Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, AFL-CIO and Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (Authority decision, March 14, 1980)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed the negotiability petition because it did not identify a sufficiently specific proposal. The order makes no negotiability ruling on a defined proposal. Judicial review of final Authority orders is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization asked to negotiate changes to an FAA regulation and petitioned the Authority for negotiability review. The Authority said the union had not stated a proposal with enough detail to permit a negotiability decision under the statute and its regulations. It dismissed the appeal on that threshold ground. The order did not decide whether any particular proposed language was negotiable.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117; 5 C.F.R. § 2424.1.
• Outcome: Petition dismissed for lack of a specific proposal.
• Key point: Negotiability review required a defined proposal rather than a general request to bargain over regulatory changes.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v02 p869 ]

02:0869(107)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

2 flra No. 107

MR. DENNIS M. REARDON
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
PROFESSIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
ORGANIZATION, AFL-CIO
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET, NW., SUITE 820
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001

RE: PROFESSIONAL AIR TRAFFIC
CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION,
AFL-CIO AND DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
Case No. 0-NG-209

DEAR MR. REARDON:

THIS REFERS TO THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
CASE. AS PRESENTED THEREIN, THE PROFESSIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
ORGANIZATION, AFL-CIO, PROPOSED GENERALLY "TO NEGOTIATE (THE ACTIVITY'S)
PROPOSED CHANGES TO (THE ACTIVITY'S REGULATION)." FOR THE REASONS SET
FORTH BELOW, THE UNION'S APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED.

UNDER ESTABLISHED AUTHORITY PRECEDENT, ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN
TECHNICIANS, ALABAMA ACT AND STATE OF ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD, CASE NO.
O-NG-27, 2 FLRA NO. 39 (DEC. 28, 1979), REPORT NO. , A PETITION FOR
REVIEW OF A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE WHICH DOES NOT PRESENT A PROPOSAL
SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT AS TO PERMIT THE
AUTHORITY TO RENDER A NEGOTIABILITY DECISION THEREON DOES NOT MEET THE
CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW SET FORTH IN SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE (92 STAT.
1205 ET SEQ. (1978)) AND SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS.

IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS, THE INSTANT APPEAL IS SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL TO THE CASE CITED. THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS FULLY SET FORTH
IN THAT DECISION, THE INSTANT APPEAL SIMILARLY DOES NOT MEET THE
CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND
SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, AND APART
FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, /1/ THE APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

FOR THE AUTHORITY.

SINCERELY,

SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

CC: HON. N. E. GOLDSCHMIDT

R. S. SMITH

TRANSPORTATION

/1/ AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE INSTANT CASE ARISES
OUT OF A DISPUTE OVER THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE
PARTIES' AGREEMENT, THE PROPER FORUM IN WHICH TO RESOLVE SUCH QUESTIONS
IS NOT A NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL BUT, INSTEAD, WOULD BE PURSUANT TO
WHATEVER PROCEDURES THE PARTIES THEMSELVES HAVE ADOPTED FOR SUCH
PURPOSE
THROUGH SUCH AGREEMENT. E.G., AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1931 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL WEAPONS
STATION, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. O-NG-55, 2 FLRA NO. 19 (DEC. 5,
1979), REPORT NO. .