American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Union) and Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio (Activity) (Authority decision, August 26, 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 Air Force union sought review of an agency regulation said to bar its merit promotion proposal. During the appeal, the agency withdrew the allegation that the proposal was nonnegotiable. The Authority found no remaining negotiability dispute and dismissed the petition as moot.

Decision snapshot

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

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v06 p458 ]

06:0458(81)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

6 FLRA No. 81

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

and

AIR FORCE LOGISTICS
COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON
AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-518

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E)
OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101
ET SEQ.) ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE FILED BY THE
UNION.

THE RECORD IN THIS CASE INDICATES THAT DURING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
THE ACTIVITY AND THE UNION, THE ACTIVITY ALLEGED THAT IT LACKED
DISCRETION TO NEGOTIATE ON A UNION PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE MERIT
PROMOTION PROCESS BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL CONFLICTED WITH AN AIR FORCE
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(B)(3) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES OF
PROCEDURE (5 CFR 2424.1(B)(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 WITHDREW THE ACTIVITY'S 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SINCE THE AGENCY HAS WITHDRAWN THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE UNION'S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., AUGUST 26, 1981

JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR