Opinion ID: 448995
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the reenlistment rights proposal

Text: 32 Finally, we hold that the Authority failed to properly consider the Union's proposal regarding technicians' reenlistment rights in the Guard, and we therefore remand to the Authority for reconsideration on this issue. 33 Union Proposal 9 provides that all job related requirements affecting a technician in his technician employment are automatically renewable unless the technician is separated for physical requirements or for just cause. 40 The Authority interpreted this proposal to preclude separation of a technician for failure to maintain military membership in the Guard or to hold the military grade specified for his position, and thus held the proposal inconsistent with section 709(e)(1) of the Technicians Act, which mandates separation in such circumstances. 41 34 As both the Union and the Guard recognized in their submissions to the Authority, however, Proposal 9 is not intended to prohibit the discharge of technicians who fail to maintain military grade or membership, but rather to prevent the Guard from denying such job related requirements without just cause. 42 In other words, the purpose of Proposal 9 is to prevent involuntary retirement of civilian technicians through unjustified refusal to renew the military requisites of their employment. 35 In its statement of position before the FLRA, the Guard argued that Proposal 9 would require negotiation over the terms and conditions of the military relationship, and that this subject was beyond the Guard's duty and authority to bargain both under FLRA precedent 43 and under a federal statute prohibiting union organization of the armed forces. 44 The Union denied that its proposal required negotiation over the terms and conditions of military service, and contended that the legislative history of the Technicians Act showed that Congress anticipated that the National Guard would continue to grant technicians automatic reenlistment until the age of 60, in accord with the National Guard's policy at the time. 45 36 In ruling on Proposal 9, however, the Authority failed even to consider the relevant issues. Instead, it held the Union's proposal nonnegotiable on the basis of a total misinterpretation of the proposal to require automatic renewal of a technician's civilian employment, rather than of the military requirements for such employment. Because the Authority's decision on this issue relied on erroneous grounds and failed to consider the relevant issues, we remand for reconsideration with respect to this question. 46