Decision on Request for General Statement of Policy or Guidance (Authority decision, June 25, 1980)

FAA vehicle policy guidance request denied (FLRA 0-PS-18)

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
0-PS-18
Decided
June 25, 1980
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-06
Cited standards

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1980, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1980
The federal labor-relations law may have been amended, and later Authority or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FLRA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (flra.gov)

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 union sought general guidance on whether a benefit in a bargaining agreement could be extended to employees outside the unit. The Authority concluded that the question would be better resolved through unfair labor practice procedures with a factual record. It denied the policy guidance request without deciding the underlying vehicle benefit issue.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a).
  • Outcome: General policy guidance request denied.
  • Key point: The fact specific dispute belonged in an adjudicated case.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v03 p465 ]

03:0465(69)PS

The decision of the Authority follows:

3 FLRA No. 69

Case No. 0-PS-18

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY OR
GUIDANCE

THE AUTHORITY RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON BEHALF OF ITS AFFILIATE THE FEDERAL AVIATION
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (UNION) THAT THE AUTHORITY ISSUE A
GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY OR GUIDANCE ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

WHETHER OR NOT A BARGAINED-FOR PRIVILEGE IN A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT COVERING

CERTAIN, ASCERTAINABLE, DEFINITE EMPLOYEES CAN BE EXTENDED BY THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL TO

INCLUDE EMPLOYEES NOT INCLUDED IN THE UNIT COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT.

ACCORDING TO THE REQUEST, THE UNION NEGOTIATED THE PRIVILEGE OF A
BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEE OPERATING A PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE DURING
TRAINING AT THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S OKLAHOMA CITY TRAINING
ACADEMY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COMPTROLLER
GENERAL RULED THAT AN EMPLOYEE NOT COVERED BY THE PRIVILEGE NEGOTIATED
BY THE UNION SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED TO USE A PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE
DURING TRAINING AT THE ACADEMY UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. THE UNION
CONTENDS "(T)HE DECISION STANDS FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT A BARGAINED FOR
PRIVILEGE OF AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE APPLIES TO SIMILARLY SITUATED
EMPLOYEES NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE BARGAINING AGREEMENT UPON
THE PROPER AND TIMELY FILING FOR THE SAME PRIVILEGE."

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 2427.5
OF THE RULES OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, 45 FED.REG. 3516,
WHICH PROVIDES 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 QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS REQUEST FOR A GENERAL STATEMENT OF
POLICY OR GUIDANCE CAN BE MORE APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED BY OTHER MEANS.
FOR EXAMPLE, PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE STATUTE AND APPROPRIATE
REGULATIONS FOR THE RESOLUTION OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES PROVIDE A MORE
FLEXIBLE MECHANISM FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES OF FACT WITH RESPECT
TO THE ALLEGED CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S
RULING.

MOREOVER, AUTHORITY ACTION ON THIS REQUEST IS NOT WARRANTED SINCE IT
WOULD NOT PREVENT THE PROLIFERATION OF CASES INVOLVING THE SAME OR
SIMILAR QUESTION. IN THIS REGARD, YOUR CONTENTIONS ESSENTIALLY RELATE
TO THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SITUATION DESCRIBED. THEREFORE, THE
STATEMENT OF POLICY REQUESTED WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE DISPOSITIVE OF
POSSIBLE CASES GROWING OUT OF OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.

ACCORDINGLY, THE REQUEST FOR A GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY OR
GUIDANCE IS DENIED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 25, 1980

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace