[ v15 p407 ]
15:0407(86)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
15 FLRA No. 86
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
Respondent
and
PROFESSIONAL AIRWAYS SYSTEMS
SPECIALISTS
Charging Party
Case No. 8-CA-20268
DECISION AND ORDER
The Administrative Law Judge issued his Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and
recommending that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General
Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
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 Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts the
Judge's findings, conclusions and recommended Order, as modified below.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1)
and (5) of the Statute by refusing to recognize representatives
designated by the Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS). The
Respondent takes the position that its action was consistent with
provisions contained in a collective bargaining agreement relative to
the designation of union representatives.
In 1981, PASS was certified as the exclusive representative for a
unit of employees previously represented by the Federal Aviation Science
and Technological Association (FASTA). The Respondent and FASTA had
negotiated an agreement in 1977, with a two-year duration and automatic
annual renewals thereafter, which provided for the designation of
representatives consistent with the Respondent's organization structure.
Specifically, Article 7, Section 3 of that agreement provided as
follows:
In addition, the Union may designate one sector representative
at each airway facilities sector. The designation shall be in
writing. At the sector representative's option, he/she may
designate, in writing, an alternate to act for him/her when he/she
is absent. Only the sector representative, or in his/her absence
the designated alternate, may deal with the sector manager and/or
his/her designee. During any meeting where the sector manager is
accompanied by other management representatives, the sector
representative may be accompanied by his/her designated alternate
or other representatives so as to allow the Union the same number
of participants at the meeting.
Following its certification, PASS notified the Respondent that it
would be represented by one representative for the Airway Facilities
Sector (AFS) located in San Diego, and one representative for the Long
Beach AFS. Subsequently, the Respondent merged the Long Beach AFS into
the San Diego AFS. PASS advised the Respondent that it would continue
to be represented by separate representatives for the San Diego AFS and
for what had previously been the Long Beach AFS. PASS in turn was
notified by the Respondent that it would only recognize one
representative, for the new San Diego AFS, in accordance with Article 7,
Section 3 of the FASTA agreement.
The Judge determined, relying on the Authority's Decision in U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 6 FLRA 18 (1981), that the Respondent and
PASS were obligated to continue "to the maximum extent possible" the
practice of one representative per sector as established in Article 7,
Section 3 of the expired FASTA agreement, which the Judge found had
become a condition of employment. The Judge found, however, that the
Respondent, by merging the two sectors, had changed an underlying
condition of PASS' representation, thereby rendering it impossible to
follow literally the language of Article 7, Section 3 without impairing
rights which PASS had prior to the merger and which rights were
envisioned under that provision of the agreement. Accordingly, the
Judge found that under such circumstances PASS was free to insist upon
its representational rights under the Statute, including the right to
designate its own representatives, and that the Respondent's refusal to
recognize separate representatives therefore constituted a violation of
section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
In agreement with the Judge's conclusion, but for the reasons set
forth below, the Authority finds that the Respondent's conduct herein
was violative of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
In Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region,
Seattle, Washington and Federal Aviation Administration, Washington,
D.C., 14 FLRA No. 89 (1984), the Authority held, in part, that following
the expiration of an agreement, either party may terminate those matters
contained in their agreement relating to permissive subjects of
bargaining. That is, where agency management has elected to bargain
concerning a matter covered under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute and
the parties have reached agreement thereon or where the parties have
reached agreement on a matter which is outside the required scope of
bargaining under the Statute, either party may elect not to be bound
thereby upon the expiration of the agreement. In that case, and in
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Los
Angeles, California, 15 FLRA No. 21 (1984), the Authority determined
that provisions related to a waiver of bargaining rights under the
Statute were permissive in nature and did not survive the expiration of
the agreement where one party exercised its right to terminate the
practice. In so finding, the Authority distinguished between permissive
subjects of bargaining which can be terminated by either party upon the
expiration of an agreement and those personnel policies, practices, or
other matters affecting working conditions, such as were identified in
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the decisions cited therein, which
relate to negotiable conditions of employment and which continue
following the expiration of an agreement, to the maximum extent
possible, absent an express agreement to the contrary or unless modified
in a manner consistent with the Statute.
As to the nature of the bargaining obligation with respect to the
designation of union representatives, the Authority has previously held
that an exclusive representative has the statutory right to designate
its own representatives when dealing with agency management in the
performance of its responsibilities under the Statute, but that an
exclusive representative may elect to bargain over such a matter, which
is permissive in nature. See American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, 4 FLRA 272 (1980). See also Department of the Air
Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio, 10 FLRA 281 (1982). The Authority finds, in the instant case,
that the designation of sector representatives contained in Article 7,
Section 3 of the expired FASTA agreement constituted a permissive
subject of bargaining. Thus, while FASTA may have elected to bargain
over such a matter and incorporate the agreed-upon provisions in the
terms of a collective bargaining agreement, once that agreement expired,
the exclusive representative was then free to terminate that particular
practice. When PASS notified the Respondent of its intention to
designate separate sector representatives at the San Diego AFS and what
had previously been the Long Beach AFS, PASS was exercising its
statutory right to designate its own representatives and, at the same
time, was indicating that it no longer wished to be bound by the
practice which FASTA had elected to negotiate. Therefore, when the
Respondent refused to recognize PASS' designated representatives, it
violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. /1/
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
Federal Labor Relations Authority and section 7118 of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
that the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
San Diego, California, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize the representatives designated by the
Professional Airways Systems Specialists, the exclusive representative
of its employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their 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) Post at its San Diego and Long Beach facilities, copies of the
attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
Authority. Such forms shall be signed by the San Diego Airway
Facilities Sector Manager, or his designee, and shall be posted and
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
ensure that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, notify the Regional Director, 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 herewith.
Issued, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, 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 refuse to recognize the representatives designated by the
Professional Airways Systems Specialists, the exclusive representative
of our employees.
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.
(Activity)
By: (Signature) (Title)
Dated: . . .
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 its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional
Director, Region VIII, Federal Labor Relations Authority whose address
is: 350 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California
90071 and whose telephone number is: (213) 688-3805.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Malachy T. Coghlan, Esq. and
Gary W. Baldwin, Esq., on the brief
For the Respondent
Woody N. Peterson, Esq. and
Joseph E. Kolick, Jr., Esq., on the brief
For the Charging Party
Deborah S. Wagner, Esq.
For the General Counsel
Before: SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C. 7101
et seq.
Upon an unfair labor practice charge filed by the Professional
Airways Systems Specialists (herein referred to as PASS or the Union) on
May 3, 1982 against the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, San Diego, California (herein referred to as
Respondent), the General Counsel of the Authority, by the Regional
Director for Region VIII, issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing on
July 30, 1982 alleging Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
the Statute by refusing to recognize the Union's designated
representative for the Long Beach, California, area.
A hearing on the Complaint was conducted on October 7, 1982 in Los
Angeles, California, at which time all parties were represented by
counsel and afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, call, examine
and cross-examine witnesses and argue orally. Briefs were filed by all
parties and have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this matter, including the Stipulation of
Facts submitted by the parties, and from my evaluation of the evidence I
make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Background and Events
On December 31, 1981 PASS was certified as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative for various of Respondent's employees
including employees located at Respondent's Airway Facilities Sectors
(AFS) in San Diego and Long Beach, California. /2/ Prior to PASS's
certification on December 31, 1981, the same employees were represented
by the Federal Aviation Science and Technological Association/National
Association of Government Employees (FASTA). While FASTA was the
employees' representative, it negotiated a collective bargaining
agreement with Respondent, effective 1977, which was still in effect
until PASS succeeded FASTA as the employees' representative.
In January 1982 the Union advised Respondent that it would be
represented by one representative for the San Diego AFS, and one
representative for the Long Beach AFS.
In April 1982 Respondent's Long Beach AFS merged into Respondent's
San Diego AFS and became a part of the San Diego AFS.
On or about April 26, 1982 the Union informed Respondent that upon
completion of the Long Beach-San Diego AFS merger, the Union would
continue to be represented by one representative for the San Diego AFS
and one representative for what was formerly the Long Beach AFS.
On or about April 26, 1982 Respondent, through John Tompkins, Sector
Manager at Respondent's San Diego AFS, notified the Union that upon
completion of the Long Beach-San Diego AFS merger, Respondent would
recognize only one representative for the new San Diego AFS.
Respondent, through Tompkins, advised the Union that he would not
recognize two sector level representatives for the newly formed San
Diego AFS, relying on Article 7, Section 3, of the collective bargaining
agreement between Respondent and FASTA, the former exclusive
representative. Individual unit level representatives would continue to
be recognized as in the past and as described in Article 7, Section 2(d)
of the FASTA contract.
Article 7 of the FASTA contract, entitled "Rights and
Responsibilities," provides, in relevant part:
"Section 1. The Employer agrees to recognize the officers and
duly designated representatives of the Union as established by
this agreement.
"Section 2.
(a) The Union may designate one representative and an alternate
for each field maintenance party office;
(b) The Union may designate up to three (3) representatives and
up to three (3) alternates in each FAA region for those employees
whose normal work site is in the regional office;
(c) The Union may designate one representative and an alternate
for each watch to deal with first and second level supervisors at
air route traffic control center sectors;
(d) The Union may designate one representative and one
alternate for each sector field office, radar unit, communication
unit, data unit, navaids unit, environmental support unit, and
combination unit, to deal with first and second level supervisors
at non-air route traffic control center sectors.
"Section 3. In addition, the Union may designate one sector
representative at each airway facilities sector. The designation
shall be in writing. At the sector representative's option,
he/she may designate, in writing, an alternate to act for him/her
when he/she is absent. Only the sector representative, or in
his/her absence the designate alternate, may deal with the sector
manager and/or his/her designee. During any meeting where the
sector manager is accompanied by other management representatives,
the sector representative may be accompanied by his/her designated
alternate or other representatives so as to allow the Union the
same number of participants at the meeting.
"Section 4. The Union may designate one regional
representative and one alternate to act in the absence of the
regional representative. . . .
. . . .
"Section 15. Each Union representative or his/her designee
referred to in Section 2(a), 2(b), and Section 3 shall be granted
up to eight (8) hours of excused absence to receive orientation on
the meaning of the Articles of this agreement.
"Section 16. Union representatives shall be authorized to
perform and discharge on official time, if otherwise in a duty
status, the duties and responsibilities which may be assigned to
them under the terms of this agreement."
Discussion and Conclusions
Counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Union allege
Respondent violated the Statute when, after Long Beach and San Diego
were merged into one AFS, Respondent refused to continue to recognize a
separate representative for each location. Respondent contends its
actions were permissible in that: after the merger of Long Beach and
San Diego into one AFS, only one AFS remained; the terms of the FASTA
agreement were binding on Respondent and PASS; and pursuant to Article
7, Section 3 of the FASTA agreement, the Union was limited to one
representative per sector.
It has been long held under Executive Order 11491, as amended, and
the Statute that a union has the right to determine its own
representatives to deal with management. Internal Revenue Service,
Omaha District Office, 4 A/SLMR 494 (1974); Utah Army National Guard,
Salt Lake City, Utah, 8 A/SLMR 70 (1978); Philadelphia Naval Shipyard,
4 FLRA No. 38 (1980); American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO, 4 FLRA No. 39 (1980); and Department of the Air Force, Air
Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 10 FLRA
281 (1982). While under the Statute the selection of a representative
is not a matter over which a union is required to bargain with an
employer, it is nevertheless a permissive subject of bargaining. Thus,
in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, supra, the
Authority found that a union did not violate the Statute when it refused
to bargain with an employer regarding proposals which generally required
the union "to designate its representatives from prescribed
organizational levels and segments when dealing with agency management
in the performance of certain representational functions." After holding
the proposal to be outside the union's required scope of bargaining, the
Authority stated:
"This is not to say, however, that a union may not, if it so
elects, bargain over such matters. Indeed, there is merit to
formalizing the bargaining relationship to the extent that it
would lead to stability at the workplace and, in fact, many
collective bargaining agreements in the Federal sector provide for
a formalized bargaining relationship."
Respondent, relying on the Authority's decision in U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 6 FLRA 18 (1981), urges that the "bargaining
relationship" was formalized in Article 7, Section 3 of the FASTA
agreement and that agreement is binding on PASS. In Nuclear Regulatory
Commission the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
represented various of the agency's employees and a negotiated agreement
gave AFGE the right to use bulletin boards, except for posting material
which reflected "adversely on individuals, organizations or activities
of the Federal Government." The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)
replaced AFGE as the certified collective bargaining agent and
thereafter the agreement between AFGE and the agency terminated.
Subsequently, the agency removed from bulletin boards material posted by
NTEU, citing the restrictions noted above contained in the negotiated
agreement between AFGE and the agency pertaining to adverse material.
NTEU filed an unfair labor practice charge and the General Counsel
issued a complaint contending the agency's actions unilaterally changed
existing conditions of employment and a past practice. The Authority
held:
" . . . the clause relating to bulletin boards in the expired
agreement created a condition of employment which remains binding
in its entirely despite the agreement's expiration and the change
of exclusive representative. In the Authority's opinion, the
purposes and policies of the Statute are best effectuated by a
requirement that existing personnel policies, practices, and
matters affecting working conditions to continue, to the maximum
extent possible, upon the expiration of a negotiated agreement,
absent an express agreement to the contrary or unless modified in
a manner consistent with the Statute. Such a result fosters
stability in Federal labor-management relations, which is an
underlying purpose of the Statute. See Department of Defense,
Department of the Navy, Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville,
Kentucky, 4 FLRA No. 100 (1980); and Department of the Air Force,
35th Combat Support Group (TAC), George Air Force Base,
California, 4 FLRA No. 5 (1980). We see no distinction in the
circumstances of this case where there had been a change in the
exclusive representative since the expiration of the agreement.
The stability of the new bargaining relationship is enhanced by a
required maintenance of existing personnel policies and practices,
and matters affecting working conditions pending the negotiation
of a new agreement."
I conclude that under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Respondent and
PASS were obligated to continue "to the maximum extent possible" the
practice under Article 7, Section 3 which, like the clause relating to
bulletin boards in Nuclear Regulatory Commission, created a binding
condition of employment.
Counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Union would limit
the application of Nuclear Regulatory Commission by excluding its
application from any matter concerning a statutory right or the
statutory relationships between the parties. I see nothing in Nuclear
Regulatory Commission which suggests such a distinction. Indeed, the
language used by the Authority in that case points to a contrary
conclusion. Thus, as cited above, the Authority found in a similar
situation, that continuing the policies, practices and matters
concerning working conditions "to the maximum extent possible", fosters
stability in labor management relations. Such language is quite broad
and I discern nothing therein which would indicate the principle would
not be applicable when the issue is one of honoring a union's
contractual commitment regarding its "bargaining relationship." While,
as counsel for the Union points out, this approach may well be different
from that followed under the National Labor Relations Act, there is no
indication given in Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the Authority is
inclined to approach the matter in a manner whereby the express waiver
of a statutory right concerning a union's relationship with an employer
would be treated differently from any other contractual term and
condition of employment. /3/
However, Respondent herein revised its organizational design after
PASS became the collective bargaining agent of Respondent's employees by
changing two independent Sectors into one when the Long Beach AFS and
San Diego AFS were merged into the San Diego AFS. Thus, Respondent's
organizational arrangement on which the "bargaining relationship" was
originally based substantially changed an underlying condition for the
Union's representation of employees. The Authority in Nuclear
Regulatory Commission did not hold that conditions of employment should
be maintained without limitation. Rather, the Authority held that such
conditions of employment should be continued "to the maximum extent
possible."
I conclude in the case herein that it is not possible to follow
literally the language of Article 7, Section 3 of the agreement without
seriously impairing a right the Union had at the time the personnel
policies and matters affecting conditions of employment under the FASTA
agreement were transferred to PASS. When the FASTA agreement was
executed the representational arrangement was obviously coextensive with
Respondent's organizational structure. Under the FASTA agreement the
parties clearly envisioned separate representatives for the two
locations and indeed, in January 1982 PASS notified Respondent that it
would utilize separate representatives. However, the merger by
Respondent destroyed an essential condition directly relating to the
Union's representational rights. Since the employer's reorganization no
longer made it possible to give effect to Article 7, Section 3 and
respect the Union's representational rights as envisioned under the
agreement as executed, the Union was thereafter free to insist on its
representational rights under the Statute relative to how it wished to
represent employees at the Long Beach and San Diego locations.
Viewed another way, the practice regarding representation, regardless
of the literal language Article 7, Section 3, was to have separate Union
representatives at Long Beach and San Diego. Under Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Authority held that personnel policies, practices and
matters affecting working conditions should continue in effect after the
expiration of a contract "to the maximum extent possible," which
continuance "fosters stability in Federal labor-management relations."
Thus, the object of continuing to maintain existing personnel policies,
practices and matters affecting working conditions is to foster
stability in labor-management relations. It seems clear that keeping
available a Union representative to assist in the resolution of disputes
at each of the Long Beach and San Diego facilities would be more
conducive to fostering labor-management stability than to adhere to a
literal interpretation of Article 7, Section 3 of the agreement.
Approached from this perspective I would conclude that Respondent was
obligated to continue recognizing separate Union representatives at the
Long Beach and San Diego facilities "absent an express agreement to the
contrary or unless modified in a manner consistent with the Statute."
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, supra.
Respondent also suggests, by reference to Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Region, 7
A/SLMR 972 (1977), that the matter of refusing to recognize the Union's
representative concerns a differing and arguable interpretation of the
parties' negotiated agreement and, as such, should not be deemed
violative of the Statute. However, in the case herein the underlying
issue concerns the effect of a changed condition on the applicability of
a prior employment practice and not merely a matter of interpretation of
the agreement FASTA had with Respondent. Therefore, I reject
Respondent's argument.
Accordingly, in the circumstances herein I conclude that Respondent,
by refusing to recognize separate Union representatives at both the Long
Beach and San Diego facilities, has violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5)
of the Statute.
Having found that Respondent has engaged in conduct prohibited by
section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute, I recommend that the
Authority issue the following:
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2430.20 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the
Authority hereby orders that the Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, San Diego, California, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize separate representatives at the Long
Beach and San Diego facilities designated by the Professional
Airways Systems Specialists, the exclusive representative of its
employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their 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 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute:
(a) Post at its Long Beach and San Diego facilities, 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 Airway Facilities Sector Manager 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 Sector
Manager shall take reasonable steps to insure that such Notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, notify that Regional Director, Region VIII, Federal
Labor Relations Authority, 350 South Figueroa Street, 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.
SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: March 14, 1983
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 CHAPTER 71
OF TITLE
5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize separate representatives at the Long
Beach and San Diego facilities designated by the Professional Airways
Systems Specialists, the exclusive representative of our employees.
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.
(Agency or Activity)
BY: (Signature)
DATED: . . .
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, Region VIII, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 350
South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071, and
whose telephone number is: (213) 688- 3805.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Under these circumstances, and contrary to the Judge, the
Authority finds it unnecessary to pass upon the effect, if any, of the
Respondent's merging the Long Beach AFS into the San Diego AFS on PASS'
designation of representatives.
/2/ Some of these preliminary facts are taken from non-controversial
evidence received in a companion case litigated by the parties before
the undersigned on the same day the case herein was heard. Department
of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles,
California, (8-CA-20260, OALJ-83-64, March 11, 1983).
/3/ Counsel for the General Counsel also argues that where either
party to an agreement entered into before the effective date of the
Statute objects to a continuation of a provision which is inconsistent
with the Statute, then that provision will be deemed unenforceable,
citing Office of Program Operations, Field Operations, Social Security
Administration, San Francisco Region, 10 FLRA 172 (1982). The argument
is without merit since the provision under consideration herein is not
inconsistent with the Statute. A union's right to designate its own
representative and to elect to formalize that right in a collective
bargaining agreement was not affected by the Statute. Cf. American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, supra and Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Region, 7
A/SLMR 972 (1977).