U.S. Department of the Army, 94th U.S. Army Reserve Command and AFGE Local 1900 (Authority decision, February 8, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority dismissed an unfair labor practice complaint against the Army Reserve Command after deciding the case on a transferred record. An aggrieved person may petition an appropriate United States court of appeals for review within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 1900's president worked for the Army's 94th Reserve Command but sought official time to negotiate for employees of a separate Army recruiting command. His employer denied the request, and the General Counsel alleged an unfair labor practice. The Authority found that the two commands had separate missions and chains of command. It held that the statutory entitlement to official time for bargaining belonged to a representative who was a member of the bargaining unit covered by that negotiation. It dismissed the complaint against the Reserve Command and ordered no remedy or penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7116(a)(1), 7116(a)(8), and 7131(a).
• Outcome: Unfair labor practice complaint dismissed.
• Key point: The Reserve Command did not have to grant official time to its employee to negotiate for employees of a separate command.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v08 p83 ]

08:0083(13)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

8 FLRA No. 13

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
94TH U.S. ARMY RESERVE COMMAND
HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE
MASSACHUSETTS
Respondent

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 1900
Charging Party

Case No. 1-CA-274

DECISION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO REGIONAL DIRECTOR
EDWARD S. DAVIDSON'S "ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS AUTHORITY" IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2429.1 OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2429.1(A)).

UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE AUTHORITY
FINDS:

THE GENERAL COUNSEL ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THE RESPONDENT
VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (8) OF THE STATUTE /1/ WHEN IT REFUSED
TO GRANT OFFICIAL TIME TO ONE OF ITS EMPLOYEES WHILE HE REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES OF ANOTHER COMMAND IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE LATTER
COMMAND. THE ALLEGATION IS THAT THE DENIAL OF OFFICIAL TIME UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES IS CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 7131(A) OF THE
STATUTE. /2/ THE RESPONDENT DENIES THAT ITS ACTION AMOUNTED TO AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. THE QUESTION, THUS, IS WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 7131(A) TO GRANT OFFICIAL TIME TO ITS EMPLOYEES
WHILE THEY ARE ENGAGED IN NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF
EMPLOYEES OF A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT COMMAND.

THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1900 (THE
UNION) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF A BARGAINING UNIT OF EMPLOYEES
LOCATED AT HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS WHO ARE
EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 94TH U.S. ARMY
RESERVE COMMAND. THE UNION IS ALSO THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
SEVERAL OTHER UNITS, INCLUDING ONE CONSISTING OF EMPLOYEES OF THE
CONCORD DISTRICT RECRUITING COMMAND, CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE, WHICH IS
PART OF THE U.S. ARMY RECRUITING COMMAND.

BOTH THE RESPONDENT AND THE U.S. ARMY RECRUITING COMMAND ARE
SUBORDINATE ELEMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ARMY. HOWEVER, THE PARTIES
STIPULATED, AND THE AUTHORITY FINDS, THAT THEY ARE SEPARATE
ORGANIZATIONS IN TERMS OF FUNCTION AND MISSION AND ARE NOT INTERRELATED
IN ANY ORGANIZATIONAL MANNER. THE STIPULATION SHOWS THAT THEY HAVE
SEPARATE MISSIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND CHAINS OF COMMAND.

JOHN ESPOSITO IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE RESPONDENT. HE IS THE PRESIDENT
OF LOCAL 1900 AND THE UNION'S CHIEF NEGOTIATOR IN CONTRACT BARGAINING.
ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 6, 1980, ESPOSITO REQUESTED THAT THE RESPONDENT
GRANT OFFICIAL TIME TO HIM FOR THE TIME HE WOULD BE ENGAGED IN
NEGOTIATING A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE UNION
WITH THE CONCORD DISTRICT RECRUITING COMMAND. THE RESPONDENT DENIED AND
CONTINUES TO DENY THAT REQUEST ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 7131(A) THAT IT GRANT OFFICIAL TIME TO ITS OWN
EMPLOYEES WHILE THEY REPRESENT EMPLOYEES OF A COMPLETELY SEPARATE
COMMAND IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THAT COMMAND. THE GENERAL COUNSEL
CONTENDS THAT THE RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO GRANT OFFICIAL TIME IS
CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 7131(A) AND THEREFORE VIOLATED
SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (8) OF THE STATUTE.

BASED ON ITS DECISION AND RATIONALE IN UNITED STATES AIR FORCE,
2750TH AIR BASE WING HEADQUARTERS, AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND,
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, OHIO. 7 FLRA NO. 118(1982), IN WHICH IT WAS HELD
THAT OFFICIAL TIME ENTITLEMENT UNDER SECTION 7131(A) ACCRUES ONLY TO AN
EMPLOYEE, SERVING AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE,
WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE BARGAINING UNIT TO WHICH THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT APPLIES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (8) OF THE STATUTE
AND THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 1-CA-274 BE, AND
IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 8, 1982

RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

--------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------

/1/ 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;

(8) TO OTHERWISE FAIL OR REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS
CHAPTER.

/2/ SEC. 7131. OFFICIAL TIME

(A) ANY EMPLOYEE REPRESENTING AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE IN THE
NEGOTIATION OF A

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE
AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL TIME FOR SUCH

PURPOSES, INCLUDING ATTENDANCE AT IMPASSE PROCEEDING, DURING THE TIME
THE EMPLOYEE OTHERWISE

WOULD BE IN A DUTY STATUS. THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM OFFICIAL
TIME IS AUTHORIZED UNDER

THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT EXCEED THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS DESIGNATED
AT REPRESENTING THE

AGENCY FOR SUCH PROPOSES.