AFGE Local 2303 and Metropolitan Washington Airports, FAA (Authority decision, February 21, 1985)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses the union's negotiability petition as untimely without deciding whether its proposals were negotiable. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by petitioning 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 order unless the court orders a stay under § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 2303 sought to bargain with the FAA's Metropolitan Washington Airports over employees' duty posts and compensation or travel expenses for details and reassignments. The FAA declared the proposals nonnegotiable on August 31, 1984. The union continued bargaining and later requested a determination on a proposal it called clarified, but the Authority found that the proposal merely recombined unchanged parts of the earlier one. The FAA's October response repeated its earlier position and did not start a new filing period. Because the union petitioned more than 15 days after the original allegation was served, the Authority dismissed the appeal without reaching negotiability.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117(c)(2) and 5 C.F.R. § 2424.3.
• Outcome: Negotiability petition dismissed as untimely.
• Key point: Restating a nonnegotiability allegation about an unchanged proposal does not restart the 15-day appeal period.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v17 p17 ]

17:0017(8)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

17 FLRA No. 8

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2303
Union

and

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON
AIRPORTS, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
Agency

Case No. O-NG-1064

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

This case comes before the Authority pursuant to section , 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations on a petition for review of negotiability issues filed by the Union. For the reasons indicated below, it has been determined that the Union's petition for review was untimely filed and must be dismissed on that basis.

Under section 7117(c)(2) of the Statute and section 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, the time limit for filing a petition for review of negotiability issues is 15 days after the Agency's allegation that the duty to bargain in good faith does not extend to the matter proposed to be bargained is served on the Union.

From the record before the Authority, it appears that by letter dated August 24, 1984, the Union requested a negotiability determination on one three part proposal and on a second proposal. It appears further that by letter dated August 31, 1984, the Agency responded, alleging that these two proposals, as well as a third proposal not involved herein, are nonnegotiable. The Union states that it did not appeal the Agency's August 31st allegation but rather, sought to resolve the issues through additional negotiations. The Union states further that when an additional negotiation session failed to resolve the issues, the Union, by letter dated October 15, 1984, requested a negotiability determination on what it characterizes as a "clarified" proposal. The Agency responded by letter of October 23, 1984, reiterating its declaration of nonnegotiability dated August 31, 1984. The Union then filed the instant negotiability appeal on October 29, 1984, or within 15 days from the date of service of the Agency's letter of October 23, 1984.

It is well settled that a petition for review must be filed within 15 days from the date of service on the Union of an Agency nonnegotiability allegation. See, e.g., National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 226 and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Nutrition Service, 15 FLRA No. 19 (1984). In this case, the Agency, in response to a written request from the Union, determined on August 31, 1984, that two proposals concerning the designation of a "post of duty," and the providing of compensation and travel expenses when an employee is detailed or reassigned from one designated post of duty to another were inconsistent with Government-wide regulations and therefore, nonnegotiable.

Although the Union contends that its letter of October 15, 1984, constitutes a separate request for a negotiability determination on a "clarified" proposal resulting from the additional negotiation session of October 1, 1984, such contention cannot be sustained. The record clearly indicates that the proposal set forth in the October 15, 1984, request is merely a recombination of some of the parts of the original three part proposal which the Agency previously determined, on August 31, 1984, to be nonnegotiable. The recombination of those parts effected no changes in the substance or language of the parts.

Thus, while the Union's petition filed with the Authority on October 29, 1984, was filed within 15 days from the date of service of the Agency's letter of October 23, 1984, that letter was, in essence, only a restatement of the earlier allegation. It is therefore clear that the Union's petition in this case seeks review of the Agency's allegation of August 31, 1984. As already indicated, the Union's petition was not filed with the Authority until October 29, 1984, or more than one month later. Thus, the Union's petition was untimely filed under the Authority's rules of procedure.

Accordingly, as the Union's petition for review was untimely filed, and apart from other considerations, it is hereby dismissed. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., February 21, 1985 Harold D. Kessler Managing Director for Case Processing