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.         

09:0869(116)CA - DOD, Mare Island Shipyard, Vallejo, CA and Federal Employees MTC, Vallejo, CA -- 1982 FLRAdec CA



[ v09 p869 ]
09:0869(116)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 9 FLRA No. 116
 
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
 MARE ISLAND SHIPYARD,
 VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL,
 VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 9-CA-655
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR'S "ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE AUTHORITY" IN ACCORDANCE WITH
 SECTION 2429.1(A) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.
 
    UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE
 STIPULATION OF ACTS AND THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS, THE AUTHORITY FINDS:
 
    THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION
 7116(A)(1), (5) AND (8) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) WHEN IT REFUSED TO AGREE TO A FULL SCOPE
 NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE TO BE INCORPORATED IN ITS COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE CHARGING PARTY (THE UNION).
 
    THE UNION IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF CERTAIN WAGE GRADE
 EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT.  IN AUGUST 1978 THE PARTIES BEGAN
 NEGOTIATIONS ON A NEW COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  DURING THE
 COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS THE RESPONDENT PROPOSED THAT CERTAIN MATTERS BE
 EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.  DESPITE
 DISCUSSION AND EXCHANGES OF COUNTERPROPOSALS, THE PARTIES WERE UNABLE TO
 REACH AGREEMENT ON THE SCOPE OF THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND
 REACHED IMPASSE ON THE SUBJECT.
 
    THE POSITIONS OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHARGING PARTY ARE
 SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE POSITIONS TAKEN IN VERMONT AIR NATIONAL
 GUARD, BURLINGTON, VERMONT, 9 FLRA NO. 92(1982), WHEREIN WE HELD THAT
 THE SCOPE OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE IS A MANDATORY SUBJECT FOR
 BARGAINING AND, IF IMPASSE IS REACHED, IS SUBJECT TO IMPASSE RESOLUTION
 PROCEDURES.  BASED ON THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THAT DECISION, THE
 AUTHORITY FINDS THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS HEREIN DID NOT VIOLATE THE
 STATUTE AS ALLEGED IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 9-CA-655 BE, AND
 IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 5, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY