Hawaii Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (Authority decision, September 30, 1986)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses the union's negotiability petition as untimely. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review of this final Authority order 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 order unless the court orders a stay under § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

The Hawaii Federal Employees Metal Trades Council challenged the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard's finding that a proposal was outside the duty to bargain. The shipyard hand delivered its allegation on July 8, 1986. The Authority found that the 15-day filing period ended on July 23, but the union's petition arrived at the national office on July 25. It dismissed the petition as late without deciding the negotiability issue.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Filing deadline under 5 U.S.C. § 7117(c)(2) and 5 C.F.R. § 2424.3.
• Outcome: Petition dismissed as untimely.
• Key point: Hand delivery started the 15-day period, and the petition arrived two days after the deadline.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v23 p534 ]

23:0534(72)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

23 FLRA No. 72

HAWAII FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL
TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Union

and

PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD
Agency

Case No. 0-NG-1303

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. Further, under section 2429.23(d) of the Authority's rules of procedure, the time limit established in section 7117(c)(2) of the Statute may not be extended or waived by the Authority.

The documents the Union submitted with its petition for review indicate the Agency's allegation that the proposal in question is nonnegotiable is dated July 7, 1986. A notation on the Agency's allegation shows that it was served on the Union by hand delivery on July 8, 1986, which is also the date of receipt indicated by the Union's date stamp affixed to the allegation. Therefore, under section 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations as well as section 2429.21 which also is 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, not later than the close of business on July 23, 1986. /*/ However, the petition was not filed with the Authority at its national office in Washington, D.C., until July 25, 1986.

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., September 30, 1986.
/s/ Harold D. Kessler
Director of Case Management

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

(*) Consistent with section 2429.22 of the Authority's rules of procedure, five days is added to the filing period only when "the notice or paper (i.e., the Agency's allegation of nonnegotiability) is served .
. . by mail."