District of Columbia Police Association and U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Park Police (Authority decision, July 23, 1981)

Park Police negotiability appeal dismissed for filing defects (FLRA O-NG-407)

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
O-NG-407
Decided
July 23, 1981
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-06
Cited standards

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1981, 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 1981
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. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 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

A Park Police union received a letter identifying defects in its negotiability petition and explaining how to correct them. It made no submission within the allowed time. The Authority dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with its filing regulations, without deciding the proposal’s negotiability.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: 5 C.F.R. § 2424.4.
  • Outcome: Negotiability appeal dismissed for uncorrected filing defects.
  • Key point: Failure to cure identified petition defects prevented review.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v06 p326 ]

06:0326(58)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

6 FLRA No. 58

MR. GRANT E. MORRIS
O'CONNOR AND HANNAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1919 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

RE: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE
ASSOCIATION AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, UNITED STATES PARK
POLICE, Case No. O-NG-407

DEAR MR. MORRIS:

BY AUTHORITY LETTER OF JANUARY 15, 1981, YOU WERE ADVISED THAT
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE DISCLOSED A NUMBER OF APPARENT DEFICIENCIES IN
MEETING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (A
COPY OF WHICH WAS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR INFORMATION). SPECIFICALLY, AS WAS
NOTED IN THE AUTHORITY'S LETTER, YOUR APPEAL FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 2424.4(A)(1), 2424.4(A)(2) AND 2424.4(B) (5 CFR
2424.4(A)(1), 2424.4(A)(2) AND 2424.4(B)(1981)).

YOU WERE ALSO ADVISED IN THE AUTHORITY'S LETTER THAT FURTHER
PROCESSING OF THE APPEAL WAS CONTINGENT UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE
DESIGNATED PROVISIONS OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS. IN THIS REGARD,
YOU WERE INFORMED OF THE SPECIFIC ACTIONS THAT HAD TO BE TAKEN TO COMPLY
AND COMPLETE THE APPEAL, AND YOU WERE AFFORDED TIME IN WHICH TO TAKE
THOSE ACTIONS. FINALLY, YOU WERE ADVISED THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE CITED REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED COULD RESULT IN
DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL.

YOU HAVE MADE NO SUBMISSION WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED.
ACCORDINGLY, YOUR APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS.

FOR THE AUTHORITY.

SINCERELY,

JAMES J. SHEPARD

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

CC: J. WATT
INTERIOR
S. LYNCH
INTERIOR

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