International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2159 and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah (Authority decision, September 21, 1990)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority resolving a negotiability appeal. 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 filed a negotiability petition that had not been served on the required agency representatives. The Authority gave it until September 4 to correct the defects. The union submitted its response on September 6 and requested a two day extension, citing a holiday and computer changes. The Authority found the extension request late and incomplete under its rules, and found no extraordinary reason to waive the correction deadline. It dismissed the petition without deciding the proposal's negotiability.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Petition correction under 5 C.F.R. § 2424.4(c)(1); extension requests under § 2429.23(a).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed for failure to correct service defects on time.
• Key point: The late extension request did not meet the Authority's filing requirements.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v37 p468 ]
37:0468(32)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

37 FLRA NO. 32

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 2159 (Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
(Agency)

0-NG-1855

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

September 21, 1990

On August 22, 1990, the Authority issued an Order granting the Union an opportunity to correct deficiencies 1/ in its petition for review. The Authority's Order stated that the Union's response must be filed with the Authority by September 4, 1990, and that failure to comply with the order may result in dismissal of the Union's petition. 5 C.F.R. 2424.4 (c) (1).

On September 6, 1990, the Union filed 2/ its response to the Authority's Order and requested a 2-day extension of time. The Union states that it was unable to file a timely response "(d)ue to the Labor Day holiday and the recent change in computer hardware and software in the office(s)."

The Authority's Regulations provide that requests for extensions of time must be in writing and received by the Authority not later than 5 days before the established time limit for filing. The request must state the position of the other party and must be served on the other party. 5 C.F.R. 2429.23(a).

The Union's request for an extension of time was not filed 5 days before the established time limit for filing and did not state the position of the other parties. Therefore, the Union's request for a 2-day extension of time is deficient and must be denied.

Notwithstanding the Union's statement that the delay in filing was due to the "holiday and a recent change in computer hardware", the Authority's records indicate that the Union received the Authority's Order on August 27, 1990. 3/ The Union, therefore, had 8 days to comply with the Authority's Order or file a timely request for an extension of time. The Union offers no other reason for its failure to timely file its response.

The Authority's Order stated that the Union's response must be filed by September 4, 1990, and that failure to comply with the Order may result in dismissal of the Union's petition for review.

The Union failed to respond timely to the Authority's Order and has not established any extraordinary circumstances to waive the time limit for filing the Union's response. Accordingly, the Union's petition for review is dismissed.

For the Authority.

Alicia N. Columna
Director, Case Control Office

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1/ The Union's petition for review was not served on the principal bargaining representative and on the Agency head or his designee.

Footnote 2/ The Union's response was dated September 5, 1990 and hand-delivered to the Authority's Docket Room on September 6, 1990. Section 2429.27(d) of the Authority's Regulations states that the date of service is the day when the matter served is deposited in the "U.S. Mail or is delivered in person." As the Union's response was hand-delivered, it is considered filed on the date it was received, September 6, 1990.

Footnote 3/ The Authority received a signed certified return receipt card from the Union dated August 27, 1990.