Click here to view the decision.
59 FLRA No. 121
AFGE, Local 727 and Court Services And Offender Supervision Agency Case No. 0-NG-2720 (Decided February 20, 2004)
This case concerned two proposals relating to attendance at court proceedings by unit employees. The Authority found that the proposals wee within the duty to bargain.
Regarding Proposal 4, the Authority found that by requiring management to consider allowing CSOs to telephone the court to check on the status of scheduled hearings in their cases, the proposal did not affect management's right to assign work. Accordingly, the Authority found that Proposal 4 did not affect management's right to assign work under § 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute and that it was within the duty to bargain.
Regarding Proposal 5, which required the Agency to compensate with overtime or compensatory time employees who work through their lunch periods in order to accommodate court proceedings in their cases, the Authority concluded that the proposal did not affect management's right to assign work because it did not require the Agency to provide CSOs a duty free lunch period despite the demands of their assigned work. In other words, the proposal did not preclude the Agency from requiring CSOs to perform work on their lunch hour. Rather, the proposal required the Agency to compensate CSOs as provided in applicable regulations whenever they perform work during their lunch hour.