United States Department of Agriculture (Petitioner)

71 FLRA No. 86                                                                                                           

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(Petitioner)

0‑PS‑37

_____

DECISION ON REQUEST

FOR GENERAL STATEMENT

OF POLICY OR GUIDANCE

December 13, 2019

_____

Before the Authority:  Colleen Duffy Kiko, Chairman, and Ernest DuBester and James T. Abbott, Members

I.            Statement of the Case

Pursuant to § 2427.2 of the Authority’s Regulations,^[1] the Petitioner requests that the Authority issue a general statement of policy or guidance regarding the Federal Service Impasses Panel’s (the Panel’s) mandatory authority to respond to a request for assistance following parties’ use of alternative dispute resolution procedures in conjunction with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and other attempts to resolve an impasse.^[2]  Specifically, the Petitioner asks us to issue guidance on the analysis used by the Panel to determine whether an impasse exists.^[3]

II.          Background

The Petitioner explains that its request was prompted by what it described as “dilatory tactics” employed by “some unions” that “needless[ly] delay” the resolution of impasses that have been submitted to the Panel.^[4]  To address these concerns, the Petitioner asks the Authority to resolve three questions:

1.      What are the responsibilities of the Panel to ensure that a union does not use a ratification procedure to prevent agencies from exercising their statutory rights to impasse procedures?

2.      Can the Authority clarify when impasse is reached in the context of a failed ratification vote?

3.      Is an article that [the Panel] imposes subject to union ratification – even if the ground rules require a ratification vote on the entire agreement?^[5]

III.         Discussion

Upon careful consideration of the Petitioner’s request, we find that it is not appropriate for resolution through the issuance of a general ruling.^[6]  These questions would most appropriately be addressed in the context of the facts and circumstances presented by parties involved in an actual dispute.^[7]  Accordingly, we deny the request.^[8]

IV.         Order

We deny the Petitioner’s request.