17:0312(43)NG - IBEW Local 1245 and Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office -- 1985 FLRAdec NG

 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.