Pipe Fitters Local 602 and Walter Reed Army Medical Center (Authority decision, June 26, 1985)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority on 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

A union sought review of Walter Reed's allegation that a proposal was nonnegotiable. The allegation was mailed April 8, 1985, making April 29 the filing deadline. The Authority received the petition June 3 and dismissed it as untimely.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed as untimely.
• Key point: The petition arrived more than a month after the deadline.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v18 p735 ]

18:0735(84)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

18 FLRA No. 84

JOURNEYMEN PIPE FITTERS AND
APPRENTICES, LOCAL 602
Union

and

WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER
Activity

Case No. 0-NG-1139

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 and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations on a petition for review of negotiability issues filed by the Union. For the reasons indicated below, it has been determined that the Union's petition for review was untimely filed and must be dismissed on that basis.

Under section 7117(c)(2) of the Statute and section 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, the time limit for filing a petition for review of negotiability issues is 15 days after service on the Union of the Agency's allegation that the duty to bargain in good faith does not extend to the matter proposed to be bargained.

The Agency's allegation of nonnegotiability in this case apparently was served on the Union by mail on April 8, 1985. Therefore, under section 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations as well as sections 2429.21 and 2429.22 which also are applicable to computation of the time limit here involved, the petition for review had to be filed, that is, received in the national office of the Authority, no later than the close of business on April 29, 1985. However, the petition for review was not filed until June 3, 1985, and thus was untimely.

Accordingly, as the Union's petition for review was untimely filed, and apart from other considerations, it is hereby dismissed. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., June 26, 1985 Harold D. Kessler Managing Director for Case Processing