Defense Logistics Agency (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Charging Party); Defense Logistic Agency, Defense Property Disposal Service, Defense Property Disposal Region, Memphis, Tennessee and Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Property Disposal Service, Defense Property Disposal Region, Ogden, Utah and Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Property Disposal Service, Defense Property Disposal Region, Columbus, Ohio (Respondents) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, International Association of Machinists and Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO (Charging Parties)

 



[ v05 p126 ]
05:0126(21)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 5 FLRA No. 21
 
 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
                                            Case No. 3-CA-294
 
 
 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY,
 DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL SERVICE,
 DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, and
 
 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY,
 DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL SERVICE,
 DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 OGDEN, UTAH, and
 
 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY,
 DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL SERVICE,
 DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 COLUMBUS, OHIO
 Respondents
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, INTERNATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO,
 AND METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
 Charging Parties
 
                                            Case No. 3-CA-338
 
                           DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING, FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD
 ENGAGED IN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINTS, AND
 RECOMMENDING THAT THEY CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER WERE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY;  BY THE CHARGING PARTY, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO;  AND BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL.
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SEC. 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2423.29) AND SEC. 7118 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101-7135), 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 PARTIES' EXCEPTIONS, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY
 ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS, AS MODIFIED BELOW.
 
    IN CASE NO. 3-CA-294, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND THAT THE
 RESPONDENT DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1)
 AND (5) OF THE STATUTE BY REFUSING TO ACCORD RECOGNITION TO THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO (AFGE) AS THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AND BY REFUSING AFGE'S REQUEST TO
 NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE.  IN SO FINDING, THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SPECIFICALLY REJECTED DLA'S CONTENTION THAT
 AFGE IS NOT A "LABOR ORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
 7103(A)(4) OF THE STATUTE, BUT REFUSED TO PASS UPON DLA'S FURTHER
 CONTENTION THAT ITS CONCEDED REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE AND BARGAIN WITH AFGE
 WAS JUSTIFIED BY AFGE'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
 SECTION 7111(E) OF THE STATUTE.  /1/ IN THIS LATTER REGARD, THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT "A LABOR ORGANIZATION'S
 COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF (S)ECTION 7111(E) OF THE STATUTE IS AN
 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER WHICH IS NOT LITIGABLE IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 PROCEEDING" AND THAT "A QUESTION REGARDING A LABOR ORGANIZATION'S
 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT REQUIREMENTS BELONGS BEFORE
 THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY WHO ISSUED IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS (PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 7120(D) OF THE STATUTE) ON JULY 26, 1979 AT 5 C.F.R. PARTS
 207-209." /2/ THE AUTHORITY EXPRESSLY ADOPTS THE FOREGOING FINDINGS,
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
 
    IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED IN THIS CONNECTION THAT THE AUTHORITY IN THE
 PREAMBLE TO ITS FINAL REGULATIONS (45 F.R. 3482 (1980)), STATED THAT:
 
    "WITH RESPECT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH LABOR ORGANIZATIONS' ROSTERS OF
 OFFICERS AND
 
    REPRESENTATIVES, CONSTITUTIONS AND BYLAWS, AND STATEMENTS OF
 OBJECTIVES WOULD BE OBTAINED,
 
    SINCE SUCH MATTERS ARE FILED WITH THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR
 FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 
    RELATIONS, WHO HAS RESPONSIBILITY UNDER 5 U.S.C. 7120 FOR
 ADMINISTERING THE STANDARDS OF
 
    CONDUCT FOR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, A SUGGESTED REQUIREMENT THAT THE
 IDENTICAL AND READILY
 
    AVAILABLE INFORMATION BE FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY WAS DEEMED MERELY
 DUPLICATIVE. . ."
 
    ALSO, IN REPRESENTATION PETITIONS FILED UNDER 5 C.F.R. 2422 (1980), A
 LABOR ORGANIZATION IS REQUIRED TO CERTIFY THAT ". . . IT HAS SUBMITTED
 TO THE ACTIVITY OR AGENCY AND THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS A ROSTER OF ITS OFFICERS AND REPRESENTATIVES,
 A COPY OF ITS CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS AND A STATEMENT OF ITS
 OBJECTIVES." IN THE EVENT A QUESTION IS RAISED IN THE REPRESENTATION
 CASE CONCERNING THE FILING OF THE DOCUMENTS WITH THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
 ADVERTED TO IN SECTION 7111(E) OF THE STATUTE, THE MATTER SHALL BE
 RESOLVED IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER ADMINISTRATIVELY BY THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR.
 
    IN CASE NO. 3-CA-338, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FURTHER FOUND THAT
 THE ADMITTED FAILURE AND REFUSAL OF THREE COMPONENTS WITHIN DLA TO HONOR
 42 UNIT EMPLOYEES' SIGNED DUES ALLOTMENT AUTHORIZATIONS IN FAVOR OF
 AFGE, THEIR EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, CONSTITUTED
 NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 7115(A) OF THE STATUTE AND A VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 7116(A)(1), (5) AND (8) OF THE STATUTE.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE SPECIFICALLY RELIED UPON THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF SECTION 7115(A) OF
 THE STATUTE /3/ AND THE RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THAT PROVISION
 /4/ IN CONCLUDING THAT AN AGENCY MUST HONOR AN EMPLOYEE'S WRITTEN
 AUTHORIZATION TO HAVE PERIODIC DUES DEDUCTED AND PAID TO THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIT.  IN SO CONCLUDING, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE FURTHER STATED THAT RESPONDENT'S UNILATERAL REFUSAL TO CONTINUE TO
 RECOGNIZE AFGE AS THE EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
 "CAN NOT BE USED AS A BASIS FOR ASSERTING AS A DEFENSE THAT AN AGENCY
 MAY NOT CHECK OFF DUES TO A LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN
 "'RECOGNIZED'." THE AUTHORITY FULLY AGREES WITH AND THEREFORE ADOPTS THE
 FOREGOING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
 
    HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITY DISAGREES, IN PART, WITH THE EXTENT OF THE
 REMEDY RECOMMENDED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN CASE NO. 3-CA-338.
  HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS VIOLATED THE STATUTORY MANDATE TO HONOR
 THE UNIT EMPLOYEES' VALID DUES DEDUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS, THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ORDERED RESPONDENTS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
 SUCH UNLAWFUL CONDUCT AND, "(C)OMMENCING WITH THE FIRST PAY PERIOD AFTER
 THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, (TO) DEDUCT REGULAR AND PERIODIC DUES FROM THE
 PAY OF EMPLOYEES . . . WHO HAVE EXECUTED VALID WRITTEN ALLOTMENTS AND
 ALSO FROM ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE IN THE UNIT WHO MAY IN THE FUTURE MAKE
 VOLUNTARY ALLOTMENTS FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AND REMIT SUCH DUES TO THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO." HOWEVER, CITING TWO CASES ARISING AND DECIDED UNDER EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECLINED TO ORDER
 RESPONDENTS TO REIMBURSE AFGE FOR ANY LOSS IT MAY HAVE SUSTAINED AS A
 RESULT OF THE UNLAWFUL REFUSAL TO HONOR VALID DUES DEDUCTION
 AUTHORIZATIONS.  WHILE HE STATED THAT SUCH REIMBURSEMENT ORDER WOULD BE
 A REASONABLE WAY OF RESTORING THE STATUS QUO TO AFGE WHICH, BUT FOR
 RESPONDENTS' UNLAWFUL ACTION, WOULD HAVE RECEIVED AND UTILIZED THE DUES
 REVENUE IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS DUTIES AS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
 UNIT EMPLOYEES, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE NEVERTHELESS CONCLUDED THAT
 HE WAS UNABLE TO GRANT SUCH A REMEDY INASMUCH AS HE WAS BOUND BY
 DECISIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY UNTIL THEY WERE OVERRULED OR FOUND
 DISTINGUISHABLE BY THE AUTHORITY.  /5/ FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH BELOW,
 THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE REMEDIAL ORDER RECOMMENDED BY THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE HEREIN SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO REQUIRE
 RESPONDENTS TO REIMBURSE AFGE IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE DUES THAT AFGE
 WOULD HAVE RECEIVED BUT DID NOT RECEIVE AS A RESULT OF THE UNLAWFUL
 REFUSAL TO HONOR THE EMPLOYEES' VALID DUES DEDUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.
 
    SECTION 7118(A)(7) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PART, THAT "(I) THE
 AUTHORITY . . . DETERMINES . . . THAT THE AGENCY OR LABOR ORGANIZATION
 NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT HAS ENGAGED IN OR IS ENGAGING IN AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE, (IT) . . . SHALL ISSUE . . . AN ORDER--
 
    (A) TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM ANY SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN WHICH
 THE AGENCY OR LABOR
 
    ORGANIZATION IS ENGAGED:
 
    (B) REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO RENEGOTIATE A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
 
    WITH THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY AND REQUIRING THAT THE AGREEMENT, AS
 AMENDED, BE GIVEN
 
    RETROACTIVE EFFECT;
 
    (C) REQUIRING REINSTATEMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE WITH BACKPAY IN ACCORDANCE
 WITH SECTION 5596 OF
 
    THIS TITLE;  OR
 
    (D) INCLUDING ANY COMBINATION OF THE ACTIONS DESCRIBED IN
 SUBPARAGRAPHS (A) THROUGH (C) OF
 
    THIS PARAGRAPH OR SUCH OTHER ACTION AS WILL CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF
 THIS CHAPTER.
 
    IN THE AUTHORITY'S VIEW, IT WOULD PROMOTE THE PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE
 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE TO MODIFY THE REMEDIAL ORDER
 RECOMMENDED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SO AS TO REQUIRE RESPONDENTS
 TO REIMBURSE AFGE IN THE MANNER STATED ABOVE.  AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED
 (SUPRA N. 4), THE LANGUAGE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SECTION 7115(A)
 CLEARLY REFLECT THE INTENT OF CONGRESS TO GIVE EMPLOYEES IN UNITS OF
 EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION THE SOLE DISCRETION WHETHER TO AUTHORIZE UNION
 DUES DEDUCTIONS FROM THEIR PAY, AND TO REQUIRE AGENCIES TO HONOR SUCH
 AUTHORIZATIONS.  IN THE WORDS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT, "(I)F THE
 EMPLOYEE DECIDES TO HAVE DUES WITHHELD, THE AGENCY MUST HONOR THAT
 DECISION." IN OUR VIEW, SUCH RIGHT TO HAVE UNION DUES WITHHELD -- NO
 LONGER DEPENDENT UPON THE AGENCY'S AGREEMENT TO DO SO AS PART OF A
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE -- IS AN INTEGRAL
 PART OF AN EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT UNDER SECTION 7102 OF THE STATUTE "TO FORM,
 JOIN, OR ASSIST (A) LABOR ORGANIZATION, OR TO REFRAIN FROM ANY SUCH
 ACTIVITY .  . . ." MOREOVER, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS AND
 PURPOSE OF CONGRESS AS STATED IN SECTION 7101 OF THE STATUTE, MORE
 SPECIFICALLY THAT "THE STATUTORY PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO
 ORGANIZE, BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY, AND PARTICIPATE THROUGH LABOR
 ORGANIZATIONS OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING . . . SAFEGUARDS THE PUBLIC
 INTEREST, . . . CONTRIBUTES TO THE EFFECTIVE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS,
 AND . . . FACILITATES AND ENCOURAGES THE AMICABLE SETTLEMENTS OF
 DISPUTES BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND THEIR EMPLOYERS INVOLVING CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT . . . ."
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS
 THAT RESPONDENT, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, AS THE
 
    EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (B) REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 
    AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR WITH ANY
 OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 
    REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (C) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING UNIT EMPLOYEES BY
 REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE AND
 
    NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR ANY
 
    OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (D) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
    STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF
 
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR
 ITS EMPLOYEES, IN TWO
 
    NATIONWIDE CONSOLIDATED UNITS OF (1) NON-PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES AND
 (2) PROFESSIONAL
 
    EMPLOYEES, AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE CERTIFICATIONS ISSUED IN
 CASE NO. 22-09044 (UC) ON
 
    MARCH 6, 1979, AND THEREAFTER AMENDED ON MAY 9, MAY 12, MAY 23 AND
 JUNE 1.
 
    (B) POST AT ALL FACILITIES AND INSTALLATIONS OF THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS
 AGENCY, COPIES OF THE
 
    ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX A" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 
    AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE
 DIRECTOR OF THE DEFENSE
 
    LOGISTICS AGENCY, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
 
    THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES
 TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 
    CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO
 INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE
 
    NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE
 
    REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION III, 1133 15TH STREET, N.W., ROOM 300,
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005, IN
 
    WRITING, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO
 WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKE
 
    TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                                   ORDER
 
                            (CASE NO. 3-CA-338)
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS
 THAT RESPONDENTS DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL
 SERVICE, DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE;  OGDEN,
 UTAH;  AND COLUMBUS, OHIO SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 
    INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, AND THE METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, THE
 
    JOINTLY CERTIFIED EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (B) REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 
    AFL-CIO, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, OR METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO,
 
    THE JOINTLY CERTIFIED EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, OR WITH ANY OTHER
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (C) REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7115 OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE
 
    LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT AND HONOR
 VALID WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS
 
    FROM UNIT EMPLOYEES FOR THE PAYMENT OF REGULAR AND PERIODIC DUES TO
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (D) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING UNIT EMPLOYEES BY
 REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE AND
 
    NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AND BY
 REFUSING TO ACCEPT AND HONOR
 
    WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS FROM UNIT EMPLOYEES FOR THE PAYMENT OF REGULAR
 AND PERIODIC DUES TO
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (E) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF
 
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, AS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS
 EMPLOYEES, JOINTLY WITH THE
 
    INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, AND THE METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, IN
 
    THE FOLLOWING APPROPRIATE UNITS:
 
    ALL EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 COLUMBUS, OHIO, EXCLUDING
 
    PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK
 IN OTHER THAN A PURELY
 
    CLERICAL CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, GUARDS AND SUPERVISORS AS
 DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
    ALL EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE,
 
    EXCLUDING PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL
 PERSONNEL WORK IN OTHER THAN A
 
    PURELY CLERICAL CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, GUARDS AND
 SUPERVISORS AS DEFINED IN THE
 
    ORDER.
 
    ALL EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 OGDEN, UTAH, EXCLUDING
 
    PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK
 IN OTHER THAN A PURELY
 
    CLERICAL CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, GUARDS AND SUPERVISORS AS
 DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
    (B) REIMBURSE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 
    AFL-CIO, IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE REGULAR AND PERIODIC DUES IT WOULD
 HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE
 
    PAY OF EMPLOYEES NAMED IN APPENDIX C BUT DID NOT RECEIVE AS A RESULT
 OF THE UNLAWFUL REFUSAL
 
    TO HONOR THE EMPLOYEES' VALID WRITTEN ALLOTMENTS FOR SUCH PURPOSE.
 
    (C) COMMENCING WITH THE FIRST PAY PERIOD AFTER THE DATE OF THIS
 ORDER, DEDUCT REGULAR AND
 
    PERIODIC DUES FROM THE PAY OF EMPLOYEES NAMED IN APPENDIX C WHO HAVE
 EXECUTED VALID WRITTEN
 
    ALLOTMENTS AND ALSO FROM ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE IN THE UNIT WHO MAY IN
 THE FUTURE MAKE VOLUNTARY
 
    ALLOTMENTS FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AND REMIT SUCH DUES TO THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN
 
    FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO.
 
    (D) POST AT ALL FACILITIES AND INSTALLATIONS OF THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS
 AGENCY, DEFENSE
 
    PROPERTY DISPOSAL SERVICE, DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION, MEMPHIS,
 TENNESSEE;  OGDEN,
 
    UTAH;  AND COLUMBUS, OHIO, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED
 "APPENDIX B" ON FORMS TO BE
 
    FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF
 SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE
 
    SIGNED BY THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL
 SERVICE, AND SHALL BE POSTED
 
    AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 
    PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE
 COMMANDING GENERAL SHALL TAKE
 
    REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
 DEFACED, OR COVERED WITH ANY
 
    OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (E) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE
 
    REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION III, 1133 15TH STREET, N.W., ROOM 300,
 WASHINGTON, D.C.  20005, IN
 
    WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS
 HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY
 
    HEREWITH.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 12, 1981
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
                                APPENDIX A
 
        NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF
 
           THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO
 
          EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE
 
            UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 
              RELATIONS WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE UNIT EMPLOYEES AT
 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY BY REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD
 FAITH WITH THEIR EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, AS EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES IN TWO NATIONWIDE CONSOLIDATED UNITS OF
 (1) NON-SUPERVISORY NON-PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, AND (2) NON-SUPERVISORY
 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED UNIT
 DESCRIPTIONS.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  BY:  (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION III, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  1133 15TH STREET, N.W., ROOM 300, WASHINGTON, D.C., 20005,
 AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (202) 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
                                APPENDIX B
 
        NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF
 
           THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO
 
          EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE
 
            UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 
              RELATIONS WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, INTERNATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, OR METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO,
 THE JOINTLY CERTIFIED EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, OR WITH ANY OTHER
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO,
 AND METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, AS THE JOINTLY CERTIFIED EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT AND HONOR VALID
 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS FROM UNIT EMPLOYEES FOR THE PAYMENT OF REGULAR AND
 PERIODIC DUES TO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, AND COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES BY
 REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE, AND BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT AND HONOR VALID WRITTEN
 ASSIGNMENTS FROM UNIT EMPLOYEES FOR THE PAYMENT OF REGULAR AND PERIODIC
 DUES TO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR ANY
 OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, INTERNATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, AND METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO,
 AS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE FOLLOWING
 APPROPRIATE UNITS:
 
    ALL EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 COLUMBUS, OHIO, EXCLUDING
 
    PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK
 IN OTHER THAN A PURELY
 
    CLERICAL CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, GUARDS AND SUPERVISORS AS
 DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
    ALL EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE,
 
    EXCLUDING PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL
 PERSONNEL WORK IN OTHER THAN A
 
    PURELY CLERICAL CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, GUARDS AND
 SUPERVISORS AS DEFINED IN THE
 
    ORDER.
 
    ALL EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 OGDEN, UTAH, EXCLUDING
 
    PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK
 IN OTHER THAN A PURELY
 
    CLERICAL CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, GUARDS AND SUPERVISORS AS
 DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
    WE WILL REIMBURSE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE REGULAR AND
 PERIODIC DUES IT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE PAY OF ALL EMPLOYEES WHO
 EXECUTED VALID WRITTEN ALLOTMENTS FOR SUCH PURPOSE BUT DID NOT RECEIVE
 AS A RESULT OF THE UNLAWFUL REFUSAL TO HONOR THE EMPLOYEES' VALID
 WRITTEN ALLOTMENTS FOR THAT PURPOSE.
 
    WE WILL DEDUCT REGULAR AND PERIODIC DUES FROM THE PAY OF OUR
 EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE EXECUTED VALID WRITTEN ALLOTMENTS AND ALSO FROM ANY
 OTHER EMPLOYEE IN THE UNITS WHO MAY IN THE FUTURE MAKE VOLUNTARY
 ALLOTMENTS FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AND REMIT SUCH DUES TO THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR TO ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE DESIGNATED FOR THIS PURPOSE.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  BY:  (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FO4 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION III, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  1133 15TH STREET, N.W., ROOM 300, WASHINGTON, D.C.  20005,
 AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (202) 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                APPENDIX C
 
    NAMES OF EMPLOYEES WHO EXECUTED VALID WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS OF REGULAR
 AND PERIODIC DUES FOR PAYMENT TO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO.
 
    JAMES FELDER               ROBERT B. BRINSON
 
    WILLIAM HIGDON             JACK BURMAN
 
    RICHARD LARSEN              RAYMOND GURULE
 
    JACK BERRYMAN               LEROY JACKSON
 
    HOWARD J. BAKER              WILLIE D. MULLEN
 
    FLOYD BROOKS                THEODORE J. POPLARCHIK
 
    WILLIAM D. CARTER           CRAIG E. RUSSELL
 
    LOVELESS COFIELD            FRANK J. SCHMIDT
 
    MARY D. EMMONS             LARRY JOE SCHULTZ
 
    NANCY L. FISHER             TIMOTHY W. SHAWGO
 
    RALPH H. HARRIS             JUDY M. SKINNER
 
    JIMMY JOHNSON               MARVIN C. SMITH
 
    DORIS L. LANIER              DEBORAH S. STRACNER
 
    RICHARD L. LEWIS             CHARLES E. TRYON
 
    JOHN D. NIX                  RAYMOND VASQUEZ
 
    ROBERT B. SHELTON            ROY M. WEGER
 
    ARTHUR C. SMALLS, SR.        FRANK WHITE
 
    SAMUEL TURNER                LOIS J. WHITE
 
    HOWARD O. WALKER             JACQUELINE I. MARR
 
    WILLIAM R. BARTLETT          GEORGE E. SNOOK
 
    THOMAS L. BITTMAN            RALPH L. WILLIAMS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    PETER B. ROBB, ESQ.
    SUSAN SHINKMAN, ESQ.
                       FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    WILSON R. HART
    JOHN GREEN
                       FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 
    BARBARA BRUNO
                       FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
 
    BEFORE:  FRANCIS E. DOWD
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
   
                               DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE), 92 STAT. 1191, 5 U.S.C 7101 ET SEQ.  IT
 WAS INSTITUTED BY THE ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
 2423.11 OF THE INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R.  CHAPTER XIV,
 JULY 30, 1979, BASED UPON CHARGES FILED AFTER JULY 11, 1979.
 
    IN CASE NO. 3-CA-338, THE COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED
 ON NOVEMBER 8, 1979.  IT ALLEGES /6/ THAT DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY,
 DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL SERVICE, DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGIONS OF
 MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, OGDEN, UTAH, AND COLUMBUS, OHIO (RESPONDENT DPDS)
 VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1)(5) AND (8) BY REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE OR
 BARGAIN WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.  /7/ FURTHER, IT IS
 SEPARATELY ALLEGED THAT THE REFUSAL TO HONOR EMPLOYEES' DUES ALLOTMENT
 REQUESTS CONSTITUTES A REFUSAL AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 7115
 OF THE STATUTE AND A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(1)(5) AND (8).  /8/
 
    IN CASE NO. 3-CA-294, THE COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED
 ON OCTOBER 3, 1979.  IT ALLEGES THAT THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
 (RESPONDENT DLA) REFUSED TO CONSULT AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO /9/ IN VIOLATION OF
 SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    BY ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 19, 1979, THESE CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR
 HEARING BY REGIONAL DIRECTOR ALEXANDER T. GRAHAM.
 
    THE ANSWERS FILED BY RESPONDENT DLA AND RESPONDENT DPDS DENY THAT
 AFGE IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(4) OF
 THE STATUTE.  FURTHER, RESPONDENTS AFFIRMATIVELY ALLEGE THAT, UNDER
 SECTION 7120(A) OF THE STATUTE, AN AGENCY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ACCORD
 RECOGNITION TO ANY EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE WHICH, IN THE AGENCY'S
 OPINION, HAS NOT SATISFACTORILY COMPLIED WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF
 SECTION 7111(E) OF THE STATUTE.  /10/
 
    AT THE HEARING IN THESE CASES IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ALL PARTIES WERE
 AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, ADDUCE EVIDENCE, EXAMINE AND
 CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND ARGUE ORALLY.  THEREAFTER, RESPONDENTS AND
 THE GENERAL COUNSEL FILED BRIEFS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.  /11/
 
    UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, FROM MY
 OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM ALL OF THE
 TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING:
 
                         FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
 
                              I.  THE ISSUES
 
    A.  WHETHER THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 IS A "LABOR ORGANIZATION" AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED AT SECTION 7103(A)(4)
 OF THE STATUTE.
 
    B.  WHETHER AFGE'S ALLEGED NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS
 OF SECTION 7111 IS LITIGABLE IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING.
 
    C.  WHETHER RESPONDENT DPDS VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1)(5) AND (8)
 BY REFUSING TO BARGAIN, UPON REQUEST, WITH AFGE, THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    D.  WHETHER RESPONDENT DPDS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 7115(A) BY
 REFUSING TO HONOR VALID DUES DEDUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS SUBMITTED
 SUBSEQUENT TO JANUARY 11, 1979.
 
    1.  IF SO, WHETHER SUCH CONDUCT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF SECTIONS
 7116(A)(1), (5) AND
 
    (8).
 
    2.  IF SO, WHETHER REIMBURSEMENT OF THE BACK DUES, WITH INTEREST, IS
 AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY.
 
    E.  WHETHER RESPONDENT DLA VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1)(5) AND (8) BY
 REFUSING TO BARGAIN WITH AFGE, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
                        II.  THE AGENCIES INVOLVED
 
    A.  THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGE, THE ANSWERS ADMIT, AND I FIND THAT
 RESPONDENT DPDS AND RESPONDENT DLA ARE AGENCIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF
 SECTION 7103(A)(3) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    B.  BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, IN ORDER TO PUT THESE CASES INTO PROPER
 PERSPECTIVE, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM
 RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND ANSWER.
 
    1.  THE DLA IS A MAJOR COMPONENT-- A "PRIMARY NATIONAL SUBDIVISION"--
 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD).  IT IS THE FOURTH LARGEST COMPONENT
 OF THE DOD IN TERMS OF THE SIZE OF ITS CIVILIAN WORK FORCE (FOLLOWING
 THE ARMY, THE NAVY, AND THE AIR FORCE).  IT RANKS TWELFTH (12) IN SIZE
 AMONG THE MAJOR DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE
 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  IT HAS APPROXIMATELY 46,000 EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
 ASSIGNED EITHER TO THE DLA HEADQUARTERS IN ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, OR TO
 ONE OF THE 31 DLA PRIMARY LEVEL FIELD ACTIVITIES (PLFA'S), ALL OF WHICH
 HAVE THEIR HEADQUARTERS IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.
 
    2.  THE DPDS IS ONE OF THESE 31 PLFA'S.  IT HAS ITS HEADQUARTERS IN
 BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN.  WITHIN THE DPDS THERE ARE FIVE DEFENSE PROPERTY
 DISPOSAL REGIONS (DPDRS) AND 159 DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL OFFICES
 (DPDOS).  THREE OF THE FIVE DPDRS ARE IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.
 THEIR HEADQUARTERS ARE IN COLUMBUS, OHIO;  MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE;  AND
 OGDEN, UTAH.  THEY ARE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE DPDR, COLUMBUS;
 DPDR, MEMPHIS;  AND THE DPDR, OGDEN.
 
    3.  THE COMMANDERS OF THESE THREE DPDRS ALL REPORT TO THE COMMANDING
 GENERAL OF THE DPDS IN BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN, WHO, IN TURN, REPORTS TO
 THE DIRECTOR OF THE DLA, A COMPONENT AGENCY OF THE DOD, WITH
 HEADQUARTERS IN ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA.
 
    C.  THE DLA UNIT (CASE NO. 3-CA-294)
 
    1.  ON MARCH 6, 1979, PURSUANT TO A PETITION FOR UNIT CONSOLIDATION
 IN CASE 22-09044(US), THE AUTHORITY CERTIFIED AFGE AS THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF CERTAIN NON-PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT DLA
 (G.C. EXH. NO. 5).  THE AUTHORITY AMENDED THIS CERTIFICATION ON MAY 9,
 MAY 23 AND JUNE 1 (G.C. EXH. NOS. A(K), 1(M)).
 
    2.  ALSO ON MARCH 6, THE AUTHORITY, AGAIN PURSUANT TO A PETITION FOR
 UNIT CONSOLIDATION IN CASE 22-09044(UC), CERTIFIED AFGE AS THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT (DLA
 (G.C. EXH. NO. 21).
 
    3.  ON MAY 9, THE AUTHORITY AMENDED THE CERTIFICATION OF PROFESSIONAL
 EMPLOYEES (G.C. EXH. NO. 1(K), 1(M)).
 
    4.  BY LETTER DATED MAY 24, AFGE REQUESTED RESPONDENT DLA TO MEET AND
 BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS FOR A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT CONCERNING ITS
 EMPLOYEES (G.C. EXH.  NO. 15).
 
    5.  AFGE REPEATED ITS BARGAINING DEMAND ON MAY 30 AND, AGAIN, ON MAY
 31 (G.C. EXH. NOS. 16, 17).
 
    6.  BY LETTER DATED JUNE 8, RESPONDENT DLA REFUSED TO MEET AND
 NEGOTIATE WITH AFGE (G.C. EXH. NO. 18).
 
    D.  THE DPDS UNIT (CASE NO. 3-CA-338)
 
    1.  ON MAY 3, 1977, AFGE, THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
 AND AEROSPACE WORKERS (AFL-CIO) AND THE METAL TRADES DEPARTMENT
 (AFL-CIO) WERE CERTIFIED JOINTLY AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE FOR EMPLOYEES AT RESPONDENT DPDS' COLUMBUS, OHIO AND
 MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE LOCATIONS (G.C. EXH. NOS. 2, 3);
 
    2.  ON JUNE 30, 1977, THESE SAME THREE UNIONS WERE CERTIFIED JOINTLY
 AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR EMPLOYEES AT RESPONDENT
 DPDS' OGDEN, UTAH LOCATION (G.C. EXH. NO. 4).
 
    3.  BY LETTERS DATED JANUARY 25, 1978, BOTH THE INTERNATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS (AFL-CIO) AND THE METAL
 TRADES DEPARTMENT (AFL-CIO) DESIGNATED AFGE AS THE UNION /12/ FOR
 PURPOSES OF REPRESENTING EMPLOYEES IN THE THREE CERTIFIED BARGAINING
 UNITS (G.C. EXH. NO. 6).
 
    4.  THESE LETTERS WERE FORWARDED TO RESPONDENT DPDS ON FEBRUARY 7,
 1978 (G.C. EXH. NO. 6, TR. 8).
 
    5.  ON JANUARY 17, AFGE INFORMED RESPONDENT DPDS OF THE INDIVIDUALS
 WHO WERE AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE REQUESTS FOR DUES AUTHORIZATIONS AND
 COLLECT CORRESPONDING DUES MONIES FOR THOSE PERSONS IN THE CERTIFIED
 UNITS WHO CHOSE TO HAVE THEIR DUES DEDUCTED FROM THEIR PAYROLL CHECKS
 (G.C. EXH. NOS. 7, 8, 9, RESP. EXH. NOS. 14, 15, 16).
 
    6.  BETWEEN JANUARY 11 AND THE PRESENT, FORTY-TWO (42) EMPLOYEES HAVE
 SUBMITTED REQUESTS AUTHORIZING RESPONDENT DPDS TO DEDUCT THE PERIODIC
 DUES FOR THE UNION FROM THEIR PAYROLL CHECKS (G.C. EXH. NOS. 20(A) -
 20(III)).
 
    7.  RESPONDENT DPDS HAS REFUSED TO MAKE ANY SUCH DEDUCTIONS (G.C.
 EXH. NOS. 1(N), 10).
 
    8.  ON MAY 29, AFGE REQUESTED RESPONDENT DPDS TO MEET AND BEGIN
 NEGOTIATIONS FOR A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE
 EMPLOYEES IN EACH OF THE THREE CERTIFIED BARGAINING UNITS (G.C. EXH.
 NOS. 11, 12, 13).
 
    9.  ON JUNE 13, RESPONDENT DPDS REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH AFGE (G.C.
 EXH. NO. 14).
 
                   I.  THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
 
    THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO IS THE
 CHARGING PARTY IN CASE NO. 3-CA-294 AND ONE OF THREE CHARGING PARTIES IN
 CASE NO. 3-CA-338.  ITS STATUS AS A "LABOR ORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE
 MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(4) OF THE STATUTE IS CONTESTED BY RESPONDENTS
 IN BOTH CASES.  /13/
 
    A.  PROCEDURAL ISSUE
 
    AT THE OUTSET, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT RESPONDENTS PARTICIPATED FULLY
 IN THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND THE
 AUTHORITY, AS DETAILED ABOVE, AND FAILED TO CHALLENGE AFGE'S STATUS AS A
 LABOR ORGANIZATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATION OF
 REPRESENTATIVE WHEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TIMELY TO DO SO.  ALTHOUGH THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL DID NOT QUESTION THE RIGHT OF RESPONDENT TO LITIGATE
 THIS ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING, I REGARD IT AS A THRESHOLD ISSUE
 DESERVING OF SOME DISCUSSION.
 
    THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, IN TEXAS INDUSTRIES, INC., 199
 NLRB 671, STATED AS FOLLOWS:
 
    IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF NEWLY DISCOVERED OR
 PREVIOUSLY UNAVAILABLE
 
    EVIDENCE OR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES A RESPONDENT IN A PROCEEDING
 ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF SECTION
 
    8(A)(5) IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELITIGATE ISSUES WHICH WERE OR COULD HAVE
 BEEN LITIGATED IN A
 
    PRIOR REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING.
 
    CITING THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO.  V.
 N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941), AND ITS OWN REGULATIONS, THE BOARD
 WENT ON TO SAY:
 
    ALL ISSUES RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THIS PROCEEDING WERE OR COULD
 HAVE BEEN LITIGATED IN
 
    THE PRIOR REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING, AND THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT
 OFFER TO ADDUCE AT A HEARING
 
    ANY NEWLY DISCOVERED OR PREVIOUSLY UNAVAILABLE EVIDENCE, NOR DOES IT
 ALLEGE THAT ANY SPECIAL
 
    CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST HEREIN WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE BOARD TO REEXAMINE
 THE DECISION MADE IN THE
 
    REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING.  WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS
 NOT RAISED ANY ISSUE
 
    WHICH IS PROPERLY LITIGABLE IN THIS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING.
  WE SHALL, ACCORDINGLY,
 
    GRANT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
 
    IN MY OPINION, THIS NLRB PRECEDENT WHICH HAS BEEN TESTED IN THE
 COURTS AND RECEIVED SUPREME COURT APPROVAL HAS APPLICABILITY TO THE
 PRESENT CASE.
 
    IN ADDITION, SECTION 2422.2(G) OF THE AUTHORITY'S INTERIM RULES AND
 REGULATIONS FOR REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS CLEARLY STATES AS FOLLOWS:
 
    (G) CHALLENGE TO STATUS OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION.  ANY PARTY
 CHALLENGING THE STATUS OF A
 
    LABOR ORGANIZATION UNDER CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES
 CODE MUST FILE ITS
 
    CHALLENGE WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR AND SUPPORT THE CHALLENGE WITH
 EVIDENCE.
 
    IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME, THEREFORE, THAT THE RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE
 CHALLENGED THE STATUS OF AFGE AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION IN THE
 REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS IN THESE CASES.  NOT HAVING DONE SO,
 RESPONDENTS HAD THE BURDEN OF CARRYING FORWARD WITH NEWLY DISCOVERED OR
 PREVIOUSLY UNAVAILABLE EVIDENCE, OR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO WARRANT
 REEXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITY.  IN MY VIEW THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT
 SUSTAINED THIS BURDEN.  HOWEVER, I NEED NOT RESOLVE THIS ISSUE ON SUCH A
 NARROW GROUND BECAUSE, IN FACT, THE ISSUE WAS LITIGATED BY THE GENERAL
 COUNSEL AND THERE IS SUFFICIENT RECORD EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO MAKE A
 DETERMINATION.
 
    B.  FACTS
 
    THE FACTS BEARING ON THIS ISSUE WERE PRESENTED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 THROUGH THE UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY OF MS. BARBARA BRUNO, A LABOR
 RELATIONS SPECIALIST FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES.  BASED UPON HER TESTIMONY, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
 
    1.  AFGE IS AN ORGANIZATION COMPOSED, IN PART, OF EMPLOYEES OF THE
 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHO PAY DUES AND PARTICIPATED IN AFGE IN A VARIETY
 OF WAYS.  AFGE IS DIVIDED INTO FIFTEEN DISTRICTS EACH HEADED BY A
 NATIONAL VICE-PRESIDENT WHO IS ELECTED BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  MS. BRUNO
 ALSO TESTIFIED THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ELECT THE OFFICIALS WHO ATTEND
 AFGE'S NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AT WHICH THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS ARE
 ESTABLISHED.  A PURPOSE OF AFGE IS TO HANDLE GRIEVANCES AND MATTERS OF
 CONCERN AFFECTING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
 THROUGH
 UNIFIED ACTION.  AFGE DOES NOT BY ITS CONSTITUTION, BYLAWS OR AGREEMENTS
 AMONG ITS MEMBERS DENY MEMBERSHIP BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, CREED,
 NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX, AGE, PREFERENTIAL OR NONPREFERENTIAL CIVIL SERVICE
 STATUS, POLITICAL AFFILIATION, MARITAL STATUS, OR HANDICAPPING
 CONDITION.  THE PURPOSES OF AFGE DO NOT INCLUDE ADVOCATING THE OVERTHROW
 OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  AFGE IS
 NOT SPONSORED BY AN AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND HAS NOT
 PARTICIPATED IN THE CONDUCT OF A STRIKE AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
 OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF AND HAS NEVER IMPOSED A DUTY OR OBLIGATION ON ITS
 MEMBERS TO CONDUCT, ASSIST OR PARTICIPATE IN SUCH A STRIKE.
 
    C.  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL IS CREDIBLE AND
 COMPLETELY UNCONTRADICTED.
 
    SECTION 7103(A)(4) OF THE STATUTE DEFINES "LABOR ORGANIZATION" AS ".
 . . AN ORGANIZATION COMPOSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF EMPLOYEES, IN WHICH
 EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATE AND PAY DUES, AND WHICH HAS AS A PURPOSE THE
 DEALING WITH AN AGENCY CONCERNING GRIEVANCES AND CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT. . ." AS NOTED ABOVE, THE COMPOSITION OF AFGE INCLUDES
 EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT;  THESE EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATE
 THROUGH A NATIONAL CONVENTION AND THROUGH THE ORGANIZATION'S DIVISION
 INTO FIFTEEN DISTRICTS;  THE EMPLOYEES PAY DUES;  AND THE PURPOSE IS TO
 PROVIDE PROTECTION THROUGH UNIFIED ACTION OR TO HANDLE MATTERS OF
 CONCERN AFFECTING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND GRIEVANCES OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES.  IN ADDITION, MS. BRUNO TESTIFIED THAT THE UNION DOES NOT
 PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED BY SECTION 7103(A)(4),
 I.E., DISCRIMINATION, ADVOCATING THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT,
 SPONSORSHIP BY AN AGENCY, OR STRIKING (TR. 20, 21).
 
    ACCORDINGLY, I FIND AND CONCLUDE THAT AFGE IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(4) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    RESPONDENTS' CONCERN IS NOT WHETHER AFGE IS COMPOSED OF DLA AND DPDS
 EMPLOYEES (TR. 48, 49), BUT RATHER THAT AFGE IS THE "NATIONAL OFFICE"
 AND NOT A "LOCAL" OR "COUNCIL OF LOCALS." IN THIS REGARD, THEN, THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL IS CORRECT WHEN HE ASSERTS IN HIS BRIEF THAT RESPONDENTS
 "APPEAR TO HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY WITH THE CONCEPT OF NATIONAL UNIONS
 BEING LABOR ORGANIZATIONS." HOWEVER, THIS CONCEPT IS WIDELY ACCEPTED IN
 THE PRIVATE SECTOR BASED ON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "LABOR
 ORGANIZATION." SECTION 2(5) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT (LMRA)
 CONTAINS A DEFINITION OF LABOR ORGANIZATION SIMILAR TO THE ONE FOUND IN
 SECTION 7103(A)(4) OF THE STATUTE.  RELYING ON THAT DEFINITION THE NLRB
 HAS HELD THAT A COUNCIL COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES OF DIFFERENT LABOR
 ORGANIZATIONS IS ITSELF A LABOR ORGANIZATION SINCE IT IS AN ORGANIZATION
 IN WHICH EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATE AND IT EXISTS AT LEAST IN PART TO DEAL
 WITH EMPLOYEES CONCERNING CONDITIONS OF WORK, ESSEX COUNTY BUILDING
 TRADES COUNCIL, 243 NLRB NO. 25, 101 LRRM 1400 (1979).  THIS IS TRUE
 EVEN IF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES DO NOT HOLD DIRECT MEMBERSHIP IN SUCH A
 COUNCIL, HALLIBURTON CO., 142 NLRB NO. 73, 53 LRRM 1106 (1963).  PRIOR
 TO THEIR MERGER BOTH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR /14/ AND THE
 CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS /15/ WERE FOUND TO BE LABOR
 ORGANIZATIONS.  WHILE NLRB PRECEDENT IS NOT BINDING, THE MEANING
 ATTACHED TO A SIMILAR TERM IN SIMILAR CONTEXTS SETS FORTH A WELL
 ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT NATIONAL UNIONS MEET THE DEFINITION OF LABOR
 ORGANIZATION.  /16/
 
    HAVING MET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF A "LABOR ORGANIZATION" AFGE
 MUST BE ACCORDED ALL THE RIGHTS TO WHICH SUCH AN ORGANIZATION IS
 ENTITLED UNDER THE STATUTE, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ACT AS AN EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    IV.  ALLEGED NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
 7111(E) IS NOT LITIGABLE
 
    IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING
 
    SECTION 7111(E) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "(E) A LABOR ORGANIZATION SEEKING EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION SHALL SUBMIT
 TO THE AUTHORITY AND
 
    THE AGENCY INVOLVED A ROSTER OF ITS OFFICERS AND REPRESENTATIVES A
 COPY OF ITS CONSTITUTION
 
    AND BYLAWS, AND A STATEMENT OF ITS OBJECTIVES."
 
    THE CENTRAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS NOT THE ADMITTED FACT THAT
 RESPONDENTS REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE AND BARGAIN WITH AFGE BUT, RATHER,
 THEIR REASON FOR DOING SO.  IT IS CLEAR FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT
 RESPONDENTS SIMPLY HAVE BEEN SEEKING A FORUM IN WHICH TO LITIGATE THE
 QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT AFGE HAS FULLY AND PROPERLY COMPLIED WITH THE
 REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 7111(E) OF THE STATUTE.  I BELIEVE THAT
 PRECEDENT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, PRECEDENT UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER,
 AND AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTE AND THE REGULATIONS, ALL LEAD TO THE
 CONCLUSION THAT A LABOR ORGANIZATION'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
 SECTION 7111(E) OF THE STATUTE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER WHICH IS NOT
 LITIGABLE IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING.
 
    A.  PRIVATE SECTOR PRECEDENT
 
    THE GENESIS FOR IMPOSING FILING REQUIREMENTS ON A UNION IS SECTION 9
 OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, AS AMENDED.  SECTION 9(F)
 REQUIRED A LABOR UNION DESIRING THE COVERAGE, PROTECTION AND BENEFITS OF
 THAT LAW TO FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF LABOR COPIES OF ITS CONSTITUTION
 AND BYLAWS AND A REPORT SHOWING CERTAIN REQUIRED INFORMATION.  SECTION
 9(G) PROVIDED THAT ANY UNION FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE FILING
 REQUIREMENTS WOULD NOT BE CERTIFIED AND NO COMPLAINT WOULD BE ISSUED ON
 AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE FILED BY IT.  THESE NEW SECTIONS OF THE
 LAW WERE PROMPTLY PUT TO A TEST BY EMPLOYERS IN NUMEROUS CASES, LEADING
 THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO ADOPT THE POLICY THAT A UNION'S
 COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECTION 9 FILING REQUIREMENTS WAS "AN ADMINISTRATIVE
 MATTER" NOT LITIGABLE IN EITHER A REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING OR AN UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING.  PAULS VALLEY MILLING CO., 82 NLRB 1266;
 LION OIL COMPANY, 76 NLRB 565.  I AM OF THE OPINION THAT A SIMILAR
 POLICY SHOULD BE APPLICABLE TO CASES ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    B.  EXECUTIVE ORDER PRECEDENT
 
    IN CHARLESTON NAVAL SHIPYARD, CASE NO. 40-1926(RO), OCT. 16, 1970,
 ASST. SECRETARY RULINGS ON REQUESTS FOR REVIEW, VOL. 1, P. 77, IT WAS
 HELD THAT SECTION 202.2(G), WHICH PROVIDES FOR CHALLENGES TO THE STATUS
 OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION IN THE COURSE OF A REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING,
 DID NOT CONTEMPLATE CHALLENGES BASED UPON ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE
 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.  THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FURTHER STATED:
 
    AS REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR CHENNAULT INFORMED YOU, THE PROCEDURES FOR
 ENFORCING THE
 
    STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ARE SET FORTH IN PART 204 OF THE REGULATIONS.
 COMPLAINTS OF ALLEGED
 
    VIOLATIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
 (SECTION 204.2) AND THE
 
    PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS (SECTION 204.29) MAY
 BE BROUGHT ONLY BY A
 
    MEMBER OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION.
 
    IF YOU HAVE CONCRETE EVIDENCE OF AN ACTUAL VIOLATION OF THE OTHER
 PROVISIONS OF THE
 
    REGULATIONS (PART 204) IMPLEMENTING THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, YOU
 SHOULD PRESENT IT TO AN AREA
 
    ADMINISTRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 204.53.  HOWEVER, THE
 PROCESSING OF REPRESENTATION
 
    CASES WILL NOT BE DELAYED PENDING INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF
 COMPLAINTS, FILED AS
 
    PROVIDED IN THE REGULATIONS, ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF PART 204.
 
    THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS DECISION IS THAT IT (1) CLEARLY TREATS THE
 REPRESENTATION PROCEDURES AS SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE PROCEDURES
 DEALING WITH STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, AND (2) CLEARLY STATES THAT CERTAIN
 TYPES OF VIOLATIONS OF THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT PROVISIONS MAY ONLY BE
 RAISED BY UNION MEMBERS, AS CONTENDED HEREIN BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL.
 
    THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT PROVISIONS IN SECTION 18 OF THE EXECUTIVE
 ORDER ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE SECTION 7120 PROVISIONS OF THE
 STATUTE AND WILL BE DISCUSSED LATER.  SUFFICE TO SAY, I AM AWARE OF NO
 DECISIONS UNDER THE ORDER WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT ISSUES
 RELATING TO "STANDARDS OF CONDUCT" CAN BE LITIGATED IN AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE PROCEEDING.
 
    C.  THE STATUTE
 
    THE SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE WHICH ARE OF MAJOR CONCERN HERE ARE
 SECTIONS 7116, 7120, AND 7111.  THEY WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THAT ORDER.
 
    1.  SECTION 7116 CONTAINS THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROVISIONS.  THE
 RELATED RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE IN PART 2423 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES
 AND REGULATIONS.  I FIND NOTHING IN THE SECTION 7116 OR PART 2423 WHICH
 EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY PERMITS AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE TO EXAMINE
 THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS OF A UNION IN ORDER TO DETERMINE ITS
 COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 7111(E) OF SECTION 7120.
 YET, THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IF I WERE TO PERMIT
 RESPONDENT TO LITIGATE THIS ISSUE BEFORE ME.  THEREFORE, I CONCLUDE THAT
 I AM WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN THIS ISSUE.  IN ADDITION, I AGREE
 WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL THAT ARE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUMS IN WHICH THIS
 ISSUE CAN BE LITIGATED AND RESOLVED.
 
    2.  SECTION 7120 OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR ASSURING THAT
 LABOR ORGANIZATIONS ARE FREE FROM CORRUPT INFLUENCES.  IT IS ALMOST
 IDENTICAL TO SECTION 18 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 RESPONDENT FOCUSES ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON SECTION 7120(A) WHICH STATES
 THAT, "AN AGENCY SHALL ONLY ACCORD RECOGNITION TO A LABOR ORGANIZATION
 THAT IS FREE FROM CORRUPT INFLUENCES AND INFLUENCES OPPOSED TO BASIC
 DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES. . ." RESPONDENT INTERPRETS THIS SENTENCE AS
 GIVING IT THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A LABOR ORGANIZATION IS
 FREE FROM CORRUPT INFLUENCES AND REFUSE TO BARGAIN IF IT DETERMINES THAT
 IT IS NOT.  HOWEVER, IT IS THE POSITION OF COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL
 COUNSEL, WITH WHICH I AGREE, THAT THERE IS NO SUCH AUTHORITY OR DUTY
 PLACED UPON THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 7120 OF THE STATUTE AND THAT THE
 ENFORCEMENT OF STANDARDS OF CONDUCT RESTS WITH THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY.
 /17/
 
    SECTION 7120 SETS FORTH NOT ONLY THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR LABOR
 ORGANIZATION BUT ALSO THE PROCEDURES FOR SEEING THAT THEY ARE
 MAINTAINED.  AS TO THE ENFORCEMENT OR ADMINISTRATION OF STANDARDS OF
 CONDUCT, SECTION 7120(D) PROVIDES:
 
    "THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHALL PRESCRIBE SUCH REGULATIONS AS ARE
 NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
 
    PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION.  SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL CONFORM GENERALLY
 TO THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED
 
    TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.  COMPLAINTS OF
 VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL
 
    BE FILED WITH THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY.  IN ANY MATTER ARISING UNDER
 THIS SECTION, THE
 
    ASSISTANT SECRETARY MAY REQUIRE A LABOR ORGANIZATION TO CEASE AND
 DESIST FROM VIOLATIONS OF
 
    THIS SECTION AND REQUIRE IT TO TAKE SUCH ACTIONS AS HE CONSIDERS
 APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THE
 
    POLICIES OF THIS SECTION."
 
    CLEARLY, A QUESTION REGARDING A LABOR ORGANIZATION'S COMPLIANCE WITH
 THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT REQUIREMENTS BELONGS BEFORE THE ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY WHO ISSUED IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS ON JULY 26, 1979 AT 5
 C.F.R. PARTS 207-209.  NOT ONLY IS A FORUM SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED, BUT A
 REMEDY OF CEASE AND DESIST OR OTHER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ON THE PART OF
 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION MAY BE ORDERED.  THE FACT THAT A FORUM HAS BEEN
 ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE IN WHICH STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ISSUES WILL BE
 INVESTIGATED AND DECIDED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY IS, IN MY OPINION,
 PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY CONCLUSION THAT SUCH ISSUES ARE NOT
 LITIGABLE IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING.  INDEED, I CONCLUDE
 THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS AUTHORITY PROMULGATED IN THE RULES AND
 REGULATIONS BY THE AUTHORITY, I WOULD BE USURPING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY WERE I TO PERMIT LITIGATION OF THIS ISSUE HEREIN.
 
    3.  IN PERTINENT PART, SECTION 7111(F) OF THE STATUTE STATES AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    "(F) EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION SHALL NOT BE ACCORDED TO A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION--
 
    "(1) IF THE AUTHORITY DETERMINES THAT THE LABOR ORGANIZATION IS
 SUBJECT TO CORRUPT
 
    INFLUENCES OR INFLUENCES OPPOSED TO DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES;
 
    RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT BECAUSE SECTION 7111(E) REQUIRES A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION TO SUBMIT ITS CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS "TO THE AUTHORITY AND
 THE AGENCY" IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT THE AGENCY HAS SOME ROLE OTHER
 THAN SIMPLY RECEIVING THE DOCUMENTS FOR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED
 THEREIN.  THE ANSWER IS THAT THE AGENCY HAS NO ROLE AND IT IS
 MISCHIEVOUS TO SERIOUSLY CONTEND THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT ANY
 GOVERNMENT AGENCY SIT IN JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION SEEKING EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION OF ITS EMPLOYEES WAS IN
 COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 7111(E).  IF THAT THEORY WERE FOLLOWED TO ITS
 LOGICAL CONCLUSION THERE WOULD BE AS MANY STANDARDS FOR "ADEQUACY OF
 COMPLIANCE" AS THERE ARE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.  MOREOVER, WITH THIS
 APPROACH, A LABOR ORGANIZATION COULD OBTAIN ITS SHOWING OF INTEREST,
 FILE A REPRESENTATION PETITION, WIN A SECRET BALLOT ELECTION, RECEIVE A
 CERTIFICATION OF EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE AUTHORITY, REQUEST
 THE AGENCY TO BARGAIN, AND THEN BE MET WITH THE REPLY THAT THERE WILL BE
 A DELAY IN GRANTING RECOGNITION WHILE THE AGENCY CONDUCTS ITS OWN
 INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE UNION'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING
 REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 7111(E).  IN MY OPINION, IT WOULD CLEARLY BE
 INIMICAL TO THE VERY PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE, IF AN AGENCY WERE
 PERMITTED TO USURP THE ROLE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OR THE AUTHORITY
 IN THESE MATTERS.
 
    RESPONDENT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT ONE OF ITS REASONS FOR ASSERTING
 THAT AN AGENCY HAS A ROLE, IS THAT IT HAS BEEN UNABLE TO CONVINCE THE
 AUTHORITY THAT THE AUTHORITY ITSELF HAS A VITAL ROLE TO PLAY IN THE
 CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF SECTION 7111.  THUS, RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT
 THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE EXECUTIVE
 ORDER IN THAT SECTION 7111(E) REQUIRES A LABOR ORGANIZATION TO FILE A
 COPY OF ITS CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS WITH THE AUTHORITY AND, SECTION
 7111(F) SEEMS TO "REQUIRE" THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IN
 EVERY CASE THAT THE LABOR ORGANIZATION IS OR "IS NOT" SUBJECT TO CORRUPT
 INFLUENCES OPPOSED TO DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.  RESPONDENT, THEREFORE,
 CONTENDS THAT IN EVERY REPRESENTATION CASE WHERE A LABOR ORGANIZATION
 SEEKS A CERTIFICATION AS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, THE AUTHORITY MUST -
 AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO GRANTING THE CERTIFICATE - MAKE AN
 AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE LABOR ORGANIZATION "IS FREE FROM
 CORRUPT INFLUENCES OR INFLUENCES OPPOSED TO DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES."
 
    WHILE I HAVE GONE TO SOME LENGTH TO FAIRLY SET FORTH RESPONDENTS'
 PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT, I MAKE NO FINDING AS TO ITS MERITS.  ASSUMING,
 ARGUENDO, THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO PLACE THIS ADDITIONAL STEP INTO THE
 CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE
 WHETHER IT WOULD EXERCISE THIS RESPONSIBILITY (1) IN A REPRESENTATION
 PROCEEDING, (2) A COLLATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION BY THE
 AUTHORITY, (3) DEFERENCE TO AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY DETERMINATION UNDER
 SECTION 7120, OR (4) SOME OTHER METHOD.  IN ANY EVENT, I CONCLUDE THAT
 WHATEVER RESPONSIBILITY THE AUTHORITY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE UNDER SECTION
 7111(F)(1), I FIND NO SUPPORT IN SECTION 7111 FOR HOLDING THAT A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 7111(E) IS LITIGABLE IN AN UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING.
 
    4.  WHEN IS THE PROPER TIME TO RAISE ISSUES CONCERNING COMPLIANCE
 WITH SECTION 4111(E)?  I AGREE WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL THAT RESPONDENT
 SHOULD HAVE RAISED THIS ISSUE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE
 CERTIFICATIONS.  WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUE WOULD BE RAISED UNDER PART
 2422 OF THE INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS, AS ASSERTED BY THE GENERAL
 COUNSEL, IS A MATTER FOR THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE.  CLEARLY, HOWEVER, IT
 WOULD HAVE BEEN LOGICAL FOR THE RESPONDENT AT LEAST TO HAVE ATTEMPTED TO
 RAISE THIS ISSUE DURING THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING, THE PURPOSE OF
 WHICH WAS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS SEEKING EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIONS WERE ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION.  IF ANY AGENCY WERE TO BE
 PERMITTED TO CHALLENGE A LABOR ORGANIZATION'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION
 4111(E), IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO DO THIS WOULD BE
 PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATION, AND NOT AFTERWARDS.
 
    THE SUPREME COURT, IN RAY BROOKS V. NLRB, 348 U.S. 96, UPHELD THE
 BOARD'S ONE-YEAR CERTIFICATION RULE AND FOUND THE EMPLOYEE GUILTY OF A
 REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WHEN IT SOUGHT "TO VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF ITS
 EMPLOYEES" TO DESERT THE CERTIFIED UNION.  THE COURT STATED THAT:
 
    ALTHOUGH THE BOARD MAY, IF THE FACTS WARRANT, REVOKE A CERTIFICATION
 OR AGREE NOT TO PURSUE
 
    A CHARGE OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, THESE ARE MATTERS FOR THE
 BOARD;  THEY DO NOT JUSTIFY
 
    EMPLOYER SELF-HELP OR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION.  THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE
 OF THIS STATUTE IS
 
    INDUSTRIAL PEACE.  TO ALLOW EMPLOYERS TO RELY ON EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS IN
 REFUSING TO BARGAIN WITH
 
    THE FORMALLY DESIGNATED UNION IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO THAT END, IT IS
 INIMICAL TO IT.
 
    IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO TIMELY RAISE THIS
 ISSUE.  FURTHERMORE, SINCE ONLY THE AUTHORITY MAY REVOKE A CERTIFICATION
 - WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS MATTER - RESPONDENT MAY NOT USURP THAT
 AUTHORITY AND REFUSE TO TREAT WITH AFGE AS IF THE CERTIFICATIONS HAD
 BEEN REVOKED.  TO DO SO IS TO ENGAGE IN THE VERY KIND OF "SELF-HELP"
 CONDEMNED BY THE SUPREME COURT.
 
    WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT AFGE PETITIONED THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 COUNCIL FOR A RULING ON A "MAJOR POLICY ISSUE" AFTER THE CERTIFICATIONS
 AND WHILE THE COUNCIL IN FLRC NO. 78P-1 (AUGUST 16, 1978) DENIED THE
 REQUEST AND SEEMED TO SUGGEST THE MATTERS COULD BE RESOLVED IN A SECTION
 19(A) HEARING UNDER THE ORDER, I DO NOT FIND THIS TO BE DISPOSITIVE ON
 THE QUESTION OF WHETHER RESPONDENT (AND NOT AFGE) SHOULD HAVE RAISED
 THIS ISSUE IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY PRIOR TO
 CERTIFICATION.  ACCORDINGLY, I REJECT RESPONDENTS CONTENTION THAT IT
 RAISED THIS ISSUE AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY;  I.E., IN THE UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING.
 
    IN VIEW OF THIS DETERMINATION, I NEED NOT DISCUSS THE GENERAL
 COUNSEL'S CONTENTION THAT THE CERTIFICATIONS ISSUED IN CASE NO. 3-CA-338
 WERE ISSUED IN 1977, PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE WHEN THERE WAS NO
 PROVISION COMPARABLE TO SECTION 7111(E) REQUIRING THE SUBMISSION OF SUCH
 DOCUMENTS, AND THAT THE STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY.
 
                  V.  THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
 
    A.  RESPONDENT DPDS REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE, THE UNION.
 
    SECTION 7116(A)(5) OF THE STATUTE MAKES IT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 "TO REFUSE TO CONSULT OR NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION AS REQUIRED BY THIS CHAPTER." SECTION 7111 IMPOSES AN
 OBLIGATION ON AN AGENCY TO "ACCORD EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION" TO A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE PURSUANT TO THAT
 SECTION.
 
    CERTIFICATIONS OF REPRESENTATIVES WERE ISSUED IN EACH OF THE THREE
 DPDS REGIONS IN CASE 3-CA-338 IN MAY AND JUNE, 1977 (G.C. EXH. NOS. 2,
 3, 4).  THESE CERTIFICATIONS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE THAT PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 10(E) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, THE UNION,
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO
 AND METAL TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO ARE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN APPROPRIATE UNITS.  PURSUANT TO SECTION 7135(A)(1)
 OF THE STATUTE THESE CERTIFICATIONS UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER CONTINUE
 UNDER THE STATUTE.  THESE CERTIFICATIONS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL
 ATTACK IN THIS PROCEEDING.
 
    WHEN THE UNION REQUESTED BARGAINING IN THE THREE REGIONS ON MAY 29,
 1979, IT WAS ACTING AS THE LEAD UNION PURSUANT TO DELEGATIONS BY THE
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO
 AND METAL TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO RESPONDENT
 DPDS ON FEBRUARY 7, 1979 (G.C. EXH. NO. 6).  THEREFORE, THE UNION WAS
 ACTING AS THE LEAD UNION OF THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
 EMPLOYEES IN THE APPROPRIATE UNITS.
 
    YET, RESPONDENT DPDS REFUSED TO BARGAIN AS REQUESTED (G.C. EXH. NO.
 14).  SECTION 7114(A)(4) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT, "ANY AGENCY AND
 ANY EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE IN ANY APPROPRIATE UNIT IN THE AGENCY,
 THROUGH APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATIVES, SHALL MEET AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD
 FAITH FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARRIVING AT A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT
 . . ." THE PRINCIPLE OF EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, THAT THE EMPLOYER MUST
 BARGAIN WITH THE CERTIFIED UNION AND ONLY WITH THAT BODY, HAS BEEN WELL
 ESTABLISHED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, J.I. CASE CO. V.  N.L.R.B., 321 U.S.
 332, 64 S.CT. 576, 88 L.ED. 762 (1944);  EMPORIUM CAPWELL CO. V. WESTERN
 ADDITION COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION, 420 U.S. 50, 95 S.CT. 977, 43 L.ED.2D
 12 (1975) AND THE DUTY TO BARGAIN WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE HAS
 ALSO BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE AUTHORITY.
 
    ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING, I CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT DPDS HAS
 VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(5) IN TWO RESPECTS:  FIRST, RESPONDENT HAS
 REFUSED TO ACCORD RECOGNITION TO AFGE AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 ITS EMPLOYEES.  SECOND, RESPONDENT HAS REFUSED AFGE'S REQUEST TO
 NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE.
 
    IN ADDITION, UNDER THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISIONS IT IS WELL
 SETTLED THAT "A VIOLATION OF ANY SUBSECTION OF SECTION 19(A), OTHER THAN
 SECTION 19(A)(1), NECESSARILY TENDS TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR
 COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE ORDER
 AND, THEREFORE, ALSO IS VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER,"
 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, DISTRICT OFFICE,
 A/SLMR NO. 674, 6 A/SLMR 350 (1976).  THE SAME REASONING IS APPLICABLE
 TO VIOLATIONS UNDER THE STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, I FIND AND CONCLUDE THAT
 RESPONDENT DPDS ALSO VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) WHICH MAKES IT AN
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE "TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY
 EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF ANY RIGHT UNDER THIS
 CHAPTER."
 
    IN HIS BRIEF, THE GENERAL COUNSEL DOES NOT CONTEND THAT A REFUSAL TO
 BARGAIN VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(5) ALSO CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 7116(A)(8).  /18/ ACCORDINGLY, I MAKE NO FINDING IN THIS RESPECT
 BUT NOTE, IN PASSING, THAT IF A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(8) WERE
 FOUND, IT IS ALREADY ADEQUATELY REMEDIED BY THE REMEDIAL PROVISION OF
 THE RECOMMENDED ORDER HEREIN.
 
    B.  THE REFUSAL BY RESPONDENT DPDS TO HONOR THE DUES DEDUCTION
 AUTHORIZATIONS SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO JANUARY 11, 1979.
 
    THE GENERAL COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT THE REFUSAL BY RESPONDENT DPDS TO
 HONOR THE 42 SEPARATE REQUESTS AND AUTHORIZATIONS TO DEDUCT DUES BY
 EMPLOYEES IN THE DPDS REGIONAL UNITS CONSTITUTES NONCOMPLIANCE WITH
 RESPONDENT'S STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION 7115(A) WHICH IN
 PERTINENT PART, STATES AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7115.  ALLOTMENTS TO REPRESENTATIVES
 
    (A) IF AN AGENCY HAS RECEIVED FROM AN EMPLOYEE IN AN APPROPRIATE UNIT
 A WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT
 
    WHICH AUTHORIZES THE AGENCY TO DEDUCT FROM THE PAY OF THE EMPLOYEE
 AMOUNTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF
 
    REGULAR AND PERIODIC DUES OF THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
 UNIT, THE AGENCY SHALL HONOR
 
    THE ASSIGNMENT AND MAKE AN APPROPRIATE ALLOTMENT PURSUANT TO THE
 ASSIGNMENT.  ANY SUCH
 
    ALLOTMENT SHALL BE MADE AT NO COST TO THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OR
 THE EMPLOYEE. . . .
 
    AND, SINCE SECTION 7116(A)(8) OF THE STATUTE MAKES IT AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE FOR AN AGENCY "TO OTHERWISE FAIL OR REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH ANY
 PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER," THE GENERAL COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDS THAT
 RESPONDENT DPDS, BY REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 7115(A) HAS
 COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(8).
 
    THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT 42 EMPLOYEES SIGNED DUES WITHHOLDING
 AUTHORIZATION REQUESTS AND THAT THESE WERE SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT DPDS
 WHICH REFUSED TO HONOR THEM.  THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE EMPLOYEES
 BELONG TO AN APPROPRIATE UNIT WHICH IS REPRESENTED BY A CERTIFIED
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, I.E., AFGE, IAM AND MTC, JOINTLY.  AND I HAVE
 FOUND THAT AFGE, THE LEAD UNION, IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION AS DEFINED IN
 THE STATUTE.  THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT DPDS HAS VOLUNTARILY ELECTED NOT
 TO "RECOGNIZE" AFGE CANNOT BE USED AS A BASIS FOR ASSERTING AS A DEFENSE
 THAT AN AGENCY MAY NOT CHECK OFF DUES TO A LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH HAS
 NOT BEEN "RECOGNIZED."
 
    THE FACT THAT IAM AND MTC CHOSE TO DESIGNATE AFGE AS THE LEAD UNION
 IN NEGOTIATIONS IS NONE OF THE AGENCY'S CONCERN.  THE AMOUNT OF THE DUES
 AND THE METHOD OF DISBURSEMENT IS ALSO NONE OF THE AGENCY'S CONCERN.
 /19/ IT HAS BEEN HELD UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT SUCH MATTERS
 INVOLVE THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE UNION, AN AREA IN WHICH AGENCIES ARE
 NOT ALLOWED TO INTERFERE.  /20/ THE PROHIBITION AGAINST AGENCY
 INTERFERENCE INTO UNION INTERNAL TRANSACTIONS PROTECTS AND PROMOTES THE
 BARGAINING PROCESS AND SHOULD BE CONTINUED AS A POLICY MATTER UNDER THE
 STATUTE.
 
    BY WAY OF BACKGROUND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT UNDER THE EXECUTIVE
 ORDER DUES WITHHOLDING ARRANGEMENTS WERE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
 THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  AN AGENCY WAS ONLY
 REQUIRED TO HONOR DUES ALLOTMENT REQUESTS IF THE CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR
 THEM.  HOWEVER, ONCE A DUES STATUS AND AN EMPLOYER'S UNLAWFUL REVOCATION
 OF DUES ALLOTMENT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE PART AND PARCEL OF A FAILURE TO
 CONTINUE TO ACCORD APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION CONSTITUTING A VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 19(A)(5) UNDER THE ORDER.  SEE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL AIR RESERVE TRAINING UNIT, MEMPHIS, TENN.,
 A/SLMR NO. 106, 1 A/SLMR 490 (1917).
 
    TODAY, IN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT PRESENTED HERE, AN AGENCY'S OBLIGATION
 TO DEDUCT DUES IS BASED, NOT UPON A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, BUT RATHER,
 UPON AN OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE.  MOREOVER, THE OBLIGATION IS
 MANDATORY.  THIS CONCLUSION FOLLOWS FROM THE MANDATORY TERMINOLOGY USED
 IN THE PHRASE "SHALL HONOR THE ASSIGNMENT" AS WELL AS THE FOLLOWING
 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EXCERPTED FROM HOUSE REPORT NO. 95-1403 (JULY 31,
 1978) WHICH ACCOMPANIED H.R. 11280.  /21/
 
    ALLOTMENTS TO REPRESENTATIVES
 
    SECTION 7115 PROVIDES FOR THE WITHHOLDING OF LABOR ORGANIZATION DUES
 THROUGH PAYROLL
 
    DEDUCTIONS.  THE SECTION REFLECTS A COMPRISE BETWEEN TWO SHARPLY
 CONTRASTING POSITIONS WHICH
 
    THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED:  NO GUARANTEE OF WITHHOLDING FOR ANY UNIT
 EMPLOYEE AND MANDATORY
 
    PAYMENT BY ALL UNIT EMPLOYEES ("AGENCY SHOP").  THE COMMITTEE
 BELIEVES SECTION 7115 TO BE A
 
    FAIR RESOLUTION FOR AGENCIES, LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, AND EMPLOYEES.
 
    SUBSECTION (A) PROVIDES THAT IF AN EMPLOYEE IN AN EXCLUSIVELY
 REPRESENTED UNIT PRESENTS TO
 
    THE AGENCY A WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY TO DEDUCT THE
 LABOR ORGANIZATION'S DUES
 
    FROM THE EMPLOYEES' PAY EACH PAY PERIOD, THE AGENCY MUST HONOR THE
 ASSIGNMENT AND MUST DEDUCT
 
    THE DUES.  THE DECISION TO PAY, OR NOT TO PAY IS SOLELY THE
 EMPLOYEE'S.  IF THE EMPLOYEE
 
    DECIDES TO HAVE DUES WITHHELD, THE AGENCY MUST HONOR THAT DECISION.
 THE ALLOTMENTS ARE TO BE
 
    MADE AT NO COST TO THE EMPLOYEES OR TO THE LABOR ORGANIZATION.
 ASSIGNMENTS NORMALLY ARE TO BE
 
    IRREVOCABLE FOR ONE YEAR.
 
    SINCE CONGRESS HAS SAID THAT THE AGENCY (1) "MUST HONOR THE
 ASSIGNMENT," (2) "MUST DEDUCT THE DUES," AND (3) "MUST HONOR THE
 EMPLOYEE'S DECISION, I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE AGENCY'S OBLIGATION IS
 MANDATORY AND ITS ROLE IS MINISTERIAL IN NATURE.
 
    BASED UPON MY REVIEW OF THE RECORD, I FIND IN AGREEMENT WITH THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL, THAT RESPONDENT DPDS HAS FAILED AND REFUSED TO COMPLY
 WITH SECTION 7115(A).  HAVING SO CONCLUDED, THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER
 RESPONDENT DPDS HAS COMMITTED ANY UNFAIR LABOR PROVISION IN SECTION 7116
 OF THE STATUTE.
 
    SECTION 7116(A)(8) IS A NEW STATUTORY PROVISION IN THE SENSE THAT
 THERE IS NO PARALLEL PROVISION IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OR, BY ANALOGY TO
 THE PRIVATE SECTOR, IN THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED.
 SECTION 7116(A)(8), AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, MAKES IT AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE FOR AN AGENCY "TO OTHERWISE FAIL OR REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH ANY
 PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER." THE USE OF THE WORD "ANY" SUPPORTS AN
 INTERPRETATION THAT THIS SECTION MAY HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO BE CONSTRUED
 BROADLY.  RESEARCH OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, HOWEVER, REVEALS VERY
 LITTLE INFORMATION TO EXPLAIN WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO BE ENCOMPASSED
 WITHIN THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF SECTION 7116(A)(8), WHICH, AT AN EARLIER
 STAGE IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, WAS NUMBERED 7117(A)(7).  HOUSE REPORT
 NO. 95-1403 (JULY 31, 1978) WHICH ACCOMPANIED H.R. 11280 STATES AT PAGE
 50 AS FOLLOWS:  /22/
 
    THE LANGUAGE "FAIL OR REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS
 CHAPTER" USED IN SECTION
 
    7116(A)(7) AND SECTION 7116(B)(8) IS INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE FAILURE
 OR REFUSAL ON THE PART OF
 
    AN AGENCY OR A LABOR ORGANIZATION TO COMPLY WITH ANY ORDER OR
 DECISION ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE
 
    WITH CHAPTER 71 SUCH AS THE FINAL ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY IN AN UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE
 
    PROCEEDING.  THIS DOES NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF THE
 AUTHORITY OR ANY PERSON UNDER
 
    SECTION 7123, BELOW (JUDICIAL REVIEW;  ENFORCEMENT).
 
    THE USE OF THE WORD "INCLUDE" SUGGESTS THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN
 ORDER OR DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY WAS ONLY ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT WAS
 INTENDED TO BE COVERED BY THIS STATUTORY PROVISION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO THE CONTRARY, IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT
 CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WOULD USE
 ITS EXPERTISE TO DETERMINE, ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, THE SCOPE OF
 SECTION 7116(A)(8).  THE INSTANT PROCEEDING PRESENTS SUCH AN
 OPPORTUNITY.
 
    UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, IT WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN
 AGENCY TO REFUSE TO HONOR CHECKOFF AUTHORIZATIONS WHEN SUCH OBLIGATION
 WAS IMPOSED BY CONTRACT.  CERTAINLY, AN OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY STATUTE
 ALSO MUST BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  FURTHERMORE, SINCE CONGRESS
 INTENDED SECTION 7116(A)(8) TO INCLUDE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER OF
 THE AUTHORITY, CERTAINLY THERE SHOULD BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT NONCOMPLIANCE
 WITH A CLEAR STATUTORY PROVISION IS ALSO COVERED.  ACCORDINGLY, I FIND
 THAT RESPONDENT DPDS, BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 7120(A), HAS
 COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(8) OF
 THE STATUTE.
 
    THE GENERAL COUNSEL ALLEGES IN HIS COMPLAINT /23/ THAT RESPONDENT
 DPDS HAS ALSO VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) BY ITS REFUSAL TO
 HONOR EMPLOYEES' DUES ALLOTMENT REQUESTS.  I AGREE.  RESPONDENT'S
 OBLIGATION IN THIS RESPECT IN NOT ONLY DERIVED FROM SECTION 7115(A) BUT
 ALSO FROM SECTION 7111 WHICH REQUIRES AN AGENCY TO ACCORD EXCLUSIVE
 RECOGNITION TO A LABOR ORGANIZATION LAWFULLY SELECTED AS EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES.  TO REFUSE TO HONOR DUES ALLOTMENT
 REQUESTS IS, IN MY OPINION, TANTAMOUNT TO REFUSING TO ACCORD RECOGNITION
 TO THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.  IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
 RECOGNITION PROCESS.  JUST AS IT WAS A VIOLATION UNDER THE EXECUTIVE
 ORDER TO WITHDRAW RECOGNITION BY DISCONTINUING THE CHECKOFF OF DUES, I
 CONCLUDE THAT IT IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(5) OF THE STATUTE TO
 REFUSE TO ACCORD RECOGNITION AB INITIO, BY REFUSING TO HONOR DUES
 WITHHOLDING ALLOTMENTS TO THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    FURTHERMORE, SINCE SUCH IMPROPER CONDUCT BY RESPONDENT DENIGRATES THE
 STATUS OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION IN THE EYES OF THE EMPLOYEES, IT IS MY
 VIEW THAT SUCH CONDUCT HAS THE CONCOMITANT EFFECT OF INTERFERING WITH,
 RESTRAINING, AND COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS
 UNDER THE STATUTE TO ASSIST A LABOR ORGANIZATION.  ACCORDINGLY, I FIND
 AN INDEPENDENT VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) BASED UPON THIS CONDUCT.
 
    C.  THE REFUSAL BY RESPONDENT DLA TO BARGAIN, UPON REQUEST, WITH
 AFGE, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    THE UNION WAS CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE
 EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT DLA IN CONSOLIDATED UNITS OF NON-PROFESSIONALS
 (G.C. EXH. NO. 5) AND PROFESSIONALS (G.C. EXH. NO. 21) ON MARCH 6, 1979.
  /24/ THESE CONSOLIDATIONS WERE AFFECTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 7112(D) OF
 THE STATUTE BY WHICH THE AUTHORITY HAS CERTIFIED THE UNION AS THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF A NEW LARGER UNIT.  IT WAS IN THIS CAPACITY
 THAT THE UNION WAS ACTING WHEN IT REQUESTED, AND RESPONDENT DLA REFUSED,
 TO COMMENCE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ON MAY 24, 1979, MAY 30, 1979 AND MAY
 31, 1979.
 
    FOR THE SAME REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN CONNECTION WITH RESPONDENT
 DPDS, I FIND AND CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT DLA HAS VIOLATED SECTION
 7116(A)(5) BY REFUSING TO ACCORD RECOGNITION TO AFGE AND BY REFUSING TO
 NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH AFGE, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.  BY SO
 DOING, RESPONDENT DLA HAS THEREBY VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1).  /25/
 
                              VI.  THE REMEDY
 
    THE GENERAL COUNSEL REQUESTS THAT RESPONDENT DPDS BE ORDERED TO MAKE
 THE UNION WHOLE FOR ANY LOSS IT MAY HAVE SUSTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE
 UNLAWFUL REFUSAL TO HONOR VALID DUES DEDUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.  IN VIEW
 OF RESPONDENT'S VIOLATION OF THE STATUTORY MANDATE TO HONOR DUES
 ALLOTMENT REQUESTS, THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S REQUEST APPEARS TO BE A
 REASONABLE WAY OF RESTORING THE STATUS QUO TO AFGE WHICH, BUT FOR
 RESPONDENT'S UNLAWFUL ACTION, WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THESE DUES AND BEEN
 ABLE TO UTILIZE SUCH MONEY IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS DUTIES AS CERTIFIED
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THESE EMPLOYEES.  CLEARLY THEN, SUCH REMEDY
 WOULD BE COMPENSATORY RATHER THAN PUNITIVE.  MOREOVER, SUCH REMEDY
 WOULD
 BE AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT TO SIMILAR VIOLATIONS BY AGENCIES IN THE
 FUTURE.  IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR THIS REMEDY.
 /26/
 
    WHEN RESPONDENT ELECTED TO KNOWINGLY VIOLATE THE STATUTE IT ACTED AS
 IT" PERIL AND RAN THE RISK OF BEING WRONG.  ASSUMING ARGUENDO, THAT
 RESPONDENT BELIEVED ITS ACTIONS WERE LAWFUL, IT COULD HAVE CHECKED OFF
 THE DUES ANYWAY AND PLACED THE MONEY IN ESCROW WHILE AWAITING A
 DETERMINATION FROM THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AS TO WHETHER
 IT ACTED PROPERLY AND LAWFULLY.  THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR VOLUNTARILY
 ESTABLISHING AN ESCROW ACCOUNT IN A CASE ARISING UNDER THE EXECUTIVE
 ORDER.  /27/ THERE IS ALSO PRECEDENT UNDER THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS ACT.  /28/
 
    HOWEVER, I AM BOUND BY THE DECISIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY UNTIL
 SUCH TIME AS THOSE DECISIONS ARE OVERRULED BY THE AUTHORITY OR FOUND TO
 BE DISTINGUISHABLE, FOR SOME PERSUASIVE REASON.  /29/ BASED UPON THE
 APPLICABLE PRECEDENT, I MUST REJECT THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S REQUEST.  IN
 1971, /30/ THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FULLY CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN A CASE
 INVOLVING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND STATED AS FOLLOWS:
 
    THE RESPONDENT'S ACTION IN REVOKING THE DUES DEDUCTION ALLOTMENTS
 PROVIDES A NOVEL REMEDIAL
 
    QUESTION.  WHILE AN ORDER THAT THE RESPONDENT ACCORD RECOGNITION TO
 THE COMPLAINANT AND GIVE
 
    EFFECT TO THE PARTIES NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AND ANY DUES DEDUCTION
 AUTHORIZATIONS WOULD APPEAR
 
    TO REMEDY THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES FOUND IN THIS CASE, IT MAY BE
 ARGUED THAT THE COMPLAINANT
 
    HAS NOT BEEN "MADE WHOLE" BECAUSE IT DID NOT RECEIVE RETROACTIVELY
 THE "CHECKED OFF" DUES FROM
 
    THE DATE OF REVOCATION.  THE HEARING EXAMINER CONSIDERED THIS
 POSSIBLE CONTENTION AND
 
    RECOMMENDED THAT A REMEDY INCLUDING THE RETROACTIVE CHECKOFF OF DUES
 WOULD IMPOSE AN UNDUE
 
    HARDSHIP ON THE EMPLOYEES.  THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT TAKE EXCEPTION TO
 THIS RECOMMENDATION.  I
 
    AGREE WITH THE HEARING EXAMINER'S CONCLUSION IN THIS REGARD.  WHILE
 SECTION 21 OF THE
 
    EXECUTIVE ORDER PROVIDES FOR THE ALLOTMENT OF DUES, THE OBLIGATIONS
 OF MEMBERSHIP, SUCH AS THE
 
    PAYMENT OF DUES, ARE STILL THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EMPLOYEE.  IN MY
 VIEW, THE REINSTITUTION
 
    OF DUES DEDUCTIONS IN THIS CASE SATISFACTORILY REMEDIES THE IMPROPER
 CONDUCT OF THE RESPONDENT
 
    WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPLAINANT.
 
    MORE RECENTLY, ON JUNE 18, 1979, AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, RELIED
 ON THE ABOVE CITED DECISION TO REJECT THE COMPLAINANT'S REQUEST FOR
 REIMBURSEMENT OF BACK DUES BY THE AGENCY, AT NO EXPENSE TO THE
 EMPLOYEES.  ON APPEAL, THE JUDGE'S DECISION ON THIS ISSUE WAS ADOPTED BY
 THE AUTHORITY, WITHOUT COMMENT, AS RECENTLY AS FEBRUARY 29, 1980.  /31/
 
    SINCE I AM UNABLE TO ORDER REIMBURSEMENT, I DO NOT REACH THE FURTHER
 ISSUE PRESENTED BY GENERAL COUNSEL'S REQUEST "THAT INTEREST, AT THE
 CURRENT RATE, BE ADDED TO ANY SUM AWARDED TO THE UNION."
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DPDS HAS VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1)(5)
 AND (8) OF THE STATUTE AND HAVING FURTHER FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DLA HAS
 VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE, I RECOMMEND THAT
 THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY ADOPT THE FOLLOWING SEPARATE
 ORDERS, WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO REMEDY THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN EACH
 CASE IN THIS CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDING AND TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF
 THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.  /32/
 
                                   ORDER
 
                            (CASE NO. 3-CA-294)
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 7105(G)(3) AND 7118(A)(7) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT RESPONDENT, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY,
 SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, AS THE
 
    EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (B) REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 
    AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR WITH ANY
 OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 
    REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (C) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING UNIT EMPLOYEES BY
 REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE AND
 
    NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR ANY
 
    OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (D) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
    STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF
 
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR
 ITS EMPLOYEES, IN TWO
 
    NATIONWIDE CONSOLIDATED UNITS OF (1) NON-PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES AND
 (2) PROFESSIONAL
 
    EMPLOYEES, AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE CERTIFICATIONS ISSUED IN
 CASE NO. 22-09044 (UC) ON
 
    MARCH 6, 1979, AND THEREAFTER AMENDED ON MAY 9, MAY 12, MAY 23, AND
 JUNE 1.  /33/
 
    (B) POST AT ALL FACILITIES AND INSTALLATIONS OF THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS
 AGENCY, COPIES OF THE
 
    ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX A" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 
    AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE
 DIRECTOR OF THE DEFENSE
 
    LOGISTICS AGENCY, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
 
    THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES
 TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 
    CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO
 INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE
 
    NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY IN WRITING, WITHIN
 THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM
 
    THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY
 HEREWITH.
 
                                   ORDER
 
                            (CASE NO. 3-CA-338)
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 7105(G)(3) AND 7118(A)(7) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT RESPONDENT, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY,
 DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL SERVICE, DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, OGDEN, UTAH, AND COLUMBUS, OHIO, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 
    INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, AND THE METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, THE
 
    JOINTLY CERTIFIED EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (B) REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 
    AFL-CIO, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, OR METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO,
 
    THE JOINTLY CERTIFIED EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, OR WITH ANY OTHER
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (C) REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7115 OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE
 
    LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT AND HONOR
 VALID WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS
 
    FROM UNIT EMPLOYEES FOR THE PAYMENT OF REGULAR AND PERIODIC DUES TO
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (D) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING UNIT EMPLOYEES BY
 REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE AND
 
    NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AND BY
 REFUSING TO ACCEPT AND HONOR
 
    WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS FROM UNIT EMPLOYEES FOR THE PAYMENT OF REGULAR
 AND PERIODIC DUES TO
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (E) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF
 
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, AS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS
 EMPLOYEES, JOINTLY WITH THE
 
    INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, AND THE METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, IN
 
    THE FOLLOWING APPROPRIATE UNITS:
 
    ALL EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION, COLUMBUS,
 OHIO, EXCLUDING
 
    PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK
 IN OTHER THAN A PURELY
 
    CLERICAL CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, GUARDS AND SUPERVISORS AS
 DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
    ALL EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE,
 
    EXCLUDING PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL
 PERSONNEL WORK IN OTHER THAN A
 
    PURELY CLERICAL CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, GUARDS AND
 SUPERVISORS AS DEFINED IN THE
 
    ORDER.
 
    ALL EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 OGDEN, UTAH, EXCLUDING
 
    PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK
 IN OTHER THAN A PURELY
 
    CLERICAL CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, GUARDS AND SUPERVISORS AS
 DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
    (B) COMMENCING WITH THE FIRST PAY PERIOD AFTER THE DATE OF THIS
 ORDER, DEDUCT REGULAR AND
 
    PERIODIC DUES FROM THE PAY OF EMPLOYEES NAMED IN APPENDIX C WHO HAVE
 EXECUTED VALID WRITTEN
 
    ALLOTMENTS AND ALSO FROM ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE IN THE UNIT WHO MAY IN
 THE FUTURE MAKE VOLUNTARY
 
    ALLOTMENTS FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AND REMIT SUCH DUES TO THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN
 
    FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO.
 
    (C) POST ALL FACILITIES AND INSTALLATIONS OF THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS
 AGENCY, DEFENSE PROPERTY
 
    DISPOSAL SERVICE, DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION, MEMPHIS,
 TENNESSEE, OGDEN, UTAH, AND
 
    COLUMBUS, OHIO, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX B" ON
 FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY
 
    THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS
 THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE
 
    COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL SERVICE, AND
 SHALL BE POSTED AND
 
    MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS
 PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 
    PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED. THE
 COMMANDING GENERAL SHALL TAKE
 
    REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
 DEFACED, OR COVERED WITH ANY
 
    OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN
 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE
 
    OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                         FRANCIS E. DOWD
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  APRIL 2, 1980
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
 
 
                                APPENDIX A
 
        NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF
 
           THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO
 
              EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 
          LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR
 
                             EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE UNIT EMPLOYEES AT
 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY BY REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD
 FAITH WITH THEIR EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, AS EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES IN TWO NATIONWIDE CONSOLIDATED UNITS OF
 (1) NON-SUPERVISORY NON-PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, AND (2) NON-SUPERVISORY
 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED UNIT
 DESCRIPTIONS.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  BY:  (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:
 1730 K STREET, N.W., ROOM 401, WASHINGTON, D.C., 20006;  AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (202) 653-7213.
 
 
 
 
                                APPENDIX B
 
        NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF
 
           THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO
 
              EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 
          LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR
 
                             EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, INTERNATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, OR METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO,
 THE JOINTLY CERTIFIED EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, OR WITH ANY OTHER
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, AS THE JOINTLY CERTIFIED EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT AND HONOR VALID
 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS FROM UNIT EMPLOYEES FOR THE PAYMENT OF REGULAR AND
 PERIODIC DUES TO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, AND COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES BY
 REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE, AND BY REFUSING TO ACCEPT AND HONOR VALID WRITTEN
 ASSIGNMENTS FROM UNIT EMPLOYEES FOR THE PAYMENT OF REGULAR AND PERIODIC
 DUES TO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR ANY
 OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, RECOGNIZE AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, INTERNATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO, AND METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO,
 AS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE FOLLOWING
 APPROPRIATE UNITS:
 
    ALL EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION, COLUMBUS,
 OHIO, EXCLUDING
 
    PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK
 IN OTHER THAN A PURELY
 
    CLERICAL CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, GUARDS AND SUPERVISORS AS
 DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
    ALL EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION, MEMPHIS,
 TENNESSEE, EXCLUDING
 
    PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK
 IN OTHER THAN A PURELY
 
    CLERICAL CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, GUARDS AND SUPERVISORS AS
 DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
    ALL EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION,
 OGDEN, UTAH, EXCLUDING
 
    PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK
 IN OTHER THAN A PURELY
 
    CLERICAL CAPACITY, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, GUARDS AND SUPERVISORS AS
 DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
    WE WILL DEDUCT REGULAR AND PERIODIC DUES FROM THE PAY OF OUR
 EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE EXECUTED VALID WRITTEN ALLOTMENTS AND ALSO FROM ANY
 OTHER EMPLOYEE IN THE UNITS WHO MAY IN THE FUTURE MAKE VOLUNTARY
 ALLOTMENTS FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AND REMIT SUCH DUES TO THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR TO ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE DESIGNATED FOR THIS PURPOSE.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  BY:  (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THE NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:
 1730 K STREET, N.W., ROOM 401, WASHINGTON, D.C., 20006;  AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (202) 653-7213.
 
                                APPENDIX C
 
         NAMES OF EMPLOYEES WHO EXECUTED VALID WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS
 
           OF REGULAR AND PERIODIC DUES FOR PAYMENT TO AMERICAN
 
               FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO.
 
    JAMES FELDER ROBERT B. BRINSON
 
    WILLIAM HIGDON JACK BURMAN
 
    RICHARD LARSEN RAYMOND GURULE
 
    JAKE BERRYMAN LEROY JACKSON
 
    HOWARD J. BAKER WILLIE D. MULLEN
 
    FLOYD BROOKS THEORDORE J. POPLARCHIK
 
    WILLIAM D. CARTER CRAIG E. RUSSELL
 
    LOVELESS COFIELD FRANK J. SCHMIDT
 
    MARY D. EMMONS LARRY JOE SCHULTZ
 
    NANCY L. FISHER TIMOTHY W. SHAWGO
 
    RALPH H. HARRIS JUDY M. SKINNER
 
    JIMMY JOHNSON MARVIN C. SMITH
 
    DORIS L. LANIER DEBORAH S. STRACNER
 
    RICHARD L. LEWIS CHARLES E. TRYON
 
    JOHN D. NIX RAYMOND VASQUEZ
 
    ROBERT B. SHELTON ROY M. WEGER
 
    ARTHUR C. SMALLS, SR.  FRANK WHITE
 
    SAMUEL TURNER LOIS J. WHITE
 
    HOWARD O. WALKER JACQUELINE I. MARR
 
    WILLIAM R. BARTLETT GEORGE E. SNOOK
 
    THOMAS L. BITTMAN RALPH L. WILLIAMS
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ SECTION 7111(E) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
 
    (E) A LABOR ORGANIZATION SEEKING EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION SHALL SUBMIT
 TO THE AUTHORITY AND
 
    THE AGENCY INVOLVED A ROSTER OF ITS OFFICERS AND REPRESENTATIVES, A
 COPY OF ITS CONSTITUTION
 
    AND BYLAWS, AND A STATEMENT OF ITS OBJECTIVES.
 
    NOT AT ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS ANY ALLEGATION THAT THE AFGE HAS
 FAILED TO PROVIDE THE
 
    RESPONDENT THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SEC. 7111(E) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    /2/ THE AUTHORITY NOTES THAT SEC. 208.50 OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S
 REGULATIONS (29 CFR 208.50) PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 208.50 INVESTIGATIONS.
 
    WHEN HE BELIEVES IT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY
 PERSON HAS VIOLATED OR IS
 
    ABOUT TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS PART (OTHER THAN SEC.  208.2,
 BILL OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS
 
    OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS OR SEC. 208.37, PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN
 DISCIPLINE) THE DIRECTOR SHALL
 
    HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CAUSE AN INVESTIGATION TO BE CONDUCTED.
 
    THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF THIS PART (OT4ER
 THAN SECS. 208.2 OR
 
    208.37) SHALL NOT BE CONTINGENT UPON RECEIPT OF A COMPLAINT.
 
    /3/ SECTION 7115(A) PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7115.  ALLOTMENTS TO REPRESENTATIVES
 
    (A) IF AN AGENCY HAS RECEIVED FROM AN EMPLOYEE IN AN APPROPRIATE UNIT
 A WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT
 
    WHICH AUTHORIZES THE AGENCY TO DEDUCT FROM THE PAY OF THE EMPLOYEE
 AMOUNTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF
 
    REGULAR AND PERIODIC DUES OF THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
 UNIT, THE AGENCY SHALL HONOR
 
    THE ASSIGNMENT AND MAKE AN APPROPRIATE ALLOTMENT PURSUANT TO THE
 ASSIGNMENT.  ANY SUCH
 
    ALLOTMENT SHALL BE MADE AT NO COST TO THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OR
 THE EMPLOYEE . . . .
 
    /4/ THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT ACCOMPANYING H.R. 11280 STATED, WITH
 RESPECT TO SECTION 7115(A) AS REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE AND SUBSEQUENTLY
 ENACTED AND SIGNED INTO LAW WITHOUT CHANGE, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    ALLOTMENTS TO REPRESENTATIVES
 
    SECTION 7115 PROVIDES FOR THE WITHHOLDING OF LABOR ORGANIZATION DUES
 THROUGH PAYROLL
 
    DEDUCTIONS.  THE SECTION REFLECTS A COMPROMISE BETWEEN TWO SHARPLY
 CONTRASTING POSITIONS WHICH
 
    THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED:  NO GUARANTEE OF WITHHOLDING FOR ANY UNIT
 EMPLOYEE AND MANDATORY
 
    PAYMENT BY ALL UNIT EMPLOYEES ("AGENCY SHOP").  THE COMMITTEE
 BELIEVES SECTION 7115 TO BE A
 
    FAIR RESOLUTION FOR AGENCIES, LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, AND EMPLOYEES.
 
    SUBSECTION (A) PROVIDES THAT IF AN EMPLOYEE IN AN EXCLUSIVELY
 REPRESENTED UNIT PRESENTS TO
 
    THE AGENCY A WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY TO DEDUCT THE
 LABOR ORGANIZATION'S DUES
 
    FROM THE EMPLOYEE'S PAY EACH PAY PERIOD, THE AGENCY MUST HONOR THE
 ASSIGNMENT AND MUST DEDUCT
 
    THE DUES.  THE DECISION TO PAY, OR NOT TO PAY, IS SOLELY THE
 EMPLOYEE'S.  IF THE EMPLOYEE
 
    DECIDES TO HAVE DUES WITHHELD, THE AGENCY MUST HONOR THAT DECISION.
 THE ALLOTMENTS ARE TO BE
 
    MADE AT NO COST TO THE EMPLOYEES OR TO THE LABOR ORGANIZATION.
 ASSIGNMENTS NORMALLY ARE TO BE
 
    IRREVOCABLE FOR ONE YEAR.  H.R. REP. NO. 95-1403, 95TH CONG., 2D
 SESS. 48(1978).
 
    SEE ALSO THE JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
 CONFERENCE, H.R. REP. NO. 95-1717, 95TH CONG., 2D SESS. 155(1978), AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES
 
    A.  WITHHOLDING OF DUES
 
    BOTH SENATE SECTION (7)231 AND HOUSE SECTION 7115(A) AUTHORIZE AN
 AGENCY TO DEDUCT DUES
 
    FROM THE PAY OF MEMBERS OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION.  THE SENATE MAKES
 THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE
 
    AGENCY TO DEDUCT DUES FROM MEMBERS OF AN EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED LABOR
 ORGANIZATION DEPENDENT
 
    UPON ITS AGREEMENT TO DO SO AS PART OF A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT.  HOUSE
 SECTION 7115(A) STATES
 
    THAT THE AGENCY SHALL MAKE SUCH DEDUCTION WHENEVER IT RECEIVES FROM
 AN EMPLOYEE IN THE
 
    APPROPRIATE UNIT A WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AUTHORIZING IT.  FURTHER, THE
 HOUSE SPECIFIES THAT THE
 
    ALLOTMENT SHALL BE MADE AT NO COST TO THE EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED
 LABOR ORGANIZATION OR THE
 
    EMPLOYEE.  THE SENATE RECEDES.
 
    /5/ THE ONLY DECISION OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY RELIED UPON BY THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN THIS REGARD IS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
 DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL AIR RESERVE TRAINING UNIT,
 MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, 1 A/SLMR 490(1971), WHICH AROSE UNDER AND WAS
 DECIDED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
  AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, THE INSTANT CASE ARISES UNDER THE STATUTE, THE
 PROVISIONS OF WHICH ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF AN
 EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO AUTHORIZE UNION DUES DEDUCTIONS AND THE EMPLOYER'S
 OBLIGATION TO HONOR SUCH REQUEST.  ADDITIONALLY, THE CASES ARE
 DISTINGUISHABLE ON THEIR FACTS.  THUS, IN 1 A/SLMR 490, MANAGEMENT
 WITHDREW EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION FROM THE UNION AND REVOKED DUES ALLOTMENT
 AFTER AN EXTENSIVE REORGANIZATION WHICH RESULTED IN A DRASTIC DIMINUTION
 IN THE SIZE OF THE BARGAINING UNIT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, BY CONTRAST,
 THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES ANTEDATING
 RESPONDENTS' WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION FROM AFGE AND CANCELLATION OF THE
 EMPLOYEES' VALID DUES DEDUCTION AUTHORIZATION.  THE OTHER CASE CITED BY
 THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, THE ADJUTANT GENERAL-GEORGIA, GEORGIA
 NATIONAL GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 2 FLRA NO. 92
 (1980), WHICH SIMILARLY AROSE UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, ALSO IS
 FACTUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE INSTANT CASE.  THUS, AS NOTED ABOVE,
 WHILE THE RECORD IN THE INSTANT CASE DOES NOT REFLECT ANY CHANGED
 CIRCUMSTANCES PRIOR TO RESPONDENT'S WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION FROM AFGE
 AND CANCELLATION OF THE EMPLOYEES' VALID DUES DEDUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS,
 IN GEORGIA NATIONAL GUARD THE AUTHORITY FOUND THAT CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
 HAD OCCURRED WHICH JUSTIFIED MANAGEMENT'S SUBSEQUENT SUSPENSION OF UNION
 DUES WITHHOLDING FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.  IN THIS LATTER REGARD, THE
 AUTHORITY FOUND THAT MANAGEMENT'S ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN SUPERVISORY
 RESPONSIBILITIES TO 21 OF THE 22 "SMALL SHOP CHIEFS" AT ISSUE THEREIN
 HAD RESULTED IN THEIR EXCLUSION FROM THE BARGAINING UNIT AS
 "SUPERVISORS" UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, AND THAT THE SUBSEQUENT
 SUSPENSION OF THEIR UNION DUES WITHHOLDING AUTHORIZATIONS THEREFORE WAS
 PROPER.
 
    /6/ PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE COMPLAINT IS HEREBY AMENDED TO CONFORM TO THE
 EVIDENCE BY INCORPORATING A REFERENCE TO PARAGRAPH 9, WHICH APPEARS TO
 HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY OMITTED.
 
    /7/ HEREIN REFERRED TO INDIVIDUALLY AS AFGE, IAM, MTC OR COLLECTIVELY
 AS UNIONS OR JOINT PETITIONER.
 
    /8/ PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE COMPLAINT.
 
    /9/ HEREIN REFERRED TO AS AFGE OR UNION
 
    /10/ I RULED AT THE HEARING THAT THIS "DEFENSE" WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO
 RESPONDENTS IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING AND REJECTED EVIDENCE
 AND TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE.  FOR REASONS DISCUSSED LATER,
 I ADHERE TO THAT RULING.  DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELATIVE TO THIS ISSUE
 HAS BEEN PLACED IN A REJECTED EXHIBIT FILE.
 
    /11/ TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, I HAVE ADOPTED VERBATIM THE
 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED IN THE BRIEF FILED BY COUNSEL FOR
 THE GENERAL COUNSEL.
 
    /12/ FOR THIS REASON, THE TERM UNION IN ITS SINGULAR FORM REFERS TO
 AFGE AS THE LEAD UNION IN THE DPDS CASE AS WELL AS TO AFGE, THE ONLY
 UNION IN THE DLA CASE.
 
    /13/ I FIND THAT IAM AND MTC ARE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE
 MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(4).
 
    /14/ N.L.R.B. V. WESTEX BOOT & SHOE CO., 190 F.2D 12 (5TH CIR.
 1951), REHEARING DENIED 190 F.2D 556 (5TH CIR. 1951)
 
    /15/ N.L.R.B. V. HIGHLAND PARK MANUFACTURING CO., 71 S.CT. 758, 341
 U.S. 322, 95 L.ED. 969(1951).
 
    /16/ SEE ALSO GENERAL MOTORS, 120 NLRB 1215.  THERE, THE BOARD
 CONCLUDED THAT THE EMPLOYER AND THE UAW INTERNATIONAL UNION, BY THE
 COURSE OF THEIR MULTIPLANT BARGAINING OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS HAD MERGED
 120 INDIVIDUAL PLANT CERTIFICATIONS INTO ONE SINGLE COMPANY-WIDE UNIT.
 HERE, DLA AND AFGE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THE SAME CONSOLIDATION, WITH
 AUTHORITY APPROVAL, THROUGH THE REPRESENTATION PROCEDURES PROVIDING FOR
 CONSOLIDATION OF UNITS.
 
    /17/ IN ITS BRIEF AT P. 37, RESPONDENT ASSERTS THAT IT DOES NOT
 ALLEGE, AND NEVER HAS ALLEGED, THAT THE AFGE, OR ANY OFFICER OR
 REPRESENTATIVE OF AFGE IS OR EVER HAS BEEN GUILTY OF ANY OVERT VIOLATION
 OF ANY OF THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.
 
    /18/ FROM THIS I CONCLUDE THAT THE SECTION 7116(A)(8) ALLEGATION IN
 PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE COMPLAINT WAS ONLY INTENDED TO ENCOMPASS THE REFUSAL
 TO HONOR DUES WITHHOLDING REQUESTS.
 
    /19/ EVEN ASSUMING, ARGUENDO, THAT THE RESPONDENT DPDS MAY LOOK
 BEYOND THE CLEAR AUTHORIZATION TO DEDUCT THE DUES OF THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE, THE AFGE, RESPONDENT DPDS OFFERED NO EVIDENCE THAT THE
 DUES ARE BEING DEDUCTED BY OR FOR ANYONE BUT THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    /20/ U.S. ARMY HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY TRAINING CENTER, INFANTRY,
 F-1, JACKSON LAUNDRY FACILITY, FT. JACKSON, SOUTH CAROLINA, A/SLMR NO.
 242(1973), A A/SLMR 60, 62;  UTAH ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, SALT LAKE CITY,
 UTAH, A/SLMR NO. 966(1978), 8 A/SLMR 69;  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 OMAHA DISTRICT OFFICE, A/SLMR NO. 417, 4 A/SLMR 493, 496(1974).
 
    /21/ LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978,
 COMMITTEE PRINT NO. 96-7 (NOV.  19, 1979) AT P. 694.
 
    /22/ IBID, AT P. 696.
 
    /23/ PARAGRAPHS 7 AND 11 OF THE COMPLAINT.
 
    /24/ THE FACT THAT THE CERTIFICATION FOR THE CONSOLIDATED UNIT OF
 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE CHARGE DOES NOT PRECLUDE
 THE GENERAL COUNSEL FROM INCLUDING THIS UNIT IN THE COMPLAINT.  IN THE
 PRIVATE SECTOR, THE SUPREME COURT AND MANY CIRCUIT COURTS HAVE UPHELD
 THE NLRB'S VIEW THAT A CHARGE IS NOT A PLEADING AND DOES NOT REQUIRE THE
 SPECIFICITY OF A PLEADING.  IT MERELY SERVES TO INITIATE A BOARD
 INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A COMPLAINT SHALL BE ISSUED.  FANT
 MILLING CO., 360 U.S. 301;  TEXAS INDUSTRIES, 139 NLRB 365, 366 F.2D 128
 (CA-5);  NLRB V. BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINES INC., 486 F.2D 743 (CA-7).
  FOR AN APPLICABLE CASE UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, SEE DEPT. OF THE AIR
 FORCE HEADQUARTERS, AIR FORCE FLIGHT TEST CENTER, EDWARDS AIR FORCE
 BASE, CALIF., A/SLMR NO. 255(1973).
 
    /25/ IT IS CLEAR FROM G.C. EXH. NO. 19 THAT RESPONDENT DLA WAS FULLY
 AWARE THAT SECTION 2422.2(H)(3) OF THE INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS DID
 NOT REQUIRE SUBMISSION BY THE UNION OF A ROSTER OF ITS OFFICERS AND
 REPRESENTATIVES, A COPY OF ITS CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS AND A STATEMENT
 OF ITS OBJECTIVES, AS PART OF ITS CONSOLIDATION PETITION.  NEVERTHELESS,
 RESPONDENT DLA REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION FOR ALLEGEDLY FAILING
 TO DO SO.
 
    /26/ CRAUTZ PLATING CORPORATION, 172 NLRB 1.
 
    /27/ ARM