10:0407(68)NG - Federal Employees MTC and Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, CA -- 1982 FLRAdec NG
[ v10 p407 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
10 FLRA No. 68 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL (Union) and DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD, VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA (Activity) Case No. O-NG-722 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 Relations Statute (5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations (5 C.F.R. 2424.1) on a petition for review of a negotiability issue filed on behalf of the union. For the reason indicated below, the union's petition must be dismissed. As presented in the union's appeal, the parties' dispute involves a new Department of Navy policy concerning the distribution of pay checks and related leave and earning statements for newly hired civilian employees. The parties apparently met to discuss the policy and the activity subsequently informed the union by letter that it was willing to negotiate with respect to the impact and implementation of the policy, but that it considered the policy decision nonnegotiable for various reasons. While the union may have sought to negotiate with respect to the policy, it did not propose any specific language for negotiation. Rather, shortly after receipt of the activity's letter, the union filed the instant petition with the Authority. In that regard, the union asserts that in view of the activity's position it was clear that the activity would not have negotiated on any proposal and that to have submitted such a proposal would have been futile. The union further noted, however, that it was preparing to submit a formal proposal to the activity concerning the policy sometime in the future. /1/ Section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, which implements section 7117 of the Statute, provides, in pertinent part: Sec. 2424.1 Conditions governing review The Authority will consider a negotiability issue under the conditions prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 7117(b) and (c), namely: If an agency involved in collective bargaining with an exclusive representative alleges that the duty to bargain in good faith does not extend to any matter proposed to be bargained because, as proposed, the matter is inconsistent with law, rule or regulation, the exclusive representative may appeal the allegation to the Authority . . . . Further, it is well-established that a petition for review of a negotiability issue which does not present a proposal sufficiently specific and delimiated in form and content as to permit the Authority to render a negotiability decision thereon does not meet the conditions for review set forth in section 7117 of the Statute and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. See, e.g., Association of Civilian Technicians, Alabama ACT and State of Alabama National Guard, 2 FLRA 702 (1979). Thus, the conditions governing review of a negotiability issue include a requirement that there be "a matter proposed to be bargained," and that the proposal must be specific in form and content so as to enable the Authority to determine whether the proposal is negotiable under the Statute. In this case, the dispute between the parties is not sufficiently delineated to form a basis for a negotiability determination by the Authority. As stated above, while the union may have sought to negotiate with the activity concerning the Department of Navy policy, it did not propose any specific language for negotiation, which the activity could have declared negotiable or nonnegotiable. It is therefore clear that the union's petition for review was prematurely filed and does not meet the conditions for review set forth in section 7117 of the Statute and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and must be dismissed on that basis. /2/ Accordingly, for the reason set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that the union's petition for review be, and it hereby is, dismissed. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., October 29, 1982 James J. Shepard, Executive Director --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ Subsequent to filing the instant petition, the union advised the Authority that it had submitted a proposal to the activity. /2/ The dismissal is without prejudice to the union filing a petition for Authority review, in accordance with Part 2424 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, of any negotiability issue that may arise in connection with the union's recent proposal, or any other proposals, to the activity in this matter.