25:0737(62)NG - AFGE, Council of Locals No. 214 and Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright_patterson AFB, OH -- 1987 FLRAdec NG

 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  Since the Agency had withdrawn its allegation of negotiability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).