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, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel.  The FLRA’s eFiling System remains available.         

10:0407(68)NG - Federal Employees MTC and Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, CA -- 1982 FLRAdec NG



[ v10 p407 ]
10:0407(68)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 68
 
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD,
 VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-722
 
                   ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
 
    This matter is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(D)
 and (E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (5
 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations (5 C.F.R. 2424.1) on a petition for review of a
 negotiability issue filed on behalf of the union.  For the reason
 indicated below, the union's petition must be dismissed.
 
    As presented in the union's appeal, the parties' dispute involves a
 new Department of Navy policy concerning the distribution of pay checks
 and related leave and earning statements for newly hired civilian
 employees.  The parties apparently met to discuss the policy and the
 activity subsequently informed the union by letter that it was willing
 to negotiate with respect to the impact and implementation of the
 policy, but that it considered the policy decision nonnegotiable for
 various reasons.  While the union may have sought to negotiate with
 respect to the policy, it did not propose any specific language for
 negotiation.  Rather, shortly after receipt of the activity's letter,
 the union filed the instant petition with the Authority.  In that
 regard, the union asserts that in view of the activity's position it was
 clear that the activity would not have negotiated on any proposal and
 that to have submitted such a proposal would have been futile.  The
 union further noted, however, that it was preparing to submit a formal
 proposal to the activity concerning the policy sometime in the future.
 /1/
 
    Section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, which
 implements section 7117 of the Statute, provides, in pertinent part:
 
    Sec. 2424.1 Conditions governing review
 
          The Authority will consider a negotiability issue under the
       conditions prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 7117(b) and (c), namely:  If an
       agency involved in collective bargaining with an exclusive
       representative alleges that the duty to bargain in good faith does
       not extend to any matter proposed to be bargained because, as
       proposed, the matter is inconsistent with law, rule or regulation,
       the exclusive representative may appeal the allegation to the
       Authority . . . .
 
    Further, it is well-established that a petition for review of a
 negotiability issue which does not present a proposal sufficiently
 specific and delimiated 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.  See, e.g., Association of
 Civilian Technicians, Alabama ACT and State of Alabama National Guard, 2
 FLRA 702 (1979).
 
    Thus, the conditions governing review of a negotiability issue
 include a requirement that there be "a matter proposed to be bargained,"
 and that the proposal must be specific in form and content so as to
 enable the Authority to determine whether the proposal is negotiable
 under the Statute.
 
    In this case, the dispute between the parties is not sufficiently
 delineated to form a basis for a negotiability determination by the
 Authority.  As stated above, while the union may have sought to
 negotiate with the activity concerning the Department of Navy policy, it
 did not propose any specific language for negotiation, which the
 activity could have declared negotiable or nonnegotiable.  It is
 therefore clear that the union's petition for review was prematurely
 filed and 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 and must be dismissed on that basis.  /2/
 
    Accordingly, for the reason set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that the
 union's petition for review be, and it hereby is, dismissed.  For the
 Authority.  Issued, Washington, D.C., October 29, 1982
                                       James J. Shepard, Executive
                                       Director
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ Subsequent to filing the instant petition, the union advised the
 Authority that it had submitted a proposal to the activity.
 
 
    /2/ The dismissal is without prejudice to the union filing a petition
 for Authority review, in accordance with Part 2424 of the Authority's
 Rules and Regulations, of any negotiability issue that may arise in
 connection with the union's recent proposal, or any other proposals, to
 the activity in this matter.