DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA
SPORT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION
Case No. SF-CA-11-0505
1. This unfair labor practice complaint and notice of hearing issued under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7135 and 5 C.F.R. Chapter XIV.
2. The Department of Defense, U.S. Department of the Air Force, Edwards Air Force Base, California (Respondent/Activity) is an agency under 5 U.S.C. §7103(a)(3).
3. The SPORT Air Traffic Controllers Organization (Union/Charging Party/SATCO) is a labor organization under 5 U.S.C. §7103(a)(4) and is the exclusive representative of a unit of employees appropriate for collective bargaining at the Respondent.
4. The charge was filed by the Charging Party with the San Francisco Regional Director on July 29, 2011.
5. A copy of the charge described in paragraph 4 was served on the Respondent.
6. During the time period covered by this complaint, the person listed below occupied the position opposite his name:
7. During the time period covered by this complaint, Bryant was a supervisor or management official under 5 U.S.C. §7103(a)(10) and/or (11) at Respondent.
8. During the time period covered by this complaint, Bryant was acting on behalf of Respondent.
9. On January 31, 2011, the Respondent through Bryant, unilaterally changed SPORT Operating Instruction 13-2, paragraph 5.1.5’s radar traffic advisory wording, from “will normally” to “will be given” regarding aircraft separation of 5 miles and 5,000 vertical feet.
10. Respondent implemented the change in working conditions described in paragraph 9 without advance notification and bargaining with the Charging Party to the extent required by law.
11. By the conduct described in paragraphs 9 and 10, the Respondent committed an unfair labor practice in violation of 5 U.S.C. §7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
require the payment of monies to the affected employee despite a finding that the agency’s change in the employee’s work hours had directly affected the employee’s livelihood. I note that VA Phoenix involved a stipulated record and that the GC only requested a cease and desist order, which the Authority approved. I do not find this case to be particularly helpful for either party.