National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 11 and Department of the Air Force, Fairchild Air Force Base (Authority decision, July 29, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed this negotiability appeal without deciding whether the proposal was within the duty to bargain. 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).

Plain-English summary

The union proposed delaying the end of environmental differential pay for employees exposed to asbestos at Fairchild Air Force Base. The Air Force alleged the proposal was nonnegotiable, then withdrew the allegation. The Authority dismissed the petition because no negotiability dispute remained. It did not decide whether the proposal was within the duty to bargain.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability appeal under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7105(a)(2)(E) and 7117(a).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed after the Air Force withdrew its allegation.
• Key point: The Authority did not reach the pay proposal’s negotiability after the agency withdrew its objection.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v12 p386 ]

12:0386(82)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

12 FLRA No. 82

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 11
(Union)

and

DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE, HEADQUARTERS,
92d COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP, FAIRCHILD
AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-740

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

This case is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute on a petition for review of a negotiability issue filed by the union.

From the submissions of the parties, the record before the Authority in this case indicates that during the course of negotiations, the union submitted a proposal concerning extension of the effective date for discontinuation of environmental differential pay for employees subject to asbestos exposure. The activity alleged the union's proposal to be nonnegotiable. The union then sought the Authority's determination, pursuant to section 7117(a)(1) of the Statute and section 2424.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, as to whether the disputed proposal was within the duty to bargain. Subsequently, in a letter dated June 30, 1983, the agency withdrew the activity's allegation of nonnegotiability.

Since the agency has withdrawn the activity's allegation concerning the union's proposal, there is no longer an issue as to whether the proposal is within the parties' duty to bargain under the Statute. Accordingly, and apart from other considerations,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition for review be dismissed. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1983 James J. Shepard, Executive Director