At this time FLRA remains fully operational.  Effective Friday March 20, 2020 until July 31, 2020 the agency will no longer receive in-person filings.  

See details: here.

FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, TEMPLE, TEXAS AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 571, AFL-CIO

 
 
 
 
   
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
TEMPLE, TEXAS
 
                                             RESPONDENT
 
 
 
 
 
Case No. DA-CA-15-0080
 
AND
 
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 571, AFL-CIO
 
                                            CHARGING PARTY
 
                               
 
 
Charlotte A. Dye
               For the General Counsel
 
James A. Keim
                For the Respondent
 
Paul D. Palacio
                For the Union
 
Before:    CHARLES R. CENTER     
                Chief Administrative Law Judge
 
 
                                                    DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE
 
 
            On December 4, 2014, the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 571, AFL-CIO (Union/
Local 571) filed an unfair labor practice charge against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Temple, Texas (Respondent).  On June 30, 2015, the Dallas Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (Authority) issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing, alleging that the Respondent violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute) by implementing a change to bargaining unit employees’ conditions of employment without providing the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain to the extent required by the Statute.  On July 7, 2015, the Respondent filed its Answer to the Complaint. 
 
A hearing was held on November 19, 2015, in Temple, Texas, where testimony was taken and documentary evidence introduced into the record.  The General Counsel and Respondent timely filed post-hearing briefs.   
                        
            On January 7, 2016, Counsel for the General Counsel filed a Motion to Remand Case to the Dallas Region, indicating that an informal settlement had been reached with the Respondent.  The motion indicated that the Respondent did not oppose the motion, but the Union opposed the motion.  Neither the Respondent or Union filed a response to the motion within the five days allotted by 5 C.F.R. § 2423.21(b)(3).    
 
Absent an explanation for opposition, pursuant to § 2423.31(e)(1) of the Rules and Regulations of the Authority, I conclude that the withdrawal of the Complaint is appropriate in light of the uncontested assertions set forth in the motion to remand.  Therefore, I find that remanding the case to the Regional Director for further action is appropriate. 
 
ORDER
 
The General Counsel’s Motion to Remand Case is GRANTED.  The case is hereby Remanded to the Regional Director for further action as he deems appropriate to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute.
 
Issued, Washington, D.C., January 21, 2016
 
 
 
                                                                           _____________________________________
                                                                           CHARLES R. CENTER
                                                                           Chief Administrative Law Judge