Chicago O'Hare Chapter 10, Association of Civilian Technicians and Illinois Air National Guard Technicians (Authority decision, September 30, 1982)

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

The union appealed the National Guard Bureau’s disapproval of a provision in its local agreement. The Bureau later withdrew its allegation that the provision was outside the duty to bargain. The Authority found no live negotiability dispute and dismissed the petition as moot. It said the agreement, including the disputed provision, had taken effect on August 20, 1982.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7114(c).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed as moot after withdrawal of the nonnegotiability allegation.
• Key point: Withdrawal of the disapproval removed the issue presented by the petition.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v10 p261 ]

10:0261(49)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

10 FLRA No. 49

CHICAGO O'HARE CHAPTER 10,
ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS
(Union)

and

ILLINOIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD
TECHNICIANS, O'HARE AIR RESERVE
FORCES FACILITY, ILLINOIS
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-735

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(D)
AND (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 REASONS
INDICATED BELOW, THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW MUST BE DISMISSED.

THE RECORD BEFORE THE AUTHORITY INDICATES THAT ON OR ABOUT JULY 21,
1982, THE LOCAL PARTIES EXECUTED A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND
SUBMITTED IT TO THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
PURSUANT TO SECTION 7114(C) OF THE STATUTE. IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST
18, 1982, THE BUREAU DISAPPROVED CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE LOCAL
PARTIES' AGREEMENT AS CONTRARY TO LAW AND AGENCY REGULATION. THE UNION
THEN FILED THE INSTANT PETITION WITH THE AUTHORITY SEEKING A
DETERMINATION AS TO THE NEGOTIABILITY OF ONE OF THE DISAPPROVED
PROVISIONS. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1982, THE
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU WITHDREW ITS ALLEGATION OF NONNEGOTIABILITY AS TO
THE DISPUTED PROVISION. IN RESPONSE, THE UNION ARGUES, IN EFFECT, THAT
BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE MEANING ATTRIBUTED TO THE PROPOSAL BY
THE UNION AND THE AGENCY, THE AUTHORITY SHOULD MAKE A NEGOTIABILITY
DETERMINATION NOTWITHSTANDING THE WITHDRAWAL ACTION.

SINCE THE AGENCY HAS WITHDRAWN THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE
PROVISION IN QUESTION, 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 BEEN
RENDERED MOOT. THUS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7114(C)(3) OF THE STATUTE, THE
PARTIES' AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE PROVISION HERE INVOLVED, WENT INTO
EFFECT ON AUGUST 20, 1982. ANY DISPUTE CONCERNING THE MEANING OF THAT
PROVISION MAY, OF COURSE, BE RESOLVED PURSUANT TO WHATEVER PROCEDURES
THE PARTIES HAVE ADOPTED FOR SUCH PURPOSE IN THE COLLECTING BARGAINING
AGREEMENT.

ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN, AND APART FROM OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW BE, AND IT
HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.

FOR THE AUTHORITY.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 30, 1982

JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR