Click here to view the decision.
57 FLRA No. 43
AFGE, Local 3529 and U.S. Dept. of Defense, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Central Region, Irving, Texas, Case No. 0-NG-2514 (Decided May 23, 2001)
This case concerned four proposals relating to the Agency's Audit Performance Planning System (APPS), an electronic paperwork process. The Authority found that Proposals 1 and 10 were negotiable only at the election of the Agency, and that Proposals 8 and 9 were outside the duty to bargain.
The Authority noted that according to established precedent, where an agency claims that a proposal affects a management right under § 7106(a), and a union disagrees or claims that the proposal is within the duty to bargain under § 7106(b)(2) and/or (3), as well as being electively negotiable under § 7106(b)(1), the Authority will first resolve those claims that would determine if a proposal is within the duty to bargain. Then, if necessary, the Authority will address those claims that would determine if a proposal is electively negotiable.
The Authority found that Proposal 1 affected management's rights to direct and assign employees under § 7106(a)(2)(A) and that Proposals 1 and 10 affected management's right to assign work under § 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute. Additionally, the Authority concluded that Proposals 1 and 10 did not constitute procedures under § 7106(b)(2). Noting that proposals that condition the exercise of a management right on the agreement of employees or their union do not constitute procedures under § 7106(b)(2) of the Statute.
The Authority also found that Proposals 1 and 10 concerned matters that were negotiable at the election of the Agency under § 7106(b)(1) of the Statute. The Authority concluded that Proposals 1 and 10 would interfere with the mission-related purposes for which the Agency adopted that software. Accordingly, Proposals 1 and 10 concerned matters within § 7106(b)(1) of the Statute, that were bargainable only at the election of the Agency.
As to Proposal 8, the Authority concluded that it affected management's rights to direct employees and assign work under § 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute. The Authority noted that it has consistently held that proposals that prohibit management from holding employees accountable for work performance directly interfere with management's rights to direct employees and assign work under § 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute. The Authority found that Proposal 8 limited the extent to which the Agency may enforce its performance standards and hold employees accountable for such performance. Consequently, Proposal 8 affected management's rights to direct employees and assign work under § 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute. Additionally, the Authority held that the proposal did not constitute a procedure under § 7106(b)(2), nor did it concerned a matter that was negotiable at the election of the Agency under § 7106(b)(1) of the Statute. The Authority found that Proposal 8 did not concern matters pertaining to the methods and means of performing work within the meaning of § 7106(b)(1). Because the proposal affected management's rights to direct employees and assign work under § 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B), and was not a negotiable procedure under § 7106(b)(2), the Proposal was found to be outside the duty to bargain.
Lastly, as to Proposal 9, the Authority concluded that it affected management's rights to direct employees and assign work under § 7106(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Statute and did not constitute a procedure under § 7106(b)(2) or an appropriate arrangement within the meaning of § 7106(b)(3) of the Statute