American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3792 (Union) and Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Cincinnati, Ohio (Activity) (Authority decision, July 23, 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 Federal Home Loan Bank Board union challenged an agency regulation said to bar its commuting per diem proposal. During the appeal, the agency withdrew its nonnegotiability allegation. The Authority found that no dispute remained for it to decide and dismissed the petition as moot.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117(b).
• Outcome: Negotiability petition dismissed after the agency withdrew its allegation.
• Key point: Withdrawal of the nonnegotiability claim ended the review proceeding.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v06 p324 ]

06:0324(57)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

6 FLRA No. 57

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL 3792
(Union)

and

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD,
CINCINNATI, OHIO
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-484

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

THIS MATTER COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET. SEQ. (SUPP.
III(1979)).

THE RECORD IN THIS CASE INDICATES THAT DURING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
THE ACTIVITY AND THE UNION, THE ACTIVITY ALLEGED THAT A UNION PROPOSAL
CONCERNING COMMUTING PER DIEM TIME WAS INCONSISTENT WITH A FEDERAL HOME
LOAN BANK BOARD REGULATION AND, IN EFFECT, THAT THE DUTY TO BARGAIN
THEREFORE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE PROPOSAL. THE UNION THEN FILED THE
INSTANT APPEAL WITH THE AUTHORITY, SEEKING A DETERMINATION, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7117(B) OF THE STATUTE AND SECTION 2424.1(A)(3) OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES OF PROCEDURE (5 CFR 2424.1(A)(3) (1981)), AS TO
WHETHER A COMPELLING NEED EXISTS FOR THE AGENCY REGULATION IN QUESTION.
SUBSEQUENTLY, IN ITS STATEMENT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.6 OF THE
RULES (5 CFR 2424.6(1981)), THE AGENCY, IN EFFECT, WITHDREW THE
ALLEGATION OF NONNEGOTIABILITY.

SINCE THE AGENCY HAS WITHDRAWN THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE UNION'S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. THE
DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THE UNION'S APPEAL THEREFORE HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT.
ACCORDINGLY,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, THAT THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW HEREIN BE,
AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.

FOR THE AUTHORITY.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 23, 1981

JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR