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.         

Second Circuit

 

Fernandez v. FLRA, No. 06-0278-AG (2d Cir. 2007) [unpublished judgment], reviewing Case No. BN-CO-05-0131.

The Second Circuit dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a petition for review of the General Counsel's refusal to issue a ULP complaint.

Samuel M. Rizzitelli v. FLRA, 212 F.3d 710 (2d Cir. 2000), reviewing Case No. BN-CO-80486.

The Second Circuit dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a petition for review of the General Counsel's refusal to issue a ULP complaint. The court reasoned that the decision was not a "final order" within the meaning of section 7123(a) of the Statute.

FLRA v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 97-4001 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 1999)[unpublished decision], enforcing Case Nos. BN-CA-50149, BN-CA-50156, BN-CA-50698, BN-CA-50700, and BN- CA-50701.

On remand from the Supreme Court (119 S. Ct. 2387 (1999)), the Second Circuit enforced the Authority's order in the above-referenced cases. The Authority found that the Agency committed ULPs when it denied an exclusive representative and certain unit employees their section 7114(a)(2)(B) representation rights during Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigations. The Supreme Court had vacated an earlier Second Circuit decision that denied the Authority's application for enforcement, instructing the court to reconsider its decision in light of NASA v. FLRA, 119 S. Ct. 1979 (1999). In NASA v. FLRA, the Supreme Court affirmed the Authority's decision that an OIG investigator is a "representative of the agency" when examining a bargaining unit employee who reasonably fears that discipline might result from the examination. The Second Circuit reconsidered its earlier position and granted the Authority's application for enforcement.