Decision on Request for General Statement of Policy or Guidance (Authority decision, May 23, 1980)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denied the request for general policy guidance. This ends that request; judicial review of final Authority orders is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), subject to its statutory exceptions.

Plain-English summary

A federal employees union asked the Authority to clarify earlier guidance on when employees could revoke written dues assignments. The request posed several possible contract date arrangements. The Authority found it did not meet the standards for broad policy guidance and denied it.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7115(a).
• Outcome: Request to clarify general policy guidance denied.
• Key point: The Authority declined an abstract clarification of dues revocation dates.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v03 p244 ]

03:0244(36)PS

The decision of the Authority follows:

3 FLRA No. 36

Case No. 0-PS-12

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY OR
GUIDANCE

THE AUTHORITY RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR A CLARIFICATION BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
AUTHORITY'S INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE, FLRA NO. O-PS-1 (APR. 19,
1979), REPORT NO. 1, REGARDING THE REVOCATION OF WRITTEN DUES
ASSIGNMENTS UNDER SECTION 7115(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7115(A)).

THE AUTHORITY'S ABOVE-REFERENCED INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE
CONCERNED THE PROPER INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF SECTION 7115(A)
OF THE STATUTE AS IT RELATES TO WHEN WRITTEN DUES ASSIGNMENTS IN EFFECT
ON JANUARY 11, 1979, MAY BE TERMINATED THROUGH REVOCATIONS BY THE
EMPLOYEES CONCERNED AND THE STATUS OF SUCH ASSIGNMENTS UNDER PREVIOUSLY
NEGOTIATED AGREEMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAVINGS PROVISIONS OF THE
STATUTE. THE AUTHORITY'S CONCLUSIONS WAS AS FOLLOWS:

IT IS THE AUTHORITY'S INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE THAT:

1. THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 7115(A), NAMELY THAT "ANY SUCH (DUES)
   ASSIGNMENT MAY NOT BE

REVOKED FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR," DOES NOT APPLY IN THOSE SITUATIONS
WHERE THE PARTIES TO AN

EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT HAVE MUTUALLY AGREED IN
SUBSTANCE TO RENEW OR

CONTINUE THE SIX-MONTH INTERVALS FOR THE REVOCATION OF DUES
ASSIGNMENTS.

2. THE 1-YEAR PERIOD PROVIDED IN SECTION 7115(A) FOR DUES
   REVOCATIONS APPLIES WHERE A

LABOR ORGANIZATION OR AN AGENCY OBJECTS TO SUCH A RENEWAL OR
CONTINUATION; AND SUCH 1-YEAR

PERIOD BEGINS TO RUN FROM EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING DATES, WHICHEVER IS
LATER:

A) THE ENDING DATE OF THE PRECEDING SIX-MONTH INTERVAL DURING WHICH
THE EMPLOYEE COULD HAVE

REVOKED HIS OR HER DUES AUTHORIZATION; OR

B) THE DATE ON WHICH THE EMPLOYEE AUTHORIZED DUES WITHHOLDING.

IN THIS CONTEXT, THE REQUEST ASKS THE AUTHORITY TO CLARIFY ITS
INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE THROUGH A RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS:

1. IF THE UNION DURING THE LIFE OF THE AGREEMENT ASKS TO CHANGE TO A
   ONCE A YEAR DATE,

MUST THE REVOCATION DATE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING BE USED OR MAY THE
PARTIES DECIDE UPON ANOTHER

DATE OF THEIR OWN?

2. MAY THE PARTIES SIMPLY PUT INTO THE AGREEMENT THAT REVOCATION
   WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED ON

THE ANNIVERSARY OF AN SF/1187 WITHOUT USING A SPECIFIC DATE ALSO?

3. IF THE PARTIES ARE RENEGOTIATING AND WISH TO SPECIFY A PARTICULAR
   DATE, MUST THEY USE

THE PRECEDING DATE OR MAY THEY CHANGE THE REVOCATION DATE?

4. IF THE PARTIES HAVE HAD ONE ANNUAL DATE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND
   WISH TO CHANGE TO

ANOTHER MONTH WHEN THEY RENEGOTIATE THE AGREEMENT, IS THIS POSSIBLE
UNDER THE AUTHORITY'S

DECISION?

THE AUTHORITY HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THIS REQUEST AND HAS
DETERMINED THAT IT DOES NOT SATISFY THE STANDARDS GOVERNING THE ISSUANCE
OF GENERAL STATEMENTS OF POLICY AND GUIDANCE SET FORTH IN SECTION 2427.2
OF THE RULES OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHICH PROVIDE IN
PERTINENT PART:

SEC. 2427.5 STANDARDS GOVERNING ISSUANCE OF GENERAL STATEMENTS OF
POLICY AND GUIDANCE.

IN DECIDING WHETHER TO ISSUE A GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY OR
GUIDANCE, THE AUTHORITY SHALL

CONSIDER:

(A) WHETHER THE QUESTION PRESENTED CAN MORE APPROPRIATELY BE RESOLVED
BY OTHER MEANS;

(B) WHERE OTHER MEANS ARE AVAILABLE, WHETHER AN AUTHORITY STATEMENT
WOULD PREVENT THE

PROLIFERATION OF CASES INVOLVING THE SAME OR SIMILAR QUESTION(.)

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE REQUEST CAN BE MORE APPROPRIATELY
RESOLVED BY OTHER MEANS. FOR EXAMPLE, FROM THE VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
DESCRIBED IN THE REQUEST, IT APPEARS THAT THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN
THE STATUTE AND APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS FOR THE RESOLUTION OF
NEGOTIABILITY DISPUTES PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE
QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE REQUEST. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE PROCEDURES COULD BE UTILIZED IN APPROPRIATE SITUATIONS.

MOREOVER, AUTHORITY ACTION ON THE REQUEST IS NOT WARRANTED SINCE IT
WOULD NOT PREVENT THE PROLIFERATION OF CASES INVOLVING THE SAME OR
SIMILAR QUESTIONS. THE VARYING SITUATIONS UNDER WHICH LOCAL PARTIES
HAVE SOUGHT OR ARE SEEKING TO ESTABLISH REVOCATION DATES FOR WRITTEN
DUES ASSIGNMENTS AND THE DIFFERING POSITIONS AGENCIES HAVE TAKEN OR MAY
TAKE WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH EFFORTS ARE NOT AMENABLE TO A GENERAL
STATEMENT OF POLICY OR GUIDANCE BY THE AUTHORITY THAT WOULD PREVENT THE
PROLIFERATION OF CASES.

ACCORDINGLY, THE REQUEST IS DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 23, 1980

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY