Page U. S. Department of Air Force, 6th Support Group, Macdill Air Force Base, Florida and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 153

[ v55 p146 ]

55 FLRA No. 24

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
6TH SUPPORT GROUP
MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
(Respondent)

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 153
(Charging Party)

AT-CA-60888

_____

DECISION AND ORDER

January 28, 1999

_____

Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Donald S. Wasserman and Dale Cabaniss, Members.

I.     Statement of the Case

      This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on an exception to the attached decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed by the General Counsel. The Respondent filed an opposition to the exception.

      The Judge determined that the Respondent did not violate section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by requiring a Union representative to request official time and to report to his worksite before and after using such time, without notifying the Union and affording it an opportunity to bargain over this requirement. [n1]  As relevant here, the Judge found that the Respondent's action was consistent with the Union's understanding of the official time procedures provided in the parties' collective bargaining agreement and with their practice for official time use. He concluded, therefore, that the General Counsel had failed to establish that the Respondent changed a condition of employment. Accordingly, the Judge concluded that the Respondent was under no obligation to notify the Union and bargain before requiring the Union representative to request official time and to report to his worksite before and after using such time.

      Upon consideration of the Judge's decision and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings and conclusion that the General Counsel failed to establish that the Respondent changed a condition of employment and, therefore, no duty to bargain arose under the Statute when the Respondent directed the Union representative to comply with the official time requirement. [n2]  We also adopt the Judge's recommended Order dismissing the complaint.

II.     Order

      The complaint is dismissed.


File 1: Authority's Decision in 55 FLRA No. 24
File 2: ALJ's Decision


Footnote # 1 for 55 FLRA No. 24 - Authority's Decision

   The Judge also concluded that the Respondent did not violate section 7116(a)(1), (2), and (4) of the Statute by retaliating against the Union representative for engaging in protected activity. Neither party excepted to this conclusion and we adopt it without precedential significance pursuant to section 2423.41 of the Authority's Regulations. See U.S. Penitentiary Florence, Colorado , 54 FLRA 30, 31, n.* (1998). This regulatory provision, which concerns the Authority's action on judges' decisions, was amended in 1997. With respect to precedential significance, the provision is substantively identical to 5 C.F.R. § 2423.29, which was previously in effect. As section 2423.41 applies to all unfair labor practice complaints pending after October 1, 1997, it is applicable here. See 62 Fed. Reg. 40922, 46175 (1997).


Footnote # 2 for 55 FLRA No. 24 - Authority's Decision

   Because we adopt the Judge's conclusion that no change in a condition of employment occurred, we find it unnecessary to address, and do not adopt t