American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1786 and Marine Corps Development and Education Command (Authority decision, January 28, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed the union's negotiability appeal as moot after the agency withdrew its nonnegotiability allegation. An aggrieved person may petition an appropriate United States court of appeals for review within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 1786 proposed leave time for temporary and intermittent employees at the Marine Corps Development and Education Command. The command initially said the proposals were outside the duty to bargain, and the union appealed. The agency then withdrew that allegation. The Authority found no remaining negotiability dispute and dismissed the appeal as moot without ruling on the proposals' merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Union appeal dismissed as moot.
• Key point: With the agency's nonnegotiability allegation withdrawn, no dispute remained for Authority review.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v07 p761 ]

07:0761(126)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

7 FLRA No. 126

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1786
(Union)

and

U.S. MARINE CORPS,
MARINE CORPS DEVELOPMENT AND
EDUCATION COMMAND,
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-608

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

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 NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES FILED BY THE
UNION.

THE RECORD INDICATES THAT DURING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE ACTIVITY
AND THE UNION, THE ACTIVITY ALLEGED THAT UNION PROPOSALS CONCERNING
LEAVE TIME FOR TEMPORARY AND INTERMITTENT EMPLOYEES WERE NONNEGOTIABLE.
THE UNION THEN FILED THE INSTANT APPEAL WITH THE AUTHORITY.
SUBSEQUENTLY, IN A STATEMENT FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY, THE AGENCY
WITHDREW THE ALLEGATION OF NONNEGOTIABILITY.

SINCE THE AGENCY HAS WITHDRAWN THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE UNION'S
PROPOSALS, THERE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE PROPOSALS IN
THIS CASE ARE 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., JANUARY 28, 1982

JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR