Tidewater Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and Norfolk Naval Shipyard (Authority decision, November 13, 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

A union appealed the Norfolk Naval Shipyard's claim that a safety-shoe reimbursement proposal conflicted with a Navy regulation. The agency then withdrew its allegation that the proposal was outside the duty to bargain. The Authority found no remaining negotiability issue and dismissed the petition as moot without deciding the regulation's compelling need.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117(b).
• Outcome: Negotiability petition dismissed as moot.
• Key point: Withdrawal of the agency's allegation ended the dispute before the Authority.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v07 p205 ]

07:0205(31)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

7 FLRA No. 31

TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
METAL TRADES COUNCIL
(Union)

and

NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-538

ORDER DISMISSING NEGOTIABILITY APPEAL

THIS CASE IS 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.) ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A
NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE FILED BY THE UNION.

THE RECORD IN THIS CASE INDICATES THAT DURING NEGOTIATIONS THE
ACTIVITY ALLEGED THAT THE DUTY TO BARGAIN DOES NOT EXTEND TO A UNION
PROPOSAL CONCERNING REIMBURSEMENT FOR PURCHASES OF SAFETY SHOES
BECAUSE
THE PROPOSAL CONFLICTS WITH A NAVY REGULATION. 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 OF POSITION FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION
2424.6 OF THE RULES, THE AGENCY IN EFFECT WITHDREW THE ACTIVITY'S
ALLEGATION THAT THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE
UNION PROPOSAL.

BASED ON THE AGENCY'S WITHDRAWAL OF ITS ALLEGATION THAT THE UNION'S
PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH UNDER THE
STATUTE, THE CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY 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., NOVEMBER 13, 1981

JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR