American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1858 and Department of the Army, U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama (Authority decision, May 19, 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 that the Army's performance appraisal system be the only factor used for certain monetary performance awards. The Army alleged that the proposal was nonnegotiable, and the union petitioned the Authority. The Army later withdrew the allegation. With no negotiability dispute left to decide, the Authority dismissed the petition without a merits ruling.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability petition under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7105(a)(2)(E) and 7117(a)(1).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed after the Army withdrew its allegation.
• Key point: Withdrawal of the nonnegotiability allegation ended the Authority's dispute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v12 p70 ]

12:0070(23)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

12 FLRA No. 23

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1858
(Union)

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY
MISSILE COMMAND, REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-805

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 concerning implementation of the agency's performance appraisal system, the union proposed that the performance appraisal system would be the only factor considered in determining whether an employee would receive certain monetary performance awards. The activity alleged that the union's proposal was 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 parties' duty to bargain. Subsequently, in a letter dated March 9, 1983, 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Since the agency has withdrawn the allegation concerning the union's proposal, there is no longer an issue as to whether the proposal is within the parties' duty to bargain under the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., May 19, 1983 James J. Shepard, Executive Director