NTEU Chapter 68 and Internal Revenue Service, Andover Service Center (Authority decision, August 12, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority resolved the negotiability petition described below. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), a person aggrieved by a final Authority order may generally seek judicial review within 60 days of issuance. A review petition does not itself stay the order.

Plain-English summary

NTEU Chapter 68 proposed local bargaining over furlough and recall procedures for intermittent employees during a reorganization. The IRS said those procedures were already in the national agreement. The Authority found that the dispute concerned whether the agency had a local duty to bargain, a question requiring interpretation of that agreement, rather than the proposals’ negotiability. It dismissed the petition without a merits ruling.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7117.
• Outcome: Petition dismissed without deciding negotiability.
• Key point: Whether a national agreement covers a subject belongs in agreement or unfair labor practice procedures.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v12 p550 ]

12:0550(106)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

12 FLRA No. 106

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
UNION, CHAPTER 68
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
ANDOVER SERVICE CENTER,
ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
Agency

Case No. O-NG-795

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 six Union proposals. /1/ For the following reasons, the Union's petition for review must be dismissed.

The record indicates that the Union sought to negotiate at the local level over the furlough and recall of "when actually employed" (WAE) employees at the Service Center. The proposals were made as a result of the Agency's announced plan to divide a single section at the Service Center into two sections. In its statement of position, the Agency contends, inter alia, and the Union does not controvert, that procedures for the furlough and recall of WAE employees are set forth in the parties' national agreement, and alleges that the Union is using the proposed reorganization to demand negotiations on proposals which merely deal with procedures already established in the national agreement. Therefore, the Agency asserts that it is not obligated to bargain on the proposals.

The Authority concludes that the circumstances herein do not give rise to a negotiability dispute which the Authority may properly review at this time pursuant to section 7117 of the Statute and part 2424 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. The essence of the dispute between the parties concerns the question of the Agency's obligation to bargain, i.e., whether the subject matter of the proposals has already been negotiated at the national level, and not the negotiability of the proposals themselves. Thus, resolution of the dispute, which may hinge on the interpretation of provisions of the national agreement and related factual issues, should be accomplished by means of the unfair labor practice provisions of the Statute, or through the use of whatever dispute resolution mechanisms the parties have themselves established in their national agreement. See, e.g., Overseas Education Association, Inc. and Department of Defense Dependents Schools, 12 FLRA No. 15 (1983).

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., August 12, 1983 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

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

/1/ The Agency's contention that the Union's petition for review should be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirement of section 2424.4(a)(2) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations that the Union furnish an explicit statement of the meaning of the proposals cannot be sustained. One week after the petition was filed, the Union submitted a clarifying letter stating that "(t)he proposals are clear on their face." Further, it appears from the record that the parties reached an understanding as to the proposals' meaning and intent.