International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office (Authority decision, March 22, 1985)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority in a negotiability case. 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

IBEW Local 1245 sought bargaining over a Bureau of Reclamation instruction, and the agency said the instruction was not negotiable and the request was late. The union petitioned the Authority for a negotiability ruling. The Authority held that the union had submitted no specific proposed bargaining language, leaving the dispute too indefinite to decide. It dismissed the petition as premature without reaching the agency's other objections.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7117.
• Outcome: Petition dismissed as premature.
• Key point: A negotiability appeal needs a specific proposal on which the Authority can rule.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v17 p312 ]

17:0312(43)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

17 FLRA No. 43

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL 1245
Union

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE
Agency

Case No. O-NG-941

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW

This matter is before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(D) and (E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations on a petition for review of a negotiability issue filed by the Union. For the reason indicated below, the Union's petition for review must be dismissed.

It appears from the Union's petition that the Union sought to meet Vehicles and Heavy Equipment. /1/ The Union did not, however, submit any specific proposals for negotiation. The Agency's assistant regional director for administration responded by informing the Union that the instruction was not negotiable and, that in any event, the Union had not requested bargaining within the thirty day time limit after the instruction's issuance as per the parties' negotiated agreement. Thus, the Agency denied the Union's request to bargain. In response to a subsequent memorandum from the Union requesting clarification on the issue of whether a compelling need existed for this instruction, the Agency notified the Union that in light of its prior determination the issue of compelling need for the instruction was moot. The Union thereupon filed the instant petition with the Authority.

Section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, which implements section 7117 of the Statute, provides, in pertinent part:

Sec. 2424.1 Conditions governing review

The Authority will consider a negotiability issue under the conditions prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 7117(b) and (c), namely: If an agency involved in collective bargaining with an exclusive representative alleges that the duty to bargain in good faith does not extend to any matter proposed to be bargained because, as proposed, the matter is inconsistent with law, rule or regulation, the exclusive representative may appeal the allegation to the Authority . . . .

Further, it is well-established that a petition for review of a negotiability issue which does not present a proposal sufficiently specific and delimited in form and content as to permit the Authority to render a negotiability decision thereon does not meet the conditions for review set forth in section 7117 of the Statute and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. See, e.g., Association of Civilian Technicians, Alabama ACT and State of Alabama National Guard, 2 FLRA 314 (1979).

Thus, the conditions governing review of a negotiability issue include a requirement that there be "a matter proposed to be bargained," and that the proposal must be specific in form and content so as to enable the Authority to determine whether the proposal is negotiable under the Statute. See e.g., Federal Employees Metal Trades Council and Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 10 FLRA 407 (1982).

In this case, the dispute between the parties is not sufficiently delineated to form a basis for a negotiability determination by the Authority. As stated above, while the Union may have sought to negotiate with the Agency concerning the instruction, it did not propose any specific language for a negotiation. It is therefore clear, that apart from other considerations, the Union's petition for review was prematurely filed and does not meet the conditions for review set forth in section 7117 of the Statute and section 2424.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and must be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition for review be dismissed. For the Authority. Issued, Washington, D.C., March 22, 1985 Harold D. Kessler, Director, Case Management

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

/1/ The Union did not provide a copy of Reclamation Instruction 365 to the Authority in connection with the instant Petition.