National Treasury Employees Union and Department of Health and Human Services, Region X (Authority decision, January 29, 1982)

NTEU and HHS Region X (FLRA O-NG-371): experience factor proposals too indefinite for review

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
O-NG-371
Decided
January 29, 1982
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-06

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1982, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1982
The federal labor-relations law may have been amended, and later Authority or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FLRA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (flra.gov)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed the union's negotiability petition because its two proposals were insufficiently specific for review. An aggrieved person may petition an appropriate United States court of appeals for review within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

NTEU proposed bargaining with HHS Region X over experience factors and their weights for rating and ranking employees. The Authority found that neither proposal identified the particular factors or weights to be negotiated. It held the proposals too general to support a negotiability decision and dismissed the petition. The Authority did not decide whether a specific factor or weight would be negotiable.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
  • Outcome: Petition dismissed without a negotiability ruling on specific factors or weights.
  • Key point: A negotiability proposal must identify the factors and weights at issue clearly enough for review.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v07 p792 ]

07:0792(136)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

7 FLRA No. 136

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
REGION X, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
Agency

Case No. O-NG-371

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES

THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF
THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE),
AND INVOLVES THE NEGOTIABILITY OF THE FOLLOWING TWO UNION PROPOSALS.
UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE PARTIES'
CONTENTIONS, THE AUTHORITY MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS:

UNION PROPOSAL I

(A) EXPERIENCE, AS DEFINED FOR RATING AND RANKING PURPOSES WILL BE
NEGOTIATED FOR EACH

POSITION BETWEEN THE UNION AND MANAGEMENT. THE WEIGHT TO BE ASSIGNED
TO EACH EXPERIENCE

FACTOR WILL ALSO BE NEGOTIATED.

UNION PROPOSAL II

THE EMPLOYER HAS FIXED RATES FOR EXPERIENCE FACTORS. THE WEIGHT TO
BE ASSIGNED TO EACH

EXPERIENCE FACTOR WILL BE NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE
UNION WHENEVER THE EMPLOYER

CREATES A NEW POSITION, RECLASSIFIES A POSITION, AND/OR PROPOSES TO
CHANGE THE WEIGHT OF ANY

EXPERIENCE FACTOR OF ANY BARGAINING UNIT POSITION. THE UNION SHALL BE
SUPPLIED WITH THE

CURRENT WEIGHTS ASSIGNED EACH FACTOR OF EACH POSITION WITHIN 30 DAYS
FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE

DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT. THE PARTIES WILL NEGOTIATE THE WEIGHTS OF
EXPERIENCE FACTORS FOR

TWENTY (20) POSITIONS A YEAR AS SELECTED BY THE UNION.

THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT UNION PROPOSALS I AND II ARE NOT
SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT TO MEET THE
AUTHORITY'S CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW. IN NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1167 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, HEADQUARTERS,
31ST COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (TAC), HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA, 6
FLRA NO. 105(1981), THE AUTHORITY DISMISSED A UNION PETITION FOR REVIEW
OF A GENERAL PROPOSAL (PROPOSAL 5), LIKE UNION PROPOSALS I AND II
HEREIN, THAT SOUGHT TO NEGOTIATE WEIGHTS WHICH WOULD BE APPLIED, INTER
ALIA, TO EVALUATION FACTORS FOR PROMOTIONS. IN SO DOING, THE AUTHORITY
NOTED THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN
FORM AND CONTENT FOR THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A NEGOTIABILITY DECISION
THEREON BECAUSE IT FAILED TO SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY PARTICULAR FACTORS,
METHODS, OR FORMS TO BE NEGOTIATED OR THE WEIGHTS TO BE APPLIED TO SUCH
FACTORS. ACCORD, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 66 AND
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, KANSAS CITY
SERVICE CENTER, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, 2 FLRA 319(1979).

ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10(1981)), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE UNION'S
PETITION FOR REVIEW BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 29, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN

HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER

LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace