American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1482 and Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow (Authority decision, February 10, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed a negotiability petition filed without a specific proposal. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review of this final 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

A Marine Corps union asked the activity to rescind a job action contingency plan and negotiate its contents. The union appealed after the activity called the request nonnegotiable. The Authority found that the union had submitted no specific proposed language. It dismissed the petition as premature without deciding the plan’s negotiability.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability petition requirements under 5 U.S.C. § 7117 and 5 C.F.R. § 2424.1.
• Outcome: Petition dismissed as premature; no merits ruling.
• Key point: The Authority needs specific proposed terms before it can decide negotiability.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v11 p351 ]

11:0351(69)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

11 FLRA No. 69

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1482
(Union)

and

U.S. MARINE CORPS,
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE,
BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-734

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

This matter is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Regulations Statute and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations on a petition for review of a negotiability issue filed by the union. For the reason indicated below, the union's petition must be dismissed.

From the submissions of the parties in the record before the Authority, it appears that the dispute involves a job action contingency plan established by the activity. The union apparently requested that the activity rescind the plan and negotiate with the union concerning the content. In that regard, the union informed the activity that if the activity would rescind the plan and send related proposals to the union, the union would negotiate. The activity denied the union's request and, in response to a subsequent memorandum from the union, notified the union that the request raised an issue which was nonnegotiable. The union thereupon filed the instant petition with the Authority. The agency filed a statement of position in response to the union's appeal, contending that the union's petition should be dismissed because, among other things, the union did not present any proposal to the activity for negotiation.

Section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, which implements section 7117 of the Statute, provides, in pertinent part:

Sec. 2424.1 Conditions governing review

The Authority will consider a negotiability issue under the conditions prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 7117(b) and (c), namely: If an agency involved in collective bargaining with an exclusive representative alleges that the duty to bargain in good faith does not extend to any matter proposed to be bargained because, as proposed, the matter is inconsistent with law, rule or regulation, the exclusive representative may appeal the allegation to the Authority . . . .

Further, it is well-established that a petition for review of a negotiability issue which does not present a proposal sufficiently specific and delimited in form and content as to permit the Authority to render a negotiability decision thereon does not meet the conditions for review set forth in section 7117 of the Statute and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. See e.g., Association of Civilian Technicians, Alabama ACT and State of Alabama National Guard, 2 FLRA 702 (1979).

Thus, the conditions governing review of a negotiability issue include a requirement that there be "a matter proposed to be bargained," and that the proposal must be specific in form and content so as to enable the Authority to determine whether the proposal is negotiable under the Statute. Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 10 FLRA No. 68 (1982).

In this case, the dispute between the parties is not sufficiently delineated to form a basis for a negotiability determination by the Authority. As stated above, while the union may have sought to negotiate with the activity concerning the job action contingency plan, it did not propose any specific language for negotiation. It is therefore clear that the union's petition for review was prematurely filed and does not meet the conditions for review set forth in section 7117 of the Statute and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and must be dismissed on that basis.

Accordingly, and apart from other considerations, the union's petition for review is, hereby dismissed. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., February 10, 1983 James J. Shepard, Executive Director