5 C.F.R. § 2424.11

Requesting and providing written allegations concerning the duty to bargain

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. An exclusive representative may file a petition for review after receiving a written allegation concerning the duty to bargain from the agency. An exclusive representative also may file a petition for review if it requests in writing that the agency provide it with a written allegation concerning the duty to bargain and the agency does not respond to the request within ten (10) days.

(b) Agency allegation in response to request. The agency has an obligation to respond within ten (10) days to a written request by the exclusive representative for a written allegation concerning the duty to bargain. The agency's allegation in response to the exclusive representative's request must be in writing and must be served in accord with § 2424.2(g).

(c) Unrequested agency allegation. If an agency provides an exclusive representative with an unrequested written allegation concerning the duty to bargain, then the exclusive representative may either file a petition for review under this part, or continue to bargain and subsequently request in writing a written allegation concerning the duty to bargain, if necessary. If the exclusive representative chooses to file a petition for review based on an unrequested written allegation concerning the duty to bargain, then the time limit in § 2424.21(a)(1) applies.

[88 FR 62456, Sept. 12, 2023; 88 FR 69873, Oct. 10, 2023]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1984–1990 · leading case: Fort Stewart Schs. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 495 U.S. 641 (1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fort Stewart Schs. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 495 U.S. 641 (1990). · cites it 4× “" 5 CFR § 2424.11 (1989). Before the Authority, petitioner rested its entire case upon the assertion that the last of these criteria was satisfied by the provision of Army Regulation 352-3 which requires salaries equal to those of local schools, since that provision "implements…”

Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, Afl-Cio, Local 2953 v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 730 F.2d 1534 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “These standards are set out in 5 C.F.R. § 2424.11 : A compelling need exists for an agency rule or regulation concerning any condition of employment when the agency demonstrates that the rule or regulation meets one or more of the following illustrative criteria: (a) The rule or…”

Ass'n of Civilian Technicians, Montana Air Chapter v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 756 F.2d 172 (D.C. Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “Applying its standards for determining compelling need, which are codified at 5 C.F.R. § 2424.11 , 9 the Authority held that TPM 351 serves a compelling need under section 2424.”

Fort Stewart Schs. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., Fort Stewart Ass'n of Educators, Intervenor, 860 F.2d 396 (11th Cir. 1988). “” 5 C.F.R. § 2424.11 (a) & (c) (1986). We agree with the FLRA and the Second Circuit that Army Regulation 352-3, 1-7 does not “implement a mandate to the Army” because as discussed above, section 241 does not require the Army to compensate its school employees according to local…”

Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 789 F.2d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “See 5 C.F.R. § 2424.11 (1985). CONCLUSION The Authority simply dismissed the General Counsel’s complaint once it made the threshold determination that the agency head’s exercise of his disapproval authority under section 7114 did not perse violate his duty under section 7119 to…”

Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, Local 1669 v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 745 F.2d 705 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 2424.11 (1984). Such an FLRA determination renders a subject nonnegotiable.”

Def. Logistics Agency v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 754 F.2d 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “5 C.F.R. § 2424.11 (1984). 5 . See Defense Logistics Agency, slip op.”

U.S. Army Eng'r Ctr. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 762 F.2d 409 (4th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “See 5 C.F.R. § 2424.11 . Thus, an examination of the history, policies, and, above all, the language of the Federal Labor-Management Relations Act persuades us that Congress meant the § 7117(b) negotiability appeal to be the sole means of determining a compelling need question…”

West Point Elementary Sch. Teachers Ass'n v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 855 F.2d 936 (2d Cir. 1988). “5 C.F.R. § 2424.11 defines a compelling need to exist, inter alia, where the “rule or regulation is essential, as distinguished from helpful or desirable, to the accomplishment” of the agency's functions, or where the “rule or regulation implements a mandate to the agency, .”

Dep't of the Army v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 914 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 3× “An FLRA regulation lists three “illustrative criteria” pursuant to which the Authority will conclude that “[a] compelling need exists for an agency rule or regulation concerning any condition of employment,” 5 C.F.R. § 2424.11 (1990): (a) The rule or regulation is essential, as…”

Fort Knox Dependent Schs. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 875 F.2d 1179 (6th Cir. 1989). “The court then relied on the definition of “compelling need” set out in 5 C.F.R. § 2424.11 (a), (c), finding that § 241 did not mandate specific salaries, nor render the question of salaries nondiscretion-ary.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.