[ v17 p312 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
17 FLRA No. 43 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1245 Union and DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE Agency Case No. O-NG-941 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 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 for review must be dismissed. It appears from the Union's petition that the Union sought to meet Vehicles and Heavy Equipment. /1/ The Union did not, however, submit any specific proposals for negotiation. The Agency's assistant regional director for administration responded by informing the Union that the instruction was not negotiable and, that in any event, the Union had not requested bargaining within the thirty day time limit after the instruction's issuance as per the parties' negotiated agreement. Thus, the Agency denied the Union's request to bargain. In response to a subsequent memorandum from the Union requesting clarification on the issue of whether a compelling need existed for this instruction, the Agency notified the Union that in light of its prior determination the issue of compelling need for the instruction was moot. The Union thereupon filed the instant petition with the Authority. 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 314 (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. See e.g., Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 10 FLRA 407 (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 Agency concerning the instruction, it did not propose any specific language for a negotiation. It is therefore clear, that apart from other considerations, 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition for review be dismissed. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., March 22, 1985 Harold D. Kessler, Director, Case Management --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ The Union did not provide a copy of Reclamation Instruction 365 to the Authority in connection with the instant Petition.