Point Mugu Joint Council of National Association of Government Employees, Local R12-33 and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1374 (Union) and Department of the Navy, Pacific Missile Test Center, Point Mugu, California (Activity) 

 



[ v08 p389 ]
08:0389(78)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 8 FLRA No. 78
 
 POINT MUGU JOINT COUNCIL OF
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R12-33 AND
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1374
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 PACIFIC MISSILE TEST CENTER,
 POINT MUGU, CALIFORNIA
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-661
 
                   ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
 
    THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(B)
 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101
 ET SEQ.) ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED BY THE UNION.  FOR THE REASONS
 INDICATED BELOW, THE UNION'S APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED.
 
    THE RECORD IN THIS CASE INDICATES THAT ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 21, 1981,
 THE LOCAL PARTIES EXECUTED A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND
 SUBMITTED IT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 7114(C) OF THE STATUTE.  SUBSEQUENTLY, IN A
 MEMORANDUM ADDRESSED TO THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE ACTIVITY, THE
 SECRETARY OF THE NAVY DISAPPROVED A PROVISION IN THE LOCAL PARTIES'
 AGREEMENT AS CONTRARY TO AGENCY REGULATION.  THIS MEMORANDUM WAS SERVED
 ON THE UNION ON FEBRUARY 4, 1982.
 
    SECTION 7114(C)(3) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT AN AGREEMENT WHICH
 HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY THE AGENCY INVOLVED WITHIN 30
 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF ITS EXECUTION BECOMES EFFECTIVE AND BINDING ON
 THE PARTIES ON THE 31ST DAY, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENCY, SUBJECT
 ONLY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAW,
 RULE OR REGULATION.
 
    CONSEQUENTLY, SINCE THE AGENCY'S DISAPPROVAL WAS SERVED ON THE UNION
 MORE THAN 30 DAYS AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED, THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT
 AS NEGOTIATED AND EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES BECAME EFFECTIVE AND BINDING
 ON JANUARY 21, 1982.  THUS, THE PETITION FOR REVIEW RAISES NO DISPUTE
 CONCERNING THE TERMS OF SUCH AGREEMENT WHICH IS COGNIZABLE UNDER SECTION
 7117 OF THE STATUTE.
 
    HOWEVER, OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE INSTANT PETITION IS NOT COGNIZABLE
 IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING DOES NOT, OF COURSE, MEAN THAT ANY PROVISIONS
 IN THE AGREEMENT WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE OR ANY OTHER
 APPLICABLE LAW, RULE OR REGULATION, ARE THEREBY ENFORCEABLE.  RATHER, A
 QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF SUCH PROVISIONS MAY BE RAISED IN OTHER
 APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS (SUCH AS GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION AND UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS) AND, IF THE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS ARE THERE FOUND
 TO BE VIOLATIVE OF THE STATUTE OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAW, RULE OR
 REGULATION, THEY WOULD NOT BE ENFORCEABLE BUT WOULD B