Hawaii Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (Authority decision, May 16, 1985)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority dismissing a negotiability petition. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). Filing a petition does not stay the Authority's order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

The Hawaii Federal Employees Metal Trades Council proposed hours for closing the Avenue G gate at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. The shipyard declared the proposal nonnegotiable, and the union petitioned for review. The agency then withdrew that objection. The Authority dismissed the petition because no negotiability dispute remained, without deciding the proposal's merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed after withdrawal of the nonnegotiability allegation.
• Key point: The agency's withdrawal left no issue for the Authority to decide.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v18 p71 ]

18:0071(11)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

18 FLRA No. 11

HAWAII FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL
TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Union

and

PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD
Activity

Case No. 0-NG-1110

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

This case is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute on a petition for review of negotiability issues filed by the Union.

The record before the Authority in this case indicates that during the course of negotiations, the Union submitted a proposal concerning the proposed closure hours for the Avenue "G" gate. By letter dated February 26, 1985, the Activity declared the Union's proposal to be nonnegotiable. The Union then filed the instant petition for review with the Authority pursuant to section 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, as to whether the disputed proposal was within the duty to bargain. Subsequently in a letter to the Authority dated April 25, 1985, the Agency withdrew the Activity's allegation of nonnegotiability.

Since the Agency has withdrawn the allegation of nonnegotiability concerning the Union's proposal, there is no longer an issue as to whether the proposal in this case is within the parties' duty to bargain under the Statute.

Accordingly, and apart from other considerations, the petition for review in this case is hereby dismissed. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., May 16, 1985 Harold D. Kessler Managing Director for Case Processing