23:0605(83)CA - Air Force, Eielson AFB, AK and AFGE Local 1836 -- 1986 FLRAdec CA



[ v23 p605 ]
23:0605(83)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 23 FLRA No. 83
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 
 EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, ALASKA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1836, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 9-CA-30009
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This case is before the Authority on exceptions filed by the
 Respondent to the attached Decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
 The Charging Party (the Union) has filed an opposition.  The case
 concerns whether the Respondent failed and refused to bargain in
 violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by terminating
 patronage privileges for civilian employees at the Base Exchange and
 concessions at Eielson Air Force Base in September 1982.
 
    We concur with the Judge's conclusion that the Respondent violated
 the Statute as alleged, and his recommended remedy, with modified
 reasoning.
 
                              II.  Background
 
    The Respondent's facility, Eielson Air Force Base (the Base), is
 located in the middle of Alaska, about 26 miles east/southeast of
 Fairbanks and 300 miles from the Canadian border.  In January 1983 its
 workforce included about 3000 military personnel and about 350 civilian
 employees.  The Union is the exclusive representative for about 230 of
 the Respondent's civilian employees, including nonappropriated fund
 employees.
 
    As found by the Judge, for about 17 years prior to 1982, the
 Respondent had a practice of granting its civilian employees patronage
 privileges at the Base Exchange (including the main exchange,
 groceteria, gas station, and furniture store) and Base concessions
 (including a beauty shop, barber shop, laundromat, and movie theater).
 The privileges were extended to employees who lived off-base and more
 than 13 miles from Fairbanks (more than halfway toward the Base along
 the main highway -- the "Old Richardson Highway" -- between the Base and
 Fairbanks).
 
    According to the record, the Respondent started the practice of
 granting the Exchange and concession privileges to civilian employees
 because there were few if any shopping and service facilities then
 available to employees living off-base, in the vicinity of the Base.
 Although these facilities were present in Fairbanks, the roads between
 Fairbanks and the vicinity of the Base were difficult and especially
 dangerous for travel in winter months.  For these reasons, it was
 difficult for employees at the Base to maintain adequate standards of
 living without the Exchange and concession privileges.  The Respondent
 granted the privileges for these reasons in order to maintain a
 sufficient and stable civilian force and routinely requested of the
 Alaskan Air Command that the privileges be continued for these reasons.
 The existence of these privileges had been described in an Alaskan Air
 Command pamphlet which purported to provide "prospective employees with
 information about the Air Force mission, and living and working
 conditions in Alaska."
 
    On April 22, 1981, the Respondent notified the Union that action had
 been initiated to extend Exchange privileges through December 31, and
 that negotiations should begin for an extension beyond that date.  The
 Union was asked for its position on continuing or changing the method of
 extending Exchange privileges.  The Union requested negotiations with
 respect to the privileges, but did not submit a written position.  At a
 subsequent negotiation session in December 1981, covering a range of
 other matters, the Respondent offered its reasons for terminating the
 Exchange privileges and the Union offered its reasons for continuing the
 established past practice.  At the conclusion of this meeting the
 parties agreed to this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU):
 
          The agency determination to withdraw limited Exchange
       Privileges to civilian employees is based upon compelling need to
       avoid undue impairment to military personnel resulting from
       programmed increases due to mission change.  However, the parties
       agree that the present convenience should continue until such time
       that the agency's study shows the adverse impact and affords the
       Union opportunity to accept or reject the study.
 
    The Respondent's study of the situation, once completed, was provided
 to the Union in June 1982, with notice that the Exchange privileges
 would end on July 30, 1982.  The study concluded that the termination of
 the Exchange privileges was necessary to ensure adequate service for
 military personnel and because substitute facilities were available
 off-base -- primarily at North Pole, Alaska, 13 miles toward Fairbanks
 on the Richardson Highway.  The Union advised the Respondent that it
 disagreed with the study and requested negotiations.
 
    The parties met in late July 1982.  The Union explained its
 objections to the study and the termination of the Exchange privileges,
 and reasserted its bargaining rights.  The Respondent rejected the
 bargaining request, taking the position it had no duty to bargain.  The
 Respondent asserted that the parties had already agreed, under the MOU
 of December 1981, that the termination of the Exchange privileges was
 nonnegotiable, because the Exchange privileges did not concern
 conditions of employment.  The Respondent stated that the Exchange
 privileges would end on July 30, 1982.  The Respondent assured the Union
 that it would coordinate the procedures used for the change and that the
 concession privileges would continue.
 
    In August 1982, the Respondent advised the Union that the concession
 privileges would also be terminated and changed the effective date from
 July 30 to September 30, 1982.  The Respondent terminated the Exchange
 and concession privileges in September 1982.
 
    The Judge decided that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and
 (5) of the Statute as alleged in the complaint.  He concluded that the
 Exchange and concession privileges concerned conditions of employment of
 the employees under section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute.  He also
 concluded that negotiations on the privileges were not barred by a
 "compelling need" for agency regulations -- Department of Defense
 Directives and Department of the Air Force Regulations -- under section
 7117 of the Statute.  To remedy the violation, he recommended that the
 Respondent be ordered to reinstate the privileges it terminated in
 September 1982 and to negotiate over the terminations as requested by
 the Union.
 
                      III.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Respondent argues that the continuation of the Exchange and
 concession privileges did not concern conditions of employment under
 section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute.  It argues that a compelling need
 exists for Agency regulations, Department of Defense Directives and Air
 Force Regulations, so as to bar negotiations on the privileges at the
 level of exclusive recognition and that the Judge erred in deciding
 these compelling need issues under section 7117 of the Statute in the
 unfair labor practice proceeding.  For these reasons the Respondent
 argues that it was not obligated to negotiate on the continuation of the
 privileges.  Assuming that it was obligated to negotiate on these
 matters, the Respondent argues that it discussed the matters with the
 Union so as to fulfill its duty to negotiate.  The Union supports the
 Judge's decision.
 
                               IV.  Analysis
 
        A.  Did the termination of the employees' privileges at the
 
                Base Exchange and concessions concern the employees'
 
                conditions of employment under section 7103(a)(14) of
 
                the Statute?
 
    In Antilles Consolidated Education Association and Antilles
 Consolidated School System, 22 FLRA No. 23 (1986), we explained the two
 basic factors which determine whether a matter proposed for negotiations
 involves a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees:
 
          (1) Whether the matter proposed to be bargained pertains to
       bargaining unit employees;  and
 
          (2) The nature and extent of the effect of the matter proposed
       to be bargained on working conditions of those employees.
 
    Applying the Antilles analysis to the matters at issue in this case,
 it is apparent that the first factor is satisfied.  The Union has sought
 negotiations on the terminations of existing privileges for employees it
 represents in a unit of exclusive recognition.
 
    Regarding the second factor, while the privileges here are directly
 analogous to the privileges in Antilles, the circumstances of the
 privileges in this case differ from the circumstances in Antilles.  In
 Antilles, the Union sought to create new privileges at the agency's
 retail, recreational, and medical facilities.  The Union provided no
 evidence and the record failed to reveal how employees' access to the
 facilities was related to the employees' working conditions.  For these
 reasons, in Antilles, we held that the privileges were not concerned
 with the employees' conditions of employment so as to be within the
 agency's duty to bargain.
 
    The privileges in this case had been continued over a long period of
 time and had been described as a part of "living and working conditions
 in Alaska." They were established by the Respondent because they were
 necessary in order to ensure that employees could maintain adequate
 living conditions in connection with their employment and so that the
 Respondent could maintain a sufficient and stable civilian workforce.
 The hearing testimony shows that some employees have located their homes
 along the Old Richardson Highway southeast of the Base toward the
 Canadian border.  Although commercial facilities have been developed at
 North Pole, Alaska, 13 miles northwest of the Base, these employees' use
 of the commercial facilities would require regular commuting distances
 -- for routine household necessities -- of at least 26 miles round trip,
 in winter conditions which are difficult and dangerous.
 
    On the basis of these facts and circumstances, the second factor in
 the test set forth in Antilles has been met.  The matter proposed to be
 bargained, the extent and manner in which the Exchange and concession
 privileges will be terminated, concerns conditions of employment under
 section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute.  See Department of the Army, Dugway
 Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah, 23 FLRA No. 80 (1986);  U.S. Department of
 Justice, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 14 FLRA 578
 (1984).
 
           B.  Do Agency regulations for which a compelling need
 
                exists bar negotiations on the termination of the
 
                privileges?
 
    In Antilles and Overseas Education Association, Inc. and Department
 of Defense, Office of Dependents Schools, 22 FLRA No. 34 (1986) (Union
 Proposal 5), petition for review filed, Overseas Education Association
 v. FLRA, No. 86-1491 (D.C. Cir. September 3, 1986), the agencies argued
 that the parties could not negotiate the matters at issue because
 control over the subject matter had not been delegated to management
 officials at the level of bargaining.  The Respondent offers essentially
 the same argument in this case.  As we explained in Antilles and
 reiterated in Office of Dependents Schools, an agency may not foreclose
 bargaining on an otherwise negotiable matter because authority does not
 reside at the level of exclusive recognition.
 
    Under section 7114(b)(2) of the Statute, an agency is obligated to
 provide representatives at the level of bargaining who are authorized to
 negotiate and enter into agreements on all matters within the scope of
 negotiations.  For example, American Federation of Government Employees,
 AFL-CIO, Local 1409 and U.S. Army Adjutant General, Publications Center,
 Baltimore, Maryland, 18 FLRA No. 68 (1985).  This statutory obligation
 to provide authorized representatives for negotiations cannot be
 obviated by an agency's internal regulations.  In contrast, the matters
 which such authorized representatives can negotiate, that is, the scope
 of bargaining at the level of negotiations, may be limited by internal
 regulations for which a compelling need exists under section 7117 of the
 Statute.  See, for example, National Federation of Federal Employees,
 Local 1429 and U.S. Department of the Army, Letterkenny Army Depot, 23
 FLRA No. 13 (1986) (the agency regulation at issue set the number of
 hours which local management could authorize for an excused absence).
 
    The Respondent's argument that the Judge could not decide whether a
 compelling need exists for its regulations is inapposite because the
 argument concerns the organizational level to which authority had been
 delegated rather than compelling need.  Even assuming that this argument
 was relevant to this case, the position urged by the Respondent is
 inconsistent with established Authority precedent.  In Defense Logistics
 Agency (Cameron Station, Virginia), 12 FLRA 412 (1983), affirmed sub
 nom. Defense Logistics Agency v. FLRA, 754 F.2d 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1985),
 the Authority held that compelling need determinations may appropriately
 be decided in an unfair labor practice proceeding.  But see United
 States Army Engineer Center v. FLRA, 762 F.2d 409 (4th Cir. 1985),
 reversing U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Belvoir, 13 FLRA 707
 (1984).  We reaffirmed this conclusion with further reasoning in
 Aberdeen Proving Ground, Department of the Army, 21 FLRA No. 100 (1986),
 petition for review filed Aberdeen Proving Ground, Department of the
 Army v. FLRA, No. 86-2577 (4th Cir. June 26, 1986).
 
           C.  Does the Respondent fulfill its duty to bargain?
 
    As found by the Judge, the Respondent discussed its decision to
 terminate the Exchange privileges with the Union in December 1981 and
 July 1982.  However, the Respondent rejected the Union's request for
 negotiations stating, at all times, that it would not negotiate on the
 termination of the privileges.  Agreeing with these findings of the
 Judge and his finding that the Respondent's interpretation of the
 parties' MOU of December 1981 is untenable, we concur with his
 conclusion that the Respondent failed to fulfill its statutory duty to
 bargain.
 
                          V.  Conclusion;  remedy
 
    The termination of the Exchange and concession privileges at issue in
 this case concerned conditions of employment of employees under section
 7103(a)(14) of the Statute.  Agency regulations do not bar negotiations
 on the privileges by the Respondent at the level of exclusive
 recognition.  The Respondent failed to fulfill its duty to bargain on
 these matters.  Accordingly, we conclude that the Respondent violated
 section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute as alleged in the complaint.
 
    The Authority has previously determined that where management has
 made a unilateral change in a negotiable term and condition of
 employment, effectuation of the purposes and policies of the Statute
 requires imposition of status quo ante remedies, absent special
 circumstances, in order not to render meaningless the mutual obligation
 to negotiate.  Veterans Administration, West Los Angeles Medical Center,
 Los Angeles, California, 23 FLRA No. 37 (1986) (n.3 and accompanying
 text).  The Respondent has not excepted to the Judge's recommended
 status quo ante remedy and it has not shown that special circumstances
 exist so as to negate the imposition of such a remedy.  In these
 circumstances we decide that a status quo ante remedy is warranted.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
 that the Department of the Air Force, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska,
 shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Unilaterally terminating Exchange and concession privileges at
 Eielson Air Force Base for employees represented by the American
 Federation of Government Employees, Local 1836, AFL-CIO, without first
 providing the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1836,
 AFL-CIO, with the opportunity to negotiate these changes.
 
    (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 to effectuate the purposes
 and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute:
 
    (a) Restore the Exchange and concession privileges for employees
 represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 1836, AFL-CIO, which existed prior to the termination of the privileges
 in September 1982.
 
    (b) Notify and, upon request, negotiate with the American Federation
 of Government Employees, Local 1836, AFL-CIO, concerning any change in
 Exchange and concession privileges for employees represented by the
 American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1836, AFL-CIO.
 
    (c) Post at its facility 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 Commander, Eielson Air Force
 Base, Alaska, 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.
 
    (d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region
 IX, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order, as to what
 steps have been taken to comply.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., October 16, 1986.
 
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       /s/ Jean McKee,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 unilaterally terminate the Exchange and concession
 privileges at Eielson Air Force Base for employees represented by the
 American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1836, AFL-CIO,
 without first affording the American Federation of Government Employees,
 Local 1836, AFL-CIO, with the opportunity to negotiate these changes.
 
    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 restore the Exchange and concession privileges for employees
 represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 1836, AFL-CIO, which existed prior to the termination of the privileges
 in September 1982.
 
    WE WILL notify and, upon request, negotiate with the American
 Federation of Government Employees, Local 1836, AFL-CIO, concerning any
 change in Exchange and concession privileges for employees represented
 by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1836, AFL-CIO.
                                       (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 IX, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address
 is:  901 Market Street, Suite 220, San Francisco, CA 94103-9991, and
 whose telephone number is:  (415) 995-5000.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Case No. 9-CA-30009
 
    DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, ALASKA
         Respondent
 
                                    and
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1836,
 AFL-CIO
         Charging Party
 
    Major Charles L. Brower, Esquire
       For the Respondent
 
    Stefanie Arthur, Esquire
       For the General Counsel, FLRA
 
    Before:  GARVIN LEE OLIVER
       Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This decision concerns an unfair labor practice complaint issued by
 the Regional Director, Region IX, Federal Labor Relations Authority, San
 Francisco, California against the Department of the Air Force, Eielson
 Air Force Base, Alaska (Respondent), based on charges filed by the
 American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1836, AFL-CIO
 (Charging Party or Union).  The complaint alleged, in substance, that
 Respondent violated sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. Section 7101 et seq. (the
 Statute), by refusing to negotiate with the Union regarding the
 Respondent's decision to discontinue limited base exchange privileges
 enjoyed by certain employees in the bargaining unit represented by the
 Union and by unilaterally discontinuing such privileges.  /1/
 Respondent's answer, or stipulation, admitted the jurisdictional
 allegations relating to the Respondent, Charging Party, and the filing
 of the charges, but denied any violation of the Statute.
 
    A hearing was held in Fairbanks, Alaska.  The Respondent, and the
 General Counsel, FLRA were represented by counsel and afforded full
 opportunity to be heard, adduce relevant evidence, examine and
 cross-examine witnesses, and file post-hearing briefs.  The Respondent
 and the General Counsel filed helpful briefs, and the proposed findings
 have been adopted in whole or in substance where found supported by the
 record as a whole.  Based on the entire record, /2/ including my
 observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following
 findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
               Congressional Interest in Military Exchanges
 
    Military exchanges are essential to the morale and esprit de corps of
 military personnel.  They insure that adequate supplies of household
 necessities are available at reasonable rates to persons in the military
 service who are unable to select the location in the world where they
 perform their duties.  /3/ Consequently, various subcommittees of the
 U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee (HASC) have, over
 the years, shown considerable concern about the use of military exchange
 by unauthorized patrons.  (R.Ex. 9, p. 12344).
 
    In consonance with the recommendations of a subcommittee of the HASC,
 and in order to curb abuses found by that subcommittee, the military
 services jointly issued in 1949 the Armed Services Exchange Regulations
 (ASER), forerunner of the current Department of Defense Directive (DODD)
 1330.9 (R.Ex. 9, p. 12349).  The subcommittee, then as today, was
 especially interested in establishing uniform guidelines under which all
 armed forces exchanges would operate (R.Ex. 9, pp. 12349-50).
 
    In 1957 a HASC subcommittee expressed considerable concern regarding
 the seemingly liberal interpretation prevalent in the services in
 granting deviations from both the list of authorized exchange resale
 items and the list of authorized exchange patrons (R.Ex. 9, p. 12355,
 3rd and 7th paragraphs).  Similarly, in 1970 a HASC subcommittee
 concluded that with respect to exchange operations, the Office of the
 Secretary of Defense (OSD) was providing too little direct policy
 determination and very limited surveillance (R.Ex. 9, p. 12354).
 Consequently, pursuant to the recommendations of the subcommittee, the
 ASER was amended to require that all deviations from the regulations be
 approved by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve
 Affairs) and the HASC itself (R.Ex. 9, p. 12356;  R.Ex. 10, p. 15162;
 and R.Ex. 11, p. 16635, last partial paragraph).
 
    Finally, in 1972 yet another HASC subcommittee considered, among
 other things, the issue of deviations from the ASER.  The subcommittee
 concluded,
 
          (T)he office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (MRA) has
       clearly established the desirable philosophy of complete
       justification of each deviation;  and, . . . the services are now
       properly aware of the desires of the subcommittee and OSD
       regarding stringent application of deviation authorizations.  In
       view of the effective action taken, this subcommittee concludes
       that approval of each deviation by the House Armed Services
       Committee is no longer required.
 
          Accordingly, the subcommittee recommends the previous authority
       of the service Secretaries to authorize deviations, without
       further delegation, should be restored.  (R.Ex. 11, p. 16636).
 
                              The Regulations
 
    Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 1400.6, dated February 15,
 1980, entitled, "DOD Civilian Employees in Overseas Areas," (R.Ex. 7),
 applies to civilian employees in Alaska;  DODD 1330.9, dated July 8,
 1980, entitled, "Armed Services Exchange Regulations", (R.Ex. 6), sets
 forth uniform policies relating to the operation of the Army, Navy, Air
 Force, and Marine exchanges;  and Air Force Regulation 147-14, dated
 November 15, 1978, entitled, "Army and Air Force Exchange Operating
 Policies", (G.C. Ex. 2), sets forth the operating policies of the Army
 and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES).
 
    Since at least November 15, 1978 Air Force Regulation (AFR) 147-14,
 paragraph 2-10 has provided that in Alaska, among other places, limited
 exchange and motion picture theater privileges may be extended to the
 following persons and organizations:
 
          a.  Civilian employees with transportation agreements and their
       dependents who are employees of the U.S. Government including
       those paid from nonappropriated funds.
 
          b.  Specific categories of personnel or organizations
       authorized by the responsible commander when determined to be in
       the best interest of the mission of the command concerned . . .
       (G.C. Ex. 2).
 
    Appendix D to AFR 147-14 is to be used in evaluating requests for
 exceptions to normal patronage rules.  (Tr. 158).  The criteria includes
 personal hardship, whether adequate commercial retail facilities are
 available, and the degree of difficulty involved in visiting such
 facilities.  Appendix D also indicates that requests from installation
 commanders for exceptions are to go through command channels to the
 appropriate Secretary of the Department concerned for approval.  (R.Ex.
 3).
 
    Pursuant to DODD 1330.9, DOD civilian employees, working on, but
 residing off, Alaskan military reservations are granted limited
 privileges of the fountain, snack bar, and restaurant when the local
 commanding officer determines that these facilities are not conveniently
 available from other sources.  Only the Secretary of the Military
 Department (the Air Force in this case) may grant deviations involving
 patron privileges, and then only if deviation is necessary to alleviate
 individual hardship.  The Directive requires that such deviations be
 reviewed annually and that a report be submitted specifying such
 deviations and their justifications.
 
    Section 1-100 of DODD 1330.9 provides that "supplementary rules,
 regulations, and directives of the Military Departments, not in conflict
 with these regulations shall remain in full force and effect." /4/
 (R.Ex. 6, par. 1-100, 1-102, 2-201.6).  The Air Force specifically
 issued amendments to its regulation, AFR 147-14, following the revision
 of DODD 1330.9 in July 1980 and at that time only changed paragraph 2-10
 so as to insert the word "limited" before "exchange and motion picture
 theater privileges" (G.C. Ex. 2;  "Interim Action" attachment at p. 2).
 
    As noted, Department of Defense Directive Number 1400.6, dated
 February 15, 1980, entitled, "DOD Civilian Employees in Overseas Areas",
 applies to civilian employees in Alaska and provides as follows in
 paragraph C. 4 and 5.:
 
          4.  In making a determination of the numbers and types of U.S.
       employees for overseas areas, the Military Service Commander shall
       consider the ability of the command to ensure adequate housing;
       subsistence;  and medical, commissary, exchange, laundry,
       transportation, and other essential facilities and services.
       Except when required to meet unexpected emergency conditions, an
       overseas commander shall not request recruitment from the United
       States unless the command can provide such facilities to meet
       health and decency standards.
 
          5.  In those overseas areas where DoD employees cannot enjoy
       the facilities of the civilian community without restriction or
       where appropriate and adequate facilities do not exist or are not
       readily available, the military commander shall allocate
       facilities under the commander's jurisdiction in accordance with a
       standard of eligibility that provides equitable treatment to both
       military and civilian personnel recruited from the United States.
 
    Since at least July 1969, an Alaskan Air Command pamphlet has
 purported to provide "prospective employees with information about the
 Air Force Mission, and living and working conditions in Alaska." (G.C.
 Ex. 7).  The pamphlet was last revised in 1981.  (G.C. Ex. 8).  The
 pamphlet states under "Base Exchange, Theater, Commissary, and Club
 Privileges," in part, as follows:
 
          "Employees residing 13 or more miles south of Fairbanks have
       limited exchange and theater privileges at Eielson AFB."
 
    Once a new recruit in the "lower 48" is tentatively selected for
 employment, he or she is sent the pamphlet either by the designated
 sponsor, the personnel office, or the new employee receives it from the
 personnel office upon arrival in Alaska.  (Tr. 246-247;  223-224).
 
                    The Collective Bargaining Agreement
 
    Article Seven, section 3 of the collective bargaining agreement
 between Respondent and the Charging Party, dated December 1979,
 provides:
 
          It is further agreed and understood that any prior benefits,
       practices and understandings which have been mutually acceptable
       to the parties which are not specifically covered by this
       agreement shall not be changed without the parties first meeting
       and conferring on the subject.  (R.Ex. 4).
 
                               The Practice
 
    Prior to June 28, 1982, and for at least seventeen years prior to
 that date, unit employees of Respondent who resided thirteen or more
 miles /5/ south of Fairbanks, Alaska, along the Old Richardson Highway
 /6/ enjoyed certain limited base exchange privileges at Eielson Air
 Force Base.
 
    The privileges afforded these employees included, inter alia, the use
 of the Base Exchange, gas station, furniture store, theater, laundromat,
 beauty shop, and dry cleaners (Tr. 6).  /7/ In order to use the various
 exchange and concession facilities, proper identification was required.
 Respondent issued each employee who lived within the designated area an
 identification card marked "limited exchange" and "theater" which
 authorized use of the various facilities by such employees and their
 dependents.  (Tr. 47).  Approximately 103 of the 230 unit employees
 enjoyed these privileges.
 
    Presumably, Respondent's requests to continue the Base Exchange
 privileges for civilian employees residing 13 or more miles south of
 Fairbanks was routinely approved on an annual basis for a number of
 years.  /8/
 
                              Current Events
 
    In January 1981, Major Argentino Font, Jr., Director of Personnel,
 Eielson Air Force Base, received correspondence from the Alaskan Air
 Command requesting that Eielson submit its annual request for exceptions
 regarding exchange privileges.  Major Font reviewed AFR 147-14 and
 Appendix D /9/ and questioned whether an exception request could still
 be justified under the listed criteria.  He advised the Alaskan Air
 Command of his concerns and of the obligations imposed by the negotiated
 agreement.  (Tr. 146-155).  By letter dated April 20, 1981 the Alaskan
 Air Command advised Respondent as follows:
 
          1.  You are granted authority to extend the waiver for limited
       exchange privileges to those nonappropriated and appropriated fund
       employees who reside south of 13-mile Old Richardson Highway
       through 31 December 1981.  The purpose of this extension is to
       allow sufficient time to negotiate this practice with the union,
       and determine if the conditions within the civilian community
       justify further extension.
 
          2.  The Civilian Personnel Office Labor Relations Staff is
       available to assist and advise you in this action.
 
    By letter dated April 22, 1981 Respondent's labor relations officer,
 Josh Malone, notified the Union president, Mary Metzger, that action had
 been initiated to extend Base Exchange privileges through December 31,
 1981, and that negotiations should begin for any extension beyond
 December 31, 1981.  The Union was asked to provide by August 31, 1981
 its position in writing with respect to justification for continuation
 or changes in the method of extending Base Exchange privileges.  (G.C.
 Ex. 9).  By letter dated August 31, 1981, the Union, by Metzger,
 requested negotiations with respect to the Base Exchange privileges, but
 did not submit a written position (G.C. Ex. 10).
 
    The parties met on or about December 18, 1981.  Several
 representatives of each side were present.  Local Union president Mary
 Metzger, national Union representative Robert Nogler, and Respondent's
 Director of Personnel Major A. Font served as primary spokespersons for
 the respective parties.  Three topics were addressed at this meeting:
 renegotiation of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, an unfair
 labor practice charge which the union had filed concerning worker's
 compensation, and Base Exchange privileges (Tr. 49:19-50:30).  When the
 topic of Base Exchange privileges was broached, management offered its
 reasons for proposing to terminate civilian Base Exchange privileges,
 and the Union offered its reasons for continuing the established past
 practice (Tr. 51, 162-165).
 
    The December meeting culminated with the execution of a Memorandum of
 Understanding by Union president Metzger and Base Commander Colonel
 Carol Hughes which provided as follows:
 
          The agency determination to withdraw limited Exchange
       Privileges to civilian employees is based upon compelling need to
       avoid undue impairment to military personnel resulting from
       programmed increases due to mission change.  However, the parties
       agree that the present convenience should continue until such time
       that the agency's study shows the adverse impact and affords the
       Union opportunity to accept or reject the study.  (G.C. Ex. 11).
 
    The term "convenience" was used by both parties in an apparent effort
 to avoid a dispute at the time over whether Base Exchange privileges are
 a condition of employment.  (Tr. 167).  Thereafter, by letter dated June
 26, 1982, Respondent forwarded to the Union the study which it had
 prepared.  Respondent also notified the Union of its intent to
 discontinue Base Exchange privileges effective July 30, 1982.  Referring
 to the Memorandum of Understanding, Major Font asked Ms. Metzger to
 reply by July 16, 1982.  He stated, "If your response rejects the study,
 please ensure your position and rationale are included." (G.C. Ex. 12(a)
 and (b)).
 
    By letter dated July 15, 1982, Metzger notified Respondent that the
 Union disagreed with the study and requested negotiations on the
 subject.  No further explanation was given.  (G.C. Ex. 13).
 
    The parties met on or about July 22, 1982.  The Union attempted to
 explain its objections to the study as well as to the termination of the
 Base Exchange privileges (Tr. 58-59, 113-114).  When Union
 representative Metzger asserted her position that the Base Exchange
 privileges were a condition of employment over which the Union was
 entitled to negotiate, Respondent broke off the meeting.  Respondent
 maintained that it had no obligation to bargain with the Union
 concerning the termination of Base Exchange privileges.  Respondent was
 of the opinion that the parties, by referring to the exchange privileges
 in the December 18, 1981 Memorandum of Understanding as a "convenience",
 had agreed that the exchange privileges were not conditions of
 employment.  (Tr. 198-199).  Therefore, Respondent viewed Ms. Metzger's
 July 22, 1982 contention that exchange privileges were conditions of
 employment as a 180 degree reversal.  Respondent took the position that
 the purpose of the July 22, 1982 meeting was to simply insure that the
 exchange privileges would be terminated in accordance with the
 procedures agreed upon by the parties in the December 18, 1981
 Memorandum of Understanding.  (Tr. 178-179).  Major Font stated his
 intention to commence implementation on July 30;  however, he assured
 Metzger that he would get back to her "on the procedural aspects of how
 we were to implement the decision to terminate" (Tr. 181).  During the
 meeting, Font informed the Union that the concessions -- beauty shop,
 barber shop, laundromat and theater -- were not included in the change
 (Tr. 59).  /10/ Major Font later advised Mrs. Metzger in early August
 that all concession privileges, other than the snack bar and cafeteria,
 would also be terminated.  He stated, among other things, that there was
 no impact and that he would be coordinating on the changes sometime in
 the future.
 
    Shortly after the July 22, 1982 meeting the Union requested the
 assistance of a federal mediator.  When that proved unsuccessful, on
 August 17, 1982 the Union contacted the Federal Services Impasses Panel
 (G.C. Ex. 14).  The Union requested the Respondent to continue the
 current Base Exchange privileges until a FSIP decision issued (G.C. Ex.
 15;  Tr. 60-63).
 
    Sometime after the meeting of July 22, 1982, Respondent changed the
 termination date from July 30, 1982 to September 30, 1982.  (G.C. Ex.
 20).  On September 1, 1982, while Metzger was away for three weeks of
 preplanned leave (from approximately August 20 to September 7, 1982),
 Respondent contacted Union vice president Herman Smith to "coordinate"
 with him the distribution of two memoranda from Base Commander Hughes
 concerning Base Exchange privileges.  The first of these documents was a
 memorandum from Respondent advising employees that the privileges would
 be terminated effective September 30, 1982, together with Respondent's
 reasons therefor (G.C. Ex. 16).  The second document concerned retrieval
 and reissuance of identification cards (G.C. Ex. 17).  Although
 reluctant to do so in the absence of Mrs. Metzger, Smith did initial the
 memoranda upon Font's assurance that it was only for coordination -- "to
 let you know that we're going to implement this" (Tr. 118).
 
    The memoranda were distributed to the employees, and those affected
 by the changes were reissued new identification cards (Tr. 66-67).
 
    Meanwhile, the parties submitted their respective positions to the
 FSIP.  On October 26, 1982, the Panel declined jurisdiction on grounds
 that the matter involved threshold questions concerning the employer's
 obligation to bargain, including underlying questions of fact (G.C. Ex.
 22), a position which was reiterated by the Panel in its November 19,
 1982 denial of the Union's request for reconsideration (G.C. Ex. 23;
 24).
 
    On October 12, 1982, the Union filed the instant unfair labor
 practice charge;  thereafter, on November 10, a first amended charge was
 filed.
 
               Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
 
    The General Counsel contends that Respondent violated section
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by refusing to bargain with the Union
 concerning a change in working conditions of employees in the unit, i.e.
 termination of limited Base Exchange privileges, including base exchange
 and/or concession facilities, and its implementation of that change on
 or about September 1, 1982.
 
    Respondent defends on the basis that exchange privileges are not
 conditions of employment, and, therefore, Respondent Eielson was
 lawfully entitled to unilaterally terminate such privileges without
 first bargaining with the Union.  Alternatively, Respondent contends
 that even if exchange privileges are conditions of employment, it had no
 duty to bargain about the decision to discontinue such privileges
 because such bargaining would be inconsistent with DODD 1330.9, an
 agency regulation for which there is a compelling need.  Finally,
 Respondent contends that even if exchange privileges are conditions of
 employment, and even if Respondent's duty to bargain about the decision
 to discontinue exchange privileges was not barred by DODD 1330.9,
 Respondent fulfilled its duty to bargain as evidenced by the December
 18, 1981 Memorandum of Understanding.
 
                          Condition of Employment
 
    The duty to bargain under the Statute extends only to "conditions of
 employment," /11/ i.e., personnel policies, practices, and matters
 affecting working conditions.  In construing that statutory phrase, the
 Authority has found proposals which concern matters directly affecting
 "the work situation and employment relationship" of bargaining unit
 employees to be within the duty to bargain.  See National Federation of
 Federal Employees Local 1363 and United States Army Garrison, Youngson,
 Korea, 12 FLRA No. 125 (1983).  Respondent contends that employee access
 to shopping facilities, convenience stores, movie theaters, beauty
 shops, laundromats, and dry cleaning establishments maintained for the
 morale, welfare, and recreation of military personnel is not a part of
 the work situation or the employment relationship and could only be
 enjoyed by bargaining unit employees while in a non-duty status.
 
    In the circumstances of the present case, the matter of limited base
 exchange privileges is a condition of employment within the meaning of
 section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute.  In National Federation of Federal
 Employees, Local 1363 and Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Youngson,
 Korea, 4 FLRA No. 23 (1980), the Authority held that the matter of
 ration control was a condition of employment since it was directly
 related to reasonable standards of health and decency which the agency
 required as a precondition for employment in an overseas command.  In
 that case, as here, DOD Directive 1400.6 was involved.  In the present
 case, the updated version of DOD Directive 1400.6 identifies adequate
 commissary, exchange, and laundry facilities as being among the
 essential facilities and services necessary to be provided "to meet
 health and decency standards" before an overseas commander (including
 Alaska) will request recruitment of personnel from the United States.
 /12/ Under this regulation, where DOD employees cannot enjoy the
 facilities of the civilian community without restriction or where
 appropriate and adequate facilities do not exist or are not readily
 available, the military commander is required to allocate facilities to
 accord equitable treatment to both military and civilian personnel.
 
    Respondent contends that because its study showed that civilians can
 enjoy the facilities of the civilian community without restriction and
 adequate facilities do exist and are available off base, it has not
 created a precondition of employment and the Eielson commander was freed
 in this instance of the duty imposed by DOD Directive 1400.6.  This
 argument goes to the merits of whether or not facilities are to be
 provided in this instance and is an appropriate matter for resolution
 through the bargaining process.  It is not relevant to the determination
 of whether limited base exchange privileges is the kind of matter which
 is a condition of employment and within the scope of bargaining.
 
    In this instance the matter of limited base exchange privileges,
 i.e., adequate and available commissary, exchange, laundry, and other
 essential facilities and services, is a condition of employment.  It is
 directly related to "health and decency standards" which is a
 precondition to civilian employment in Alaska.  Therefore, such matter
 involves personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working
 conditions of unit employees and is within the scope of bargaining under
 section 7117 of the Statute.  National Federation of Federal Employees,
 Local 1363 and Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Youngson, Korea, supra.
 
    The duty to negotiate in good faith under the Statute requires that a
 party meet its obligation to negotiate prior to making changes in
 established conditions of employment, during the term of a collective
 bargaining agreement, absent a clear and unmistakable waiver of
 bargaining rights.  Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base,
 Illinois, 5 FLRA 9 (1981).
 
    Apart from Respondent's obligation to bargain on this matter
 generally, the record discloses that not only have certain unit
 employees had limited base exchange privileges for at least seventeen
 years, but the agency has been actively involved in its effectuation
 during that period, i.e., issuing the necessary identification cards,
 securing annual approval, and holding it out since 1969 in the Alaskan
 Air Command pamphlet as an attribute of employment.  It is well settled
 that privileges, once granted, may over time mature into established
 practives tantamount to conditions of employment and that such
 established past practices may not be changed by Respondent without
 affording the Union its statutory right to notice and the opportunity to
 bargain concerning the changes.  Department of the Navy, Naval
 Underwater Systems Center, Newport Naval Base, 3 FLRA 413 (1980);
 Social Security Administration, Mid-America Service Center, Kansas City,
 Missouri, 9 FLRA No. 33 (1982).
 
                              Compelling Need
 
    Respondent contends that even if exchange privileges are conditions
 of employment, it had no duty to negotiate the decision to terminate the
 privileges.  Respondent claims that DOD Directive 1330.9, an agency
 regulation for which a compelling need exists, prohibits the Eielson AFB
 commander from extending those privileges to the Eielson civilian
 employees, as only the Secretary of the Air Force is empowered to extend
 such privileges.  Respondent also asserts that a compelling need exists
 for these regulations inasmuch as they implement a mandate from
 Congress.  /13/
 
    With respect to Respondent's reliance upon DOD directive 1330.9,
 (R.Ex. 6), nothing in that regulation prohibits negotiations with the
 Union regarding the extension of Base Exchange privileges nor requires
 that the privileges be withdrawn.  An agency is required to bargain to
 the full extent of its discretion under both agency and government-wide
 regulations.  See, National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 6 and
 Internal Revenue Service, New Orleans District, 3 FLRA 748 (1980);
 National Treasury Employees Union and Internal Revenue Service, 6 FLRA
 552 (1981);  Department of the Navy, Long Beach Naval Shipyard, 7 FLRA
 362 (1981);  American Federation of Government Employees and General
 Services Administration, 11 FLRA No. 54 (1983).  The Authority has also
 held that lacking total discretion, an agency's duty to bargain extends
 to making appropriate requests to third parties for approval to
 implement the negotiated agreement.  See American Federation of
 Government Employees, Local 32 and Office of Personnel Management, 8
 FLRA No. 87 (1982).
 
    In the instant case although Section 2-201.6 of the DOD Directive
 provides that civilian employees in Alaska working on but not residing
 on military reservations "shall be entitled to the privileges of the
 fountain, snack bar, and restaurant when the local commanding officer
 determines that these facilities are not conveniently available from
 other sources", nothing in the Directive indicates that such are the
 exclusive facilities to which civilians may have access.  See DOD
 Directive 1400.6 (R.Ex. 7).  Section 1-102.6 of DOD Directive 1330.9
 specifically provides that deviations involving patron privileges may be
 granted by the Secretaries of the military departments and although
 delegation of such authority is prohibited, Section 1-100 provides that
 "supplementary rules, regulations, and directives of Military
 Departments, not in conflict with these regulations shall remain in full
 force and effect." Both before and after issuance of DOD Directive
 1330.9 on July 8, 1980, the Air Force had a regulation, AFR 147-14,
 paragraph 2-10 (G.C. Ex. 2) which provides that in Alaska, among other
 places, limited exchange and motion picture theater privileges may be
 extended to specific categories of personnel authorized by the commander
 and, as noted, set out a procedure for securing waivers from the
 Secretary.
 
    The fact that authority to grant waivers has been retained at the
 Secretary level does not relate to the bases for finding that a proposal
 is not within the duty for bargain under section 7117 of the Statute,
 i.e. inconsistency with Federal law, Government-wide rule or regulation,
 or agency regulation to which a compelling need exists.  Under section
 7114(b)(2) of the Statute, the duty of an agency to negotiate in good
 faith includes the obligation "to be represented at the negotiations by
 duly authorized representatives prepared to discuss and negotiate on any
 condition of employment." Thus, the Statute clearly requires the parties
 to provide representatives who are empowered to negotiate and enter into
 agreements on all matters within the scope of negotiations in the
 bargaining unit.  National Treasury Employees Union and Department of
 the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 13 FLRA No. 93 (1983).
 
    More basically, as reflected in the facts, Respondent relies on
 various recommendations of subcommittees of the House Armed Services
 Committee for its compelling need defense.  While it may be prudent for
 the Department of Defense to follow such recommendations, as it
 apparently has, Respondent has furnished no evidence that these
 Congressional recommendations constitute the legislative history of a
 public law, or otherwise legally constitute "a mandate to the agency . .
 . under law or other outside authority . . . . " Compare National
 Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1669 and Arkansas Air National
 Guard, 13 FLRA No. 37 (1983).  Since Respondent's evidence does not meet
 the criteria established by the Authority, it has failed to demonstrate
 compelling need for DOD Directive 1330.9.  Thus, Respondent has made no
 showing to support a finding that the matter of the limited base
 exchange privileges in issue is outside the duty to bargain under
 section 7117 of the Statute.
 
                           Extent of Bargaining
 
    As an additional defense to the unfair labor practice charge,
 Respondent contends that in December of 1981 it fulfilled any obligation
 to bargain with the Union.  Respondent argues that its negotiations with
 the Union resulted in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in which the
 Union agreed with Respondent's decision to terminate such privileges,
 reserving only its right to produce evidence to the contrary if it
 rejected a subsequent management study.
 
    It is well settled that the waiver of a statutory right must be clear
 and unmistakable.  Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base,
 supra.  Nothing in the December 18 agreement either on its face or as
 explained through evidence of the December 16 discussions, evidences the
 Union's waiver of its statutory right to bargain concerning termination
 of Base Exchange privileges.  The plain language of the MOU gives the
 Union the right to accept or reject the study.  The MOU is silent with
 respect to any subsequent negotiations or requirements to come forward
 with evidence rebutting the study.  Absent a clear statement that the
 Union agreed that no further negotiations would take place and that it
 was required to come forward with evidence if it rejected the study, it
 cannot be found that the Union waived its right to engage in
 negotiations.  Office of Program Operations, Social Security
 Administration, San Francisco Region, 10 FLRA No. 36 (1982).  Nor, in my
 view, does the case involve essentially differing and arguable
 interpretations of the MOU.
 
    It is undisputed that upon receipt of the study, in July 1982, the
 Union requested to bargain;  that the parties met on July 22 in order to
 discuss the issue;  and that Respondent refused to bargain with the
 Union concerning the change.  In that regard, both Ford and Metzger
 agreed that their efforts to address the substance of the study and to
 state their reasons for opposing the change were met with derision.
 Indeed, Font concedes that Respondent had no intention of negotiating
 with the Union -- that they were going to proceed on the basis of the
 MOU to terminate the limited Base Exchange privileges and that the only
 matter remaining was implementation of the agency's decision.  No
 negotiations concerning the change took place on July 22 nor at any time
 thereafter concerning the termination of Base Exchange privileges.
 Thus, it is clear that Respondent refused to negotiate with the Union
 concerning the termination of the limited Base Exchange privileges.
 
    In addition, Respondent failed to negotiate with the Union concerning
 the implementation of the change in Base Exchange privileges.  Although
 Major Font insists that he committed himself to get back to Mrs. Metzger
 regarding implementation, he did not do so.  Instead, over a month
 later, when Metzger was away on leave, he contacted Herman Smith and
 informed Smith that he only wanted him to "coordinate" implementation.
 Font admitted that he was not engaged in implementation bargaining with
 Smith, and conceded that he would not have been open to any alternative
 plans.  The implementation memoranda were distributed following such
 "coordination" with Smith.
 
    Under these circumstances, it is clear that Respondent failed and
 refused to bargain with the Union concerning implementation of the
 change in Base Exchange privileges.  Respondent's refusal to bargain
 concerning the termination of Base Exchange privileges or the
 implementation thereof constitute unfair labor practices in violation of
 Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
 
    As discussed above, the evidence establishes that at the July 22
 meeting, Major Font specifically indicated that the concessions were not
 involved in the termination of Base Exchange privileges which had been
 previously discussed;  in fact, the concessions were not even included
 in the study prepared following the December 1981 MOU.  Thus, Respondent
 was obligated to give the Union adequate notice and the opportunity to
 bargain when it determined that concession privileges would also be
 included in the scope of the change.  Major Font advised Metzger in
 early August that the concession privileges, other than the snack bar
 and cafeteria, would also be terminated, but simply informed her, among
 other things, that no impact would be involved, and management would be
 coordinating on the change.  The "coordination" was accomplished as
 stated above.  Under such circumstances, Respondent clearly did not meet
 its obligation to give the Union advance notice and the opportunity to
 bargain over these changes in conditions of employment, including the
 termination of base laundry and dry cleaning facilities.  Respondent
 thereby also committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
 
    Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is recommended
 that the Authority issue the following Order:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority and section 7118 of the Statute, the
 Authority hereby orders that the Department of the Air Force, Eielson
 Air Force Base, Alaska shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Unilaterally terminating limited base exchange and
       concession privileges to unit employees who reside 13 or more
       miles south of Fairbanks, Alaska, along the Old Richardson
       Highway, without affording the American Federation of Government
       Employees, Local 1836, AFL-CIO, the employees' exclusive
       representative, the opportunity to bargain concerning such a
       decision.
 
          (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) Rescind the memoranda dated September 2, 1982 relating to
       the termination of civilian employee exchange privileges and
       restore all conditions of employment related to limited base
       exchange and concession privileges which were in effect prior to
       such changes.
 
          (b) Notify the American Federation of Government Employees,
       Local 1836, AFL-CIO, the employees' exclusive representative, of
       any decision to terminate the limited base exchange and concession
       privileges of certain unit employees and, upon request, bargain in
       good faith concerning the decision to do so.
 
          (c) 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 Commander,
       Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska 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 Commander shall take
       reasonable steps to insure that such notices are not altered,
       defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
          (d) Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. section 2423.30 notify the Regional
       Director, Region IX, Federal Labor Relations Authority, San
       Francisco, California, in writing, within 30 days from the date of
       this order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
 
                                       /s/ GARVIN LEE OLIVER
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  March 19, 1984
    Washington, D.C.
 
 
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (1) The Regional Director's motion to withdraw that portion of the
 consolidated complaint pertaining to Case No. 9-CA-20210, an unrelated
 matter, was granted.  The Regional Director approved a settlement
 agreement in that case on January 12, 1984.
 
    (2) Respondent's post-hearing motion that official notice be taken of
 Respondent's Exhibit A, a letter from the Honorable Melvin Price,
 Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, to Mr. Tom Garnett,
 Director of Labor Management Relations, Department of Defense, enclosing
 a letter to the Honorable Barbara Jean Mahone, Chairman, Federal Labor
 Relations Authority, is granted.
 
    (3) R.Ex. 9. pp. 12350-54, sets forth a brief history of the origin
 and purpose of the exchange service.
 
    (4) Respondent takes the position that AFR 147-14 and DODD 1330.9 are
 "in conflict" to the extent that AFR 147-14 allows the "responsible
 commander" to grant privileges whereas under DODD 1330.9 only the
 Secretary of the Air Force has authority to grant privileges to civilian
 employees.  However, as noted, the additional requirements of Appendix D
 of AFR 147-14 appear consistent with DODD 1330.9 in that approval by the
 Secretary is also required for exceptions to normal patronage rules.
 This Appendix also sets forth a model form for such a request should be
 prepared for forwarding through channels.
 
    (5) During the long and difficult winter months, driving is often
 very difficult due to the cold temperatures, snow, ice, and fog.  (Tr.
 32-34).  The 13 mile limitation was imposed because it was the half-way
 mileage point between Fairbanks and Eielson Air Force Base.  Eielson is
 located approximately 26 miles south of Fairbanks.  For those who lived
 north of the 13 mile limit, it was closer for them to go to Fairbanks.
 (Tr. 148-149).  For those who lived south, it was closer to use the Base
 Exchange.  Some unit employees live ten to fifteen miles south of
 Eielson and thus 35 or 40 miles south of Fairbanks along isolated
 country roads.  (Tr. 32).  North Pole, Alaska is approximately 11-12
 miles north of Eielson Air Force Base between Fairbanks and Eielson.
 (Tr. 32).  The community has grown considerably in recent years and has
 some commercial facilities, including at least one modern grocery store.
 
    (6) The Richardson Highway, both the new and the old, begins in
 Fairbanks and runs south past Eielson to the Canadian border.  There are
 few towns in the area south of Fairbanks, and addresses are often
 referred to in relation to mileage on the Richardson Highway (Tr. 32).
 
    (7) The various facilities which are part of the Base Exchange -- the
 main exchange, the groceteria, the gas station, and the furniture store
 -- as well as the so-called concessions -- beauty shop, barber shop,
 laundromat, and theater -- will be referred to as limited exchange
 privileges except where the distinction between Base Exchange and
 concession facilities is material.
 
    (8) The record does not reflect whether the approval was gained at
 the Alaskan Air Command or Secretary of the Air Force level.  Respondent
 argues that it was at the Alaskan Air Command level in violation of DODD
 1330.9.  See fn. 4.
 
    (9) Major Font testified that he was not aware of DODD 1330.9 until
 sometime after June 1982.  (Tr. 186).
 
    (10) Although denying such a representation to the Union, Font admits
 that the subject of the concessions was raised and concedes that at the
 time of the meeting he believed that an ID card could be issued which
 would allow the civilians access to the concessions, but not the base
 exchange facilities (Tr. 177).  Font also acknowledged that following
 the July meeting Metzger clearly believed that the concessions would be
 retained (Tr. 182).
 
    (11) Section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute defines "conditions of
 employment" as follows:
 
          Section 7103.  Definitions;  application
 
          (a) For the purpose of this chapter --
 
                       . . . . . . .
 
 
          (14) "conditions of employment" means personnel policies,
       practices, and matters, whether established by rule, regulation,
       or otherwise, affecting working conditions . . . .
 
    (12) Unexpected emergency situations are an exception, but are not
 alleged or shown to exist in the present case.
 
    (13) In this regard, the Authority's Rules and Regulations provide:
 
          Section 2424.11 Illustrative criteria.
 
          A compelling need exists for an agency rule or regulation
       concerning any condition of employment when the agency
       demonstrates that the rule or regulation meets one or more of the
       following illustrative criteria:
 
                       . . . . . . .
 
 
          (c) The rule or regulation implements a mandate to the agency
       or primary national subdivision under law or other outside
       authority, which implementation is essentially nondiscretionary in
       nature.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                 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 unilaterally terminate limited base exchange and
 concession privileges to unit employees who reside 13 or more miles
 south of Fairbanks, Alaska, along the Old Richardson Highway, without
 affording the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1836,
 AFL-CIO, the employees' exclusive representative, the opportunity to
 bargain concerning such a decision.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL rescind the memoranda dated September 2, 1982 relating to the
 termination of civilian employee exchange privileges and restore all
 conditions of employment related to limited base exchange and concession
 privileges which were in effect prior to such changes.
 
    WE WILL notify the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 1836, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative, of any decision to
 terminate the limited base exchange and concession privileges of certain
 unit employees and, upon request, bargain in good faith concerning the
 decision to do so.
                                       (Agency or Activity)
 
    Dated:  . . .  By:  (Signature)
 
    This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
 of posting and