National Association of Government Employees, Local R1-100 and U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, Connecticut (Authority decision, May 7, 1990)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed this negotiability petition without prejudice because the union had not submitted a specific proposal to the agency before filing, and the agency had not alleged a later proposal was nonnegotiable. Judicial review of this order is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

NAGE Local R1-100 sought to negotiate about guards saluting at the naval base. It filed a negotiability petition before giving the agency the text of a specific bargaining proposal. The union later supplied a proposal, but the agency did not claim that it was nonnegotiable. The Authority found that the conditions for reviewing a negotiability dispute had not been met. It dismissed the petition without prejudice to a later appeal if those conditions are met.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117; 5 C.F.R. §§ 2424.1 and 2424.4(a)(1).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed without prejudice as premature.
• Key point: A negotiability petition requires a proposal first submitted to the agency and an agency allegation that bargaining is barred.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v35 p1006 ]
35:1006(108)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

35 FLRA NO. 108

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL R1-100

(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE NEW LONDON

GROTON, CONNECTICUT

(Agency)

0-NG-1771

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

May 7, 1990

On December 27, 1989, the Authority issued an Order granting the

Union an opportunity to correct deficiencies in its petition for

review of a negotiability issue in the above-captioned case. In

its timely response dated January 4, 1990, the Union provided the

Authority with the wording of the proposal sought to be

negotiated. On March 29, 1990, the Agency informed the Authority

that the proposal submitted to the Authority in the Union's

January 4, 1990 response "was served for the first time upon this

activity by certified mail dated 5 January 1990." For the reasons

set out below, the Union's petition for review must be

dismissed.

The Authority's regulations require that any
petition for

review filed with the Authority must contain a "statement setting

forth the express language of the proposal sought to be

negotiated as submitted to the agency(.)" (Emphasis added.) 5

C.F.R. 2424.4(a)(1). The conditions governing review of a

negotiability issue include the requirement that there be "a

matter proposed to be bargained." See American Federation of

Government Employees, Local 491 and Veterans Administration

Medial Center, Bath, New York, 29 FLRA 462 (1987). Absent a

matter proposed to be bargained, a petition for review is

prematurely filed and must be dismissed. Id. at 464.

It appears from the Union's petition. */
that the Union

sought to meet with the Agency to negotiate over "Guards

saluting" but did not submit any specific proposals for

negotiation. In addition, although the proposals were

subsequently provided to the Agency on January 5, 1990, the

Agency has not alleged the proposals to be nonnegotiable.

It is well established that the Authority will
only consider

a negotiability issue "(i)f an agency involved in collective

bargaining with an exclusive representative alleges that the duty

to bargain in good faith does not extend to any matter proposed

to be bargained because, as proposed, the matter is inconsistent

with law, rule or regulation(.)" 5 C.F.R. 2424.1. See National

Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29 and U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Kansas City District, Kansas City, Missouri 32 FLRA

722 (1988).

Under these circumstances, the Union's petition
for review

does not meet the conditions for review set forth in section 7117

of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute and

sections 2424.1 and 2424.4 of the Authority's Regulations.

Accordingly, the Union's petition for review is dismissed without

prejudice to the Union's right to file an appeal if the

conditions governing review are met and the Union chooses to file

such an appeal. See 5 C.F.R. Part 2424.

For the Authority.

Alicia N. Columna

Director, Case Control Office

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)

Footnote */ The two documents attached to the Union's

petition for review were: (1) a memorandum dated October 27, 1989

to Evon Cava/C.C.P.O. from James W. Henley/N.A.G.E. Subject:

Negotiation in which the Union "requests to negotiate to the

extent provided by law, over the Guards saluting." and (2) a

memorandum dated November 3, 1989 to Mr. James W. Henley from

Head, Labor/Employee Relations Department which states "we see no

benefit to further negotiations on ... (the saluting requirement

for guards) absent an indication from you that the union is

prepared to offer negotiable proposals...."