35:1006(108)NG - - NAGE Local R1-100 and Navy, Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, CT - - 1990 FLRAdec NG - - v35 p1006

35 FLRA NO. 108


          NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
                          LOCAL R1-100
                             (Union)

                              and

                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE NEW LONDON
                      GROTON, CONNECTICUT
                            (Agency)

                           0-NG-1771

             ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

                          May 7, 1990

On December 27, 1989, the Authority issued an Order granting the
Union an opportunity to correct deficiencies in its petition for
review of a negotiability issue in the above-captioned case. In
its timely response dated January 4, 1990, the Union provided the
Authority with the wording of the proposal sought to be
negotiated. On March 29,  1990, the Agency informed the Authority
that the proposal submitted to the Authority in the Union's
January 4, 1990 response "was served for the first time upon this
activity by certified mail dated 5 January 1990." For the reasons
set out below, the Union's petition for review must be
dismissed.

     The Authority's regulations require that any petition for
review filed with the Authority must contain a "statement setting
forth the express language of the proposal sought to be
negotiated as submitted to the agency(.)" (Emphasis added.) 5
C.F.R. 2424.4(a)(1). The conditions governing review of a
negotiability issue include the requirement that there be "a
matter proposed to be bargained." See American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 491 and Veterans Administration
Medial Center, Bath, New York, 29  FLRA  462 (1987). Absent a
matter proposed to be bargained, a petition for review is
prematurely filed and must be dismissed. Id. at 464.

     It appears from the Union's petition.  */  that the Union
sought to meet with the Agency to negotiate over "Guards
saluting" but did not submit any specific proposals for
negotiation. In addition, although the proposals were
subsequently provided to the Agency on January 5, 1990, the
Agency has not alleged the proposals to be nonnegotiable.

     It is well established that the Authority will only consider
a negotiability issue "(i)f 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(.)" 5 C.F.R. 2424.1. See National
Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29  and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Kansas City District, Kansas City, Missouri 32 FLRA
722 (1988).