National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1363 and Department of the Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Yongsan, Korea (Authority decision, August 23, 1984)
NFFE Local 1363 and Army Garrison Yongsan (FLRA O-NG-818): Petition dismissed without negotiability dispute
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Authority precedent from 1984, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority on a negotiability petition. 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). Filing a petition does not stay the Authority's order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).
Plain-English summary
NFFE Local 1363 sought a negotiability ruling on two proposals concerning ration controls at Army facilities in Korea. The Army had not answered the union's request for a written allegation, but later told the Authority that it had not considered the proposals nonnegotiable. The Authority found there was therefore no dispute about whether the proposals were within the duty to bargain. It dismissed the petition without a merits ruling on either proposal.
Decision snapshot
- Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
- Outcome: Petition dismissed because no nonnegotiability dispute remained.
- Key point: The Authority had no negotiability issue to decide when the agency did not claim the proposals were outside its bargaining duty.
Full text (FLRA public release)
[ v15 p570 ]
15:0570(121)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
15 FLRA No. 121
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1363
Union
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY GARRISON,
YONGSAN, KOREA
Agency
Case No. O-NG-818
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 (the Statute) on a petition for review of negotiability issues filed by the Union.
The record before the Authority in this case indicates that during negotiations between the Agency and the Union, the Union submitted two proposals on the ration control system in effect at Agency controlled post exchanges, commissaries, and other outlets in Korea. The Union requested an allegation with respect to its proposals from the Agency. Receiving no such allegation the Union then filed the instant appeal with the Authority seeking a determination, pursuant to section 7117(c)(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 the Agency did file a counterproposal, and in its statement filed with the Authority, pursuant to section 2424.6 of the Authority's Rules, the Agency in effect asserted that by failing to respond to the Union's request for an allegation, it was not alleging that the proposals which are the subject of the Union's petition were nonnegotiable. Rather, the Agency stated that the reason it had not responded to the Union's request for a written allegation was because it "understood that the Union accepted its oral representations to the effect that, although the activity was concerned about the relationship of the proposal to the U.S./Republic of Korea Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), it had not alleged the Union's proposal to be nonnegotiable."
Since the Agency does not view the proposals as nonnegotiable, there is no longer any issue as to whether the proposals in this case are within the parties' duty to bargain under the Statute. Cf. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3028 and Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Alaska Area Native Health Service, 13 FLRA No. 112 (1984) (wherein the Authority found that failure to respond to a union's request for an allegation was constructive declaration of nonnegotiability so as to give rise to a right of appeal).
Accordingly, and apart from other considerations, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Union's petition for review herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
For the Authority.
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 23, 1984
Jan K. Bohren
Executive Director/Administrator
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace