National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 29 and Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District (Authority decision, January 7, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed this negotiability petition without reaching a merits ruling. 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).

Plain-English summary

NFFE Local 29 appealed the Army Corps of Engineers’ allegation that a proposal on mentioning its employee assistance program in proposed discipline letters was nonnegotiable. The agency later withdrew that allegation. With no live negotiability dispute left, the Authority dismissed the petition without deciding the proposal’s merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed after agency withdrew its nonnegotiability allegation.
• Key point: Withdrawal of the allegation removed the issue presented for review.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v11 p6 ]

11:0006(4)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

11 FLRA No. 4

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 29
(Union)

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, KANSAS
CITY DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-774

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.

The record before the Authority in this case indicates that the activity alleged a union proposal concerning references to the Employer Assistance Program in letters proposing disciplinary or adverse action to be nonnegotiable because it was inconsistent with the activity's authority to discipline employees under section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute. 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 parties' duty to bargain. Subsequently, in a letter dated December 10, 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Since the agency has withdrawn the allegation concerning the union's proposal there is no longer an issue as to whether the proposal is within the parties' duty to bargain under the Statute.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, and it hereby is, dismissed. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., January 7, 1983 James J. Shepard, Executive Director