[ v10 p261 ]
10:0261(49)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
10 FLRA No. 49 CHICAGO O'HARE CHAPTER 10, ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS (Union) and ILLINOIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD TECHNICIANS, O'HARE AIR RESERVE FORCES FACILITY, ILLINOIS (Activity) Case No. O-NG-735 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 REGULATIONS 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 REASONS INDICATED BELOW, THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW MUST BE DISMISSED. THE RECORD BEFORE THE AUTHORITY INDICATES THAT ON OR ABOUT JULY 21, 1982, THE LOCAL PARTIES EXECUTED A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND SUBMITTED IT TO THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 7114(C) OF THE STATUTE. IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 18, 1982, THE BUREAU DISAPPROVED CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE LOCAL PARTIES' AGREEMENT AS CONTRARY TO LAW AND AGENCY REGULATION. THE UNION THEN FILED THE INSTANT PETITION WITH THE AUTHORITY SEEKING A DETERMINATION AS TO THE NEGOTIABILITY OF ONE OF THE DISAPPROVED PROVISIONS. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1982, THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU WITHDREW ITS ALLEGATION OF NONNEGOTIABILITY AS TO THE DISPUTED PROVISION. IN RESPONSE, THE UNION ARGUES, IN EFFECT, THAT BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE MEANING ATTRIBUTED TO THE PROPOSAL BY THE UNION AND THE AGENCY, THE AUTHORITY SHOULD MAKE A NEGOTIABILITY DETERMINATION NOTWITHSTANDING THE WITHDRAWAL ACTION. SINCE THE AGENCY HAS WITHDRAWN THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE PROVISION IN QUESTION, THERE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IN THIS CASE IS WITHIN THE PARTIES' DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE. THE DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THE UNION'S APPEAL THEREFORE HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT. THUS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7114(C)(3) OF THE STATUTE, THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE PROVISION HERE INVOLVED, WENT INTO EFFECT ON AUGUST 20, 1982. ANY DISPUTE CONCERNING THE MEANING OF THAT PROVISION MAY, OF COURSE, BE RESOLVED PURSUANT TO WHATEVER PROCEDURES THE PARTIES HAVE ADOPTED FOR SUCH PURPOSE IN THE COLLECTING BARGAINING AGREEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN, AND APART FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED. FOR THE AUTHORITY. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 30, 1982 JAMES J. SHEPARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR