This attachment lists the most common types of unfair labor practice violations and identifies the different types of remedies, both traditional and nontraditional. The attachment then describes the types of evidence that are necessary to establish the appropriateness of those remedies. When involved with a particular unfair labor practice allegation, the Regions, charging parties and respondents may use this attachment to focus on the potential traditional and nontraditional remedies associated with that violation.
In addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, the Authority has developed criteria to determine whether a status quo ante remedy is appropriate to remedy a unilateral change in a condition of employment without affording the union an opportunity to bargain over appropriate arrangements and procedures. [n1] The Authority has stated:
[T]he appropriateness of a status quo ante remedy must be determined on a case-by-case basis, carefully balancing the nature and circumstances of the particular violation against the degree of disruption in government operations that would be caused by such a remedy. Accordingly, in determining whether a status quo ante remedy would be appropriate in any specific case involving a violation of the duty to bargain over impact and implementation, the Authority considers, among other things, (1) whether, and when, notice was given to the union by the agency concerning the action or change decided upon; (2) whether, and when, the union requested bargaining on the procedures to be observed by the agency in implementing such action or change and/or concerning appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by such action or change; (3) the willfulness of the agency's conduct in failing to discharge its bargaining obligations under the Statute; (4) the nature and extent of the impact experienced by adversely affected employees; and (5) whether, and to what degree, a status quo ante remedy would disrupt or impair the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency's operations. [n2]
This passage is commonly referred to as the FCI criteria. The Authority relies upon the ALJ's finding of facts when applying the FCI criteria. Remember, a respondent is only required to adhere to its former practices until such time as the respondent fulfills its bargaining obligations under the Statute. [n3]
The Authority distinguishes between a union's knowledge of a change and notice and a reasonable opportunity to request to bargain under the Statute. [n4]
Sometimes, a union will request to bargain even if it did not receive appropriate notice of a change. Of course, if a union is provided proper notice but fails to request to bargain, there would be no unfair labor practice violation.
The Authority has found that an intentional failure to notify a union of an impending change is willful, even though based on an erroneous conclusion that the agency was not obligated to bargain over the subject matter. [n5] Also, since the obligation to bargain arises prior to implementation of changes, the timing of negotiations subsequent to the implementation of the changes does not temper the willful nature of a respondent's conduct. [n6]
In order to establish the duty to bargain and the resulting unfair labor practice, it must first be established that the change had more than a de minimis impact on the working conditions of unit employees. [n7] The Authority rarely, if ever, denies a status quo ante on the basis that the impact factor has not been met. Rather, the Authority examines the degree of impact when balancing the disruption to agency operations caused by a status quo ante remedy under the disruption criteria. Further, the Authority has held that the fact that management has the right to implement a change that adversely affects employees does not provide a basis for denying a status quo ante remedy. [n8]
When it is alleged that a status quo ante remedy would cause disruption to the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency's operations, the Authority bases its findings on specific evidence in the record concerning how, and to what degree, such disruption would occur. [n9] Evidence supporting the legitimacy of the agency's change at issue does not necessarily support a finding that restoration of the former unilaterally changed practices will cause disruption to the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations. Further, just because a facility has "special security concerns" that are of "paramount importance" that are always present in those types of facilities does not necessarily require a finding that restoration of the former unilaterally changed practices will cause disruption to the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations. [n10] The record must reveal a significant security risk outweighing the totality of the factors favoring a status quo ante remedy. [n11] The existence of general security concerns does not preclude a status quo ante remedy where, on balance, the other FCI criteria support the remedy and the remedy will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute. [n12] Thus, while the respondent's exercise of its internal security right is a factor to be considered in weighing whether a status quo ante remedy would have a disruptive effect upon management's operations, it is not dispositive. [n13]
The Regions investigate the disruption criteria just as the other elements of the violation and the FCI criteria are investigated. However, unlike the elements of the violation and the other FCI criteria, the burden is on the respondent agency to establish that a status quo ante remedy would unduly disrupt its operations, not on the General Counsel to establish that a status quo ante remedy would not unduly disrupt operations. [n14]
Much of the evidence necessary to establish the unfair labor practice violation is also applicable to establishing the first four FCI criteria in determining whether or not a status quo ante remedy is appropriate. Thus, as to notice, evidence should be developed to address:
As to the request, evidence should be developed to address:
As to willfulness, evidence should be developed to address:
As to impact, evidence should be developed to address:
The final criterium, disruption, usually controls the status quo ante determination. The Region investigates this fifth criteria to the same extent the Region investigates and considers the elements of the violation and the other status quo ante criteria. However, the respondent bears the burden of proving that a status quo ante remedy would unduly disrupt or impair the effectiveness of the respondent's operations. If the respondent presents such evidence, the General Counsel must be prepared to establish that returning to the status quo ante would not be unduly disruptive or impair the effectiveness of the respondent's operations. For example, the General Counsel may gain admissions from the respondent's witnesses that while status quo ante is not their preference, they could still perform their mission and carry out essential services if the status quo were restored. Evidence should be developed to address:
A status quo ante remedy usually is regarded as the most effective remedy for a unilateral change violation, whether the failed duty to bargain concerned the change itself or the procedures and appropriate arrangements relating to the change. [n15] The purpose of a status quo ante remedy is to place parties, including employees, in the positions they would have been in had there been no unlawful conduct. Another critical purpose of the remedy is to deter the respondent and future parties from failing to satisfy their duty to bargain, and to reduce any incentive that may exist to unilaterally implement changes in conditions of employment while refusing to fulfill the statutory bargaining obligation that accompanies that change. [n16] Thus, where management changes a condition of employment without fulfilling its obligation to bargain over the substance of the decision to make the change, in addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, the Authority orders a status quo ante remedy in the absence of special circumstances . [n17]
The imposition of time limits on bargaining to ensure expeditious bargaining is a nontraditional remedy. In one case, the Authority denied a General Counsel request for such a remedy noting that the reason for the request, to complete bargaining before a facility is open, no longer existed since at the time of the Authority decision, the facility had already opened, and that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the respondent was unwilling to bargain expeditiously. [n18] The Authority also has noted the difficulty in imposing effective time limits on collective bargaining in the Federal sector. [n19] A similar nontraditional remedy wold be to establish other ground rules for the bargaining.
The case law is unclear as to whether the Authority will order rescission of disciplinary actions taken against employees for failure to comply with work rules and conditions of employment unilaterally imposed contrary to the statutory duty to bargain. The Authority has stated that it will "remedy disciplinary action taken against employee conduct that, absent unilateral changes, would not have been proscribed conduct." [n20] However, on reconsideration, the Authority clarified that it would not order discipline rescinded that otherwise would have been appropriate and lawful despite the improper unilateral change. Thus, discipline for failing to comply with a unilaterally-imposed dress code has not been rescinded, [n21] while discipline for not following unilaterally imposed work rules has been rescinded. [n22] Notwithstanding the uncertainty of whether the Authority will order a rescission of disciplinary actions for failing to comply with a unilaterally- imposed condition of employment, the Regions should continue to seek make-whole remedies when an employee is disciplined for merely asserting a statutory or contract right. However, since it is unclear when the Authority will order the recission of discipline resulting from a unilateral change, when questioned, Regions suggest that employees follow unilaterally-imposed changes in conditions of employment and seek redress through either the negotiated grievance procedure or the unfair labor practice procedure. The Regions should submit for case handling advice proposed remedies in those situations where an employee has been disciplined for failing to comply with a work rule or condition of employment imposed contrary to the statutory duty to bargain.
A traditional bargaining order presumes that good faith bargaining will take place and that any problems can be handled as a compliance matter. Thus, when time limits or other procedures for bargaining are requested, the General Counsel must establish that the good faith presumption has been rebutted by the respondent's prior conduct. Evidence should be developed to address:
When seeking an order rescinding disciplinary actions taken against employees for failure to comply with work rules and conditions of employment unilaterally imposed contrary to the statutory duty to bargain, evidence should be developed to address:
An RBO is appropriate where a respondent's unlawful conduct has deprived the exclusive representative of an opportunity to bargain in a timely manner over negotiable conditions of employment affecting bargaining unit employees. [n23] In particular, an RBO affords the parties the ability to negotiate and implement the results of their agreement retroactively, "thereby approximating the situation that would have existed had the respondent fulfilled its statutory obligations." [n24] Furthermore, an RBO is used where it is clear that some employees have been harmed by an agency's unlawful conduct, but there is no way to ascertain their identity through compliance proceedings. [n25]
Accordingly, whenever the Region determines not to seek a status quo ante remedy in any bargaining situation, whether the duty to bargain concerns the substance of the change or its appropriate arrangements and procedures, the Region should consider seeking an RBO. Similarly, when seeking a status quo ante remedy in an appropriate arrangements and procedures bargaining situation, the Region should also argue that should the Authority find that the FCI criteria have not been met in an arrangements/procedures case or there are other special circumstances rendering a status quo ante remedy in a change case inappropriate, and thus a status quo ante remedy is not appropriate, an RBO should be ordered. [n26]
To determine whether a retroactive bargaining order is appropriate in a unilateral change situation, evidence should be developed to address:
In addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, the traditional remedy for a bad faith bargaining violation is an affirmative order to bargain in good faith. [n27]
In one case, when an agency engaged in bad faith bargaining which precluded the completion of negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement before the expiration of the one-year period following the union's certification, the Authority applied private sector precedent and extended the union's certification for a one-year period beginning on the date that bargaining commenced. [n28]
Another possible remedy in a bad faith bargaining case is an order imposing time limits on negotiations. Like all other nontraditional remedies, the appropriateness of time limits must be supported by evidence indicating that the respondent was unwilling to negotiate expeditiously. [n29] The Regions should not, however, request the Authority to approve a bargaining order that requires a respondent to reach an agreement. [n30] Ordering a respondent to participate in interest arbitration to resolve an impasse in negotiations, or requiring a respondent to bear the cost of past and/or future negotiations, are two other potential nontraditional remedies for bad faith bargaining.
To determine whether nontraditional remedies are appropriate in a bad faith bargaining situation, evidence should be developed to establish:
In addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, when a respondent has committed an unfair labor practice by failing to execute an agreement, the Authority typically affirmatively directs the respondent to implement the agreement. [n31] Similarly, in a repudiation cases, the Authority orders the agreement to be reinstated. [n32]
In addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, a potential nontraditional remedy would be to give retroactive effect to the agreement from the date of the violation, including making employees whole pursuant to the agreement's terms.
To determine whether nontraditional remedies are appropriate in a failure to implement an agreement situation, evidence should be developed to establish:
The traditional remedy for a bypass violation is a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting. [n33]
In one case, where the bypass of the union resulted in a last chance agreement between the employee and the agency, the Authority ordered, at the request of the union, that the agreement be voided and copies be purged from the agency's files. [n34]
To determine whether nontraditional remedies are appropriate in a bypass situation, evidence should be developed to establish:
In addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, where there has been a denial of representation rights under section 7114(a)(2)(B) and discipline has ensued, the Authority orders the agency, upon request of the union and the employee, to repeat the investigatory interview and to afford the employee full rights to union representation. [n35] After repeating the investigatory interview, the agency is ordered to reconsider the disciplinary action taken against the employee. [n36] If on reconsideration the agency concludes that the disciplinary action was unwarranted or that a mitigation of the penalty is warranted, the employee is made whole for any losses suffered to the extent consistent with the agency's decision on reconsideration. [n37] The agency is required to notify the employee of the results of the reconsideration, including whatever make-whole actions are to be afforded the employee and, if relevant, afford the employee any grievance or appeal rights that may exist under the parties' negotiated agreement, law or regulation with respect to the agency's action in reconsidering the disciplinary action. [n38]
Where a disciplinary action has been taken because the employee engaged in protected activity, a traditional make-whole remedy is appropriate. [n39] For example, the imposition of discipline for requesting a representative at an investigatory interview would be remedied by a traditional make-whole order.
To determine whether a make-whole remedy is appropriate to remedy an investigatory examination violation, evidence should be developed to establish:
1. Traditional Remedy for a Formal Discussion Violation
In addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, the Authority affirmatively orders the agency to provide prior notice to the union and the opportunity to be represented at any formal discussions. [n40]
A nontraditional remedy for a formal discussion violation is to re-hold the meeting to enable the union to ask questions and make comments as if it had been given notice of the meeting and an opportunity to actively participate, as required by the Statute. A similar nontraditional remedy is to allow the union to convene a meeting among the unit employees who attended the formal discussion on duty time at the same location and for the same time period to allow the union to respond to the discussion at the meeting and answer employee questions about the subject matter.
To determine whether a a nontraditional remedy for a formal discussion violation is appropriate, the evidence should be developed to establish:
In addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, the Authority orders the offending agency to furnish the requested information, upon request. [n41]
One nontraditional remedy is to request that the agency be ordered to waive any contractual time limits for filing a grievance over the matter that gave rise to the information request. See Health Care Financing Administration, OALJ No. 99-40 (Sept. 24, 1999) (exceptions pending). Cf. Department of the Army, Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 26 FLRA No. 52, 26 FLRA 407, 414 (1987) (denial of General Counsel's request for waiver of time limits for filing of grievance). Another nontraditional remedy is to request, in situations where an agency has failed to respond to repeated requests for information or has been repeatedly dilatory in responding to such requests, that the agency be ordered to respond to future requests within a certain time frame, i.e., a compulsory procedure to ensure that the agency makes timely responses to requests for information. [n42] Other possible nontraditional remedies could be to require the agency to renegotiate, upon the union's request, any agreement reached with the union concerning the subject matter that was the subject of the information request and order any new agreement to be effective retroactively. This could apply to a grievance settlement or a memorandum of understanding resulting from collective bargaining. Recall that section 7118(a)(7)(B) of the Statute specifically provides that the Authority has the power to "require the parties to renegotiate a collective bargaining agreement in accordance with the order of the Authority and requir[e] that the agreement, as amended, be given retroactive effect." In my view, this remedy should be requested from the Authority when the evidence establishes that the union would have been in a better bargaining position had the Statute not been violated.
To determine whether the nontraditional remedy to waive grievance time limits is appropriate, evidence should be developed to establish:
To determine whether the nontraditional remedy to establish time frames for furnishing information is appropriate, evidence should be developed to establish:
To determine whether the nontraditional remedy to renegotiate an agreement is appropriate, evidence should be developed to establish:
In addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, when an agency unlawfully fails to process dues assignments, the Authority orders the agency to remit to the exclusive representative those regular and periodic dues which should have been, but were not, withheld from employees' pay pursuant to section 7115 of the Statute, and to affirmatively honor such assignments in the future. [n43] When a union violates section 7115 of the Statute, the Authority orders, in addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, an affirmative order to process a request, or to request that the agency initiate, reinstate or revoke dues withholding. [n44]
In addition to reimbursing the union for lost dues, employees may have lost benefits when their dues were not withheld. In such circumstances, there may be equitable remedies to make the employees whole.
Dues withholding violations may also be committed by unions that fail to remove employees from dues withholding as required by the Statute. In those cases, the union may be required to remit dues monies to the employee. Dues withholding violations may also be committed by unions that fail to place employees on dues withholding. In such circumstances, as with similar agency violations referred to above, there may be equitable remedies to make the employees whole.
To determine whether a a nontraditional remedy for a dues withholding violation is appropriate, evidence should be developed to establish:
In addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, the traditional remedy for the refusal to grant official time required by the Statute is to restore any annual leave that was used in lieu of the official time that should have been granted. [n45]
Where official time has been denied to union officials who nevertheless performed representational duties on nonduty time and the parties' collective bargaining agreement provides for authorization of official time in that instance, section 7131(d) entitles the aggrieved employee to reimbursement at the appropriate straight- time rate for the amount of time that should have been official time. [n46]
To determine whether a a nontraditional remedy for an official violation is appropriate, evidence should be developed to establish:
A traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting is the standard remedy for section 7116(a)(1) unfair labor practices. [n47]
The nontraditional remedies discussed in section P may be appropriate for remedying discrimination violations. In those situations, just as in all situations where a nontraditional remedy is requested, the evidence must establish that the traditional remedy is inadequate to remedy the violation(s) and that the requested nontraditional remedy is necessary to effectuate the remedy principles. Thus, the Authority will order specific remedial action when it is established that such action is necessary to recreate the conditions that existed before the unfair labor practice violation occurred. For example, in one case where a non-employee union representative was denied access to a remote facility, and access to that facility was controlled by an outside entity (an Indian tribe), the respondent agency was ordered to request, in writing and orally, access to the facility. Absent a grant of access to the non-employee union representative, the respondent was ordered to transport its employees, upon request, with official time for the transportation, to an off-site location during non-work time to meet periodically with their union representatives. [n48] In other situations, the violative conduct might have "chilled" employees in the exercise of their protected statutory rights. Before requesting a remedy to dissipate that chill, the General Counsel must present evidence to establish that such a chill indeed exists.
To determine whether a nontraditional remedy for an interference violation is appropriate, evidence should be developed to establish:
In addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, the Authority routinely orders the violative action to be rescinded and employees made whole under the Back Pay Act for lost pay, allowances and differentials to remedy an unfair labor practice where the action took place in retaliation for the exercise of protected statutory rights. [n49]
The nontraditional remedies discussed in section P of this Part may be appropriate for remedying discrimination violations. Often these types of violations are accompanied by other related unfair labor practices. In these situations, just as in all situations where a nontraditional remedy is requested, the evidence must establish that the traditional remedy is inadequate to remedy the violations and that the requested nontraditional remedy is necessary to effectuate the remedy principles. For example, the traditional make-whole remedy does not account for any lost work opportunities as a result of the violation.
To establish that a nontraditional remedy for a discrimination violation is appropriate, evidence should be developed to establish:
A traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting is the traditional remedy for an agency that unlawfully provides services and facilities to a union that is not in equivalent status with an incumbent union. [n50]
Section 7116(a)(3) violations can occur if an agency provides unlawful support for an incumbent union as well as a rival union. In either situation, a nontraditional remedy may be to take those affirmative actions necessary to place the union that was not unlawfully assisted in the position it would have been in but for the violation. In essence, identify those actions that need to be taken to "level the playing field" between the two unions that had been unleveled by the agency's violation.
To determine whether a nontraditional remedy for a section 7116(a)(3) violation is appropriate, evidence should be developed to establish:
In addition to a traditional cease and desist order and a remedial posting, duty of fair representation violations traditionally are remedied by an affirmative order for the union to fairly represent all unit employees. [n51] Where the duty of fair representation violation resulted in action causing employees to be denied benefits, the Authority also will order the offending union to take affirmative steps to rescind that action and to make employees whole for their monetary losses as if there had been no violation. [n52]
Some duty of fair representation violations concern situations where the union did not properly represent an employee in a dispute with the agency. The union's violation has precluded the employee(s) from having the underlying dispute with the agency decided under the negotiated grievance procedure. In these types of situations, the dispute between the employee and the agency is based on a contractual right and seldom concerns statutory rights that may be pursued by the employee against the agency through the unfair labor practice process. As such, the union's violation often involves either the failure to file a timely grievance or the failure to properly process a grievance. Often, the result of the union's violation of its duty of fair representation leaves the employee with no process to pursue the dispute with the agency because the grievance procedure cannot be invoked due to untimeliness or because the grievance already had been improperly pursued. In these situations, the Regions apply the following decisional protocol:
The Regions seek an order requiring the union to request the agency to process or reprocess a grievance, even if untimely. If the agency agrees, the union is required to process the grievance in accordance with its duty of fair representation. The employee is therefore placed in the same position as if the violation had not occurred since the employee's dispute with the agency will be processed as it would have been processed absent the violation.
If the agency refuses to process an untimely grievance or to reprocess a grievance, the issue remains as to how to place the affected employee in the same situation as if there had been no violation. The finding of a violation of the duty of fair representation does not require a finding that the underlying dispute which motivated the employee to seek union assistance was meritorious. However, the issue of appropriate remedy in these types of circumstances where the grievance cannot be processed does require an exploration of what effect, if any, should be given to whether the employee's dispute with the agency was meritorious.
The union should be given the opportunity to avoid a make-whole order as a duty of fair representation remedy by being provided the opportunity to contest whether the underlying dispute between the employee and the agency was meritorious.
The Regions do not seek a make-whole remedy unless the evidence establishes the merits of the underlying grievance. To require the union to make employees whole when it has not been established that the unfair labor practice was the direct reason why those employees had suffered a loss would not be consistent with those remedial objectives outlined by the Authority in F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 52 FLRA No. 17, 52 FLRA 149, 160-62 (1996) (F.E. Warren AFB).
To determine whether a nontraditional remedy for a duty of fair representation violation is appropriate, evidence should be developed to establish:
Dependent upon the circumstances surrounding the particular violation, the General Counsel has requested the Authority to grant nontraditional remedies requiring specific affirmative action deemed necessary to effectively remedy the particular violation and effectuate the purposes and polices of the Statute. These remedies may be appropriate to remedy a variety of unfair labor practices.
In those few cases involving the most blatant and egregious violations, the General Counsel has requested that some form of responsibility, accountability and acknowledgment of wrong doing be associated with the particular supervisor or management official who engaged in such egregious conduct. The Authority denied the General Counsel's request in one case that the official personnel fille of a supervisor who committed violations be annotated because the nontraditional remedy ordered by the Authority, that the notice be distributed to all supervisors and management officials, in its view, was tailored to fit the circumstances and sufficiently addressed the General Counsel's concern for deterrence. [n54] In another decision, the Authority found that the General Counsel had not established the need for disciplining the three supervisors responsible for the violations where the violations were directed at one individual and not widespread, the supervisors involved were not defiant of prior Authority orders, and the violations were not flagrant. [n55]
The Authority also has held that placement of a nondisciplinary entry in the personnel file of the offending management official was not appropriate where the offender was not named as a party to the cases, was not represented at the hearing and was not placed on notice that future disciplinary actions against him might be affected by the Authority's decision. The Authority noted that the official did not have the same opportunity to defend himself before the ALJ that he would have had if he had received such notice. The Authority, noting it had denied a similar remedy in Florence Penitentiary, found that granting the remedy raises substantial due process considerations. [n56]
While reluctant to assign individual responsibility or accountability to individual supervisors or managers, the Authority indicated in Leavenworth that under the appropriate circumstance, it would consider referring a matter to the Office of Special Counsel or order a respondent to make such a referral in order to request an investigation into whether a management official committed prohibited personnel practices and any action that the Special Counsel might deem appropriate. [n57]
In view of the paucity of decisions in this area, the Regions are requested to contact the Office of the General Counsel before issuing complaint in a case where the Region deems the nontraditional remedy of either placing responsibility on the particular supervisor or manager who engaged in the conduct that violated the Statute or requesting an order to refer a matter to the Office of the Special Counsel to be appropriate.
The Authority has found that an arbitration award that required an agency to send first and second-line supervisors to workshops on sexual harassment did not interfere with an agency's right to discipline employees because supervisors are not employees, nor with its right to assign work, since the workshops were for obtaining information and not for training. [n58] However, the General Counsel has not yet been able to obtain such a remedy for an unfair labor practice. In one decision, even though the offending supervisors ignored Authority precedent, the Authority denied the remedy noting that the "facts and circumstances [did] not establish that the supervisors' actions were based on their ignorance of obligations under the Statute or that, for any reason, training of the supervisors is reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute". [n59] In another case, the Authority again rejected a training remedy because it was not demonstrated how such a remedy would satisfy the remedy principles. [n60]
In one case, the Authority refused to order the respondent to issue a memorandum to managers reminding them of their statutory obligations. [n61] The Authority noted that "[a]lthough the education of supervisors and managers about their responsibilities under the Statute is always a salutary objective . . . the traditional remedy . . . should . . . accomplish the objective of future deterrence."
To determine whether training managers and supervisors or union officials, or whether a memorandum should be issued to managers and supervisors or union officials reminding them of their statutory obligations are appropriate remedies, evidence should be developed to establish:
Another nontraditional remedy that may be applicable to a variety of unfair labor practice violations is to establish time tables for an agency or union to undertake specific affirmative actions ordered by the Authority. For example, the remedy could require that an employee be promoted within 14 days of service of the decision.
To determine whether a specific time table to effectuate compliance with affirmative actions is appropriate, evidence should be developed to establish:
In one decision, the Authority found that respondents violated section 7116(a)(1) and (2) when a law enforcement officer of the Department of Defense, who was acting as an agent of the respondents, issued a criminal citation to an employee, in connection with the employee's activities on behalf of an exclusive representative under the Statute. [n62] The Authority ordered the respondents to rescind the citation to the extent that it was within their possession and control. [n63] The Authority also ordered the respondents to serve a copy of the Authority decision and order on the magistrate and any other authorities who may have control of the citation and to request the magistrate and such other authorities to give appropriate effect to the Authority's decision for the matters within their jurisdiction. [n64]
To determine whether the order should take into consideration whether the affirmative action ordered is within the sole control of the respondent, the following evidence needs to be developed:
In a case where both the union and the agency were charged with violating the Statute based on the same set of events, and the remedy involves the payment of money, the Authority, relying on private sector precedent, has held that joint and several liability may be appropriate where no basis was argued or apparent for finding one respondent primarily and the other secondarily liable, and both respondents knew, or should have known, that their actions were unlawful. [n65]
Whenever an agency and a union are respondents in a consolidated unfair labor practice complaint alleging violations of the Statute which resulted in monetary losses to employees, the Regions should seek an order requiring joint and severable liability.
Footnote # 1 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Federal Correctional Institution, 8 FLRA No. 111, 8 FLRA 604, 606 (1982) (FCI).
Footnote # 2 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Footnote # 3 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
See, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 55 FLRA No. 151, 55 FLRA 892, 906- 08 (1999) (U.S. DOJ) (status quo ante ordered where agency violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5) by failing to bargain over the impact and implementation of its non-deadly force policy-- Authority requires that a conclusion that a status quo ante remedy would be disruptive to the operations of an agency be "based on record evidence"); and Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California, 55 FLRA No. 21, 55 FLRA 116, 124-25 (1999) (retroactive promotions and backpay granted where agency refused to bargain over procedures and appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by unilateral elimination of noncompetitive promotions).
Footnote # 4 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. DOJ, 55 FLRA at 906 (Authority based status quo remedy -- recission of a non-deadly force policy, in part, on ALJ's finding that notwithstanding Charging Party's knowledge of non-deadly force policy, respondent did not invite Charging Party to bargain).
Footnote # 5 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
See U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Golden Colorado, 56 FLRA No. 2, 56 FLRA 9, 13, 14 (2000) (WAPA, Golden) (citing U.S. Department of the Army, Lexington-Blue Grass Army Dept, Lexington, Kentucky , 38 FLRA 647, 649 (1990) (Lexington-Blue Grass) (as a result, the Authority ordered rescission of directed reassignments, offer of reinstatement to previously occupied positions and make whole for any reduction of pay and/or benefits as a result of the reassignments).
Footnote # 6 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution, Bastrop, Texas, 55 FLRA No. 147, 55 FLRA 848, 856 (2000) (FCI, Bastrop) (duty to bargain arises prior to implementation of a change).
Footnote # 7 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, 24 FLRA No. 42, 24 FLRA 403, 407-08 (1986) (sets the test for the duty to bargain over appropriate arrangements and procedures).
Footnote # 8 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 36 FLRA No. 71, 36 FLRA 655, 673 (1990) (even if decision to colocate teleclaims representatives constituted an exercise of a management right, that factor does not mean that respondent was privileged to implement the decision without bargaining).
Footnote # 9 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Waco Distribution Center, Waco, Texas, 53 FLRA No. 66, 53 FLRA 749, 763 (1997) and Lexington-Blue Grass, 38 FLRA at 649-50.
Footnote # 10 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Footnote # 11 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Compare id. with United States Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, 54 FLRA No. 90, 54 FLRA 914, 922 (1998) (status quo ante remedy not warranted because there would be potential disruption to respondent's operations and an unfair impact on those employees who received the voluntary incentive separation pay).
Footnote # 12 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
FCI, Bastrop, 55 FLRA at 856 (status quo ante remedy for unilaterally changing policIes regarding inmate release procedures without bargaining over appropriate arrangements and procedures; and the Authority clarified that it never held that the presence of internal security concerns precludes status quo ante relief in all cases).
Footnote # 13 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
See also WAPA, Golden, 56 FLRA at 13 (after discussing each FCI factor, the Authority ordered a status quo ante remedy where respondent reassigned two unit employees without providing the union with notice and an opportunity to bargain); and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District, Memphis, Tennessee, 53 FLRA No. 14, 53 FLRA 79, 84-85 (1997) (restore a cook position that was unilaterally eliminated).
Footnote # 14 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
WAPA, Golden, 56 FLRA at 13 (agency could not accurately reflect the degree of disruption a status quo ante remedy would have on its operations).
Footnote # 15 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Money remedies under the Back Pay Act also are traditional remedies. See Part V.
Footnote # 16 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
See FDIC v. FLRA, 977 F.2d 1493, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (the purpose of a status quo ante remedy is "to ensure that agencies will have incentive to bargain with their unions"); and NTEU v. FLRA, 910 F.2d at 969 ("[W]here an agency has taken unilateral action that disturbs the status quo and has illegally refused to give a union an opportunity to bargain over the decision (or its impact), a stronger case can be made for the proposition that the Authority, as does the NLRB, should restore the status quo ante in a remedial order . . . ").
Footnote # 17 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
See, e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Board of Immigration Appeals, 55 FLRA No. 74, 55 FLRA 454, 457 (1999) (after reconsidering requests for flexiplace, respondent ordered to make adversely affected employees whole for any annual leave due to the failure to initially consider their requests); Navajo Area Indian Health Service, Winslow Service Unit, Winslow, Arizona, 55 FLRA No. 32, 55 FLRA 186, 189 (1999) (respondent ordered to rescind the changes to the Employee Health Program and to reinstate the services which were provided to non-beneficiary employees prior to the change); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 41 FLRA No. 29, 41 FLRA 272, 279 (1991) enforced, 977 F.2d 1493 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (setting standard for status quo ante remedy where respondent failed to bargain over substance of a change); compare Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Asheville, North Carolina, 51 FLRA No. 51 FLRA 1572, 1580 n.13 (1996) (status quo ante remedy not ordered because special circumstances exist--it was not possible to recreate events that had already transpired-- employee birthdays for which administrative leave was not granted had already occurred so it was not possible to provide time off for employees to commemorate past birthdays).
Footnote # 18 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, 51 FLRA No. 4, 51 FLRA 35, 37-38 (1995).
Footnote # 19 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
See U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration, 48 FLRA No. 129, 48 FLRA 1211, 1215 (1993) (the Authority declined to issue an order that limits the length of a return to the status quo ante by imposing a time limit on the bargaining process).
Footnote # 20 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U. S. Department of Justice, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, El Paso District Office, 34 FLRA No. 166, 34 FLRA 1035, 1049-50 (1990) (INS, El Paso), order denying in part, and granting in part, motion for reconsideration and modifying decision, 39 FLRA No. 123, 39 FLRA 1431, 1438- 39 (1991) (respondent ordered to rescind admonishments for failure to comply with changes in requirements except for those disciplinary actions that would have been appropriate and lawful despite improper implementation of the changes).
Footnote # 21 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Veterans Administration, West Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, 23 FLRA No. 37, 23 FLRA 278, 280 (1987) (in the circumstances of the case, a refusal to negotiate in good faith does not excuse an employee's insubordination).
Footnote # 22 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Footnote # 23 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Renton, Washington, 51 FLRA No. 4, 51 FLRA 35, 37 (1995) (FAA, Northwest Mountain Region) (citation omitted).
Footnote # 24 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Footnote # 25 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
See, e.g., Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, D.C., 48 FLRA No. 27, 48 FLRA 313, 330-31 (1993) (FDIC), petition for review denied sub nom. FDIC v. FLRA, No. 93-1694 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (Authority imposed RBO to remedy respondents' unilateral decision not to renew appointments of certain employees, requiring that "any employee be made whole who, based on any agreement reached by the parties, is determined to have suffered a loss of pay, benefits, allowances, or differentials because of the [r]espondents' unlawful conduct").
Footnote # 26 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Asheville, North Carolina, 51 FLRA No. 129, 51 FLRA 1572, 1581 (1996) (RBO remedies failure to notify union of management's decision to no longer grant employees four hours of administrative leave on their birthday by allowing the parties to determine the best form of relief for the conduct found to be unlawful); and United States Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, 54 FLRA No. 90, 54 FLRA 914, 922-24 (1998) (RBO remedies failure to notify union of receipt of authorization to offer voluntary separation incentive pay which deprived the union of an opportunity to bargain before employees were affected by allowing the parties to negotiate the best form of relief for those employees adversely affected by the unlawful refusal to bargain).
Footnote # 27 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 36 FLRA No. 62, 36 FLRA 524, 534-35 (1990) (the Authority found that a bargaining order would not be moot, duplicative or unnecessary).
Footnote # 28 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Geological Survey, Caribbean District Office, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 53 FLRA No. 86, 53 FLRA 1006, 1015-22 (1997) (the Authority ordered its remedy consistent with the national labor policy which seeks to have disputes between employees and their employers involving conditions of employment settled amicably through collective bargaining).
Footnote # 29 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, 51 FLRA at 37 (1995) (in denying the request for the imposition of time limits on bargaining the Authority noted that the expressed reason for the requested time limits on bargaining no longer existed; the record contained no evidence indicating that the respondent was unwilling to negotiate expeditiously; and the difficulty in imposing effective time limits on collective bargaining in the Federal sector).
Footnote # 30 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Chicago, Illinois, 19 FLRA No. 60, 19 FLRA 454, 455 (1985) ("an order which would compel the parties to reach agreement is inconsistent with section 7103(a)(12) of the Statute . . .").
Footnote # 31 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
E.g., Veterans Administration Outpatient Clinic, Los Angeles, California, 22 FLRA No. 40, 22 FLRA 399, 400 (1986) (implement the agreement consonant with laws and regulations governing the matters that are the subject of the agreement); National Council of Social Security Administration Field Operations Locals--Council 220, American Federation of Government Employees, 21 FLRA No. 43, 21 FLRA 319, 322 (1986) (sign the agreement upon request of the charging party); Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California and FEMTC, AFL-CIO, 7 FLRA No. 16, 7 FLRA 102, 103 (1981) (take action in conformity with agreement).
Footnote # 32 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, Texas, 55 FLRA. No. 157, 55 FLRA 951, 957 (1999) (allow union representation on employee interview panels as required by the parties' agreement); and U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, FCI Danbury, Danbury, Connecticut, 55 FLRA No. 37, 55 FLRA 201, 205 (1999) (reinstate the shift starting and stopping times as agreed to in a local supplemental agreement).
Footnote # 33 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, New York Office of Asylum, Rosedale, New York, 55 FLRA No. 170, 55 FLRA 1032, 1039 (1999) (Rosedale, New York).
Footnote # 34 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Social Security Administration, 55 FLRA No. 160, 55 FLRA 978, 983 (1999) (agency committed a unilateral change and a bypass violation by negotiating a last chance agreement with an employee without notifying and bargaining with the union).
Footnote # 35 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Internal Affairs, Washington, D.C., 55 FLRA No. 64, 55 FLRA 388, 395 (1999).
Footnote # 36 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Footnote # 37 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Footnote # 38 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Id. (citing Safford, 35 FLRA at 447-48 (1990)).
Footnote # 39 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Charleston Naval Shipyard, 32 FLRA No. 37, 32 FLRA 222, 233-34 (1988) (adopting the conclusions and analysis that were applied by the NLRB in Taracorp Industries, 273 NLRB 221, 221-23 (1984), the Authority indicated that in cases involving violations of section 7114(a)(2)(B), traditional make-whole remedies would not be ordered where the "only violation is the denial of an employee's request for representation at an investigatory interview").
Footnote # 40 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Rosedale, New York, 55 FLRA No. 170, 55 FLRA 1032 (1999) (formal discussion and bypass violations by attempting to resolve a grievance directly with an employee).
Footnote # 41 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Federal Aviation Administration, 55 FLRA No. 44, 55 FLRA 254, 261 (1999) (furnish upon request information necessary for union to determine seniority under the contact).
Footnote # 42 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Border Patrol, Tucson, Arizona, ALJ Dec. Rpt. 129 (Aug. 29, 1997) (no exceptions filed) (agency ordered to reply in a timely and proper manner to requests for information made by the union by following a procedure to: (1) respond in writing within ten work days after the receipt of a data request by addressing the following issues; (2) whether the specific data requested exists; (3) whether or not it will be provided as requested; (4) whether clarification from union is required; (5) whether or not the release of the information is precluded by law, and, if so, a statement of the reason(s); (6) whether the agency has any countervailing interests in non-disclosure; and (7) offer to and/or initiate a meeting and/or a telephone conference if it would assist in resolving any issue arising from the request).
Footnote # 43 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Morale, Welfare and Recreation Directorate, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, 48 FLRA No. 71, 48 FLRA 686, 691 (1993) (remedy ordered for discontinuing dues withholding and for withdrawing recognition from the union after a reorganization and during the pendency of a question concerning representation).
Footnote # 44 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, 47 FLRA No. 118, 47 FLRA 1289, 1295 (1993) (remedy for union's violation of section 7116(b)(1) and (8) by directing the agency to terminate the charging party's dues allotment in disregard of section 7115).
Footnote # 45 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Department of the Navy, Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia and Navy, Atlantic Ordnance Command, Yorktown, Virginia, 55 FLRA No. 181, 55 FLRA 1112, 1114-15 (1999) (during the pendency of a representation petition that was filed after a reorganization, the agency was obligated to continue to recognize the existing unit under section 2422.34(a) of the regulations, and therefore violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) when it denied union officials' requests for official time under section 7131(a) to negotiate changes in employees' conditions of employment).
Footnote # 46 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Northeastern Region, Lexington, Massachusetts and American Federation of Government Employees, Council of Locals 163, 47 FLRA No. 122, 47 FLRA 1314, 1322 (1993) (citation omitted).
Footnote # 47 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL- CIO and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1164, 53 FLRA No. 162, 53 FLRA 1812, 1819 (1998) (a union was ordered to cease and desist from questioning employees about their union membership and soliciting membership in a coercive manner when an employee is seeking union assistance in a matter for which the union is responsible as the exclusive representative).
Footnote # 48 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Isleta Elementary School, Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico, 54 FLRA No. 124, 54 FLRA 1428, 1443-44 (1998) (Authority also ordered agency to make any other necessary arrangements for non-employee and employee union representatives to represented unit employees that had existed prior to the denial of access).
Footnote # 49 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
See, e.g., U.S. Geological Survey and Caribbean District Office, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 50 FLRA No. 76, 50 FLRA 548, 552-53 (1995) (agency ordered to reinstate ten temporary employees and make them whole for any loss of pay or benefits suffered as a result of their unlawful termination).
Footnote # 50 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Department of the Air Force, Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier City, Louisiana, 45 FLRA No. 58, 45 FLRA 659, 667 (1992) (agency ordered to cease providing a non- employee representative of a rival union access to its premises for purposes of conducting an organizational campaign when the employees were represented by another union and the rival had not obtained equivalent status nor established that it could not communicate with employees because of their inaccessibility).
Footnote # 51 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3615, AFL-CIO, 53 FLRA No. 123, 53 FLRA 1374, 1376 (1998) (order to represent the interests of all unit employees without discrimination and without regard to union membership).
Footnote # 52 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1827, 49 FLRA No. 71, 49 FLRA 738, 748-49, 750 (1994) (union ordered to request the agency to reinstate the previous type of seniority used for calculating benefits and further ordered the union to make unit employees whole for any loss of pay, benefits and differentials suffered as a result of the action caused by the union that changed the seniority-based benefits calculations).
Footnote # 53 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
A more detailed discussion of the development of this approach is contained in the Guidance on "The Duty of Fair Representation" (January 27, 1997).
Footnote # 54 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Penitentiary, Florence, Colorado, 53 FLRA No. 124, 53 FLRA 1393, 1394 (1998) (Florence Penitentiary).
Footnote # 55 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Aeronautical Charging Division, Washington, D.C., 54 FLRA No. 92, 53 FLRA 987, 1022 (1998).
Footnote # 56 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, 55 FLRA No. 127, 55 FLRA 704, 719 (1999) (Leavenworth).
Footnote # 57 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Footnote # 58 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Department of the Air Force, Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3854, 48 FLRA No. 8, 48 FLRA 74, 87-89 (1993) (the Authority upheld an arbitrator's award that management officials attend workshops and seminars on sexual harassment); and U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and American Federation of Government Employees, Council of Prison Locals, Local 148 C-33, 39 FLRA 1288, 1303-05 (1991) (Lewisburg) (the Authority upheld an arbitrator's award requiring a supervisor to take sensitivity training).
Footnote # 59 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, 52 FLRA No. 18, 52 FLRA 182, 186 (1996).
Footnote # 60 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Internal Affairs, Washington, D.C., 54 FLRA No. 133, 54 FLRA 1502, 1515- 17 (1998) (the Authority rejected the General Counsel's requested remedy of nationwide training for supervisors because the record did not demonstrate that the requested remedy was necessary since the respondents recognized their obligations under the Statute. The remedy principles listed were: (1) why the remedy is reasonably necessary; (2) how the remedy would effectively recreate the conditions and relationships with which the unfair labor practice interfered and (3) how the policies of the Statute would be effectuated or how future violative conduct would be deterred).
Footnote # 61 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
F. E. Warren AFB, 52 FLRA at 162.
Footnote # 62 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California and Long Beach Naval Station, Long Beach, California, 25 FLRA No. 84, 25 FLRA 1002 (1987).
Footnote # 63 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Footnote # 64 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
Footnote # 65 - Attachment 1 - Guidance on Seeking Remedies for ULPs
U.S. Air Force, Loring Air Force Base, Limestone, Maine, 43 FLRA No. 90, 43 FLRA 1087, 1101 (1992).