36:0705(74)CA - - Navy, Naval Aviation Depot, Naval Air Station Alameda, Alameda, CA and IAM Lodge 739 - - 1990 FLRAdec CA - - v36 p705
[ v36 p705 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
36 FLRA No. 74
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL AVIATION DEPOT
NAVAL AIR STATION ALAMEDA
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
DECISION AND ORDER
August 20, 1990
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by (1) telling unit employees that they could not read or discuss the parties' collective bargaining agreement in certain of the Respondent's work areas and (2) harassing two unit employees who were Union stewards.
The Respondent did not file an exception to the Judge's Decision. The General Counsel filed an exception only to the Judge's recommended Order. The Respondent filed an opposition to the General Counsel's exception.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge made at the hearing and find that no prejudicial error was committed. We affirm the rulings. Upon consideration of the Judge's Decision and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions and recommended Order, as modified herein.
II. General Counsel's Exception
The General Counsel excepts only to the portion of the Judge's recommended Order providing that the Notice may be signed by the "Commander, or a designee[.]" Judge's Decision at 6. According to the General Counsel, the Notice should be signed only by the Respondent's Commander. The General Counsel maintains that requiring the Notice to be signed by the Commander promotes the policies and purposes of the Statute by assuring all unit employees who read the Notice that the Respondent is aware of its obligations under the Statute. The General Counsel also contends that a requirement that the Notice be signed by the Commander is not burdensome to the Commander and that, even if the requirement were burdensome, "the fact remains that the ultimate responsibility for any agency misconduct must be shouldered by the Commander, not by subordinates." Brief in Support of General Counsel's Exceptions at 2.
III. The Respondent's Opposition
The Respondent maintains that the determination of the appropriate official to sign a notice is made on a case-by-case basis. According to the Respondent, although serious violations may require the signature of the Commander on a notice, "[t]echnical violations by line supervisors which have minimal effect may be remedied by the signature of a designee." Brief in Support of Respondent's Opposition at 2.
IV. Analysis and Conclusion
We agree with the General Counsel that the portion of the Judge's recommended Order enabling the required Notice to be signed by a designee of the Commander should be modified.
The Authority consistently has held that the remedial purposes of the Statute are best effectuated if a Notice is signed by an official designated by the Authority rather than one determined by a respondent. In fact, in a recent case involving the same parties, the Authority modified the Judge's recommended Order to require that the Notice be signed by the Respondent's Commander. Department of the Navy, Naval Aviation Depot, Naval Air Station Alameda, Alameda, California, 36 FLRA No. 61 (1990). See also, for example, Department of the Air Force, Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan Air Force Base, California, 35 FLRA 1230 (1990) (Authority ordered that Notice be signed by the Commanding Officer of the Sacramento Air Logistics Center, rather than a "responsible official").
We reject the Respondent's contention that this case involves a "technical" violation of the Statute which may be best remedied by the signature of a designee. Accordingly, and consistent with the cases cited above, we conclude that requiring the Commander of the Naval Aviation Depot to sign the Notice effectuates the remedial purposes of the Notice by signifying that, at the highest levels of the Respondent's management hierarchy, the Respondent acknowledges its obligations under the Statute and intends to comply with those obligations. We will, therefore, modify the Order to require that the Notice be signed by the Commander of the Naval Aviation Depot.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations o