Click here to view the decision.
60 FLRA No. 77
NTEU and U. S. Dept. of Homeland Security Customs And Border Protection Washington, DC, Case No. 0-NG-2627 (Decided November 8, 2004)
This case concerned the negotiability of proposals related to modifications of the Agency's Firearms and Use of Force Handbook sought by the Union. The Authority found that portions of one proposal were within the duty to bargain and dismissed the petition with respect to the other proposals.
With regard to Proposal 10(a), the Authority found that it affected management's right to determine its internal security practices under § 7106(a)(1) of the Statute. Additionally, the Authority held that the proposal did not constitute a procedure under § 7106(b)(2), or an appropriate arrangement under § 7106(b)(3) of the Statute.
With regard to Proposal 11, the Authority held that it was not moot. However, the Authority found that the proposal affected management's right to determine its internal security practices under § 7106(a)(1) of the Statute, that it did not constitute a procedure under § 7106(b)(2) or an appropriate arrangement under § 7106(b)(3) of the Statute.
With regard to Proposal 14, the Authority granted the Union's request for severance because the different portions of the provision had independent meaning. Because Proposal 14(a) through (d) only required the Agency to consider information provided by an employee in the course of determining if firearm carriage authority should be reinstated and neither prohibited the Agency from conducting a full investigation into the matter nor permitted an arbitrator to review any initial firearm carriage authority decision prior to the completion of a full investigation by the Agency, the portions of Proposal 14 set forth in sections (a) through (d) were found to be within the duty to bargain.
With regard to the first sentence of Proposal 14(f), the Authority concluded that it did not affect management's right to assign work under § 7106(a)(2) of the Statute. The proposal affected management's right to determine its internal security practices under § 7106(a)(1) of the Statute and did not constitute a procedure under § 7106(b)(2) or an appropriate arrangement under § 7106(b)(3) of the Statute.
With regard to the second sentence of Proposal 14(f), the Authority found that the Agency had not demonstrated that it affected management's right to determine its internal security practices under § 7106(a)(1) of the Statute, and concluded that the second sentence of Proposal 14(f) was within the duty to bargain.
With regard to Proposal 14(g), and 14(h), the Authority concluded that it affected management's right to determine its internal security practices under § 7106(a)(1) of the Statute and that it did not constitute a procedure under § 7106(b)(2)or an appropriate arrangement under § 7106(b)(3) of the Statute.