Click here to view the decision.
57 FLRA No. 22
Association of Civilian Technicians Alabama Air Chapter and U. S. Dept. of Defense, National Guard Bureau, Alabama National Guard, Montgomery, Alabama , Case No. 0-NG-2567 (Decided April 5, 2001)
This case concerned the negotiability of two provisions disapproved by the Agency head under § 7114(c) of the Statute. The Authority found that the provisions were not contrary to law or regulation and ordered the Agency to rescind its disapproval.
The Authority concluded that the provision was not inconsistent with the military uniform requirement in § 709(b)(4). As amended, § 709(b)(4) provides that dual status technicians while performing duties as a military technician (dual status), wear the uniform appropriate for the member's grade and component of the armed forces. Likewise, the Authority concluded that the Provision did not affect management's right to assign work The Authority ordered the Agency to rescind its disapproval of the provision.
With regards to Provision 2, the Authority concluded that it was not inconsistent with an Agency regulation for which there was a compelling need. The Authority noted a prior case in which it addressed a substantially similar proposal that determined the order in which unit employees were listed on RIF retention registers. In that case, the Authority found that the Agency did not establish a compelling need for TPR 300(351) under any of the three bases stated in § 2424.50 of the Authority's Regulations and concluded that the proposal was within the duty to bargain. The Authority found that the Agency had not established how the proposal's consideration of length of service and performance would have a detrimental effect on military readiness.
The Authority further found that the Agency had not established that TPR 300(351) was necessary to ensure the maintenance of merit principles or that it implemented a nondiscretionary mandate under law. The Authority noted that the Agency had provided no basis upon which to depart from the analysis and reasoning in that prior case. Consequently, the Authority concluded that the Agency did not establish a compelling need for the regulation.