Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 2096 (Authority decision, February 25, 1992)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order dismissing an unfair labor practice complaint. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). Filing a petition does not stay the Authority's order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

The complaint alleged that the Navy facilities command refused to negotiate over an alternative work schedule and ended a schedule before bargaining was complete. An administrative law judge found no violation of the federal labor statute and recommended dismissal. The Authority reviewed the judge's rulings, found no prejudicial error, and adopted the judge's findings and conclusions. It dismissed the complaint. The Authority did not separately analyze the schedule dispute in this short decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Alleged bargaining violations under 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1) and (5).
• Outcome: Unfair labor practice complaint dismissed.
• Key point: The Authority adopted the judge's finding that the alleged work schedule actions did not violate the bargaining duty.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v44 p77 ]
44:0077(7)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

44 FLRA No. 7

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

SOUTHWEST DIVISION

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

(Respondent)

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 2096

(Charging Party/Union)

8-CA-00352

DECISION AND ORDER

February 25, 1992

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and
Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent did not violate section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) because the Respondent had not, as alleged, unlawfully refused to negotiate on the subject of an alternate work schedule or rescinded an alternate work schedule at one of its facilities prior to the completion of negotiations over the change. The Judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The General Counsel filed exceptions to the Judge's decision. The Respondent filed an opposition to the exceptions.

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge made at the hearing and find that no prejudicial error was committed. We affirm the rulings. Upon consideration of the Judge's decision and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions and recommended Order.(*)

II. Order

The complaint in this case is dismissed.

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

*/ In view of the outcome of this case, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Judge's conclusions in footnote 7 of his decision.