Decisions of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, V. 61, June 1, 2005 Through December 9, 2006

Contains tables of decisions under the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute; by agency; by labor organization; and by individual. Main body includes texts of decisions.
Some of the types of select cases included in this volume and within this timeframe are as follows:
American Federation of Government Employees, Council 236 Region 2, (Union) and United States, General Services Administration, Northeast, and Caribbean Region (Agency)
(June 2, 2005) includes a statement of the case, background and arbitrator's award, positions of the parties, agency opposition, analysis and conclusion and the final decision.
The Statement of Case in this particular document is as follows:
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Eleanor E. Glanstein filed by the Union under 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exceptions.
The Arbitrator found that the Union's grievance was not arbitrable because it presented the same issue as the Union's earlier-filed unfair labor practice (ULP) charge, and was therefore barred by 7116(d) of the Statute.
For the following reasons, we deny the Union's exceptions.

June 3,2005 -- This case follows the same format as the previous case noting Statement of Case, Background of Arbitrator's Award, Positions of Parties- Agency's Position, Union's Opposition, Discussion Summary, and finally the Decision.
The Statement of Case covered in this document is as follows:
This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator I.B. Helburn filed by the Agency under 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Regulations. The Union filed an opposition to the Agency's exceptions. [n1]
[ v61 p545 ]
APRIL 18, 2006
Statement of Case: This case is before the Authority on a motion for a stay of the Regional Director's (RD's) Decision and Order (Order) directing an election in"United States Dep't of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection," WA-RP-04-0067 "et al.," filed by the [ v61 p546 ] National Association of Agricultural Employees (NAAE). The Authority denied NAAE's application for review of the RD's Order in "United States Dep't of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection," 61 FLRA 485 (2006) ("Customs and Border Protection"). Specifically, the Authority rejected NAAE's claim that Agriculture Specialists and Agriculture Technicians should not be included in a unit of all employees of the Office of Field Operations (OFO). The Authority also rejected NAAE's contention that the RD erred in determining that Agriculture Specialists are not professional employees within the meaning of 7103(a)(15) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute).
In its motion, NAAE states that it has appealed the Authority's denial of its application for review in "Customs and Border Protection" insofar as it concerns the unit status of Agriculture Specialists under 7103(a)(15) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (court). In light of that appeal, NAAE requests that the Authority grant a stay of the RD's order directing an election in the unit found to be appropriate in"Customs and Border Protection."
Following this Statement of Case, are Positions of All Parties involved, Analysis and Conclusion summary and Order.
November 21, 2006
The Statement of Case for this matter is the following:
This case is before the Authority on an application for review filed by petitioner American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) under 2422.31 of the Authority's Regulations. Neither the Agency nor incumbent National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) filed an opposition to AFGE's application.
The Regional Director (RD) found that the bargaining unit represented by NAGE at the Agency's Newington facility continues to be appropriate and he dismissed AFGE's petition to be certified as the representative of these employees.
For the following reasons, we deny AFGE's application for review.
Following this Statement of Case, a Background and RD's Decision is summarized as well as a summary of the Positions of the Parties, followed by Analysis and Conclusions summary, with the finalized Order of this case provided in an outcome statement.
And many more cases are included.