[ v07 p10 ]
07:0010(3)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:
7 FLRA No. 3 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION (Union) and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Agency) Case No. O-NG-508 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS THIS CASE IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY AT THIS TIME FOR RULING ON A MOTION FILED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (THE AGENCY) REQUESTING THAT THE AUTHORITY DISMISS THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS. MORE PARTICULARLY, THE AGENCY CONTENDS THAT BECAUSE THE UNION FAILED TO SERVE A COPY OF ITS PETITION FOR REVIEW ON THE AGENCY HEAD WITHIN THE FIFTEEN-DAY TIME PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE PETITION FOR REVIEW SHOULD BE DISMISSED. THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE MATTER PROPOSED TO BE BARGAINED WAS SERVED ON THE UNION ON JUNE 18, 1981. THEREFORE, UNDER SECTION 2424.3 OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS, /1/ THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS DUE IN THE OFFICE OF THE AUTHORITY NO LATER THAN JULY 3, 1981. THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS FILED ON JUNE 30, 1981. HOWEVER, THE UNION FAILED TO SERVE A COPY OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON THE AGENCY HEAD AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 2424.4(B) OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS. /2/ THE AUTHORITY, CONSISTENT WITH WELL-ESTABLISHED PRACTICE IN LIKE SITUATIONS, ADVISED THE FILING PARTY OF THE DEFICIENCY AND OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION NECESSARY. THE UNION PROMPTLY COMPLIED BY SERVING A COPY OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON THE AGENCY HEAD ON JULY 22, 1981. THUS, WHILE THE AGENCY IS ACCURATE IN CONTENDING THAT THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS DEFICIENT WHEN FILED, IT IS MISTAKEN IN ASSERTING THAT THE PETITION FOR REVIEW MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE UNION FAILED TO SERVE THE AGENCY HEAD WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW. RATHER, AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS TIMELY FILED, AND THE DEFICIENCY INVOLVED WAS CORRECTED BY THE UNION AND ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORITY CONSISTENT WITH ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE AND UNIFORM PRACTICE IN LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES. ACCORDINGLY, AND APART FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE AGENCY'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE UNION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS BE DENIED. FOR THE AUTHORITY. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 8, 1981 JAMES J. SHEPARD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR --------------- FOOTNOTES: --------------- /1/ SECTION 2424.3 OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R. 2424.3(1981)) PROVIDES: THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW IS FIFTEEN (15) DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE MATTER PROPOSED TO BE BARGAINED IS SERVED ON THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE. /2/ SECTION 2424.4(B) OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R. 2424.4(B)(1981)) PROVIDES: A COPY OF THE PETITION INCLUDING ALL ATTACHMENTS THERETO SHALL BE SERVED ON THE AGENCY HEAD AND ON THE PRINCIPAL AGENCY BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE AT THE NEGOTIATIONS.