15:0026(7)CA - Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Navy and IFPTE Local 3; Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Navy and Philadelphia MTC -- 1984 FLRAdec CA
[ v15 p26 ]
15:0026(7)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
15 FLRA No. 7
PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Respondent
and
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS,
LOCAL 3
Charging Party
Case No. 2-CA-720
PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Respondent
and
PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL
Charging Party
Case No. 2-CA-715
DECISION AND ORDER
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint,
/1A/ and recommending that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action. The General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Judge's recommended Order.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (the Statute), the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the
Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon consideration of the
Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts the
Judge's findings, conclusions and recommended Order.
The Judge found that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and
(5) of the Statute when it instituted a new "Magistrate System,"
described more fully in his Decision, without bargaining over the impact
and implementation of the new system. The Authority agrees, for the
reasons stated by the Judge.
To remedy the violation, the Judge ordered the Respondent to cease
and desist from the unfair labor practices found, give the exclusive
representative notice and an opportunity to bargain concerning the
impact and implementation of the new system, and post the customary
notice to its employees. The Judge concluded that neither a status quo
ante remedy nor a make-whole order was appropriate in the circumstances.
While the Authority has determined that in some cases a status quo ante
remedy may be warranted for a refusal to negotiate over impact and
implementation, Federal Correctional Institution, 8 FLRA No. 111 (1982)
(issued after the Judge's Decision herein), the Authority agrees with
the conclusion of the Judge that such remedy is not appropriate herein.
Thus, applying the standards of Federal Correctional Institution, the
nature and circumstances of the unfair labor practice must be balanced
against the disruption to government operations which would be caused by
directing a return to the status quo ante. It is noted that the
decision to institute the magistrate system over which the Union sought
impact and implementation bargaining emanated from higher levels of
management and affected 35 tenant activities at the Philadelphia Naval
Base, in addition to the Respondent Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. Thus,
a requirement to reinstitute the prior system as to the Shipyard, as
sought by the General Counsel and rejected by the Judge, clearly would
prevent uniform traffic administration at the Base. The alternative of
reinstating the prior system on the entire base pending impact
bargaining would be inappropriate because it would have an effect on the
35 other tenant activities at the Base and hence would extend far beyond
the operations of the Respondent which committed the unfair labor
practice. On the other hand, the record does not suggest great
inconvenience or hardship to adversely affected employees as a result of
the unilateral implementation of the system. Moreover, the record
suggests that the Respondent's failure to negotiate over the impact and
implementation of the new system, while violative of the Statute, may
have resulted at least in part from confusion rather than willfulness.
In view of the foregoing, the Authority concludes that a prospective
bargaining order, giving the employees' exclusive representative an
opportunity to present proposals concerning the impact and
implementation of the decision to institute the magistrate system, will
fully remedy the violation in this case and will effectuate the purposes
and policies of the Statute.
Finally, in adopting that portion of the Judge's Decision denying
reimbursement to employees adversely affected by the new procedure, it
is noted that there has been no showing that any losses suffered were
related to the Respondent's refusal to bargain since another system for
regulating offenses was in place prior to implementation of the new
system and there is no evidence to suggest that losses through fines
under the magistrate system would not have occurred under the system
which existed previously. Accordingly, a make-whole remedy is not
appropriate.
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the
Authority hereby orders that the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Department
of the Navy, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Instituting changes in the method of handling traffic and
non-traffic offenses at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, without first
affording the International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia Metal Trades Council, the exclusive
bargaining representatives of employees in their respective bargaining
units, an opportunity to bargain concerning the procedures to be
observed in implementing such changes and appropriate arrangements for
employees adversely affected thereby.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the International Federation of
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia Metal
Trades Council concerning the procedures to be observed in instituting
changes in the method of handling traffic and non-traffic offenses and
appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected thereby.
(b) Post at its facility at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard the attached
Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the
Shipyard Commander, or his designee, and shall be posted for 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
bulletin boards and other places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such
Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director of Region II, Federal Labor
Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
Issued, Washington, D.C., June 6, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS
AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
OF TITLE
5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT institute changes in the method of handling traffic and
non-traffic offenses at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard without first
affording the International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia Metal Trades Council, the exclusive
representatives of our employees, an opportunity to bargain concerning
the procedures to be observed in implementing such changes and
appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected thereby. WE
WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. WE WILL, upon request,
bargain with the International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia Metal Trades Council concerning the
procedures to be observed in instituting changes in the method of
handling traffic and non-traffic offenses, and appropriate arrangements
for employees adversely affected thereby.
(Activity)
By: (Signature) (Title)
Dated: . . .
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional
Director for Region II, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address
is: 26 Federal Plaza, Room 241, New York, New York 10278 and whose
telephone number is: (212) 264-4934.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Joseph J. Dallas,
Jerry Snyder, Esq.
For the Respondent
Lee Mingledorff, Esq.
Nina Schwartz, Esq.
For the General Counsel
Before: WILLIAM NAIMARK
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
This proceeding arises under the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. (herein called the Act). On
December 22, 1980 a charge was filed in Case No. 2-CA-720 by
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local
3 (herein called IFPTE) against Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Department
of the Navy (herein called Respondent). On December 18, 1980 a charge
was filed in Case No. 2-CA-715 by Philadelphia Metal Trades Council
(herein called PMTC) against the aforesaid Respondent.
Pursuant to an Order Consolidating Cases, /1/ Complaint and Notice of
Hearing issued on February 27, 1981 by the Regional Director for the
Federal Labor Relations Authority, New York, N.Y. Region, a hearing was
held before the undersigned on May 20, 1981 at Philadelphia, PA.
Based upon the aforesaid charges it was alleged in the Consolidated
Complaint that Respondent, on December 15, 1980, implemented a change to
a U.S. Magistrate System in respect to traffic and parking violations;
that Respondent implemented such change without affording IFPTE or PMTC
an opportunity to negotiate the procedures, implementation and impact of
such system, that Respondent, in fact, did refuse to negotiate thereon
despite a request by said unions to do so-- all in violation of Sections
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
Respondent's answer, dated March 19, 1981, denied the aforesaid
allegations and that it committed any unfair labor practices.
All parties were represented at the hearing. Each was afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to adduce evidence, and to examine as well as
cross-examine witnesses. Thereafter General Counsel filed a brief with
the undersigned which has been duly considered.
Upon the entire record herein, from my observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, and from all of the testimony and evidence adduced
at the hearing, I make the following findings, conclusions and
recommendations:
Findings of Fact
1. At all times material herein IFPTE has been, and still is, the
exclusive bargaining representative of all non-supervisory technical and
professional employees in Respondent's Planning Department (Codes 240
thru 270, and Code 202), Production Engineering Division (Code 385);
upgraded non-supervisory personnel, Reproduction Branch, Planning
Department (Code 202); non-supervisory graded technical employee of the
Combat Systems Office (Code 190).
2. At all times material herein PMTC has been, and still is, the
exclusive bargaining representative of all non-supervisory ungraded
employees who are employed by Respondent, excluding ungraded employees
in units where exclusive recognition has been granted to other labor
organizations.
3. Approximately 30,000 employees are engaged at the Naval Base in
Philadelphia, PA. Of this amount, about 10,600 individuals are employed
by the Respondent, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, which is a tenant
activity. There are about 35 other activities occupying a similar
status. Respondent recognizes and negotiates with six labor
organizations as the exclusive representatives of various unit employee.
Bargaining does not take place by the unions with the Naval Base, and
all requests to bargain must be made to the appropriate command of the
particular activity.
4. Various operations at Respondent which involve police actions,
fire maintenance, mail, et al, are under the employer's administrative
department. The police division handles the parking traffic program at
the Shipyard and the Naval Base. This is in accord with the delegation
by the Commander of the Naval Base of responsibility for administering
and enforcing traffic regulations to the Commander of the Naval
Shipyard.
5. In August 1980, /2/ management held a meeting with the various
union representatives to discuss a proposed new parking system. As an
ancillary matter, Commander Moyers informed the union officials that a
Magistrate System was planned. However, no details were imparted to
those in attendance, nor did the union representatives request
negotiations thereon at that time.
6. As called by Richard R. Britt, Head of Labor Relations for
Respondent, a meeting was held by management with union officials on
November 12 to inform the latter of the new Magistrate System. Britt
explained it would cover traffic-type offenses. However, he did not
list which offenses would constitute violations nor indicate the
correlative penalties or fines. Management was unable to inform the
union agents the exact date when the new system would be implemented.
Several matters, in connection therewith, were raised by the union
representatives. A question was posed as to whether employees, who are
required to appear in court, would be charged for annual leave.
Further, it was posed as to whether "double jeopardy" would prevail if
an employee received a fine in court and was also disciplined at the
base. Several union officials stated to Britt that they desired to
negotiate these matters as well as the implementation of the Magistrate
System. /3/ Britt testified that he told the union representatives
that, in his opinion, the Magistrate System was non-negotiable since it
was beyond his control as it was imposed upon Respondent by the
ComnavBase; that the Admiral was telling the Shipyard it would have
such a system.
7. During the week following the aforesaid meeting Frank McHale,
representative of PMTC, spoke to Britt re the negotiability of the
Magistrate Court System. McHale asked the management official if he
intended to negotiate any proposals and Britt replied it was
non-negotiable.
8. Under date of November 18 the ComnavBase sent out a TWX advising
all "Navacts" that commencing December 15 all traffic (including
parking) violations on the base would be referred to Federal
Magistrate's Court for disposition; that non traffic offenses committed
by civilians and retired military personnel would also be similarly
referred to said Court.
9. A letter dated December 3 was sent from James McGinley,
President, Local F-61 IAFF, to Rear Admiral C. A. Brettschneider
requesting negotiation re the impact and implementation of the proposed
Magistrate System.
10. It was announced in the December 7 issue of the Beacon /4/ that
"in accordance with Department of Defense instructions, the Philadelphia
Naval Base will begin a Federal Magistrate Program beginning on December
15."
11. In the December 12 issue of the Beacon it was specified, for the
first time, which acts by employees (traffic and non-traffic) were
deemed offenses and would require the appearance of the offender in
Federal Court. Alongside of each such offense was listed the
correlative fine to be imposed therefor.
12. Prior to the imposition of this system the union represented
employees at the police station for traffic infractions. Individuals
charged with such acts might have their parking sticker revoked, but
fines were not levied. Under the Magistrate System both penalties could
result. Non-traffic offenses were handled via the grievance procedures,
and employees who were such offenders might have union representation.
Penalties in these instances could involve reprimands, warnings,
suspension, or removal. Under the Magistrate System /5/ an individual
might be subject to such punishments and be fined by the Court.
Representation by the union in the latter tribunal was no longer
feasible, and fines imposed by the Magistrate were not grievable.
13. Record facts reflect that on December 12, during contract
negotiations between the unions and management, Michael Ricci,
corresponding secretary of PMTC, asked Britt to negotiate the impact and
implementation of the Magistrate System. Further, Respondent's labor
relations specialist replied that the matter was not negotiable.
14. The Magistrate Court System was put into effect on December 15,
and no negotiation took place between the parties with respect to its
impact or implementation.
15. By memo dated December 16 the ComnavBase referred McGinley's
letter of December 3 (requesting negotiation of the Magistrate System)
to the Commander of the Shipyard for appropriate action.
16. Under date of December 23 Britt returned McGinley's letter to
him, stating it was erroneously forwarded to the Shipyard for action.
17. In a letter dated January 5, 1981 Joseph J. Dallas, Senior Labor
Relations Advisor for Department of the Navy, wrote McGinley re his
request of December 3 to negotiate "the implementation and impact of the
Federal Magistrate Court Program on conditions of employees in your
bargaining unit." Dallas stated that the "employer" for the unit
employees is the Commander, Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia; that,
therefore, the Commander, Naval Base Philadelphia has no obligation to
bargain re the Magistrate Programs; that if the Shipyard Commander
chooses to issue implementing instructions, his representative will
afford an opportunity to bargain on impact and implementation.
Conclusions
While conceding it may have an obligation to bargain over the impact
and implementation of the Magistrate System, Respondent insists it did
not flout its duty in this regard. Thus, it contends that no request
was made to negotiate the system's impact or implementation; that
assuming arguendo such a request was made, it was not in writing and
therefore the employer should not be faulted for failing to so
negotiate.
It is clear that although certain decisions in respect to operations,
or the change thereof, are reserved for management, it is incumbent upon
the latter to negotiate with the bargaining representative as to their
impact and implementation. Federal Railroad Administration, 4 A/SLMR
No. 497. This principle is well established in the public sector, and
it is qualified in the main only to the extent that the impact is
significant to warrant fulfilling such obligation. Thus, an employer is
required to notify the representative, before it effects any change in
operation, and afford the union an opportunity to bargain concerning the
implementation thereof. Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C., 4
FLRA No. 68.
In respect to the change instituted by Respondent herein concerning
the Magistrate System, it is noted that the Authority has had occasion
to consider a case wherein an employer adopted such a system with
respect to traffic and parking violation. It was held in Department of
the Air Force, Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, 2 FLRA No. 2 that
while the decision to institute such a procedure was reserved to
management, the latter was obliged to bargain over its impact and
implementation. Since, in the cited case, the employer had not afforded
the bargaining representative an opportunity to negotiate the Magistrate
System's impact and implementation, it was concluded that management had
failed to bargain as required under the Order. /6/
The chief contention of the Respondent herein is that no request was
made to bargain over the impact and implementation of the Magistrate
System at the Shipyard. The facts herein belie this argument. Union
witnesses testified credibly that, at the November 12 meeting with
management, they requested of Britt that the impact and implementation
of the new system be negotiated. Britt's testimony reflecting he deemed
the Magistrate procedure to be non-negotiable leaves little room for an
inference that he was referring solely to the decision to institute the
new system. This is buttressed by the conversation a week later between
PMTC representative McHale and Britt regarding the matter. When asked
by the union official whether he intended to negotiate any proposals,
Britt replied the matter was non-negotiable.
Respondent's insistence that it would have negotiated the change if
it had received a request to do so is not persuasive. Thus, no
affirmative response was made by the Shipyard to union agent McGinley's
written request of December 12, 1980 to negotiate the impact and
implementation of the Magistrate Program. The employer had a clear
opportunity to comply with its obligation in this regard, and the
request to bargain was explicit and in writing. Its failure to do so
comports with the conclusion, which I reach, that Britt's statement in
which he declared the Magistrate System non-negotiable was referable to
impact and implementation as well as the decision itself. The entire
thrust of Britt's declarations re the new Court System was to the effect
that no negotiations were, in fact, in order; that no duty was imposed
upon Respondent to bargain at all. Neither do I conclude that IFPTE or
PMTC - the charging parties - were obliged to make a written request to
negotiate as opposed to an oral one. No cases have been cited to the
undersigned which would support such a conclusion. Moreover, past
decisions reflect that the bargaining agents have satisfied their
obligation to demand bargaining re impact and implementation by means of
a verbal request in this regard. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, SSA, BRSI, Northeastern Service Center, 8 A/SLMR 894.
Accordingly, and on the basis of the foregoing I am constrained to
conclude that a request was made to bargain re the impact and
implementation of the Magistrate System with the bargaining
representations of the employees in the appropriate units herein; that
Respondent refused and failed to negotiate thereon; and that by such
refusal it has violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
General Counsel seeks a remedy, inter alia, which restores the status
quo in respect to the traffic and non-traffic violations occurring at
the Shipyard. He requests that (1) the Respondent be directed to
rescind the implementation of the Magistrate System as it applies to
employees represented by IFPTE and PMTC; (2) Respondent make whole
employees within such units who were adversely affected by reason of
such implementation.
(1) While it has been held proper to grant a status quo remedy where
impact and implementation bargaining is ordered, /7/ I do not deem such
remedy is appropriate in the case at bar. The regulation herein
emanated from higher level management, Department of Defense via the
naval base, and it was made applicable to over 30 other tenants or
activities stationed at the base. As such, the Magistrate System was
imposed over the Shipyard by a higher level, and thus Respondent had no
control over its imposition. Since neither the Department of Defense
nor the Naval Base is a party Respondent, no jurisdiction vests herein
which warrants or justifies ordering either entity to rescind the System
implemented at the Shipyard. Moreover, Respondent is in no position to
revoke the procedure by virtue of the fact that it has merely followed
directions from higher level management. See decision of Judge
Salvatore J. Arrigo in 1-CA-206 et seq., OALJ-81-023 where, in the
"parking cases", a status quo ante remedy was denied as unwarranted.
/8/ Also, see and compare General Services Administration, 6 FLRA No.
77.
(2) Nor do I conclude that it is proper to order Respondent to make
whole employees adversely affected by the new procedure. While a
bargaining order re impact and implementation is warranted, I do not
view a make whole remedy as appropriate under the circumstances. Apart
from the fact that fines are paid into the Court, and beyond the control
of the Shipyard, such a remedy is seemingly not justified where the
decision re the System was not made by the Respondent. Thus, I find the
case of Department of Transportation et al, 8 FLRA 674 to be
distinguishable from the facts herein. In the cited case the order ran
against the higher level management, which was the Respondent therein,
and that entity was ordered to direct the subordinate activity (Dulles
International Airport) to make whole employees adversely affected by
parking permit fees which were exacted. But in the instant case the
decision was not made by the Shipyard. Since the higher levels were not
party Respondent, I cannot order them to make such direction.
Accordingly, I shall not fashion a remedy which reimburses adversely
affected employees as requested by the General Counsel. /9/
Having concluded that Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act, it is recommended the Federal Labor Relations Authority
issue the following order:
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and Section 7118 of the Statute, the
Authority hereby orders that the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Instituting a "Magistrate System" as the method of handling
traffic and non-traffic offenses at the Philadelphia Naval
Shipyard, without first affording the International Federation of
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia
Metal Trades Council, the exclusive bargaining representatives of
employees in their particular appropriate units a reasonable
opportunity to bargain, to the extent consonant with law and
regulations, on the procedures to be observed in implementing such
System and the impact of the System on adversely affected
employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative actions:
(a) Upon request by the International Federation of
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia
Metal Trades Council, bargain, to the extent consonant with law
and regulations, concerning the procedure to be observed in
instituting a Magistrate System as the method of handling traffic
and non-traffic offenses, and on the impact such System will have
on adversely affected employees.
(b) Post at its facility at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard the
attached notice marked "Appendix" on forms to be furnished by the
Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms
they shall be signed by the Shipyard Commander, and shall be
posted thereafter in conspicuous places, including bulletin boards
and other places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. The Shipyard Commander shall take reasonable steps to
insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(c) Notify the Federal Labor Relations Authority, in writing,
within 30 days from the date of this order as to what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
WILLIAM NAIMARK
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: September 9, 1981
Washington, DC
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS
AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
OF TITLE
5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT institute a "Magistrate System" as the method of handling
traffic and non-traffic offenses at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard without
first affording the International Federation of Professional and
Technical Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia Metal Trades Council, a
reasonable opportunity to bargain, to the extent consonant with law and
regulations, on the procedures to be observed in implementing such
System and the impact on adversely affected employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
WE WILL upon request, bargain with International Federation of
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia Metal
Trades Council, to the extent consonant with law and regulations,
concerning the procedures to be observed in instituting a "Magistrate
System" as the method of handling traffic and non-traffic offenses, and
on the impact of such System on adversely affected employees.
Agency or Activity
By: (Signature)
Dated: . . .
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional
Director, Region II for the Federal Labor Relations Authority whose
address is: Room 241, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278; and
telephone number is (212) 264-3934.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1A/ At the hearing, upon a motion by the General Counsel with no
objection from the Respondent, the Judge severed Case Nos. 2-CA-679 and
2-CA-855 from this proceeding.
/1/ Both 2-CA-270 and 2-CA-715 were consolidated with cases 2-CA-679
and 2-CA-855 by an order dated May 12, 1981. Subsequent thereto, and
prior to the hearing, both 2-CA-679 and 855 were settled. A motion by
the General Counsel at the hearing to sever 2-CA-679 and 2-CA-855 from
this proceeding was granted by the undersigned.
/2/ Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter mentioned occur
in 1980.
/3/ While Britt denies that any specific requests were made to so
negotiate, I credit the contrary testimony adduced from union officials
William Rheil, Howard J. Landry, and George Wilent.
/4/ A publication issued weekly by the Shipyard and sent to all its
employees.
/5/ The system is under the Federal District Court's jurisdiction.
The Magistrate is an official of the Court, and fines collected are
deposited with U.S. Treasury.
/6/ The obligation imposed upon an employer in the public sector to
negotiate or bargain with the bargaining representative under Executive
Order 11491, as amended, is continued under the Act herein.
/7/ San Antonio Air Logistics Center (AFLC) Kelly Air Force Base,
Texas, 5 FLRA No. 22 (1981).
/8/ General Counsel suggests that this remedy can be accomplished by
having the Commander direct that citations not be referred to the
Magistrate, but be processed under the administrative system. Even such
a procedure, as directed by Respondent, flouts the regulation as imposed
from above and would constitute an improper revocation of the System
itself.
/9/ The other cases cited in support of a make whole order are not
apposite. No provision was made therein for such a remedy.