7 FLRA No. 3
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
 (Agency)
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-508
 
           ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS
 
    THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY AT THIS TIME FOR RULING ON A MOTION
 FILED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (THE AGENCY) REQUESTING THAT THE
 AUTHORITY DISMISS THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS.
 MORE PARTICULARLY, THE AGENCY CONTENDS THAT BECAUSE THE UNION FAILED TO
 SERVE A COPY OF ITS PETITION FOR REVIEW ON THE AGENCY HEAD WITHIN THE
 FIFTEEN-DAY TIME PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE PETITION
 FOR REVIEW SHOULD BE DISMISSED.
 
    THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH DOES
 NOT EXTEND TO THE MATTER PROPOSED TO BE BARGAINED WAS SERVED ON THE
 UNION ON JUNE 18, 1981.  THEREFORE, UNDER SECTION 2424.3 OF THE
 AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS, /1/ THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS DUE IN
 THE OFFICE OF THE AUTHORITY NO LATER THAN JULY 3, 1981.  THE UNION'S
 PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS FILED ON JUNE 30, 1981.  HOWEVER, THE UNION
 FAILED TO SERVE A COPY OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON THE AGENCY HEAD AS
 REQUIRED BY SECTION 2424.4(B) OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS.  /2/
 
    THE AUTHORITY, CONSISTENT WITH WELL-ESTABLISHED PRACTICE IN LIKE
 SITUATIONS, ADVISED THE FILING PARTY OF THE DEFICIENCY AND OF THE
 CORRECTIVE ACTION NECESSARY.  THE UNION PROMPTLY COMPLIED BY SERVING A
 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON THE AGENCY HEAD ON JULY 22, 1981.
 
    THUS, WHILE THE AGENCY IS ACCURATE IN CONTENDING THAT THE UNION'S
 PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS DEFICIENT WHEN FILED, IT IS MISTAKEN IN
 ASSERTING THAT THE PETITION FOR REVIEW MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE
 UNION FAILED TO SERVE THE AGENCY HEAD WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD PRESCRIBED
 FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW.  RATHER, AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE
 PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS TIMELY FILED, AND THE DEFICIENCY INVOLVED WAS
 CORRECTED BY THE UNION AND ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORITY CONSISTENT WITH ITS
 RULES OF PROCEDURE AND UNIFORM PRACTICE IN LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, AND APART FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS,
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE AGENCY'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE UNION'S
 PETITION FOR REVIEW ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS BE DENIED.
 
    FOR THE AUTHORITY.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 8, 1981
 
                             JAMES J. SHEPARD
 
                            EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ SECTION 2424.3 OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R.
 2424.3(1981)) PROVIDES:
 
    THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW IS FIFTEEN (15) DAYS
 AFTER THE DATE THE
 
    AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT
 EXTEND TO THE MATTER
 
    PROPOSED TO BE BARGAINED IS SERVED ON THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    /2/ SECTION 2424.4(B) OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R.
 2424.4(B)(1981)) PROVIDES:
 
    A COPY OF THE PETITION INCLUDING ALL ATTACHMENTS THERETO SHALL BE
 SERVED ON THE AGENCY HEAD
 
    AND ON THE PRINCIPAL AGENCY BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE AT THE
 NEGOTIATIONS.