NTEU and IRS National Office (Authority decision, August 6, 1985)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority on a negotiability petition. 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

NTEU challenged the IRS's allegation that part of a lunch break proposal was nonnegotiable. The IRS withdrew that allegation while the petition was pending. With no remaining negotiability dispute, the Authority dismissed the petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed after IRS withdrew its allegation.
• Key point: Withdrawal of the nonnegotiability allegation ended the dispute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v19 p541 ]

19:0541(70)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

19 FLRA No. 70

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
NATIONAL OFFICE
Agency

Case No. O-NG-1151

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.

On June 7, 1985, the Union sent a proposal concerning employees' lunch breaks to the Agency. By letter dated June 17, 1985, the Agency declared a portion of the proposal nonnegotiable. On July 2, 1985, pursuant to section 2424.3 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, the Union filed a petition for review as to whether the disputed part of its proposal was within the duty to bargain. By letter filed July 29, 1985, the Agency stated that it wished to withdraw its determination of nonnegotiability in the case herein.

Inasmuch as the Agency has withdrawn its allegation of nonnegotiability concerning the Union's proposal, there is no longer an issue as to whether the proposal in this case is within the parties'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. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., August 6, 1985 Harold D. Kessler Managing Director for Case Processing