Department of Army and Air Force, Department of Defense, Division of Military Affairs, State of New York (Respondent) and Association of Civilian Technicians, New York Council (Complainant)



[ v01 p649 ]
01:0649(73)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 1 FLRA No. 73
 
 DEPARTMENT OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE,
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
 DIVISION OF MILITARY AFFAIRS,
 STATE OF NEW YORK
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS
 NEW YORK COUNCIL
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 35-04756(CA)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    ON JANUARY 24, 1979, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GARVIN LEE OLIVER
 ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED
 PROCEEDING, FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER
 AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.  THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENT
 FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION
 AND ORDER.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION
 PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
 IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (44 F.R. 7).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
 THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7135(B) OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION
 RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY
 HAS REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE
 HEARING AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS
 ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE
 SUBJECT CASE, INCLUDING THE RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS, WE HEREBY ADOPT THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, /1/ AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS.  /2/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, 26
 C.F.R. SECTION 203.26(B), AND SECTION 2400.2 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R.  2400.2 FED. REG. VOL. 44, NO. 1, JANUARY 2, 1979,
 P. 7), THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF ARMY AND AIR
 FORCE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DIVISION OF MILITARY AFFAIRS, STATE OF NEW
 YORK, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) UNILATERALLY REFUSING TO PROCEED TO ARBITRATION REGARDING A
 DISAGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 21,
 SECTION 3 OF ITS SEPTEMBER 15, 1975, NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH THE
 ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW YORK COUNCIL, AND THE SELECTION
 OF AN ARBITRATOR, AFTER RECEIVING TIMELY NOTICE OF SAID LABOR
 ORGANIZATIONS DESIRE TO INVOKE ARBITRATION AND TO HAVE AN ARBITRATOR
 SELECTED PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT.
 
    (B) REFUSING TO FURNISH, UPON REQUEST BY THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN
 TECHNICIANS, NEW YORK COUNCIL, THE EMPLOYEES EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE,
 SUCH INFORMATION AS IS NECESSARY AND RELEVANT TO ENABLE IT TO PERFORM
 ITS REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, PROCEED TO THE SELECTION OF AN ARBITRATOR AND TO
 ARBITRATION REGARDING A DISAGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR
 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 21, SECTION 3 OF ITS SEPTEMBER 15, 1975,
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW
 YORK COUNCIL.
 
    (B) UPON REQUEST, FURNISH SUCH INFORMATION AS IS NECESSARY AND
 RELEVANT TO THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW YORK COUNCIL,
 TO ENABLE IT TO PERFORM ITS REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES.
 
    (C) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AND INSTALLATIONS COPIES OF THE ATTACHED
 NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORITY.
 UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE CHIEF OF STAFF
 AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
 THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND
 OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE
 CHIEF OF STAFF SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES
 ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN
 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO
 COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 19, 1979
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
           PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 
            RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 
          POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES
 
              CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT UNILATERALLY REFUSE TO PROCEED TO ARBITRATION REGARDING A
 DISAGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 21,
 SECTION 3 OF OUR SEPTEMBER 15, 1975, NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH THE
 ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW YORK COUNCIL, AND THE SELECTION
 OF AN ARBITRATOR, AFTER RECEIVING TIMELY NOTICE OF SAID LABOR
 ORGANIZATIONS DESIRE TO INVOKE ARBITRATION AND TO HAVE AN ARBITRATOR
 SELECTED PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT.
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO FURNISH, UPON REQUEST BY THE ASSOCIATION OF
 CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW YORK COUNCIL, THE EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE, SUCH INFORMATION AS IS NECESSARY AND RELEVANT TO ENABLE
 IT TO PERFORM ITS REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN
 OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, PROCEED TO THE SELECTION OF AN ARBITRATOR AND
 TO ARBITRATION REGARDING A DISAGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR
 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 21, SECTION 3 OF OUR SEPTEMBER 15, 1975,
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW
 YORK COUNCIL.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, FURNISH SUCH INFORMATION AS IS NECESSARY AND
 RELEVANT TO THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW YORK COUNCIL,
 TO ENABLE IT TO PERFORM ITS REPRESENTATION DUTIES.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .
 
                                BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIALS.
 
    IF ANY EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
 COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY
 WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,
 WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  ROOM 211, NEW STUDIO BUILDING, 110 TREMONT STREET,
 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108.
 
    C. ROGER LUNDEN, ESQUIRE
 
    HOWARD A. RUBENSTEIN, ESQUIRE
 
    FREDERICK ALTMAN, ESQUIRE
 
    PUBLIC SECURITY BUILDING
 
    STATE CAMPUS
 
    ALBANY, NEW YORK 12226
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    VICTOR ALAN OLIVERI, ESQUIRE
 
    786 ELLICOTT SQUARE BUILDING
 
    BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14203
 
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    BEFORE:  GARVIN LEE OLIVER
 
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS CASE AROSE PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AS A
 RESULT OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT FILED ON OCTOBER 31, 1977
 AND AN AMENDED COMPLAINT DATED APRIL 21, 1978, FILED BY THE ASSOCIATION
 OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW YORK COUNCIL (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE
 COMPLAINANT OR THE UNION), AGAINST THE DIVISION OF MILITARY AFFAIRS,
 STATE OF NEW YORK (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE RESPONDENT OR THE ACTIVITY).
 
    THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGED, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT THE RESPONDENT
 VIOLATED SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BY (1)
 UNILATERALLY BREACHING AN ARTICLE OF THE PARTIES' NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT,
 (2) REFUSING TO PROCEED TO ARBITRATION AND THE SELECTION OF AN
 ARBITRATOR PURSUANT TO THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, AND (3) PROVIDING THE
 UNION WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION CONCERNING THE STATUS OF A REQUEST
 MADE BY RESPONDENT TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN THIS MATTER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED IN ALBANY,
 NEW YORK.  BOTH PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND AFFORDED FULL
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO ADDUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND TO EXAMINE AND
 CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.  POSTHEARING BRIEFS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM
 BOTH PARTIES WHICH WERE MOST HELPFUL AND DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    BASED ON THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, THE EXHIBITS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE
 ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, AND THE BRIEFS, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF
 FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    COMPLAINANT IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF A UNIT OF
 EMPLOYEES CONSISTING OF ALL NON-SUPERVISORY CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS IN THE
 NEW YORK ARMY AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD.
 
    AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES HEREIN THE PARTIES HAD A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT
 WHICH WAS TO REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGH OCTOBER 2, 1977.
 (JOINT EXHIBIT 1;  TR. 29).
 
    ARTICLE 21, SECTION 3 OF THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED:
 
    WHEN A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BY HIGHER AUTHORITY THAT MATTERS
 PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED TO BE
 
    NON-NEGOTIABLE MAY NOW BE NEGOTIATED, BOTH PARTIES WILL MEET TO
 CONSIDER PROPOSALS RELATIVE TO
 
    SUCH MATTERS.
 
    THIS PROVISION WAS MADE A PART OF THE AGREEMENT IN PART BECAUSE OF
 THE LONGSTANDING DISPUTE AS TO NEGOTIABILITY OF PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE
 WEARING OF THE MILITARY UNIFORM BY CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS.
 
    ON JANUARY 19, 1977 THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS COUNCIL (FLRC) ISSUED
 ITS DECISIONS IN KANSAS NATIONAL GUARD AND CONSOLIDATED CASES, FLRC NO.
 76A-16, REP. 120;  4 FLMC 77-4, HOLDING THAT "NO COMPELLING NEED EXISTS
 FOR THE NGB (NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU) REGULATION REQUIRING ALL NATIONAL
 GUARD TECHNICIANS WORKING IN THEIR TECHNICIAN STATUS UNDER VIRTUALLY ALL
 CIRCUMSTANCES TO WEAR MILITARY UNIFORMS AND, AS INTERPRETED BY THE
 AGENCY HEAD, TO OBSERVE MILITARY GROOMING STANDARDS." THE FLRC HELD THAT
 THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY THE UNION IN THAT REGARD "ARE PROPERLY
 SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATION BY THE PARTIES CONCERNED UNDER SECTION 11(A) OF
 THE ORDER." (JOINT EXHIBIT 3, P. 18-19).
 
    ON JANUARY 23, 1977, MR. TEDESCO, PRESIDENT OF THE COMPLAINANT, SENT
 A MAILGRAM TO RESPONDENT REFERENCING THE FLRC DECISION AND ARTICLE
 21,SECTION 3 OF THE AGREEMENT, AND REQUESTING "1.  THAT ALL TECHNICIANS
 IN THE BARGAINING UNIT IN NEW YORK STATE BE RETURNED TO CIVILIAN ATTIRE.
  2. THAT WE IMMEDIATELY RETURN TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE TO CONFIRM,
 CONSULT AND NEGOTIATE THE UNIFORM ISSUE." (JOINT EXHIBIT 6).
 
    IN AN EXCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RESPONDENT TOOK THE POSITION THAT
 ARTICLE 21, SECTION 3 CONTAINED PERMISSIVE LANGUAGE WHICH DID NOT
 MANDATE IMMEDIATE NEGOTIATIONS LIMITED SOLELY TO UNIFORM WEARING, USE OF
 RANK AND GROOMING STANDARDS.  RESPONDENT ALSO ASSERTED THAT IT WAS NOT
 IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL GUARD TO PROCEED WITH NEGOTIATIONS
 ON THESE MATTERS INASMUCH AS THEIR NEGOTIABILITY WAS STILL INVOLVED IN
 PENDING LITIGATION.  (JOINT EX.  12).  RESPONDENT WAS AWARE THAT THE
 NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU HAD PETITIONED THE FLRC TO RECONSIDER AND STAY ITS
 JANUARY 19, 1977 DECISION, AND FELT THAT UNTIL THE FLRC EITHER REJECTED
 THE PETITION OR RULED ON IT, A STAY OF THE FLRC DECISION WAS IN EFFECT.
 (TR. 38;  69-70;  156).  RESPONDENT NOTED THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT THE PARTIES WERE DUE TO COMMENCE NEGOTIATION ON A
 NEW AGREEMENT AS OF AUGUST 1977 /3/ AND OFFERED TO OPEN THE ENTIRE
 CONTRACT FOR NEGOTIATION.  (JOINT EX. 10, 12).
 
    THE COMPLAINANT REJECTED THE OFFER TO REOPEN COMPLETE CONTRACT
 NEGOTIATIONS, AND, ON APRIL 18, 1977, FORMALLY REQUESTED THAT THE
 DISPUTE CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 21, SECTION 3 BE
 REFERRED TO IMPARTIAL ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 17 OF THE
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AND THAT THE PARTIES MEET TO SELECT AN ARBITRATOR.
 (JOINT EX. 14).  SINCE NO MEETING WAS HELD, THE COMPLAINANT, PURSUANT TO
 ARTICLE 17, SECTION 2, OF THE AGREEMENT, REQUESTED THE FEDERAL MEDIATION
 AND CONCILIATION SERVICE (FMCS) TO SUBMIT A LIST OF FIVE QUALIFIED
 ARBITRATORS.  COMPLAINANT CHECKED A.SQUARE ON THE FORM WHICH INDICATED
 THAT THE "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" WAS THE "TYPE OF INDUSTRY" INVOLVED IN THE
 DISPUTE.  (JOINT EX. 15-18).
 
    THE FMCS SUBSEQUENTLY FORWARDED A LIST OF FIVE ARBITRATORS, AND THE
 COMPLAINANT REQUESTED A MEETING WITH RESPONDENT TO SELECT AN ARBITRATOR
 FROM THE LIST.  (TR.  45).  ARTICLE 17, SECTION 2 OF THE NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR THE SELECTION OF AN ARBITRATOR IN THESE
 CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
 
    THE PARTIES SHALL MEET WITHIN FIVE (5) WORK DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF
 SUCH LIST.  IF THEY
 
    CANNOT MUTUALLY AGREE UPON ONE (1) OF THE LISTED ARBITRATORS, THE
 EMPLOYER AND THE UNION WILL
 
    EACH STRIKE ONE (1) NAME FROM THE LIST OF FIVE (5) AND SHALL THEN
 REPEAT THIS PROCEDURE.  THE
 
    PERSON WHOSE NAME REMAINS ON THE LIST SHALL BE THE DULY SELECTED
 ARBITRATOR.  (JOINT EX. 1,
 
    P. 20).
 
    THE PARTIES MET ON MAY 17, 1977;  HOWEVER, RESPONDENT REFUSED TO
 SELECT AN ARBITRATOR FROM THE LIST.  (TR. 46).  RESPONDENT POINTED OUT
 TO COMPLAINANT THAT NONE OF THE ARBITRATORS ON THE LIST HAD ANY
 EXPERIENCE IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR AND SUGGESTED THAT THE PARTIES REQUEST
 A SECOND LIST OF ARBITRATORS WITH FEDERAL SECTOR EXPERIENCE.  (TR. 46,
 JOINT EX. 19).  COMPLAINANT REJECTED THIS OFFICER AND INSISTED ON
 SELECTING AN ARBITRATOR BY THE MEANS SET OUT IN THE AGREEMENT.  (TR.
 102-103).  RESPONDENT REPLIED THAT IT WOULD FORWARD A LETTER TO THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY CONCERNING THE MATTER.  (TR. 48-49).
 
    ON MAY 18, 1977 RESPONDENT WROTE DIRECTLY TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
 OF LABOR FOR LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS SETTING FORTH THE HISTORY OF THE
 DISPUTE AND REQUESTING THAT HE REVIEW THE PETITION FOR ARBITRATION.
 RESPONDENT ALLEGED THAT NEGOTIATION ON THE UNIFORM ISSUE WOULD BE
 PREMATURE PENDING A REPLY OF THE FLRC TO THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST;
 THAT RESPONDENT WAS WILLING TO OPEN THE ENTIRE CONTRACT FOR NEGOTIATION;
  AND, IF THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE, THAT A SECOND LIST OF ARBITRATORS WITH
 FEDERAL EXPERIENCE SHOULD BE PROVIDED.  (JOINT EX.  19).
 
    BY LETTER DATED MAY 31, 1977 THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
 LABOR FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ADVISED RESPONDENT THAT THE PROPER
 PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING A DETERMINATION REGARDING ARBITRABILITY WAS TO
 FILE AN APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 205 OF THE ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY'S REGULATIONS, AND THAT FURTHER INFORMATION COULD BE OBTAINED
 FROM, OR SUCH AN APPLICATION FILED WITH, THE NEW YORK AREA OFFICE OF THE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.  (JOINT EXHIBIT 26).
 
    COMPLAINANT DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE LETTER, AND RESPONDENT DID
 NOT NOTIFY COMPLAINANT OF ITS RECEIPT.  RESPONDENT ALSO TOOK NO ACTION
 TO FILE AN APPLICATION REGARDING ARBITRABILITY WITH THE LOCAL OFFICE OF
 THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.  (TR. 59).
 
    ON MAY 18, 1977 THE FLRC RENDERED A FURTHER OPINION DENYING THE
 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND A STAY OF ITS JANUARY 19, 1977 DECISION.
  RESPONDENT RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION ON MAY 24, 1977.  (TR. 49).
 
    ON MAY 21, 1977 COMPLAINANT FILED A PETITION WITH THE UNITED STATES
 DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TO COMPEL
 RESPONDENT TO ARBITRATE THEIR DISAGREEMENT.  (JOINT EX. 27;  TR. 105).
 
    ON JUNE 8, 1977 COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT MET TO DISCUSS THE CASE.
 RESPONDENT'S POSITION WAS THAT IT WOULD NOT RETURN TO THE TABLE SOLELY
 TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF UNIFORM WEARING, BUT WOULD RETURN TO NEGOTIATE
 THE WHOLE CONTRACT.  (TR. 106;  137).  COMPLAINANT INSISTED ON A RETURN
 TO DISCUSS THE UNIFORM ISSUE PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT;  HOWEVER, IT
 EXPRESSED A WILLINGNESS TO COMMENCE NEGOTIATION ON THE WHOLE CONTRACT
 AND DISMISS THE COURT ACTION IF TECHNICIANS WERE IMMEDIATELY ALLOWED TO
 WEAR CIVILIAN ATTIRE.  NO AGREEMENT WAS REACHED.  (TR.  137-138).
 
    ON AUGUST 16, 1977 COMPLAINANT REQUESTED RESPONDENT TO ADVISE IT
 CONCERNING THE STATUS OF RESPONDENT'S "ALLEGED PETITION FOR
 ARBITRABILITY" WHICH HAD BEEN SENT TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY.  (JOINT
 EX. 20).
 
    ON AUGUST 19, 1977 RESPONDENT REPLIED THAT NO FURTHER CLARIFICATION
 COULD BE OFFERED AS THE REQUEST "MUST STILL BE UNDER CONSIDERATION."
 (JOINT EX. 21).
 
    ON AUGUST 29, 1977 RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL WROTE THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
 REQUESTING THE STATUS OF THE "ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO REQUEST AN
 ARBITRABILITY DECISION FROM YOUR OFFICE." HE NOTED THAT "THE UNION HAS
 HELD IN ABEYANCE ALL PROPOSED ACTIONS IN FRONT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
 LABOR AWAITING SOME RESPONSE . . .  HOWEVER, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING
 THAT THE MAY 18TH LETTER IS INAPPROPRIATE TO COMMENCE ON ARBITRABILITY
 REQUEST AND SUCH MATTERS SHOULD BE INITIATED IN FRONT OF THE LOCAL
 OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR." (JOINT EX. 22).
 
    ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1977 RESPONDENT FORWARDED A LETTER TO COMPLAINANT'S
 COUNSEL AND ENCLOSED A COPY OF AN ARBITRABILITY DECISION THAT IT CLAIMED
 PERTAINED TO THE DISPUTE.  (JOINT EX. 23).  SINCE THE ENCLOSURE HAD
 NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UNIFORM DISPUTE, COMPLAINANT'S COUNSEL OBJECTED
 TO THE MATERIAL AND REITERATED THAT COMPLAINANT WAS REQUESTING
 INFORMATION CONCERNING "YOUR ALLEGED AND IMPROPER REQUEST DIRECTLY TO
 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY . . . OF MAY 18, 1977 . .  . " (JOINT EX. 24).
 
    ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1977 THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR
 ADVISED COMPLAINANT'S COUNSEL THAT IT HAD RESPONDED TO RESPONDENT'S MAY
 18, 4977 REQUEST ON MAY 31, 1977 BY FURNISHING INFORMATION AS TO THE
 CORRECT PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING A DETERMINATION REGARDING
 ARBITRABILITY, BUT THAT NO SUCH APPLICATION HAD BEEN FILED.  (JOINT EX.
 25).
 
    THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE AND COMPLAINT WERE FILED SHORTLY
 THEREAFTER.  (ASST. SEC. EX. 18).
 
    ON APRIL 14, 1978, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
 DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DISMISSED, AS MOOT, COMPLAINANT'S PETITION TO
 COMPEL RESPONDENT TO ARBITRATE, ON THE BASIS THAT THE NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT EXPIRED IN SEPTEMBER OF 1977.  (JOINT EX. 27).
 
                DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
    1.  ALLEGED REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE UNIFORM WEARING UNDER TERMS OF
 AGREEMENT
 
    COMPLAINANT CONTENDS THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND
 (6) OF THE ORDER BY BREACHING ARTICLE 21, SECTION 3 OF THE NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT, WHEN, FOLLOWING THE JANUARY 19, 1977 DECISION OF THE FLRC
 THAT THE UNIFORM WEARING ISSUE WAS NEGOTIABLE, AND/OR THE MAY 18, 1977
 FLRC DECISION DENYING THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND A STAY.
 RESPONDENT REFUSED TO MEET TO CONSIDER PROPOSALS RELATIVE TO SUCH
 MATTERS.  AS NOTED, ARTICLE 21, SECTION 3, PROVIDED THAT "WHEN A
 DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BY HIGHER AUTHORITY THAT MATTERS PREVIOUSLY
 DETERMINED TO BE NON-NEGOTIABLE MAY NOW BE NEGOTIATED, BOTH PARTIES WILL
 MEET TO CONSIDER PROPOSALS RELATIVE TO SUCH MATTERS."
 
    A PARTY TO A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT ACTS AS ITS PERIL IN INTERPRETING
 AND APPLYING SUCH AGREEMENT.  THUS, IF THE RESPONDENT'S INTERPRETATION
 OF THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WAS SUCH THAT IT RESULTED IN A CLEAR AND
 PATENT BREACH OF THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, THEN SUCH INTERPRETATION
 COULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
 IF RESPONDENT'S INTERPRETATION WAS ARGUABLY WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, THEN SUCH INTERPRETATION WOULD MERELY BE A MATTER
 OF CONTRACT INTERPRETATION TO BE RESOLVED THROUGH THE PARTIES' GRIEVANCE
 AND ARBITRATION MACHINERY.  SEE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL AIR REWORK
 FACILITY, A/SLMR NO. 1089 (1978) AND CASES CITED THEREIN.
 
    SECTION 19(D) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART,
 "ISSUES WHICH CAN BE RAIDED UNDER A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE MAY, IN THE
 DISCRETION OF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY, BE RAISED UNDER THAT PROCEDURE OR THE
 COMPLAINT PROCEDURE, BUT NOT UNDER BOTH PROCEDURES." SINCE THE PRECISE
 ISSUE RAISED IN THE COMPLAINT OF WHETHER RESPONDENT BREACHED ARTICLE 21,
 SECTION 3 OF THE AGREEMENT BY REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE THE UNIFORM WEARING
 ISSUE FOLLOWING THE FLRC DECISION WAS ALSO RAISED UNDER THE
 GRIEVANCE-ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT, THIS PORTION OF THE
 COMPLAINT IS BARRED FROM CONSIDERATION UNDER THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
 PROCEDURES BY SECTION 19(D) OF THE ORDER.  CF. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
 U.S. ARMY TRANSPORTATION CENTER AND FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA, 6 A/SLMR NO.
 681 (1976);  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS, EUROPE, CASE NO.
 22-08769(CA)(1978).
 
    2.  ALLEGED REFUSAL TO ARBITRATE DISPUTE ON MAY 18, 1977 AND JUNE 8,
 1977 UNDER TERMS OF AGREEMENT.
 
    COMPLAINANT CONTENDS THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND
 (6) OF THE ORDER BY UNILATERALLY REFUSING TO PROCEED TO ARBITRATION ON
 MAY 18, 1977 AND JUNE 8, 1977 PURSUANT TO THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AND
 BY UNILATERALLY REJECTING THE LIST OF ARBITRATORS.
 
    WHEN A PARTY IN GOOD FAITH ASSERTS THAT A MATTER IS NOT ARBITRABLE
 UNDER A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, A DETERMINATION OF ARBITRABILITY WAS
 AVAILABLE FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY PURSUANT TO SECTION 13(D) OF THE
 ORDER, AND THIS PROCEDURE WAS THE PROPER VEHICLE FOR RESOLUTION OF SUCH
 AN ISSUE.  NAVAL AIR REWORK FACILITY, A/SLMR NO. 849 (1977).  THE
 ESSENTIAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS WERE
 TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH.
 
    THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT ON MAY 18, 1977 RESPONDENT APPEARED TO
 SERIOUSLY QUESTION, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WHETHER IT WAS REQUIRED TO
 PROCEED TO ARBITRATION ON AN ISSUE RELATING TO THE UNIFORM WEARING
 DISPUTE WHILE THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND STAY OF THE FLRC
 DECISION WAS PENDING.  INASMUCH AS THE RESPONDENT OFFERED TO, AND DID,
 FORWARD A LETTER TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY CONCERNING THE MATTER,
 ALBEIT TO THE WRONG OFFICE, I CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT ACTED IN
 BAD FAITH AT THIS TIME.
 
    HOWEVER, THE QUESTION AS TO THE FINALITY OF THE FLRC DECISION WAS
 RENDERED MOOT ON MAY 18, 1977, WHEN THE FLRC DENIED THE MOTION FOR
 RECONSIDERATION AND A STAY, AND RESPONDENT LEARNED OF THIS DECISION ON
 MAY 24, 1977.  MOREOVER, UPON BEING ADVISED BY THE OFFICE OF THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY AS TO THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING A
 DETERMINATION OF ARBITRABILITY, ON MAY 31, 1977, RESPONDENT NEITHER
 SOUGHT TO DO SO, NOR DID IT ADVISE COMPLAINANT OF THE FACT THAT ITS
 REQUEST TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY WAS NOT LONGER PENDING.  THEREFORE,
 RESPONDENT WAS OBLIGATED AT THIS TIME EITHER TO NEGOTIATE THE UNIFORM
 WEARING ISSUE OR TO SELECT AN ARBITRATOR AND PROCEED TO ARBITRATION ON
 THE DISPUTE AS TO THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 21, SECTION 3, AS HAD BEEN
 REQUESTED.
 
    RESPONDENT'S POSITION THAT IT COULD TAKE NO ACTION AFTER MAY 21, 1977
 BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL . . . . . . IS WITHOUT MERIT.  THE ACTION IN THE
 FEDERAL COURT WAS NOT TO ENJOIN ACTION BY RESPONDENT IN CONFORMANCE WITH
 THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, BUT TO COMPEL RESPONDENT TO ARBITRATE THE DISPUTE.
 IT DID NOT PREVENT RESPONDENT FROM EITHER NEGOTIATING THE ISSUE OF
 UNIFORM WEARING UNDER ARTICLE 21, SECTION 3, OR PROCEEDING TO
 VOLUNTARILY ARBITRATE THE DISPUTE.  INDEED, ANY ACTION OF THIS NATURE BY
 RESPONDENT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE RENDERED THE COURT ACTION MOOT.  I FIND
 RESPONDENT'S OTHER EXCUSES FOR FAILING TO PROCEED AT THIS TIME ALSO TO
 BE WITHOUT MERIT.
 
    THEREFORE, RESPONDENT'S ACTION ON JUNE 18, 1977 IN UNILATERALLY
 REFUSING TO ARBITRATE THE DISPUTE AS TO ARTICLE 21, SECTION 3 IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE IN
 GOOD FAITH AND VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.  CF.
 ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, DIX-MCGUIRE CONSOLIDATED EXCHANGE,
 FORT DIX, NEW JERSEY, 6 A/SLMR 456 (1976), A/SLMR NO. 700.
 
    3.  ALLEGED FURNISHING OF MISLEADING INFORMATION
 
    COMPLAINANT ALSO ASSERTS THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTION IN PROVIDING THE
 UNION WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION CONCERNING THE STATUS OF RESPONDENT'S
 MAY 18, 1977 LETTER TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)
 (1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.
 
    THE RESPONDENT DID NOT ADVISE COMPLAINANT OF THE MAY 31, 1977 REPLY
 OF THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY WHICH IT RECEIVED IN RESPONSE
 TO RESPONDENT'S MAY 18, 1977 LETTER CONCERNING COMPLAINANT'S PETITION
 FOR ARBITRATION.  FURTHERMORE, WHEN COMPLAINANT INQUIRED OF RESPONDENT
 CONCERNING THE STATUS OF RESPONDENT'S "ALLEGED PETITION FOR
 ARBITRABILITY," ALMOST TWO AND ONE HALF MONTHS LATER, RESPONDENT WRONGLY
 REPLIED THAT NO FURTHER CLARIFICATION COULD BE OFFERED AS THE REQUEST
 "MUST STILL BE UNDER CONSIDERATION." LATER, RESPONDENT FORWARDED AN
 ARBITRABILITY DECISION TO COMPLAINANT WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
 MATTER.
 
    AGENCY MANAGEMENT MUST PROVIDE AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE WITH
 INFORMATION IT SEEKS WHICH IS NECESSARY AND RELEVANT FOR THE PERFORMANCE
 OF ITS REPRESENTATIONAL FUNCTIONS.  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE AND IRS MILWAUKEE DISTRICT, A/SLMR NO. 1133(1978).
 
    THE INFORMATION WHICH THE UNION SOUGHT WAS RELEVANT AND NECESSARY
 INFORMATION RELATING TO ITS DUTY TO ADMINISTER ITS NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT
 AND TO PERFORM ITS REPRESENTATIONAL FUNCTION.  THE UNION WAS HOLDING IN
 ABEYANCE FURTHER ACTION TO ENFORCE ITS RIGHTS UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
 WHILE THE "ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO REQUEST AN ARBITRABILITY DECISION" WAS
 PENDING.  (JOINT EX. 22).  WHILE THE UNION COULD HAVE OBTAINED A STATUS
 REPORT ON RESPONDENT'S REQUEST DIRECTLY FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, AS
 IT LATER DID, NEVERTHELESS, UPON MAKING THE REQUEST OF RESPONDENT FOR
 THE INFORMATION, RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO PROVIDE THE
 UNION THE FULL, ACCURATE, AND COMPLETE INFORMATION WHICH IT THEN
 POSSESSED.  INSTEAD, RESPONDENT HANDLED THE REQUEST IN SUCH A MANNER AS
 TO MISLEAD AND FRUSTRATE COMPLAINANT'S EFFORTS.  I CONCLUDE THAT
 RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS, WHICH RESULTED IN A FAILURE TO FURNISH THE UNION
 THE INFORMATION WHICH IT SOUGHT, VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF
 THE ORDER.
 
                              RECOMMENDATIONS
 
    UPON THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND THE
 ENTIRE RECORD, I RECOMMEND THAT THE AUTHORITY DISMISS, AS BARRED BY
 SECTION 19(D) OF THE ORDER, THAT PART OF THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT
 RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BY
 UNILATERALLY BREACHING THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT IN REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE
 THE UNIFORM WEARING ISSUE FOLLOWING THE FLRC DECISION, AND ADOPT THE
 FOLLOWING ORDER CONCERNING THE OTHER VIOLATIONS:
 
                             RECOMMENDED ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, 29
 C.F.R. SECTION 203.26(B), AND SECTION 2400.2 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R.  2400.2 FED.REG.VOL. 44, NO. 1, JANUARY 2, 1979,
 P. 7), THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF ARMY AND AIR
 FORCE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DIVISION OF MILITARY AFFAIRS, STATE OF NEW
 YORK, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) UNILATERALLY REFUSING TO PROCEED TO ARBITRATION REGARDING A
 DISAGREEMENT CONCERNING THE
 
    INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 21, SECTION 3 OF ITS
 SEPTEMBER 15, 1975 NEGOTIATED
 
    AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW YORK
 COUNCIL, AND THE SELECTION OF
 
    AN ARBITRATOR, AFTER RECEIVING TIMELY NOTICE OF SAID LABOR
 ORGANIZATIONS DESIRE TO INVOKE
 
    ARBITRATION AND TO HAVE AN ARBITRATOR SELECTED PURSUANT TO THE
 AGREEMENT.
 
    (B) REFUSING TO FURNISH, UPON REQUEST BY THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN,
 TECHNICIANS, NEW YORK
 
    COUNCIL, THE EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, SUCH INFORMATION AS
 IS NECESSARY AND
 
    RELEVANT TO ENABLE IT TO PERFORM ITS REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
 
    THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
 AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, PROCEED TO THE SELECTION OF AN ARBITRATOR AND
 ARBITRATION REGARDING A
 
    DISAGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF ARTICLE
 21, SECTION 3 OF ITS
 
    SEPTEMBER 15, 1975 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF
 CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW YORK
 
    COUNCIL.
 
    (B) UPON REQUEST, FURNISH SUCH INFORMATION AS IS NECESSARY AND
 RELEVANT TO THE ASSOCIATION
 
    OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW YORK COUNCIL, TO ENABLE IT TO PERFORM
 ITS REPRESENTATIONAL
 
    DUTIES.
 
    (C) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AND INSTALLATIONS COPIES OF THE ATTACHED
 NOTICE MARKED
 
    "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT
 OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL
 
    BE SIGNED BY THE CHIEF OF STAFF AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY
 HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE
 
    DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS
 AND OTHER PLACES WHERE
 
    NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE CHIEF OF STAFF
 SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS
 
    TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY
 ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) PURSUANT TO SECTION 203.27 OF THE REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE THE
 AUTHORITY IN WRITING,
 
    WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE
 BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY
 
    HEREWITH.
 
                             GARVIN LEE OLIVER
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  JANUARY 24, 1979
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
    APPENDIX
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
           PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 
            RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 
               POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED
 
             LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT UNILATERALLY REFUSE TO SELECT AN ARBITRATOR AND PROCEED
 TO ARBITRATION REGARDING A DISAGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR
 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 21, SECTION 3 OF OUR SEPTEMBER 15, 1975
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW
 YORK COUNCIL, AFTER RECEIVING TIMELY NOTICE OF SAID LABOR ORGANIZATION'S
 DESIRE TO INVOKE ARBITRATION.
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO FURNISH, UPON REQUEST BY THE ASSOCIATION OF
 CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NEW YORK COUNCIL, SUCH INFORMATION AS IS NECESSARY
 AND RELEVANT TO ENABLE IT TO PERFORM ITS REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS, ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, PROCEED TO ARBITRATION REGARDING A
 DISAGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 21,
 SECTION 3, OF OUR NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSOCIA