NFFE Local 1363 and Headquarters, United States Army Garrison, Yongsan, Korea (Authority decision, September 11, 1984)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority dismissing a negotiability petition after the parties resolved the dispute. 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

NFFE Local 1363 disputed whether the Army Garrison at Yongsan had to bargain over ration control and disposal of duty free goods. The union also charged that the garrison implemented a rationing regulation without bargaining. The parties then signed a settlement establishing procedures to discuss those subjects and agreed that it resolved the negotiability issues. The Authority dismissed the petition because no negotiability issue remained for it to decide.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed following the parties' settlement.
• Key point: The settlement resolved the disputed bargaining issues before an Authority merits ruling.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v16 p26 ]

16:0026(3)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

16 FLRA No. 3

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1363
Union

and

HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY GARRISON,
YONGSAN, KOREA
Activity

Case No. O-NG-347

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

This matter is before the Authority at this time pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and part 2424 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations on a petition for review of negotiability issues filed by the Union. For the reasons stated below, it has been determined that the Union's petition for review must be dismissed.

From the submission of the parties, it appears the Activity alleged that the duty to bargain did not extend to the Union's proposals concerning ration control and the disposal of duty-free goods. The Union also filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Authority's Regional Office charging that the Activity had committed an unfair labor practice by allegedly implementing the rationing control regulation without negotiating with the Union. Subsequently, a settlement agreement was executed establishing procedures for the parties to discuss ration control and the disposal of duty-free goods. The Union and the Agency agree that the settlement agreement has resolved the negotiability issues presented in this case.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, it has been determined that based on the settlement agreement between the parties, there is no longer an issue as to whether the Union's proposals 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.

For the Authority.

Issued, Washington, D.C., September 11, 1984 (s) Jan K. Bohren Jan K. Bohren Executive Director/Administrator