39:1357(119)CA - - Air Force, Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan AFB, CA and AFGE Local 1857 - - 1991 FLRAdec CA - - v39 p1357
[ v39 p1357 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
39 FLRA No. 119
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
SACRAMENTO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
McCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1857, AFL-CIO
March 22, 1991
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 (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by unilaterally changing the working conditions of certain unit employees by implementing a new Mobility Plan 28-4, MOP 31, without first notifying the Charging Party (the Union) and providing it with an opportunity to bargain over the procedures to be used in implementing the mobility plan and appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by the new mobility plan. The Judge found that the Respondent had violated the Statute and, as a remedy, issued a cease and desist order and the posting of an appropriate notice.
The General Counsel filed an exception only to the Judge's recommended Order. The Respondent did not file an exception or an opposition to the General Counsel's exception.
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. 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. General Counsel's Exception
The General Counsel excepts to the Judge's conclusion that a cease and desist order and the posting of an appropriate notice throughout the bargaining unit would fully effectuate the purposes and objectives of the Statute. General Counsel's Brief at 1. The General Counsel asserts that the Judge erred by failing to provide for bargaining between the Respondent and the Union at the local level. Accordingly, the General Counsel seeks the issuance of an order directing bargaining at the local level over the impact and implementation of the unilaterally issued Mobility Plan 28-4, MOP 31, in order to fully effectuate the purposes and objectives of the Statute.
III. Analysis and Conclusions
We agree with the General Counsel that issuance of an order requiring bargaining at the local level over the impact and implementation of the unilaterally implemented Mobility Plan, MOP 31, is necessary to remedy the violation found by the Judge and will fully effectuate the purposes and objectives of the Statute.
The Judge recommended a cease and desist order and the posting of an appropriate notice throughout the bargaining unit "[b]ased particularly on the fact that the AFGE and the Respondent have agreed to participate in mid-term bargaining on MOP 31 at the Command level, and since a status quo ante order would, given the existing budgetary constraints, disrupt or impair the efficiency and effectiveness of the Respondent's Mobility Augmentation Program[.]" Judge's Decision at 10 (footnotes omitted). In so doing, the Judge found that the Respondent's subsequent elevation of the matter for negotiations at the Command level was not a defense to the Respondent's unilateral implementation of the MOP 31 at McClellan AFB without giving the Union notice and an opportunity to request impact and implementation bargaining at the local level. Id. at 10 n.1. The Judge also noted that the General Counsel had sought as a remedy only a cease and desist order and a posting, not a status quo ante remedy. Id. at 10 n.2.
We find, as an initial matter, that the Judge failed to note that the General Counsel specifically requested a bargaining order in this case. See General Counsel's Brief to the Judge at 10-11. Further, we agree with the General Counsel that the current Command-level negotiations do not provide an adequate remedy in this case. There is no assurance that those negotiations would remedy the violation of the locally implemented policy. Inasmuch as the violation in this case involved a locally implemented policy, the appropriate remedy for this violation should include an order to bargain at the local level. See Department of the Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan Air Force Base, California, 35 FLRA 217 (1990). Accordingly, we will order the Respondent to bargain at the local level, upon request of the Union, regarding the impact and implementation of Mobility Plan 28-4, MOP 31.