Castle Air Force Base and NAGE Local R12-91 (Authority decision, July 21, 1982)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority resolving an unfair labor practice complaint under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. 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

NAGE Local R12-91 designated three employees from one bargaining unit to negotiate for a separate unit at Castle Air Force Base. The Air Force denied them official time. The Authority held that the statutory entitlement applied only to designated negotiators who were members of the unit being negotiated for, and dismissed the complaint. There was no judge’s decision under review.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7131(a).
• Outcome: Complaint dismissed on the merits.
• Key point: Negotiators from a different unit did not receive this statutory official-time entitlement.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v09 p635 ]

09:0635(71)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

9 FLRA No. 71

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
93RD COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP
CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA
Respondent

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R12-91
Charging Party

Case No. 9-CA-1072

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 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES
AND REGULATIONS.

UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE
STIPULATION OF FACTS AND THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS, /1/ THE AUTHORITY
FINDS:

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1)
AND (8) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE
STATUTE) WHEN IT FAILED AND REFUSED TO GRANT OFFICIAL TIME TO EMPLOYEES
FRANK L. LUZANIA, PEGGY WHITAKER AND TURNER JOHNSON FOR THEIR
PARTICIPATION IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE RESPONDENT. THE
RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL WAS PREMISED ON THE FACT THAT THE DESIGNATED UNION
REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT EMPLOYED WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT INVOLVED IN
THE NEGOTIATIONS.

THE UNION IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF TWO SEPARATE BARGAINING
UNITS AT THE RESPONDENT ACTIVITY. ONE OF THESE UNITS INCLUDES ALL
NON-APPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES WHILE THE OTHER INCLUDES ALL WAGE GRADE
AND GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES, I.E., APPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES. WITH
REGARD TO NEGOTIATIONS FOR NON-APPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES, THE UNION
DESIGNATED THREE OF ITS LOCAL OFFICERS AS ITS REPRESENTATIVES. THE
THREE OFFICERS, LUZANIA, WHITAKER AND JOHNSON, ARE ALL APPROPRIATED FUND
EMPLOYEES AND THUS ARE NOT EMPLOYED IN THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND
BARGAINING UNIT.

THE FACTS AND POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL TO THOSE IN UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, 2750TH AIR BASE WING
HEADQUARTERS, AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, OHIO, 7
FLRA NO. 118 (1982). FOR THE REASONS MORE FULLY STATED IN UNITED STATES
AIR FORCE, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT IN REFUSING
TO PROVIDE OFFICIAL TIME TO THE EMPLOYEES NAMED ABOVE WAS NOT VIOLATIVE
OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (8) OF THE STATUTE. /2/ THUS, OFFICIAL TIME
ENTITLEMENT UNDER SECTION 7131(A) ACCRUES ONLY TO EMPLOYEES SERVING AS
DESIGNATED UNION REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE BARGAINING UNIT
FOR WHICH NEGOTIATIONS ARE BEING CONDUCTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY
FINDS THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 9-CA-1072 BE, AND
IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.

ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 21, 1982

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

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

/1/ THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S UNTIMELY FILED BRIEF WAS NOT CONSIDERED
HEREIN. THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEF WAS DENIED BY THE AUTHORITY IN AN ORDER DATED MAY 18, 1982. THE
AUTHORITY DENIED GENERAL COUNSEL'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THAT ORDER ON
JULY 7, 1982.

/2/ SEE ALSO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 94TH U.S. ARMY RESERVE
COMMAND, HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, MASSACHUSETTS, 8 FLRA NO. 13 (1982).