AFGE Local 1900 and Army Fort Devens (Authority decision, May 29, 1986)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 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 union appealed the Army’s assertion that a conduct and discipline proposal was nonnegotiable. The Army withdrew that assertion while the appeal was pending. With no remaining negotiability dispute, the Authority dismissed the petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117.
• Outcome: Negotiability petition dismissed as moot.
• Key point: Withdrawal of the agency’s allegation removes the issue presented for review.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v21 p984 ]

21:0984(116)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

21 FLRA No. 116

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1900
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, HEADQUARTERS,
FORT DEVENS, MASSACHUSETTS
Activity

Case No. 0-NG-1258

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 a negotiability issue filed by the Union.

From the record before the Authority, it appears that by letter dated November 26, 1985, the Activity notified the Union that it intended to implement the revision of Ft. Devens Memorandum, Civilian Personnel Administrative Manual 690-1, Chapter 7, "Conduct and Discipline" within fourteen (14) days absent any proposals from the Union. Subsequently, on December 3, 1985, the Union submitted its proposal to the Activity. By letter dated December 11, 1985, the Activity declared that the Union's proposal was outside the duty to bargain because it infringed on retained management rights under 5 U.S.C. 7106(a)(2)(A). Thereafter, on January 22, 1986, the Activity sent another letter to the Union informing it that since it had not appealed the Activity's nonnegotiability allegation and since it had not submitted any other proposals for consideration, the Activity would implement the Memorandum on February 3, 1986. Subsequently, by letter dated February 27, 1986, the Union explained the meaning of its proposal and requested that the Activity reconsider its allegation of nonnegotiability concerning the Union's proposal. The Activity responded by letter dated March 21, 1986, reiterating its position that the proposal was outside the duty to bargain. The Union then filed the instant petition for review with the Authority on April 9, 1986, seeking a determination, pursuant to section 7117 of the Statute and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, as to whether the disputed proposal was within the duty to bargain. Subsequently, on May 2, 1986, the Agency submitted its statement of position on the petition for review to the Federal Labor Relations Authortiy. In its statement of position, the Agency withdrew its allegation of nonnegotiability.

Since the Agency has withdrawn the allegation concerning the Union's proposal, there is no longer an issue as to whether the proposal 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 29, 1986.
/s/ Harold D. Kessler
Director of Case Management