Opinion ID: 672300
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proposals 1, 2, 5, and 6

Text: 29 Proposals 1, 2, 5, and 6 define the following terms: performance elements, performance standards, rating official, performance, and critical element. Each of these terms is already defined by government-wide regulations, promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). See 5 C.F.R. Secs. 430.203, 432.103 (1993). Relying, in part, on the Union's statement of intent that none of the definitions would be applied in a manner inconsistent with statutory or regulatory provisions, the Authority held that each of the definitional proposals was negotiable. We disagree. 30 The FSLMRS clearly forbids bargaining over government-wide regulations. Section 7117(a)(1) states that the duty to bargain in good faith shall ... extend to matters which are the subject of any rule or regulation only if the rule or regulation is not a Government-wide rule or regulation. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7117(a)(1) (1988) (emphasis added). It is irrelevant that the Union claims that its definitional proposals will be consistent with the OPM regulations. Indeed, there can be no assurance of this, because, if the parties disagree over the implementation of any of these proposals in the future, such disputes will be resolved in grievance arbitration; and it is unclear whether the Agency would have any reasonable recourse if an arbitrator construed a provision in a way to make it inconsistent with OPM regulations. The simple point here is that OPM has established government-wide definitions for performance appraisal terms, and the parties are statutorily prohibited from altering those regulations through negotiation. Therefore, we reverse the Authority and hold proposals 1, 2, 5, and 6 are nonnegotiable.