17:0023(11)CA - DOD, NG Bureau, Indiana Air NG, Indianapolis, IN and AFGE Local 3029; DOD, NG Bureau, Indiana Air NG, Indianapolis, IN and AFGE Local 3098 -- 1985 FLRAdec CA



[ v17 p23 ]
17:0023(11)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 17 FLRA No. 11
 
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, NATIONAL GUARD
 BUREAU, INDIANA AIR NATIONAL GUARD
 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3029, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 5-CA-1202
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, NATIONAL GUARD
 BUREAU, INDIANA AIR NATIONAL GUARD
 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3098, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 5-CA-1262
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
 above-entitled consolidated proceeding, granting the General Counsel's
 Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it be ordered to
 cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action.  The
 Respondent 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 /1A/ of
 the Judge 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 only to the extent consistent
 herewith.
 
    In Case No. 5-CA-1262, the Authority adopts the Judge's finding, for
 the reasons he expressed, that the Respondent violated section
 7116(a)(1) and (6) of the Statute by refusing to implement the Decision
 and Order of the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP) in Case No. 80
 FSIP 39(a), requiring the parties to adopt language in their collective
 bargaining agreement concerning "Hours of Work, Travel and Temporary
 Duty, and Grooming Standards." However, contrary to the Judge, the
 Authority finds that the Respondent did not violate section 7116(a)(1)
 and (6) of the Statute by refusing to follow the FSIP Decision requiring
 the parties to adopt language in their collective bargaining agreement
 concerning "Wearing of the Military Uniform, Special Equipment, and
 Maternity Clothing," all of which dealt with the wearing of the military
 uniform.  With regard to similar circumstances in Case No. 5-CA-1202,
 the Authority also finds, contrary to the Judge, that the Respondent's
 refusal to follow the FSIP Decision in Case No. 81 FSIP 63 requiring the
 parties to adopt language in their collective bargaining agreement
 concerning "Technician Uniform and Dress" and to retain language of
 their current contract concerning "Protective Clothing and Equipment" is
 not a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (6) of the Statute.  All of
 the proposals in Case No. 5-CA-1202 deal with the wearing of the
 military uniform.
 
    Subsequent to the issuance of the Judge's Decision in these two
 cases, the Authority issued its Decision and Order upon Remand in
 Division of Military and Naval Affairs, State of New York, Albany, New
 York, 15 FLRA No. 65 (1984), petition for review filed, New York
 Council, Association of Civilian Technicians v. FLRA, No. 84-4128 (2nd
 Cir. Sept. 11, 1984), in which it held 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, and thus, while this requirement may be
 bargained at the election of the agency, it is not within the duty to
 bargain.  Consequently, the Authority found that the failure of the
 Respondents to cooperate in the final Decision and Order of the Panel
 was not violative of section 7116(a)(1) and (6) of the Statute.  Based
 on this rationale as expressed more fully in Division of Military and
 Naval Affairs, State of New York, the Authority finds that the failure
 in these cases of the Respondent, Indiana Air National Guard, to comply
 with the final Decisions and Orders of the Federal Service Impasses
 Panel dealing with the wearing of the military uniform did not
 constitute a violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (6) of the
 Statute.  Accordingly, the allegations in these cases in that regard
 shall be dismissed.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered that the Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau,
 Indiana Air National Guard, Indianapolis, Indiana shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Failing or refusing to cooperate in and comply with the Decision
 and Order of the Federal Service Impasses Panel in Indiana Air National
 Guard, Hulman Field, Terre Haute, Indiana, and Local 3098, American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 80 FSIP 39(a)
 (1981), regarding "Hours of Work, Travel and Temporary Duty, and
 Grooming Standards."
 
    (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 Statute:
 
    (a) Comply with the Decision and Order of the Federal Service
 Impasses Panel in 80 FSIP 39(a) regarding "Hours of Work, Travel and
 Temporary Duty, and Grooming Standards."
 
    (b) Post at its facilities wherever 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 the Commanding General, Indiana Air National Guard, or his
 designee, and shall be posted 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 insure that such Notices are not altered, defaced or covered by
 any other material.
 
    (c) 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 FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 5-CA-1202 and
 that portion of the complaint dealing with proposals on the wearing of
 the military uniform in Case No. 5-CA-1262 be, and they hereby are,
 dismissed.  
 
 Issued, Washington, D.C., February 26, 1985
 
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Chairman
                                       William J. McGinnis Jr., 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 cooperate in and comply with the Decision and
 Order of the Federal Service Impasses Panel in Indiana Air National
 Guard, Hulman Field, Terre Haute, Indiana, and Local 3098, American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Case No. 80 FSIP 39(a)
 (1981), regarding "Hours of Work, Travel and Temporary Duty, and
 Grooming Standards." WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
 with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights
 assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.  WE
 WILL comply with the Decision and Order of the Federal Service Impasses
 Panel in 80 FSIP 39(a) regarding "Hours of Work, Travel and Temporary
 Duty, and Grooming Standards."
                                       . . . (Agency or Activity)
 
 Dated:  . . .  By:  (Signature) (Title) 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 1359-A, 175
 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and whose telephone number
 is:  (312) 353-6306.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
                                       Case No. 5-CA-1202
                                       Case No. 5-CA-1262
 
 Claire R. Morrison, Esq.
       For General Counsel of FLRA
 
 Michael A. Kiefer, Esq.
       For Respondent
 
 Before:  SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
       Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This is a proceeding arising under the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute (hereinafter called the Statute), 92
 Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.
 
    On June 22, 1981 a charge was filed in Case No. 5-CA-1202 by American
 Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 3029, AFL-CIO (herein
 called AFGE Local 3029) against Department of Defense, National Guard
 Bureau, Indiana Air National Guard, Indianapolis, Indiana, (herein
 called National Guard and/or Respondent) alleging that Respondent
 violated Sections 7116(a)(1), (2), (5), (6) and (8) of the Statute.  The
 above described charge was amended on July 27, 1981 alleging violation
 of Section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (6) of the Statute.  On August 10, 1981
 American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 3098, AFL-CIO
 (hereinafter called AFGE Local 3098) a charge was filed in Case No.
 5-CA-1262 against National Guard alleging that Respondent violated
 Section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (6) of the Statute.  On August 28, 1981,
 based upon the foregoing, the General Counsel of the Federal Labor
 Relations Authority (FLRA), by the Director for Region 5, issued an
 Order Consolidating Cases, Complaint and Notice of Hearing alleging that
 Respondent violated Section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (6) of the Statute
 because Respondent failed and refused to bargain in good faith
 concerning the issue of civilian attire and protective clothing and
 equipment for bargaining unit employees and because Respondent failed
 and refused to cooperate in the impasse procedures and decision.  On
 September 28, 1981 Respondent filed a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss and
 Answer and on October 2, 1981 filed an Amended Consolidated Motion to
 Dismiss and Answer.  National Guard's Answer admitted certain matters
 but denied that Respondent had violated the Statute.  The General
 Counsel of FLRA filed a Response and Opposition to Respondent's Amended
 Motion to Dismiss and General Counsel's Motion For Official Notice.
 Respondent then filed a reply to this "Response" of the FLRA General
 Counsel.  In addition to the Motion to Dismiss and Answer and the
 Amended Consolidated Motion to Dismiss and Answer, which was forwarded
 to the office of Administrative Law Judges, Respondent filed a Motion to
 Compel Interrogatories, directed to Howard Solomon, Executive Director
 of the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP);  Motion for Depositions to
 be taken of every member of FSIP;  and Petition to Revoke Subpena which
 had been served upon Alfred Ahner, Adjutant General of Indiana.  The
 General Counsel filed Oppositions to each of these Motions and
 Petitions.  All said matters will be disposed of later in this Decision.
  The General Counsel for the FLRA filed a Motion For Summary Judgment on
 October 7, 1981 and on November 27, 1981 Respondent filed Respondent
 Indiana Air National Guard's Memorandum in Opposition to the General
 Counsel's Motion For Summary Judgment and Statement of Material Facts.
 
    It has been recognized that summary judgment procedures and motion to
 dismiss are appropriate procedures under the Statute to avoid useless,
 expensive and time consuming trials where there are no genuine issues of
 material fact to be tried.  State of Nevada National Guard, 7 FLRA No.
 37 (1981) (hereinafter called the Nevada National Guard Case).  Upon
 examination the General Counsel's Motion For Summary Judgment and
 Respondent's Response and Respondent's Amended Consolidated Motion to
 Dismiss and the General Counsel's Response, it appears that there are no
 genuine issues of material fact /1/ and only legal issues are involved.
 All parties have had an opportunity to present written argument
 concerning such legal issues.
 
    General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted /2/
 in accordance with the following:
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    At all times material herein, Respondent maintained a facility in
 Fort Wayne, Indiana (hereinafter called the Fort Wayne Activity) and a
 facility in Terre Haute, Indiana (hereinafter called the Terre Haute
 Activity).  At all times material herein National Guard has recognized
 AFGE Local 3029 as the exclusive collective bargaining representative
 for a unit that includes all federally paid air technicians at the Fort
 Wayne Activity and has recognized AFGE Local 3098 as the exclusive
 collective bargaining representative for a unit that includes all
 employees of the National Guard at the Terre Haute Activity.
 
    At all times material herein, Major General Alfred Ahner, Adjutant
 General;  Lt. Col. Ronald Beretta, Personnel Management Specialist;
 Major William V. Miller, Assistant Aircraft Maintenance Officer;  and
 Lt. Col. Francis D. Cramer, Base Services Officer, have been supervisors
 and/or agents of the National Guard.
 
    On May 20, 1980, Robert J. Brendt, on behalf of AFGE Local 3029 and
 Major General Alfred A. Ahner and Col. Dale Smiley, on behalf of the
 National Guard, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for
 Negotiation of a Collective Bargaining Agreement.  The Memorandum, which
 was effective upon signing, provided the ground rules for negotiating
 the collective bargaining agreement including a provision that in the
 event an impasse was reached and mediation efforts were unsuccessful,
 "either party may request that the impasse be submitted to the Federal
 Service Impasses Panel subject to the regulations of the Panel . . . "
 On March 11, 1981 Martin B. Smith, on behalf of AFGE Local 3029
 submitted a Request for Assistance to FSIP with respect to the issue of
 technician uniform and dress and on a related issue of protective
 clothing and equipment.
 
    On May 22, 1981 FSIP, through its Executive Director Howard Solomon,
 issued a Decision and Order in State of Indiana, Indiana Air National
 Guard, Case No. 81 FSIP 63, directing National Guard to adopt the AFGE
 Local 3029's proposal on technician uniform and dress and directing the
 parties to withdraw their proposals regarding protective clothing and
 equipment and retain the language of their current contract.  Respondent
 has not complied with Decision and Order of FSIP issued in Case No. 81
 FSIP 63.
 
    On February 15, 1978, Larry K. Austin and David D. Smith, on behalf
 of AFGE Local 3098, and Major General Alfred F. Ahner and Col. Frank
 Hettlinger, on behalf of the National Guard, entered into a Memorandum
 of Understanding for Negotiation of a Collective Bargaining Agreement,
 which was effective upon signing.  This Memorandum provided in the event
 of an impasse and mediation efforts were not successful, "either party
 may request that the impasse be submitted to the Federal Service
 Impasses Panel subject to the regulations of the Panel." On May 28,
 1980, Larry Austin, on behalf of the AFGE Local 3098, submitted a
 Request for Assistance to FSIP in which he requested the assistance of
 FSIP on several issues, including, but not limited to, hours of work,
 travel and temporary duty, grooming standards, wearing of the military
 uniform, special equipment, and maternity clothing.  On July 8, 1980,
 FSIP, in Case No. 80 FSIP 39, informed AFGE Local 3098 that FSIP was
 declining to assert jurisdiction inasmuch as it had been determined that
 voluntary efforts to reach settlement had not been exhausted.  FSIP
 directed that negotiations should be resumed with medication assistance
 as necessary.  In or about March 1981, AFGE Local 3098 submitted a
 memorandum to the FSIP requesting the assistance on several issues,
 including hours of work, travel and temporary duty, grooming standards,
 wearing of the military uniform, special equipment and maternity
 clothing.
 
    On July 9, 1981, the FSIP issued its Decision and Order on the issues
 presented to it by AFGE Local 3098 in Indiana Air National Guard, Hulman
 Field, Case No. 80 FSIP 39(a).  On July 22, 1981, AFGE Local 3098, by
 means of a memorandum, requested that Respondent set a date for a
 meeting for the settlement of the items decided by the FSIP in Case No.
 80 FSIP 39(a).  On August 5, 1981, National Guard, by its agent, Lt.
 Col. Francis D. Cramer, wrote a memorandum to the Union stating that
 Respondent considered the FSIP Decision and Order in Case No. 80 FSIP
 39(a) to be in error regarding its decision on uniform and travel
 issues.  Respondent further stated that it was indefinitely postponing
 further contract negotiations with AFGE, Local 3098.  National Guard has
 at no time complied with the FSIP Decision and Order issued by in Case
 No. 80 FSIP 39(a).
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the subject complaint because
 FSIP and FLRA "have no jurisdiction over the Indiana Air National Guard
 and further, for the reason that Consolidated Complaint fails to name
 the proper party respondent, an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
 7103(a)(3)." National Guard's contentions that FSIP and FLRA have no
 jurisdiction over National Guard and that National Guard is not an
 agency subject to the Statute are rejected.  FSIP and FLRA have
 jurisdiction over National Guard and the Air Technicians and other
 employees and National Guard clearly is an agency subject to the
 requirements of the Statute.  State of California National Guard Case, 8
 FLRA No. 11 (1982) (hereinafter called the California National Guard
 Case;  and Nevada National Guard Case, supra and Division of Military
 and Naval Affairs, State of New York, 8 FLRA No. 33 (1982) (hereinafter
 called the New York Case.)
 
    In relation to Respondent's contention that the wrong party
 Respondent was named in the subject cases, National Guard seems to urge
 that the parties to the two Memoranda of Understanding are the two AFGE
 Locals, respectively, and Alfred F. Ahner, the Adjutant General, State
 of Indiana.  Respondent urges that statutorily the air technicians are
 employed by the Adjutant General and that the Adjutant General was the
 party dealing with the two AFGE Locals and that he was somehow dealing
 as an individual, and not as an agent of the National Guard.  Thus,
 Respondent disputes the legal conclusion that the memoranda were between
 National Guard and the two respective AFGE locals.  It must be noted
 that Respondent admitted that Adjutant General Ahner was a supervisor
 and/or agent of the National Guard and that Respondent has recognized
 both AFGE Locals as the exclusive collective bargaining representatives
 for its respective activities.  Additionally, Adjutant General Ahner
 signed the two memoranda over the title "Major General, Ind. ARNG, the
 Adjutant General", and they were each signed by the local in "ANG, Air
 Commander." In light of all of the foregoing it is concluded that the
 two memoranda were between Respondent and the respective AFGE local and
 that National Guard was the appropriately named Respondent.  Cf. State
 of California National Guard Case, supra;  and Nevada National Guard
 Case, supra.  In any event, as is noted above the AFGE locals were the
 collective bargaining representatives of the air technicians employed by
 Respondent and it was these AFGE locals that requested FSIP's assistance
 with respect to collective bargaining.  The collective bargaining
 relationship was between the AFGE locals and Respondent, FSIP's
 Decisions and Orders ran to Respondent and thus obliged Respondent to
 act.
 
    Respondent similarly urges that Decisions and Orders issued by FSIP
 in Cases Nos. 80 FSIP No. 39(a) and 81 FSIP No. 63 were beyond the
 authority granted FSIP and were inconsistent with Chapter 74 Titles,
 United States Code.  Such contentions have been rejected by the FLRA
 California National Guard Case, supra;  Nevada National Guard Case,
 supra;  and New York Case, supra.
 
    Finally, Respondent urges that the Motion For Summary Judgment should
 be denied because Respondent has not completed its discovery.
 Respondent urges that the discovery would disclose issues of fact which
 would justify setting aside the FSIP award.  Respondent then states in
 its Opposition that these facts are unknown to the Respondent, but are
 solely within the knowledge of the FSIP members, the objects of
 discovery procedures.
 
    The allegedly disputed facts involve two basic assertions.  The first
 deals with whether the FSIP Decisions and Orders were legally and
 statutory sufficient.  It is concluded that FLRA has determined that
 FSIP Decisions and Orders similar to the two involved in the subject
 case are legally and statutory sufficient.  California National Guard
 Case, supra;  Nevada National Guard Case, supra;  and New York Case,
 supra.  Respondent also alleges that the action of FSIP resulted from
 bias and prejudice.  It is now clear that the propriety of FSIP
 Decisions are reviewable in this proceeding.  Nevada National Guard
 Case, supra.  The extent of reviewability of the FSIP Decisions was
 discussed at length by Judge Arrigo in his Decision in the New York
 Case, supra, but FLRA in its Decision chose specifically not to adopt
 Judge Arrigo's reasoning and not to explicate the scope of review of
 FSIP Decisions.  However, in light of the following, it is clear that
 whatever the scope of review of FSIP Decisions, the Decisions in
 question would 0e affirmed.  New York Case, supra.  Respondent contends
 that, if permitted to pursue discovery with respect to the members of
 FSIP, facts would be elicited which would establish bias and prejudice
 on the part of FSIP.  In support of its contention that discovery would
 successfully produce such evidence of bias and prejudice Respondent
 relies solely on an affidavit of Milton Thomas Gerock, a Major in the
 North Carolina Air National Guard.  Maj. Gerock attended a labor
 relations course in August of 1979 at which FSIP Member Beverly K.
 Schaffer spoke.  According to Maj. Gerock FSIP member Schaffer allegedly
 stated that "all but a very few of the matters considered by FSIP, to
 that point, concerned the wearing of the military uniform by Members of
 the National Guard.  She then turned to me and said, in a tone of
 exasperation, that FSIP had decided the uniform issue once and for all
 and that if any other group to pursue this issue would be a waste of
 fine . . . ." It is concluded that FSIP Member Schaffer's statement is
 very vague and ambiguous and is not sufficient to establish bias and
 prejudice on her part or that of FSIP and is not sufficient to permit
 Respondent to engage in a fishing expedition in order to try to discover
 if there is any evidence extant to sustain its allegation of bias and
 prejudice.  Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent's allegation is
 too conjectural and therefore, there is no substantial issue of material
 fact.  /3/
 
    Finally, based on the FLRA's decisions in the California National
 Guard Case, supra, the New York Case, supra, the Nevada National Guard
 Case, supra, and the rational therein, and because Respondent has not
 shown any legal justification for its non-compliance with the two FSIP
 Decisions, it is concluded that Respondent's failure to comply with the
 Decisions and Orders of FSIP in Cases No. 81 FSIP 63 and 80 FSIP 39(a)
 constitutes violations of Sections 7116(a)(1) and (6) of the Statute and
 therefore General Counsel of the FLRA's Motion For Summary Judgment is
 granted and Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is denied.  In view of these
 findings it is unnecessary to pass upon whether the Respondent's conduct
 also violated Sections 7116(a)(5) of the Statute.
 
    Having found and concluded that Respondent violated Section
 7116(a)(6) and (1) 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, it is
 hereby ordered that the Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau,
 Indiana Air National Guard shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Failing and refusing to comply and cooperate with Decisions
       and Orders of the Federal Service Impasses Panel issued in Case
       Nos. 80 FSIP 39(a) and 81 FSIP 63.
 
          (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 carry out the
 purposes and policies of Executive Order 11491, as amended, and the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute:
 
          (a) Comply and cooperate forthwith with Decisions and Orders of
       the Federal Service Impasses Panel issued in Case Nos. 80 FSIP
       39(a) and 81 FSIP 63.
 
          (b) Post at its facilities copies of the attached Notice marked
       Appendix on Forms to be furnished by the Authority.  Upon receipt
       of such forms, they shall be signed by the Commanding General,
       Indiana Air National Guard, 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 Commanding General shall
       take reasonable steps to insure that such Notices are not altered,
       defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
          (c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
       Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region 5, 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:  March 8, 1982
         Washington, D.C.
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
  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 and refuse to comply with Decisions and Orders of the
 Federal Service Impasses Panel issued in Case Nos. 80 FSIP 39(a) and 81
 FSIP 63.  WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner interfere with,
 restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights
 assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.  WE
 WILL comply and cooperate forthwith with Decisions and Orders of the
 Federal Service Impasses Panel issued in Case Nos. 80 FSIP 39(a) and 81
 FSIP 63, and will otherwise cooperate in impasses procedures and
 decisions as required by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 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,
 Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region Five, whose add