18:0048(8)CA - Transportation, FAA and Professional Airways Systems Specialists -- 1985 FLRAdec CA
[ v18 p48 ]
18:0048(8)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
18 FLRA No. 8 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Respondent and PROFESSIONAL AIRWAYS SYSTEMS SPECIALISTS, AFL-CIO Charging Party Case Nos. 6-CA-30375 6-CA-40002 DECISION AND ORDER This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Regional Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Federal Labor Relations Authority" in accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. Upon consideration of the entire record, including the stipulation of facts, accompanying exhibits, and contentions of the parties, the Authority finds: The consolidated complaint essentially alleges that the Federal Aviation Administration (the Respondent or FAA) violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) /1/ by (1) unilaterally implementing a change in the basic watch schedule at its Sonora Sector Field Office (Sonora SFO) without notifying the Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS or the Union), at the national level of exclusive recognition, and providing PASS the opportunity to negotiate concerning the change; (2) refusing to negotiate with the Union's designated representative concerning the alleged change; and (3) bypassing the Union in dealing directly with unit employees concerning the matter. On December 31, 1981, PASS was certified as the exclusive representative of a nationwide unit of the Respondent's employees, including employees located at the Sonora SFO; this nationwide unit was previously represented by the Federal Aviation Science and Technological Association (FASTA). /2/ Prior to PASS' initial certification, the Respondent and FASTA had negotiated an agreement which became effective in 1977 for a two-year period and which was automatically renewed thereafter following the agreement's expiration date. On May 28, 1982, Howard Johannssen, PASS' National President, sent a letter to the Respondent's Administrator, wherein he stated, in part, that he had received "persistent reports of local and regional FAA management proposals to make changes in conditions of employment within the unit" and further stated that "any prior bargaining authority given to any PASS representative other than (himself was) . . . revoked with respect to the national unit," and that he should be notified of all proposed changes in conditions of employment of bargaining unit members . . . ." The Sonora SFO is part of the Austin Airways Facility Sector (Austin, AFS). Prior to August 1983, /3/ six electronic technicians (one a relief technician) were employed at the facility; however in August, the relief technician was transferred to Austin. On March 8, the Sonora SFO Manager posted a memo concerning the basic watch schedule; three proposed schedules were attached. The employees herein were directed to review these schedules and indicate their preferences, which they did. The Union was not notified of this memo prior to its posting. On March 22, the Respondent's Manager posted another memo regarding the watch schedule change, and requested the employees to state whether they were "For" or "Against" the implementation of an attached schedule by indicating their preferences, which the employees did. The memo also stated, inter alia, that "if a majority (could not) agree upon the attached schedule then the previous schedule submitted for approval would be implemented." Again, PASS was not notified in advance of the posting of this memo. On April 15, the Sonora SFO Acting Manager issued a memo to the employees herein which stated that the new watch schedule, attached thereto, would be implemented on July 24, pending approval from the Union. On May 3, the Austin AFS Manager wrote to Bobby Mullins, the Union's Vice-President, who was also the Union's representative for the Austin sector, regarding the proposed watch schedule for the Sonora SFO, and stated, among other things, that the proposed schedule was "being forwarded to (him) for the purpose of consultation" in accordance with the FASTA agreement. On May 25, Johannssen, to whom the letter had been forwarded by Mullins, wrote to the Austin AFS manager, demanded bargaining on the matter, and further requested the Respondent to refrain from implementing the change pending completion of negotiations. The Respondent did not reply to the Union's bargaining requests and on July 6, the Sonora SFO Manager issued a memo to the employees advising them that the new watch schedule would be implemented on July 24. Again PASS was not notified of this memo prior to its issuance. The new watch schedule was implemented on July 24. The Respondent asserts that its bargaining obligation on the subject change was limited to consultation by virtue of provisions in the expired FASTA agreement which, in its view, constitute a clear and unequivocal waiver of FASTA's right under the Statute to negotiate over changes in working conditions as herein, and that such waiver is binding on PASS. Further, it contends that, under the expired FASTA agreement, it was required to and did notify the PASS representative at the appropriate level concerning the proposed change and that the Union was given an opportunity to consult on the change prior to its implementation. In Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Seattle, Washington and Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., 14 FLRA 644 (1984), a case involving the Federal Aviation Administration, PASS and the same FASTA agreement as involved herein, the Authority determined that the waiver of bargaining rights contained in the FASTA agreement constituted a permissive subject of bargaining which was binding during the life of the agreement, but was terminable by either party once the agreement expired. In that case, the Authority found that management could not insist upon the continuation of the waiver provision contained in that expired agreement when PASS indicated it no longer wished to be bound by such provision but instead sought to exercise its bargaining rights. See also Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles, California, 15 FLRA No. 21 (1984). The instant case involves the same parties and the identical assertion by PASS of its right to negotiate rather than consult about the change herein. Accordingly, and for the reasons more fully set forth in the previously cited cases, the Authority finds that the Respondent was no longer free to insist upon the practice contained in the expired FASTA agreement so as to preclude bargaining over the change herein. Further, based on the rationale contained in Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, San Diego, California, 15 FLRA No. 86 (1984), the Authority finds that the Respondent was no longer free to insist upon the practice contained in the expired FASTA agreement where the record reflects that PASS expressed its statutory right to designate its own representative by notifying the Respondent of the Union's representative designated to receive notice and to bargain on the matter herein. Having found that the waiver of bargaining rights contained in the expired FASTA agreement were no longer binding on PASS and the Respondent, the Authority concludes that the Respondent had a statutory obligation to provide prior notice to PASS' designated representative and afford the Union an opportunity to negotiate over the proposed change in the watch schedule. /4/ See Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles, California, supra. In this regard, the record reveals that the Respondent failed to provide prior notice to PASS' designated representative, but instead insisted on providing notice to the Union at the local level pursuant to the FASTA agreement; and that the Respondent refused to bargain with PASS over the subject change, insisting instead that its bargaining obligation was limited to consultation. Therefore, the Authority finds that the Respondent, by the above noted actions, refused to fulfill its duty to bargain in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute, and that the Respondent's failure to provide notice to PASS' designated representative also constitutes a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. With respect to the bypass allegation herein, the Authority concludes that the Respondent's conduct in directly soliciting unit employees' input on the proposed watch schedule constitutes a violation of the Statute. In this regard, the stipulated record indicates that the Respondent decided to change the existing watch schedule due to the transfer of one of its employees. It further indicates that, instead of fulfilling its statutory duty to bargain with PASS, as found above, and despite receiving notice from PASS' National President that he was the Union's authorized representative for such purpose, the Respondent on two separate occasions solicited unit employees' input concerning the development of the watch schedule and subsequently, based upon such input, implemented a new schedule which was effectuated without notice to or bargaining with the Union. The Authority therefore concludes that the Respondent's direct dealings with unit employees concerning changes in their conditions of employment described above constitute an unlawful bypass of PASS, the employees' exclusive representative, in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. See Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles, California, supra, and the cases cited therein. To remedy the unfair labor practice conduct herein, the General Counsel and the Union request a status quo ante order. In the Authority's view, such a remedy is not feasible where the preexisting watch schedule was based on a staffing level of six employees. See Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles, California, supra. Rather, the Authority finds that it will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute to order that the Respondent, upon request, must negotiate with PASS concerning changes in the unit employees' watch schedule. With regard to the Union's request that the remedy be nationwide in scope, the Authority finds that a posting of a remedial unfair labor practice notice in the Austin AFS and the Sonora SFO, where the instant violations have occurred, will also best effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute. Thus, consistent with the Authority's findings in similar situations involving FAA's unlawful insistence on a waiver of PASS' statutory rights, the posting of a remedial notice at the locations where such unlawful conduct has occurred in warranted. See Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, supra; Federal Aviation Administration, San Diego, California, supra; Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles, California, supra; and Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., 17 FLRA No. 26 (1985). The Authority notes, moreover, that the unlawful conduct in the instant case occurred prior to the issuance of the Authority's decision in Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region. As there is no indication that the FAA has refused to abide by the Authority's decision in that case or in the other cited cases, or that it will continue to engage in such unlawful conduct in the future, the Authority finds no basis on which to order a different posting requirement than that ordered herein. 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 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C. shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Changing the basic watch schedule of unit employees at the Sonora Sector Field Office without providing prior notice to the representative designated by the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of its employees, and affording such representative the opportunity to negotiate over such change. (b) Bypassing the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, AFL-CIO, the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, by dealing directly with unit employees concerning personnel policies, practices and matters affecting their working conditions. (c) 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 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute: (a) Upon request, negotiate with the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, AFL-CIO, concerning changes in the unit employees' basic watch schedule. (b) Post at its facilities at the Austin Airways Facility Sector and the Sonora Sector Field Office 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 Manager of the Austin Airways Facility Sector, or a 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 insure that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VII, 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., May 16, 1985 Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman William J. McGinnis, Jr., 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 change the basic watch schedule of unit employees at the Sonora Sector Field Office without providing prior notice to the representative designated by the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of our employees, and affording such representative the opportunity to negotiate with respect to such change. WE WILL NOT bypass the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of our employees, by dealing directly with unit employees concerning personnel policies, practices and matters affecting their working conditions. 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, negotiate with the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, AFL-CIO, concerning changes in the unit employees' basic watch schedule. (Activity) Dated: By: (Signature) (Title) 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 VI, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is: Federal Office Building, 525 Griffin Street, Suite 926, Dallas, TX 75202, and whose telephone number is: (214) 767-4996. --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute provides: Sec. 7116. Unfair labor practices (a) For the purpose of this chapter it shall be an unfair labor practice for an agency-- (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter; * * * * (5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a labor organization as required by this chapter(.) /2/ Subsequently, on April 14, 1983, PASS was certified in a larger consolidated unit of the Respondent's employees. /3/ All dates hereafter refer to the year 1983 unless otherwise noted. /4/ The stipulated record indicates in this connection that the Respondent changed the existing watch schedule due to the transfer of one of the six employees manning the schedule.