Service Employees' International Union, Local 556 and Navy Exchange, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (Authority decision, March 14, 1980)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed the negotiability petition after the agency withdrew its allegation, leaving no live bargaining dispute for this appeal. Judicial review of final Authority orders is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

SEIU Local 556 petitioned for a ruling on whether a Navy regulation barred bargaining over its reduction in force proposal at the Pearl Harbor Navy Exchange. The Navy then withdrew its allegation that the proposal conflicted with the regulation. With that allegation gone, the Authority found no live negotiability dispute and dismissed the appeal as moot. It also declined the union's request for a compelling need ruling because that would be an advisory opinion.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117(a)(2); 5 C.F.R. § 2429.10.
• Outcome: Petition dismissed as moot after agency allegation withdrawn.
• Key point: The Authority would not decide a regulation's compelling need without a live dispute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v02 p906 ]

02:0906(112)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

2 FLRA No. 112

MR. LAURENCE R. AH NEE, SR.
PRESIDENT, LOCAL 556
SERVICE EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL-CIO
666 KOHOU STREET, ROOM 201
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96817

RE: SERVICE EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 556 AND
NAVY EXCHANGE, PEARL, UNITED
STATES NAVAL BASE, PEARL HARBOR,
HAWAII, Case No. 0-NG-187

DEAR MR. AH NEE:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE.

THE RECORD IN THIS CASE INDICATES THAT DURING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
THE ACTIVITY AND THE UNION, THE ACTIVITY ALLEGED THAT A UNION PROPOSAL
CONCERNING REDUCTIONS-IN-FORCE WAS INCONSISTENT WITH A REGULATION ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (AGENCY) AND, IN EFFECT, THAT THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN THEREFORE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE PROPOSAL. YOUR PETITION ON
BEHALF OF THE UNION SEEKS A DETERMINATION FROM THE AUTHORITY, PURSUANT
TO SECTION 7117(A)(2) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
REGULATIONS STATUTE AND SECTION 2424.11 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES OF
PROCEDURE, AS TO WHETHER A COMPELLING NEED EXISTS FOR THE AGENCY
REGULATION IN QUESTION. IN ITS STATEMENT FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY IN
THE CASE, THE AGENCY WITHDREW THE ALLEGATION MADE BY THE ACTIVITY. IN
YOUR RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S STATEMENT, HOWEVER, YOU ASSERT THAT THE
AUTHORITY "SHOULD ISSUE A DECISION IN ALL CASES INVOLVING COMPELLING
NEED" AND REQUEST "THAT A DECISION (ON THE COMPELLING NEED QUESTION) BE
ISSUED IN THE INSTANT CASE DESPITE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE (A)GENCY'S
ALLEGATION."

SINCE THE AGENCY HAS WITHDRAWN THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE UNION'S
PROPOSAL, THERE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IN THIS
CASE IS WITHIN THE PARTIES' DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE. THE
DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THE UNION'S APPEAL THEREFORE HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT.
FURTHER, YOUR REQUEST THAT THE AUTHORITY RESOLVE ANY ISSUE RAISED BY
THE ACTIVITY'S INITIAL ALLEGATION CONSTITUTES A REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY
OPINION WHICH IS PRECLUDED BY SECTION 2429.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES.

ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

FOR THE AUTHORITY

SINCERELY,

SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

CC: E. F. ORMSBEE

NAVY

D. H. GREEN

DOD