Click here to view the decision.
56 FLRA No. 86
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1709 and U.S. Department of the Air Force Dover Air Force Base, Case No. 0-NG-2523 (Decided August 11, 2000)
The two proposals in this case concerned the use and content of work quality standards. The Authority found that the proposals were outside the duty to bargain and dismissed the petition for review. The Authority found that Proposal 1 affected management's right to discipline employees under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute. Additionally, the Authority found that the Union's claim that the proposal constituted an appropriate arrangement within the meaning of section 7106(b)(3) was not sufficient under section 2424.25(c)(1) of its regulations. In this regard, the Authority noted that section 2424.25(c)(1)(iii), provides that the content of the union's response to the agency's statement of position must state the arguments and authorities supporting any assertion that an exception to management's rights applies, including whether and why the proposal is an appropriate arrangement. The Union in this case provided none of the specified information.
As to Proposal 2, the Authority found that the first two sentences affected management's rights to direct employees and assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute. The Authority explained that management's rights to direct employees and assign work under section 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute include the right to establish criteria governing employees' performance of their duties. The Authority further stated that proposals that require management to negotiate the substance of the criteria that it uses to assess employees' performance of their duties affect management's rights to direct employees and assign work.
The Authority found that because the first two sentences of Proposal 2 required the Agency to negotiate over the substance of changes in the ··___··AQLs, those sentences affect management's rights to direct employees and assign work. The Authority also found that the Union's claim that the proposal constituted an appropriate arrangement was not sufficient under section 2424.25(c)(1) of the Authority's Regulations.