DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA and SPORT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA
SPORT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION
Case No. SF-CA-11-0505
1. This unfair labor practice complaint and notice of hearing issued under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7135 and 5 C.F.R. Chapter XIV.
2. The Department of Defense, U.S. Department of the Air Force, Edwards Air Force Base, California (Respondent/Activity) is an agency under 5 U.S.C. §7103(a)(3).
3. The SPORT Air Traffic Controllers Organization (Union/Charging Party/SATCO) is a labor organization under 5 U.S.C. §7103(a)(4) and is the exclusive representative of a unit of employees appropriate for collective bargaining at the Respondent.
4. The charge was filed by the Charging Party with the San Francisco Regional Director on July 29, 2011.
5. A copy of the charge described in paragraph 4 was served on the Respondent.
6. During the time period covered by this complaint, the person listed below occupied the position opposite his name:
7. During the time period covered by this complaint, Bryant was a supervisor or management official under 5 U.S.C. §7103(a)(10) and/or (11) at Respondent.
8. During the time period covered by this complaint, Bryant was acting on behalf of Respondent.
9. On January 31, 2011, the Respondent through Bryant, unilaterally changed SPORT Operating Instruction 13-2, paragraph 5.1.5’s radar traffic advisory wording, from “will normally” to “will be given” regarding aircraft separation of 5 miles and 5,000 vertical feet.
10. Respondent implemented the change in working conditions described in paragraph 9 without advance notification and bargaining with the Charging Party to the extent required by law.
11. By the conduct described in paragraphs 9 and 10, the Respondent committed an unfair labor practice in violation of 5 U.S.C. §7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
require the payment of monies to the affected employee despite a finding that the agency’s change in the employee’s work hours had directly affected the employee’s livelihood. I note that VA Phoenix involved a stipulated record and that the GC only requested a cease and desist order, which the Authority approved. I do not find this case to be particularly helpful for either party.