Please note that Friday, January 20, 2017, is a federal holiday for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  The following FLRA offices will not be open to accept in-person case filings or to respond to phone calls on that day:  the Authority’s Case Intake and Publication Office, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Washington Regional Office, OGC Headquarters (Appeals), and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

Service Employees' International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 556 and Navy Exchange, Pearl, United States Naval Base, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii



[ v02 p906 ]
02:0906(112)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 2 FLRA No. 112
 
 MR. LAURENCE R. AH NEE, SR.
 PRESIDENT, LOCAL 556
 SERVICE EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL
 UNION, AFL-CIO
 666 KOHOU STREET, ROOM 201
 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96817
 
                            RE:  SERVICE EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL
                                 UNION, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 556 AND
                                 NAVY EXCHANGE, PEARL, UNITED
                                 STATES NAVAL BASE, PEARL HARBOR,
                                 HAWAII, Case No. 0-NG-187
 
 DEAR MR. AH NEE:
 
    THIS REFERS TO YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE.
 
    THE RECORD IN THIS CASE INDICATES THAT DURING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
 THE ACTIVITY AND THE UNION, THE ACTIVITY ALLEGED THAT A UNION PROPOSAL
 CONCERNING REDUCTIONS-IN-FORCE WAS INCONSISTENT WITH A REGULATION ISSUED
 BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (AGENCY) AND, IN EFFECT, THAT THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN THEREFORE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE PROPOSAL.  YOUR PETITION ON
 BEHALF OF THE UNION SEEKS A DETERMINATION FROM THE AUTHORITY, PURSUANT
 TO SECTION 7117(A)(2) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 REGULATIONS STATUTE AND SECTION 2424.11 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES OF
 PROCEDURE, AS TO WHETHER A COMPELLING NEED EXISTS FOR THE AGENCY
 REGULATION IN QUESTION.  IN ITS STATEMENT FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY IN
 THE CASE, THE AGENCY WITHDREW THE ALLEGATION MADE BY THE ACTIVITY.  IN
 YOUR RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT, HOWEVER, YOU ASSERT THAT THE
 AUTHORITY "SHOULD ISSUE A DECISION IN ALL CASES INVOLVING COMPELLING
 NEED" AND REQUEST "THAT A DECISION (ON THE COMPELLING NEED QUESTION) BE
 ISSUED IN THE INSTANT CASE DESPITE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE (A)GENCY'S
 ALLEGATION."
 
    SINCE THE AGENCY HAS WITHDRAWN THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE UNION'S
 PROPOSAL, THERE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IN THIS
 CASE IS WITHIN THE PARTIES' DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.  THE
 DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THE UNION'S APPEAL THEREFORE HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT.
  FURTHER, YOUR REQUEST THAT THE AUTHORITY RESOLVE ANY ISSUE RAISED BY
 THE ACTIVITY'S INITIAL ALLEGATION CONSTITUTES A REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY
 OPINION WHICH IS PRECLUDED BY SECTION 2429.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW IS HEREBY DISMISSED.
 
    FOR THE AUTHORITY
 
                                SINCERELY,
 
                           SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
 
                            EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
 
    CC:  E. F. ORMSBEE
 
    NAVY
 
    D. H. GREEN
 
    DOD