Community Services Administration, Region VIII, Denver, Colorado (Respondent) and National Council of CSA Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3150 (Charging Party); Community Services Administration, Washington, DC (Respondent) and National Council of CSA Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Charging Party)  

 7 FLRA No. 127
 
 COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
 REGION VIII, DENVER, COLORADO
 (Respondent)
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CSA LOCALS,
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3150
 (Charging Party)
                                            Case No. 7-CA-456
 
 
 COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 WASHINGTON, D.C.
 (Respondent)
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CSA LOCALS,
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 (Charging Party)
                                            Case No. 5-CA-294
 
            ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINTS AS MOOT
 
    THE TWO ABOVE-ENTITLED CASES ARE BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(G) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET SEQ.), AFTER BEING
 TRANSFERRED BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN THE RESPECTIVE
 CASES PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.26 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R.  2423.26(1981)).
 
    ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1981, THE COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (CSA OR
 THE AGENCY) FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUBJECT APPEALS AS MOOT.  IN
 SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION, CSA CONTENDS, IN PERTINENT PART, THAT BECAUSE OF
 THE CLOSING OF THE AGENCY ON OCTOBER 1, 1981, PURSUANT TO THE OMNIBUS
 BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1981 (PUB. L. 97-37, 95 STAT. 357) (BUDGET
 ACT), EACH OF THE APPEALS IS MOOT.  THE UNION FILED AN OPPOSITION TO THE
 AGENCY'S MOTION CONTENDING THAT IT WOULD BE PREMATURE FOR THE AUTHORITY
 TO DISMISS THE APPEALS AT THIS TIME.  THE UNION ARGUES IN THAT REGARD
 THAT QUESTIONS EXIST AS TO WHETHER ANOTHER AGENCY, THE DEPARTMENT OF
 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) IS A SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO CSA AND WHAT
 OBLIGATIONS, IF ANY HHS HAS TO THE UNION, THE RESOLUTION OF WHICH
 QUESTIONS DEPENDS ON THE OUTCOME OF A CASE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
 DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
 
    UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE AGENCY'S MOTION AND THE UNION'S
 OPPOSITION THERETO, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE TERMINATION OF CSA
 AS AN AGENCY BY OPERATION OF THE BUDGET ACT HAS SERVED TO RENDER MOOT
 THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE UNION AND CSA PRESENTED
 IN THE INSTANT CASES. /1/
 
    IN THAT REGARD, CASE NO. 7-CA-456 INVOLVES ALLEGATIONS THAT CERTAIN
 STATEMENTS WERE MADE BY A SUPERVISOR IN THE COURSE OF DISCUSSIONS WITH
 BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WHICH CONSTITUTED VIOLATIONS OF SECTION
 7116(A)(1), (2), (5) AND (8) OF THE STATUTE.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE (ALJ) FOUND THAT BURDEN OF PROVING THE ALLEGATIONS HAD NOT BEEN
 MET AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED.  NO EXCEPTION TO
 THE ALJ'S DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER WAS FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY IN
 THE CASE.  CASE NO. 5-CA-294 INVOLVES AN ALLEGATION OF A REFUSAL TO
 PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE UNION PERTAINING TO THE TRAINING A SUPERVISOR
 HAD RECEIVED PRIOR TO HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH THE AGENCY.  IT APPEARS THAT
 THIS DISPUTE, AS WELL AS THE DISPUTE IN CASE NO.  7-CA-456, HAVE BEEN
 RENDERED MOOT BY THE TERMINATION OF THE AGENCY.
 
    FURTHER, TO DECIDE THE ISSUES PRESENTED IN THE INSTANT CASES IN THESE
 CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO ISSUING AN ADVISORY OPINION, WHICH
 IS PRECLUDED BY SECTION 2429.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, AND APART FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, IT IS HEREBY
 ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINTS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASES BE, AND THEY
 HEREBY ARE, DISMISSED.
 
    FOR THE AUTHORITY.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 28, 1982
 
                   JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ ANY ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
 SERVICES IS A SUCCESSOR TO CSA IS AN ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED IN AN
 APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING FOR THAT PURPOSE AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
 PRESENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES.