4392 Aerospace Support Group, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, Department of the Air Force (Respondent) and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1001 (Complainant) 

 



[ v02 p138 ]
02:0138(14)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 2 FLRA No. 14
 
 4392 AEROSPACE SUPPORT GROUP,
 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA,
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 1001
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary 
                                            Case No. 72-7644(CA)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    ON MAY 25, 1979, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE THOMAS SCHNEIDER ISSUED HIS
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING, FINDING
 THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
 ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMPLAINT BE
 DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.  THEREAFTER, THE COMPLAINANT FILED TIMELY
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION
 PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
 IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 (44 F.R. 44741, JULY 30, 1979).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE
 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN
 SECTION 7135(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HAS
 REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING
 AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE
 HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE SUBJECT
 CASE, INCLUDING THE COMPLAINANT'S EXCEPTIONS, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY
 ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS AS MODIFIED BELOW.
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT
 VIOLATE SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.  IN SO CONCLUDING, HE
 FOUND THAT, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE SOME MINOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A CENTRAL
 AUTOMATED INVENTORY AND REFERRAL SYSTEM (CAIRS) AND THE AUTOMATED CAREER
 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ACMS), THE RESPONDENT'S PHASING OUT OF CAIRS AND ITS
 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACMS DID NOT CHANGE THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF THE UNIT
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    THE AUTHORITY FINDS, CONTRARY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, THAT
 THERE WAS A CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACMS AND THAT, AS A RESULT, THE RESPONDENT HAD AN
 OBLIGATION, UPON REQUEST, TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE COMPLAINANT ON THE
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ACMS TO REPLACE THE CAIRS.  IN THE VIEW OF
 THE AUTHORITY, THE REPLACEMENT OF ONE SYSTEM WITH THE OTHER RESULTED IN
 A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION WITH REGARD TO THE FILLING OF VACANCIES GS-12
 AND ABOVE, BY CHANGING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FINAL RANKING OF THE TEN
 TOP NAMES WERE DETERMINED.  THUS, WHERE UNDER CAIRS, A PANEL OF LOCAL
 OFFICIALS INCLUDING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMPLAINANT MADE THE FINAL
 RANKING OF THE TOP TEN NAMES, UNDER ACMS, THE COMPUTER ALONE, WITHOUT
 RELYING ON THE HUMAN JUDGMENTS OF THE PANEL, PROVIDES THE FINAL RANKING
 OF THE TOP TEN NAMES.  NOTWITHSTANDING SUCH CHANGE, HOWEVER, THE
 AUTHORITY NOTES THAT THE RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE
 COMPLAINANT, DESPITE HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGE, FAILED TO REQUEST
 TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE RESPONDENT ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION
 OF THE CHANGE.  ON THIS BASIS, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE RESPONDENT
 DID NOT VIOLATE ITS BARGAINING OBLIGATION TO COMPLAINANT UNDER THE ORDER
 IN IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE FROM CAIRS TO ACMS.  /1/ ACCORDINGLY, THE
 AUTHORITY WILL ORDER THAT THE COMPLAINT HEREIN BE DISMISSED IN ITS
 ENTIRETY.  /2/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE
 NO. 72-7644(CA),E, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 29, 1979
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    MAJOR JERRY M. BRASEL
 
    AIR FORCE CENTRAL LABOR LAW OFFICE
 
    RANDOLPH AFB, TEXAS 78184
 
    AND
 
    CAPTAIN JOSEPH SWERDZEWSKI
 
    VANDENBERG AFB, CALIFORNIA 93437
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    BOBBY ANN SMITH AND
 
    THOMAS P. CHRISTY
 
    P. O. BOX 1935
 
    VANDENBERG AFB, CALIFORNIA 93437
 
    AND
 
    ROBERT W. BROCKBANK
 
    NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
 
    NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 
    EMPLOYEES
 
    5755 ORANGE AVENUE #2
 
    LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90805
 
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    BEFORE:  THOMAS SCHNEIDER
 
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                           CASE NO. 72-7644(CA)
 
                      RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THIS PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
 AMENDED;  THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED BY A REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
 OF THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES
 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;  AND THE PROCEEDING WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS.  THIS DECISION,
 PURSUANT TO TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS, FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44,
 NO. 1, JANUARY 2, 1979, PAGES 7-8, IS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE
 AUTHORITY AND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 2400.2 (5 C.F.R. SEC. 2400.2) OF
 THE TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS, SHALL BE PROCESSED BY THE
 AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, TITLE 29, CODE OF FEDERAL
 REGULATIONS, PART 201, ET SEQ., EXCEPT THAT THE WORD "AUTHORITY" SHALL
 BE SUBSTITUTED WHEREVER THE WORDS "ASSISTANT SECRETARY" APPEAR IN THE
 RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY.
 
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    LOCAL 1001, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES (THE "UNION")
 FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST 4392ND AEROSPACE SUPPORT GROUP (THE
 "ACTIVITY") LOCATED AT VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CHARGING THAT THE
 ACTIVITY VIOLATED SEC. 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491
 (THE "ORDER"), BY FAILING TO NEGOTIATE THE IMPACT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION
 OF THE AUTOMATED CAREER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ACMS) TO REPLACE THE CENTRAL
 AUTOMATED INVENTORY AND REFERRAL SYSTEM (CAIRS).  AFTER INVESTIGATING,
 THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, LABOR-MANAGEMENT SERVICES, ON NOVEMBER 29,
 1978, ISSUED A NOTICE OF HEARING.  SAID HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE ME ON
 JANUARY 25 AND 26, 1979, IN SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA.  THE UNION AND THE
 ACTIVITY WERE REPRESENTED AND HAD FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE
 AND CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES.  THE RECORD WAS CLOSED APRIL 2, 1979, WHEN
 THE LAST BRIEFS WERE FILED.
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    BACKGROUND
 
    THE ACTIVITY IS A PART OF VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, A UNITED STATES
 AIR FORCE INSTALLATION NEAR LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA. ONE OF VANDENBERG'S
 MISSIONS IS TO OPERATE THE PACIFIC MISSILE TEST CENTER.  THE SPACE AND
 MISSILE TEST CENTER DIRECTORATE OF PROCUREMENT (SAMTEC/PM) PROVIDES
 PROCUREMENT SUPPORT FOR THE PACIFIC MISSILE TEST CENTER.
 
    AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES THE UNION WAS GRANTED EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION BY
 AND HAD A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH THE ACTIVITY.
 
    AT ISSUE HERE IS THE TRANSITION FROM ONE AUTOMATED COMPUTER SYSTEM
 (CAIRS) TO ANOTHER AUTOMATED COMPUTER SYSTEM (ACMS).  BOTH SYSTEMS ARE
 DESIGNED TO ENABLE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) TO KEEP AN INVENTORY
 OF PROCUREMENT PERSONNEL AND OF QUALITY AND RELIABILITY ASSURANCE
 PERSONNEL, AND TO ENABLE DOD COMPONENTS TO FILL VACANCIES REQUIRING SUCH
 PERSONNEL FROM ROSTERS PRODUCED FROM DATA STORED IN THE SYSTEM.
 
    CAIRS WAS IN OPERATION FROM SOMETIME IN THE SIXTIES TO APPROXIMATELY
 MARCH 1978.  IT WAS TO BE REPLACED BY ACMS IMMEDIATELY, BUT IN FACT ACMS
 WAS NOT READY FOR OPERATION UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1978.  IN OCTOBER 1978, THE
 ACTIVITY FILLED ITS FIRST AND ONLY (TO THE TIME OF HEARING) VACANCY
 USING ACMS.  THE UNION'S OPERATIONS OFFICER, MS. SMITH, FOUND OUT IN
 JULY 1978 THAT ACMS WAS BEING IMPLEMENTED, IN THE COURSE OF A
 CONVERSATION ON ANOTHER SUBJECT WITH ONE OF THE SUPERVISORS AT THE TEST
 CENTER.  MS. SMITH SOUGHT MORE INFORMATION, AND A MEETING WAS SET UP FOR
 JULY 14, 1978, AT WHICH MS. LEIDECKER AND MS. DULIN, FROM THE ACTIVITY'S
 EMPLOYMENT SECTION EXPLAINED THE SYSTEM.  APPARENTLY THE UNION AND MS.
 SMITH WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECT OF ACMS ON UNIT MEMBERS AT GRADE
 LEVEL GS-5 THROUGH 11.  IN FACT, FOR THOSE GRADE LEVELS THE NEW SYSTEM
 INVOLVED ONLY FILLING OUT NEW REGISTRATION FORMS WHICH VARIED FROM THE
 PREVIOUS FORMS IN APPEARANCE, BUT ONLY MINIMALLY IN CONTENT AND
 FUNCTION.  THIS IS NOT AN AREA OF SIGNIFICANT DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
 PARTIES.  THE DISPUTE CENTERS AROUND GRADE LEVELS GS-12 AND ABOVE.
 
    THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AT GRADE LEVEL GS-12 AND ABOVE WHO
 ARE MEMBERS OF THE BARGAINING UNIT.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT THE
 ACTIVITY BARGAINED ON THE IMPACT OF ACMS.  THE FACT IS IT DID NOT
 BARGAIN.  THE QUESTION IS, WAS THIS A VIOLATION OF THE ORDER?
 
    WAIVER
 
    THE ACTIVITY CONTENDS THAT THE UNION'S FAILURE TO REQUEST IMPACT
 BARGAINING AT THE JULY 14 MEETING, AND ITS FAILURE TO PRESENT SPECIFIC
 PROPOSALS AT THAT MEETING, CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF ANY RIGHTS IT HAD TO
 BARGAIN OVER THE IMPACT OF ACMS.  I REJECTED THIS CONTENTION AT THE
 HEARING (TR. 304-306) AND I REJECT IT STILL.  WAIVER IS DEFINED AS THE
 INTENTIONAL OR VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF A KNOWN RIGHT.  BLACK'S LAW
 DICTIONARY, REV. 4TH ED.(1968).  THE UNION DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH
 INFORMATION ON OR BEFORE JULY 14, 1978, TO FORMULATE MEANINGFUL
 QUESTIONS OR PROPOSALS.  THUS, ITS FAILURE TO DO SO CANNOT BE A WAIVER
 OR ANY OF ITS RIGHTS.
 
    IF THE ACTIVITY HAD A DUTY TO BARGAIN REGARDING THE IMPACT OF ACMS IT
 HAD A DUTY TO INFORM THE UNION OF ACMS PROCEDURES IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL
 TO MAKE ITS IMPACT UNDERSTANDABLE.  THIS IT DID NOT DO.
 
    THE ACTIVITY ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE UNION WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO
 NEGOTIATE THE IMPACT OF ACMS IN ARTICLE XVII, SECTION 3(A) OF THE
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT (COMP. EXH. 1).  THAT SECTION PROVIDES:
 
    SECTION 3.
 
    A.  REQUIREMENTS.  ALL PROMOTIONS TO POSITIONS IN THE COMPETITIVE
 SERVICE-- AND TO
 
    POSITIONS IN THE EXCEPTED SERVICE INSOFAR AS PRACTICABLE-- WHICH ARE
 SERVICED BY THE CIVILIAN
 
    PERSONNEL OFFICE AT VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE WILL BE MADE IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURES
 
    OUTLINED IN THIS PLAN UNLESS SPECIFICALLY COVERED BY A HIGHER
 HEADQUARTERS PLAN WHICH TAKES
 
    PRECEDENCE.  PROMOTIONS TO POSITIONS GOVERNED BY OTHER PLANS (E.G.
 PROCUREMENT POSITIONS
 
    FILLED THROUGH CAIRA /3/ PROCEDURES, OPERATION ANALYST POSITIONS,
 HIGHGRADE POSITIONS AT
 
    GS-15 AND ABOVE) WILL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING HIGHER
 HEADQUARTERS' DIRECTIVES AND
 
    IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PLAN TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES NOT CONFLICT
 WITH MANDATORY PROVISIONS
 
    OF THE HIGHER DIRECTIVE.
 
    IT IS CLEAR THAT ACMS WAS A HIGHER HEADQUARTERS' DIRECTIVE.  THE
 ACTIVITY ARGUES THAT SINCE THE AGREEMENT ITSELF SPECIFIES THAT
 PROMOTIONS GOVERNED BY PLANS LIKE CAIRA WILL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
 GOVERNING HIGHER HEADQUARTERS' DIRECTIVES, AND SINCE ACMS IS A PLAN
 REQUIRED BY HIGHER HEADQUARTER'S DIRECTIVE, THERE IS NOTHING TO
 NEGOTIATE ABOUT.  THIS ARGUMENT IGNORES THE LAST 21 WORDS OF THE
 SECTION, WHICH SPECIFY THAT PROMOTIONS GOVERNED BY PLANS OTHER THAN
 THOSE IN THE AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING HIGHER
 HEADQUARTERS' DIRECTIVES "AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PLAN TO THE EXTENT
 THAT IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE HIGHER
 DIRECTIVE." THUS, THE AGREEMENT CLEARLY RESERVED TO THE PARTIES THE
 RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ACMS CAN BE
 RECONCILED TO THE PLAN CONTAINED IN THE AGREEMENT.
 
    IMPACT
 
    THE ACTIVITY CONTENDS THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACMS HAD NO
 SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT UPON THE EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE UNION.  I AGREE
 WITH THIS CONTENTION.
 
    THE UNION ALLEGES DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CAIRS AND ACMS IN RESPECT TO
 ENROLLMENT, MOBILITY, AREA OF CONSIDERATION, CRITERIA FOR SELECTION AND
 REFERRAL OF LOCAL CANDIDATES.  ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT THE TWO PROGRAMS
 ARE NEARLY IDENTICAL IN EACH OF THESE RESPECTS.
 
    ENROLLMENT
 
    BOTH MS. DULIN AND MS. LEIDECKER WERE EXPERTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
 FIELDS AND GAVE VERY CREDIBLE TESTIMONY.  TOGETHER THEIR TESTIMONY
 SHOWED THAT PRECISELY THE SAME PEOPLE WERE REQUIRED TO BE ENROLLED IN
 BOTH SYSTEMS.  THROUGH THE GS-11 LEVEL THE PURPOSE OF ENROLLMENT WAS
 SIMPLY INFORMATIONAL.  AT THE GS-12 LEVEL AND ABOVE THE PURPOSE WAS TO
 FILL VACANCIES.  SOME OF THE UNION'S WITNESSES WERE UNSURE WHY THEY WERE
 REGISTERED IN ONE OR THE OTHER OR BOTH PROGRAMS.  BUT I FIND THAT THIS
 UNCERTAINTY WAS NOT DUE TO THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS OF EACH SYSTEM,
 BUT RATHER DUE TO THEIR UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE REGULATIONS OR DUE TO THE
 CHANGING NATURE OF THEIR WORK.
 
    MOBILITY
 
    THE UNION CONTENDS THAT ACMS REQUIRES THE PERSONS ENROLLED IN IT TO
 BE MORE MOBILE THAN THOSE PERSONS WHO WERE ENROLLED IN CAIRS.  THE
 EVIDENCE SHOWED, HOWEVER, THAT ACMS PROVIDES AN AVENUE FOR INDIVIDUAL
 EMPLOYEES TO SPECIFY THE PRECISE GEOGRAPHIC BASE OF THEIR CHOICE.  A
 VANDENBERG EMPLOYEE WHO WISHED NOT TO RELOCATE COULD SPECIFY
 VANDENBERG
 AS THE SOLE LOCATION FOR REFERRAL.  IT WAS UP TO THE PARTICULAR ACTIVITY
 THAT HAD A VACANCY TO SPECIFY WHETHER MOBILITY WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR A
 SPECIFIC JOB, NOT THE ACMS AS A WHOLE.  IT IS TRUE THAT AFTER DECLINING
 A POSITION UNDER ACMS AN EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE TO REVISE HIS FORM 2077
 WITHIN 20 DAYS TO AGAIN BE CONSIDERED FOR REFERRAL.  UNDER CAIRS HE
 WOULD CONTINUE TO BE REFERRED EVEN WITHOUT ACTION ON HIS PART.  BUT THIS
 IS A VERY MINOR PROCEDURAL DIFFERENCE.  THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT
 UNDER BOTH PROGRAMS THE EMPLOYEE HAS CONTROL OVER HIS PROSPECTIVE
 ASSIGNMENTS, AND BOTH PROGRAMS REQUIRE MOBILITY IN CERTAIN TRAINING
 POSITIONS.
 
    AREA OF CONSIDERATION
 
    MS. DULIN TESTIFIED THAT THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION UNDER BOTH CAIRS
 AND ACMS WAS DOD WIDE (TR. 290).  NO PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE SHOWED
 OTHERWISE.
 
    CRITERIA FOR SELECTION
 
    ONE OF THE UNION'S WITNESSES, MR. BAUGHMAN, TESTIFIED THAT CAIRS USED
 THREE CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF A CANDIDATE:  THE COMMODITY, THE
 YEARS OF CIVIL SERVICE, AND THE SUPERVISORY APPRAISAL.  HE SAID ACMS
 USES ONLY TWO:  THE EMPLOYEE'S SELF-APPRAISAL AND THE SUPERVISOR'S
 APPRAISAL.  OTHER EVIDENCE FROM PERSONS EVEN MORE FAMILIAR WITH THESE
 FACTORS SHOWED THAT SENIORITY WAS USED IN BOTH SYSTEMS ONLY TO BREAK
 TIES, AND THAT COMMODITY AND SUPERVISORY APPRAISAL ARE CODED INTO THE
 ACMS.  THE NET EFFECT IS THAT BOTH SYSTEMS USE THE SAME CRITERIA FOR
 SELECTION THAT VARY ONLY WITH THE NEEDS OF THE REQUISITIONING AGENCY.
 
    REFERRAL OF LOCAL CANDIDATES
 
    SEVERAL UNION WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT LOCAL VACANCIES COULD BE
 FILLED BY LOCAL PEOPLE MORE READILY UNDER CAIRS THAN UNDER ACMS.  THIS
 CONTENTION IS BELIED MOST VIVIDLY BY THE FACT THAT THE ONLY TIME ACMS
 HAS BEEN USED TO FILL A VACANCY AT VANDENBERG, A LOCAL PERSON WAS
 SELECTED (TR. 174).  IN ADDITION, IT IS CLEAR THAT BOTH CAIRS AND ACMS
 PRODUCE ROSTERS OF ELIGIBLES DERIVED DOD WIDE, INCLUDING ALL THE
 QUALIFIED LOCAL PEOPLE. UNDER BOTH SYSTEMS THE VACANCY MUST BE FILLED
 FROM SUCH ROSTERS.
 
    ONE DIFFERENCE, WHICH I FIND TO BE INSIGNIFICANT, WAS BROUGHT OUT.
 UNDER CAIRS LOCAL OFFICIALS WOULD MAKE THE FINAL RANKING OF THE TOP TEN
 NAMES PRODUCED BY THE COMPUTER, BY USING SUCH RANKING ITEMS AS AWARDS.
 UNDER ACMS SUCH FACTORS ARE CODED INTO THE REQUEST PRIOR TO FINAL
 RANKING.  THUS, UNDER BOTH SYSTEMS THE SAME FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED.
 
    MINISTERIAL ACT
 
    LASTLY, THE ACTIVITY CONTENDS THAT ITS IMPLEMENTATION OF ACMS WAS A
 MINISTERIAL ACT WHICH IT HAD NO DISCRETION BUT TO FOLLOW.  THIS
 STATEMENT LEADS TO THE QUESTION, DISCUSSED IN NAVAL AIR REWORK FACILITY,
 PENSACOLA, FLORIDA, FLRC NO. 76A-37 (MAY 4, 1977), WHICH LEVEL IN THE
 CHAIN OF COMMAND MAY BE HELD TO VIOLATE SEC. 19(A) OF THE ORDER.  SINCE
 I CONCLUDE THAT THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED FOR THE REASONS STATED,
 I NEED NOT REACH THIS QUESTION.
 
                                CONCLUSION
 
    I THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD NO DUTY TO NEGOTIATE THE
 IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTING THE AUTOMATED CAREER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ACMS) AND
 THEREFORE DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.
 
                             RECOMMENDED ORDER
 
    I RECOMMEND TO THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY THAT THE
 COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
 
                             THOMAS SCHNEIDER
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  MAY 25, 1979
 
    SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
 
    TS:VG
 
    /1/ CF. SUPERVISOR OF SHIPBUILDING, CONVERSION AND REPAIR, UNITED
 STATES NAVY, GROTON, CONNECTICUT, A/SLMR NO. 1147 AND DEPARTMENT OF THE
 ARMY, U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY, WEST POINT, NEW YORK, A/SLMR NO. 1138.
 
    /2/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
 OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS
 OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
  THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
 MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE
 RESULT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF T