Department of the Air Force, Space Division, Los Angeles, California (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2429, AFL-CIO (Charging Party)
[ v06 p439 ]
06:0439(78)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
6 FLRA No. 78
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
SPACE DIVISION
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429
Charging Party
Case No. 8-CA-137
DECISION AND ORDER
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED RECOMMENDED DECISION
AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT
HAD ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT
CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. THE
JUDGE ALSO FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN CERTAIN OTHER
ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDED THAT THOSE PORTIONS OF
THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED. THEREAFTER, THE UNION, THE RESPONDENT AND
THE GENERAL COUNSEL FILED EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTING BRIEFS TO THE
JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER. THE RESPONDENT ALSO FILED AN
OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S EXCEPTIONS.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
(5 CFR 2423.29) AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE), THE AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED THE RULINGS
OF THE JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS
COMMITTED. THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED. UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE
JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS
CASE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AS MODIFIED HEREIN.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE, THE
AUTHORITY HERE0Y ORDERS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, SPACE
DIVISION, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, SHALL:
1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(A) DENYING PERMISSION TO UNION NEGOTIATORS TO ATTEND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429.
(B) REQUIRING UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME TO SELECT
ANNUAL LEAVE, ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY STATUS PRIOR TO
ATTENDING BONA FIDE NEGOTIATING SESSIONS.
(C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR
COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL
SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
(A) UPON REQUEST, ALLOW UNION NEGOTIATORS TO ATTEND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429.
(B) UPON REQUEST, ALLOW UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME
TO ATTEND DULY AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429, WITHOUT SIGNING
FOR ANNUAL LEAVE, ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.
(C) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, SPACE
DIVISION, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON
FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY. UPON
RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE INSTALLATION
COMMANDER, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, SPACE DIVISION, LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA, 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
INSTALLATION COMMANDER SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID
NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
(D) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION VIII, FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS
ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 19, 1981
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
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 DENY REQUESTS FROM UNION NEGOTIATORS TO ATTEND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429.
WE WILL NOT PREVENT UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME FROM
ATTENDING DULY AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429, WITHOUT SIGNING
FOR ANNUAL LEAVE, ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.
WE WILL NOT, IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, ALLOW UNION NEGOTIATORS TO ATTEND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429.
WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, ALLOW UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL
TIME TO ATTEND DULY AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429, WITHOUT SIGNING
FOR ANNUAL LEAVE, ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.
(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
MATERIAL.
IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:
WORLD TRADE CENTER, 350 S. FIGUEROA STREET, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA 90071, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS: (213) 688-3805.
-------------------- ALJ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
JOSEPH SWERDZEWSKI, ESQ.
FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
MAJOR JERRY BRASEL, ESQ.
FOR THE RESPONDENT
BEFORE: ELI NASH, JR.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
CASE NO. 8-CA-137
DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THIS MATTER AROSE PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS STATUTE, 92 STAT. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101, ET SEQ., AS THE RESULT
OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WHICH ISSUED ON JANUARY 15, 1980, BASED UPON A
CHARGE FILED BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429, HEREIN CALLED THE UNION, ON JULY 5, 1979. /1/
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE SPACE
DIVISION, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, HEREIN CALLED RESPONDENT, VIOLATED:
(1) SEC. 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS STATUTE, CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE U.S. CODE 5 U.S.C.
SECTION 7101 ET SEQ., HEREIN CALLED THE STATUTE, BY UNILATERALLY
DESIGNATING THE NUMBER OF UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME
FOR NEGOTIATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WITHOUT AFFORDING
THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND NEGOTIATE THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS
ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME, AND BY UNILATERALLY REQUIRING THE UNION'S
NEGOTIATORS TO SELECT ANNUAL LEAVE, LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, OR ABSENCE
WITHOUT LEAVE STATUS; (2) SEC. 7116(A)(1) AND (2) BY REQUIRING
SUPERVISORS OF UNION MEMBERS TO PLACE THESE MEMBERS IN ABSENCE WITHOUT
LEAVE STATUS DURING PERIODS THE MEMBERS ACTED AS NEGOTIATORS; AND (3)
SEC. 7116(A)(1) BY DENYING THE REQUEST OF AN EMPLOYEE TO ATTEND CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS.
AN ANSWER TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS FILED BY RESPONDENT WHICH, IN
SUBSTANCE, DENIED THE COMMISSION OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.
A HEARING WAS HELD IN THIS MATTER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AT THE LOS
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AIR FORCE STATION, ON FEBRUARY 19, 1980. ALL
PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD, ADDUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESSES. ALL PARTIES FILED BRIEFS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE
WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, THE EXHIBITS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE
ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
RESPONDENT AND THE UNION, WHICH IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED HEREIN, ARE PARTIES TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS WHICH COVERED APPROPRIATED FUND AND NON-APPROPRIATED FUND
EMPLOYEES AT RESPONDENT'S FACILITY DURING ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN.
ON OR ABOUT MAY 15, 1978, THE PARTIES NEGOTIATED AND SIGNED A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING GOVERNING PROCEDURES FOR THE NEGOTIATION
OF
A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WHICH SET FORTH GROUND RULES TO BE FOLLOWED IN
NEGOTIATING THE PARTIES' CONTRACTS INVOLVED HEREIN. THE GROUND RULES
PROVIDED IN SECTION 4 THAT THE UNION WOULD RECEIVE (200) TWO HUNDRED
HOURS OF OFFICIAL TIME FOR NEGOTIATION OF THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND
CONTRACT AND, IN SECTION 5, THAT EACH NEGOTIATING TEAM WOULD CONSIST OF
NOT MORE THAN FIVE MEMBERS. BY THE END OF 1978 THE UNION HAD EXHAUSTED
ALL OF ITS OFFICIAL TIME PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE GROUND RULES AND
NEGOTIATIONS WERE HELD OFF THE CLOCK.
SOME TIME AROUND JANUARY 25, 1980, RESPONDENT RECEIVED GUIDANCE FROM
AIR FORCE COMMAND ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 7131(A) OF THE STATUTE,
/2/ TO THE EFFECT THAT THE "GROUND RULES WERE STILL IN EFFECT AS FAR AS
THE AMOUNT OF MEMBERS FOR EACH TEAM WAS CONCERNED; HOWEVER, WITH THE
CHANGE IN THE LAW, IF THE OFFICIAL TIME WAS USED UP THE UNION COULD ONLY
HAVE AS MANY MEMBERS AS THE MANAGEMENT TEAM ON OFFICIAL TIME."
APPARENTLY, PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE, THE PARTIES DID NOT
DISCUSS THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE ON THE NEGOTIATIONS WHICH WERE TAKING
PLACE.
RESPONDENT'S CHIEF NEGOTIATOR AND LABOR RELATIONS SPECIALIST, JEFFREY
VAN VOHRIS, TESTIFIED THAT AFTER HE WAS ADVISED OF THE AIR FORCE
POSITION, HE CALLED THE UNION PRESIDENT AND CHIEF NEGOTIATOR BERTHA
JONES IN LATE JANUARY AND ADVISED HER THAT RESPONDENT WAS "DESIGNATING
FOR THE UPCOMING APPROPRIATED FUND NEGOTIATIONS THREE, AND FOR ANY
FUTURE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND NEGOTIATIONS WE MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE BECAUSE
OF THE REFORM ACT REVISIONS WE WERE MAKING IT, IT WOULD BE TWO."
ACCORDING TO VAN VOHRIS, JONES RESPONDED, "BUT I'M NOT INTERESTED IN
WHAT AIR FORCE POSITION IS. WE DO NOT AGREE."
NEGOTIATION SESSIONS WERE HELD ON THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT
ON FEBRUARY 6, 1979, MARCH 2, 1979, MARCH 12, 1979, AND APRIL 17, 1979.
UNION PRESIDENT AND CHIEF NEGOTIATOR, BERTHA JONES, WAS THE ONLY UNION
NEGOTIATOR AT THE FEBRUARY 6, 1979 SESSION AND RECEIVED OFFICIAL TIME
FOR HER PARTICIPATION. AT THE SECOND SESSION, HELD ON MARCH 2, 1979,
JONES WAS JOINED BY GLORIA HEWETT, UNION VICE PRESIDENT AND ALTERNATE
CHIEF NEGOTIATOR. THE PARTIES DISCUSSED CHANGES BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE
ENACTMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT. IN ADDITION, THE UNION TOLD
RESPONDENT THAT IT WAS REDUCING ITS TEAM FROM FIVE TO THREE MEMBERS.
JONES TESTIFIED THAT THE REDUCTION WAS BECAUSE SHE FELT IT NEEDED ONLY
THREE NEGOTIATORS. HEWETT TESTIFIED THAT THIS WAS DONE PRIMARILY
BECAUSE THERE WERE ONLY THREE MEMBERS LEFT ON THE MANAGEMENT TEAM.
HEWETT, ALTHOUGH STATING THAT SHE KNEW THAT THERE WERE THREE MEMBERS ON
THE MANAGEMENT TEAM, RECALLED ONLY VAN VOHRIS BEING PRESENT AT THIS
MEETING. RESPONDENT HAD TWO NEGOTIATORS PRESENT AT MOST OF THESE
MEETINGS, INCLUDING VAN VOHRIS. BOTH HEWETT AND JONES RECEIVED OFFICIAL
TIME FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION DURING THESE MEETINGS. AT THE APRIL 17,
1979 SESSION, WHICH WAS A SIGNING CEREMONY, JONES WAS JOINED BY NATIONAL
REPRESENTATIVES. SHE WAS THE ONLY LOCAL NEGOTIATOR PRESENT AND RECEIVED
OFFICIAL TIME FOR THIS SESSION.
AROUND MAY 16, 1979, JONES WAS INFORMED BY VAN VOHRIS THAT CERTAIN
PARTS OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND HAD BEEN DISAPPROVED
AND THAT THE "MANAGEMENT TEAM" WAS PREPARED TO RETURN TO THE BARGAINING
TABLE.
PURSUANT TO RESPONDENT'S LETTER, JONES AND HEWETT WENT TO A MEETING
TO RENEGOTIATE THE DISAPPROVED PARTS OF THE CONTRACT SCHEDULED FOR MAY
25, 1979. ACCORDING TO JONES, THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROBLEM WITH OFFICIAL
TIME UNTIL THIS MEETING. JONES TESTIFIED THAT AT THE MEETING ATTENDED
BY VAN VOHRIS, HEWETT AND HERSELF, THAT VAN VOHRIS "INDICATED THAT HE
WANTED TO KNOW WHICH ONE OF US WAS ON ANNUAL LEAVE BECAUSE MANAGEMENT
WAS ALONE ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY AND THEREFORE WE WOULD BE AUTHORIZED
ONE NEGOTIATOR." JONES REPLIED THAT, "HE WAS BEING UNREASONABLE AND WE
HAD PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO THREE AND CERTAINLY A TEAM OF ONE WAS NOT A
TEAM." HEWETT TESTIFIED THAT VAN VOHRIS TOLD THEM AT THE OUTSET THAT "WE
WERE ON AWOL" AND THAT ONLY ONE PERSON WAS GOING TO BE AUTHORIZED
OFFICIAL TIME BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE MEMBER LEFT ON THE MANAGEMENT
TEAM. PHYLLIS SIMMONS, THE THIRD UNION NEGOTIATOR, ARRIVED ABOUT AN
HOUR LATE FOR THE MEETING AND STATES THAT BEFORE SHE COULD SIT DOWN.
"VAN VOHRIS SAID, 'YOU COULD BE ON AWOL', OR HE WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT
FROM BERTHA WHO COULD BE ON AWOL." SIMMONS CONTINUED THAT VAN VOHRIS
INSISTED ON OFFICIAL TIME ON A "ONE-TO-ONE BASIS." THE MEETING
PROCEEDED, BUT ALL THREE UNION REPRESENTATIVES WERE CONSEQUENTLY
CHARGED
AWOL. THE UNION HAD RECEIVED NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THE DESIGNATION OF ONE
MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATOR FOR THIS MEETING.
ON JUNE 1, 1979, VAN VOHRIS WROTE JONES CITING P.L. 95-454, TITLE
VII, SEC. 7131(A) AND STATING THAT, "SINCE JANUARY 1979 THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE CSRA THE SAMSO MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATIONS TEAM HAS CONSISTED OF
THREE MEMBERS, THE NAF MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATING TEAM HAD CONSISTED OF TWO
MEMBERS. THEREFORE, OFFICIAL TIME MAY BE GRANTED FOR THREE UNION
NEGOTIATORS IN THE SAMSO AGREEMENT /3/ AND FOR TWO UNION NEGOTIATORS ON
THE NAF AGREEMENT. ANY UNION NEGOTIATORS IN EXCESS OF THE NUMBERS
OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS REPRESENTING MANAGEMENT WILL NOT RECEIVE
OFFICIAL TIME."
A JUNE 6, 1979 LETTER FROM VAN VOHRIS TO JONES STATES THAT PRIOR TO
THE MAY 25, 1979 MEETING, HE HAD REQUESTED THAT JONES DESIGNATE THE
UNION NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL TIME, AND STATE THAT THERE WERE THREE
NEGOTIATORS PRESENT AT THE MEETING WHEN THE UNION WAS ONLY AUTHORIZED
TWO ON OFFICIAL TIME. THE LETTER ADDED THAT JONES HAD REFUSED TO
DESIGNATE THE NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL TIME. VAN VOHRIS CONCLUDED BY
STATING THAT MANAGEMENT HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE WHICH UNION
NEGOTIATORS COULD BE CARRIED ON OFFICIAL TIME, AND REQUESTED THE UNION
MAKE THE DESIGNATION SO THAT THE TWO NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL
TIME COULD RECEIVE THE TIME. THEREAFTER, IN A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON
OR ABOUT JUNE 8, 1979, VAN VOHRIS ASKED JONES IF SHE COULD AGREE TO TWO
NEGOTIATORS FOR THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT. JONES TOLD HIM THAT
SHE THOUGHT THAT THREE WAS A REASONABLE NUMBER.
SUBSEQUENTLY, BY LETTER DATED JUNE 8, 1979, VAN VOHRIS INFORMED THE
UNION THAT ALL THREE NEGOTIATORS WOULD BE CHARGED AWOL FOR THEIR
PARTICIPATION IN NEGOTIATIONS ON MAY 25, 1979. JONES RESPONDED BY
LETTER DATED JUNE 12, 1979, IN WHICH SHE STATED THAT VAN VOHRIS, AT THE
OUTSET OF THE MAY 25, 1979 MEETING, HAD SAID THAT THE UNION WAS ENTITLED
TO ONLY ONE NEGOTIATOR ON OFFICIAL TIME WHILE THE UNION ADVISED HIM
THAT, AS AGREED TO PREVIOUSLY, ITS TEAM CONSISTED OF THREE. IN A LETTER
DATED JUNE 15, 1979, VAN VOHRIS ONCE AGAIN STATED RESPONDENT'S POSITION
THAT UNDER SEC. 7131(A), "OFFICIAL TIME FOR UNION NEGOTIATORS SHALL NOT
EXCEED THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS DESIGNATED AS REPRESENTING THE AGENCY."
JONES, HEWETT, AND PHYLLIS SIMMONS EACH WERE CHARGED WITH TWO HOURS
ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE (AWOL) FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE MAY 25, 1979
NEGOTIATIONS. SIMMONS' TWO HOURS OF AWOL WERE LATER REDUCED TO ONE
HOUR. THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT ONLY TWO UNION NEGOTIATORS WERE PRESENT
FOR THE FIRST HOUR OF THE NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS DATE.
NEGOTIATIONS ON THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT CONTINUED ON JUNE
22, 1979. THE UNION NEGOTIATION TEAM DURING THIS SESSION CONSISTED OF
JONES, HEWETT, AND SANDY RUCKER. THE COMPOSITION OF THE UNION
NEGOTIATION TEAM WAS AGAIN CHALLENGED BY VAN VOHRIS WHO INDICATED, AT
THAT TIME, THAT ALL THOSE IN EXCESS OF TWO WOULD BE CHARGE AWOL. BOTH
JONES AND HEWETT WERE CHARGED AWOL FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THIS
NEGOTIATION SESSION AND RUCKER, AFTER BEING TOLD BY HIS SUPERVISOR THAT
HE WOULD BE CHARGED AWOL UNLESS HE TOOK LEAVE FOR THE TIME HE
PARTICIPATED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS, ELECTED TO TAKE ANNUAL LEAVE. EVEN
THOUGH ONLY TWO NEGOTIATORS WERE ON OFFICIAL TIME AS A RESULT OF
RUCKER'S LEAVE, BOTH HEWETT AND JONES WERE CHARGED WITH AWOL FOR JUNE
22, 1979.
ON JUNE 25, 1979 NEGOTIATIONS ON THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT
CONTINUED WITH THE UNION'S NEGOTIATING TEAM AGAIN CONSISTING OF JONES,
HEWETT AND RUCKER. VAN VOHRIS AGAIN INDICATED THAT NEGOTIATORS IN
EXCESS OF TWO WOULD BE CHARGED AWOL FOR THIS SESSION. THIS NEGOTIATING
SESSION LASTED FROM 2:00 P.M. UNTIL 4:00 P.M. AS BEFORE, HEWETT AND
JONES WERE CHARGED AWOL FOR THIS SESSION. RUCKER'S NORMAL WORK DAY HAD
ENDED AT 2:30 P.M. BETWEEN 2:30 AND 4:00 P.M., WHICH WAS THE END OF
NEGOTIATIONS, HE WAS AT THE BARGAINING TABLE ON HIS OWN TIME. RUCKER
HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED AWOL FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1:00 P.M. AND 2:30
P.M., BUT BOTH JONES AND HEWETT WERE CHARGED WITH AWOL FOR THE PERIOD
2:30 P.M. TO 4:00 P.M. EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE ONLY TWO NEGOTIATORS ON
OFFICIAL TIME. DURING THE JUNE 22 AND JUNE 25 NEGOTIATIONS,
MANAGEMENT'S NEGOTIATING TEAM CONSISTED OF TWO NEGOTIATORS AND THE UNION
WAS TOLD THAT ALL THOSE IN EXCESS OF TWO WOULD BE CARRIED AS AWOL.
UNION PRESIDENT JONES TESTIFIED THAT WHILE ON THE TELEPHONE WITH
HEWETT ON JUNE 27, 1979, SHE OVERHEARD HEWETT'S SUPERVISOR, COLONEL LA
FAVE, TELL HEWETT THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A MEMORANDUM FROM VAN VOHRIS AND
BASED ON THAT MEMORANDUM HE WOULD HAVE TO CHARGE HER AWOL FOR THE
PREVIOUS NEGOTIATIONS, AND THAT HE COULD NOT GRANT HER PERMISSION TO GO
TO NEGOTIATIONS ON JUNE 28, 1979. HEWETT GIVES A SIMILAR ACCOUNT OF THE
CONVERSATION WITH COLONEL LA FAVE ON JUNE 27, 1979, SAYING THAT LA FAVE
BROUGHT HER A MEMORANDUM FROM VAN VOHRIS, ALLEGEDLY STATING THAT HE HAD
BEEN AUTHORIZED "TO CHARGE ME AWOL". HEWETT STATES THAT SHE TOLD LA
FAVE THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE CONCERNING THE APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT
WHICH WAS TO BE NEGOTIATED ON JUNE 28, THAT THEY WERE FINISHED WITH THE
NON-APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT AND THAT HE SHOULD CHECK WITH VAN VOHRIS
BECAUSE THAT WAS WRONG. A FEW MINUTES LATER LA FAVE ALLEGEDLY RETURNED
AND TOLD HEWETT, "THE MORE THAT HE READ THE MEMO THE MORE CERTAIN (HE
WAS) THAT (IT) MEANT I COULD NOT GO BACK TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE."
HEWETT DID NOT ATTEND THE JUNE 28 NEGOTIATION SESSION FOR THE
APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT NOR DID SHE ATTEND ANOTHER APPROPRIATED FUND
SESSION HELD JULY 3, 1979.
COLONEL LA FAVE RECALLED THE CONVERSATION WITH HEWETT, BUT STATED
THAT IT APPEARED TO HIM THAT HEWETT WAS ASKING FOR SOME KIND OF ADVICE
AS TO WHETHER SHE SHOULD ATTEND THE UPCOMING NEGOTIATIONS OR NOT.
ACCORDING TO LA FAVE, HIS REPLY WAS THAT, "SHE KNEW WHAT THAT MEMO HAD
SAID AND THAT I HAD JUST RECEIVED ANOTHER LETTER AND THAT IF SHE WENT
SHE HAD SOME OPTIONS AVAILABLE." THOSE OPTIONS, ACCORDING TO LA FAVE,
WERE TO TAKE AWOL, LEAVE WITHOUT PAY OR ANNUAL LEAVE IF SHE ATTENDED AND
THE UNION HAD NOT DESIGNATED WHO ITS NEGOTIATION TEAM ON OFFICIAL TIME
WAS TO BE.
IN ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN CLEARANCE FOR HEWETT TO ATTEND NEGOTIATIONS,
JONES WROTE RESPONDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF, COLONEL G. K. DAHMEN, ON JULY
2, 1979 REQUESTING THAT HEWETT BE PERMITTED TO ATTEND THE JULY 3, 1979
NEGOTIATION SESSION. THE LETTER POINTED OUT THAT NO DISPUTE EXISTED
CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS ON THE APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT
TEAM. COLONEL DAHMEN'S RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED BY THE UNION ON JULY 12,
1979 AND SET FORTH THE REQUIREMENT THAT NO ABSENCE IN OFFICIAL TIME
COULD BE GRANTED UNTIL THOSE "NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL TIME WERE
DESIGNATED BY THE UNION CHIEF NEGOTIATOR."
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
THE GENERAL COUNSEL INITIALLY ASSERTS THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED
SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE BY UNILATERALLY DESIGNATING
THE NUMBERS OF UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME FOR
NEGOTIATIONS WITHOUT AFFORDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND
NEGOTIATE THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME, AND BY
REQUIRING THE UNION'S NEGOTIATORS TO SELECT ANNUAL LEAVE, LEAVE WITHOUT
PAY, OR ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE. RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDS
THAT IT HAD NO OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE MAKE UP OF ITS
NON-APPROPRIATED FUND NEGOTIATION TEAM AND THAT ONCE THE NUMBER OF ITS
TEAM WAS DESIGNATED, THE UNION WAS LIMITED BY LAW TO AN EQUAL NUMBER OF
NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL TIME.
THE AUTHORITY RECENTLY FOUND IN NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1451, 3 FLRA NO. 14, A NEGOTIABILITY DECISION, THAT THE
DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATIONS WAS
NON-NEGOTIABLE, STATING THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL CONCERNED MATTERS
WHICH WERE BEYOND THOSE DIRECTLY AFFECTING UNIT EMPLOYEES. BASED ON THE
AUTHORITY'S FINDINGS IN THAT MATTER, I AGREE WITH RESPONDENT THAT UNDER
SECTION 7131(A) IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE MAKE UP
OF ITS TEAM AND THAT THE UNION WAS ENTITLED TO ONLY AN EQUAL NUMBER OF
NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL TIME. FURTHERMORE, I AGREE WITH RESPONDENT THAT
ANY ATTEMPT BY IT TO DESIGNATE WHICH UNION NEGOTIATORS WOULD BE PLACED
ON OFFICIAL TIME WOULD BE AN INTERFERENCE WITH INTERNAL UNION AFFAIRS
AND AN ATTEMPT TO DICTATE WHICH NEGOTIATORS THE UNION COULD USE.
THEREFORE, RESPONDENT'S REQUEST THAT THE UNION DESIGNATE WHICH
INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE THE UNION'S NEGOTIATORS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
OFFICIAL TIME PROVISION OF THE STATUTE WOULD NOT BE VIOLATIVE OF THE
STATUTE.
THE GENERAL COUNSEL ALSO ARGUES THAT THE PARTIES HAVE AN ESTABLISHED
PRACTICE OF BARGAINING OVER THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO
OFFICIAL TIME. ALTHOUGH THE RECORD DISCLOSED THAT DISCUSSIONS TOOK
PLACE ON MARCH 13 AND 14, 1979 CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS FOR
THE PARTIES' APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE
NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS ESTABLISHED FOR THE MANAGEMENT TEAM WAS ARRIVED AT
THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS, BUT RATHER THROUGH MANAGEMENT'S OWN DESIGNATION
AS
TO WHO WOULD COMPOSE ITS TEAM. THUS, I FIND THAT THE NUMBER OF
NEGOTIATORS FOR THAT CONTRACT WAS NOT NEGOTIATED AND THAT RESPONDENT
WAS
AWARE, AT THAT TIME, THAT IT HAD NO OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING
THE NUMBER ON ITS TEAM. IT DID NOT, THEREFORE, ESTABLISH A PRACTICE
THROUGH THESE MEETINGS OF NEGOTIATING THE NUMBERS OF ITS TEAM. /4/
IN ADDITION, THE GENERAL COUNSEL RELIED ON THE PARTIES' GROUND RULES
TO ESTABLISH A PAST PRACTICE OF NEGOTIATING THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS ON
EACH TEAM. IN THIS REGARD, THE GROUND RULES FOR NEGOTIATIONS HAD NEVER
BEEN ELEVATED TO THE STATUS OF A CONTRACT AND CANNOT, ABSENT MUTUAL
AGREEMENT, BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTINUED UNDER SECTION 7135(A)(1). WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH CONTINUATION, THE AUTHORITY RECENTLY STATED IN
INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE, 2 FLRA NO. 31, THAT WHILE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS MAY BE RENEWED UNDER SECTION 7135(A)(1), "IF
EITHER PARTY TO SUCH PROVISIONS IN AN EXISTING AGREEMENT OBJECTS TO THE
CONTINUATION OR THE RENEWAL THEREOF, SUCH OBJECTION PREVENTS THE
CONTINUATION OR RENEWAL OF THOSE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION
7135(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE." THE GROUND RULES HEREIN HAD NOT ATTAINED THE
STATUS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND IF THEY HAD, COULD ONLY
BE CONTINUED BY AGREEMENT OF BOTH PARTIES. RESPONDENT CLEARLY OBJECTED
TO THEIR CONTINUANCE AND, IN MY VIEW, IT CANNOT NOW BE ESTABLISHED
THROUGH THE GROUND RULES THAT THE PRACTICE OF NEGOTIATING TEAM
COMPOSITION EXISTED. IN MY VIEW, RESPONDENT PROPERLY TOOK THE POSITION
THAT THE GROUND RULES DID NOT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE STATUTE AND THAT
THE PROVISIONS OF THE GROUND RULES ALLOWING EACH SIDE FIVE NEGOTIATORS
WERE NOT CONTINUED AND THAT IT COULD DETERMINE THE MEMBERS OF THE
MANAGEMENT TEAM WITHOUT BEING BOUND BY THE GROUND RULES AS A PAST
PRACTICE. IT IS, THEREFORE, FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT VIOLATE
SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE BY EITHER UNILATERALLY
DESIGNATING THE NUMBER OF UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME OR
BY REQUIRING UNION NEGOTIATORS TO SELECT A LEAVE STATUS.
IT IS ASSERTED THAT RESPONDENT'S CHIEF NEGOTIATOR, VAN VOHRIS, TOLD
THE UNION AT THE MAY 25, 1979 MEETING THAT IT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO ONLY
ONE NEGOTIATOR ON OFFICIAL TIME SINCE HE WAS THE ONLY MANAGEMENT
NEGOTIATOR IN ATTENDANCE. VAN VOHRIS CONTENDS THAT HE ADVISED THE UNION
THAT MANAGEMENT HAD MADE A DESIGNATION OF TWO AND THAT JONES HAD ASKED,
"DOES THIS MEAN THAT WE CAN ONLY HAVE ONE?" WHILE I CREDIT JONES, HEWETT
AND SIMMONS THAT VAN VOHRIS DID TALK IN TERMS OF "ONE" NEGOTIATOR, IT
WOULD APPEAR THAT HIS REMARKS IN THAT RESPECT WERE DIRECTED TO WHICH
UNION NEGOTIATOR WAS ON OFFICIAL TIME AND WHICH ONE OF THE NEGOTIATORS
WOULD BE PLACED ON LEAVE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT RESPONDENT TOOK THE
POSITION BEGINNING IN LATE JANUARY OR EARLY FEBRUARY THAT ITS
NON-APPROPRIATED FUND TEAM WOULD CONSIST OF TWO MEMBERS WITH THE UNION
STILL CONTENDING THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO THREE. IT ALSO ESTABLISHED
THAT IN NONE OF THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN MARCH AND
APRIL DID THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS EXCEED TWO. BASED ON THE FACT THAT
TWO NEGOTIATORS HAD BEEN PRESENT FOR EACH SIDE DURING THESE EARLIER
SESSIONS, MANAGEMENT'S ADVICE FROM AIR FORCE COMMAND, AND THE UNION'S
STUBBORN INSISTENCE THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO THREE ON OFFICIAL TIME, IT
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT FOR VAN VOHRIS TO STATE THAT ONE OF THE
NEGOTIATORS WAS NOT ON OFFICIAL TIME. I AM COMPELLED TO FIND THAT THE
UNION NEGOTIATORS MISUNDERSTOOD THE CONVERSATION AND THAT VAN VOHRIS'
REMARKS WERE INDEED DIRECTED AT WHICH OF THE THREE NEGOTIATORS WOULD BE
PLACED IN A NON-PAY STATUS. SUCH AN INQUIRY WOULD, IN MY VIEW, BE
LEGITIMATE.
BY THE TIME THE PARTIES MET FOR THE JUNE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE
NON-APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT, IT WAS OBVIOUSLY CLEAR TO THE UNION THAT
THE MANAGEMENT TEAM CONSISTED OF ONLY TWO NEGOTIATORS. FURTHERMORE, IT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS
"NOT TO EXCEED THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS DESIGNATED AS REPRESENTING THE
AGENCY." THUS, ANY CLAIM BY THE UNION THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO MORE THAN
TWO NEGOTIATORS WAS WITHOUT FOUNDATION UNDER THE LAW. MOREOVER,
RESPONDENT'S REQUEST THAT THE UNION DESIGNATE WHICH NEGOTIATORS WOULD BE
PLACED ON OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE JUNE 22 AND JUNE 29, 1979 NEGOTIATIONS
WAS THEREFORE PROPERLY MADE. IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES HEREIN, THE UNION
HAD THE OPTION OF DESIGNATING WHICH INDIVIDUALS IT WANTED PLACED ON
OFFICIAL TIME AND IT IS MY VIEW THAT THE UNION HAD AN OBLIGATION TO
DESIGNATE, SINCE FOR MANAGEMENT TO PICK OR CHOOSE WHICH INDIVIDUAL WOULD
RECEIVE OFFICIAL TIME WOULD BE AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE UNION'S INTERNAL
AFFAIRS. FINALLY, IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT ONLY TWO NEGOTIATORS
WERE ON OFFICIAL TIME DURING THE JUNE 22 AND JUNE 29 MEETINGS, SINCE
RUCKER WAS ON ANNUAL LEAVE DURING ONE SESSION AND ON HIS OWN TIME DURING
THE JUNE 29 SESSION. HOWEVER, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE UNION SHOULD
HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT IT WAS ONLY ENTITLED TO TWO NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL
TIME, AND ITS OBLIGATION WHERE IT HAD THREE NEGOTIATORS, IF IT DESIRED
TO EXERCISE THE OFFICIAL TIME PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE, WAS TO
DESIGNATE FOR THAT PURPOSE WHICH TWO OF THE THREE WOULD BE SERVING IN
THE OFFICIAL TIME CAPACITY. BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS FOUND THAT
RESPONDENT'S PLACING ALL THREE INDIVIDUALS ON ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE
STATUS UNTIL THE UNION DESIGNATED WHICH INDIVIDUALS WERE SERVING IN AN
OFFICIAL TIME CAPACITY AND REQUIRING SUPERVISORS TO PLACE THE
NEGOTIATORS ON ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE STATUS DURING THE PERIOD THAT THEY
ACTED AS NEGOTIATORS WAS NOT VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (2) OF
THE STATUTE.
WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGATION THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION
7116(A)(1) REGARDING AN EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO ATTEND A NEGOTIATION
SESSION, I FIND MERIT. WHILE A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION EXISTED AS TO THE
NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND
AGREEMENT, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION CONCERNING APPROPRIATED
FUND
AGREEMENT NEGOTIATORS. RESPONDENT HAD SET THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS FOR
THIS TEAM AT THREE AND AT THIS POINT THE UNION HAD ONLY THREE
NEGOTIATORS REMAINING. A REQUEST THAT THEY DESIGNATE FOR THE
APPROPRIATED FUND AGREEMENT WHEN THEY HAD ONLY THAT NUMBER OF
NEGOTIATORS IS LUDICROUS. FURTHERMORE, IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT HEWETT WAS
ONE OF THE PRIME NEGOTIATORS FOR THE APPROPRIATED FUND AGREEMENT SERVING
IN THE POSITION AS ALTERNATE CHIEF NEGOTIATOR. IN CREDITING THE
TESTIMONY OF BOTH JONES AND HEWETT, I FIND THAT COLONEL LA FAVE WOULD
NOT GRANT HEWETT PERMISSION TO ATTEND THE JUNE 28 NEGOTIATION SESSION
FOR THE APPROPRIATED FUND AGREEMENT, BASED ON HIS MISUNDERSTANDING OF
THE JUNE 6 MEMORANDUM FROM VAN VOHRIS. THE ACT OF DENYING HER
PERMISSION TO ATTEND A NEGOTIATION SESSION UNLESS SHE CHOSE A LEAVE
STATUS WHEN SHE WAS CLEARLY ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE
NEGOTIATIONS, AND WHEN SHE WAS ONE OF THE PRIME UNION NEGOTIATORS, IS IN
VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7) AND SECTION 2423.26 OF THE FINAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS 45 FED.REG. 3482, 3510(1980) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE SPACE DIVISION, LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA, SHALL:
1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM
(A) DENYING PERMISSION TO UNION NEGOTIATORS TO ATTEND NEGOTIATION
SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO.
(B) REQUIRING UNION NEGOTIATORS TO SELECT ANNUAL, LEAVE WITHOUT PAY
OR ANNUAL LEAVE STATUS PRIOR TO ATTENDING BONA FIDE NEGOTIATING
SESSIONS.
(C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING, RESTRAINING OR
COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE 5 U.S.C. 7101, ET
SEQ.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
(A) POST AT ITS FACILITIES IN DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE SPACE
DIVISION, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, 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 INSTALLATION COMMANDER, THE
SPACE DIVISION, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, 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 INSTALLATION COMMANDER SHALL TAKE
REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED,
OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
(B) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS,
45 FED.REG.AT 3511, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION VIII, WORLD
TRADE CENTER, 350 S. FIGUEROA, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
90071, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT
STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
ELI NASH, JR.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DATED: JULY 18, 1980
WASHINGTON, D.C.
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 THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS STATUTE
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT DENY REQUESTS FROM UNION NEGOTIATORS TO ATTEND
NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429.
WE WILL NOT PREVENT UNION NEGOTIATORS FROM ATTENDING DULY AUTHORIZED
NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429, WITHOUT SIGNING FOR ANNUAL LEAVE,
ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.
WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR
COERCE ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF ANY RIGHT UNDER
THE STATUTE.
(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
MATERIAL.
IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THIS NOTICE, OR COMPLIANCE
WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION VIII, WHOSE
ADDRESS IS: WORLD TRADE CENTER, 350 S. FIGUEROA, 10TH FLOOR, LOS
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071.
--------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
/1/ A CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT ISSUED ON DECEMBER 19, 1979, WHICH
CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. 8-CA-94 AND CASE NO. 8-CA-137. HOWEVER, AN ORDER
SEVERING CASES, WITHDRAWING ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, AND WITHDRAWING
CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT IN SEVERED CASES WAS ISSUED ON JANUARY 14, 1980,
SEVERING CASE NO. 8-CA-94 AND RESULTING IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT HEREIN
ISSUING ON JANUARY 15, 1980.
/2/ SEC. 7131(A) READS IN PART:
THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM OFFICIAL TIME IS AUTHORIZED UNDER
THIS SUBSECTION SHALL
NOT EXCEED THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS DESIGNATED AS REPRESENTING THE
AGENCY FOR SUCH PURPOSES.
/3/ A MARCH 14, 1979 MEMORANDUM FROM VAN VOHRIS TO JONES ESTABLISHES
THAT MANAGEMENT DESIGNATED THREE AS THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS FOR THE
SAMSO OR APPROPRIATED FUND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT. FURTHER, A MARCH 29,
1979 LETTER FROM JONES TO VAN VOHRIS ESTABLISHES THAT THE UNION
UNDERSTOOD THAT IT COULD HAVE OFFICIAL TIME FOR THREE NEGOTIATORS ON THE
SAMSO AGREEMENT. THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES
INDICATING THE SIZE OF THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND TEAM.
/4/ NEITHER DO I FIND THAT THE UNION'S STATEMENT THAT IT AGREED TO
THREE NEGOTIATORS ON MARCH 2, 1979 WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH MANAGEMENT.
FROM THE RECORD IT APPEARS TO BE THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THIS WAS AN
INTERNAL UNION AGREEMENT NOT PARTICIPATED IN BY RESPONDENT.