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.         

13:0347(58)NG - Panama Canal Federation of Teachers, Local 29 and DOD Dependents Schools, Panama Region -- 1983 FLRAdec NG



[ v13 p347 ]
13:0347(58)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 13 FLRA No. 58
 
 PANAMA CANAL FEDERATION OF
 TEACHERS, LOCAL 29
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS
 SCHOOLS, PANAMA REGION
 (Activity)
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-817
 
                   ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
 
    This matter is before the Authority on a petition for review of a
 negotiability issue filed by the Union pursuant to section 7117(c)(2) of
 the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and Parts 2424
 and 2429 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.  For the reasons
 stated below, it has been determined that the Union's petition for
 review must be dismissed.
 
    By Authority letter dated May 25, 1983, the Union was informed that
 preliminary examination of the petition for review in this case
 disclosed a number of apparent deficiencies in meeting certain
 requirements in the Authority's rules of procedure.  By letter dated
 June 13, 1983, the Union submitted a statement of service in response to
 the Authority's letter, apparently in completion of the appeal.
 However, it appeared that the Agency was not served with a copy of the
 Union's petition for review as required.  Accordingly, by letter dated
 August 3, 1983, the Authority advised the Union that service upon Mr.
 Thomas F. Garnett, Jr., the designee of the Secretary of Defense for
 purposes of service in negotiability cases, was necessary in order to
 comply with section 2424.4(b) of the Authority's Regulations.
 
    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 appeal, 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 appeal.
 
    The Union has made no submission within the time limit provided.
 Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for failure to comply with
 the Authority's Regulations.  For the Authority.  Issued, Washington,
 D.C., November 1, 1983
                                       James J. Shepard, Executive
                                       Director