23:0509(70)NG - Overseas Federation of Teachers and DOD Dependents Schools, Mediterranean Region -- 1986 FLRAdec NG
[ v23 p509 ]
23:0509(70)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
23 FLRA No. 70
OVERSEAS FEDERATION
OF TEACHERS
Union
and
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS
MEDITERRANEAN REGION
Agency
Case No. 0-NG-999
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 section
2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations on a petition for review
of negotiability issues filed by the Union. For the reasons indicated
below, it has been determined that the Union's petition for review was
untimely filed and must be dismissed on that basis.
From the record in this case it appears that on November 14, 1983,
the Agency served on the Union by mail its allegation of
nonnegotiability with respect to the four Union proposals here in
dispute. Since, under section 7117(c) of the Statute and section 2424.3
of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, the time limit for filing a
petition for review is fifteen days after the date the Agency's
allegation is served on the Union, the Union's petition for review was
due in the national office of the Authority on December 5, 1983. The
Union's petition for review was not filed with the Authority until
December 12, 1983 and so the Authority dismissed the case on the basis
that it was untimely filed. Overseas Federation of Teachers and
Department of Defense Dependents Schools, Mediterranean Region, 13 FLRA
721 (1984), Request for Reconsideration denied, 15 FLRA 1047 (June 13,
1984).
On February 28, 1984, the Union again requested a written declaration
of nonnegotiability from the Agency with respect to the same four
proposals which had been subject to the dismissal referred to above.
The Agency informed the Union that the Union's request was the same as
that to which it had responded by its allegation in November, 1983, that
it had stated its position to the Union at that time, and that it would
not provide the Union with a new allegation. On May 14, 1984, the Union
filed the instant negotiability appeal with the Authority seeking review
of the four proposals. It claims that the appeal is timely under a
proviso to section 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations,
which permits an appeal to be filed after an agency allegation is
requested and the agency has failed to provide it.
The Authority has held that a union may file a petition for review of
negotiability issues without a prior written agency allegation where the
Union has requested such an allegation and the agency has failed to
provide it. The requirement that a petition for review must be filed
within 15 days from the date of service on the Union of an agency
allegation of nonnegotiability does not apply in such circumstances.
See, for example, National Treasury Employees Union and NTEU Buffalo
District Joint Council and Internal Revenue Service, Buffalo District
(and the cases consolidated therewith), 3 FLRA 337 (1980). The fact
that the Union filed its petition for review on May 14, 1984,
approximately seventy-five days after it had requested a written
allegation from the Agency, would not, therefore, render its petition
untimely and would not, in and of itself, provide a basis for dismissing
the Union's appeal.
However, the record demonstrates that the Union's petition, in
essence, seeks review of the Agency's earlier allegation, which the
Agency provided to the Union in November, 1983. The Authority has held
that "where a petition for review is filed concerning an agency's
allegation of nonnegotiability which is only a restatement of a prior
allegation, and no changes in the substance or language of the proposal
have been effectuated during the period between allegations, the
petition seeks review of the earlier allegation." American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1336 and Department of Health and
Human Services, Social Security Administration, 21 FLRA No. 1 (1986).
While, strictly speaking, the Agency did not in this case provide the
Union with a second written allegation, it made clear to the Union that
its position taken in the earlier allegation had not changed,
reaffirming its previous position with respect to the four Union
proposals at issue. Moreover, as already noted, the record indicates
that the proposals in the present appeal were the same ones that had
been subject to the Agency's November, 1983 allegation of
nonnegotiability. There had been no change in either the substance or
the language of the proposals between November, 1983, and February 28,
1984. Compare American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Local 2303 and Metropolitan Washington Airports, Federal Aviation
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 17 FLRA 17 (1985),
petition for review filed sub nom. American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 85-1248
(D.C. Cir. April 25, 1985) (recombination of various parts of proposals
previously declared nonnegotiable did not constitute a change in the
substance or language of the proposals). It must be concluded that the
substance of the dispute between the parties concerns the Agency's
November, 1983, allegation that the four proposals are nonnegotiable.
As noted above, the Union's first appeal, filed on December 12, 1983,
was untimely. All the more so, the Union's second appeal from that
allegation, filed with the Authority on May 14, 1984, was outside the
time limits set forth in section 2424.3 of the Authority's regulations
and, therefore, untimely.
ORDER
As the Union's petition for review was untimely filed, and apart from
other considerations, it is hereby dismissed.
For the Authority,
Issued, Washington, D.C., September 29, 1986.
/s/ Harold D. Kessler
Director of Case Management