Army Health Clinic, Fort Ritchie, Maryland (Respondent) and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1153 (Charging Party) (Authority decision, April 17, 1981)

FLRA remand decision. The Authority returned this unfair labor practice case to the administrative law judge for a decision on the merits. The underlying complaint remains pending, so this order does not start a final judicial review period under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

The parties in an Army health clinic unfair labor practice case stipulated facts during the hearing and asked to send the case directly to the Authority. The regional director denied that request, but the judge transferred the case anyway. The Authority held that its rules required the judge to prepare a decision even after a stipulation at the hearing. It remanded the case for a decision on the merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7118.
• Outcome: Case remanded to the judge for a merits decision.
• Key point: A judge could not transfer a case without a decision after the hearing began.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v05 p490 ]

05:0490(61)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

5 FLRA No. 61

U.S. ARMY HEALTH CLINIC
FORT RITCHIE, MARYLAND
Respondent

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1153
Charging Party

Case No. 3-CA-803

ORDER REMANDING CASE

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE'S TRANSFER OF THE CASE TO THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY. THE RECORD REVEALS THAT, AT THE HEARING AND DURING THE
COURSE OF OPENING STATEMENTS, THE PARTIES STIPULATED THE FACTS AND
REQUESTED THAT THE CASE BE TRANSFERRED DIRECTLY TO THE AUTHORITY BY THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 2429.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES
AND REGULATIONS. /1/ THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED THE
REQUEST ON THE BASIS THAT, INASMUCH AS THE HEARING HAD COMMENCED, HE NO
LONGER WAS EMPOWERED TO TRANSFER THE CASE. THEREAFTER, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DID SO ON THE BASIS OF SECTION 2423.19(T) OF
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDES THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE PRESIDING AT A HEARING MAY ". . . TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION DEEMED
NECESSARY UNDER THE FOREGOING AND NOT PROHIBITED BY THE REGULATIONS IN
THIS SUBCHAPTER."

THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S TRANSFER OF
THE CASE WAS "PROHIBITED BY THE REGULATIONS IN THIS SUBCHAPTER" AND WAS
THEREFORE IMPROPER. SECTION 2423.26(A) OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS
EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT "THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SHALL PREPARE A
DECISION EVEN WHERE THE PARTIES ENTER INTO A STIPULATION OF FACT AT THE
HEARING."

HERE, THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO "A STIPULATION OF FACT AT THE
HEARING." THEREFORE, THE TRANSFER OF THE CASE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE TO THE AUTHORITY WITHOUT A DECISION WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.

ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY REMANDS THIS CASE TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOR THE PREPARATION OF A DECISION ON THE
MERITS.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 17, 1981

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

/1/ SECTION 2429.1 PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART:

(A) . . . IN ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASE UNDER PART 2423 OF THIS
SUBCHAPTER IN WHICH, AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT, THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR DETERMINES, BASED UPON A STIPULATION BY THE PARTIES, THAT NO
MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT EXISTS, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR MAY UPON AGREEMENT
OF ALL PARTIES TRANSFER THE CASE TO THE AUTHORITY; . . .