American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1285 and Department of the Air Force, Kirtland Air Force Base (Authority decision, November 8, 1984)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority dismissing a negotiability petition without prejudice after the agency withdrew its allegation of nonnegotiability. The Authority did not decide whether the proposals were within the duty to bargain.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 1285 proposed employee training for a new appraisal and promotion system at Kirtland Air Force Base. The activity orally declared the proposals nonnegotiable, and the union petitioned the Authority for review. The agency later withdrew that allegation. The Authority dismissed the petition because no negotiability dispute remained, while allowing the union to refile if the agency again declared the proposals nonnegotiable.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E) and negotiability petition rules.
• Outcome: Petition dismissed without prejudice after withdrawal.
• Key point: A withdrawn nonnegotiability allegation left no issue for the Authority to decide.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v16 p396 ]

16:0396(64)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

16 FLRA No. 64

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1285
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
HEADQUARTERS 1606TH AIR BASE
WING (MAC), KIRTLAND AIR FORCE
BASE, NEW MEXICO
Activity

Case No. O-NG-1053

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

This case is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute on a petition for review of negotiability issues filed by the Union.

From the submissions of the parties, the record before the Authority in this case indicates that during the course of negotiations, the Union submitted several proposals concerning employee training on the Activity's new appraisal and promotion system. Apparently, the Activity orally declared the Union's proposals to be nonnegotiable, but did not respond to the Union's written request for an allegation of nonnegotiability. The Union filed the instant petition for review with the Authority pursuant to section 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, as to whether the disputed proposals were within the duty to bargain. Subsequently in a letter to the Authority dated October 4, 1984, the Agency withdrew the Activity's allegation of nonnegotiability.

Since the Agency has withdrawn the allegation of nonnegotiability concerning the Union's proposals, there is no longer an issue as to whether the proposals in this case are within the parties' duty to bargain under the Statute.

Accordingly, and apart from other considerations, the petition for review in this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the Union refiling should the Agency reassert the proposals to be nonnegotiable. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., November 8, 1984 Jan K. Bohren Executive Director/Administrator