15:0407(86)CA - Transportation, FAA, San Diego, CA and PASS -- 1984 FLRAdec CA



[ v15 p407 ]
15:0407(86)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 15 FLRA No. 86
 
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 PROFESSIONAL AIRWAYS SYSTEMS
 SPECIALISTS
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 8-CA-20268
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued his Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and
 recommending that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
 certain affirmative action.  Thereafter, the Respondent, the General
 Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Judge's Decision.
 
    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 recommended Order, as modified below.
 
    The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1)
 and (5) of the Statute by refusing to recognize representatives
 designated by the Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS).  The
 Respondent takes the position that its action was consistent with
 provisions contained in a collective bargaining agreement relative to
 the designation of union representatives.
 
    In 1981, PASS was certified as the exclusive representative for a
 unit of employees previously represented by the Federal Aviation Science
 and Technological Association (FASTA).  The Respondent and FASTA had
 negotiated an agreement in 1977, with a two-year duration and automatic
 annual renewals thereafter, which provided for the designation of
 representatives consistent with the Respondent's organization structure.
  Specifically, Article 7, Section 3 of that agreement provided as
 follows:
 
          In addition, the Union may designate one sector representative
       at each airway facilities sector.  The designation shall be in
       writing.  At the sector representative's option, he/she may
       designate, in writing, an alternate to act for him/her when he/she
       is absent.  Only the sector representative, or in his/her absence
       the designated alternate, may deal with the sector manager and/or
       his/her designee.  During any meeting where the sector manager is
       accompanied by other management representatives, the sector
       representative may be accompanied by his/her designated alternate
       or other representatives so as to allow the Union the same number
       of participants at the meeting.
 
    Following its certification, PASS notified the Respondent that it
 would be represented by one representative for the Airway Facilities
 Sector (AFS) located in San Diego, and one representative for the Long
 Beach AFS.  Subsequently, the Respondent merged the Long Beach AFS into
 the San Diego AFS.  PASS advised the Respondent that it would continue
 to be represented by separate representatives for the San Diego AFS and
 for what had previously been the Long Beach AFS.  PASS in turn was
 notified by the Respondent that it would only recognize one
 representative, for the new San Diego AFS, in accordance with Article 7,
 Section 3 of the FASTA agreement.
 
    The Judge determined, relying on the Authority's Decision in U.S.
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 6 FLRA 18 (1981), that the Respondent and
 PASS were obligated to continue "to the maximum extent possible" the
 practice of one representative per sector as established in Article 7,
 Section 3 of the expired FASTA agreement, which the Judge found had
 become a condition of employment.  The Judge found, however, that the
 Respondent, by merging the two sectors, had changed an underlying
 condition of PASS' representation, thereby rendering it impossible to
 follow literally the language of Article 7, Section 3 without impairing
 rights which PASS had prior to the merger and which rights were
 envisioned under that provision of the agreement.  Accordingly, the
 Judge found that under such circumstances PASS was free to insist upon
 its representational rights under the Statute, including the right to
 designate its own representatives, and that the Respondent's refusal to
 recognize separate representatives therefore constituted a violation of
 section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
 
    In agreement with the Judge's conclusion, but for the reasons set
 forth below, the Authority finds that the Respondent's conduct herein
 was violative of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
 
    In Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region,
 Seattle, Washington and Federal Aviation Administration, Washington,
 D.C., 14 FLRA No. 89 (1984), the Authority held, in part, that following
 the expiration of an agreement, either party may terminate those matters
 contained in their agreement relating to permissive subjects of
 bargaining.  That is, where agency management has elected to bargain
 concerning a matter covered under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute and
 the parties have reached agreement thereon or where the parties have
 reached agreement on a matter which is outside the required scope of
 bargaining under the Statute, either party may elect not to be bound
 thereby upon the expiration of the agreement.  In that case, and in
 Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Los
 Angeles, California, 15 FLRA No. 21 (1984), the Authority determined
 that provisions related to a waiver of bargaining rights under the
 Statute were permissive in nature and did not survive the expiration of
 the agreement where one party exercised its right to terminate the
 practice.  In so finding, the Authority distinguished between permissive
 subjects of bargaining which can be terminated by either party upon the
 expiration of an agreement and those personnel policies, practices, or
 other matters affecting working conditions, such as were identified in
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the decisions cited therein, which
 relate to negotiable conditions of employment and which continue
 following the expiration of an agreement, to the maximum extent
 possible, absent an express agreement to the contrary or unless modified
 in a manner consistent with the Statute.
 
    As to the nature of the bargaining obligation with respect to the
 designation of union representatives, the Authority has previously held
 that an exclusive representative has the statutory right to designate
 its own representatives when dealing with agency management in the
 performance of its responsibilities under the Statute, but that an
 exclusive representative may elect to bargain over such a matter, which
 is permissive in nature.  See American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, 4 FLRA 272 (1980).  See also Department of the Air
 Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
 Ohio, 10 FLRA 281 (1982).  The Authority finds, in the instant case,
 that the designation of sector representatives contained in Article 7,
 Section 3 of the expired FASTA agreement constituted a permissive
 subject of bargaining.  Thus, while FASTA may have elected to bargain
 over such a matter and incorporate the agreed-upon provisions in the
 terms of a collective bargaining agreement, once that agreement expired,
 the exclusive representative was then free to terminate that particular
 practice.  When PASS notified the Respondent of its intention to
 designate separate sector representatives at the San Diego AFS and what
 had previously been the Long Beach AFS, PASS was exercising its
 statutory right to designate its own representatives and, at the same
 time, was indicating that it no longer wished to be bound by the
 practice which FASTA had elected to negotiate.  Therefore, when the
 Respondent refused to recognize PASS' designated representatives, it
 violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.  /1/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority and section 7118 of the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
 that the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
 San Diego, California, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Refusing to recognize the representatives designated by the
 Professional Airways Systems Specialists, the exclusive representative
 of its employees.
 
    (b) In any like or related manner interfering with restraining, or
 coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
    (a) Post at its San Diego and Long Beach facilities, copies of the
 attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority.  Such forms shall be signed by the San Diego Airway
 Facilities Sector Manager, or his designee, and shall be posted and
 maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
 including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to
 employees are customarily posted.  Reasonable steps shall be taken to
 ensure that such 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 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 herewith.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1984
 
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, 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 refuse to recognize the representatives designated by the
 Professional Airways Systems Specialists, the exclusive representative
 of our employees.
 
    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.
                                       (Activity)
                                       By:  (Signature) (Title)
 
    Dated:  . . .
 
    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 VIII, Federal Labor Relations Authority whose address
 is:  350 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California
 90071 and whose telephone number is:  (213) 688-3805.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Malachy T. Coghlan, Esq. and
    Gary W. Baldwin, Esq., on the brief
    For the Respondent
 
    Woody N. Peterson, Esq. and
    Joseph E. Kolick, Jr., Esq., on the brief
    For the Charging Party
 
    Deborah S. Wagner, Esq.
    For the General Counsel
 
    Before:  SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
    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.
 
    Upon an unfair labor practice charge filed by the Professional
 Airways Systems Specialists (herein referred to as PASS or the Union) on
 May 3, 1982 against the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
 Administration, San Diego, California (herein referred to as
 Respondent), the General Counsel of the Authority, by the Regional
 Director for Region VIII, issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing on
 July 30, 1982 alleging Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
 the Statute by refusing to recognize the Union's designated
 representative for the Long Beach, California, area.
 
    A hearing on the Complaint was conducted on October 7, 1982 in Los
 Angeles, California, at which time all parties were represented by
 counsel and afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, call, examine
 and cross-examine witnesses and argue orally.  Briefs were filed by all
 parties and have been duly considered.
 
    Upon the entire record in this matter, including the Stipulation of
 Facts submitted by the parties, and from my evaluation of the evidence I
 make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
 
    Background and Events
 
    On December 31, 1981 PASS was certified as the exclusive collective
 bargaining representative for various of Respondent's employees
 including employees located at Respondent's Airway Facilities Sectors
 (AFS) in San Diego and Long Beach, California.  /2/ Prior to PASS's
 certification on December 31, 1981, the same employees were represented
 by the Federal Aviation Science and Technological Association/National
 Association of Government Employees (FASTA).  While FASTA was the
 employees' representative, it negotiated a collective bargaining
 agreement with Respondent, effective 1977, which was still in effect
 until PASS succeeded FASTA as the employees' representative.
 
    In January 1982 the Union advised Respondent that it would be
 represented by one representative for the San Diego AFS, and one
 representative for the Long Beach AFS.
 
    In April 1982 Respondent's Long Beach AFS merged into Respondent's
 San Diego AFS and became a part of the San Diego AFS.
 
    On or about April 26, 1982 the Union informed Respondent that upon
 completion of the Long Beach-San Diego AFS merger, the Union would
 continue to be represented by one representative for the San Diego AFS
 and one representative for what was formerly the Long Beach AFS.
 
    On or about April 26, 1982 Respondent, through John Tompkins, Sector
 Manager at Respondent's San Diego AFS, notified the Union that upon
 completion of the Long Beach-San Diego AFS merger, Respondent would
 recognize only one representative for the new San Diego AFS.
 Respondent, through Tompkins, advised the Union that he would not
 recognize two sector level representatives for the newly formed San
 Diego AFS, relying on Article 7, Section 3, of the collective bargaining
 agreement between Respondent and FASTA, the former exclusive
 representative.  Individual unit level representatives would continue to
 be recognized as in the past and as described in Article 7, Section 2(d)
 of the FASTA contract.
 
    Article 7 of the FASTA contract, entitled "Rights and
 Responsibilities," provides, in relevant part:
 
          "Section 1.  The Employer agrees to recognize the officers and
       duly designated representatives of the Union as established by
       this agreement.
 
          "Section 2.
 
          (a) The Union may designate one representative and an alternate
       for each field maintenance party office;
 
          (b) The Union may designate up to three (3) representatives and
       up to three (3) alternates in each FAA region for those employees
       whose normal work site is in the regional office;
 
          (c) The Union may designate one representative and an alternate
       for each watch to deal with first and second level supervisors at
       air route traffic control center sectors;
 
          (d) The Union may designate one representative and one
       alternate for each sector field office, radar unit, communication
       unit, data unit, navaids unit, environmental support unit, and
       combination unit, to deal with first and second level supervisors
       at non-air route traffic control center sectors.
 
          "Section 3.  In addition, the Union may designate one sector
       representative at each airway facilities sector.  The designation
       shall be in writing.  At the sector representative's option,
       he/she may designate, in writing, an alternate to act for him/her
       when he/she is absent.  Only the sector representative, or in
       his/her absence the designate alternate, may deal with the sector
       manager and/or his/her designee.  During any meeting where the
       sector manager is accompanied by other management representatives,
       the sector representative may be accompanied by his/her designated
       alternate or other representatives so as to allow the Union the
       same number of participants at the meeting.
 
          "Section 4.  The Union may designate one regional
       representative and one alternate to act in the absence of the
       regional representative. . . .
 
                                .  .  .  .
 
          "Section 15.  Each Union representative or his/her designee
       referred to in Section 2(a), 2(b), and Section 3 shall be granted
       up to eight (8) hours of excused absence to receive orientation on
       the meaning of the Articles of this agreement.
 
          "Section 16.  Union representatives shall be authorized to
       perform and discharge on official time, if otherwise in a duty
       status, the duties and responsibilities which may be assigned to
       them under the terms of this agreement."
 
    Discussion and Conclusions
 
    Counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Union allege
 Respondent violated the Statute when, after Long Beach and San Diego
 were merged into one AFS, Respondent refused to continue to recognize a
 separate representative for each location.  Respondent contends its
 actions were permissible in that:  after the merger of Long Beach and
 San Diego into one AFS, only one AFS remained;  the terms of the FASTA
 agreement were binding on Respondent and PASS;  and pursuant to Article
 7, Section 3 of the FASTA agreement, the Union was limited to one
 representative per sector.
 
    It has been long held under Executive Order 11491, as amended, and
 the Statute that a union has the right to determine its own
 representatives to deal with management.  Internal Revenue Service,
 Omaha District Office, 4 A/SLMR 494 (1974);  Utah Army National Guard,
 Salt Lake City, Utah, 8 A/SLMR 70 (1978);  Philadelphia Naval Shipyard,
 4 FLRA No. 38 (1980);  American Federation of Government Employees,
 AFL-CIO, 4 FLRA No. 39 (1980);  and Department of the Air Force, Air
 Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 10 FLRA
 281 (1982).  While under the Statute the selection of a representative
 is not a matter over which a union is required to bargain with an
 employer, it is nevertheless a permissive subject of bargaining.  Thus,
 in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, supra, the
 Authority found that a union did not violate the Statute when it refused
 to bargain with an employer regarding proposals which generally required
 the union "to designate its representatives from prescribed
 organizational levels and segments when dealing with agency management
 in the performance of certain representational functions." After holding
 the proposal to be outside the union's required scope of bargaining, the
 Authority stated:
 
          "This is not to say, however, that a union may not, if it so
       elects, bargain over such matters.  Indeed, there is merit to
       formalizing the bargaining relationship to the extent that it
       would lead to stability at the workplace and, in fact, many
       collective bargaining agreements in the Federal sector provide for
       a formalized bargaining relationship."
 
    Respondent, relying on the Authority's decision in U.S. Nuclear
 Regulatory Commission, 6 FLRA 18 (1981), urges that the "bargaining
 relationship" was formalized in Article 7, Section 3 of the FASTA
 agreement and that agreement is binding on PASS.  In Nuclear Regulatory
 Commission the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
 represented various of the agency's employees and a negotiated agreement
 gave AFGE the right to use bulletin boards, except for posting material
 which reflected "adversely on individuals, organizations or activities
 of the Federal Government." The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)
 replaced AFGE as the certified collective bargaining agent and
 thereafter the agreement between AFGE and the agency terminated.
 Subsequently, the agency removed from bulletin boards material posted by
 NTEU, citing the restrictions noted above contained in the negotiated
 agreement between AFGE and the agency pertaining to adverse material.
 NTEU filed an unfair labor practice charge and the General Counsel
 issued a complaint contending the agency's actions unilaterally changed
 existing conditions of employment and a past practice.  The Authority
 held:
 
          " . . . the clause relating to bulletin boards in the expired
       agreement created a condition of employment which remains binding
       in its entirely despite the agreement's expiration and the change
       of exclusive representative.  In the Authority's opinion, the
       purposes and policies of the Statute are best effectuated by a
       requirement that existing personnel policies, practices, and
       matters affecting working conditions to continue, to the maximum
       extent possible, upon the expiration of a negotiated agreement,
       absent an express agreement to the contrary or unless modified in
       a manner consistent with the Statute.  Such a result fosters
       stability in Federal labor-management relations, which is an
       underlying purpose of the Statute.  See Department of Defense,
       Department of the Navy, Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville,
       Kentucky, 4 FLRA No. 100 (1980);  and Department of the Air Force,
       35th Combat Support Group (TAC), George Air Force Base,
       California, 4 FLRA No. 5 (1980).  We see no distinction in the
       circumstances of this case where there had been a change in the
       exclusive representative since the expiration of the agreement.
       The stability of the new bargaining relationship is enhanced by a
       required maintenance of existing personnel policies and practices,
       and matters affecting working conditions pending the negotiation
       of a new agreement."
 
    I conclude that under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Respondent and
 PASS were obligated to continue "to the maximum extent possible" the
 practice under Article 7, Section 3 which, like the clause relating to
 bulletin boards in Nuclear Regulatory Commission, created a binding
 condition of employment.
 
    Counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Union would limit
 the application of Nuclear Regulatory Commission by excluding its
 application from any matter concerning a statutory right or the
 statutory relationships between the parties.  I see nothing in Nuclear
 Regulatory Commission which suggests such a distinction.  Indeed, the
 language used by the Authority in that case points to a contrary
 conclusion.  Thus, as cited above, the Authority found in a similar
 situation, that continuing the policies, practices and matters
 concerning working conditions "to the maximum extent possible", fosters
 stability in labor management relations.  Such language is quite broad
 and I discern nothing therein which would indicate the principle would
 not be applicable when the issue is one of honoring a union's
 contractual commitment regarding its "bargaining relationship." While,
 as counsel for the Union points out, this approach may well be different
 from that followed under the National Labor Relations Act, there is no
 indication given in Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the Authority is
 inclined to approach the matter in a manner whereby the express waiver
 of a statutory right concerning a union's relationship with an employer
 would be treated differently from any other contractual term and
 condition of employment.  /3/
 
    However, Respondent herein revised its organizational design after
 PASS became the collective bargaining agent of Respondent's employees by
 changing two independent Sectors into one when the Long Beach AFS and
 San Diego AFS were merged into the San Diego AFS.  Thus, Respondent's
 organizational arrangement on which the "bargaining relationship" was
 originally based substantially changed an underlying condition for the
 Union's representation of employees.  The Authority in Nuclear
 Regulatory Commission did not hold that conditions of employment should
 be maintained without limitation.  Rather, the Authority held that such
 conditions of employment should be continued "to the maximum extent
 possible."
 
    I conclude in the case herein that it is not possible to follow
 literally the language of Article 7, Section 3 of the agreement without
 seriously impairing a right the Union had at the time the personnel
 policies and matters affecting conditions of employment under the FASTA
 agreement were transferred to PASS.  When the FASTA agreement was
 executed the representational arrangement was obviously coextensive with
 Respondent's organizational structure.  Under the FASTA agreement the
 parties clearly envisioned separate representatives for the two
 locations and indeed, in January 1982 PASS notified Respondent that it
 would utilize separate representatives.  However, the merger by
 Respondent destroyed an essential condition directly relating to the
 Union's representational rights.  Since the employer's reorganization no
 longer made it possible to give effect to Article 7, Section 3 and
 respect the Union's representational rights as envisioned under the
 agreement as executed, the Union was thereafter free to insist on its
 representational rights under the Statute relative to how it wished to
 represent employees at the Long Beach and San Diego locations.
 
    Viewed another way, the practice regarding representation, regardless
 of the literal language Article 7, Section 3, was to have separate Union
 representatives at Long Beach and San Diego.  Under Nuclear Regulatory
 Commission, the Authority held that personnel policies, practices and
 matters affecting working conditions should continue in effect after the
 expiration of a contract "to the maximum extent possible," which
 continuance "fosters stability in Federal labor-management relations."
 Thus, the object of continuing to maintain existing personnel policies,
 practices and matters affecting working conditions is to foster
 stability in labor-management relations.  It seems clear that keeping
 available a Union representative to assist in the resolution of disputes
 at each of the Long Beach and San Diego facilities would be more
 conducive to fostering labor-management stability than to adhere to a
 literal interpretation of Article 7, Section 3 of the agreement.
 Approached from this perspective I would conclude that Respondent was
 obligated to continue recognizing separate Union representatives at the
 Long Beach and San Diego facilities "absent an express agreement to the
 contrary or unless modified in a manner consistent with the Statute."
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, supra.
 
    Respondent also suggests, by reference to Department of
 Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Region, 7
 A/SLMR 972 (1977), that the matter of refusing to recognize the Union's
 representative concerns a differing and arguable interpretation of the
 parties' negotiated agreement and, as such, should not be deemed
 violative of the Statute.  However, in the case herein the underlying
 issue concerns the effect of a changed condition on the applicability of
 a prior employment practice and not merely a matter of interpretation of
 the agreement FASTA had with Respondent.  Therefore, I reject
 Respondent's argument.
 
    Accordingly, in the circumstances herein I conclude that Respondent,
 by refusing to recognize separate Union representatives at both the Long
 Beach and San Diego facilities, has violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5)
 of the Statute.
 
    Having found that Respondent has engaged in conduct prohibited by
 section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute, I recommend that the
 Authority issue the following:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2430.20 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the
 Authority hereby orders that the Department of Transportation, Federal
 Aviation Administration, San Diego, California, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Refusing to recognize separate representatives at the Long
       Beach and San Diego facilities designated by the Professional
       Airways Systems Specialists, the exclusive representative of its
       employees.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
       assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute:
 
          (a) Post at its Long Beach and San Diego facilities, 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 Airway Facilities Sector Manager 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 Sector
       Manager shall take reasonable steps to insure that such 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 that Regional Director, Region VIII, Federal
       Labor Relations Authority, 350 South Figueroa Street, 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.
 
                                       SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  March 14, 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