National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 476 (Union) and Headquarters, Army Communications and Electronics, Materiel Readiness Command and Fort Monmouth, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey (Activity)  

 5 FLRA No. 83
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 476
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATIONS
 AND ELECTRONICS, MATERIEL READINESS
 COMMAND AND FORT MONMOUTH, FORT MONMOUTH,
 NEW JERSEY
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-363
 
                          ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
 
    ON JULY 31, 1980, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES (THE
 UNION) FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE AUTHORITY IN THE
 ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES
 AND REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R. 2424.1(1980)) AND SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET
 SEQ.).  FOR THE REASONS INDICATED BELOW, THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW
 MUST BE DISMISSED.
 
    AS PRESENTED IN THE UNION'S APPEAL, THE ESSENCE OF THE PARTIES'
 DISPUTE INVOLVES THE UNION'S PROPOSAL TO NEGOTIATE THE IMPACT ON
 REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES OF CONTRACTING OUT OF MOTOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AT
 THE ACTIVITY.  HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE UNION HAS NOT PROPOSED
 SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FOR NEGOTIATION.  WITHOUT SUCH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, IT
 IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSAL WITH LAWS,
 REGULATIONS OR THE STATUTE.  THUS, THE INSTANT MATTER IN DISPUTE IS NOT
 SUFFICIENTLY DELINEATED SUCH AS TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR NEGOTIABILITY
 DETERMINATION.  IN THIS REGARD, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT A PETITION
 FOR REVIEW OF A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE WHICH DOES NOT PRESENT A PROPOSAL
 SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT AS TO PERMIT THE
 AUTHORITY TO RENDER A NEGOTIABILITY DECISION THEREON DOES NOT MEET THE
 CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW SET FORTH IN SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND
 SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.  ASSOCIATION OF
 CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, ALABAMA ACT AND STATE OF ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD,
 CASE NO. 0-NG-27, 2 FLRA NO. 39(1979).
 
    IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROPOSAL IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND
 DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT AT THIS TIME TO PERMIT THE AUTHORITY TO
 RENDER A NEGOTIABILITY DECISION.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN, AND APART FROM OTHER
 CONSIDERATIONS,
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE INSTANT APPEAL BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
 DISMISSED.
 
    FOR THE AUTHORITY.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 15, 1981
 
                   JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR