15:0482(103)CA - Puerto Rico Air NG and NFFE Local 1665 -- 1984 FLRAdec CA



[ v15 p482 ]
15:0482(103)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 15 FLRA No. 103
 
 PUERTO RICO AIR NATIONAL 
 GUARD
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1665
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 2-CA-182
                                                   8 FLRA 480
 
                      DECISION AND ORDER UPON REMAND
 
    This proceeding is before the Authority upon remand by the U.S. Court
 of Appeals for the First Circuit.  This case was before the court on
 petition for review of a Decision and Order of the Authority /1/ in
 which the Respondent had been found to have violated section 7116(a)(1)
 and (6) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the
 Statute) by its refusal to cooperate in a final decision and order of
 the Federal Service Impasses Panel (the Panel) /2/ which involved the
 attire to be worn by National Guard technicians when performing civilian
 technician duties.  Inasmuch as the circumstances involved in this case
 are similar in all relevant and material respects to those in Division
 of Military and Naval Affairs, State of New York, Albany, New York, 8
 FLRA 158, remanded sub nom. State of New York v. FLRA, 696 F.2d 202 (2d
 Cir. 1982), the Authority upon remand of State of New York requested,
 and the court ordered, remand of the instant case.  Pursuant to the
 court's remand, the Authority issued a "Notice of Reopened Proceedings
 and Request for Statements of Position" with respect to the issue of
 whether the attire which National Guard technicians wear while engaged
 in their daily duties as civilian technicians is a matter which is
 negotiable only at the election of the agency pursuant to section
 7106(b)(1) of the Statute.
 
    Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, /3/ the Authority makes the following
 determinations.  /4/
 
    The Authority finds that the facts and positions of the parties
 involved herein are substantially similar to those set forth in the
 Authority's Decision and Order Upon Remand issued in Division of
 Military and Naval Affairs, State of New York, Albany, New York, 15 FLRA
 No. 65 (1984), /5/ wherein the Authority found that the determination by
 the National Guard Bureau that technicians must wear the military
 uniform while performing technician duties constitutes management's
 choice of "methods, and means of performing work" within the meaning of
 section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute.  For the reasons expressed in State
 of New York the Authority finds that the failure of the Respondent to
 cooperate in the final decision and order of the Panel did not
 constitute a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (6) of the Statute.
 
                                 ORDER /6/
 
    IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 2-CA-182 be, and it
 hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., August 9, 1984
 
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ Puerto Rico Air National Guard and National Federation of Federal
 Employees, Local 1665, 8 FLRA 480 (1982).
 
 
    /2/ Puerto Rico Air National Guard, Santurce, Puerto Rico, and Local
 1665, National Federation of Federal Employees. Case No. 78 FSIP 62
 (1978).
 
 
    /3/ The National Guard Bureau, on behalf of the Respondent, filed a
 consolidated response which included affidavits from the Adjutant's
 General of several states and the Charging Party filed its statement of
 position.  The General Counsel of the Authority also filed a
 consolidated statement of position in this case.
 
 
    /4/ The General Counsel filed a motion to strike affidavits from the
 Adjutants General of several states which, as indicated above, were
 submitted by the National Guard Bureau on behalf of the Respondent, as
 well as all references thereto