40:0966(81)NG - - NTEU, Chapter 207 and FDIC, Washington, DC - - 1991 FLRAdec NG - - v40 p966
[ v40 p966 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
40 FLRA No. 81
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This negotiability case is before the Authority on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. FLRA v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Nos. 87-1716 and 88-1005 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 25, 1991) (per curiam). The court granted the Authority's motion to vacate its decision and order on remand in National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 207 and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, D.C., 28 FLRA 625 (1987) (Chairman Calhoun dissenting) (FDIC), reconsideration denied, 29 FLRA 1465 (1987) (Chairman Calhoun dissenting) and remanded the case to the Authority with instructions to vacate its order as moot. The court also dismissed as moot a motion for summary enforcement of the Authority's decision and order on remand, and a motion for summary denial of the Agency's petition for review.
In accordance with the instructions of the court to vacate our order we will vacate as moot the decision and order on remand in FDIC.
In FDIC the Authority, on remand, directed the Agency to bargain over a proposal which, as relevant here, required that employees' salaries be subject to adjustment equal to the adjustment recommended to the President by the Pay Advisory Council.(*) Appeals of that decision were filed in Case Nos. 87-1716 and 88-1005.
On November 5, 1990, during the pendency of the appeals, the President signed into law the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (the Act), Pub. L. No. 101-509, sec. 529 (1990). Among other things, the Act had the effect of abolishing entities that previously had been involved in the Federal pay setting process. Following enactment of the Act, the Authority moved to vacate as moot the decision and order finding the Union's proposal negotiable and directing the Agency to bargain. The Authority argued that because the proposal relied on the recommendations of an entity that no longer existed, the proposal had been rendered moot. As indicated, the court granted the motion to vacate and remanded the case to the Authority with instructions to vacate the order as moot.
III. Analysis and Conclusion
Pursuant to the order of the court, we will vacate as moot the Authority's decision and order on remand in FDIC.
The decision and order on remand in FDIC is vacated as moot.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
*/ Previously, the Authority had found that the proposal was outside the