---

45 FLRA No. 48

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

375TH COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS

(Respondent)

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL R7-23

(Charging Party/Union)

75-CA-10036

DECISION AND ORDER

July 17, 1992

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent did not violate section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by implementing reduced working hours for seven employees and separations for five unit employees without negotiating with the Union over the impact and implementation of these actions. The Judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The General Counsel filed exceptions to the Judge's decision. The Respondent filed an opposition to the exceptions.

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge made at the hearing and find that no prejudicial error was committed. We affirm the

rulings. Upon consideration of the Judge's decision and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions and recommended Order.*/

II. Order

The complaint in this case is dismissed.

*/ Subsequent to the issuance of the Judge's decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied enforcement to two of the cases cited by the Judge. Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia v. FLRA, Nos. 91-1211 and 91-1212 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 24, 1992), denying enforcement to Department of the Navy, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia, 39 FLRA 1060 (1991), on remand, 45 FLRA No. 42 (1992), and Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California, 39 FLRA 1126 (1991), on remand, 45 FLRA No. 46 (1992). Without at this time endorsing any specific findings of the court in that decision, we agree with the Judge that, in the circumstances of this case, the particular subject matter of the Union's bargaining request was covered by the negotiated agreement and that, in addition, the bargaining history evidences that the Union clearly and unmistakably waived its right to bargain over other procedures and arrangements concerning business based actions during the life of the agreement.

---

---

---

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
 

---