National Association of Government Employees and Department of the Navy, Navy Public Works Center, San Diego, California (Authority decision, May 13, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismisses the negotiability appeal after the agency withdraws its allegation. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), an aggrieved party may seek judicial review of a qualifying final Authority order within 60 days after issuance.

Plain-English summary

The union proposed mailing civilian employees' time and earnings statements to an address outside the workplace. The Navy said the proposal conflicted with an agency regulation, and the union asked the Authority to decide whether that regulation had a compelling need. The agency later withdrew its nonnegotiability allegation. The Authority dismissed the petition as moot without deciding the proposal's negotiability or the need for the regulation.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7105(a)(2)(D) and 7117(a)(2).
• Outcome: Petition for review dismissed as moot.
• Key point: The Authority does not decide a negotiability dispute after the agency withdraws the allegation that created it.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v08 p538 ]

08:0538(105)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

8 FLRA No. 105

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
(Union)

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVY PUBLIC
WORKS CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-657

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(D)
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 THE ACTIVITY ALLEGED A UNION
PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE MAILING OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES' TIME AND EARNINGS
STATEMENTS TO A NONWORK ADDRESS WAS NONNEGOTIABLE BECAUSE IT CONFLICTED
WITH A DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY REGULATION. THE UNION SOUGHT THE
AUTHORITY'S DETERMINATION, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7117(A)(2) OF THE STATUTE
AND SECTION 2424.1(B)(3) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR
2424.1(B)(3)(1982)), AS TO WHETHER A COMPELLING NEED EXISTS FOR THE
AGENCY REGULATION IN QUESTION. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN A LETTER DATED APRIL 7,
1982, 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SINCE THE AGENCY HAS WITHDRAWN THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE UNION'S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 RENDERED MOOT.
ACCORDINGLY, AND APART FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE INSTANT PETITION FOR REVIEW BE, AND IT
HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.

FOR THE AUTHORITY.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 13, 1982

JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR