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.         

17:0325(47)NG - NFFE Local 15 and Army, Army Armament Munitions and Chemical Command -- 1985 FLRAdec NG



[ v17 p325 ]
17:0325(47)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 17 FLRA No. 47
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 15
 Union
 
 and
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 ARMY ARMAMENT MUNITIONS AND
 CHEMICAL COMMAND
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. O-NG-1107
 
                   ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
 
    This case is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E)
 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute on a petition
 for review of negotiability issues filed by the Union.
 
    The record before the Authority in this case indicates that during
 the course of negotiations, the Union submitted proposals concerning the
 time limit for grieving the denial of a within grade increase under the
 negotiated grievance procedure.  By letter dated February 6, 1985, the
 Activity declared the Union's proposals to be nonnegotiable.  The Union
 then filed the instant petition for review with the Authority pursuant
 to section 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, as to
 whether the disputed proposals were within the duty to bargain.
 Subsequently in a letter to the Authority dated March 7, 1985, the
 Agency withdrew the Activity's allegation of nonnegotiability.
 
    Since the Agency has withdrawn the allegation of nonnegotiability
 concerning the Union's proposals, there is no longer an issue as to
 whether the proposals in this case are within the parties' duty to
 bargain under the Statute.
 
    Accordingly, and apart from other considerations, the petition for
 review in this case is hereby dismissed.  For the Authority.  Issued,
 Washington, D.C., March 26, 1985
                                       Harold D. Kessler
                                       Managing Director for Case
                                       Processing