National Association of Government Employees, Local R14-89 and U.S. Department of the Army, Army Air Defense Artillery Center and Fort Bliss (Authority decision, November 22, 1991)

Final FLRA decision. This order ends the present negotiability appeal because the union did not correct filing deficiencies. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review of a reviewable final order 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 Authority twice ordered the Fort Bliss union to correct deficiencies in its negotiability petition. It required a statement about a possible concurrent unfair labor practice charge and service of the union's response on the agency representative. The second order set a July 26, 1991 deadline and warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal. The union did not respond to either order, so the Authority dismissed the petition without reaching its merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Filing requirements under 5 C.F.R. § 2424.4(c)(1).
• Outcome: Union negotiability petition dismissed for failure to respond to deficiency orders.
• Key point: An unanswered order to correct a petition's filing defects can end the appeal before its merits are heard.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v43 p267 ]
43:0267(25)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

43 FLRA NO. 25

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL R14-89 (Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, ARMY AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY CENTER AND FORT BLISS FORT BLISS, TEXAS (Agency)

0-NG-1936

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

November 22, 1991

On May 14, 1991, and on July 12, 1991, the Authority issued orders granting the Union opportunities to correct a deficiency in its petition for review of negotiability issues in the above-captioned case. The Union was directed to file an original and four copies of a statement addressing whether a concurrent unfair labor practice charge has been filed, and a selection of procedure if necessary. In addition, the July 12 Order directed the Union to serve on the Agency's representative of record, Charles E. Thomas, the Union's response to the Agency's statement of position.

The Authority's July 12, 1991 Order stated that the Union's submission in response to the Order must be filed by July 26, 1991, 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).

The Union has failed to respond to the Authority's May 14, 1991, and July 12, 1991 Orders. Accordingly, the Union's petition for review is dismissed. 5 C.F.R. 2424.4 (c)(1).

For the Authority

Alicia N. Columna
Director, Case Control Office