16:0135(24)NG - NFFE Local 1363 and Army, Forces Korea, Eighth Army Garrison, Yongsan, Korea -- 1984 FLRAdec NG
[ v16 p135 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
16 FLRA No. 24 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1363 Union and U.S. ARMY, U.S. FORCES KOREA, EIGHTH ARMY GARRISON, YOUNGSAN, KOREA Activity Case No. O-NG-1018 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW This case is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and Part 2424 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations on a petition for review of a negotiability issue filed by the Union. For the reasons stated below, the Union's petition for review must be dismissed. The record before the Authority in this case indicates that a dispute arose between the parties during negotiations over implementation of an Activity policy directive concerning the use of privately owned firearms during a Presidential visit to Korea. The Activity informed the Union that it intended to prohibit removal of personal firearms from nonappropriated fund rod and gun clubs and U.S. Forces Korea unit arms rooms between November 11 and 15, 1983, the period during which the President of the United States would be visiting in Korea. The Union submitted a proposal essentially seeking to limit the prohibition to the cities and areas which would actually be visited by the President and seeking monetary compensation for employees affected by the prohibition. The Union requested the Activity's allegation in writing as to the negotiability of the disputed proposal. The Activity, however, did not respond to the Union's request. The Union then filed the instant petition for review with the Authority pursuant to section 2424.3 of the Authority's Regulations. In its statement of position, the Department of the Army informed the Authority that the specific prohibition on the use of firearms which gave rise to the dispute had been implemented and had ended, and contends, among other things, that since the proposal at issue in this case concerns only a past event, it has been rendered moot. Upon careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, it has been determined that since the prohibition described above has been implemented and has ended, the instant negotiability dispute has been rendered moot. Further, to decide the issue presented in the instant case under the circumstances described 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 consideration, the Union's petition for review is hereby dismissed.