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.         

09:0668(75)NG - IFPTE Local l and Navy, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia -- 1982 FLRAdec NG



[ v09 p668 ]
09:0668(75)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 9 FLRA No. 75
 
 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL
 AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, LOCAL 1
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK NAVAL
 SHIPYARD, PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-660
 
                   ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF
 NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES FILED BY LOCAL 1 OF THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS (THE UNION) PURSUANT TO SECTION
 7117(C)(2) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE AND
 SECTIONS 2424.3 AND 2424.4 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.  BY
 AUTHORITY LETTER OF MAY 17, 1982, THE UNION WAS INFORMED THAT
 PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
 CASE DISCLOSED A NUMBER OF APPARENT DEFICIENCIES IN MEETING CERTAIN
 REQUIREMENTS OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.  SPECIFICALLY, AS
 WAS NOTED IN THE AUTHORITY'S LETTER, THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW
 FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2424.4(B).
 
    THE UNION WAS ALSO ADVISED IN THE AUTHORITY'S LETTER THAT FURTHER
 PROCESSING OF THE APPEAL WAS CONTINGENT UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE
 DESIGNATED PROVISIONS OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS.  IN THIS REGARD,
 THE UNION WAS INFORMED OF THE SPECIFIC ACTIONS THAT HAD TO BE TAKEN TO
 COMPLY AND COMPLETE THE PETITION FOR REVIEW AND WAS AFFORDED TIME IN
 WHICH TO TAKE THOSE ACTIONS.  FINALLY, THE UNION WAS ADVISED THAT
 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CITED REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT
 PROVIDED COULD RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW.
 
    THE UNION HAS MADE NO SUBMISSION WITH THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED.
 ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IS HEREBY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
 COMPLY WITH THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS.
 
    FOR THE AUTHORITY.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 28, 1982
 
                   JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR