10:0499(85)NG - AFGE Local 1858 and Army, Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, AL -- 1982 FLRAdec NG



[ v10 p499 ]
10:0499(85)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 85
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1858
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 U.S. ARMY MISSILE COMMAND,
 REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-583
 
                   ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY PURSUANT
 TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(D) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE AND SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES FILED BY
 THE UNION.  FOR THE REASON INDICATED BELOW, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT
 THE PETITION WAS UNTIMELY FILED AND THEREFORE MUST BE DISMISSED.
 
    FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES IN THE RECORD BEFORE THE
 AUTHORITY, IT APPEARS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGENCY'S PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM A DISPUTE
 AROSE WITH RESPECT TO FIVE OF THE UNION'S PROPOSALS.  AFTER EFFORTS OF
 THE FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE PROVED UNSUCCESSFUL IN
 RESOLVING THE DISPUTE, A REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE WAS FILED WITH THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL.  WHILE THE MATTER WAS PENDING BEFORE THE
 PANEL, THE ACTIVITY NOTIFIED THE UNION BY LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1981,
 THAT IT INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT A MODIFIED PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM.
 IN ITS LETTER, THE ACTIVITY ALSO STATED THAT "(T)WO ISSUES HAVE BEEN
 DECLARED AT IMPASSE BY THE FEDERAL MEDIATOR AND MANAGEMENT HAS DECLARED
 THREE ISSUES NONNEGOTIABLE DUE TO CONFLICT WITH ARMY-WIDE REGULATIONS."
 THE PANEL SUBSEQUENTLY DECLINED TO ASSERT JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER
 IN VIEW OF THE NEGOTIABILITY QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE ACTIVITY.  ON
 OCTOBER 19, 1981, THE UNION FILED THE INSTANT PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH
 THE AUTHORITY.
 
    IN ITS STATEMENT OF POSITION, THE ACTIVITY IN EFFECT ARGUES THAT
 SINCE NO ALLEGATION WAS REQUESTED BY THE UNION, AN "ALLEGATION" WITHIN
 THE MEANING OF SECTION 2424.3 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 WAS NEVER RENDERED BY THE ACTIVITY AND, THEREFORE, THE CASE IS NOT
 PROPERLY BEFORE THE AUTHORITY.
 
    SECTION 2424.3 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, WHICH
 IMPLEMENTS SECTION 7117(C)(2) OF THE STATUTE, PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT
 PART:
 
    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.
 THE EXCLUSIVE
 
    REPRESENTATIVE SHALL REQUEST SUCH ALLEGATION IN WRITING AND THE
 AGENCY SHALL MAKE THE
 
    ALLEGATION IN WRITING AND SERVE A CO