National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 571 and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration, Temple, Texas (Authority decision, June 7, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed this negotiability appeal without a merits ruling. 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 reduction in force procedures concerning competitive areas, training, and waivers of qualifications for displaced employees. After the Farmers Home Administration alleged the proposals were nonnegotiable, the union petitioned the Authority for review. The agency later withdrew the allegation. With no remaining negotiability dispute to decide, the Authority dismissed the petition without ruling on the proposals.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability appeal under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7105(a)(2)(E) and 7117(a)(1).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed after withdrawal of the nonnegotiability allegation.
• Key point: Withdrawal of the agency's allegation left no live negotiability issue.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v12 p175 ]

12:0175(42)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

12 FLRA No. 42

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 571
(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION,
TEMPLE, TEXAS
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-800

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 negotiability issues 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 on reduction-in-force procedures, the union submitted proposals concerning competitive areas, training, and the waiver of qualifications for employees subject to displacement. The activity alleged the union's proposals 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 proposals were within the duty to bargain. Subsequently, in a letter dated May 11, 1983, the agency withdrew the activity's allegation of nonnegotiability.

Since the agency has withdrawn the activity's allegation concerning the union's proposals, there is no longer an issue as to whether the proposals are within the parties' duty to bargain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., June 7, 1983 James J. Shepard, Executive Director