At this time FLRA remains fully operational.  Effective Friday March 20, 2020 until June 30, 2020 the agency will no longer receive in-person filings.  

See details: here.

FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, VIRGINIA AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R4-106

 

                                                        FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY       OALJ 15- 22
                                                                        Office of Administrative Law Judges
                                                                                 WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
    
                    
   
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, VIRGINIA
               
                                                RESPONDENT
 
 
AND
 
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R4-106
 
                                               CHARGING PARTY
Case No. WA-CA-14-0160
                              
 
 
Douglas J. Guerrin
Jessica S. Bartlett
            For the General Counsel
 
Eyana J. Esters 
            For the Respondent
 
Janice Blackwell
            For the Charging Party
 
Before:    RICHARD A.PEARSON     
                Administrative Law Judge
 
 
DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING FORMAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
 
            On November 22, 2013, the National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-106 (the Union), filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Department of the Air Force, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia (the Respondent). On September 9, 2014, the Union filed an amended charge against the Respondent. On September 26, 2014, the Regional Director of the Boston Region of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (the FLRA or Authority), on behalf of the FLRA’s General Counsel (the General Counsel), issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing alleging that the Respondent violated § 7116(a)(1) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), by making coercive statements to employee Lynelle Cosson. On October 21, 2014, the Respondent filed an Answer in which it denied violating the Statute as alleged.
 
A hearing in the matter was held on February 3, 2015, in Newport News, Virginia, at which all parties were represented and afforded an opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence, and to examine witnesses.
 
 Prior to the submission of post-hearing briefs, Counsel for the General Counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw the Complaint and Approve Formal Settlement Agreement on March 11, 2015. In the motion, the General Counsel indicated that the parties have entered into a formal settlement agreement to resolve their underlying dispute, and that the Regional Director of the Washington Region of the FLRA has approved the settlement. Therefore, pursuant to § 2423.31(e)(2) of the Authority’s Regulations, the General Counsel now requests that I approve the Settlement Agreement, which is attached hereto. 
 
In addition to Case No. WA-CA-14-0160, which is currently before me, the same parties are involved in Case No. WA-CA-14-0674, where Ms. Cosson (rather than the Union) is the Charging Party. The Union, as the Charging Party in WA-CA-14-0160, has signed and agreed to the Settlement Agreement, as has the Respondent; however, Ms. Cosson, the Charging Party in WA-CA-14-0674, has not signed the Settlement Agreement for that case. The Regional Director of the FLRA’s Washington Region has approved and signed the Settlement Agreement with regard to both WA-CA-14-0160 and WA-CA-14-0674.  As the Charging Party in Case No. WA-CA-14-0674, Ms. Cosson will have the opportunity, if she chooses, to appeal the unilateral settlement agreement in that case to the FLRA’s General Counsel. My disposition in the instant case only addresses Case No. WA-CA-14-0160. 
 
I conclude that the attached Settlement Agreement, insofar as it applies to Case No. WA-CA-14-0160, effectuates the purposes and policies of the Statute, and that it should be approved. The Charging Party, the Respondent, and the Regional Director are satisfied with the terms of the formal settlement of WA-CA-14-0160, and I conclude that settlement of this case on terms that are mutually satisfactory to the parties effectuates the purposes and policies of the Statute.*  
 
       ORDER
 
Pursuant to § 2423.31(e)(2) of the Authority’s Regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 2423.31(e)(2), the motion to approve the formal Settlement Agreement in Case No. WA-CA-14-0160 is hereby GRANTED. 
 
Issued, Washington, D.C., March 18, 2015
 
 
                                                                                              _____________________________________
                                                                                              RICHARD A. PEARSON
                                                                                             Administrative Law Judge
 
___________________________
* It is not necessary or appropriate, however, for the Regional Director to withdraw the Complaint.