[ v25 p737 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
25 FLRA No. 62 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL OFLOCALS NO. 214 Union and DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO Agency Case No. 0-NG-1002 (23 FLRA No. 90) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION This matter is before the Authority because of the Union's request for reconsideration or clarification of the Authority's October 24, 1986, Order Dismissing Petition for Review in the above-entitled matter. The Agency did not file an opposition. By way of background, on July 22, 1985, the Authority issued its Decision and Order on Negotiability Issue in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Council of Locals No. 214 and Department of the Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 19 FLRA No. 23 (1985). In that case the Authority determined that a proposal requiring the Agency to permit certain of its employees to devote 100% of their on-duty time to representating the Union was nonnegotiable. The Authority concluded that the proposal directly determined the numbers, types and grades of employees or positions assigned to a work project, organizational entity or tour of duty and therefore, was negotiable only at the Agency's election under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute. Subsequently, on August 26, 1986, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the Authority's decision and remanded this case to the Authority to issue an appropriate remedy. According to the court, this remedy, among other things, may address the Union's contention that the proper remedy in this case is to include retroactively the Union's official time proposal in the parties' existing collective bargaining agreement. On October 15, 1986, the Agency withdrew its allegation of nonnegotiability in the case and noted that the parties had signed a Memorandum of Agreement which: (1) incorporated into their renegotiated Master Labor Agreement the proposal which had been at issue in the Union's petition for review; and (2) resolved all other related issues. Since the Agency had withdrawn its allegation of negotiability concerning the disputed proposal the Authority concluded there was no longer an issue of whether that proposal was within the duty to bargain. Accordingly, the Authority dismissed the Union's petition for review on October 24, 1986. In its request for reconsideration or clarification the Union acknowledges that "the parties signed a memorandum of agreement which resolves the issue of an appropriate remedy." The Union argues however, that the Authority's decision to dismiss the petition for review is, among other things, "inconsistent with the Court's Order." The Union contends that the Authority should indicate that it is reversing its original decision on the negotiability of the Union's proposal and the test used to reach that decision. /*/ Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations provides that a party can establish "extraordinary circumstances" may request reconsideration of an Authority decision. Here, the Union has not established "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17. Rather, the Union's agruments constitute nothing more than a disagreement with the Authority's decision to dismiss the Union's petition for review in light of the Agency's withdrawl of its nonnegotiability allegation and the parties' subsequent agreement on all remaining issues. Moreover, the Union's request, in effect, seeks an advisory opinion from the Authority on the negotiability of like proposals involving the use of official time. In accordance with section 2429.10 of our Rules which expressly provides that "(t)he Authority and the General Counsel will not issue advisory opinions," we will not rule on the propriety of proposals of matters not currently before us. Consequently, we conclude that the Union has failed to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly the Union's request for reconsideration or clarification is denied. Issued, Washington, D.C., February 19, 1987. Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman Henry B. Frazier III, Member Jean McKee, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- (*) For a discussion of this test see Military Entrance Processing Station, Los Angeles, California, 25 FLRA No. 57 (1987).