Source: https://www.flra.gov/decisions/v64/64-114.html
Timestamp: 2017-02-23 13:58:35
Document Index: 373565372

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2424', '§ 7422', '§ 2429', '§ 2429', '§ 7421', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7421', '§ 7422', '§ 7422']

You are hereHome [Decision Number] National Association of Government Employees, Local R1-187, Service Employees International Union (Union) and United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Boston Healthcare System, Brockton, Massachusetts (Agency)
64 FLRA No. 114 FEDERAL
LOCAL R1-187
0-NG-2981
ON NEGOTIABLITY
This case is before the Authority on a
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and concerns
the negotiability of proposals relating to the Agency’s proposed policy regarding
tuberculosis. The Agency filed a
statement of position (SOP), to which the Union filed a response. The Agency
filed an untimely reply to the Union’s response. The Agency also filed a
As is explained below, we dismiss the Union’s petition because the Authority lacks jurisdiction to review it.
The Agency drafted a proposed policy that would
require all Agency employees to undergo annual testing for tuberculosis. See
SOP at 4. The Union objected to the proposed policy. Its primary
objection was that the policy required mandatory testing for all employees. See
id. Although the Agency subsequently modified the proposed policy to address
some of the Union’s concerns, it retained the mandatory testing requirement. See
id. at 5-6. The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge over the
proposed policy. See Petition at 2. The Union withdrew the charge
after the Agency agreed to bargain over the Union’s proposals. See id. The Union consists entirely of nurses and nurse practitioners. See SOP
at 3 n.1.
Before addressing the Union’s petition, we must
first address whether we may consider: (1) the Agency’s untimely reply and (2)
its supplemental submission.
The Union filed its response to the Agency’s SOP on June 19; the Agency filed its reply to the
response on July 8. Under § 2424.26(b) of the Authority’s Regulations, the
Agency was required to file its reply within fifteen days of receiving the
Union’s response; accordingly, the Agency was required to file its reply by
July 7. In
response to an Authority order directing the Agency to show cause why its reply
should not be dismissed as untimely, the Agency stated that it believed that it
had until July 8 to file its reply. See Agency Response to Show Cause
Order at 1. The Agency, however, provides no evidence to support this assertion;
indeed, the Agency concedes that it did not retain the dated envelope
containing the Union’s response. See id. The
reply, therefore, is untimely. Accordingly, we will not consider the Agency’s reply.
See, e.g., AFGE, Local 520, 60 FLRA 615, 616 (2005) (Chairman Cabaniss
concurring as to other matters) (then-Member Pope dissenting as to other
matters) (Authority did not consider untimely reply).
Agency submitted an additional document: a letter from the Agency Under
Secretary of Health (Under Secretary) addressing whether bargaining over the Union’s petition is permissible under 38 U.S.C. § 7422.[1] In its SOP, the Agency stated that it planned to submit a request to the Under
Secretary to consider this issue. It also asked the Authority to place this
matter in abeyance until the Secretary issued his determination, at which point
the Agency would provide the Authority with a copy of that determination. See
SOP at 6-7. The Union did not object. Under §
unopposed request in its SOP to submit the Under Secretary’s determination, we will
consider the Agency’s supplemental submission. See, e.g., 5 C.F.R. § 2429.26; AFGE, Local 2145, 64 FLRA 231, 231 n.3 (2009)
(Authority granted party leave under § 2429.26 to submit an additional document
in a negotiability matter). IV. Proposals
The Agency will educate current employees about
tuberculosis (TB) exposure on an annual basis, and also when there is a
documented exposure. The Agency will maintain voluntary TB testing
arrangement for current employees.
The Agency shall pay for all mandated TB
examinations whether conducted by the Agency’s physicians, or the
employee’s private physician.
Record of Post-Petition Conference at 2.
The Agency contends that the Authority lacks
jurisdiction to review the Union’s petition. According to the Agency, the
Under Secretary, acting pursuant to authority delegated by the Agency Secretary,[2]
determined that the Union’s petition involves matters or questions that concern
or arise out of the professional conduct or competence of employees listed in 38
U.S.C. § 7421(b), namely, nurses and nurse practitioners. See Supplemental
Submission at 1 (citing § 7422). The Agency contends that this determination
removes the Union’s proposals from the scope of collective bargaining under the
Statute. See id. Moreover, the Agency asserts that the Under
Secretary’s determination is neither negotiable nor reviewable by the Authority. See id. (citing
The Agency, accordingly, contends that the Authority should dismiss the Union’s petition. The Agency also asserts that the Union’s petition is untimely. See SOP at 7-10. In addition, the Agency
argues that the proposals are contrary to management’s right to determine
internal security practices and to assign work. See id. at 11-14. Moreover,
the Agency contends that Proposal 2 is inconsistent with a government-wide
regulation. See id. at 10-11.
The Union disputes the Under Secretary’s
determination that the Union’s petition concerns questions or matters of
professional conduct or competence under § 7422. See Response at 5. Moreover, the Union
argues that the Authority has jurisdiction to review the Union’s petition
because the parties previously have negotiated over tuberculosis testing. See
The Union also disagrees with the Agency’s assertion
that the petition is untimely. See id. at 5-8. Moreover, the Union rejects the Agency’s arguments that the proposals interfere with management’s right
to determine its internal security or its right to assign work. See id.
at 9-13. Finally, the Union disagrees that Proposal 2 is contrary to a
government-wide regulation. See id. at 8-9.
bargaining in accordance with the Statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7422(a). Such collective bargaining,
however, “may not cover or have any applicability to, any matter or question
concerning or arising out of . . . professional conduct or competence.” 38
U.S.C. § 7422(b). Whether a matter or question concerns or arises out of
professional conduct or competence “shall be decided by the Secretary and is
not itself subject to collective bargaining and may not be reviewed by any
other agency.” 38 U.S.C. § 7422(d). Accordingly, once the Secretary or his or
her designee has made a determination under § 7422(d) that a matter or question
concerns or arises out of professional conduct or competence, and, thus, is not
subject to collective bargaining under the Statute, the Authority is deprived
of jurisdiction over the matter or question at issue. See, e.g., Nicholson,
475 F.3d at 347; U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs
Med. Ctr., Asheville, N.C., 57 FLRA 681, 683 (2002) (Authority dismissed
unfair labor practice complaint after Under Secretary determined that § 7422(d)
removed matter from scope of collective bargaining) (VAMC); Wis.
Fed’n of Nurses & Health Professionals Veterans Admin., Staff Nurses
Council, Local, 5032, 47 FLRA 910, 914 (1993) (Authority dismissed
negotiability petition after Secretary determined that § 7422(d) removed matter from scope of collective
bargaining) (SNCL).
As stated above, the Under Secretary determined that
the Union’s petition involves matters or questions concerning or arising out of
professional conduct or competence of employees listed under § 7421(b). The
Under Secretary’s determination, which is unreviewable, removes the Union’s proposals from the scope of collective bargaining under the Statute. See 38
U.S.C. § 7422(b) and (d); see also, e.g., Nicholson, 475 F.3d at 347; VAMC,
57 FLRA at 683. The Authority, accordingly, lacks jurisdiction to review
the Union’s petition. See, e.g., SNCL, 47 FLRA at 914. We, therefore, dismiss
the petition.[3] See id. VI. Order
The Union’s petition is dismissed.
the Veterans Health Administration listed in subsection (b).
. . . . (5) Registered nurses.
specifically provided in this title, the authority of the Secretary to
prescribe regulations under [38 U.S.C. §] 7421 is subject to the right of
Federal employees to engage in collective bargaining with respect to conditions
of employment through representatives chosen by them in accordance with
[the Statute].
(b) Such collective
bargaining (and any grievance procedures provided under a collective
bargaining agreement) in the case of employees described in [§]
7421(b) of this title may not cover, or have any applicability to, any matter
or question concerning or arising out of (1) professional conduct or
competence, (2) peer review, or (3) the establishment,
(d) An issue of whether a matter or question
concerns or arises out of (1) professional conduct or competence . . . shall be
may not be reviewed by any other agency.
[1] The relevant statutes are set forth in the attached Appendix.
[2] The Under Secretary states that the Secretary has delegated final authority to
or competence under § 7422(b). See Supplemental Submission, Attach. at
8. The Union does not dispute this assertion.
[3] Based on this conclusion, we do not address the Agency’s remaining arguments. Federal Labor Relations Authority