International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 4 and Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (Authority decision, June 28, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority disposed of this negotiability petition. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review of a final Authority order in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). A petition does not itself stay the order.

Plain-English summary

The union sought a negotiability ruling on proposed employee rights procedures for a new shipyard counseling instruction. A Regional Director had already found that the instruction merely standardized a recording form and did not change working conditions. The Authority concluded that finding left no bargaining duty and made the negotiability question moot. It dismissed the petition without deciding the proposal’s merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7105(a)(2)(E) and 7117(a).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed as moot; no negotiability ruling.
• Key point: The earlier finding of no working condition change ended the negotiability dispute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v12 p268 ]

12:0268(61)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

12 FLRA No. 61

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL
ENGINEERS, LOCAL 4
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD
PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Agency

Case No. O-NG-674

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

The petition for review in this case comes before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and presents issues concerning the negotiability of one Union proposal. /1/ For the following reasons, the Union's petition for review must be dismissed.

The record indicates that the Union sought to negotiate on the inclusion of certain procedures involving employee rights in a new Agency instruction governing the counseling of employees. The Agency argued that the new instruction merely standardized the form to be used by supervisors in recording counseling sessions and therefore did not result in a change in working conditions which would give rise to a bargaining obligation on its part.

Prior to initiating the instant petition, the Union filed with the Authority an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Agency had refused to bargain over the new instruction concerning employee counseling. Upon investigation, the Regional Director found that implementation of the new instruction did not constitute a change in working conditions so as to give rise to a bargaining obligation, and dismissed the charge. No appeal was taken to the General Counsel.

In the absence of a duty to bargain, an issue concerning the scope of bargaining, i.e., whether the disputed proposal herein concerns conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees, is not appropriate for resolution by the Authority. Thus, it is concluded that the negotiability issue raised in this proceeding was rendered moot by the Regional Director's decision that the new instruction had merely standardized the form for recording counseling sessions, and that the Agency therefore had no obligation to bargain. See National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1363 and Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Yongsan, Korea, 8 FLRA No. 26 (1982).

Accordingly, apart from other considerations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C., June 28, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

/1/ The Union's petition for review initially sought determinations on two proposals. However, during the pendency of this appeal, the parties reached agreement on one of the proposals and the Union consequently withdrew its petition as to that proposal.