State of California National Guard, Sacramento, California and Locals R12-125, R12-132, R12-146 and R12-150, National Association of Government Employees
[ v02 p191 ]
02:0191(21)PS
The decision of the Authority follows:
2 FLRA No. 21
LTC. H.R. MAHONEY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL
STATE MILITARY FORCES-MILITARY DEPARTMENT
2829 WATT AVENUE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95821
RE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD,
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA AND LOCALS
R12-125, R12-132, R12-146 AND
R12-150, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 77 FSIP 77, 78
FSIP 42, 78 FSIP 44 AND 78 FSIP 49,
Case No. 0-MC-3
DEAR COLONEL MAHONEY:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES
PANEL DECISION AND ORDER, FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY ON MARCH 23, 1979.
ACCORDING TO YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL,
INCLUDING ISSUANCES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL (HEREINAFTER
THE PANEL), THE PERTINENT BACKGROUND IN THIS MATTER IS AS FOLLOWS:
DURING SEPARATE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN LOCALS R12-105, R12-125,
R12-132, R12-146 AND R12-150 OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES (NAGE), WHICH LOCALS INDIVIDUALLY REPRESENT UNITS OF ARMY OR
AIR NATIONAL GUARD TECHNICIANS, AND THE COMMANDING GENERAL, STATE
MILITARY FORCES, CALIFORNIA (CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD) AN IMPASSE AROSE
IN EACH BARGAINING UNIT CONCERNING THE WEARING OF MILITARY UNIFORMS BY
CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD TECHNICIANS WHEN PERFORMING DAY-TO-DAY
TECHNICIAN DUTIES. AS A RESULT, EACH OF THE NAGE LOCALS, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 17 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, FILED A SEPARATE
REQUEST WITH THE PANEL FOR ASSISTANCE IN RESOLVING THE IMPASSE. AFTER
INFORMAL INQUIRIES AND CONSULTATIONS WITH THE PARTIES, THE PANEL, ON
JUNE 30, 1978, ISSUED AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN EACH OF THESE FIVE CASES
WHY CONTRACT LANGUAGE ORDERED BY THE PANEL TO BE ADOPTED IN ELEVEN PRIOR
CASES CONCERNING THE UNIFORM ISSUE, THAT IS, CONTRACT LANGUAGE AFFORDING
SUCH TECHNICIAN EMPLOYEES "THE OPTION OF WEARING EITHER THE MILITARY
UNIFORM OR AN AGREED-UPON STANDARD CIVILIAN ATTIRE WITHOUT DISPLAY OF
MILITARY RANK" SUBJECT TO AGREED-UPON EXCEPTIONS TO COVER CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE THE WEARING OF THE UNIFORM MAY BE REQUIRED, SHOULD NOT ALSO BE
ADOPTED IN THESE CASES. ONLY THE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD RESPONDED TO
THE ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE.
THE PANEL, ON OCTOBER 13, 1978, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
NATIONAL GUARD'S RESPONSE, ISSUED A CONSOLIDATED DECISION AND ORDER
DIRECTING THE PARTIES IN THE FOUR CASES INVOLVED IN THIS PETITION FOR
REVIEW (THE FIFTH CASE, NAMELY NAGE LOCAL R12-105, 77 FSIP 70, BEING
HELD IN ABEYANCE BY THE PANEL PENDING THE OUTCOME OF A QUESTION
CONCERNING THAT LOCAL'S REPRESENTATION) /1/ TO ADOPT THE AFOREMENTIONED
CONTRACT LANGUAGE IN EACH OF THEIR AGREEMENTS.
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1978, THE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD REQUESTED THAT
THE PANEL RECONSIDERED ITS OCTOBER 13, 1978, DECISION AND ORDER. AFTER
THIS REQUEST WAS DENIED BY THE PANEL ON JANUARY 9, 1979, YOU FILED THE
INSTANT PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S DECISION AND ORDER.
IN THE SUBJECT PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S DECISION AND ORDER
YOU REQUEST THAT THE AUTHORITY "OVERRULE THE (PANEL'S) INSTRUCTIONS AND
ALLOW THE COMMANDING GENERAL, STATE MILITARY FORCES, CALIFORNIA, HIS OWN
DISCRETION IN REQUIRING THE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD TECHNICIAN
WORKFORCE TO WEAR THE MILITARY UNIFORM" OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, "TO
ACCORD THE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD BENEFIT OF A FACT FINDING HEARING .
. . ."
WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED YOUR PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S
DECISION AND ORDER AND HAVE DETERMINED FOR THE REASONS EXPRESSED BELOW
THAT THERE SINCE ARE NO PROVISIONS IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1192) WHICH SANCTION DIRECT
APPEALS FROM FINAL PANEL DECISIONS TO THE AUTHORITY, YOUR APPEAL MUST BE
DENIED.
AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE CASE AROSE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
AMENDED, WHEN THE NAGE LOCALS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE REQUESTED THE PANEL
TO RESOLVE AN IMPASSE IN NEGOTIATIONS. FURTHER, AS ALSO STATED, THE
PANEL, PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SECTIONS 5 AND 17 OF THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER, ISSUED ITS CONSOLIDATED DECISION AND ORDER ON OCTOBER
13, 1978, AND DENIED THE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD'S REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION AND ORDER ON JANUARY 9, 1979. NO
PROVISIONS WERE CONTAINED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, OR IN
THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS COUNCIL
AUTHORIZING DIRECT APPEALS FROM FINAL PANEL DECISIONS TO THE COUNCIL.
INSTEAD, AN AGGRIEVED PARTY WAS EMPOWERED IN EFFECT TO OBTAIN REVIEW OF
A PANEL DECISION AND ORDER BY THE COUNCIL THROUGH THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, THAT IS, AFTER
THE FILING BY THE OTHER PARTY OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT
ALLEGING NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE PANEL, A
DECISION ON THAT COMPLAINT BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, AND AN APPEAL FROM AN ADVERSE DECISION OF
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY TO THE COUNCIL. /2/
UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, WHICH
BECAME EFFECTIVE AFTER THE PANEL ISSUED ITS FINAL DECISION IN THE MATTER
BUT BEFORE THE INSTANT APPEAL WAS FILED, /3/ THE COUNCIL'S POLICY
PRECLUDING DIRECT APPEALS OF FINAL PANEL DECISIONS, EXCEPT IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEDURES, REMAINS IN FULL FORCE
AND EFFECT, UNLESS, AS RELEVANT IN THIS CASE, SUCH POLICY IS SUPERSEDED
BY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE OR BY DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE
AUTHORITY UNDER THE STATUTE. /4/
AS TO REVIEW OF FINAL PANEL DECISIONS BY THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE
STATUTE, AND AS REVEALED BY RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE,
THE CLEAR INTENT AND PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WAS TO ESTABLISH THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE PROCEDURE AS THE EXCLUSIVE MEANS OF OBTAINING AUTHORITY
REVIEW. SPECIFICALLY IN THIS REGARD, IN THE PORTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE STATUTE CONCERNING FINAL ORDERS ISSUED BY THE PANEL UNDER
SECTION 7119(C) OF THE STATUTE, 5 U.S.C.7119(C) (92 STAT. 1209), WHICH
SECTION ESSENTIALLY CODIFIES THE PANEL'S PREEXISTING AUTHORITY AND
RESPONSIBILITY TO RESOLVE NEGOTIATION IMPASSES AND IS DERIVED FROM THE
HOUSE BILL (H.R. 11280), THE HOUSE REPORT EXPRESSLY STATES (H.REP. NO.
95-1403, JULY 31, 1978, AT 