Union v. Federal
Labor Relations Authority case brief
834 F.2d 191, 266 U.S.
App. D.C. 165, 126 LRRM 3290 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner
National Labor Relations Board Union (Union) requested that
respondent Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) amend 5 C.F.R. §§
2423.5, 2424.5 (1987). The FLRA denied the Union's petition, and the
Union appealed.
FACTS: The Union claimed that 5 C.F.R. §§ 2423.5, 2424.5 (1987) were inconsistent with 5 U.S.C.S. §§ 7117(c), 7118. It requested the FLRA to amend the regulations. The FLRA denied the Union's petition, and the court denied the Union's petition for review. The court found that the Union's appeal was not untimely and did not involve a changed position from the one advanced before the FLRA. Thus, the court had jurisdiction. The proper standard of review was whether the challenged regulations contravened Congress' intent when considered in the light of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C.S. §§ 7701-7135, its legislative history, and the predecessor regulations. The court concluded that it was not able to determine from these sources Congress' intent regarding the limits on remedies available to labor organizations that successfully appealed an agency's good-faith allegation of nonnegotiability. Therefore, the court deferred to the FLRA's judgment because it was based on a permissible construction of the relevant statutes.
CONCLUSION: The court upheld the FLRA's interpretation of the relevant statutory law and denied the Union's petition for review.
FACTS: The Union claimed that 5 C.F.R. §§ 2423.5, 2424.5 (1987) were inconsistent with 5 U.S.C.S. §§ 7117(c), 7118. It requested the FLRA to amend the regulations. The FLRA denied the Union's petition, and the court denied the Union's petition for review. The court found that the Union's appeal was not untimely and did not involve a changed position from the one advanced before the FLRA. Thus, the court had jurisdiction. The proper standard of review was whether the challenged regulations contravened Congress' intent when considered in the light of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C.S. §§ 7701-7135, its legislative history, and the predecessor regulations. The court concluded that it was not able to determine from these sources Congress' intent regarding the limits on remedies available to labor organizations that successfully appealed an agency's good-faith allegation of nonnegotiability. Therefore, the court deferred to the FLRA's judgment because it was based on a permissible construction of the relevant statutes.
CONCLUSION: The court upheld the FLRA's interpretation of the relevant statutory law and denied the Union's petition for review.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment