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.         

20:0786(92)NG - IFPTE Local 220 and Air Force, HQ Sacramento Air Logistics Center -- 1985 FLRAdec NG



[ v20 p786 ]
20:0786(92)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 20 FLRA No. 92
 
 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF 
 PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL 
 ENGINEERS, LOCAL 220
 Union
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 
 HEADQUARTERS SACRAMENTO AIR 
 LOGISTICS CENTER
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. 0-NG-1177
 
                   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 and section
 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations on a petition for review
 of negotiability issues filed by the Union.  For the reasons indicated
 below, it has been determined that the Union's petition for review must
 be dismissed.
 
    By Authority letter dated October 25, 1985, the Union was informed
 that examination of the petition for review disclosed an apparent
 deficiency in meeting the requirements of the Authority's rules of
 procedure.  Specifically, as was noted in the Authority's letter, the
 Union's petition failed to comply with section 2424.4(b) of the
 Regulations which requires that a copy of the petition including all
 attachments thereto shall be served on the agency head and on the
 principal agency bargaining representative at the negotiations.
 
    The Union was informed of the specific action it had to take to
 comply and complete the appeal, and was granted 21 days in which to take
 that action.  The Union was advised that further processing of the
 petition was contingent upon compliance with the cited provision of the
 Authority's Regulations and was put on notice that failure to comply
 within the time limit provided could result in dismissal of the
 petition.
 
    The Union has made no submission within the time limit provided.
 Accordingly, the petition for review is hereby dismissed for failure to
 comply with the Authority's Regulations.
 
    For the Authority.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C. November 29, 1985
 
                                       (s)---
                                       Harold D. Kessler
                                       Managing Director for Case
                                       Processing