Click here to view the decision.
56 FLRA No. 107
American Federation of Government Employees Local 2004 and U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics AgencyDefense Distribution Depot Susequehana Pennsylvania New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, Case No, 0-NG-2545 (Decided September 21, 2000)
This case concerned the negotiability of three proposals relating to a reduction-in-force (RIF). The Authority found that Proposals 1, 5 and 6 had either been rendered moot by virtue of a Panel decision or were otherwise outside the duty to bargain. Consequently, the petition for review was dismissed.
Proposal 1 required the Agency to use either attrition or VSIP/VERA as a means of reducing its workforce. The Agency would be prohibited from utilizing any other means, such as a reduction-in-force, to achieve that goal. The Authority noted that it has held that a RIF constitutes the exercise of management's right to layoff employees under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute. Therefore, by requiring that the goal of reducing 461 positions would be reached through normal attrition and/or aggressive Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay and Voluntary Early Retirement, Proposal 1 affected the right to layoff under the Statute.
Proposal 5 would require the Agency to transfer the Call Center to DDC-HQ and to deduct the total number of personnel assigned to the Call Center from the total number of separations required to meet the Agency's 2001 Staffing Plan. The Authority noted that it has held that management's right to determine its organization under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute encompasses an agency's authority to determine its administrative and functional structure, including the relationship of personnel through lines of control and the distribution of responsibilities for delegated and assigned duties. Therefore, the proposal interfered with the exercise of management's right.
With regard to Proposal 6, the Authority found that it would prevent the Agency from reassigning, promoting, or changing to lower grade any personnel from DDSP-ML to DDSP-East Site without regard to whether any unit employees would be adversely affected by the RIF as a result, therefore the Authority concluded that the proposal was not sufficiently tailored to constitute an appropriate arrangement as alleged.