FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

Menu

You are here

  • Home
  • 33:0841(104)NG - - NFFE Local 1745 and VA, VA Data Processing Center, Austin, TX - - 1988 FLRAdec NG - - v33 p841

33:0841(104)NG - - NFFE Local 1745 and VA, VA Data Processing Center, Austin, TX - - 1988 FLRAdec NG - - v33 p841


[ v33 p841 ]
33:0841(104)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:

33 FLRA No. 104

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1745

and

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION DATA PROCESSING CENTER

AUSTIN, TEXAS

0-NG-1622

ORDER

December 14, 1988

On November 17, 1988, the Union filed with the Authority a petition for review of negotiability issues pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7117(c) and 5 C.F.R. § 2424.1. The proposal presented by the Union is not sufficiently specific to enable the Authority to make a negotiability decision, and must be dismissed.

A petition for review which does not present a proposal sufficiently specific to enable the Authority to make a negotiability decision does not meet the conditions for review set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7117(c) and 5 C.F.R. § 2424.1. See, e.g., Maritime/Metal Trades Council and Panama Canal Commission, 18 FLRA 326 (1985); and Fort Bragg Unit of North Carolina Association of Educators, National Education Association and Fort Bragg Dependents Schools, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 12 FLRA 519 (1983). The conditions governing review of a negotiability issue include a requirement that there be "a matter proposed to be bargained." 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 record contains no evidence that the Union proposed any specific language for negotiation. See, e.g., American Federation of Government Employees, Local 491 and Veterans Administration Medical Center, Bath, New York, 29 FLRA 462 (1987).

By Order issued December 2, 1988, the Authority directed the Union to file with the Authority by December 12, 1988, any specific proposal it presented to the Agency, and to show cause why its petition should not be dismissed.

In its timely filed letter dated December 7, 1988, the Union states that it did not submit any specific proposal to the Agency.

Accordingly, the Union's petition for review is dismissed.

For the Authority.

_____________________________
Clyde B. Blandford, Jr.
Acting Executive Director

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)