10:0281(53)CA - Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH and AFGE Council 214 -- 1982 FLRAdec CA



[ v10 p281 ]
10:0281(53)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 53
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND,
 WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 214, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case Nos. 5-CA-470 
                                                      5-CA-517
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS DECISION IN THE
 ABOVE-ENTITLED CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
 ENGAGED IN CERTAIN OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE
 COMPLAINT AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST
 THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.  THE JUDGE ALSO FOUND
 THAT CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED IN THEIR
 ENTIRETY.  THEREAFTER, BOTH THE RESPONDENT AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL FILED
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND THE RESPONDENT FILED AN
 OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S EXCEPTIONS.
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 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 HEARINGS AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS
 COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE
 JUDGE'S DECISION AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE SUBJECT CASES, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS.  /1/
 
    IN ADOPTING THE JUDGE'S CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO
 AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES FOR THE UNION'S
 DESIGNATED NEGOTIATORS FOR MID-TERM BARGAINING WAS VIOLATIVE OF THE
 STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS WITHOUT MERIT THE RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE
 THAT, ASSUMING IT HAD AN OBLIGATION UNDER SECTION 7131(A) OF THE STATUTE
 TO PROVIDE PER DIEM AND TRAVEL EXPENSES, IT COULD REQUIRE JUSTIFICATION
 FROM THE UNION FOR THE SELECTION OF OUT-OF-TOWN NEGOTIATORS.  THUS, A
 UNION CLEARLY HAS THE STATUTORY PREROGATIVE TO DESIGNATE ITS OWN
 REPRESENTATIVES IN NEGOTIATIONS.  /2/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
 AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
 FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) FAILING AND REFUSING TO PROVIDE TO LYNN TOMPKINS, WILLIAM SHOELL
 AND JOSEPH SCHUCHARDT
 
    OFFICIAL TIME, INCLUDING NECESSARY TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES, IN
 COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION
 
    7131(A) OF THE STATUTE, FOR THE TIME THEY WERE ENGAGED IN
 REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
 
    OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 214, AFL-CIO, THE EMPLOYEES'
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, DURING
 
    MID-TERM NEGOTIATION.
 
    (B) CONDITIONING THE PAYMENT OF TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES INCURRED
 BY ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 7131(A) OF THE STATUTE UPON THE UNION SHOWING
 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
 
    DESIGNATION OF ITS NEGOTIATORS.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
 
    THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS VARIOUS INSTALLATIONS OF THE AIR FORCE LOGISTICS
 COMMAND WHEREIN UNIT
 
    EMPLOYEES ARE LOCATED 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 AN AUTHORIZED
 
    REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED
 FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
 
    THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING BULLETIN BOARDS AND ALL
 OTHER PLACES WHERE
 
    NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL
 BE TAKEN TO INSURE THAT
 
    SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    (B) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE
 
    REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION V, 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.
 
    IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE REMAINING ALLEGATIONS OF THE
 COMPLAINT IN CASE NOS. 5-CA-470 AND 5-CA517 BE, AND THEY HEREBY ARE,
 DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 30, 1982
 
                       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 FAIL OR REFUSE TO PROVIDE TO LYNN TOMPKINS, WILLIAM
 SHOELL AND JOSEPH SCHUCHARDT OFFICIAL TIME, INCLUDING NECESSARY TRAVEL
 AND PER DIEM EXPENSES, IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 7131(A) OF THE
 STATUTE, FOR THE TIME THEY WERE ENGAGED IN REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 214, AFL-CIO, THE EMPLOYEES'
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, DURING MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS.
 
    WE WILL NOT CONDITION THE PAYMENT OF TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES
 INCURRED BY OUR EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO SECTION 7131(A) OF THE STATUTE,
 UPON THE UNION SHOWING JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DESIGNATION OF ITS
 NEGOTIATORS.
 
    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
 STATUTE.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATE:  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 ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR, REGION V, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS
 SUITE A-1359, 175 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604, AND
 WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (312) 866-3468.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    LIEUTENANT COLONEL FRANKLIN E. WRIGHT
                    FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    SHEILA A. REILLY, ESQUIRE
                    FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    APPEARING BY BRIEF ONLY:
    JOHN W. MULHOLLAND
                    FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICES LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE, 5 U.S.C, 7101 ET SEQ.  /3/ AND THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
 ISSUED THEREUNDER, FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 45, NO. 12, JANUARY 29, 1980,
 5 C.F.R. SEC. 2415.1 ET SEQ., WAS INITIATED BY A CHARGE FILED ON APRIL
 3, 1980, IN CASE NO. 5-CA-470, ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 16(A)(1),
 (5) AND (8) OF THE STATUTE (G.C. EXH. 1(A)), AND BY A CHARGE FILED ON
 MAY 7, 1980, IN CASE NO.  5-CA-517, ALSO ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF SECS.
 16(A)(1), (5) AND (8) OF THE STATUTE (G.C. EXH.  1(C)).  ON JULY 15,
 1980, AN ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING
 ISSUED (G.C. EXH. 1(E)), WHICH SET THE DATE OF HEARING FOR AUGUST 21,
 1980.  ON AUGUST 11, 1980, AN ORDER RESCHEDULING THE HEARING FOR OCTOBER
 1, 1980, ISSUED (G.C. EXH. 1(I)), PURSUANT TO WHICH A HEARING WAS DULY
 HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED IN DAYTON, OHIO, ON OCTOBER 1, 1980.
 
    BOTH PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED, WERE AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
 BEARING ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED HEREIN;  AND THE PARTIES WERE AFFORDED
 OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY.
  AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING, BECAUSE OF THE SCHEDULED ABSENCE OF
 COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT OUT OF THE COUNTRY, NOVEMBER 18, 1980, WAS FIXED
 AS THE DATE FOR MAILING POST-HEARING BRIEFS AND THE PARTIES, AS WELL AS
 THE CHARGING PARTY, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, TIMELY
 MAILED VERY HELPFUL BRIEFS, RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 24, 1980,
 WHICH HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.  UPON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE
 RECORD, /4/ INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR
 DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
 
                               FINDINGS /5/
 
    1.  PRIOR TO 1978, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
 (HEREINAFTER AFGE) REPRESENTED APPROXIMATELY TWENTY-ONE BARGAINING UNITS
 AT SEVEN INSTALLATIONS OF THE AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND.  ON JANUARY
 13, 1978, THESE UNITS WERE CONSOLIDATED INTO A SINGLE BARGAINING UNIT,
 WHICH ENCOMPASSES ABOUT 70,000 CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, AND THE NATIONAL
 OFFICE OF AFGE IS THE CERTIFIED EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.  COUNCIL 214
 IS THE AGENT OF AFGE'S NATIONAL OFFICE AND THE PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL 214
 AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL WAS LOCATED AT WARNER ROBINS, GEORGIA.  THE UNIT
 INCLUDES AFLC FACILITIES AT HILL AIR FORCE BASE, OGDEN, UTAH;  KELLY AIR
 FORCE BASE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS;  MCCELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, SACRAMENTO,
 CALIFORNIA;  NEWARK AIR FORCE STATION, NEWARK, OHIO, ROBINS AIR FORCE
 BASE, WARNER ROBINS, GEORGIA;  TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA CITY,
 OKLAHOMA;  WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, DAYTON, OHIO;  DETACHMENT
 21, AFCMC, AFPRO, BOEING, WICHITA, KANSAS;  AND CATALOGUING AND
 STANDARDIZATION OFFICE, BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN.
 
    2.  FROM JANUARY 13, 1978, RESPONDENT NOTIFIED THE NATIONAL OFFICE OF
 AFGE AND THE PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL 214 (HEREINAFTER, ALSO REFERRED TO AS
 "UNION") WITH RESPECT TO MID-TERM CHANGES;  HOWEVER, DELAY IN THE
 COMMENCEMENT OF NEGOTIATIONS RESULTED EVEN THROUGH AFGE, IF IT DEMANDED
 BARGAINING, WOULD DESIGNATE AN OFFICIAL OF LOCAL 1138, LOCATED AT
 WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, TO CONDUCT SUCH MID-TERM BARGAINING.  BECAUSE OF
 SUCH DELAYS, RESPONDENT CONTACTED MR.  BLAYLOCK, NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF
 AFGE, AND REQUESTED THAT AFGE PROVIDE SOMEONE AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON WITH
 WHOM RESPONDENT COULD DEAL CONCERNING MID-TERM PROPOSALS.  RESPONDENT
 OFFERED OFFICE SPACE AND OTHER FACILITIES AND AFGE ESTABLISHED THE
 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL 214, AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON AND MR.
 PAUL KETCHERSIDE WAS APPOINTED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IN JANUARY, 1980.
 (SEE, ALSO, RES. EXH. 3).
 
    3.  FROM JANUARY 13, 1978, TO MARCH 26, 1980, UNION NEGOTIATORS
 DESIGNATED FOR MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS WERE EXCLUSIVELY OFFICIALS OF LOCAL
 1138 OR MR.  KETCHERSIDE.
 
    4.  ON FEBRUARY 22, 1980, RESPONDENT NOTIFIED THE UNION OF A
 PROTOTYPE TEST OF AN ACTUAL HOUR ACCOUNTING SYSTEM FOR THE REPORTING AND
 ACCOUNTING OF DIRECT LABOR HOURS EXPENDED ON THE REPAIR OF CERTAIN
 SUBASSEMBLIES (G.C. EXH. 12).  THE PROTOTYPE SERVICE TEST INVOLVED ONLY
 A SMALL AREA (ABOUT EIGHTY OR NINETY EMPLOYEES AT EACH OF THE THREE
 LOCATIONS) OF THE DIRECTORATE OF MAINTENANCE AT HILL, KELLY AND ROBINS
 AIR FORCE BASES;  HOWEVER, IF THE SYSTEM WERE ADOPTED, IT WOULD AFFECT
 THE MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES WHO MAKE UP ABOUT 50 PER CENT OF THE
 BARGAINING UNIT, I.E., ROUGHLY 35,000 EMPLOYEES.  ON FEBRUARY 26, 1980,
 MR. KETCHERSIDE DEMANDED BARGAINING ON THE PROTOTYPE TEST AND AGREED TO
 A BRIEFING SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 6 (G.S. EXH. 13).  A BRIEFING WAS GIVEN
 TO MR. KETCHERSIDE AND TO MR. MULHOLLAND, DIRECTOR, LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 SERVICES FOR THE NATIONAL OFFICE, AFGE, AND OTHER BRIEFINGS WERE GIVEN
 TO OFFICIALS OF THE LOCAL UNIONS AT THE THREE BASES (HILL, KELLY, AND
 ROBINS) WHICH WERE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TEST.  MR. KETCHERSIDE WAS
 ASKED TO PROVIDE PROPOSALS ABOUT WHICH HE WISHED TO BARGAIN AND HE
 TENTATIVELY AGREED TO DO SO BY MARCH 21;  HOWEVER, NO PROPOSALS WERE
 PROVIDED.  INSTEAD, ON MARCH 26, MR. KETCHERSIDE NAMED AS UNION
 NEGOTIATORS THE FOLLOWING PERSONS:  MR. WILLIAM SHOELL, HILL AFB, UTAH;
 AND MR. JOSEPH SCHUCHARDT, KELLY AFB, TEXAS.  MR. KETCHERSIDE DEMANDED
 THAT TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES BE PROVIDED THESE EMPLOYEES (G.C. EXH.
 15).  ON FEBRUARY 27, 1980, MR. KETCHERSIDE HAD REQUESTED THAT
 RESPONDENT GIVE HIM ITS OFFICIAL POSITION IN REGARD TO THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY'S INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE, CASE NOS. O-PS-3 AND
 O-PS-6, ISSUED DECEMBER 19, 1979 (G.C. EXH. 17);  AND, ON MARCH 25,
 1980, RESPONDENT REPLIED, STATING, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "WE BELIEVE THE SUBJECT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PER DIEM FOR UNION
 NEGOTIATORS IS
 
    NEGOTIABLE.  WHETHER THE EMPLOYER WOULD PAY TRAVEL AND PER DIEM MUST
 BE EVALUATED ON THE
 
    CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PARTICULAR REQUEST AND THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS."
 (G.C. EXH. 18).
 
    IN HIS LETTER OF MARCH 26, 1980, IN WHICH HE DESIGNATED MESSRS.
 SHOELL AND SCHUCHARDT AS UNION NEGOTIATORS AND DEMANDED PER DIEM AND
 TRAVEL PAY FOR THEM, MR.  KETCHERSIDE REFERRED TO RESPONDENT'S LETTER OF
 MARCH 25 WHICH HE FOUND "INTERESTING" BUT ASSERTED, "THAT THIS PROVISION
 (5 U.S.C. 7131) . . . HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY AS ENTITLING EMPLOYEES TO TRAVEL AND PER DIEM TO
 ACCOMPLISH THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RESPONSIBILITIES.  THEREFORE, WE
 FULLY EXPECT THIS RIGHT TO BE HONORED." (G.C. EXH. 15) ON MARCH 31,
 1980, RESPONDENT ADVISED MR. KETCHERSIDE, IN PART, THAT,
 
    ". . . TO DATE YOU HAVE NOT SUBMITTED ANY UNION PROPOSALS.
 
    "WE DO NOT SEE ANY ADVERSE AFFECT (SIC) ON EMPLOYEES AS A RESULT OF
 THIS SERVICE TEST.  IN
 
    THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC UNION PROPOSALS, THE EMPLOYER IS PROCEEDING
 TO INITIATE THE SERVICE
 
    TEST ON 1 APRIL 1980." (G.C. EXH. 16).
 
    5.  ON FEBRUARY 11, 1980, RESPONDENT INFORMED MR. KETCHERSIDE OF
 "PROJECT PACER SPAN", COVERING THE CIVIL ENGINEERING ORGANIZATIONS
 WITHIN AFLC, WITH A TARGET DATE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MARCH 11, 1980
 (G.C. EXH. 3).  THE UNION RESPONDED WITH A REQUEST TO POSTPONE THE DATE
 OF IMPLEMENTATION AND A DEMAND TO BARGAIN (G.C. EXH. 4).  RESPONDENT
 GRANTED THE UNION'S REQUEST AND APRIL 1 WAS FIXED AS THE DATE FOR
 IMPLEMENTATION (G.C. EXH. 5).  ON MARCH 27, 1980, THE UNION SUBMITTED
 COUNTER PROPOSALS (G.C. EXH. 7) AND DESIGNATED MR. LYNN TOMPKINS, TINKER
 AFB, OKLAHOMA, AS THE UNION NEGOTIATOR AND DEMANDED TRAVEL, PER DIEM AND
 OFFICIAL TIME FOR HIM (G.C. EXH. 8).  RESPONDENT RESPONDED BY LETTER
 DATED APRIL 18, 1980, STATING, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    " . . . WHILE YOUR REQUEST THAT THE EMPLOYER PROVIDE OFFICIAL TIME,
 TRAVEL AND PER DIEM
 
    EXPENSES FOR A UNION NEGOTIATOR FROM OC-ALC IS QUITE CLEAR, YOUR
 LETTER LACKS SUFFICIENT
 
    JUSTIFICATION TO SUPPORT THE EXPENDITURE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS.
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    " . . . WE BELIEVE AFGE HAS SUFFICIENT CAPABILITY AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON
 AFB TO ADEQUATELY
 
    REPRESENT THE UNION IN NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, WITHOUT CAUSING
 THE EXPENDITURE OF
 
    GOVERNMENT TRAVEL FUNDS." (G.C. EXH. 9).
 
    BY LETTER DATED APRIL 22, 1980, MR. KETCHERSIDE RESPONDED AND STATED
 EMPHATICALLY, INTER ALIA, THAT,
 
    " . . . THE DESIGNATION OF UNION REPRESENTATIVES AND/OR NEGOTIATORS
 IS INTERNAL UNION
 
    BUSINESS AND THE EMPLOYER CANNOT DICTATE WHO OUR NEGOTIATORS SHALL
 BE.
 
    "YOU SHOULD FURTHER BE ADVISED THAT THE PAYMENT OF TRAVEL, PER DIEM,
 AND OFFICIAL TIME
 
    COSTS IS A STATUTORY ENTITLEMENT AND THE UNION DECLINES TO BARGAIN ON
 ANY LESSER PROVISION.  A
 
    REFUSAL BY THE EMPLOYER TO PAY TRAVEL, PER DIEM, AND OFFICIAL TIME
 WILL BE VIEWED AS A REFUSAL
 
    TO BARGAIN.
 
    "PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE UNION DESIRES TO PROCEED ON NEGOTIATING ON THE
 PACER SPAN PLAN FOR
 
    CIVIL ENGINEERING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.  A REFUSAL BY THE EMPLOYER TO
 PROVIDE UNION NEGOTIATORS
 
    FOR SUCH NEGOTIATIONS SERVES NO MORE PURPOSE THAN TO DELAY THE
 NEGOTIATIONS
 
    . . . . " (G.C. EXH. 10).
 
    BY LETTER DATED APRIL 29, 1980 (G.C. EXH. 11), RESPONDENT ADVISED MR.
 KETCHERSIDE THAT RESPONDENT HAD NO INTEREST IN WHO THE UNION APPOINTED
 AS ITS REPRESENTATIVES BUT THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF GOVERNMENT MONIES ON
 TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES REQUIRED JUSTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
 THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
 RESPONDENT FURTHER STATED THAT THE PROJECT PACER SPAN WOULD BE
 IMPLEMENTED MAY 12, 1980, UNLESS THE UNION MET WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF
 RESPONDENT PRIOR TO MAY 12, 1980.  THERE WAS NO SUCH MEETING AND PROJECT
 PACER SPAN WAS IMPLEMENTED ON, OR ABOUT, MAY 12, 1980.
 
                                CONCLUSIONS
 
    RESPONDENT'S POSITION, WHICH, IF THIS WERE A MATTER OF FIRST
 IMPRESSION, MIGHT BE PERSUASIVE, IS THAT ITS OBLIGATION TO PAY UNION
 NEGOTIATORS' TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES IS SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS
 FOR TRAVEL AND PER DIEM AS SET FORTH IN AGENCY REGULATIONS, HERE, JOINT
 TRAVEL REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND AIR FORCE REGULATION
 10-7.  THUS, RESPONDENT ASSERTS, INTER ALIA, THAT:
 
    " . . . THE RESPONDENT . . . MAINTAINS THAT IT MAY REASONABLY, AND
 INDEED IS REQUIRED TO,
 
    APPLY THE STANDARDS FOR TRAVEL AND PER DIEM AUTHORIZATION TO REQUESTS
 FOR UNION NEGOTIATORS
 
    JUST AS IT EVALUATES REQUESTS FOR TRAVEL OF OTHER EMPLOYEES.
 
    " . . . THE FACTS OF THIS CASE MAKE CLEAR THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS
 DONE NOTHING MORE THAN
 
    TREAT THE EMPLOYEES DESIGNATED BY THE UNION AS THEIR NEGOTIATORS JUST
 AS ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF
 
    THE RESPONDENT.  THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS ARE ISSUED BY THE
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND ARE
 
    APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT THE THREE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.  THESE
 REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT THE
 
    ORDER ISSUING AUTHORITY (I.E., THE PERSON AUTHORIZING THE TRAVEL AND
 EXPENDITURE OF PER DIEM
 
    FUNDS) DETERMINE THAT THE TRIP IS ESSENTIAL, THAT THE MISSION CANNOT
 BE SATISFACTORILY
 
    ACCOMPLISHED BY OTHER MEANS, THAT THE DURATION OF THE TRIP IS NO
 LONGER THAN NECESSARY, AND
 
    THE NUMBER OF PERSONS MAKING THE TRIP IS HELD TO A MINIMUM.  FURTHER
 THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
 
    FORCE HAS ISSUED AIR FORCE REGULATIONS 10-7 WHICH HAS SIMILAR
 REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING A
 
    DETERMINATION THAT PERSONNEL IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE TEMPORARY DUTY
 STATION CANNOT
 
    EFFECTIVELY PERFORM THE MISSION . . . .
 
    "FROM THE TIME OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF ALL AFGE UNITS IN AFLC INTO A
 SINGLE BARGAINING
 
    UNIT, THE PARTIES HAVE ENGAGED IN MID-TERM BARGAINING AT HQ AIR FORCE
 LOGISTICS COMMAND,
 
    WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, OHIO.  THE UNION'S REPRESENTATIVES AT THESE
 SESSIONS HAVE BEEN EITHER
 
    OFFICIALS OF LOCAL 1138, LOCATED AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON OR MR. PAUL
 KETCHERSIDE, EXECUTIVE
 
    DIRECTOR OF AFGE, COUNCIL 214, WHO WAS PLACED AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON FOR
 THAT PURPOSE.  THUS,
 
    WHEN MR. KETCHERSIDE REQUESTED THE PRESENCE OF MR. LYNN TOMPKINS,
 FROM OKLAHOMA CITY,
 
    MR. SHOELL FROM OGDEN, UTAH, AND MR. SCHUCHARDT FROM SAN ANTONIO, TO
 NEGOTIATE CONCERNING
 
    CERTAIN MID-TERM CHANGES, AND DEMANDED THAT RESPONDENT PAY TRAVEL AND
 PER DIEM EXPENSES OF
 
    THESE EMPLOYEES, THE ORDER ISSUING AUTHORITY WAS REQUIRED BY
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REGULATIONS
 
    TO FIRST MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF THESE FUNDS WAS
 NECESSARY.  WHEN
 
    MR. BUXTON REQUESTED JUSTIFICATION, MR. KETCHERSIDE FLATLY REFUSED TO
 PROVIDE ANY, CLAIMING AN
 
    ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO NAME WHOMEVER HE WISHED TO NEGOTIATE ON BEHALF OF
 THE UNION.  HAVING NO
 
    BASIS UPON WHICH TO DETERMINE THAT THE PROPOSED TRAVEL WAS NECESSARY,
 THE ORDER ISSUING
 
    AUTHORITY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO DENY THE REQUEST.
 
    "THE UNION, PERHAPS INTENTIONALLY, CONFUSES THE DENIAL OF TRAVEL AND
 PER DIEM EXPENSES WITH
 
    AN ATTEMPT BY MANAGEMENT TO CONTROL WHO THE UNION APPOINTS AS
 NEGOTIATOR.  AS HAS BEEN STATED
 
    REPEATEDLY BY MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, MANAGEMENT DOES NOT CARE WHO IS
 APPOINTED AS THE UNION
 
    NEGOTIATOR.  MANAGEMENT STOOD READY TO NEGOTIATE WITH WHOMEVER THE
 UNION BROUGHT TO THE
 
    TABLE.  THE ONLY QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT WOULD OR COULD
 PAY THE TRAVEL AND PER
 
    DIEM TO GET THAT EMPLOYEE TO THE TABLE.
 
    (PARENTHETICALLY, RESPONDENT DID NOT DISPUTE OR CHALLENGE THE PAYMENT
 OF SUCH EMPLOYEES BY THE ALLOWANCE OF OFFICIAL TIME).
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    "THE ALTERNATIVE OF NOT APPLYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE JOINT TRAVEL
 REGULATIONS TO UNION
 
    NEGOTIATORS WHO ARE AGENCY EMPLOYEES IS CLEARLY NOT A VIABLE ONE.  IT
 WOULD GIVE TO THE UNION
 
    A CARTE BLANCHE TO NAME ANY EMPLOYEE ANYWHERE AS ITS REPRESENTATIVE
 IN NEGOTIATIONS.  IT WOULD
 
    PERMIT AN UNPRECEDENTED RAID ON THE AGENCY'S BUDGET AT THE WHIM OF
 UNION OFFICIALS
 
    . . . . " (RESPONDENT'S BRIEF, PP. 9-11).
 
    BUT, OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION.  THE
 AUTHORITY, IN ITS INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE, CASE NOS. O-PS-3 AND
 O-PS-6, 2 FLRA NO. 31 (1979), CONCLUDED, INTER ALIA, THAT EMPLOYEES WHO
 ARE ON OFFICIAL TIME UNDER SEC. 31 OF THE STATUTE WHILE REPRESENTING AN
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE IN NEGOTIATIONS, WHETHER NEGOTIATIONS OR
 RENEGOTIATIONS OF A BASIC AGREEMENT, "ARE ENTITLED TO PAYMENTS FROM
 AGENCIES FOR THEIR DUTY TIME AND TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES." THAT
 UNION NEGOTIATORS ARE ENTITLED TO TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES FOR
 MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS WAS SPECIFICALLY AFFIRMED BY THE AUTHORITY IN
 BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, WESTERN REGION, DEPARTMENT OF
 THE TREASURY, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA , 4 FLRA NO. 40 (1980);  SEE,
 ALSO, FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD, 5 FLRA NO. 49 (1981).  IN ADDITION, THE
 MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, SEE, BY
 WAY OF EXAMPLE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 WASHINGTON, D.C., AND ITS INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA AND DALLAS, TEXAS
 DISTRICTS, 5-CA-593 (JUDGE FRANCIS E. DOWD, MARCH 16, 1981);  UNITED
 STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND UNITED
 STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AUSTIN
 DISTRICT, ET AL., CASE NOS. 6-CA-636, 6-CA-755, 6-CA-644, 6-CA-746
 (JUDGE GARVIN LEE OLIVER, MARCH 16, 1981);  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 CASE NOS. 3-CA-331, 3-CA-1231 (JUDGE ELI NASH, JR., MARCH 19, 1981);
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, JACKSONVILLE
 DISTRICT, CASE NOS. 4-CA-498, 4-CA-561 (JUDGE BURTON S. STERNBURG, MARCH
 23, 1981).  AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, I AM CONSTRAINED TO FOLLOW
 THE AUTHORITY'S PRONOUNCEMENTS AND DECISIONS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY ARE
 OVERRULED BY HIGHER AUTHORITY.  INDEED, RESPONDENT RECOGNIZES THAT ITS
 ASSERTIONS ARE, IN REALITY, ADDRESSED TO THE AUTHORITY, AS IT STATES, IN
 PART, "THE RESPONDENT URGES THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER ITS
 INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE FOUND IN O-PS-3 AND 6, AND THE IMPLICATIONS
 IT POSTENDS." (RESPONDENT'S BRIEF, P. 12).
 
    I FIND, THEREFORE, THAT RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF
 TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES FOR UNION'S DESIGNATED NEGOTIATORS SHOELL,
 SCHUCHARDT (ACTUAL HOUR ACCOUNTING PROTOTYPE TEST) AND TOMPKINS (PACER
 SPAN), CONTRARY TO THE AUTHORITY'S CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF
 SECTION 31 OF THE STATUTE, THEREBY VIOLATED SECTIONS 16(A)(1) AND (8) OF
 THE STATUTE.  IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT THERE BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING, I
 FURTHER, SPECIFICALLY, FIND THAT IMPOSITION OF A SHOWING OF NECESSITY AS
 A CONDITION TO THE PAYMENT OF TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES FOR UNION'S
 DULY DESIGNATED NEGOTIATORS VIOLATED SECTION 31, AND 16(A)(1) AND (8) OF
 THE STATUTE.
 
    I DO NOT FIND, HOWEVER, THAT RESPONDENT REFUSED TO CONSULT OR
 NEGOTIATE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 16(A)(5) OF THE STATUTE.  THE UNION
 HAS THE RIGHT TO DESIGNATE ITS NEGOTIATOR, OR NEGOTIATORS, AND ITS
 NEGOTIATORS ARE ENTITLED TO OFFICIAL TIME, TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES.
  RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 16(A)(1) AND (8) BY ITS REFUSAL TO PAY THE
 UNION'S DESIGNATED NEGOTIATORS TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES AS REQUIRED
 BY SECTION 31 AND THE AUTHORITY'S INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE, AND AN
 APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL BE RECOMMENDED TO REMEDY THIS UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE;  BUT RESPONDENT DID NOT REFUSE TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION'S
 DESIGNATED NEGOTIATORS, INDEED, DID NOT CHALLENGE OR DISPUTE THE
 ENTITLEMENT OF THESE EMPLOYEES TO OFFICIAL TIME FOR NEGOTIATIONS.  THE
 RECORD SHOWS AMPLE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN WHICH THE UNION
 FAILED AND REFUSED TO EXERCISE, ALBEIT BECAUSE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO PAY
 TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES.  THE RECORD CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE, OR EVEN
 ASSERTION, THAT THE UNION WAS UNABLE, OR EVEN WOULD HAVE BEEN
 INCONVENIENCED, BY PROCEEDING WITH BARGAINING AND LITIGATING, IF
 NECESSARY, RESPONDENT'S LIABILITY FOR THE COST OF TRAVEL AND PER DIEM.
 
    THE ACTUAL HOUR ACCOUNTING PROTOTYPE TEST APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A
 MANAGEMENT RIGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(A) OF THE STATUTE.  NEVERTHELESS,
 THE UNION WAS CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO NEGOTIATE AS TO IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION, I.E., PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B)(2) AND (3) TO NEGOTIATE
 "PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT . . . WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING ANY
 AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION" OR "APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES
 ADVERSELY A AFFECTED . . . ." THAT THE UNION'S CONCERN WAS TO INSURE
 THAT THE TEST BE DONE UNDER PROPER CONDITIONS, WHICH APPARENTLY MEANT
 THAT IT WAS CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH PROCEDURES UNDER SECTION 6(B)(2),
 DOES NOT ALTER THE UNION'S RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE OR RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATION
 TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING SUCH PROCEDURES.  RESPONDENT PROVIDED BRIEFINGS,
 AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON AS WELL AS AT THE THREE BASES WHERE THE TEST WAS TO
 BE CONDUCTED (HILL, KELLY, AND ROBINS), AND THE UNION WAS ASKED TO
 PROVIDE, AND TENTATIVELY AGREED TO PROVIDE, PROPOSALS ABOUT WHICH IT
 WISHED TO NEGOTIATE.  THE UNION DID NOT SUBMIT ANY PROPOSALS.  AS A
 GENERAL PROPOSITION, AN AGENCY MAY NOT UNILATERALLY IMPOSE CONDITIONS AS
 TO HOW BARGAINING WILL BE CONDUCTED, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, U.S.
 AIR FORCE ACADEMY, CASE NO. 7-CA-459 (ALJ, NOVEMBER 7, 1980);
 NEVERTHELESS THE OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 6(B)(2) OR (3) IS
 CONTINGENT ON THERE BEING SOMETHING TO BARGAIN ABOUT.  FOR EXAMPLE, IF
 IMPACT (ADVERSE EFFECT) IS ALLEGED, THERE MUST BE SOME ASSERTION OF
 ADVERSE EFFECT, OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS, FIELD OPERATIONS, SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SAN FRANCISCO REGION, CASE NOS. 9-CA-56,
 9-CA-57 (ALJ, AUGUST 12, 1980).  HERE, THE UNION HAD AGREED TO SUBMIT
 PROPOSALS ABOUT WHICH IT WANTED TO NEGOTIATE BUT DID NOT DO SO AND THE
 RECORD, FULLY ACCEPTING GENERAL COUNSEL'S ASSERTION THAT THE UNION WAS
 CONCERNED THAT THE TESTING BE DONE UNDER PROPER CONDITIONS, IS DEVOID OF
 EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS ANY PROCEDURE OR ADVERSE EFFECT ABOUT WHICH THE
 UNION WANTED TO BARGAIN TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN.
 
    AS TO PROJECT PACER SPAN, THE UNION DID SUBMIT EXTENSIVE COUNTER
 PROPOSALS AND THE RECORD SHOWS MATTERS SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION TO
 BARGAIN;  BUT RESPONDENT ON APRIL 29, 1980, ADVISED THE UNION THAT,
 ALTHOUGH IT WOULD NOT PAY MR. TOMPKINS' TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES,
 WHICH I HAVE FOUND VIOLATED SECTION 31 AND 16(A)(1) AND (8) OF THE
 STATUTE, PROJECT PACER SPAN WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED MAY 12, 1980, UNLESS
 THE UNION MET TO BARGAIN PRIOR TO MAY 12, 1980.  THE UNION REFUSED TO
 MEET BECAUSE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO PAY MR. TOMPKINS' TRAVEL AND PER DIEM
 EXPENSES;  BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT RESPONDENT REFUSED TO BARGAIN.
 
    NOT ONLY DOES THE RECORD FAIL TO SHOW THAT THE UNION COULD NOT,
 WITHOUT INCONVENIENCE, HAVE PROCEED WITH BARGAINING AND LEFT PAYMENT OF
 TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES FOR LATER RESOLUTION;  BUT THE RECORD
 AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWS, BY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE
 DIRECTOR OF COUNCIL 214 AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON, A REASONABLE BELIEF BY
 RESPONDENT THAT MR.  KETCHERSIDE, AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WOULD,
 GENERALLY, HANDLE MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS.  ON OTHER OCCASIONS, THE REASON
 FOR DESIGNATING ANOTHER NEGOTIATOR WAS GIVEN AND RESPONDENT AGREED TO
 PAY TRAVEL AND PER DIEM EXPENSES.  WHILE I HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONDENT
 WAS WRONG AND COULD NOT CONDITION THE PAYMENT OF TRAVEL AND PER DIEM OF
 THE UNION'S DESIGNATED NEGOTIATORS ON A SHOWING OF NECESSITY AND/OR THAT
 NEGOTIATIONS COULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PERSONNEL AT WRIGHT-PATTERSON, THE
 CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND ITS
 FUNCTION FURTHER SHOWS THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS WERE NOT IN DERROGATION
 OF ITS OBLIGATION UNDER THE STATUTE TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT AS TO SECTION 16(A)(5)
 ARE DISMISSED.  CF. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT, CASE NOS. 4-CA-498, 4-CA-561, SUPRA;
 BUT SEE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, CASE NOS. 3-CA-331, 3-CA-1231, SUPRA.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 16(A)(1) AND (8) OF THE
 STATUTE, I RECOMMEND THAT THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE
 LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) FAILING AND REFUSING TO PROVIDE TO LYNN TOMPKINS, WILLIAM SHOELL,
 JOSEPH SCHUCHARDT, OR
 
    ANY AGENCY EMPLOYEE, WHILE ENGAGED IN REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 214, AFL-CIO, THE EMPLOYEE'S EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE, DURING UNION-AGENCY
 
    NEGOTIATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, INCLUDING MID-TERM
 NEGOTIATIONS, OFFICIAL
 
    TIME FOR SUCH PARTICIPATION INCLUDING NECESSARY TRAVEL TIME AS OCCURS
 DURING THE EMPLOYEE'S
 
    REGULAR WORK HOURS AND WHEN THE EMPLOYEE WOULD OTHERWISE BE IN A WORK
 OR PAID LEAVE
 
    STATUS.  IN ADDITION, NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION AND PER DIEM EXPENSES
 SHALL BE PAID BY THE
 
    EMPLOYING ACTIVITY OR AGENCY AND PAYMENT OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION AND
 PER DIEM EXPENSES SHALL
 
    NOT BE CONDITIONED ON THE UNION SHOWING JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
 DESIGNATION OF ANY NEGOTIATOR.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERRING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
 
    THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS VARIOUS INSTALLATIONS OF THE AIR FORCE LOGISTICS
 COMMAND WHEREIN UNIT
 
    EMPLOYEES ARE LOCATED, I.E., AT HILL AIR FORCE BASE, OGDEN, UTAH;
 KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, SAN
 
    ANTONIO, TEXAS;  MCCELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA;
 NEWARK AIR FORCE STATION,
 
    NEWARK, OHIO;  ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, WARNER ROBINS, GEORGIA;  TINKER
 AIR FORCE BASE, OKLAHOMA
 
    CITY, OKLAHOMA;  WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, DAYTON, OHIO;
 DETACHMENT 21, AFCMC, AFPRO,
 
    BOEING, WICHITA, KANSAS;  AND CATALOGUING AND STANDARDIZATION OFFICE,
 BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN,
 
    COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX".  COPIES OF SAID
 NOTICE, TO BE FURNISHED BY
 
    THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION 5, AFTER BEING SIGNED BY AN
 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SHALL
 
    BE POSTED BY IT IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT AND BE MAINTAINED BY IT FOR
 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
 
    THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES
 TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 
    CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN TO INSURE THAT
 SAID NOTICES ARE NOT
 
    ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (B) 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.
 
                         WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  MAY 27, 1981
    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
 
                       CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE
 
                            UNITED STATES CODE
 
                FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT FAIL OR REFUSE TO PROVIDE TO LYNN TOMPKINS, WILLIAM
 SHOELL, JOSEPH SCHUCHARDT, OR ANY AGENCY EMPLOYEE, WHILE ENGAGED IN
 REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL
 214, AFL-CIO, THE EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, DURING
 UNION-AGENCY NEGOTIATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT,
 INCLUDING MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS, OFFICIAL TIME FOR SUCH PARTICIPATION
 INCLUDING NECESSARY TRAVEL TIME AS OCCURS DURING THE EMPLOYEE'S REGULAR
 WORK HOURS AND WHEN THE EMPLOYEE WOULD OTHERWISE BE IN A WORK OR PAID
 LEAVE STATUS.  IN ADDITION, NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION AND PER DIEM
 EXPENSES SHALL BE PAID BY THE EMPLOYING ACTIVITY OR AGENCY.
 
    WE WILL NOT CONDITION THE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PER DIEM
 EXPENSES ON THE UNION SHOWING JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DESIGNATION OF ANY
 UNION NEGOTIATOR.
 
    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
 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 5, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  SUITE A-1359, 175 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
 60604, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (312) 866-3468.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, WESTERN REGION,
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, 4 FLRA NO. 40
 (1980), ENFORCED SUB NOM. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS V.
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, 672 F.2D 732 (9TH CIR.  1982).  BUT
 SEE DIVISION OF MILITARY AND NAVAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF NEW YORK (ALBANY,
 NEW YORK), 7 FLRA NO. 69 (1981), REVERSED SUB NOM.  DIVISION OF MILITARY
 AND NAVAL AFFAIRS V. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, 683 F.2D 45 (2D
 CIR. 1982) AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCIENCE AND EDUCATION
 ADMINISTRATION, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, NORTH CENTRAL REGION,
 DAKOTAS-ALASKA AREA, 6 FLRA NO. 45 (1981), REVERSED SUB NOM.  UNITED
 STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE V. FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,
 NO. 81-1948 (8TH CIR. AUGUST 9, 1982).
 
    AS TO THE JUDGE'S DISMISSAL OF THE ALLEGATION THAT RESPONDENT'S
 REFUSAL TO AUTHORIZE PER DIEM AND TRAVEL EXPENSES CONSTITUTED A SEPARATE
 VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(5) OF THE STATUTE, SEE ALSO DEPARTMENT OF
 THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, JACKSONVILLE AND ATLANTA
 DISTRICTS, 9 FLRA NO. 40 (1982).
 
    /2/ AM