American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1361 and Department of the Air Force (Authority decision, February 14, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed a premature negotiability petition. 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 itself stay the order.

Plain-English summary

The union sought bargaining with an Air Force activity, but the activity said a higher organizational element had bargaining authority. The union petitioned the Authority without submitting specific proposal language. The Authority held that it could not decide negotiability without a definite proposed matter to review. It dismissed the petition as premature.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review conditions under 5 U.S.C. § 7117 and 5 C.F.R. § 2424.1.
• Outcome: Petition dismissed as premature; no negotiability ruling.
• Key point: A negotiability petition requires a specific bargaining proposal.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v11 p357 ]
11:0357(71)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

11 FLRA NO. 71

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1361

(Union)

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AND
AIR FORCE PLANT REPRESENTATIVE'S
OFFICE (DET 27), GENERAL DYNAMICS,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS

(Activity)

Case No. 0-NG-751

Order Dismissing Petition for Review

This matter is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations on a petition for review of a negotiability issue filed by the union. For the reason indicated below, the union's petition for review must be dismissed.

It appears from the union's petition that the union was certified as the exclusive representative of a unit of activity employees and sought to meet with the commander of the activity to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement. The union did not, however, submit any specific proposals for negotiation. The commander of the activity responded by informing the union that pursuant to a directive from the Air Force Contract Management Division (AFCMD), he was not authorized to negotiate with the union. (AFCMD had notified certain subordinate organizational elements, including the activity, that AFCMD was the "employer" for the purpose of negotiating agreements with union's having exclusive recognition at those organization.) The union then filed the instant petition with the Authority 1
{ v11 p 357 ]

Section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, which implements section 7117 of the Statute, provides, in pertinent part:

2424.1 Conditions governing review

The Authority will consider a negotiability issue under the conditions prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 7117(b) and (c),namely: If an agency involved in collective bargaining with an exclusive representative alleges that the duty to bargain in good faith does not extend to any matter proposed to be bargained because, as proposed, the matter is inconsistent with law, rule or regulation, the exclusive representative may appeal the allegation to the Authority.....

Further, 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. See, e.g., Association of Civilian Technicians, Alabama ACT and State of Alabama National Guard, 2 FLRA 702 (1979).

Thus, the conditions governing review of a negotiability issue include a requirement that there be "a matter proposed to be bargained," and that the proposal must be specific in form and content so as to enable the Authority to determine whether the proposal is negotiable under the Statute. See, e.g., Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 10 FLRA No. 68 (1982).

In this case, the dispute between the parties is not sufficiently delineated to form a basis for a negotiability determination by the Authority. As stated above, while the union may have sought to negotiate with the activity, it did not propose any specific language for negotiation. It is therefore clear that the union's petition for review was prematurely filed and 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 and must be dismissed.

Accordingly, the union's petition for review is hereby dismissed.

For the Authority.

Issued, Washington, D.C., February 14, 1983

James J. Shepard, Executive Director

{ v11 p 358 ]

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1 The Authority has been advised that
the union also filed an unfair labor practice charge against the activity.