National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1124 (Union) and Department of the Army, New Orleans District, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana (Activity) (Authority decision, July 16, 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

An Army Corps union wanted to negotiate a change in how paychecks were distributed. Its appeal did not include specific proposed language. The Authority said it could not decide whether an undefined proposal conflicted with law or regulations and dismissed the appeal without reaching negotiability.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117.
• Outcome: Negotiability appeal dismissed for lack of a specific proposal.
• Key point: A proposal must be sufficiently defined for a negotiability decision.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v06 p289 ]

06:0289(52)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

6 FLRA No. 52

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1124
(Union)

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT,
CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-507

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

ON JUNE 25, 1981, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
(THE UNION) FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE AUTHORITY IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE PURSUANT TO SECTION 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 THE 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 UNION'S DESIRE TO NEGOTIATE OVER A CHANGE IN THE
METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION OF PAYCHECKS. 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 UNION DID NOT SUBMIT A PROPOSAL SUFFICIENTLY
SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT SO AS 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., JULY 16, 1981

JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR