Philadelphia Metal Trades Council and Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (Authority decision, September 11, 1984)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority dismissing a negotiability petition after the agency withdrew its allegation. 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

The Philadelphia Naval Shipyard announced a directive eliminating employee parking inside a controlled industrial area. After discussions about alternatives, it asserted that a union proposal was outside the duty to bargain, prompting the Philadelphia Metal Trades Council to seek Authority review. The shipyard later withdrew its nonnegotiability allegation. The Authority dismissed the petition because no negotiability dispute remained for it to decide.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E) and § 7117(a)(1).
• Outcome: Petition dismissed after the agency withdrew its nonnegotiability allegation.
• Key point: Withdrawal of the agency's allegation removed the issue presented for Authority review.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v16 p25 ]

16:0025(2)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

16 FLRA No. 2

PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL
Union

and

PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD
Activity

Case No. O-NG-970

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 record before the Authority, it appears that the Activity announced its intent to implement a new directive concerning the elimination of employee parking within the controlled industrial area. Following the issuance of the directive, discussions were held seeking alternative means of accommodating the employees. However, in a memorandum dated March 6, 1984, the Activity declared that the duty to bargain did not extend to the Union's proposal. The Union then filed the instant petition for review with the Authority on March 19, 1984. 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 June 27, 1984, the Activity withdrew the allegation of nonnegotiability.

Since the Activity 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, the Union's instant petition for review is hereby dismissed.

For the Authority.

Issued, Washington, D.C., September 11, 1984 (s) Jan K. Bohren Jan K. Bohren Executive Director/Administrator