NFFE Local 29 and U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City (Authority decision, December 31, 1981)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final Authority order. 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

NFFE Local 29 appealed the Army Engineer District's allegation that a performance-standards proposal interfered with management rights. After the appeal was filed, the agency withdrew its allegation that the proposal was nonnegotiable. The Authority found no remaining dispute over the duty to bargain and dismissed the petition as moot. It did not decide whether the proposal was negotiable.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(A), 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a)(2)(B), 5 U.S.C. § 7117(c)(1).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed as moot after the agency withdrew its allegation.
• Key point: Withdrawal of the agency's allegation removed the negotiability dispute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v07 p543 ]

07:0543(81)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

7 FLRA No. 81

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 29
(Union)

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-527

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 A PROPOSAL ON
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WAS NONNEGOTIABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD CONFLICT WITH
MANAGEMENT'S RIGHTS TO DIRECT EMPLOYEES AND TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION
7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B). THE UNION THEN FILED THE INSTANT APPEAL WITH THE
AUTHORITY SEEKING A DETERMINATION, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7117(C)(1) OF THE
STATUTE AND SECTION 2424.1(A) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES OF PROCEDURE (5
CFR 2424.1(A)(1981)), AS TO THE NEGOTIABILITY OF THE MATTER.
SUBSEQUENTLY, IN A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 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SINCE THE AGENCY HAS WITHDRAWN THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE UNION'S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 THERFORE HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT.

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., DECEMBER 31, 1981

JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR