46:1026(91)NG - - Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and Navy Public Works Center, Norfolk, Virginia - - 1992 FLRAdec NG - - v46 p1026
[ v46 p1026 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
46 FLRA No. 91
TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
METAL TRADES COUNCIL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PUBLIC WORKS CENTER
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
December 29, 1992
The Union has filed a petition for review of negotiability issues in the above-captioned case. For the reasons set out below, the Union's petition for review must be dismissed for failure to meet the conditions governing review of negotiability issues.
The Authority's Regulations provide that the Authority will consider a negotiability issue if an agency involved in collective bargaining with a union alleges that the duty to bargain in good faith does not extend to a matter proposed to be bargained and the union appeals the allegation to the Authority. 5 C.F.R. § 2424.1.
The Union included, as attachments to its petition for review, a proposal concerning the "safe harbor" provision of the Agency's Drug Free Workplace Program and an Agency allegation of nonnegotiability. It is clear that the Agency's allegation concerns a proposal which is different from the one included in the petition for review. The proposal included in the Union's petition for review provides, in relevant part, that:
[i]f an employee has sought and is accepted under Navy's 'safe harbor' provisions, the [Public Works] Center will hold in abeyance for a reasonable period of time the forwarding of this information . . . pending receipt of information on the employee's enrollment in rehabilitation efforts, . . . .
Petition for Review of Nonnegotiability. On the other hand, the Agency's allegation concerns a proposal, which provides, in pertinent part, that:
as an appropriate arrangement, the Public Works Center will for a reasonable period of time hold in abeyance (not less than 30 days) the forwarding of his/her suspended access to security . . . until the successful completion of rehabilitation can be determined.
Id. Nothing in the record establishes that the Union requested an Agency allegation of nonnegotiability concerning the proposal filed with the Authority. For this reason, the petition for review is not properly before the Authority and must be dismissed. See, for example, American Federation of Government Employees, Department of Education Council of Locals and U.S. Department of Education, 36 FLRA 130, 137 (1990).
In addition, the petition for review does not comply with Section 2424.4(b) of the Authority's Regulations, which provides that a copy of the petition "including all attachments thereto must be served on the agency head . . . ." In this regard, the Agency asserts, and the Union does not dispute, that the Agency was not served with the attachments to the petition for review. As the Union failed to provide the Agency with copies of the attachments to its petition for review, the petition does not meet the requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 2424.4(b).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is dismissed without prejudice to the Union's right to file an appeal if the conditions governing review are met and the Union chooses to file such an appeal. See 5 C.F.R. Part 2424.
For the Authority.
Alicia N. Columna
Director, Case Control Office
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)