AFGE National Council of Field Labor Locals and Department of Labor, 0-NG-2687, July 9, 2003, 58 FLRA No. 156.

Although FLRA assumed without deciding that a proposal dealing with the retention of a GSA car concerned the exercise of management's right to determine the means of performing the agency's work within the meaning of § 7106(b)(1)--and thus a matter on which the agency could elect not to bargain, it concluded that it was an appropriate arrangement within the meaning of § 7106(b)(3)--and thus a mandatory subject of bargaining.

In response to an agency notice that it intended to return one of two GSA cars at its Denver office because of insufficient use, the union proposed that both cars be retained until the end of the 2003 fiscal year, at which time the agency could end the use of the second car if the agency could demonstrate insufficient use.

When the agency claimed the proposal was nonnegotiable because it affected management's § 7106(b)(1) right to determine the means of performing the agency's work, the union appealed and argued that its proposal didn't interfere with the aforementioned right and, even if it did, it was a § 7106(b)(3) appropriate arrangement. It claimed that eliminating one of the vehicles would, among other things, increase the number of times an employee has to make alternative arrangements with private car rental companies.

The Authority assumed, without deciding, that the proposal dealt with § 7106(b)(1) means of performing the agency's work--an elective subject of bargaining, but went on to find that it was a § 7106(b)(3) appropriate arrangement--and thus a mandatory subject of bargaining.

[O]n balance, the benefit to employees afforded by the proposal outweighs the temporary impact of the proposal on the Agency resulting from having to delay until the end of the 2003 fiscal year its final decision about the number of GSA vehicles it will have at its Denver office. Accordingly, the proposal does not excessively interfere with management's right to determine the means of performing work under § 7106(b)(1) and constitutes an appropriate arrangement.

We report this case because it shows that § 7106(b)(3) is an exception not only to § 7106(a) rights, but also to § 7106(b)(1) rights.