At this time FLRA remains fully operational. Effective Friday July 31, 2020, the agency now extends the prohibition on in-person filings indefinitely.  

See details: here.

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

14:0105(21)CA - IRS, Wichita District and NTEU -- 1984 FLRAdec CA

[ v14 p105 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 14 FLRA No. 21
 Charging Party
                                            Case No. 7-CA-20105
                            DECISION AND ORDER
    This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Acting Regional
 Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Federal Labor Relations
 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 facts and the parties' contentions, /1/ the Authority
    The complaint alleges that the Respondent refused to comply with
 section 7131(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute) by its conduct in failing and refusing to
 authorize payment of travel and per diem expenses incurred by Robert
 Bates, the designated employee representative of the Union in mid-term
 negotiations conducted on November 23 and 24, 1981, in violation of
 section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute.
    The dispositive facts and positions of the parties are substantially
 identical to those involved in Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
 v. FLRA, 104 S.Ct. 439(1983) wherein the United States Supreme Court
 concluded that the obligation of an agency under section 7131(a) of the
 Statute to provide official time to employees representing an exclusive
 representative in the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement
 does not encompass the payment of travel expenses and per diem
 allowances.  Pursuant to that decision and for the reasons set forth by
 the Court, the Authority concludes herein that the Respondent did not
 fail or refuse to comply with the provisions of section 7131(a) of the
 Statute.  Therefore, it follows that Respondent did not violate section
 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute.
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 7-CA-20105 be,
 and it hereby is, dismissed.  /2/
    Issued, Washington, D.C., March 23, 1984
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
    /1/ The General Counsel's untimely brief was not considered herein.
    /2/ The Authority received a request filed by the Regional Director
 seeking withdrawal of the transferred case from consideration by the
 Authority and to have the case remanded to the Regional Director for
 disposition consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.  In view of
 the Authority's disposition on the merits of this case, the Regional
 Director's request is hereby denied.