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.         

National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1439 (Union) and Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Jackson District Office (Activity) 



[ v06 p36 ]
06:0036(10)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 6 FLRA No. 10
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1439
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
 HUMAN SERVICES,
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
 JACKSON DISTRICT OFFICE
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-475
 
                          ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
 
    ON MAY 1, 1981, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 1439 (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 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 AGENCY'S PROPOSED CHANGE FOR ASSIGNING CASES TO
 CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE UNION'S CLAIM THAT THE IMPACT OF SUCH A
 CHANGE IS A TOPIC FOR BARGAINING.
 
    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 A 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.
 O-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., JUNE 10, 1981
 
                   JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR