Click here to view the decision.
57 FLRA No. 89
Association of Civilian Technicians Evergreen and Rainier Chapters and U.S. Dept. of Defense, National Guard Bureau, Military Dept., State of Washington, Camp Murray, Tacoma, Washington, Case No. 0-NG-2483 (Decided September 21, 2001)
This case is concerned the negotiability of three proposals. The Authority found that the proposals were within the duty to bargain.
With regard to Proposal 1, the Authority concluded that the Proposal did not violate the Agency's regulation. The Authority also found theat Proposal 1 did not affect management's rights to select under § 7106(a)(2)(C), therefor, Proposal 1 was within the duty to bargain. As to Proposal 2, the Authority found that it did not violate management's right to select under § 7106(a)(2)(C) or management's right to determine the personnel by which Agency operations shall be conducted under § 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.
Regarding Proposal 3, the Authority found that it concerned civilian, rather than military aspects of technician employment and was, therefore, a matter pertaining to conditions of employment. The Authority further found that the Agency's arguments failed to demonstrate that Proposal 3 was inconsistent with 37 U.S.C. §§ 415-418. Specifically, the fact that the Authorization Act of 1996 amended 37 U.S.C. §§ 415-418 to prohibit technicians from receiving uniforms under statutory provisions relating to uniforms for civilian employees did not provide a basis for finding Proposal 3 nonnegotiable. The Authority found that nothing in the proposal required the Agency to provide uniforms for unit employees under any other statutory provisions than 37 U.S.C. §§ 415-418. In addition, the fact that 37 U.S.C. §§ 415-416 prescribes the maximum uniform allowance for officers does not demonstrate that Subsection 3 of Proposal 3 concerned an area of discretion under those statutory provisions that is prohibited from bargaining.
The Authority also found that the Agency did not demonstrate that Subsection 4 of Proposal 3 was inconsistent with the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341. The Authority explained that the Anti-Deficiency Act precludes an agency from expending funds: (1) in excess of those appropriated for the fiscal year in which the expenditure is made; and (2) prior to their appropriation. Nothing in Proposal 3, however, required the expenditure of funds in excess of, or prior to, an appropriation covering uniforms. Consequently, Proposal 3 was not inconsistent with law within the meaning of § 7117(a)(1) and was within the duty to bargain.