National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1439 (Union) and Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Jackson District Office (Activity) (Authority decision, June 10, 1981)

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 union sought bargaining over the effects of an agency change in claims case assignments. It had not supplied specific language for negotiation. The Authority said it could not assess an undefined proposal against law or regulation and dismissed the negotiability appeal.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117.
• Outcome: Negotiability appeal dismissed for lack of a specific proposal.
• Key point: A defined proposal was required for negotiability review.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v06 p36 ]

06:0036(10)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

6 FLRA No. 10

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1439
(Union)

and

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
JACKSON DISTRICT OFFICE
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-475

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

ON MAY 1, 1981, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
1439 (THE UNION) FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE AUTHORITY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES
AND REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R. 2424.1 (1980)) AND SECTION; 7105(A)(2)(E) OF
THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET
SEQ.). FOR REASONS INDICATED BELOW, THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW
MUST BE DISMISSED.

AS PRESENTED IN THE UNION'S APPEAL, THE ESSENCE OF THE PARTIES'
DISPUTE INVOLVES THE AGENCY'S PROPOSED CHANGE FOR ASSIGNING CASES TO
CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE UNION'S CLAIM THAT THE IMPACT OF SUCH A
CHANGE IS A TOPIC FOR BARGAINING.

HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE UNION HAS NOT PROPOSED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE
FOR NEGOTIATION. WITHOUT SUCH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
DETERMINE THE CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSAL WITH LAWS, REGULATIONS OR THE
STATUTE. THUS, THE INSTANT MATTER IN DISPUTE IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY
DELINEATED SUCH AS TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR A NEGOTIABILITY DETERMINATION.
IN THIS REGARD, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A
NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE WHICH DOES NOT PRESENT A PROPOSAL SUFFICIENTLY
SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT AS TO PERMIT THE AUTHORITY TO
RENDER A NEGOTIABILITY DECISION THEREON DOES NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR
REVIEW SET FORTH IN SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND SECTION 2424.1 OF
THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN
TECHNICIANS, ALABAMA ACT AND STATE OF ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD, CASE NO.
O-NG-27, 2 FLRA NO. 39(1979).

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROPOSAL IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND
DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT AT THIS TIME TO PERMIT THE AUTHORITY TO
RENDER A NEGOTIABILITY DECISION.

ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN, AND APART FROM OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE INSTANT APPEAL BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
DISMISSED.

FOR THE AUTHORITY.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 10, 1981

JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR