11:0351(69)NG - AFGE Local 1482 and Marine Corps, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, CA -- 1983 FLRAdec NG

 11 FLRA No. 69
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1482
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 U.S. MARINE CORPS,
 MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE,
 BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-734
 
                   ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
 
    This matter is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E)
 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Regulations Statute and section
 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations on a petition for review
 of a negotiability issue filed by the union.  For the reason indicated
 below, the union's petition must be dismissed.
 
    From the submissions of the parties in the record before the
 Authority, it appears that the dispute involves a job action contingency
 plan established by the activity.  The union apparently requested that
 the activity rescind the plan and negotiate with the union concerning
 the content.  In that regard, the union informed the activity that if
 the activity would rescind the plan and send related proposals to the
 union, the union would negotiate.  The activity denied the union's
 request and, in response to a subsequent memorandum from the union,
 notified the union that the request raised an issue which was
 nonnegotiable.  The union thereupon filed the instant petition with the
 Authority.  The agency filed a statement of position in response to the
 union's appeal, contending that the union's petition should be dismissed
 because, among other things, the union did not present any proposal to
 the activity for negotiation.
 
    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 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.  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.  Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and
 Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California,
 10 FLRA No. 68 (1982).
 
    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 job action contingency plan,
 it did not propose any specific language for negotiation.  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.
 
    Accordingly, and apart from other considerations, the union's
 petition for review is, hereby dismissed.  For the Authority.  Issued,
 Washington, D.C., February 10, 1983
                                       James J. Shepard, Executive
                                       Director