inconsistent
with 5 C.F.R. § 430.206(c)). As previously noted, the Union's proposal does not refer
to ratings of record. In fact, the Union withdrew a previous proposal which
concerned preliminary ratings. The Union's proposal refers only to progress
reviews and discussions. Further, the Union asserts that its proposal "does not
require the supervisor to communicate the 'rating of record.'" Reply Brief at
4. We conclude that the Union's assertion is consistent with the plain wording
of the proposal. Accordingly, we conclude that the proposal does not obligate
the Agency to provide ratings of record to employees prior to higher-level
review and approval. Further, we reject the Agency's argument that the
progress review would become "in essence, a 'preliminary rating' since it is
communicated to the employee immediately before the end of the appraisal
period." Statement of Position at 6. Nothing in the plain wording of the
proposal would require the progress review to include the disclosure of
specific ratings. In addition, 5 C.F.R. § 430.206(c) provides that the
prohibition on disclosure of ratings prior to review does not "preclude
communication about appraisal of performance between a supervisor and an
employee prior to the determination of the rating of record." It is reasonable
to conclude that some of the information conveyed to an employee during the
progress review required by the proposal also would be found in the employee's
ratings of record. That conclusion does not, however, create an inconsistency
between the proposal and the regulation. B. The Proposal does not Conflict with an
Agency Regulation for which a Compelling Need Exists The Agency argues that by requiring periodic reviews of
employees to be held no earlier than 3 days prior to the end of the appraisal
period, the proposal conflicts with an Agency regulation, Department Personnel
Manual Chapter 430, Subchapter 2-6, which provides: Agencies will provide for at least one progress review
of standards and accomplishments during the established appraisal period;
however, it is encouraged that progress reviews be done on a quarterly basis.
The progress review(s) should take place within six or nine months of the
beginning of the appraisal period and should not normally result in a new
appraisal period. These reviews are used to ensure that critical and
non-critical elements, and performance standards are appropriate and current.
The reviews are also used to advise employees of current
performance. Statement of Position at 11. The Agency claims that there is a compelling need for its
regulation because: (1) it is essential that the requirements of the Agency's
Performance Appraisal Plan be maintained; (2) the regulation maintains
consistency with the applicable Government-wide regulations; and (3) the Agency
regulation assures equity for all employees. Id. at 12. The Agency does
not, however, specify which of the illustrative criteria for determining
compelling need set out in section 2424.11 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations it relies on to support its claim of compelling need. In our view, the Agency has not established that the
proposal conflicts with its regulation. First, we note that the regulation
requires "at least one" progress review during an employee's appraisal period.
The Union asserts that its proposal "calls for an additional periodic review
and in no way prevents the Agency from proceeding with its Performance
Appraisal Plan." Reply Brief at 6. The Union's statement of intent is fully
consistent with the plain wording of the proposal, which refers to "[a]
periodic review[.]" Accordingly, neither the proposal nor the regulation
prohibits the Agency from scheduling more than one progress review during an
appraisal period, and the Agency's assertion that under the proposal, "the only
periodic review to be conducted . . . would be the review held 1 to 3 workdays
before the end of the appraisal period" is unfounded. Id. at 11-12.
Second, we are unable to conclude that the regulation
requires all progress reviews to take place within 6 to 9 months of the
beginning of an employee's appraisal period. In this regard, we note that
although the regulation provides that progress reviews "should" take place
within 6 to 9 months of the beginning of an employee's appraisal period, the
regulation also "encourage[s] that progress reviews be done on a quarterly
basis." In addition, the Agency acknowledges that the regulation "provides
certain latitude to managers in determining when periodic reviews will be
conducted, with the limitation that the first such review must be
conducted no later than 9 months after the beginning of the appraisal period."
Id. at 12 (emphasis in original). Assuming for the purpose of this
decision that the Agency's interpretation of the regulation is correct, nothing
in the Union's proposal would prevent the Agency from holding the first
progress review no later than 9 months after the beginning of the appraisal
period. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the proposal
is not inconsistent with the Agency's regulation. Accordingly, it is
unnecessary to examine the Agency's assertion that a compelling need exists for
the regulation. C. The Second Paragraph of the Proposal Violates the
Agency's Right to Assign Work under Section 7106(a)(2)(B) Proposals requiring that specific duties be assigned to
particular individuals, including management officials, directly interfere with
an agency's right under section 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute to assign work.
AFL-CIO, Local 1858 and U.S. Army Missile Command, The U.S. Army Test,
Systems Command, Redstone Arsenal Commissary, 27 FLRA 69, 80-81 and 83-84
(1987) (U.S. Army Missile Command) (Provisions 6 and 8). The second paragraph of the proposal requires particular
individuals (supervisors) to perform specific duties (discussing employees'
performance with the employees no more than 3 workdays prior to the initial
preparation of the ratings of record). It appears that performance-related
discussions would be best accomplished between employees and their supervisors.
In fact, 5 C.F.R. § 430.206(c) specifically refers to "communication about
appraisal of performance between a supervisor and an employee[.]" Nevertheless,
we conclude that, as asserted by the Agency, the second paragraph directly
of the Statute. See Bremerton Metal Trades Council and Naval Supply
Center Puget Sound, 32 FLRA 643, 652 (1988) (Provision 4, designating
management official to perform specified task, held to be nonnegotiable even
though provision used the same wording as a local regulation because the
provision violated management's right to assign work under section
7106(a)(2)(B)). Because the second paragraph directly interferes with
management's right to assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(B), it is not a
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1411 and
Department of the Army, Fort Benjamin Harrison, 32 FLRA 990, 994-95 (1988).
We recognize that this result may appear awkward. We
emphasize, however, that the "defect" in the Union's proposal is easily cured.
If, for example, the Union removed the requirement that a "supervisor"
undertake the discussions, the second paragraph of the proposal would be
negotiable. U.S. Army Missile Command, 27 FLRA at 81. E. Conclusion We find that the Union's petition for review was timely
filed. We also find that the proposal does not conflict with either an
applicable Government-wide regulation or an Agency regulation for which a
compelling need exists. However, we find that the proposal's second paragraph
is inconsistent with the Agency's right to assign work under section
7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. Accordingly, the first paragraph of the proposal
is negotiable, but the second paragraph is not negotiable. VI. Order The Agency must negotiate upon request, or as otherwise
agreed to by the parties, concerning the first paragraph of the disputed
proposal.(*) The Union's
petition for review, as it relates to the proposal's second paragraph, is
In finding the first paragraph of the
proposal to be negotiable, we make no judgment as to its merits. Federal Labor Relations Authority