10:0261(49)NG - Chicago O'Hare Chapter 10, ACT and Illinois Air NG Technicians, O'Hare Air Reserve Forces Facility, IL (Activity) -- 1982 FLRAdec NG



[ v10 p261 ]
10:0261(49)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 49
 
 CHICAGO O'HARE CHAPTER 10,
 ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 ILLINOIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD
 TECHNICIANS, O'HARE AIR RESERVE
 FORCES FACILITY, ILLINOIS
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-735
 
                   ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(D)
 AND (E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS STATUTE AND
 SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS ON A PETITION
 FOR REVIEW OF A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE FILED BY THE UNION.  FOR THE REASONS
 INDICATED BELOW, THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW MUST BE DISMISSED.
 
    THE RECORD BEFORE THE AUTHORITY INDICATES THAT ON OR ABOUT JULY 21,
 1982, THE LOCAL PARTIES EXECUTED A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND
 SUBMITTED IT TO THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 7114(C) OF THE STATUTE.  IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST
 18, 1982, THE BUREAU DISAPPROVED CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE LOCAL
 PARTIES' AGREEMENT AS CONTRARY TO LAW AND AGENCY REGULATION.  THE UNION
 THEN FILED THE INSTANT PETITION WITH THE AUTHORITY SEEKING A
 DETERMINATION AS TO THE NEGOTIABILITY OF ONE OF THE DISAPPROVED
 PROVISIONS.  SUBSEQUENTLY, IN A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1982, THE
 NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU WITHDREW ITS ALLEGATION OF NONNEGOTIABILITY AS TO
 THE DISPUTED PROVISION.  IN RESPONSE, THE UNION ARGUES, IN EFFECT, THAT
 BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE MEANING ATTRIBUTED TO THE PROPOSAL BY
 THE UNION AND THE AGENCY, THE AUTHORITY SHOULD MAKE A NEGOTIABILITY
 DETERMINATION NOTWITHSTANDING THE WITHDRAWAL ACTION.
 
    SINCE THE AGENCY HAS WITHDRAWN THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE
 PROVISION IN QUESTION, THERE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE
 PROPOSAL IN THIS CASE IS WITHIN THE PARTIES' DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE
 STATUTE.  THE DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THE UNION'S APPEAL THEREFORE HAS BEEN
 RENDERED MOOT.  THUS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7114(C)(3) OF THE STATUTE, THE
 PARTIES' AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE PROVISION HERE INVOLVED, WENT INTO
 EFFECT ON AUGUST 20, 1982.  ANY DISPUTE CONCERNING THE MEANING OF THAT
 PROVISION MAY, OF COURSE, BE RESOLVED PURSUANT TO WHATEVER PROCEDURES
 THE PARTIES HAVE ADOPTED FOR SUCH PURPOSE IN THE COLLECTING BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN, AND APART FROM OTHER
 CONSIDERATIONS,
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW BE, AND IT
 HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    FOR THE AUTHORITY.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 30, 1982
 
                   JAMES J. SHE