- FedSmith.com Blogs -

Tags: , ,

Did FLRA Make a Sneaky Decision?

by Bob Gilson |

Recently the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) decided a Bureau of Prison’s case in which the Agency argued that four of the union’s proposals both violated an Agency’s right to determine its “internal security practices” under 5 USC 7106 (a)(1) and were only bargainable at the Agency’s election under 5 USC § 7106(b).

So Why is This Sneaky?

FLRA found the four proposals to violate an Agency right to determine internal security practices and not to constitute an appropriate arrangement.  It ignores, in the body of the decision, Prison’s argument that the proposals are only bargainable at the Agency’s election.  In footnotes, FLRA claims:

“Based on our decision, we find that it is unnecessary to address the Agency’s assertion that Proposal 1 affects its rights under § 7106(b)(1) of the Statute.  See NTEU,62 FLRA 267, 271, 272 & n.11 (2007) (NTEU II) (Chairman Cabaniss dissenting in part) (finding it unnecessary to address whether proposal excessively interfered with the agency’s right to determine the means of performing work after finding that the proposal affected the agency’s right to determine internal security practices and was not an appropriate arrangement).”

For the past two years, FLRA has been finding just about every union proposal violating a management right to be an appropriate arrangement and ordering the Agency to bargain.

This decision starkly avoids a crucial issue i.e., if the matter is permissive, then once an Agency decides not to bargain, FLRA has no say in the matter.  If it avoids addressing 5 USC § 7106 (b)(1), it gets to call the shot one way or the other.  Some might say I’m over reading the case because of past perceived FLRA shortcomings and downright wrongheaded thinking.  Maybe so, but as William Burroughs once said, “Sometimes paranoia’s just having all the facts.”

As always, any opinion expressed above is my responsibility.

Based on discussions with some Agencies, and sponsored by RGS, I and some colleagues plan to offer a “Practitioner’s Course in Labor Relations” and a “Practitioner’s Course in Employee Relations” focusing on advising managers, using proven tools to enhance case management, and matters of interest to the specialist, advocate or attorney with a basic grounding in these programs. We plan to offer these around the country and in D.C. If you have an interest in learning more, please let me know. You can do so using the “contact” link at the bottom of this article. RGS has also given us the go ahead to do an update for practitioners this spring in the D.C. area. I’ll follow up with more information as arrangements firm up.

© 2014 Robert J. Gilson. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from Robert J. Gilson.

Related Articles

About the Author

Photo of Bob Gilson

Bob Gilson

Bob Gilson is a consultant with a specialty in working with and training Federal agencies to resolve employee problems at all levels. A retired agency labor and employee relations director, Bob has authored or co-authored a number of books dealing with Federal issues and also conducts training seminars.

Bio | Contact

Comments

If you are an Internet Explorer user, please note that Disqus may not render properly in compatability view mode.

Free Email Updates

Unsubscribe or Update Email

Daily TSP Rates

April 17, 2014

Fund Last Change YTD
L Income 16.9750 +0.0069 +0.94%
L 2020 22.0406 +0.0303 +1.12%
L 2030 23.7376 +0.0425 +1.19%
L 2040 25.1366 +0.0530 +1.22%
L 2050 14.2365 +0.0355 +1.23%
G Fund 14.3859 +0.0010 +0.69%
F Fund 16.1278 -0.0505 +2.45%
C Fund 24.2371 +0.0345 +1.52%
S Fund 33.7924 +0.1332 +0.36%
I Fund 25.7933 +0.1257 +0.90%
More TSP Rates | Track Your Investments