National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 207 and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, D.C. (Authority decision, May 24, 1991)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority vacates an earlier negotiability order as moot. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review of this final order in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). A petition does not stay the order unless the court orders a stay under § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

The Authority had ordered FDIC to bargain over a union salary adjustment proposal tied to recommendations of the Pay Advisory Council. Congress later abolished the entity involved in that pay setting process, making the proposal moot. A federal appeals court instructed the Authority to vacate its earlier order. The Authority complied and vacated its negotiability decision and bargaining order as moot.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Earlier decision and bargaining order vacated as moot.
• Key point: The proposal lost its operative pay reference after the governing pay law changed.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v40 p966 ]

40:0966(81)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

40 FLRA No. 81

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION

CHAPTER 207

(Union)

and

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

(Agency)

0-NG-446

28 FLRA 625 (1987)

DECISION AND ORDER ON REMAND

May 24, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This negotiability case is before the Authority on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. FLRA v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Nos. 87-1716 and 88-1005 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 25, 1991) (per curiam). The court granted the Authority's motion to vacate its decision and order on remand in National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 207 and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, D.C., 28 FLRA 625 (1987) (Chairman Calhoun dissenting) (FDIC), reconsideration denied, 29 FLRA 1465 (1987) (Chairman Calhoun dissenting) and remanded the case to the Authority with instructions to vacate its order as moot. The court also dismissed as moot a motion for summary enforcement of the Authority's decision and order on remand, and a motion for summary denial of the Agency's petition for review.

In accordance with the instructions of the court to vacate our order we will vacate as moot the decision and order on remand in FDIC.

II. Background

In FDIC the Authority, on remand, directed the Agency to bargain over a proposal which, as relevant here, required that employees' salaries be subject to adjustment equal to the adjustment recommended to the President by the Pay Advisory Council.(*) Appeals of that decision were filed in Case Nos. 87-1716 and 88-1005.

On November 5, 1990, during the pendency of the appeals, the President signed into law the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (the Act), Pub. L. No. 101-509, sec. 529 (1990). Among other things, the Act had the effect of abolishing entities that previously had been involved in the Federal pay setting process. Following enactment of the Act, the Authority moved to vacate as moot the decision and order finding the Union's proposal negotiable and directing the Agency to bargain. The Authority argued that because the proposal relied on the recommendations of an entity that no longer existed, the proposal had been rendered moot. As indicated, the court granted the motion to vacate and remanded the case to the Authority with instructions to vacate the order as moot.

III. Analysis and Conclusion

Pursuant to the order of the court, we will vacate as moot the Authority's decision and order on remand in FDIC.

IV. Order

The decision and order on remand in FDIC is vacated as moot.

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)

*/
Previously, the Authority had found that the proposal was outside the duty to bargain because it conflicted with an agency regulation for which there was a compelling need. National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 207 and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, D.C., 21 FLRA 282 (1986). That decision was reversed and remanded in National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 813 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1987).