37:0603(44)CA - - Treasury, Customs Service, Washington, DC and Customs Service Region IV, Miami, FL and NTEU - - 1990 FLRAdec CA - - v37 p603
[ v37 p603 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
37 FLRA No. 44
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
DECISION AND ORDER
September 27, 1990
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision finding that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by failing to take actions required by an arbitrator's final award. The Judge granted the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment and denied the Respondent's motion to dismiss the General Counsel's motion.
The Charging Party filed an exception only to the Judge's recommended Order. The Respondent filed an opposition to the Charging Party's exception. The General Counsel did not file an exception or an opposition.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge and find no prejudicial error was committed. We affirm the rulings. Upon consideration of the Judge's Decision and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommended Order, as modified below.
II. Charging Party's Exception
The Charging Party excepts to the Judge's recommended Order requiring that the Notice be posted only at the Respondent's facilities in Miami, Florida. The Charging Party argues that the Respondent's "failure to implement an arbitrator's award impacts on all employees in Region IV." Charging Party's Statement in Support of its Exception at 2. The Charging Party maintains that the Notice "should be posted . . . at all of the Respondent's facilities throughout the [R]egion because the violations of the Statute go to the very nature of the collective bargaining relationship." Id.
As an alternative, the Charging Party argues that the Notice should be posted at the Respondent's Jacksonville, Florida facilities, where the "underlying" arbitration hearing was conducted. Id.
III. Respondent's Opposition
The Respondent opposes the Charging Party's exception. The Respondent argues that the Judge's recommended posting location is "fair and just" and that no amendment to the Judge's recommended Order is necessary. Respondent's Opposition at 2. The Respondent argues that it would be unreasonable to require that the Notice be posted throughout Region IV because the Region is "a vast geographic area" and has "hundreds of U.S. Customs Service facilities." Id.
The Respondent also argues that it would be unreasonable to require that the Notice be posted at the Jacksonville, Florida facilities. The Respondent asserts that the "merits of the case which occurred in Jacksonville, Florida are unrelated to the collection of attorney's fees." Id. According to the Respondent, the divisions within Customs "which were responsible for the delay" in complying with the arbitration award were the National Finance Center, located in Indianapolis, Indiana, and the Southeast Regions's Executive Management Service, located in Miami, Florida. Id.
IV. Analysis and Conclusion
We find merit in the Charging Party's exception to the limited scope of the posting ordered by the Judge. We note, in this regard, that Notices provide evidence that rights guaranteed under the Statute will be vigorously enforced. Although violations of these rights often arise as a result of actions taken or not taken by individuals and particular remedies of these violations often will provide immediate benefits to individual employees, the statutory rights benefit and accrue to all employees and the Government as a whole. In addition, the posting of a Notice provides, for most unit employees, the only visible indication that a responde