38:0732(64)CA - - Air Force, Sacramento Air Logistics Command, McClellan AFB, CA and AFGE Local 1857 - - 1990 FLRAdec CA - - v38 p732

Other Files: 


[ v38 p732 ]
38:0732(64)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


38 FLRA No. 64

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

SACRAMENTO AIR LOGISTICS COMMAND

MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

(Respondent)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1857, AFL-CIO

(Charging Party)

9-CA-90071

DECISION

December 6, 1990

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by failing to give the Union notice and an opportunity to be represented at formal discussions within the meaning of section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute.

The Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's decision. The General Counsel filed an opposition to the Respondent's exceptions.

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 made at the hearing and find that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon consideration of the Judge's decision and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions and recommended Order.

We agree with the Judge that the interviews with a unit employee concerning an upcoming arbitration hearing were formal discussions within the meaning of section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute, at which the Union was entitled to be given prior notice and an opportunity to be represented. The Respondent's failure to notify the Union and afford it an opportunity to be represented violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute.

The two exceptions raised by the Respondent to the Judge's decision were considered and rejected by the Authority in prior unfair labor practice proceedings involving the same parties. These exceptions are that: (1) the presence of the Union at the interviews in question would require the Respondent to waive the attorney work product privilege; and (2) the employee was interviewed on the basis of her role as an alternate supervisor.

With regard to the Respondent's first exception, the Authority found in Department of the Air Force, Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan Air Force Base, California, 35 FLRA 594 (1990) (McClellan AFB 1), that the Union's presence at a formal discussion, involving an interview of a unit employee, did not requ