## Facts

- The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) represented U.S. Customs Service law enforcement officers required, as a condition of employment, to carry firearms.
- Customs historically regulated use and storage of service-issued and service-authorized firearms and placed responsibility for safe storage and maintenance on individual officers.
- Before 2000, Customs generally required officers to store firearms overnight at secured Customs facilities when available or to go directly home to secure firearms at home.
- In March 2000, Customs changed policy to allow officers, at their election, to carry firearms 24 hours a day, relaxing earlier route and storage constraints while maintaining certain limits (e.g., restrictions related to alcohol).
- A later Treasury memorandum required firearms to be stored either in a secured locked container in a government office or secured in the employee’s home.
- NTEU proposed that Customs provide secure on-site overnight storage (such as lockers or similar secure facilities) for employees’ handguns.
- Customs refused to bargain, asserting the proposal was nonnegotiable because it affected management’s right to determine internal security practices under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(1).
- The record indicated Customs already permitted or provided on-site storage at many locations.

## Issues

1. Whether Customs’ firearm storage rules fall within management’s reserved right to determine “internal security practices” under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(1), making NTEU’s proposal nonnegotiable absent an exception.
2. Whether the FLRA lawfully rejected the proposal as not constituting an “appropriate arrangement” for employees adversely affected by management’s exercise of its § 7106 authority under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(3).

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit held that Customs’ handgun storage policy concerns “internal security practices” within § 7106(a)(1).
- The court granted NTEU’s petition for review because the FLRA did not apply (or explain a departure from) its own precedent governing the “appropriate arrangement” inquiry under § 7106(b)(3).
- The court vacated the FLRA’s decision in relevant part and remanded for the FLRA to conduct the required analysis.
- The court did not decide the ultimate negotiability of the proposal, requiring the FLRA to address it under the proper framework on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Firearm storage rules aimed at safeguarding weapons and protecting safety may qualify as “internal security practices” reserved to agency management under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(1).
- Even when a proposal affects a management right under § 7106(a), the agency may still be required to bargain over “appropriate arrangements” for adversely affected employees under 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(3).
- Under FLRA precedent, determining whether a proposal is an “appropriate arrangement” requires balancing employee benefits against the extent of intrusion on management rights; an agency must apply that precedent or give a reasoned explanation for departing from it.
- Under arbitrary-and-capricious review, a reviewing court may set aside agency action when the agency fails to consider relevant factors, lacks a rational explanation, or does not follow or adequately distinguish its own precedents.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the characterization of Customs’ firearm storage policy as an internal security practice under § 7106(a)(1), but remanded because the FLRA failed to apply its established “appropriate arrangement” analysis under § 7106(b)(3) or justify departing from it.


Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. Fed. Lab. Rels. Auth., 404 F.3d 454 (D.C. Cir. 2005)