U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 214, AFL-CIO

Other Files: 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20424-0001

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND
Respondent

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 214, AFL-CIO
Charging Party

Case No. CH-CA-50543(1)
Major Michael A. Fleming For the Respondent
Philip T. Roberts, Esquire Nick Duris, Esquire For the General Counsel
Before: WILLIAM B. DEVANEY Administrative Law Judge


DECISION

Statement of the Case

This proceeding, under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the United States Code, 5 U.S.C. § 7101, et seq., and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder, 5 C.F.R. § 2423.1, et seq., concerns whether Respondent unilaterally implemented changes of the merit promotion system concerning consideration of local candidates and use of the DOD stopper list without notice to Council 214.

This case was initiated by a charge filed on April 6, 1995 (G.C. Exh. 1(b)), the Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued on December 20, 1995 (G.C. Exh. 1(c)) and set the hearing for February 27, 1996, pursuant to which a hearing was duly held on February 27, 1996, in Dayton, Ohio, before the undersigned. All parties were represented at the hearing, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues involved.


Findings


General Counsel presented testimony and evidence which clearly established that, as alleged in the Complaint, Respondent had unilaterally implemented changes of the merit promotion system without notice to Council 214, the exclusive representative. At the conclusion of General Counsel's case, I stated that the evidence showed that the Union had no notice; and that all would agree that Respondent did make a unilateral change. Accordingly, I stated that it appeared to me to be an open and shut case; that Respondent violated its obligation to give the Union notice and opportunity to bargain before changing an existing condition of employment. I further stated that I intended to order a restoration of the status quo ante. Respondent presented no testimony (Tr. 42-49) and, as General Counsel had established the alleged violation of Sections 7116(a)(5) and (1) of the Statute, I requested the parties to submit a proposed order. The parties have done so; although submitted a day later than requested, under the circumstances, any delay is waived; and, having found the proposed order proper and fully responsive, I adopt it and recommend that the Authority adopt the following:


ORDER

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Fede