[ v21 p999 ]
21:0999(119)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
21 FLRA No. 119
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE
NEW YORK REGION
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Respondent
and
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY
EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 161
Charging Party
Case No. 2-CA-50022
DECISION AND ORDER
I. Statement of the Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority because of
exceptions filed by the Respondent to the attached Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge. The General Counsel and the Charging Party
(the Union) filed oppositions to the exceptions. The issue concerns
whether the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by
failing and refusing to comply fully with an arbitration award which
became final and binding once the Authority denied all of the
Respondent's timely filed exceptions to such award.
II. Background and Judge's Conclusion
As more fully set forth in the Judge's Decision, Arbitrator Monroe
Berkowitz issued an arbitration award which found that the Respondent
had improperly transferred employee Robert Alvarado /1/ from Perth Amboy
to Newark, New Jersey under the terms of the parties' agreement. As his
award, the Arbitrator required the Respondent to return Alvarado to his
former duties at Perth Amboy and to pay him at the usual government
rates for the extra mileage he had driven during his reassignment to
Newark.
The Judge found that the arbitration award in question had become
final and binding when the Authority denied the Respondent's exceptions,
and that on this date the Respondent was under a legal obligation to
comply fully with the arbitration award. He also noted that the
Respondent's exceptions to the award filed with the Authority did not
raise the argument that payment of travel expenses would be a direct
violation of the Back Pay Act. The Judge concluded that the Respondent
violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute by failing to comply
fully with the arbitration award, and ordered the Respondent to
compensate the grievant for travel expenses as required by the award.
III. Positions of the Parties
In its exceptions, the Respondent repeats the argument made before
the Judge that for the Agency to pay travel expenses is illegal under
the Back Pay Act and the Anti-Deficiency Act. It argues that such an
award would violate the holdings in Morris v. United States, 595 F.2d
591 (Ct. Cl. 1979) and Hurley v. United States, 624 F.2d 93 (10th Cir.
1980). It argues further that the Authority should seek a ruling from
the Comptroller General before rendering a decision in this matter. The
General Counsel and the Union, in their respective oppositions to the
Respondent's exceptions, note that the Morris and Hurley cases did not
involve (final and binding) arbitration awards. They agrue that the
Respondent's contentions are without merit and that the Judge's
conclusion is correct and amply supported by Authority precedent.
IV. Analysis
The Judge concluded that the Respondent violated section 7116(1) and
(8) of the Statute by failing and refusing to comply fully with an
arbitration award which became final and binding once the Authority
denied all of the timely filed exceptions to such award. The Authority
notes particularly that the Respondent's allegation that the arbitration
award is contrary to the Back Pay Act and the Anti-Deficiency Act was
not raised before the Authority in its exceptions to the arbitration
award.
In United States Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 15 FLRA 151 (1984), affirmed sub
nom. Department of the Air Force, et al. v FLRA, 775 F.2d 727 (6th Cir.
1985), the Authority stated:
To allow a party which has not filed exceptions to an award to
defend its failure to implement that award in a subsequent unfair
labor practice proceeding on grounds that should have been raised
as exceptions to the award under section 7122 . . . would
circumvent the procedures provided in section 7122(a) and
frustrate Congressional intent with respect to the finality of
arbitration awards.
The Authority in Department of Defense, Department of the Navy,
United States Marine Corps, United States Marine Corps Air Station,
Cherry Point, North Carolina, 15 FLRA 686 (1984) further stated:
Given the Congressionally mandated exclusivity of section
7122(a) as a mechanism for questioning arbitrators' awards, it
would be inappropriate for the Authority to entertain in
subsequent unfair labor practice proceedings matters which more
appropriately should be pursued in accordance with section 7122(a)
of the Statute. In the Authority's view, any contention that an
arbitrator's award is deficient because it is contrary to any law,
rule, or regulation must be made by invoking the procedures
established by Congress in section 7122(a) of the Statute.
(Footnote omitted.)
In this case, the Authority finds that the Respondent was required to
implement the arbitration award, which became "final and binding" within
the meaning of section 7122(b) of the Statute, upon the Authority's
denial of the Respondent's exceptions. See United States Department of
Justice and Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (Washington, D.C.)
and Federal Correctional Institution (Danbury, Connecticut), 20 FLRA No.
5 (1985), petition for review filed sub nom. U.S. Department of Justice
and Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons et al. v. FLRA, No. 85-4167
(2d Cir. Nov. 5, 1985). In the Authority's view, failure to comply with
any part of an arbitrator's award to which no exceptions have been filed
once that award has become final and binding constitutes a failure to
comply with the requirements of section 7122 of the Statute in violation
of section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute. Any other conclusion
would be inconsistent with section 7122(b), as a party could fail to
file exceptions to portions of an arbitrator's award pursuant to section
7122(a), take no action to comply with the award, and then belatedly
present its argument as a defense to a complaint in a subsequent unfair
labor practice proceeding that the failure and refusal to comply with a
final and binding arbitration award constituted an unfair labor
practice. To permit such a protracted procedure would be inconsistent
with the policy that the arbitration process provides both an
expeditious and a final resolution of grievances.
The Respondent, having filed no exceptions pertaining to the Back Pay
Act or the Anti-Deficiency Act in its exceptions to the Arbitrator's
award and its other exceptions having been denied by the Authority, was
required to take the actions required by the arbitrator's award, and its
failure to do so violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute.
See also United States Marshals Service v. FLRA, 778 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir.
1985), affirming the Authority's decision in U.S. Marshals Service, 13
FLRA 351 (1983). That case involved an agency's refusal to comply with
an unfair labor practice remedial order of the Authority directing
compliance with an arbitrator's award, even though the Authority in a
separate proceeding under section 7122 of the Statute previously had
rejected the Agency's contentions that the arbitrator's award was
deficient. In affirming the Authority's remedial order, the court
specifically declined to review the Authority's original determination
that the award was not deficient, but examined the award only to
determine whether an unfair labor practice was committed -- i.e.,
whether the agency had failed to comply with the arbitrator's award as
the Authority ordered it to do. The court held that the agency's
refusal to abide by the Authority's order requiring compliance with a
final and binding arbitration award was an unfair labor practice.
Finally, the Respondent's argument that the Authority should seek an
opinion from the Comptroller General as to whether the Arbitrator's
award is consistent with the Back Pay Act is rejected. The Authority
has pointed out in prior decisions that Congress intended the awards of
arbitrators, when they become final, not to be subject to further review
by any other authority or administrative body, including the Comptroller
General. For example, see United States Air Force, Air Force Logistics
Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, cited above, which
refers to H.R. Rep. No. 95-1717, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 158 (1978),
reprinted in Legistative History of the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 at
826 to this effect. (15 FLRA 151 at 154).
V. Conclusion
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
and section 7118 of the Statute, the Authority has reviewed the rulings
of the Judge made at the hearing, finds that no prejudicial error was
committed, and thus affirms those rulings. The Authority has considered
the Judge's Decision, the exceptions to that decision, the positions of
the parties, and the entire record, and adopts the Judge's findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order. We therefore conclude that the
Respondent's failure to compensate employee Alvarado for travel
expenses, as required by the Arbitrator's award in this case, violated
section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the statute.
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, it is hereby ordered that
the Department of the Treasury, United States Customs Service, New York
Region, New York, New York shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to fully implement the March 26, 1984
arbitration award issued in FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by failing and
refusing to compensate Customs Inspector Robert Alvarado for travel
expenses as required by the award.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Statute:
(a) Comply with the March 26, 1984 arbitration award issued in FMCS
Case No. 83K/29308 by compensating Customs Inspector Robert Alvarado for
travel expenses as required by the award.
(b) Post at its facilities at the Department of the Treasury, United
States Customs Service, New York Region, New York, New York 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 Regional Commissioner, United States Customs Service, New York
Region, New York, New York, 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 II, 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 29, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ 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 fail or refuse to fully implement the March 26, 1984
arbitration award issued in FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by failing or
refusing to compensate Customs Inspector Robert Alvarado for travel
expenses as required by the award.
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 comply with the March 26, 1984 arbitration award issued in
FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by compensating Customs Inspector Robert
Alvarado for travel expenses as required by the award.
(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 of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region II, whose
address is: 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2237 New York, New York 10278 and
whose telephone number is: (212) 264-4934.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Case No.: 2-CA-50022
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE NEW
YORK
REGION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Respondent
and
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY
EMPLOYEES
UNION, CHAPTER 161
Charging Party
Amy L. Schwartz, Esquire
For the Respondent
Cecile O'Connor
For the General Counsel
Michael J. Wolt
For the Charging Party
Before: LOUIS SCALZO
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
This case arose as an unfair labor practice proceeding under the
provisions of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 92
Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C. Section 7101, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as
"the Statute"), and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder.
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that since on or
about August 29, 1984, the Respondent has failed and refused to comply
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. Section 7122 of the Statute by failing
and refusing to comply with an arbitrator's award; and further, that by
reason of the foregoing, the Respondent committed unfair labor practices
in violation of Sections 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute. /2/
The Respondent contends that compliance with the award would be
contrary to the provisions of the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 5596,
and the Anti-Deficienty Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 1341; that the award is
unenforceable under these circumstances; and that the complaint should
be dismissed.
Based upon the entire record herein, including the stipulation of
facts, stipulated exhibits, and briefs filed by the parties, I make the
following findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations.
Findings of Fact
The facts in this case are not in dispute. A stipulation of facts
filed by the parties disclosed the following:
1. On or about March 25, 1984, Arbitrator Monroe Berkowitz
issued an arbitration award in FMCS Case No. 83K/29308, a case
involving the Respondent and the Charging Party. /3/
2. Arbitrator Berkowitz found that the Respondent improperly
transferred Customs Inspector Robert Alvardo from Perth Amboy, New
Jersey to Newark, New Jersey in November of 1982.
3. The award provides that, "(t)he reassignment of Robert
Alvardo from Perth Amboy to Newark in November, 1982, was improper
and in violation of the terms of the national agreement between
the parties. Mr. Alvardo shall return forthwith to his former
duties at the Port of Perth Amboy. He shall be furnished at the
usual government rates for the extra mileage, 40 miles per day,
which he has driven since his reassignment to Newark."
4. Exceptions to the arbitration award were filed with the
Authority by the Respondent on or about April 24, 1984.
5. By letter dated April 27, 1984, the Federal Labor Relations
Authority acknowledged receipt of Respondent's exceptions and
assigned Case No. 0-AR-758 to the proceedings.
6. On or about June 12, 1984, an opposition to Respondent's
exceptions was filed with the Authority by the Charging Party.
7. By decision dated August 29, 1984, the Authority denied
Respondent's exceptions in Case No. 0-AR-758 on the ground that
the United States Customs Service "failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in
Section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is
contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or that the award is
deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal
Courts in private sector labor-management relations." The award
then became final and binding.
8. In or around September, 1984, the Charging Party requested
that the Respondent comply with the arbitration award issued in
FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by transferring Customs Inspector Robert
Alvardo back to the Perth Amboy Port of Entry and compensating him
for extra travel costs incurred as a result of the improper
assignment.
9. On or about October 29, 1984, Respondent, through Benjamin
Jefferson, Area Director, Newark, Port of Entry, U.S. Customs
Service, informed the Charging Party that the Respondent would not
pay travel expenses as ordered in the arbitration award.
10. On or about November 6, 1984, Respondent complied with,
and implemented the arbitration award referred to above only with
respect to the reassignment of Customs Inspector Alvardo from
Newark to the Perth Amboy Port of Entry.
11. Since on or about August 29, 1984, Respondent has refused,
and at all times thereafter has continued to refuse, to reimburse
Customs Inspector Alvardo for travel costs as required by the
arbitrator's award in FMCS Case No. 83K/29308.
12. The determination not to compensate Customs Inspector
Alvardo for extra travel costs was made by the Respondent.
13. The determination not to compensate Customs Inspector
Alvardo was based on Respondent's opinion that compensation of
Customs Inspector Alvardo for travel expenses would be in direct
violation of the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 5596 (1976), and
on holdings in Morris v. United States, 595 F.2d 591 (Ct. of Cl.
1979) and Hurley v. United States, 624 F.2d 93 (10th Cir. 1980).
14. The Respondent did not raise the argument of illegality of
the travel expense payment as set forth in Paragraph 13 above as a
timely exception to the arbitrator's award in FMCS Case No.
83K/29308.
Discussion and Conclusions
In U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, Washington, D.C., 15 FLRA No. 26
(1984), 15 FLRA 139, /4/ the Authority made it clear that the language
of Section 7122 of the Statute requires an agency to take actions
required by an arbitrator's award when the award becomes "final and
binding." In this case the Authority held that an arbitrator's award
becomes final and binding when timely exceptions are not filed in
accordance with the provisions of Section 7122(a), or when timely filed
exceptions have been denied by the Authority. The Authority used the
following language to explain the meaning of Section 7122:
The language of section 7122(b) makes it clear that an agency
must take the actions required by an arbitrator's award once the
award has become final, and defines a final and binding
arbitrator's award as one to which no exceptions are filed during
the prescribed time following the service date of such award.
Accordingly, where no timely exceptions to an arbitrator's award
have been filed under section 7122(a) of the Statute, an agency's
subsequent failure or refusal to implement the award has been
found to constitute a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of
the Statute. See U.S. Army Health Clinic, Fort Ritchie, Maryland,
9 FLRA No. 133 (1982). Similarly, once an agency's timely filed
exceptions to an arbitrator's award have been denied by the
Authority, the agency must implement such award, and therefore a
subsequent failure or refusal to do so also constitutes a
violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute. See
United States Marshals Service, 13 FLRA No. 60 (1983), appeal
docketed, No. 83-7973 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 1983). Such conclusion
is consistent with the intent of Congress with respect to the
finality of arbitrators' awards, as expressed by the Committee of
Conference in its Report which accompanied the bill ultimately
enacted and signed into law: (footnote omitted)
The House provides that if no exception to an a arbitrator's
award is filed with the Authority, the award "shall be final and
binding" (section 7122 (b)). The Senate contained no comparable
provision. The conferees adopted the House provision. The intent
of the House in adopting this provision was to make it clear that
the awards of arbitrators, when they become final, are not subject
to further review by any other authority or administrative body,
including the Comptroller General. (Emphasis added.)
The concept was further elaborated in United States Air Force, Air
Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 15 FLRA
No. 27 (1984), 15 FLRA 151, at 153, where the Authority stated:
(W)here a party seeks to challenge the propriety of an
arbitration award, the appropriate mechanism for doing so, as
Congress clearly intended, is through the filing of exceptions to
that award under the provisions of Section 7122(a) of the Statute.
It is clear from the facts in this case that Arbitrator Berkowitz's
March 26, 1984 arbitration award became final and binding within the
meaning of Section 7122 of the Statute, when the Authority denied
Respondent's exceptions. This occurred on August 29, 1984. On this
date the Respondent was under a legal obligation to comply fully with
the arbitration award. The fact that the Respondent did not raise
certain legal defenses during appeal of the arbitration award would not
operate to subject the Authority's decision to collateral attack in this
forum. United States Marshals Service, 13 FLRA No. 60 (1983), 13 FLRA
351, at 358 footnote 6, appeal docketed, No. 83-7973 (9th Cir., Dec. 30,
1983). /5/
In a series of analogous cases involving failure of agencies to
interpose timely appeals in arbitration cases, the Authority has held
that any contention that an arbitrator's award is deficient because it
is contrary to any law, rule or regulation must be made by invoking the
procedures established by Congress in Section 7122(a) of the Statute.
Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, United States Marine
Corps, United States Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North
Carolina, 15 FLRA No. 137 (1984), 15 FLRA 686; Veterans Administration
Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, 15 FLRA No. 138 (1984), 15 FLRA 706;
Department of Health and Human Services, Region II, 15 FLRA No. 139
(1984), 15 FLRA 710; Department of Justice, U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C., 16 FLRA No. 118 (1984), 16
FLRA 840.
In view of the foregoing it must be concluded that the Respondent
violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute by failing to comply
fully with the arbitration award under consideration herein.
Having found that the Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (8)
of the Statute, it is recommended that the Authority issue the following
Order:
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and Section 7118 of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
that the Department of the Treasury, United States Customs Service, New
York Region, New York, New York, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to fully implement the March 26, 1984
arbitration award issued in FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by failing and
refusing to compensate Customs Inspector Robert Alvardo for travel
expenses as required by the award.
(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) Comply with the March 26, 1984 arbitration award issued in
FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by compensating Customs Inspector Robert
Alvardo for travel expenses as required by the award.
(b) Post at its New York, New York Regional Office 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 Regional Commissioner, United States
Customs Service, New York Region, New York, New York, 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 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 II, 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.
/s/ LOUIS SCALZO
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: June 18, 1985
Washington, DC
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(1) The Judge's inadvertent misspelling of employee Robert Alvarado's
name has been corrected within this decision.
(2) Section 7122 of the Statute, as amended by the Civil Service
Miscellaneous Amendments Act of 1983 (Pub. L. No. 98-224, 4, 98 Stat.
47, 48 (1984), provides:
Section 7122. Exceptions to arbitral awards
(a) Either party to arbitration under this chapter may file
with the Authority an exception to any arbitrator's award pursuant
to the arbitration (other than an award relating to a matter
described in section 7121(f) of this title). If upon review the
Authority finds the award is deficient --
(1) because it is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation; or
(2) on other grounds similar to those applied by federal courts
in private sector labor-management relations;
the Authority may take such action and make such
recommendations concerning the award as it considers necessary,
consistent with applicable laws, rules, or regulations.
(b) If no exception to an arbitrator's award is filed under
subsection (a) of this section during the 30 day period beginning
on the date the award is served on the party, the award shall be
final and binding. An agency shall take the actions required by
an arbitrator's final award. The award may include the payment of
back pay (as provided in section 5596 of this title).
Sections 7116(a)(1) and (8) provide:
Section 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;
. . . . . . . .
(8) to otherwise fail or refuse to comply with any provision of
this chapter.
(3) The record reflects that the award was signed by Arbitrator
Berkowitz on March 26, 1984 (Exhibit 6).
(4) Appeal docketed, No. 84-1439 (D.C. Cir. August 24, 1984,
reconsideration denied by the Authority on September 20, 1984, Report of
Case Decisions, Number 264, October 4, 1984.
(5) However, it should be noted that administrative law judge
decisions are subject to review by the Authority, and that Authority
decisions relating to unfair labor practices are subject to review by an
appropriate United States court of appeals.
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
STATUTE
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to fully implement the March 26, 1984
arbitration award issued in FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by failing and
refusing to compensate Customs Inspector Robert Alvardo for travel
expenses as required by the award.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
WE WILL comply with the March 26, 1984 arbitration award issued in
FMCS Case No. 83K/29308 by compensating Customs Inspector Robert Alvardo
for travel expenses as required by the award.
(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 of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region II,
whose address is: 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2237, New York, New York 10278
and whose telephone number is: (212) 264-4934.