Department of the Air Force, Space Division, Los Angeles, California (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2429, AFL-CIO (Charging Party)



[ v06 p439 ]
06:0439(78)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 6 FLRA No. 78
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
 SPACE DIVISION
 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 8-CA-137
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED RECOMMENDED DECISION
 AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT
 HAD ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT
 CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.  THE
 JUDGE ALSO FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN CERTAIN OTHER
 ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDED THAT THOSE PORTIONS OF
 THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED.  THEREAFTER, THE UNION, THE RESPONDENT AND
 THE GENERAL COUNSEL FILED EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTING BRIEFS TO THE
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.  THE RESPONDENT ALSO FILED AN
 OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S EXCEPTIONS.
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 (5 CFR 2423.29) AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE), THE AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED THE RULINGS
 OF THE JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS
 COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS
 CASE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS AS MODIFIED HEREIN.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE, THE
 AUTHORITY HERE0Y ORDERS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, SPACE
 DIVISION, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) DENYING PERMISSION TO UNION NEGOTIATORS TO ATTEND COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429.
 
    (B) REQUIRING UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME TO SELECT
 ANNUAL LEAVE, ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY STATUS PRIOR TO
 ATTENDING BONA FIDE NEGOTIATING SESSIONS.
 
    (C) 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 STATUTE:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, ALLOW UNION NEGOTIATORS TO ATTEND COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429.
 
    (B) UPON REQUEST, ALLOW UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME
 TO ATTEND DULY AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429, WITHOUT SIGNING
 FOR ANNUAL LEAVE, ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.
 
    (C) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, SPACE
 DIVISION, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON
 FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON
 RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE INSTALLATION
 COMMANDER, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, SPACE DIVISION, LOS ANGELES,
 CALIFORNIA, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE
 DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND
 OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE
 INSTALLATION COMMANDER SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID
 NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION VIII, FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS
 ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 19, 1981
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                          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 DENY REQUESTS FROM UNION NEGOTIATORS TO ATTEND COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429.
 
    WE WILL NOT PREVENT UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME FROM
 ATTENDING DULY AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429, WITHOUT SIGNING
 FOR ANNUAL LEAVE, ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.
 
    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, ALLOW UNION NEGOTIATORS TO ATTEND COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, ALLOW UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL
 TIME TO ATTEND DULY AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429, WITHOUT SIGNING
 FOR ANNUAL LEAVE, ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.
 
                           (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, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:
 WORLD TRADE CENTER, 350 S. FIGUEROA STREET, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES,
 CALIFORNIA 90071, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (213) 688-3805.
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    JOSEPH SWERDZEWSKI, ESQ.
 
                          FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    MAJOR JERRY BRASEL, ESQ.
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    BEFORE:  ELI NASH, JR.
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                             CASE NO. 8-CA-137
 
                                 DECISION
 
                         I.  STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS MATTER AROSE PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, 92 STAT. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101, ET SEQ., AS THE RESULT
 OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WHICH ISSUED ON JANUARY 15, 1980, BASED UPON A
 CHARGE FILED BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429, HEREIN CALLED THE UNION, ON JULY 5, 1979.  /1/
 
    THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE SPACE
 DIVISION, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, HEREIN CALLED RESPONDENT, VIOLATED:
 (1) SEC. 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE U.S.  CODE 5 U.S.C.
 SECTION 7101 ET SEQ., HEREIN CALLED THE STATUTE, BY UNILATERALLY
 DESIGNATING THE NUMBER OF UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME
 FOR NEGOTIATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WITHOUT AFFORDING
 THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND NEGOTIATE THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS
 ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME, AND BY UNILATERALLY REQUIRING THE UNION'S
 NEGOTIATORS TO SELECT ANNUAL LEAVE, LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, OR ABSENCE
 WITHOUT LEAVE STATUS;  (2) SEC. 7116(A)(1) AND (2) BY REQUIRING
 SUPERVISORS OF UNION MEMBERS TO PLACE THESE MEMBERS IN ABSENCE WITHOUT
 LEAVE STATUS DURING PERIODS THE MEMBERS ACTED AS NEGOTIATORS;  AND (3)
 SEC. 7116(A)(1) BY DENYING THE REQUEST OF AN EMPLOYEE TO ATTEND CONTRACT
 NEGOTIATIONS.
 
    AN ANSWER TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS FILED BY RESPONDENT WHICH, IN
 SUBSTANCE, DENIED THE COMMISSION OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN THIS MATTER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AT THE LOS
 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AIR FORCE STATION, ON FEBRUARY 19, 1980.  ALL
 PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 HEARD, ADDUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE
 WITNESSES.  ALL PARTIES FILED BRIEFS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
 BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, THE EXHIBITS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE
 ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT,
 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER.
 
                          II.  STATEMENT OF FACTS
 
    RESPONDENT AND THE UNION, WHICH IS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED HEREIN, ARE PARTIES TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENTS WHICH COVERED APPROPRIATED FUND AND NON-APPROPRIATED FUND
 EMPLOYEES AT RESPONDENT'S FACILITY DURING ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN.
 
    ON OR ABOUT MAY 15, 1978, THE PARTIES NEGOTIATED AND SIGNED A
 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING GOVERNING PROCEDURES FOR THE NEGOTIATION
 OF
 A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WHICH SET FORTH GROUND RULES TO BE FOLLOWED IN
 NEGOTIATING THE PARTIES' CONTRACTS INVOLVED HEREIN.  THE GROUND RULES
 PROVIDED IN SECTION 4 THAT THE UNION WOULD RECEIVE (200) TWO HUNDRED
 HOURS OF OFFICIAL TIME FOR NEGOTIATION OF THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND
 CONTRACT AND, IN SECTION 5, THAT EACH NEGOTIATING TEAM WOULD CONSIST OF
 NOT MORE THAN FIVE MEMBERS.  BY THE END OF 1978 THE UNION HAD EXHAUSTED
 ALL OF ITS OFFICIAL TIME PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE GROUND RULES AND
 NEGOTIATIONS WERE HELD OFF THE CLOCK.
 
    SOME TIME AROUND JANUARY 25, 1980, RESPONDENT RECEIVED GUIDANCE FROM
 AIR FORCE COMMAND ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 7131(A) OF THE STATUTE,
 /2/ TO THE EFFECT THAT THE "GROUND RULES WERE STILL IN EFFECT AS FAR AS
 THE AMOUNT OF MEMBERS FOR EACH TEAM WAS CONCERNED;  HOWEVER, WITH THE
 CHANGE IN THE LAW, IF THE OFFICIAL TIME WAS USED UP THE UNION COULD ONLY
 HAVE AS MANY MEMBERS AS THE MANAGEMENT TEAM ON OFFICIAL TIME."
 APPARENTLY, PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE, THE PARTIES DID NOT
 DISCUSS THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE ON THE NEGOTIATIONS WHICH WERE TAKING
 PLACE.
 
    RESPONDENT'S CHIEF NEGOTIATOR AND LABOR RELATIONS SPECIALIST, JEFFREY
 VAN VOHRIS, TESTIFIED THAT AFTER HE WAS ADVISED OF THE AIR FORCE
 POSITION, HE CALLED THE UNION PRESIDENT AND CHIEF NEGOTIATOR BERTHA
 JONES IN LATE JANUARY AND ADVISED HER THAT RESPONDENT WAS "DESIGNATING
 FOR THE UPCOMING APPROPRIATED FUND NEGOTIATIONS THREE, AND FOR ANY
 FUTURE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND NEGOTIATIONS WE MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE BECAUSE
 OF THE REFORM ACT REVISIONS WE WERE MAKING IT, IT WOULD BE TWO."
 ACCORDING TO VAN VOHRIS, JONES RESPONDED, "BUT I'M NOT INTERESTED IN
 WHAT AIR FORCE POSITION IS.  WE DO NOT AGREE."
 
    NEGOTIATION SESSIONS WERE HELD ON THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT
 ON FEBRUARY 6, 1979, MARCH 2, 1979, MARCH 12, 1979, AND APRIL 17, 1979.
 UNION PRESIDENT AND CHIEF NEGOTIATOR, BERTHA JONES, WAS THE ONLY UNION
 NEGOTIATOR AT THE FEBRUARY 6, 1979 SESSION AND RECEIVED OFFICIAL TIME
 FOR HER PARTICIPATION.  AT THE SECOND SESSION, HELD ON MARCH 2, 1979,
 JONES WAS JOINED BY GLORIA HEWETT, UNION VICE PRESIDENT AND ALTERNATE
 CHIEF NEGOTIATOR.  THE PARTIES DISCUSSED CHANGES BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE
 ENACTMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT.  IN ADDITION, THE UNION TOLD
 RESPONDENT THAT IT WAS REDUCING ITS TEAM FROM FIVE TO THREE MEMBERS.
 JONES TESTIFIED THAT THE REDUCTION WAS BECAUSE SHE FELT IT NEEDED ONLY
 THREE NEGOTIATORS.  HEWETT TESTIFIED THAT THIS WAS DONE PRIMARILY
 BECAUSE THERE WERE ONLY THREE MEMBERS LEFT ON THE MANAGEMENT TEAM.
 HEWETT, ALTHOUGH STATING THAT SHE KNEW THAT THERE WERE THREE MEMBERS ON
 THE MANAGEMENT TEAM, RECALLED ONLY VAN VOHRIS BEING PRESENT AT THIS
 MEETING.  RESPONDENT HAD TWO NEGOTIATORS PRESENT AT MOST OF THESE
 MEETINGS, INCLUDING VAN VOHRIS.  BOTH HEWETT AND JONES RECEIVED OFFICIAL
 TIME FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION DURING THESE MEETINGS.  AT THE APRIL 17,
 1979 SESSION, WHICH WAS A SIGNING CEREMONY, JONES WAS JOINED BY NATIONAL
 REPRESENTATIVES.  SHE WAS THE ONLY LOCAL NEGOTIATOR PRESENT AND RECEIVED
 OFFICIAL TIME FOR THIS SESSION.
 
    AROUND MAY 16, 1979, JONES WAS INFORMED BY VAN VOHRIS THAT CERTAIN
 PARTS OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND HAD BEEN DISAPPROVED
 AND THAT THE "MANAGEMENT TEAM" WAS PREPARED TO RETURN TO THE BARGAINING
 TABLE.
 
    PURSUANT TO RESPONDENT'S LETTER, JONES AND HEWETT WENT TO A MEETING
 TO RENEGOTIATE THE DISAPPROVED PARTS OF THE CONTRACT SCHEDULED FOR MAY
 25, 1979.  ACCORDING TO JONES, THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROBLEM WITH OFFICIAL
 TIME UNTIL THIS MEETING.  JONES TESTIFIED THAT AT THE MEETING ATTENDED
 BY VAN VOHRIS, HEWETT AND HERSELF, THAT VAN VOHRIS "INDICATED THAT HE
 WANTED TO KNOW WHICH ONE OF US WAS ON ANNUAL LEAVE BECAUSE MANAGEMENT
 WAS ALONE ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY AND THEREFORE WE WOULD BE AUTHORIZED
 ONE NEGOTIATOR." JONES REPLIED THAT, "HE WAS BEING UNREASONABLE AND WE
 HAD PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO THREE AND CERTAINLY A TEAM OF ONE WAS NOT A
 TEAM." HEWETT TESTIFIED THAT VAN VOHRIS TOLD THEM AT THE OUTSET THAT "WE
 WERE ON AWOL" AND THAT ONLY ONE PERSON WAS GOING TO BE AUTHORIZED
 OFFICIAL TIME BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE MEMBER LEFT ON THE MANAGEMENT
 TEAM.  PHYLLIS SIMMONS, THE THIRD UNION NEGOTIATOR, ARRIVED ABOUT AN
 HOUR LATE FOR THE MEETING AND STATES THAT BEFORE SHE COULD SIT DOWN.
 "VAN VOHRIS SAID, 'YOU COULD BE ON AWOL', OR HE WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT
 FROM BERTHA WHO COULD BE ON AWOL." SIMMONS CONTINUED THAT VAN VOHRIS
 INSISTED ON OFFICIAL TIME ON A "ONE-TO-ONE BASIS." THE MEETING
 PROCEEDED, BUT ALL THREE UNION REPRESENTATIVES WERE CONSEQUENTLY
 CHARGED
 AWOL.  THE UNION HAD RECEIVED NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THE DESIGNATION OF ONE
 MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATOR FOR THIS MEETING.
 
    ON JUNE 1, 1979, VAN VOHRIS WROTE JONES CITING P.L. 95-454, TITLE
 VII, SEC. 7131(A) AND STATING THAT, "SINCE JANUARY 1979 THE EFFECTIVE
 DATE OF THE CSRA THE SAMSO MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATIONS TEAM HAS CONSISTED OF
 THREE MEMBERS, THE NAF MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATING TEAM HAD CONSISTED OF TWO
 MEMBERS.  THEREFORE, OFFICIAL TIME MAY BE GRANTED FOR THREE UNION
 NEGOTIATORS IN THE SAMSO AGREEMENT /3/ AND FOR TWO UNION NEGOTIATORS ON
 THE NAF AGREEMENT.  ANY UNION NEGOTIATORS IN EXCESS OF THE NUMBERS
 OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS REPRESENTING MANAGEMENT WILL NOT RECEIVE
 OFFICIAL TIME."
 
    A JUNE 6, 1979 LETTER FROM VAN VOHRIS TO JONES STATES THAT PRIOR TO
 THE MAY 25, 1979 MEETING, HE HAD REQUESTED THAT JONES DESIGNATE THE
 UNION NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL TIME, AND STATE THAT THERE WERE THREE
 NEGOTIATORS PRESENT AT THE MEETING WHEN THE UNION WAS ONLY AUTHORIZED
 TWO ON OFFICIAL TIME.  THE LETTER ADDED THAT JONES HAD REFUSED TO
 DESIGNATE THE NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL TIME.  VAN VOHRIS CONCLUDED BY
 STATING THAT MANAGEMENT HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE WHICH UNION
 NEGOTIATORS COULD BE CARRIED ON OFFICIAL TIME, AND REQUESTED THE UNION
 MAKE THE DESIGNATION SO THAT THE TWO NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL
 TIME COULD RECEIVE THE TIME.  THEREAFTER, IN A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON
 OR ABOUT JUNE 8, 1979, VAN VOHRIS ASKED JONES IF SHE COULD AGREE TO TWO
 NEGOTIATORS FOR THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT.  JONES TOLD HIM THAT
 SHE THOUGHT THAT THREE WAS A REASONABLE NUMBER.
 
    SUBSEQUENTLY, BY LETTER DATED JUNE 8, 1979, VAN VOHRIS INFORMED THE
 UNION THAT ALL THREE NEGOTIATORS WOULD BE CHARGED AWOL FOR THEIR
 PARTICIPATION IN NEGOTIATIONS ON MAY 25, 1979.  JONES RESPONDED BY
 LETTER DATED JUNE 12, 1979, IN WHICH SHE STATED THAT VAN VOHRIS, AT THE
 OUTSET OF THE MAY 25, 1979 MEETING, HAD SAID THAT THE UNION WAS ENTITLED
 TO ONLY ONE NEGOTIATOR ON OFFICIAL TIME WHILE THE UNION ADVISED HIM
 THAT, AS AGREED TO PREVIOUSLY, ITS TEAM CONSISTED OF THREE.  IN A LETTER
 DATED JUNE 15, 1979, VAN VOHRIS ONCE AGAIN STATED RESPONDENT'S POSITION
 THAT UNDER SEC. 7131(A), "OFFICIAL TIME FOR UNION NEGOTIATORS SHALL NOT
 EXCEED THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS DESIGNATED AS REPRESENTING THE AGENCY."
 
    JONES, HEWETT, AND PHYLLIS SIMMONS EACH WERE CHARGED WITH TWO HOURS
 ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE (AWOL) FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE MAY 25, 1979
 NEGOTIATIONS.  SIMMONS' TWO HOURS OF AWOL WERE LATER REDUCED TO ONE
 HOUR.  THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT ONLY TWO UNION NEGOTIATORS WERE PRESENT
 FOR THE FIRST HOUR OF THE NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS DATE.
 
    NEGOTIATIONS ON THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT CONTINUED ON JUNE
 22, 1979.  THE UNION NEGOTIATION TEAM DURING THIS SESSION CONSISTED OF
 JONES, HEWETT, AND SANDY RUCKER.  THE COMPOSITION OF THE UNION
 NEGOTIATION TEAM WAS AGAIN CHALLENGED BY VAN VOHRIS WHO INDICATED, AT
 THAT TIME, THAT ALL THOSE IN EXCESS OF TWO WOULD BE CHARGE AWOL.  BOTH
 JONES AND HEWETT WERE CHARGED AWOL FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THIS
 NEGOTIATION SESSION AND RUCKER, AFTER BEING TOLD BY HIS SUPERVISOR THAT
 HE WOULD BE CHARGED AWOL UNLESS HE TOOK LEAVE FOR THE TIME HE
 PARTICIPATED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS, ELECTED TO TAKE ANNUAL LEAVE.  EVEN
 THOUGH ONLY TWO NEGOTIATORS WERE ON OFFICIAL TIME AS A RESULT OF
 RUCKER'S LEAVE, BOTH HEWETT AND JONES WERE CHARGED WITH AWOL FOR JUNE
 22, 1979.
 
    ON JUNE 25, 1979 NEGOTIATIONS ON THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT
 CONTINUED WITH THE UNION'S NEGOTIATING TEAM AGAIN CONSISTING OF JONES,
 HEWETT AND RUCKER.  VAN VOHRIS AGAIN INDICATED THAT NEGOTIATORS IN
 EXCESS OF TWO WOULD BE CHARGED AWOL FOR THIS SESSION.  THIS NEGOTIATING
 SESSION LASTED FROM 2:00 P.M. UNTIL 4:00 P.M.  AS BEFORE, HEWETT AND
 JONES WERE CHARGED AWOL FOR THIS SESSION.  RUCKER'S NORMAL WORK DAY HAD
 ENDED AT 2:30 P.M.  BETWEEN 2:30 AND 4:00 P.M., WHICH WAS THE END OF
 NEGOTIATIONS, HE WAS AT THE BARGAINING TABLE ON HIS OWN TIME.  RUCKER
 HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED AWOL FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1:00 P.M. AND 2:30
 P.M., BUT BOTH JONES AND HEWETT WERE CHARGED WITH AWOL FOR THE PERIOD
 2:30 P.M. TO 4:00 P.M. EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE ONLY TWO NEGOTIATORS ON
 OFFICIAL TIME.  DURING THE JUNE 22 AND JUNE 25 NEGOTIATIONS,
 MANAGEMENT'S NEGOTIATING TEAM CONSISTED OF TWO NEGOTIATORS AND THE UNION
 WAS TOLD THAT ALL THOSE IN EXCESS OF TWO WOULD BE CARRIED AS AWOL.
 
    UNION PRESIDENT JONES TESTIFIED THAT WHILE ON THE TELEPHONE WITH
 HEWETT ON JUNE 27, 1979, SHE OVERHEARD HEWETT'S SUPERVISOR, COLONEL LA
 FAVE, TELL HEWETT THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A MEMORANDUM FROM VAN VOHRIS AND
 BASED ON THAT MEMORANDUM HE WOULD HAVE TO CHARGE HER AWOL FOR THE
 PREVIOUS NEGOTIATIONS, AND THAT HE COULD NOT GRANT HER PERMISSION TO GO
 TO NEGOTIATIONS ON JUNE 28, 1979.  HEWETT GIVES A SIMILAR ACCOUNT OF THE
 CONVERSATION WITH COLONEL LA FAVE ON JUNE 27, 1979, SAYING THAT LA FAVE
 BROUGHT HER A MEMORANDUM FROM VAN VOHRIS, ALLEGEDLY STATING THAT HE HAD
 BEEN AUTHORIZED "TO CHARGE ME AWOL".  HEWETT STATES THAT SHE TOLD LA
 FAVE THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE CONCERNING THE APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT
 WHICH WAS TO BE NEGOTIATED ON JUNE 28, THAT THEY WERE FINISHED WITH THE
 NON-APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT AND THAT HE SHOULD CHECK WITH VAN VOHRIS
 BECAUSE THAT WAS WRONG.  A FEW MINUTES LATER LA FAVE ALLEGEDLY RETURNED
 AND TOLD HEWETT, "THE MORE THAT HE READ THE MEMO THE MORE CERTAIN (HE
 WAS) THAT (IT) MEANT I COULD NOT GO BACK TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE."
 HEWETT DID NOT ATTEND THE JUNE 28 NEGOTIATION SESSION FOR THE
 APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT NOR DID SHE ATTEND ANOTHER APPROPRIATED FUND
 SESSION HELD JULY 3, 1979.
 
    COLONEL LA FAVE RECALLED THE CONVERSATION WITH HEWETT, BUT STATED
 THAT IT APPEARED TO HIM THAT HEWETT WAS ASKING FOR SOME KIND OF ADVICE
 AS TO WHETHER SHE SHOULD ATTEND THE UPCOMING NEGOTIATIONS OR NOT.
 ACCORDING TO LA FAVE, HIS REPLY WAS THAT, "SHE KNEW WHAT THAT MEMO HAD
 SAID AND THAT I HAD JUST RECEIVED ANOTHER LETTER AND THAT IF SHE WENT
 SHE HAD SOME OPTIONS AVAILABLE." THOSE OPTIONS, ACCORDING TO LA FAVE,
 WERE TO TAKE AWOL, LEAVE WITHOUT PAY OR ANNUAL LEAVE IF SHE ATTENDED AND
 THE UNION HAD NOT DESIGNATED WHO ITS NEGOTIATION TEAM ON OFFICIAL TIME
 WAS TO BE.
 
    IN ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN CLEARANCE FOR HEWETT TO ATTEND NEGOTIATIONS,
 JONES WROTE RESPONDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF, COLONEL G. K. DAHMEN, ON JULY
 2, 1979 REQUESTING THAT HEWETT BE PERMITTED TO ATTEND THE JULY 3, 1979
 NEGOTIATION SESSION.  THE LETTER POINTED OUT THAT NO DISPUTE EXISTED
 CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS ON THE APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT
 TEAM.  COLONEL DAHMEN'S RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED BY THE UNION ON JULY 12,
 1979 AND SET FORTH THE REQUIREMENT THAT NO ABSENCE IN OFFICIAL TIME
 COULD BE GRANTED UNTIL THOSE "NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL TIME WERE
 DESIGNATED BY THE UNION CHIEF NEGOTIATOR."
 
                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    THE GENERAL COUNSEL INITIALLY ASSERTS THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED
 SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE BY UNILATERALLY DESIGNATING
 THE NUMBERS OF UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME FOR
 NEGOTIATIONS WITHOUT AFFORDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND
 NEGOTIATE THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME, AND BY
 REQUIRING THE UNION'S NEGOTIATORS TO SELECT ANNUAL LEAVE, LEAVE WITHOUT
 PAY, OR ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE.  RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDS
 THAT IT HAD NO OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE MAKE UP OF ITS
 NON-APPROPRIATED FUND NEGOTIATION TEAM AND THAT ONCE THE NUMBER OF ITS
 TEAM WAS DESIGNATED, THE UNION WAS LIMITED BY LAW TO AN EQUAL NUMBER OF
 NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL TIME.
 
    THE AUTHORITY RECENTLY FOUND IN NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1451, 3 FLRA NO. 14, A NEGOTIABILITY DECISION, THAT THE
 DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATIONS WAS
 NON-NEGOTIABLE, STATING THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSAL CONCERNED MATTERS
 WHICH WERE BEYOND THOSE DIRECTLY AFFECTING UNIT EMPLOYEES.  BASED ON THE
 AUTHORITY'S FINDINGS IN THAT MATTER, I AGREE WITH RESPONDENT THAT UNDER
 SECTION 7131(A) IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE MAKE UP
 OF ITS TEAM AND THAT THE UNION WAS ENTITLED TO ONLY AN EQUAL NUMBER OF
 NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL TIME.  FURTHERMORE, I AGREE WITH RESPONDENT THAT
 ANY ATTEMPT BY IT TO DESIGNATE WHICH UNION NEGOTIATORS WOULD BE PLACED
 ON OFFICIAL TIME WOULD BE AN INTERFERENCE WITH INTERNAL UNION AFFAIRS
 AND AN ATTEMPT TO DICTATE WHICH NEGOTIATORS THE UNION COULD USE.
 THEREFORE, RESPONDENT'S REQUEST THAT THE UNION DESIGNATE WHICH
 INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE THE UNION'S NEGOTIATORS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
 OFFICIAL TIME PROVISION OF THE STATUTE WOULD NOT BE VIOLATIVE OF THE
 STATUTE.
 
    THE GENERAL COUNSEL ALSO ARGUES THAT THE PARTIES HAVE AN ESTABLISHED
 PRACTICE OF BARGAINING OVER THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO
 OFFICIAL TIME.  ALTHOUGH THE RECORD DISCLOSED THAT DISCUSSIONS TOOK
 PLACE ON MARCH 13 AND 14, 1979 CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS FOR
 THE PARTIES' APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE
 NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS ESTABLISHED FOR THE MANAGEMENT TEAM WAS ARRIVED AT
 THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS, BUT RATHER THROUGH MANAGEMENT'S OWN DESIGNATION
 AS
 TO WHO WOULD COMPOSE ITS TEAM.  THUS, I FIND THAT THE NUMBER OF
 NEGOTIATORS FOR THAT CONTRACT WAS NOT NEGOTIATED AND THAT RESPONDENT
 WAS
 AWARE, AT THAT TIME, THAT IT HAD NO OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING
 THE NUMBER ON ITS TEAM.  IT DID NOT, THEREFORE, ESTABLISH A PRACTICE
 THROUGH THESE MEETINGS OF NEGOTIATING THE NUMBERS OF ITS TEAM.  /4/
 
    IN ADDITION, THE GENERAL COUNSEL RELIED ON THE PARTIES' GROUND RULES
 TO ESTABLISH A PAST PRACTICE OF NEGOTIATING THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS ON
 EACH TEAM.  IN THIS REGARD, THE GROUND RULES FOR NEGOTIATIONS HAD NEVER
 BEEN ELEVATED TO THE STATUS OF A CONTRACT AND CANNOT, ABSENT MUTUAL
 AGREEMENT, BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTINUED UNDER SECTION 7135(A)(1).  WITH
 RESPECT TO SUCH CONTINUATION, THE AUTHORITY RECENTLY STATED IN
 INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE, 2 FLRA NO. 31, THAT WHILE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENTS MAY BE RENEWED UNDER SECTION 7135(A)(1), "IF
 EITHER PARTY TO SUCH PROVISIONS IN AN EXISTING AGREEMENT OBJECTS TO THE
 CONTINUATION OR THE RENEWAL THEREOF, SUCH OBJECTION PREVENTS THE
 CONTINUATION OR RENEWAL OF THOSE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION
 7135(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE." THE GROUND RULES HEREIN HAD NOT ATTAINED THE
 STATUS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND IF THEY HAD, COULD ONLY
 BE CONTINUED BY AGREEMENT OF BOTH PARTIES.  RESPONDENT CLEARLY OBJECTED
 TO THEIR CONTINUANCE AND, IN MY VIEW, IT CANNOT NOW BE ESTABLISHED
 THROUGH THE GROUND RULES THAT THE PRACTICE OF NEGOTIATING TEAM
 COMPOSITION EXISTED.  IN MY VIEW, RESPONDENT PROPERLY TOOK THE POSITION
 THAT THE GROUND RULES DID NOT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE STATUTE AND THAT
 THE PROVISIONS OF THE GROUND RULES ALLOWING EACH SIDE FIVE NEGOTIATORS
 WERE NOT CONTINUED AND THAT IT COULD DETERMINE THE MEMBERS OF THE
 MANAGEMENT TEAM WITHOUT BEING BOUND BY THE GROUND RULES AS A PAST
 PRACTICE.  IT IS, THEREFORE, FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT VIOLATE
 SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE BY EITHER UNILATERALLY
 DESIGNATING THE NUMBER OF UNION NEGOTIATORS ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME OR
 BY REQUIRING UNION NEGOTIATORS TO SELECT A LEAVE STATUS.
 
    IT IS ASSERTED THAT RESPONDENT'S CHIEF NEGOTIATOR, VAN VOHRIS, TOLD
 THE UNION AT THE MAY 25, 1979 MEETING THAT IT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO ONLY
 ONE NEGOTIATOR ON OFFICIAL TIME SINCE HE WAS THE ONLY MANAGEMENT
 NEGOTIATOR IN ATTENDANCE.  VAN VOHRIS CONTENDS THAT HE ADVISED THE UNION
 THAT MANAGEMENT HAD MADE A DESIGNATION OF TWO AND THAT JONES HAD ASKED,
 "DOES THIS MEAN THAT WE CAN ONLY HAVE ONE?" WHILE I CREDIT JONES, HEWETT
 AND SIMMONS THAT VAN VOHRIS DID TALK IN TERMS OF "ONE" NEGOTIATOR, IT
 WOULD APPEAR THAT HIS REMARKS IN THAT RESPECT WERE DIRECTED TO WHICH
 UNION NEGOTIATOR WAS ON OFFICIAL TIME AND WHICH ONE OF THE NEGOTIATORS
 WOULD BE PLACED ON LEAVE.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT RESPONDENT TOOK THE
 POSITION BEGINNING IN LATE JANUARY OR EARLY FEBRUARY THAT ITS
 NON-APPROPRIATED FUND TEAM WOULD CONSIST OF TWO MEMBERS WITH THE UNION
 STILL CONTENDING THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO THREE.  IT ALSO ESTABLISHED
 THAT IN NONE OF THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN MARCH AND
 APRIL DID THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS EXCEED TWO.  BASED ON THE FACT THAT
 TWO NEGOTIATORS HAD BEEN PRESENT FOR EACH SIDE DURING THESE EARLIER
 SESSIONS, MANAGEMENT'S ADVICE FROM AIR FORCE COMMAND, AND THE UNION'S
 STUBBORN INSISTENCE THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO THREE ON OFFICIAL TIME, IT
 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT FOR VAN VOHRIS TO STATE THAT ONE OF THE
 NEGOTIATORS WAS NOT ON OFFICIAL TIME.  I AM COMPELLED TO FIND THAT THE
 UNION NEGOTIATORS MISUNDERSTOOD THE CONVERSATION AND THAT VAN VOHRIS'
 REMARKS WERE INDEED DIRECTED AT WHICH OF THE THREE NEGOTIATORS WOULD BE
 PLACED IN A NON-PAY STATUS.  SUCH AN INQUIRY WOULD, IN MY VIEW, BE
 LEGITIMATE.
 
    BY THE TIME THE PARTIES MET FOR THE JUNE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE
 NON-APPROPRIATED FUND CONTRACT, IT WAS OBVIOUSLY CLEAR TO THE UNION THAT
 THE MANAGEMENT TEAM CONSISTED OF ONLY TWO NEGOTIATORS.  FURTHERMORE, IT
 SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS
 "NOT TO EXCEED THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS DESIGNATED AS REPRESENTING THE
 AGENCY." THUS, ANY CLAIM BY THE UNION THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO MORE THAN
 TWO NEGOTIATORS WAS WITHOUT FOUNDATION UNDER THE LAW.  MOREOVER,
 RESPONDENT'S REQUEST THAT THE UNION DESIGNATE WHICH NEGOTIATORS WOULD BE
 PLACED ON OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE JUNE 22 AND JUNE 29, 1979 NEGOTIATIONS
 WAS THEREFORE PROPERLY MADE.  IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES HEREIN, THE UNION
 HAD THE OPTION OF DESIGNATING WHICH INDIVIDUALS IT WANTED PLACED ON
 OFFICIAL TIME AND IT IS MY VIEW THAT THE UNION HAD AN OBLIGATION TO
 DESIGNATE, SINCE FOR MANAGEMENT TO PICK OR CHOOSE WHICH INDIVIDUAL WOULD
 RECEIVE OFFICIAL TIME WOULD BE AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE UNION'S INTERNAL
 AFFAIRS.  FINALLY, IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT ONLY TWO NEGOTIATORS
 WERE ON OFFICIAL TIME DURING THE JUNE 22 AND JUNE 29 MEETINGS, SINCE
 RUCKER WAS ON ANNUAL LEAVE DURING ONE SESSION AND ON HIS OWN TIME DURING
 THE JUNE 29 SESSION.  HOWEVER, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE UNION SHOULD
 HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT IT WAS ONLY ENTITLED TO TWO NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL
 TIME, AND ITS OBLIGATION WHERE IT HAD THREE NEGOTIATORS, IF IT DESIRED
 TO EXERCISE THE OFFICIAL TIME PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE, WAS TO
 DESIGNATE FOR THAT PURPOSE WHICH TWO OF THE THREE WOULD BE SERVING IN
 THE OFFICIAL TIME CAPACITY.  BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS FOUND THAT
 RESPONDENT'S PLACING ALL THREE INDIVIDUALS ON ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE
 STATUS UNTIL THE UNION DESIGNATED WHICH INDIVIDUALS WERE SERVING IN AN
 OFFICIAL TIME CAPACITY AND REQUIRING SUPERVISORS TO PLACE THE
 NEGOTIATORS ON ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE STATUS DURING THE PERIOD THAT THEY
 ACTED AS NEGOTIATORS WAS NOT VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (2) OF
 THE STATUTE.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGATION THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION
 7116(A)(1) REGARDING AN EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO ATTEND A NEGOTIATION
 SESSION, I FIND MERIT.  WHILE A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION EXISTED AS TO THE
 NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS ON OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE NON-APPROPRIATED FUND
 AGREEMENT, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION CONCERNING APPROPRIATED
 FUND
 AGREEMENT NEGOTIATORS.  RESPONDENT HAD SET THE NUMBER OF NEGOTIATORS FOR
 THIS TEAM AT THREE AND AT THIS POINT THE UNION HAD ONLY THREE
 NEGOTIATORS REMAINING.  A REQUEST THAT THEY DESIGNATE FOR THE
 APPROPRIATED FUND AGREEMENT WHEN THEY HAD ONLY THAT NUMBER OF
 NEGOTIATORS IS LUDICROUS.  FURTHERMORE, IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT HEWETT WAS
 ONE OF THE PRIME NEGOTIATORS FOR THE APPROPRIATED FUND AGREEMENT SERVING
 IN THE POSITION AS ALTERNATE CHIEF NEGOTIATOR.  IN CREDITING THE
 TESTIMONY OF BOTH JONES AND HEWETT, I FIND THAT COLONEL LA FAVE WOULD
 NOT GRANT HEWETT PERMISSION TO ATTEND THE JUNE 28 NEGOTIATION SESSION
 FOR THE APPROPRIATED FUND AGREEMENT, BASED ON HIS MISUNDERSTANDING OF
 THE JUNE 6 MEMORANDUM FROM VAN VOHRIS.  THE ACT OF DENYING HER
 PERMISSION TO ATTEND A NEGOTIATION SESSION UNLESS SHE CHOSE A LEAVE
 STATUS WHEN SHE WAS CLEARLY ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE
 NEGOTIATIONS, AND WHEN SHE WAS ONE OF THE PRIME UNION NEGOTIATORS, IS IN
 VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7) AND SECTION 2423.26 OF THE FINAL
 RULES AND REGULATIONS 45 FED.REG. 3482, 3510(1980) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
 THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE SPACE DIVISION, LOS ANGELES,
 CALIFORNIA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM
 
    (A) DENYING PERMISSION TO UNION NEGOTIATORS TO ATTEND NEGOTIATION
 SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO.
 
    (B) REQUIRING UNION NEGOTIATORS TO SELECT ANNUAL, LEAVE WITHOUT PAY
 OR ANNUAL LEAVE STATUS PRIOR TO ATTENDING BONA FIDE NEGOTIATING
 SESSIONS.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING, RESTRAINING OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE 5 U.S.C. 7101, ET
 SEQ.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS FACILITIES IN DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE SPACE
 DIVISION, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED
 "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF
 SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE INSTALLATION COMMANDER, THE
 SPACE DIVISION, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND
 MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS
 PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO
 EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE INSTALLATION COMMANDER SHALL TAKE
 REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED,
 OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (B) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS,
 45 FED.REG.AT 3511, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION VIII, WORLD
 TRADE CENTER, 350 S.  FIGUEROA, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
 90071, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT
 STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                              ELI NASH, JR.
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  JULY 18, 1980
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          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 DENY REQUESTS FROM UNION NEGOTIATORS TO ATTEND
 NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429.
 
    WE WILL NOT PREVENT UNION NEGOTIATORS FROM ATTENDING DULY AUTHORIZED
 NEGOTIATION SESSIONS FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2429, WITHOUT SIGNING FOR ANNUAL LEAVE,
 ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR
 COERCE ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF ANY RIGHT UNDER
 THE 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, REGION VIII, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  WORLD TRADE CENTER, 350 S. FIGUEROA, 10TH FLOOR, LOS
 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ A CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT ISSUED ON DECEMBER 19, 1979, WHICH
 CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. 8-CA-94 AND CASE NO. 8-CA-137.  HOWEVER, AN ORDER
 SEVERING CASES, WITHDRAWING