14:0113(25)CA - Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-patterson AFB, OH and AFGE Council 214 -- 1984 FLRAdec CA



[ v14 p113 ]
14:0113(25)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 14 FLRA No. 25
 
 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 No. 5-CA-20150
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued his Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending
 that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
 certain affirmative action.  Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
 to the Judge's Decision and the Charging Party filed an opposition to
 the Respondent'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 hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
 committed.  The rulings are hereby affirmed.  Upon consideration of the
 Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts the
 Judge's findings, conclusions and recommendations only to the extent
 consistent herewith.
 
    The Judge concluded that the Respondent's refusal to authorize
 payment of per diem allowances and travel expenses to William S. Shoell,
 the Union's designated representative for mid-term bargaining,
 constituted a refusal to comply with section 7131(a) of the Statute in
 violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (8).  Subsequent to the issuance of
 the Judge's Decision, the United States Supreme Court concluded in
 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 104 S.Ct. 439(1983)
 that the obligation of an agency under section 7131(a) of the Statute to
 provide official time to employees representing an exclusive
 representative in the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement
 does not encompass the payment of travel expenses and per diem
 allowances.
 
    Pursuant to that decision, and for the reasons set forth by the
 Court, the Authority concludes herein that the Respondent did not fail
 or refuse to comply with the provisions of section 7131(a) of the
 Statute.  Therefore, it follows that the Respondent did not violate
 section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute.  /1/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 5-CA-20150 be,
 and it hereby is, dismissed.  /2/
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., March 23, 1984
 
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
 
    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 No.: 5-CA-20150
 
    Janet T. Wachter
    For Charging Party
 
    Roger T. McNamara, Esq.
    For Respondent
 
    Sandra LeBold, Esq.
    For General Counsel, FLRA
 
    Before:  SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C. 7101
 et seq., 92 Stat. 1191 (hereinafter referred to as the Statute) and the
 Rules and Regulations of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), 5
 C.F.R. Chapter XIV, 2410 et seq.
 
    Pursuant to a Charge filed on March 15, 1982 and amended on June 30,
 1982, by American Federation of Government Employees, Council 214
 (hereinafter called the Union and/or AFGE Council 214) against
 Department of the Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command,
 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio (hereinafter called Respondent
 and/or AFLC), the General Counsel of the FLRA, by the Director of Region
 5, issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing on July 12, 1982 and amended
 it on October 21, 1982.  The Complaint, as amended, alleges that
 Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute by
 failing and refusing to grant travel and per diem expenses to a Union
 representative for the time the representative was to engage in
 negotiations with Respondent.  AFLC filed an Answer denying that it had
 violated the Statute.
 
    A hearing in this matter was conducted before the undersigned in
 Chicago, Illinois.  The Respondent, the Union and the General Counsel of
 the FLRA were represented and afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
 examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, and to argue
 orally.  Post hearing briefs were filed and have been fully considered.
 
    Based upon the entire record in this matter, my observation of the
 witnesses and their demeanor, and from my evaluation of the evidence, I
 make the following:
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    On January 13, 1978, American Federation of Government Employees,
 AFL-CIO (hereinafter called AFGE) was certified as the collective
 bargaining representative for a consolidated unit of all Respondent's
 wage grade and general schedule employees, with certain exclusions not
 here relevant.  The collective bargaining unit includes employees of the
 AFLC located, inter alia, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton,
 Ohio and the Hill Air Force Base, Utah and at all times material William
 Shoell was an employee within the unit.  A master collective bargaining
 agreement between Respondent and AFGE became effective May 3, 1979.
 
    At all times material AFGE Council 214 has been an agent of AFGE with
 respect to bargaining with Respondent on behalf of the above described
 collective bargaining unit.
 
    In mid-August 1979 General John P. Rollston, Respondent's Deputy
 Chief of Staff for Manpower and Personnel, was advised by Val Buxton,
 Respondent's Chief of Labor and Employee Relations, that relations
 between AFLC and AFGE Council 214 was deteriorating, especially as it
 related to mid-term bargaining, because there was no Union
 representative at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to carry on
 day-to-day bargaining.  Either at that time, or shortly thereafter,
 Rollston telephoned AFGE President Kenneth Blaylock.  Rollston suggested
 that it would be in their mutual interest, regarding mid-term
 bargaining, if there were a Union representative physically located at
 the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base so that Respondent could deal with
 the representative regularly, frequently and consistently and that this
 would expedite the resolution of problems.  Blaylock said that he was
 thinking the same thing, perhaps for different reasons, and that it was
 a good idea.  Blaylock expressed concern about AFGE's financial ability
 to lease office space and to pay for phones, etc., for a
 Wright-Patterson office.  Rollston suggested that perhaps an arrangement
 could be made whereby Respondent provided the space.  Rollston and
 Blaylock agreed to meet in Washington to discuss this matter further.
 
    During early September 1979, about ten days after the telephone
 conversation, Rollston met Blaylock in Blaylock's office in Washington,
 D.C.  Both agreed that it would be to their mutual benefit to have a
 Union representative at Wright-Patterson to do mid-term bargaining.
 according to rollston's testimony ". . . there was a clear recognition
 on his (Blaylock's) part and on mine that there would be from time to
 time situations arising which would be clearly in our mutual best
 interests for the union to have a technical representative, an
 authority, some assistance, some outside, if you will, counsel to help .
 . . the union resident, representative to negotiate, and with prior
 agreement that we would in fact fund the travel of those people to
 assist the resident agent.  . . . It was agreed-- I think it was
 recognized, if you will, because at that time we didn't even strike a
 precise agreement, but it was recognized that-- he recognized and I
 agreed that from time to time there would be a need on the part of the
 union to bring someone other than the resident Wright-Patterson
 representative in to conduct negotiations, that if there was that need
 and he felt it was appropriate for us to fund that, that there would be,
 before the travel was conducted, that there would be a prior and
 up-front agreement between the union and the AFLC as to who would fund
 that travel." /3/ The meeting adjourned without a final agreement
 because Blaylock had to submit the matter to AFGE Council 214 and seek
 its approval for the arrangement and Rollston had to seek authority to
 commit the funds.
 
    About two weeks later Rollston and Blaylock spoke on the telephone
 and Blaylock stated that he had received approval to have an individual
 representative stationed at Wright-Patterson and Rollston stated that he
 had authorization to furnish office space, office equipment and
 furniture.  Blaylock indicated that he needed 6,000 copies of the Master
 Agreement and that would be very expensive.  Rollston agreed to furnish
 the 6,000 copies.  /4/ Rollston testified "Mr. Blaylock agreed that
 Council 214 would have an on-site representative of the Council to deal
 with us authoritatively on a day-to-day basis with the mid-term
 negotiations of the Labor Agreement, and that we in turn for that
 agreement would provide office space for that staff, and that we would
 provide eventually 9,000 copies of the Master Labor Agreement." /5/
 
    AFLC and AFGE Council 214 entered into a written "Service Agreement"
 signed by Respondent on Feb. 26, 1980 and by AFGE Council 214 on March
 14, 1980 wherein Respondent agreed to furnish enumerated facilities and
 equipment at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to AFGE Council 214.
 Paragraph III provides, "III. Nothing in this service agreement will be
 used to support or oppose positions taken by either party relative to
 proposals involving the Master Labor Agreement." There is no reference
 in the Service Agreement to travel or per diem, with respect to Union
 representatives, nor is there any mention that AFGE Council 214 waived
 any rights it may have with respect to the payment of travel and per
 diem expenses for its bargaining representatives.  Similarly there is no
 limitation as to whom AFGE Council 214 could designate as its bargaining
 representative.
 
    Union representative Ketcherside arrived at Wright-Patterson Air
 Force Base in January 1980 and from then to March 1980, he handled all
 mid-term bargaining responsibilities.  During the latter part of March
 1980, Ketcherside requested personnel from outside the Wright-Patterson
 Air Force Base area to handle some mid-term bargaining matters.
 Further, Mr. Ketcherside demanded travel and per diem expenses for the
 outside negotiators.  Respondent denied payment on the grounds of the
 Blaylock-Rollston agreement and on the grounds that the expenditure of
 government monies for travel and per diem expenses require justification
 in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulations (JTRs) issued by the
 Department of Defense and in accordance with Air Force Regulation (AFR)
 10-7.  Subsequent to the denial of payment by the Respondent of the
 travel and per diem expenses, the Union filed an unfair labor practice
 charge.  Department of the Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command,
 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 10 FLRA 281(1982), Petition for
 Review filed sub nom. Air Force Logistics Command (Wright-Patterson Air
 Force Base) v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, Docket No. 82-2411
 (D.C. Cir., Nov. 29, 1982).
 
    In April and May 1980 Ketcherside was experiencing a backlog of
 proposed mid-term employer changes and he needed outside assistance.
 Buxton advised Ketcherside that he had no authority to abridge the
 Blaylock-Rollston agreement.  Therefore, Ketcherside went to Rollston,
 who approved the request for the payment of per diem and travel expenses
 for Union representatives.  Ketcherside indicated that he did not want
 his request on this occasion to establish any precedence.
 
    The only other instance in which Respondent paid travel and per diem
 expenses for mid-term negotiations arose as a result of the Job
 Performance Appraisal System (JPAS) that had to be in place by October
 1980.  In this case, AFLC approved travel and per diem funding for Union
 representatives because the JPAS negotiations were complex and outside
 assistance was required and justified under the JTRs.
 
    By letter dated December 4, 1981, AFLC notified the AFGE Council 214
 of Respondent's intention to extend its Electronic Mechanic Job Element
 Test (JET) from WG-10 employees, "to other grade levels within that
 series, as well as extend the JET to other series".  Respondent set a
 December 28, 1981 deadline for submission of proposals by the Union
 concerning the JETs.  By letter dated December 9, 1981, Paul Palacio,
 President of AFGE Council 214, requested that AFLC bargain with the
 Union concerning the extension of the JETs to the additional grade
 levels and series and also requested an extension of 45 days within
 which to submit proposals.  AFLC notified Palacio by letter dated
 December 14, 1981, that the date for submission of proposals was
 extended to January 8, 1982.
 
    By letter dated December 17, 1981, Palacio notified Respondent that
 the AFGE Council 214 Vice-President, William S. Shoell, a bargaining
 unit employee at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, would be handling
 negotiations on behalf of the Union concerning the JETs.  This letter
 advised Respondent to send correspondence to Shoell at Hill Air Force
 Base.  /6/ During mid January 1982, Shoell was on military leave and was
 unavailable for bargaining.  The Union designated different
 representatives to bargain with AFLC's representative, Ms. Corliss,
 during the period Shoell was unavailable.  On January 26, 1982 Palacio
 sent a letter to AFLC advising it that Shoell, who had been temporarily
 unavailable due to the military commitment, was again available to
 continue the negotiations on JETs.  Palacio asked Respondent to submit
 information regarding JETs and stated that AFGE Council 214 was awaiting
 the Respondent's counterproposals.
 
    By letter dated January 29, 1982, Palacio confirmed a telephone
 conversation of January 28, 1982 with William Langley, Respondent's
 Labor Relations Specialist.  In the telephone conversation, Palacio had
 requested that arrangements be made to bring Shoell to the
 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to negotiate.  Langley said, in
 response, that negotiations with Shoell would take place by telephone
 and/or mail.  Palacio advised Respondent on the telephone, and in his
 letter, that AFGE Council 214 strongly objected to negotiations by
 telephone and/or mail.  Palacio stated that this proposed manner of
 negotiating is contrary to "Public Law 95-454".  By letter dated
 February 1, 1982, AFLC responded to Palacio's letter stating that
 Respondent had been able to find nothing in the Statute indicating that
 negotiations by mail and/or telephone are improper.  Respondent stated
 that since Palacio had chosen to designate a negotiator from outside
 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, rather than conduct the negotiations
 himself, negotiations by mail and/or telephone were appropriate.
 
    Langley, contacted Shoell's supervisor at Hill Air Force Base and
 arranged a telephone meeting.  On February 3, 1982, Langley phoned
 Shoell early in the morning.  Shoell explained that he was at his work
 site where it was difficult to talk and that he had not seen the
 Respondent's proposals.  He said he would go to the Union office, review
 the proposals and then would talk to Langley.  Langley later phoned
 Shoell at the Union office and Shoell advised Langley that negotiations
 should take place across the table because the parties were far apart on
 the issues and the negotiations could be very lengthy.  Shoell
 reiterated the position of AFGE Council 214 that the AFLC was required
 by law to bring him to Wright-Patterson to conduct negotiations.
 Langley refused, saying there was no justification for bringing Shoell
 to the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
 
    By letter dated February 8, 1982, AFGE Council 214 refused AFLC's
 request that the negotiations concerning the JETs be conducted by mail
 or over the telephone and requested that official time, travel, per diem
 and lodging be provided to Shoell for his travel from Hill Air Force
 Base, Utah to the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to engage in such
 negotiations.  By letter dated February 12, 1982, AFLC informed the AFGE
 Council 214 that, while Respondent was willing to negotiate concerning
 the JETs with Shoell or anyone designated by the Union for such purpose,
 it would not pay travel and per diem expenses for such negotiations.
 
    By letter, dated February 25, 1982, the Union requested, in lieu of
 AFLC affording official time, travel and per diem expenses to Shoell,
 that Respondent either send one of its negotiators to Hill Air Force
 Base, to negotiate the JETs issue or that it designate someone at Hill
 Air Force Base as its negotiator to negotiate with Shoell.  By letter
 dated March 3, 1982, AFLC denied the request of the AFGE Council 214 and
 reiterated that it would not pay Shoell's travel and per diem expenses
 and announced that it would implement the JETs on March 19, 1982, unless
 AFGE Council 214 presented itself for negotiations prior to that date or
 agreed to bargain by telephone and/or mail.
 
    During early March 1982 Shoell was at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
 to attend a hearing and an Executive Board meeting.  The Union paid his
 transportation expenses and he was on leave without pay status.  Shoell
 did not contact Respondent and ask to bargain about the JETs.
 Management officials knew of Shoell's presence and did not ask to meet
 with him concerning the JETs.
 
    On or about March 30, 1982, the JETs were extended from WG-10
 employees to the WG-11 grade level in the Electronic Mechanic series.
 Shoell did not travel to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio and no
 negotiations took place regarding JETs.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) has held that Section
 7131(a) of the Statute authorizes an employee representative of an
 exclusive collective bargaining representative official time, including
 payment for travel and per diem expenses, for the purposes of conducting
 negotiations with Agency representatives.  Interpretation and Guidance,
 2 FLRA 265(1979).  The FLRA has held that such a representative of an
 exclusive collective bargaining representative is entitled to payments
 for travel and per diem expenses to negotiate proposed agency changes in
 working conditions during the term of a collective bargaining agreement.
  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), Cert. granted, 51
 U.S. Law Week 3432 (January 17, 1983) and Department of the Air Force,
 Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio,
 supra.  But see, Division of Military and Naval Affairs, State of New
 York (Albany, New York), 7 FLRA 458(1981), reversed sub nom.  Division
 of Military and Naval Affairs v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 683
 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1982), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and
 Education Administration, Agricultural Research, North Central Region,
 Dakotas-Alaska Area, 6 FLRA 265(1981), reversed sub nom.  United States
 Department of Agriculture v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 691 F.2d
 1242 (8th Cir. 1982);  and Florida National Guard, 5 FLRA No. 49, (1981)
 reversed sub nom.  Florida National Guard and Department of Defense v.
 Federal Labor Relations Authority, 699 F.2d 1092 (11th Cir., 1983).
 
    AFLC, however contends that AFGE Council 214, by the agreement
 between Rollston and Blaylock, waived its right to per diem and travel
 payments for any designated representative from a base other than
 Wright-Patterson, who has to travel to Wright-Patterson in order to
 negotiate.  The FLRA has held that any waiver of any statutory rights,
 by a labor organization, must be clear and unmistakable.  Absent such a
 clear and unmistakable waiver, the labor organization will not be
 concluded to have waived its statutory rights.  Department of Health and
 Human Services, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia, 9 FLRA 1065(1982) and
 Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 5 FLRA No.
 2(1981).  I conclude that the agreement between Blaylock and Rollston
 did not constitute such a clear and unmistakable waiver of the Union's
 rights, under 7131(a) of the Statute, to payments of per diem and travel
 expenses for Union designated representatives.  The agreement was the
 product of a series of conversations between Blaylock and Rollston and
 the two individuals apparently did not specifically discuss any waiver
 of statutory rights by the Union.  Rather, the agreement was a vague one
 whereby AFGE Council 214 agreed to have a designated representative
 stationed at Wright-Patterson if the Respondent agreed to provide office
 space, furniture and equipment.  This would provide Respondent with
 quick and ready access to Union representatives for day-to-day problems.
  The purpose of this agreement was to improve communications by making
 the parties quickly accessible to each other.  The Union did not
 specifically agree that it would never designate any other
 representative for negotiating or that it waived its right to travel and
 per diem payments for such a representative.  In fact, Blaylock and
 Rollston specifically recognized that the Union would, on occasion, need
 to use representatives from bases other than Wright-Patterson.  The
 parties seemed to mention that, with advance agreement, such a
 representative would be paid per diem and travel expenses.  This
 reference to "agreement" does not clearly mean that both sides must
 agree on the necessity for an off-base Union representative before the
 representative would be entitled to payment of travel and per diem
 expenses.  Rather, it could equally reasonably mean that, when given
 advance notice by the Union of its need for an off-base representative,
 there would be agreement by AFLC to pay such representative travel and
 per diem expenses.  In this regard it must be noted that in negotiating
 the Master Agreement, the Union specifically and lawfully refused to
 negotiate concerning a waiver of its statutory rights under Section 7131
 of the Statute.  American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 4
 FLRA No. 39(1980).  Further, when the Rollston-blaylock oral agreement
 was reduced to writing, it made no mention of any limitation on the
 Union's right to designate its representatives for bargaining or its
 rights to payments to such representatives for travel and per diem
 expenses.  Accordingly, I reject Respondent's contention that the
 Blaylock-Rollston agreement constituted a waiver by the Union of its
 rights granted by Section 7131(a) of the Statute.  /7/
 
    Respondent seems to urge that because, in 1980, Ketcherside asked
 that Union representatives be brought from other bases, this somehow
 either establishes a waiver by practice or was consistent with AFLC's
 interpretation of the Blaylock-Rollston agreement.  This is rejected.
 When AFLC refused to pay the per diem expenses, the Union filed a
 successful unfair labor practice charge.  Department of the Air Force,
 Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio,
 supra.  This is hardly consistent with AFLC's position that there was a
 waiver.  /8/
 
    Similarly, I reject Respondent's contention that Shoell agreed to
 negotiate by telephone when he received the call at his work site at
 Hill Air Force Base.  The Union had been insisting on face-to-face
 negotiations.  Upon receiving the telephone call from Respondent and
 stating he would call back, Shoell was merely removing himself from his
 work site, and going to the Union office where he could hear better and
 could review Respondent's proposals, which Shoell had not yet seen, so
 that he could make a reasonable response.  Respondent then called Shoell
 at the Union office and Shoell reiterated the Union's position that they
 should bargain face-to-face.  Shoell did not agree or waive any rights
 that the Union had to bargain face-to-face over the change in the use of
 the JETs or to receive per diem and travel payments under Section
 7131(a) of the Statute.  /9/
 
    Thus it is concluded that the change in the use of the JETs
 constituted a change in conditions of employment and that the Union was
 entitled to bargain about such change, to designate its own
 representative and to have the per diem and travel expenses of the
 representative paid by AFLC.  Department of the Air Force, Air Force
 Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, supra.
 Shoell, a bargaining unit employee at Hill Air Force Base, was
 designated by the AFGE Council 214 to be its negotiator concerning
 Respondent's proposal to extend the JETs.  Shoell was entitled, pursuant
 to Section 7131(a) of the Statute, to have Respondent pay his per diem
 and travel expenses so that he could represent the Union at the JET
 negotiations at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and Respondent's
 refusal to authorize such payment violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of
 the Statute.  /10/ Further the FLRA has already rejected AFLC's defense
 that it could require justification from the Union for the selection of
 out-of-town negotiations before Respondent had any obligation under
 Section 7131(a) of the Statute.  Department of the Air Force, Air Force
 Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, supra.
 
    Finally Respondent urges the FLRA to reverse its earlier holdings to
 the effect that Section 7131(a) of the Statute requires that agencies
 pay travel and per diem expenses for union negotiators.  I am
 constrained to follow the FLRA decisions and therefore reject
 Respondent's contention.
 
    I need not decide whether a status quo ante remedy would be
 appropriate in the subject case because neither the General Counsel of
 the FLRA nor the Union has requested such a remedy.
 
    Having concluded that Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (8)
 of Statute I recommend that the Authority issue the following:
 
                                   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, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
 Ohio, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Failing and refusing to provide to William Shoell, or any
       other representative, official time, including necessary travel
       and per diem expenses, in compliance with Section 7131(a) of the
       Statute, for the time they were to engage in representing the
       American Federation of Government Employees, Council 214, AFL-CIO,
       the employees' exclusive representative, during mid-term
       negotiations.
 
          (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.
 
                                       SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  May 6, 1983
    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 STATUTE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to provide to William Shoell, or any other
 representative, official time, including necessary travel and per diem
 expenses, in compliance with Section 7131(a) of the Statute, for the
 time they are 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) 886-3468.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ In view of the disposition herein, the Authority finds it
 unnecessary to pass upon the Judge's findings with respect to the
 alternative defenses raised by the Respondent.
 
 
    /2/ The Authority received a motion filed by the Regional Director
 seeking to have the case remanded to the Regional Director for
 withdrawal of the complaint and dismissal of the charge.  In view of the
 Authority's disposition on the merits of this case, the Regional
 Director's motion is hereby denied.
 
 
    /3/ Transcript pages 79-80.
 
 
    /4/ 9,000 copies were furnished.
 
 
    /5/ Transcript page 82.
 
 
    /6/ Shoell was apparently designated by AFGE Council 214 to handle
 the JET negotiations because he had taken the JET himself and had
 handled numerous employee complaints regarding JETs.
 
 
    /7/ Although General Counsel for the FLRA pointed out that the waiver
 argument was litigated in Department of the Air Force, Air Force
 Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, supra, neither
 General Counsel of the FLRA nor the Charging Party argued the matter was
 disposed of in the subject case by operation of collateral estoppel.
 Collatera