Federal Union of Scientists and Engineers, NAGE Local R1-144 and Naval Underwater Systems Center, Newport, Rhode Island (Authority decision, October 27, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses a negotiability petition after the parent agency withdraws the allegation that the union's proposal is outside the duty to bargain. 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 order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

The Federal Union of Scientists and Engineers proposed terms concerning promotional opportunities created by a reorganization at the Naval Underwater Systems Center. The local activity called the proposal a permissive subject and said management did not want to bargain. The union petitioned the Authority for a negotiability ruling. The parent Navy agency then withdrew the allegation of nonnegotiability, leaving no issue for the Authority to decide. The Authority dismissed the petition without ruling on the proposal's merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability petition under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed after withdrawal of the nonnegotiability allegation.
• Key point: Withdrawal left no live negotiability issue before the Authority.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v29 p1172]
29:1172(83)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

29 FLRA NO. 83

FEDERAL UNION OF SCIENTISTS AND
ENGINEERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R1-144

Union

and

NAVAL UNDERWATER SYSTEMS CENTER,
NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND

Activity

Case No. 0-NG-1455

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.

The record in this case indicates that by memorandum dated September 10, 1987, the local Activity declared the Union's proposal concerning promotional opportunities created by a reorganization to be a permissive subject of negotiation, and that management did not desire to bargain over the matter. On September 14, 1987, pursuant to section 7117 of the Statute and sections 2424.1 and 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, the Union filed a petition for review as to whether the disputed proposal was within the duty to bargain.

By letter dated October 15, 1987, the parent Agency filed a request with the Authority asking to withdraw the allegation of nonnegotiability. Therefore, there is no longer an issue before the Authority 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., October 27, 1987.

Harold D. Kessler
Director of Case Management