44:0599(50)CA - - DLA, Defense Industrial Plant Equipment Center, Memphis, TN and AFGE Local 3986 - - 1992 FLRAdec CA - - v44 p599
[ v44 p599 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
44 FLRA No. 50
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL PLANT EQUIPMENT CENTER
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
DECISION AND ORDER
March 26, 1992
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions filed by the Respondent to the attached decision of the Administrative Law Judge. The General Counsel filed an opposition to the Respondent's exceptions.
The complaint alleged that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by terminating a compressed work schedule (CWS) for certain of its employees without bargaining with the Union over the substance and/or impact and implementation of that action. The Judge found that the Respondent violated the Statute by refusing to bargain over the substance of its decision to terminate CWS and recommended that a status quo ante remedy be ordered.
The Judge found that the CWS program was established at a time when the bargaining unit employees were unrepresented and was terminated after the Union had been certified as the employees' exclusive representative. The Judge concluded that because the CWS program was an established condition of employment for bargaining unit employees at the time the Respondent terminated the program, the Respondent was required to bargain with the Union over the Respondent's decision to terminate the CWS program. In reaching his conclusion, the Judge found that the Respondent had not shown that under the Work Schedules Act or under the Statute it was entitled to terminate the CWS program without first bargaining with the Union. We agree.(1)
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,(2) conclusions, and recommended Order.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and s