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.         

File 2: Opinion of Chairman Cabaniss

[ v60 p823 ]

Dissenting Opinion of Chairman Cabaniss:

      Consistent with my dissent in United States Dep't of the Air Force, Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., 58 FLRA 528, 538 (2003), I would dismiss the complaint in this case as not involving a formal discussion under § 7114(a)(2)(A), and therefore dissent from the majority decision here. Moreover, to the extent that the Respondent's other legal arguments supporting its position that an EEO complaint does not constitute a "grievance" under § 7114(a)(2)(A) are before the Authority, I reiterate the views set out in my dissent in United States Dep't of the Air Force, 436th Airlift Wing, Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Del., 57 FLRA 304, 312-14 (2001). [*] 

File 1: Authority's Decision in 60 FLRA No. 155
File 2: Opinion of Chairman Cabaniss
File 3: ALJ's Decision

Footnote * for 60 FLRA No. 155 - Opinion of Chairman Cabaniss

   I note that the General Counsel only raised 5 C.F.R. § 2429.5 for the purpose of limiting the Respondent's contentions pertaining to the parties' negotiated agreement, not with respect to its remaining legal arguments pertaining to the statutory definition of a "grievance" under § 7114(a)(2)(A). Opposition at 9.