American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1931, AFL-CIO (Union) and Naval Weapons Station, Concord, California (Activity) 



[ v04 p18 ]
04:0018(4)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:


 04 FLRA No. 4
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 1931, AFL-CIO
 Union
 
 and
 
 NAVAL WEAPONS STATION,
 CONCORD, CALIFORNIA
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. O-AR-30
 
                  DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON A MOTION FILED BY THE UNION
 FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
 CASE.
 
    IN THIS CASE THE ARBITRATOR FOUND THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD VIOLATED THE
 PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY UNILATERALLY IMPOSING
 RESTRICTIONS ON THE UNION'S USE OF OFFICIAL TIME FOR REPRESENTATIONAL
 FUNCTIONS.  AS A REMEDY, THE ARBITRATOR ORDERED THE ACTIVITY TO
 REIMBURSE THE UNION FOR ANY MONEY IT PAID TO UNION REPRESENTATIVES FOR
 THE TIME THEY SPENT ON REPRESENTATIONAL FUNCTIONS BEYOND WHAT THE
 ACTIVITY ALLOWED FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 24, 1977 THROUGH DECEMBER 15,
 1977.
 
    THE UNION FILED AN EXCEPTION TO THE AWARD, CONTENDING THAT IT WAS
 DEFICIENT BECAUSE THE ARBITRATOR LIMITED THE REMEDY TO THE PERIOD ENDING
 DECEMBER 15, 1977, THE DATE ON WHICH THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT HAD EXPIRED.  THE UNION ARGUED THAT THE REMEDY SHOULD HAVE
 EXTENDED TO JANUARY 30, 1979, THE DATE ON WHICH THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 IMPASSES PANEL ISSUED A DECISION RESOLVING THE PARTIES' IMPASSE OVER THE
 OFFICIAL TIME PROVISIONS IN THEIR NEW COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
 
    THE AUTHORITY DETERMINED IN 4 FLRA NO. 4 (1980) THAT THE UNION'S
 EXCEPTION AND SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS PROVIDED NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE
 AWARD DEFICIENT.  THE AUTHORITY REJECTED THE UNION'S CONTENTION THAT A
 PARTICULAR FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS COUNCIL UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 DECISION /1/ WAS APPLICABLE TO THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD WHICH FASHIONED A
 REMEDY FOR THE PARTICULAR CONTRACT VIOLATION FOUND BY THE ARBITRATOR.
 INSTEAD, THE AUTHORITY FOUND THAT THE UNION WAS DISAGREEING WITH THE
 REASONING EMPLOYED BY THE ARBITRATOR IN ARRIVING AT A REMEDY IN THE
 SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE HIM AND THAT SUCH DISAGREEMENT
 PROVIDED NO BASIS FOR FINDING AN AWARD DEFICIENT.
 
    IN ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE UNION "TAKES EXCEPTION TO THE
 CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE ARBITRATOR" WHICH LIMITED THE REMEDY SOUGHT BY
 THE UNION AND CITES TWO AUTHORITY DECISIONS IN WHICH THE AUTHORITY
 AFFIRMED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES' FINDINGS OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.
 /2/
 
    HOWEVER, THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT SET FORTH BY THE UNION IN ITS
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS PRECISELY THE SAME ARGUMENT THE AUTHORITY
 REJECTED IN DENYING THE UNION'S EXCEPTION IN 4 FLRA NO. 4.  THUS, THE
 UNION IS DISAGREEING WITH THE REASONING EMPLOYED BY THE ARBITRATOR IN
 FASHIONING A REMEDY FOR THE PARTICULAR CONT