375th Combat Support Group, Scott Air Force Base and National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23 (Authority decision, July 17, 1992)
Scott Air Force Base and NAGE Local R7-23 (FLRA 75-CA-10036): Hours and separation complaint dismissed
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Authority precedent from 1992, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Final FLRA decision. This is a final unfair-labor-practice order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). Filing a petition does not stay the Authority's order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).
Plain-English summary
The 375th Combat Support Group reduced working hours for seven employees and separated five others without bargaining with the union over the changes' impact and implementation. An administrative law judge recommended dismissing the unfair labor practice complaint, and the Authority adopted that recommendation. It agreed that the union's bargaining request concerned a subject covered by the negotiated agreement. The Authority also found that the bargaining history showed a clear waiver of further bargaining over procedures and arrangements for business based actions during the agreement. It dismissed the complaint.
Decision snapshot
- Authority: Bargaining duties under 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1) and (5).
- Outcome: Judge's recommended dismissal adopted; complaint dismissed.
- Key point: The agreement covered the requested bargaining subject, and the union had waived further bargaining on these procedures during its term.
Full text (FLRA public release)
[ v45 p557 ]
45:0557(48)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
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.)
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.
Try Ezel Pro free for 7 days. Cancel anytime before the trial ends and you pay nothing.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace