American Federation of Government Employees, National Council of Grain Inspection Locals and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Grain Inspection Service (Authority decision, August 4, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed this negotiability appeal without deciding whether the proposal was within the duty to bargain. 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 grain inspection union sought a negotiability ruling on a proposal about using performance appraisals in reduction in force service credit. The agency initially said the proposal was nonnegotiable, then withdrew that allegation. With no remaining negotiability dispute, the Authority dismissed the petition without ruling on the proposal’s merits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability appeal under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7105(a)(2)(E) and 7117(c).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed after the agency withdrew its nonnegotiability allegation.
• Key point: A withdrawn allegation left no negotiability issue for the Authority to decide.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v12 p463 ]

12:0463(88)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

12 FLRA No. 88

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, NATIONAL
COUNCILS OF GRAIN INSPECTION LOCALS
(Union)

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-864

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, the union submitted a proposal concerning the manner in which the results of performance appraisals would be used to credit service for reduction in force. The activity alleged the union's proposal 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 proposal was within the duty to bargain. Subsequently, in a letter dated July 20, 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Since the agency has withdrawn the allegation concerning the union's proposal, there is no longer an issue as to whether the proposal is within the parties' duty to bargain under the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 dismissed. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., August 4, 1983 James J. Shepard, Executive Director