National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 476 (Union) and Headquarters, Army Communications and Electronics, Materiel Readiness Command and Fort Monmouth, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey (Activity) (Authority decision, May 15, 1981)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 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

A union appealed a dispute about bargaining over the effects of contracting out motor vehicle maintenance. It had not supplied specific proposal language. The Authority found that it could not decide negotiability without a proposal defined enough to test against law and regulation. It dismissed the appeal without deciding the proposal’s merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117.
• Outcome: Negotiability appeal dismissed for lack of specific proposal language.
• Key point: A negotiability appeal needs an identifiable proposal.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v05 p604 ]

05:0604(83)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

5 FLRA No. 83

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 476
(Union)

and

HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY COMMUNICATIONS
AND ELECTRONICS, MATERIEL READINESS
COMMAND AND FORT MONMOUTH, FORT MONMOUTH,
NEW JERSEY
(Activity)

Case No. 0-NG-363

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

ON JULY 31, 1980, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES (THE
UNION) FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE AUTHORITY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES
AND REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R. 2424.1(1980)) AND SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE
FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET
SEQ.). FOR THE REASONS INDICATED BELOW, THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW
MUST BE DISMISSED.

AS PRESENTED IN THE UNION'S APPEAL, THE ESSENCE OF THE PARTIES'
DISPUTE INVOLVES THE UNION'S PROPOSAL TO NEGOTIATE THE IMPACT ON
REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES OF CONTRACTING OUT OF MOTOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AT
THE ACTIVITY. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE UNION HAS NOT PROPOSED
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FOR NEGOTIATION. WITHOUT SUCH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, IT
IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSAL WITH LAWS,
REGULATIONS OR THE STATUTE. THUS, THE INSTANT MATTER IN DISPUTE IS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY DELINEATED SUCH AS TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR NEGOTIABILITY
DETERMINATION. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT 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 AND
SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. ASSOCIATION OF
CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, ALABAMA ACT AND STATE OF ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD,
CASE NO. 0-NG-27, 2 FLRA NO. 39(1979).

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROPOSAL IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND
DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT AT THIS TIME TO PERMIT THE AUTHORITY TO
RENDER A NEGOTIABILITY DECISION.

ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN, AND APART FROM OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE INSTANT APPEAL BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
DISMISSED.

FOR THE AUTHORITY.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 15, 1981

JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR