Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia (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 Metal Trades Council sought negotiability review concerning a Norfolk Naval Shipyard directive for foremen to monitor employee productivity. The Authority found that the union's general request to bargain did not present a specific, delimited proposal it could evaluate. It dismissed the appeal without deciding whether particular bargaining language would be negotiable. The Authority also said that allegations of a unilateral change and refusal to bargain over its impact belonged in an unfair labor practice proceeding, where factual disputes could be heard.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7117, 7118; 5 C.F.R. § 2424.1.
• Outcome: Negotiability petition dismissed without a merits ruling.
• Key point: A general challenge to the shipyard directive did not supply a reviewable proposal.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v02 p872 ]

02:0872(108)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

2 FLRA No. 108

MR. LOUIS S. NARDOZI
CHAIRMAN, CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
METAL TRADES COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 1155
PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA 23704

RE: TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL
AND NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD,
PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, Case No.
0-NG-256

DEAR MR. NARDOZI:

THIS REFERS TO THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
CASE. AS PRESENTED THEREIN, THE TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
METAL TRADES COUNCIL PROPOSED GENERALLY TO NEGOTIATE THE ACTIVITY'S
DIRECTIVE FROM ITS SHOP SUPERINTENDENTS TO ITS FOREMEN CONCERNING THE
MONITORING OF EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY. 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. 25, 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, THE APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

ADDITIONALLY, INSOFAR AS IT APPEARS THAT THE ESSENCE OF THE UNION'S
ALLEGATIONS RELATES TO AN ALLEGED UNILATERAL CHANGE IN WORKING
CONDITIONS AND A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ON ITS IMPACT, THE PROPER FORUM IN
WHICH TO RAISE THESE ISSUES IS NOT A NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL, BUT RATHER
WOULD BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118 OF
THE STATUTE. IN THIS REGARD, RESOLUTION OF THE INSTANT DISPUTE IS
DEPENDENT UPON THE RESOLUTION OF FACTUAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE PARTIES'
CONDUCT. SUCH FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS CAN BEST BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH
USE OF THE INVESTIGATORY AND FORMAL HEARING PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN PART
2423 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH GOVERN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS (45 F.R. 3506 ET SEQ. (1980)).

FOR THE AUTHORITY.

SINCERELY,

SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

CC: A. JAMES

NAVY

D. H. GREEN

DOD