American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1622 and Directorate of Facilities Engineering, Department of the Army, Fort Meade (Authority decision, November 17, 1983)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a), an aggrieved person may generally seek judicial review in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance. A review petition does not itself stay the order.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 1622 proposed reimbursement for safety shoes when suitable shoes were not readily available from the employer. The Army activity alleged the proposal was outside the duty to bargain, and the union petitioned for review. The agency later withdrew that allegation. With no negotiability dispute left to decide, the Authority dismissed the petition.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Petition for review dismissed after withdrawal of the nonnegotiability allegation.
• Key point: Withdrawal of an agency’s negotiability objection leaves no issue for the Authority to resolve.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v13 p425 ]

13:0425(74)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

13 FLRA No. 74

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1622
(Union)

and

DIRECTORATE OF FACILITIES
ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF
THE ARMY, FORT MEADE, MARYLAND
(Activity)

Case No. O-NG-911

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 reimbursement of employees for safety shoes should suitable ones not be readily available from the employer. 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 September 26, 1983, the Agency withdrew the Activity's allegation of nonnegotiability.

Since the Agency has withdrawn the Activity's allegation concerning the Union's proposal, there is no longer an issue as to whether the proposal is within the parties' duty to bargain under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., November 17, 1983 James J. Shepard, Executive Director