Supplemental Digest and Index of

Published Decisions of the Assistant

Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management

Relations Pursuant to Executive Order

11491, As Amended, July 1,1977

through June 30,1978

U.S. Department of Labor 

Labor-Manaqement Services Administration

Supplemental Digest and Index of Published Decisions of the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management

Relations Pursuant to Executive Order 11491, As Amended, July 1,1977 through June 30,1978

U.S. Department of Labor

Labor-Management Services Administration

U.S. Department of Labor

Ray Marshall, Secretary

Labor-Management Services Administration

Francis X. Burkhardt

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations

Office of Federal Labor-Management Relations Louis S. Wallerstein, Director

This edition covers the period of July 1,1977-June 30,1978.

It supplements three editions of the Digest and Index covering

the period of January 1,1970-June 30,1977.

This edition contains a Table of Contents and

Tables of Decisions and Reports on Rulings, each covering

the period of July 1,1977-June 30,1978.

1978

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

Stock No. 029-000-00837-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ............................................................... ^

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ...............................................

DIGEST

Page

05 00 00 GENERAL PROVISIONS

05 04 00 Definitions .................................... 1

05 08 00 Coverage of Executive Order ........... ....... 1

05 12 00 Evidence ..... ..........................

05 12 04 Request for LMSA Documents

and LMSA Personnel at Hearings .... 1

05 12 08 Admissibility at Hearings .......... ^

05 16 00 Advisory Opinions .................... ....... 2

05 20 00 Concurrent Related Cases ............ ......... 2

05 24 00 Role of NLRB Decisions .............. ......... 2

05 28 00 Service ............................... ......... 2

05 32 00 Transitional Problems ...............

05 36 00 Official Time ........................

10 00 00 REPRESENTATION CASES; PRELIMINARY STAGES ............... ....5

Petitions: Procedure ................ ....5

Representation, Filed by Labor

Organization (RO) .......................5

Agency Doubt as to Representative

Status (RA) ......................... ....5

Decertification of Representative,

Filed by Employee (s) (DR) ............. 5

Clarification of Unit (CU) .............6

Amendment of Recognition or

Certification (AC) ...................... 6

National Consultation Rights ........... 6

Consolidation of Units ............. .... 6

Types of

10 04 04

10 04 08

10 04 12

10 04 16

10 04 20

10 04 24

10 04 28

10 08 00 Posting of Notice of Petition

10 12 00 Intervention ..................

10 16 00 Showing of Interest ..........

10 20 00 Labor Organization Status ....

10 24 00 Timeliness of Petition .......

10 24 04 Election Bar ....

10 24 08 Certification Bar 

10 24 12 Agreement Bar ....

iii
10 28 00 Status of P e t i t i o n e r.............. ................... 9

10 32 00 Qualifications to Represent Specified...........

Categories of Bnployees ......................... .....9

10 36 00 Request for Review R i g h t s ....................... .... 9

10 40 00 Area Administrator's A c t i o n .............. ]..... .... 9

10 44 00 D e f u n c t n e s s ........................................... 9

10 48 00 Blocking C o m p l a i n t s.......................... . ...... 9

15 00 00 REPRESENTATION HEARING PROCEDURE .......................... .... H

10 00 00 REPRESENTATION CASES; PRELIMINARY STAr^ES (Conf d)

Page

15 04 00 Role of Hearing Officer 

15 08 00 Motions .................

15 08 04 General ..............

15 08 08 Amendment of Petition

15 12 00

15 16 00

15 20 00

15 24 00

15 28 00

15 32 00

Evidence and Burden of Proof ....

Unfair Labor Practice Allegations

Obligation of Parties ............

Post-Hearing Submissions .........

R e m a n d ..................... .......

Major Policy I s s u e...............

20 00 00 REPRESENTATION UNIT DETERMINATIONS

L3

20 04 00 C r i t e r i a ...................................... 13

Community of Interest ............... 13

Effective Dealings ................... 15

Efficiency of Operations ............ 18

Agency Regulations and Parties'

Stipulations Not Binding on

Assistant Secretary .................. 22

Previous Certification .............. 22

20 08 00 Geographic Scope ................................. 22

World-Wide ............................ 22

Nation-wide ........................... 22

State-wide ............................ 22

City-wide ............................. 25

20 12 00 Organizational Scope ............................. 23

Agency-wide .......................... 23

Activity-wide ........................ 23

Directorate-wide ..................... 23

Command-wide ......................... 23

Headquarters-wide .................... 23

Field-wide ........................... 23

Region-wide .......................... 23

iv

20 04 04

20 04 08

20 04 12

20 04 16

20 04 20

Geograph:

20 08 04

20 08 08

20 08 12

20 08 16

Organiza

20 12 04

20 12 08

20 12 12

20 12 16

20 12 20

20 12 24

20 12 28
_- - :z:-::i;~iON u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n s (Cont*d)

20 12 00 Organizational Scope (Cont'd)

20 12 32 Division-wide ...................... ....24

20 12 36 Area-wide ...............................24

20 12 40 District-wide ...................... ....24

20 12 44 Branch-wide ........................ ....24

20 12 48 Base-wide ...............................24

20 12 52 Section-wide ....................... ....24

20 12 56 Multi-Installation.....................24

20 12 60 Single I n s t a l l a t i o n ....................24

20 12 64 Occupational C l a s s i f i c a t i o n...........25

20 16 00 Special Situations ............... ................25

20 16 04 Severance .......................... .... 25

20 16 08 Accretion .......................... .... 26

20 16 12 Eligibility ........................ .... 27

20 16 16 Residual Employees ................ .... 27

20 16 20 Self-Determination ................ .... 29

20 16 24 Supervisory Unit ....................... 29

20 16 28 Reorganization ..................... .... 29

20 16 32 Consolidation of Units ............ .... 32

20 16 36 Successorship ...................... .... 33

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications .... .... 33

20 24 00 Post-Decisional Intervention, Showing of

Interest and Withdrawal ...................... .... 38

20 24 04 Posting of Notice of Unit

Determination ...................... .... 38

20 24 08 Showing of Interest ............... .... 39

20 24 12 Opportunity to Withdraw ........... .... 39

25 00 00 REPRESENTATION ELECTION AND POST ELECTION STAGES ..... .... 41

25 04 00 Voting Procedure ................................. 41

25 04 04 Professionals ...................... .... 41

25 04 08 Self-Determination ................ .... 41

25 04 12 Role of Observers ...................... 41

25 04 16 Severance .......................... .... 41

25 08 00 Objections .................................... .... 41

25 08 04 Under EO 10988 ..................... .... 41

25 08 08 Procedure .......................... .... 42

25 08 12 Timing of Objectionable Conduct ... 42

25 08 16 Agency Rules on C a m p a i g n i n g ........... 42

25 08 20 Campaign Communications ........... .... 42

25 08 24 Promises of Benefit ............... .... 42

25 08 28 Conduct of E l e c t i o n ............... .... 42

25 08 32 Agency N e u t r a l i t y................. .... 42

Ifage
25 12 00 Challenges ...........................................42

25 12 04 Eligibility of Employees ............. ...42

25 12 08 Questions Concerning Ballot .......... ...42

25 12 12 Timing of Challenge ...................... 42

25 16 00 Certification .................................... ...42

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit ...............................42

25 24 00 Amendment of Recognition or Certification ..... ...46

30 00 00 UNFAIR lABOR PRACTICES; PROCEDURE ........................ ...47

30 04 00 Requisites for Charges and Complaints .......... .. 47

30 08 00 Complaint Proceedings: Investigation Stage .... 43

30 08 04 Blocking Complaints ......................4 g

30 12 00 Hearing ........................................... ...48

30 12 04 Rulings of ALJs ...................... ....48

30 12 08 Untimely Amendments to Complaints ... 50

30 12 12 Failure to Appear ........................50

30 12 16 Prejudicial Evidence ................ ....50

30 12 20 Technical Deficiencies .............. ....50

30 12 24 Evidence and Burden of Proof ............50

30 12 28 Lack of C o o p e r a t i o n ......................5 j

30 16 00 Post-Hearing .................................... ....51

30 20 00 Stipulated Record ................................ ...51

30 24 00 Employee Status: Effect on Unfair Labor

Practices ......................................... ...52

30 28 00 Effect of Other Proceedings or Forums ......... .... 52

30 32 00 Major Policy Issue Raised ...................... .... 52

35 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: AGENCY ... ........................... 53

35 04 00 General .......................................... .... 53

35 04 04 Guidance or Directives of Civil

Service Commission or Agency ............ 53

35 04 08 Waiver of Rights Granted by

Executive Order ...................... .... 53

35 04 12 Management Rights .................... .... 53

35 04 16 National Consultation R i g h t s........ .... 54

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) ................................ .... 55

35 08 04 Interference 55

35 08 08 Distribution of L i t e r a t u r e.......... .....60

35 08 12 S o l i c i t a t i o n......................... .....60

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) ................................ .....60

35 16 00 Section 19(a)(3) ................................ .....64

25 00 00 REPRESENTATION ELECTION AND POST ELEHTTON STAGES

(Cont'd) ------------------ -

Page

vi
- - ----- PRACTICES: AGENCY (Cont’d)

35 20 00 Section 19(a)(4) ................................ 64

35 24 00 Section 19(a)(5) .... ........................... 64

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) ................................ 65

35 28 04 Response to Bargaining Request....... 65

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer

Generally 67 

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on

Impact or Procedures ................. 71

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion Representation .............. 78

35 28 20 Uncompromising Attitude .............. 80

35 28 24 Dilatory and Evasive Tactics ........ 80

35 28 28. Unilateral Changes in Terms

and Conditions of Employment ........ 81

35 28 32 Bypassing Exclusive Representative 89

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information ...... 90

35 28 40 Failure to Meet Obligation Under

National Consultations Rights ...... 93

35 32 00 Section 19(d) ................................... 94

40 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; LABOR ORGANIZATION ............. 97

40 04 00 General ......................................... 97

40 08 00 Section 19(b)(1) ................................ 98

40 12 00 Section 19(b)(2) ................................ 98

40 16 00 Section 19(b)(3) ................................ 98

40 20 00 Section 19(b)(4) ................................ 99

40 24 00 Section 19(b)(5) ................................ 99

40 28 00 Section 19(b)(6) ................................ 99

40 32 00 Section 19(c) ................................... 99

45 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES; UNFAIR LABOR

PRACTICES ................................................... 101

45 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of Remedies ....

45 08 00 Advice of Compliance ............................ 101

45 10 00 Modifications to Orders ....................... . 101

45 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations

and Orders ................................... 101

45 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct .................. 101

45 16 04 Interference, Solicitation or

Distribution of Literature .......... 101

45 16 08 Discrimination ....................... 102

45 16 12 Assisting a Labor Organization ..... 103 

45 16 16 Refusal to Accord Appropriate

Recognition ........................... IO3

Page

vii
45 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES: UNFATR T.Annp 

PRACTICES ( C o n t ' d ) --------------------- -

45 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct (Cont'd^

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or

Negotiate ............... 103

45 16 24 Failure to Cooperate ............. 108

45 20 00 Jurisdictional Questions ................. ...... ^08

50 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS;

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ..................................... 109

50 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of Remedies .... 109

50 08 00 Advice of Conq>liance ............................ 109

50 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations

and Orders .................................... 109

50 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct .................. 109

50 16 04 Interference ........... .............. 109

50 16 08 Harassment of Employee in Performance of Duties .................. 109

50 16 12 Inducing Management to Coerce an

Employee ........................... 109

50 16 16 Strike Activity ..................... X09

50 16 20 Discrimination ..................... 109

50 16 24 Failure to Consult, Confer or

Negotiate 110

50 16 28 Denial of M embership.................. 2lo

55 00 00 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ...................................... Ill

55 04 00 Effect on Representation and Unfair Labor

Practice Cases ................................... Ill

55 08 00 Procedure ................. ....................... Ill

55 08 04 Jurisdiction .......................... Ill

55 08 08 Bill of Rights ...................... H I

55 08 12 Elections ............................ H I

55 12 00 Bill of Rights ................................... Ill

55 12 04 Equal Rights .......................... Ill

55 12 08 Freedom of Speech ................... 112

55 12 12 Dues, Initiation Fees and

Assessments ............ .............. 112

55 12 16 Protection of the Right to Sue .... 122

55 12 20 Safeguards against Iin>roper

Disciplinary Action ......... ....... H 2

viii
55 00 00 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ( C o n t ' d) ZSS®

55 16 00 Failure to File Financial Reports .................. 112

55 16 04 General .................................. 112

55 16 08 Procedure .................................. 112

55 16 12 Remedial Orders ........................... 113

60 00 00 GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY ...................... 115

60 04 00 General .......................... .......... 115

60 08 00 13(a) ....................................... 115

60 12 00 13(b) ....................................... 116

60 16 00 13(d) ....................................... 116

TABLE OF DECISIONS - ALPHABETICAL LISTING .................... 119

TABLE OF DECISIONS - NUMERICAL LISTING, DATES

OF ISSUANCE AND SECTIONS OF DIGEST INVOLVED .................. 135

INDEX ............................................................. 161

I X

PREFACE

This edition of the Supplemental Digest and Index (SDI) contains digests 

of all published decisions of the Assistant Secretary of Labor for LaborManagement Relations (A/S) pursuant to Executive Order 11491, as amended, 

from July 1, 1977 to June 30, 1978. Published decisions from January 1, 

1970 to June 30, 1977, are contained in four previously published editions 

of the Digest and Index (DI).

The Digest section summarizes significant decisional material and is 

arranged in a functional classification under major headings and subheadings, listed in the Table of Contests. It covers: (1) decisions 

after formal hearing or stipulated record; (2) Reports on Rulings of 

the A/S on requests for review of field-level actions (no Reports on 

Rulings of Assistant Secretary issued during this p e r i o d ) ; and (3) 

those rulings of the Federal Labor Relations Council which remanded 

cases to the A/S or modified his decisions.

Executive Order 11491 was amended, effective May 7, 1975, and the Regulations of the A/S were revised, effective May 7, 1975. Accordingly, 

careful attention should be given to the possible impact of the changes 

in the Order or the Regulations on decisional material in cases filed 

prior to such changes.

The full text of A/S decisions has been published in bound volumes 

entitled "Decisions and Reports on Rulings of the Assistant Secretary 

of Labor for Labor-Management Relations Pursuant to Executive Order 

11491, as Amended." Past decisions may also be read at any Area Office 

of the Labor-Mcinagement Services Administration of the U.S. Department 

of Labor.

The SDI is intended as a guide to material in the A/S's published 

decisions but should not be used as a substitute for the full text of 

such decisions, nor should its contents be construed as official p r o ­

nouncements or interpretations of the A/S.

XX

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

AA

AC Petition 

AD

ALJ

AO

ARD

A/S

A/SLMR No.

CU Petition 

DI

EO

FLRC 

FLRC No. 

GS 

HE

HO

Area Administrator, Labor-Management Services 

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor 

(formerly Area Director, Labor-Management 

Services Administration)

Amendment of Recognition or Certification 

Petition

Area Director, Labor-Management Services 

Administration; now referred to as Area Administrator, 

Labor-Management Services Administration

Administrative Law Judge (formerly Hearing Examiner)

Area Office, Labor-Management Services Administration

Assistant Regional Director for Labor-Management 

Services; now referred to as Regional Administrator, 

Labor-Management Services Administration

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management 

Relations

Assistant Secretary for Labor-Management Relations 

Decision Number

Clarification of Unit Petition

Digest and Index of Published Decisions of the 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management 

Relations

Executive Order 10988 where indicated; otherwise 

references are to Executive Order 11491 in cases 

filed prior to 11-24-71, and to Executive Order 

11491, as amended, subsequent thereto

Federal Labor Relations Council

Federal Labor Relations Council Decision Number

General Schedule

Hearing Examiner (Title changed to Administrative 

Law Judge)

Hearing Officer

X l l l
LMSA

LMWP

NE

OFLMR

R A

R A Petition 

R A/S No. 

Regs 

SDI

Sec.

UC

ULP

WB

Labor-Management Services Administration

Office of Labor-Management and Welfare-Pension 

Reports

No entry for period covered

Office of Federal Labor-Management Relations, 

Labor-Management Services Administration

Regional Administrator, Labor-Management 

Services Administration (formerly 

Assistant Regional Director for LaborManagement Services)

Agency Doubt as to Representative's Status 

Petition

Report on Ruling of the Assistant Secretary 

Number

Regulations of the Assistant Secretary of 

Labor for Labor-Management Relations

Supplemental Digest and Index of Published 

Decisions of the Assistant Secretary of 

Labor for Labor-Management Relations

Section

Unit Consolidation Petition 

Unfair Labor Practice 

Wage Board

xiv
05 00 00 GENERAL PROVISIONS

05 04 00 Definitions (Alphabetically Listed)

(See also: 20 20 00, "Employee Categories and 

Classifications")

Informational Picketing. A/S stated that permissible 

informational picketing in Federal sector labor-management 

disputes is that which is directed at the general public, 

including organized labor groups, and which does not 

interfere or reasonably threaten to interfere with the 

operation of the affected Government agency. (Tidewater 

Virginia Federal Employees MTC, AFL-ClO, A/SLMR No. 867)

05 08 00 Coverage of Executive Order

Section 7(d)(1) of the Order does not confer any right 

upon employees to have a personal representative which is 

enforceable under Section 19 of the Order (DOD, Dependents 

Schools, Europe, A/SLMR No. 922)

A/s concluded that the Activity is an "agency" within the 

meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Order and that the Order 

thus applies to its employees. A/S noted that the Activity 

has been viewed as part of the executive branch by courts, 

and it is well established that the entire military 

establishment and the court-martial system are subject to 

the authority of the executive branch. A/S noted that, in 

his judgment, the finding that the Activity is an "agency" 

within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Order for 

purposes of collective bargaining in no way conflicts with 

the Congressional concern that the Activity be independent 

in its adjudicatory role. (U.S. Court of Military Appeals, 

Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 1041)

05 12 00 Evidence

05 12 04 Request for LMSA Documents and LMSA Personnel at Hearings 

No Entries 

05 12 08 Admissibility at Hearings 

No Entries

05 12 08

6-30-78
05 36 00

05 16 00 Advisory Opinions

No Entries

05 20 00 Concurrent Related Cases

No Entries

05 24 00 Role of NLRB Decisions

No Entries

05 28 00 Service

No Entries

05 32 00 Transitional Problems

No Entries

05 36 00 Official Time

Respondent Activity did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and 

(6 ) of the Order by its unilateral implementation, after 

Complainant's request for negotiations, of a system for 

recording stewards' use of official time for representational activities, as there was an arguable basis under the 

parties' negotiated agreement for the Respondent Activity's 

position that "consultation" (as defined in the agreement) 

rather than negotiation fulfilled its obligations before 

implementing the record keeping system. Thus, the case 

involved differing and arguable interpretations of the 

agreement rather than a clear, unilateral breach which 

could be the basis for an unfair labor practice finding. 

(Warner Robins Air Logistics Cntr., Ga., A/SLMR No. 912)

A/s, in agreement with the ALJ, found that the procedures 

for obtaining official time foi representational activities 

were arguably within the meaning of the negotiated agreement, 

and that absent evidence of a flagrant and deliberate 

breach, the proper forum for the resolution of the issue 

was the negotiated grievance procedure. (Dept, of the A F , 

4392nd Aerospace Support Gp., Vandenberg AFB, Calif.,

A/SLMR No. 935)

6-30-78
05 36 00

05 36 00 Official Time (Cont*d)

A/S, noting that no exceptions were filed by Respondent, 

found that A L J’s ruling ordering that official time be 

granted to Complainant's representative at hearing should 

not be overturned, however, A/S noted that under Section 

206.7 (g) of the A/S Regs only necessary witnesses 

are required to be granted official time for participation 

at hearings. (SSA, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals,

A/SLMR No. 1028)

Employees who appeared on behalf of the Complainant Union 

at a conference called by a representative of the A/S 

to discuss a pending representation petition were not 

entitled to official time as they were acting solely as 

union representatives. (SSA, Quality Assurance Field 

Staff, Flushing, A/SLMR No. 1036)

6-30-78

10 04 12

10 00 00 REPRESENTATION CASES: PRELIMINARY STAGES

10 04 00 Types of Petitions: Procedure (for substantive matters 

on petitions see: 20 00 0 0 . "Representation Unit Determination"; 25 20 0 0 . "Certification of Unit"; and 

25 24 0 0 , "Amendment to Recognition or Certification")

10 04 04 Representation. Filed by Labor Organization (RO)

No Entries

10 04 08 Agency Doubt as to Representative's Status (RA)

(See also 20 16 00 "Special Situations")

A/S dismissed RA petition noting that although RA 

petition is appropriate vehicle for an activity to seek 

a determination of representational status of employees 

in a substantially changed unit, it does not follow 

that an election will be appropriate in each instance 

where some of an activity's employees have been previously 

employed by another activity and were included in an 

exclusively recognized unit. Thus, elections in newly 

established units which are not substantially identifiable 

with any pre-existing units but, rather, essentially 

include employees who have been unrepresented, should 

result only from petitions filed by labor organizations 

seeking exclusive representation in such units. (89th 

Army Reserve Command, Wichita, Kansas, A/SLMR No. 901)

A/S found that the reorganization, which abolished the 

Activity's Services Office in Toledo affected a substantial change in both the scope and character of the 

exclusively recognized unit and, in effect rendered such 

unit inappropriate. Thus, he concluded that the Activity 

was under no obligation to continue to recognize the 

exclusive representative of the employees in such unit.

A/S found that the previous unit's employees were now 

assigned to two seperate units where they were under 

seperate personnel policies and practices, seperate 

secondary supervision and have no job contacts with 

employees of other u n i t s .(Defense Logisitics Agency, DCASR, 

Cleveland, A/SLMR No. 932)

10 04 12 Decertification of Representative, Filed by Employee(s) (DR) 

(See also 20 16 00 "Special Situations")

No agreement bar found to decertification petition and 

election ordered. (Billeting Fund of Charleston AFB,

A/SLMR No. 936)

6-30-78
10 04 28

10 04 16 Clarification of Unit (CU)

(See also 20 16 00 "Special Situations")

Existing exclusively recognized unit clarified by 

excluding from said unit head nurses whom the A/S found 

to be supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of 

the Order. (DREW, Public Health Service Hospital,

San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 894)

10 04 20 Amendment of Recognition or Certification (AC)

(See also 20 16 00 "Special Situations")

A/S granted AC petition seeking to amend certification to 

reflect the result of a reorganization where the employees 

of the two organizational entities formed from the 

existing unit continued to share a separate and distinct 

community of interest from other employees at the Activity 

and the existing unit, which had a long bargaining 

history, continued to promote effective dealings and 

efficiency of agency operations. A/S also noted that 

Activity had voiced no objections to the amendment sought 

by the petition. (DOD, 3245th Airbase Group, U. S. Air 

Force, A/SLMR No. 904)

A/S dismissed AC petition as being inappropriate, as he 

found more than nominal or technical changes resulted 

from reorganization, where employees transferred no 

longer shared community of interest with employees in 

Petitioner's unit and that, with different Organizational 

structures and serving personnel offices, differing 

personnel policies, and in the absence of common negotiating authority, retention of the transferred employees 

in Petitioner's unit as proposed in the amended unit 

description would not promote effective dealings or 

efficiency of agency operations. (Navy Exchange, Naval 

Air Station Memphis, Millington, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 970)

10 04 24 National Consultation Rights 

No Entries

10 04 28 Consolidation of Units (UC)

(See also 20 16 00 "Special Situations")

Proposed consolidated unit found appropriate where it was 

noted that in the FLRC's review of prior consolidation cases 

in which the FLRC construed the A/S' establishment contained 

therein of a presumption in favor of consolidations as 

"a recognition and affirmation of the strong policy in 

the Federal labor-management relations program of facilitating consolidation." (See A/SIMR Nos. 991 and 1021)

6-30-78
No Entries

10 12 00 Intervention

(See 20 24 00 for Post-Decisional Items)

No Entries

10 16 00 Showing of Interest

(See 20 24 00 for Post-Decisional Items)

No Entries

10 20 00 Labor Organization Status

No Entries

10 24 00 Timeliness of Petition

10 24 04 Election Bar

No Entries

10 24 08 Certification Bar

No Entries

10 24 12 Agreement Bar

(See also 10 44 0 0 , "Defunctness")

A/S found that but for the mistaken directions given the 

Petitioner, the subject petition would have been timely 

filed with the LMSA, and that it would be unfair to 

penalize the Petitioner for acting in good faith on the 

erroneous advice of agents of the LMSA. (Billington Fund 

of Charleston AFB, A/SLMR No. 936)

Where parties agree to an extension of the negotiated 

agreement to serve merely as an interim agreement during a 

period of further negotiations, such as arrangement may 

not operate as a bar to a petition. (U.S. Customs Service,

St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, A/SLMR No. 937)

A/S dismissed AFGE's petition as being untimely as AFGE 

filed and withdrew an earlier petition during the 60 day 

"insulated" period which deprived the exclusive representative and the Activity a full 60 days to negotiate a new 

agreement free from rival claim and pursuant to Section 

202.3(d) of the Regulations, the Activity and incumbent exclusive

10 24 12

10 08 00 Posting of Notice of Petition

(.See 2(J 24 00 for Post-Decisional Items)

6-30-78
10 24 12 Agreement Bar (Cont'd)

10 24 12

representative were entitled to a 90 day period from the 

date of approval of AFGE's withdrawal request free from 

rival claim, to negotiate a new agreement. (Great Lakes 

Naval Base, Public Works Cntr., Great Lakes, 111.,

A/SLMR No. 938)

A/S found there was no agreement bar where agreement 

contained automatic renewal clause but parties did not 

commence negotiations until after anniversary date of 

agreement. In A/S's view, it became unclear at this point 

as to whether parties intended to negotiate new agreement 

with new term, continuing old agreement indefinitely 

pending completion of negotiations, or renew prior agreement 

for a new, fixed term. In this ambiguous setting, third 

parties wishing to challenge representative status of 

incumbent labor organization would have no way of ascertaining appropriate time for filing of a petition and would 

give incumbent unfair protection from challenges. (VA 

Health Facility, Montrose, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 980)

A/S found petition to be timely filed since the written 

ground rules agreed to by the incumbent union and Activity 

expressly provided that the intervenor would not be 

bound by the provisions of the agreement until its membership had ratified the agreement. (Portsmouth Naval 

Shipyard., A/SLMR No. 1033)

In view of the principles .enunciated in the Council's 

decision in FLRC No. 77A-69 and A / S ^ No. 857, the A/S 

interpreted his regulations to provide that in a successorship situation the agreement bar which existed pursuant 

to the predecessor's negotiated agreement with the incumbent exclusive representative continues in effect after 

a reorganization. Consequently, he found that the instant 

petition was untimely filed during the agreement bar 

period. (U. S. Army Mortuary, Oakland Army Base, Oakland, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 1050)

Agreement is no bar where A/S held that although, under 

Section 202.3 (c)(2) of the A/S Regs the open period for 

filing a petition under the initial agreement between the 

Activity and the NFFE was computed three years from the 

date it was signed and dated locally, the open period under 

Section 202.3 (c)(1) of the Regulations for a one year 

renewed agreement between the parties, was fixed by the 

terminal date of such agreement which could be clearly 

ascertained by reference to the agreement itself (HQ, 321st 

CAC, Grand Forks AFB, Grand Forks, N.D., A/SLMR No. 1069)

6-30-78
10 48 00

10 28,00 Status of Petitioner

A/s found that the NTEU had standing to file the instant 

UC petition on behalf of its exclusively recognized 

local chapter per the reasons stated in IRS, Washington,

D, C. , A/SliMR No. 831 and 853. (U. S. Customs Service, 

Washington, D. C., A/SLMR No. 991)

10 32 00 Qualifications to Represent Specified Categories of Employees

A/S found that subsequent to an election conducted pursuant to 

the Decision and Direction of Election in A/SLMR No. 484, 

the hospital police officers continued to be represented by 

the incumbent union as part of an existing mixed unit of 

employees. He noted that the officers were excluded from the 

unit found appropriate in A/SLMR No. 484, only by reason of 

the prohibition in the Order precluding the establishment of 

mixed units containing guard and non-guard employees. He 

also noted that such prohibition did not affect existing 

mixed units and that, standing alone, the filing of a 

petition, or the determination by the A/S that a segment of 

an existing unit is appropriate for the purpose of exclusive 

recognition under the Order, do not constitute events which 

would teinninate an existing mixed unit. (VA Hospital, Montrose, 

N.Y., A/SLMR No. 872)

10 36 00 Request for Review Rights 

No Entries

10 40 00 Area Administrator's Action (Area Director)

No Entries

10 44 00 Defunctness

(See also: 10 24 12, "Agreement Bar" )

No Entries

10 48 00 Blocking Complaints 

No Entries

6-30-77

15 GO 00 REPRESENTATION HEARING PROCEDURE 

15 04 00 Role of Hearing Officer 

No Entries 

15 08 00 Motions 

15 08 04 General

No Entries 

15 08 08 Amendment of Petition 

No Entries 

15 12 00 Evidence and Burden of Proof

15 32 00

No Entries

15 16 00 Unfair Labor Practice Allegations

A/S stated that unfair labor practice allegations may not 

be resolved appropriately in the context of a representation proceeding. (U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, 

Washington, D. C., A/SLMR No. 869)

15 20 00 Obligation of Parties

Agency not obligated to make available on official time 

employees who appear solely as union representatives.

(SSA, Quality Assurance Field Staff, Flushing, N.Y.,

A/SLMR No. 1036)

15 24 00 Post-Hearing Submissions

No Entries

15 28 00 Remand

A/S remanded case to appropriate RA for the purpose of 

securing additional evidence regarding "effective dealings" 

and "efficiency of agency operations". (See A/SLMR No. 928 

and A/SLMR No. 929)

15 32 00 Major Policy Issue

On March 21, 1978, the Council issued its Decision on Referral 

of Major. Policy Issue From A/S, finding, that the A/S 

may interpret and apply his existing agreement bar rules 

or prescribe analogous rules to find that in a successorship

6-30-78

11
15 32 00

15 32 00

situation the agreement bar which existed pursuant to 

the predecessor's negotiated agreement with the exclusive 

representative may continue in effect after the reorganization so as to afford the gaining employer and the 

exclusive representative a period of stability free from 

rival claims or other questions concerning representatxon. 

(U. S. Army Mortuary, Oakland Army Base, Oakland, Calif.. 

A/SLMR No. 1050)

6-30-77

12
20 00 00 REPRESENTATION UNIT DETERMINATIONS

20 04 00 Criteria

20 04 04 Conmmnity of Interest

Civilian Conservation Center constitutes a functionally 

distinct group of employees who share a community of 

interest separate and distinct from the other employees 

of the National Forest. (Cherokee National Forest,

Jacobs Creek Civilian Conservation Cntr., A/SLMR No. 890)

Petitioned for unit of all professional and nonprofessional employees of the Riverside District Office (RDS) 

and the California Desert Plan Staff (DPS) of the Bureau 

of Land Management found inappropriate because the two 

offices have separate missions, different job classifications, do not enjoy integrated operations or job contacts, 

and do not experience significant transfer or interchange 

of personnel. However, the A/S found that the RDS and 

DPS separately constitute units appropriate for 

exclusive recognition. (Bureau of Land Management, 

Riverside Dist. Office and Desert Plan Staff, Riverside, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 906)

Proposed unit held inappropriate where included employees 

do not share a clear and identifiable community of 

interest which is separate and distinct from excluded 

employees. (U.S. Naval Station, Charleston, S.C.,

A/SLMR No. 907)

Proposed unit of Federal Protective Officers and guards 

which constitutes a functionally distinct group of 

employees found appropriate. (GSA, Region 4,

A/SLMR No. 911)

Separate unit of all professional employees, encompassed 

within the petitioned for unit found appropriate as it 

included all of the A c t ivity’s professional employees 

who share a clear and identifiable community of interest. 

(Navy Torpedo Station, Keyport, Wash., A/SLMR No. 914)

Claimed unit is inappropriate as claimed GS nonprofessional 

technical employees encompass only a part of the Activity's 

nonprofessional GS employees and such employees do not 

share a clear and identifiable community of interest from 

other nonprofessional and nontechnical GS employees at 

the Activity. (Navy Torpedo Station, Keyport, Wash.,

A/SLMR No. 914)

20 04 04

6-30-77 13
20 04 04

20 04 04 Community of Interest (Cont'd)

Claimed unit of all nonprofessional GS employees 

found appropriate where included employees share a 

clear and identifiable community of interest separate 

and distinct from other employees. (Navy Torpedo 

Station, Keyport, Wash., A/SLMR No. 914)

Unit comprising all unrepresented nonprofessional 

employees held appropriate where included employees 

have similar job classifications, skills, and duties, 

are subject to common personnel policies and practices, 

and enjoy common overall supervision and essentially 

uniform working conditions. (U.S. Agric. Research 

Service, Georgia - South Carolina Area, A/SLMR No. 915)

As a result of reorganization, transferred group of 

employees found to have accreted to existing unit in 

accordance with policy set forth in Department of the 

Army, Fort McPherson, Georgia, FLRC No. 76A-82, where a 

finding of accretion must take into account equal 

application of the three criteria as set forth in 

Section 10(b) of the Order and is not dependent upon 

thorough physical integration of employees at issue into 

an existing unit. (Naval Training Cntr., Orlando, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 988)

A/S found that the employees in the unit sought share a 

common mission, common overall supervision, essentially 

similar work classifications and similar labor relations 

and personnel policies and practices. Under these 

circumstances, he concluded that the employees in the 

petitioned for consolidated unit shared a clear and 

identifiable community of interest. (U.S. Customs Service, 

Washington, D. C. A/SLMR No. 991)

A/s found claimed unit of guards and detectives to be 

appropriate where, among other things, they constituted 

both a functionally distinct grouping within the meaning 

of. Section 10(b) of the Order and a residual unit of 

unrepresented employees. (Naval Air Test Cntr., Patuxent 

River, Md., A/SLMR No. 1019)

A/s found that employees in proposed consolidated unit, 

consisting of all employees currently represented by 

petitioner in a number of existing bargaining units 

within the Activity, enjoyed a clear and identifiable 

community of interest. (FAA, Aeronautical Cntr.,

Oklahoma City, Okla., A/SLMR No. 1021)

14 6-30-77
20 04 04 Community of Interest (Cont'd)

Claimed unit is not appropriate where it is only one 

of a number of medical clinics operated by the Activity 

and it is highly integrated with other Activity clinics.

The employees in the claimed unit do not share a clear 

and identifiable community of interest which is 

separate and distinct from other Activity employees 

and where the proposed fragmented unit could not 

reasonably be expected to promote effective dealings 

and efficiency of agency operations. (HQ, U.S. Army 

Health Services Command, Kenner Army Hospital, DGSC 

Health Clinic, Richmond, Va., A/SLMR No. 1058)

20 04 08 Effective Dealings

(See 20 04 12, "Efficiency of Operations")

FLRC issued its Decision on Appeal, FLRC No. 75A-128, 

in which it held that the A/S failed to meet his 

responsibilities with respect to the criterion of 

"effective dealings" in the unit found appropriate by 

the A/S, which would result in promoting and fostering 

fragmentation. FLRC set aside A/S decision in A/SLMR 

No. 559 and remanded the case to him for appropriate 

action. A/S issued a Supplemental Decision and Order 

revoking Certification of Representative issued and 

dismissing petition. (See A/SLMR Nos. 885, 886 and 887)

Proposed unit encompassing Civilian Conservation Center, 

which constitutes a functionally distinct group of 

employees, found to promote effective dealings.

(Cherokee National Forest, Jacobs Creek Civilian 

Conservation Center, A/SLMR No. 890)

Petitioned for unit of all professional and nonprofessional 

employees of the Riverside District Office (RDS) and the 

California Desert Plan Staff (DPS) of the Bureau of Land 

Management found inappropriate because the two offices 

have separate missions, different job classifications, 

do not enjoy integrated operations or job contacts, and 

do not experience significant transfer or interchange of 

personnel. However, the A/S found that the RDS and 

DPS, separately, constitute units appropriate for 

exclusive recognition. (Bureau of Land Management, 

Riverside Dist. Office and Desert Plan Staff, Riverside, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 906)

20 04 04

6-30-77 15
20 04 08

20 04 08 Effective Dealings (Cont'd)

16

Proposed unit held inappropriate where, among other 

factors, It would result in fragmented units which 

could not reasonably be expected to promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of operations. (U.S. Naval 

Station, Charleston, S.C., A/SLMR No. 907)

Proposed unit of Federal Protective Officers and guards 

which constitutes a functionally distinct group of 

employees will promote effective dealings inasmuch as 

unit had been previously represented by another 

labor organization and there was no evidence that the 

scope and character of the pre-existing unit had changed 

subsequent to its initial certification. (GSA, Region 4, 

A/SLMR No. 911)

Separate unit of all professional employees encompassed 

within the petitioned for unit found appropriate where 

such a comprehensive unit of all professional employees 

would promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations and would tend to reduce fragmentation 

of units at the Activity. (Navy Torpedo Station,

Keyport, Wash., A/SLMR No. 914)

Claimed unit is inappropriate as claimed GS nonprofessional 

technical employees encompass only a part of the Activity's 

nonprofessional GS employees and such employees do not 

share a clear and identifiable community of interest and 

will not promote effective dealings. (Navy Torpedo 

Station, Keyport, Wash., A/SLMR No. 914)

Unit of all nonprofessional GS employees found appropriate 

will promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

operations where, among other things, it included all 

unrepresented nonprofessional GS employees in a residual 

unit, which would prevent fragmentation of units at the 

Activity. (Navy Torpedo Station, Keyport, Wash.,

A/SLMR No. 914)

Unit comprising all unrepresented nonprofessional 

employees held appropriate where, among other things, the 

proposed unit is, in effect, a residual unit of all 

unrepresented nonprofessional employees and would thus 

prevent further fragmentation of the Activity's nonprofessional employees. Noting also the delegation of the 

labor relations authority to the Activity Director, A/S 

held that the unit sought would promote effective dealings 

and efficiency of agency operations. (U.S. Agric.

Research Service, Georgia - South Carolina Area,

A/SLMR No. 915)

6-30-77
In light of FLRC's consolidated DCASR decision. A/S 

remanded case to RA and suggested certain factors 

regarding effective dealings which should be fully 

developed i^en the record is reopened. (Passport Office, 

Chicago Passport Agency, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 929)

As a result of reorganization, transferred group of 

employees found to have accreted to existing unit in accordance 

with policy set forth in Department of Army, Fort McPherson. 

Georgia, FLRC No. 76A-82, where a finding of accretion 

must take into account equal application of the three 

criteria as set forth in Section 10(b) of the Order and 

is not dependent upon thorough physical integration of 

employees at issue into an existing unit. (Naval 

Training Center, Orlando, Fla., A/SLMR No. 988)

After an analysis o^ the Agency's organizational structure 

and lines of authority the A/S found that the consolidated 

unit would promote effective dealings. (U.S. Customs 

Service, Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 991)

A/s found claimed unit of guards and detectives 

appropriate where, among other things, such unit would 

prevent further fragmentation by including all of the 

unrepresented nonprofessionals thereby promoting effective 

dealings. (Naval Air Test Cntr., Patuxent River, Md.,

A/SLMR No. 1019)

Proposed consolidated unit in which all employees are 

served by the same personnel office which also handles 

labor relations for each of the divisions holding 

exclusive recognition will promote effective dealings.

Also, given scope of agreements negotiated to date, it 

was reasonable to conclude that Activity could realize more 

effective dealings by bargaining in one consolidated 

unit. (FAA, Aeronautical Cntr., Oklahoma City, Okla.,

A/SLMR No, 1021)

In view of the history of collective bargaining in the 

unit involved, both prior and subsequent to a reorganization, and the fact that the unit remained generally intact 

following the reorganization, in the A/S's view, to alter 

it in the manner sought by the Activity-Petitioner would 

not have the desired effect of enhancing effective 

dealings and efficiency of agency operations. Rather, he 

found that the diminution of the scope of the existing 

bargaining unit and the establishment of a group of 

unrepresented employees, the result sought by the ActivityPetitioner, would tend to promote fragmentation and 

inhibit effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

operations. (Chemical Systems Lab. Support, Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, Md., A/SLMR No. 1029)

20 04 08

20 04 08 Effective Dealings (Cont'd)

6-30-77 17
Claimed unit is not appropriate where it is only one 

of a number of medical clinics operated by the Activity 

and it is highly intergrated with other Activity clinics, 

the employees in the claimed unit do not share a clear 

and identifiable community of interest which is separate 

and distinct from other Activity employees and where 

the proposed fragmented unit could not reasonably be 

expected to promote effective dealings and efficiency 

of agency operations. (HQ, U.S. Army Health Services 

Command, Kenner Army Hospital, DGSC Health Clinic, 

Richmond, Va., A/SLMR No. 1058)

A/S in light of the principles enumerated in the DCASR 

decision, found that the proposed unit was not appropriate 

for the purpose of exclusive recognition under Section 10 

(b) of the Order. He noted that although the employees 

sought enjoyed a clear and identifiable community of 

interest, the evidence established that the sought unit, 

which does not constitute a functional or craft grouping 

of employees and is less than region wide in scope, 

would not promote effective dealings or efficiency of 

agency operations. He also found that the establishment 

of the claimed unit would result in further fragmentation 

of the Activity. As a result, the A/S ordered that the 

Certification of Representative previously issued to the 

Petitioner herein be revoked, and that the petition be 

dismissed. (GSA, Regional Office, Region 4, A/SLMR 

No. 1067)

20 04 12 Efficiency of Operations

(See also 20 04 0 8 , "Effective Dealings")

FLRC issued its Decision on Appeal, FLRC No. 75A-128, 

in which it held that the A/S failed to meet his 

responsibilities with respect to the criterion of 

"efficiency of operations" in the unit found appropriate 

by the A/S, which would result in promoting and 

fostering fragmentation. FLRC set aside A/S decision in 

A/SLMR No. 559 and remanded the case to him for appropriate 

action. A/S issued a Supplemental Decision and Order 

revoking Certification of Representative issued and 

dismissing petition. (See A/SLMR Nos. 885, 886 and 887)

Proposed unit encompassing Civilian Conservation Center, 

which constitutes a functionally distinct group of 

employees, found to promote efficiency of operations. 

(Cherokee National Forest, Jacobs Creek Civilian 

Conservation Cntr., A/SLMR No. 890)

20 04 12

20 04 08 Effective Dealings (Cont'd)

18 6-30-77
20 04 12

20 04 12 Efficiency of Operations (Cont'd)

Petitioned for unit of all professional and nonprofessional employees of the Riverside District Office (BIDS) 

and the California Desert Plan Staff (DPS) of the 

Bureau of Land Management found inappropriate because 

the two offices have separate missions, different job 

classifications, do not enjoy integrated operations or 

job contacts, and do not experience significant transfer 

or interchange of personnel. However, the A/S found 

that the RDS and DPS, separately, constitute units 

appropriate for exclusive recognition. (Bureau of Land 

Management, Riverside Dist. Office and Desert Plan Staff, 

Riverside, Calif., A/SLMR No. 906)

Proposed unit held inappropriate where, among other 

factors, it would result in fragmented units which could 

not reasonably be expected to promote effective dealings 

and efficiency of operations. (U.S. Naval Station, 

Charleston, S.C., A/SLMR No. 907)

Proposed unit of Federal Protective Officers and guards 

which constitutes a functionally distinct group of 

employees will promote efficiency of operations inasmuch 

as unit had been previously represented by another labor 

organization and there was no evidence that the scope 

and character of the pre-existing unit had changed 

subsequent to its initial certification. (GSA, Region 4, 

A/SLMR No. 911)

Separate unit of all professional employees encompassed 

within the petitioned for unit found appropriate where 

such a comprehensive unit of all professional employees 

would promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations and would tend to reduce fragmentation 

of units at the Activity. (Navy Torpedo Station, Keyport, 

Wash., A/SLMR No. 914)

Claimed unit is inappropriate as claimed GS nonprofessional 

technical employees encompass only a part of the Activity's 

nonprofessional GS employees and such employees do not 

share a clear and identifiable community of interest and 

will not promote effective dealings or efficiency of 

operations. (Navy Torpedo Station, Keyport, Wash.,

A/SLMR No. 914)

Unit of all nonprofessional GS employees found appropriate 

will promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

' operations where, among other things, it included all

unrepresented nonprofessional GS employees in a residual 

unit, which would prevent fragmentation of units at the 

Activity. (Navy Torpedo Station, Keyport, Wash.,

A/SLMR No. 914)

6-30-77 19
Unit comprised of an unrepresented nonprofessional 

employees held appropriate where, among other things, 

the proposed unit is, in effect, a residual unit of 

all unrepresented nonprofessional employees and would 

thus prevent further fragmentation of the Activity's 

nonprofessional employees. Noting also the delegation 

of the labor relations authority to the Activity 

Director, A/S held that the unit sought would promote 

effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations.

(U. S. Agric. Research Service, Georgia - South Carolina 

Area, A/SLMR No. 915)

In light of FLRC's consolidation DCASR decision, A/S 

remanded case to RA and suggested certain factors 

regarding efficiency of agency operations which should 

be fully developed when the record is reopened. (Passport 

Office, Chicago Passport Agency Chicago, 111.,

A/SLMR No. 929)

As a result of reorganization, transferred group of 

employees found to have accreted to existing unit in 

accordance with policy set forth in Department of the 

Army, Fort McPherson, Georgia, FLRC No. 76A-82, where 

a finding of accretion must take into account equal 

application of the three criteria as set forth in 

Section 10(b) of the Order and is not dependent upon 

thorough physical integration of employees at issue into 

an existing unit. (Naval Training Center, Orlando, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 988)

After an analysis of the Agency's organizational structure 

and lines of authority the A/S found that the consolidated 

unit would promote efficiency of agency operations. (U.S. 

Customs Service, Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 991)

A/S found claimed unit of guards and detectives appropriate 

where, among other things, such unit would prevent 

further fragmentation by including all of the unrepresented nonprofessionals thereby promoting efficiency of 

operations. (Naval Air Test Cntr., Patuxent River, Md., 

A/SLMR No. 1019)

Proposed consolidated unit, in which all employees are 

serviced by the same personnel office which also handles 

labor relations for each of the divisions exclusively 

represented will lead to efficiency of agency operations. 

Similarly, proposed unit which provides for bargaining in 

single, rather than existing seven units, will reduce 

unit fragmentation. (FAA, Aeronautical Cntr 

City, Okla., A/SLMR No. 1021)

20 04 12

20 04 12 Efficiency of Operations (Cont'd)

20 6-30-77
20 04 12

In view of the history of collective bargaining in the 

unit involved, both prior and subsequent to a reorganization, and the fact that the unit remained generally intact 

following the reorganization, in the A/S's view, to alter 

it in the manner sought by the Activity-Petitioner would 

not have the desired effect of enhancing effective 

dealings and efficiency of agency operations. Rather, he 

found that diminution of the scope of the existing 

bargaining unit and the establishment of a group of unrepresented employees, the result sought by the ActivityPetitioner, would tend to promote fragmentation and inhibit 

effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations.

In this later regard, it was noted particularly that both 

the new Commands to which the employees involved report 

continue to be serviced by the same Civilian Personnel 

Office. (Chemical Systems Lab. Support, Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, Md., A/SLMR No. 1029)

Claimed unit is not appropriate where it is only one of 

a number of medical clinics operated by the Activity and 

it is highly intergrated with other Activity clinics; 

the employees in the claimed unit do not share a clear 

and identifiable community of interest which is separate 

and distinct from other Activity employees and where the 

proposed fragmented unit could not reasonably be expected 

to promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

operations. ( HQ., U. S. Army Health Services Command 

Kenner Army Hospital, DGSC Health Clinic, Richmond, Va«. 

A/SLMR No. 1058)

A/s in light of the principles enumerated in the DCASR 

decision, found that the proposed unit was not appropriate 

for the purpose of exclusive recognition under Section 1 0(b) 

of the Order. He noted that although the employees 

sought enjoyed a clear and identifiable community of 

interest, the evidence established that the sought unit, 

which does not constitute a functional or craft grouping 

of employees and is less than region wide in scope, would 

not promote effective dealings or efficiency of agency 

operations. He also found that the establishment of the 

claimed unit would result in further fragmentation of 

the Activity. As a result, the A/S ordered that the 

Certification of Representative previously issued to 

the Petitioner herein be revoked, and that the petition 

be dismissed. (GSA, Regional Office, Region 4,

A/SLMR No. 1067)

20 04 12 Efficiency of Operations (Cont'd)

6-30-77 21
20 08 12

20 04 16 Agency Regulations and Parties' Stipulations Not Bin mg. 

on Assistant Secretary

(See also: 25 12 0 4 , "Challenges, Eligibility of 

Employees", for Stipulations of Parties Related to 

Challenges.)

No Entries

20 04 20 Previous Certification

Unit of National Guard technicians found appropriate 

where same unit was previously certified, a history of 

collective bargaining existed, and there was n o evadence 

that the scope and character of the existing unit had 

changed by virtue of events subsequent to the initial 

certification. (Alabama State Military Dept.,

A/SLMR No. 1008)

Election directed in previously certified unit where 

there was no disagreement between the parties as to the 

parties as to the appropriateness of the unit. (EPH, 

Research Laboratory, Narragansett, R.I., A/SLMR No. 1071)

20 08 00 Geographic Scope 

20 08 04 World- v?ide 

No Entries

20 08 08 N a t i o n - w i d e

Nation-Wide unit of all U.S. Customs Service employees 

found appropriate. (U.S. Customs Service, Washington, D.C. 

A/SLMR No. 991)

20 08 12 State-rwide

Employees of the Riverside District Office and the California 

Desert Plan Staff separately, held appropriate, and combined 

unit of such employees held inappropriate. (Bureau of Land 

Management, Riverside Dist. Office and Desert Plan Staff, 

Riverside, Calif., A/SLMR No. 906)

Unit of National Guard technicians assigned to the southern 

half of the state found appropriate where same unit was 

previously certified, a history of collective bargaining 

existed, and there was no evidence that the scope and 

character of the existing unit had changed by virtue of 

events subsequent to the initial certification. (Alabama 

State Military Dept., A/SLMR No. 1008)

22 6-30-77
20 08 16 City-wide 

No Entries 

20 12 00 Organizational Scope 

20 12 04 Agency-wide 

No Entries 

20 12 08 Activity-wide 

No Entries 

20 12 12 Directorate-wide 

No Entries 

20 12 16 Command-wide 

No Entries 

20 12 20 Headquarters-wide 

20 12 24 Field-wide 

No Entries

20 12 28 Region-wide

Region-wide unit of Federal Protective Officers and guards 

found appropriate. (GSA, Region 4, A/SLMR No. 911)

Region-wide unit held inappropriate where there is a high 

degree of employee interchange and transfer and where labor 

relations and personnel policies and practices are established 

and implemented at agency headquarters. (Sixth National Bank 

Region, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, A/SLMR 

No. 971)

Unit of National Guard technicians assigned to the southern 

half of the state found appropriate where same unit was 

previously certified, a history of collective bargaining 

existed, and there was no evidence that the scope and character 

of the existing unit had changed by virtue of events 

subsequent to the initial certification. (Alabama State 

Military Dept., A/SLMR No. 1008)

20 12 28

6-30-77 23
20 12 60

20 12 28 Reeion-wide (Cont'd)

Noting particularly the parties' agreement, the A/S found 

the claimed region-wide unit to be appropriate. (Lake 

Central Region, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Ann Arbor, 

M i c h . , A/SLMR No. 1032)

20 12 32 Division-wide

No Entries

20 12 36 Area-wide

No Entries

20 12 40 District-wide

No Entries

20 12 44 Branch-wide

A/s pursuant to the rationale of the Federal Labor Relations 

Council's FLRC No. 76A-97, ordered that the certification 

of Representative previously issued to the Petitioner 

involved herein be revoked, and that the petition herein 

be dismissed. (DSA, DCASR, Cleveland, Ohio; DCASO,

Columbus, Ohio; DSA, DCASR, Akron, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 884)

20 12 48 Base-wide

24

No Entries

20 12 52 Section-wide

No Entries

20 12 56 Multi-Installation

No Entries

20 12 60 Single Installation

Unit of all professional and nonprofessional employees, made 

up of auditors and clericals found appropriate for the 

purpose of exclusive recognition under the Order.

(Comptroller for Guam, Trust Territory of the Pacific 

Island, A/SLMR No. 1002)

Claimed unit is not appropriate as it is only one of a number 

of medical clinics operated by the Activity and it is highly 

intergrated with other Activity clinics. Claimed unit 

receives all its personnel and administrative services from 

the same Personnel Department as the Activity and the area 

of consideration for promotions, filling of job vacancies is

6-30-77
ft*

itei

cs is

Activity-wide, all employees of the Activity including 

the claimed unit receive the same benefits, have the same 

working hours and leave policies and are serviced by the 

same labor relations section as is the Activity. (HQ.,

U.S. Army Health Services Command, Kenner Army Hospital,

DGSC Health Clinic, Richmond, Va., A/SLMR No. 1058)

20 12 64 Occupational Classification

Unit limited solely to all employees of the Telephone 

Services Division, Communications Department held not 

appropriate. (U.S. Naval Station, Charleston, S.C.,

A/SLMR No. 907)

A/s found claimed unit of guards and detectives to be 

appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition where, 

among other things, they constituted a functionally distinct 

grouping of employees within the meaning of Section 10(b) 

of the Order. (Naval Air Test Cntr., Patuxent River, Md., 

A/SLMR No. 1019)

A/s found that a unit of all professional employees 

assigned to the USAF Regional Hospital, Eglin AFB, Florida 

was not appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition. 

A/s noted that although the evidence established that the 

sought unit herein is a functional grouping of all the 

Activity's professional employees and that these employees 

enjoyed a clear and identifiable community of interest 

separate and distinct from all other professional employees 

on the Base, such a unit would lead to the artificial 

fragmentation of the professional employees of the Base 

and would not promote effective dealings or efficiency of 

agency operations. (Air Force Systems Comm., USAF Regional 

Hospital, Eglin AFB, Fla., A/SLMR No. 1023)

20 16 00 Special Situations

20 16 04 Severance

Severance of a unit of guards from an existing larger unit 

where there had been a harmonious and effective bargaining 

relationship and an absence of unusual circumstances is 

denied. (VA Hospital, Montrose, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 872)

Having found that the bulk of the employees sought by the 

Petitioner had accreted to an existing unit, the A/S noted 

that the Petitioner's petition was, thus, tantamount to a 

request for severance of the subject employees from the 

existing exclusively recognized unit. A/S concluded that 

there were no unusual circumstances in this case warranting 

a severance of the employees sought by the Petitioner from 

the preexisting unit represented by the Radio Officers Union,

20 16 04

20 12 60 Single Installation (Cont'd)

6-30-77 25
20 16 04 Severance (Cont'd)

20 16 08

and he ordered that the petition be dismissed. (Electronics 

Engineering Div., Pacific Marine Center, Nat. Ocean Survey, 

Nat. Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., Seattle, Wash,,

A/SLMR No. 934)

Severance request denied where evidence failed to establish 

that incumbent labor organization failed or refused to represent petitioned for employees. Absence of local union 

representatives, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence 

to establish that incumbent labor organization failed to 

represent petitioned for employees when its ft’ational office 

assisted employees in the claimed unit regarding employment 

matters. (U.S. Customs Service, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, 

A/SLMR No. 937)

A/S found that petitioned for unit of guards and detectives 

was appropriate for exclusive recognition where claimed 

employees were specifically excluded in the parties' contract 

language, no employees in the disputed classification were 

hired at the time of initial recognition, and where there 

was no evidence that the claimed employees had been effectively 

represented or that the parties had sought to amend their 

agreement with respect to the guard exclusion. (Naval Air 

Text Cntr., Patuxent River, Md., A/SLMR No. 1019)

A/S rejected the Activity-Petitioner's attempt to sever 

from the NFFE's unit employees who physically remained at 

Aberdeen Proving Ground but who were reassigned to a new 

command as the result of a reorganization. (Chemical Systems 

Lab. Support, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., A/SLMR No. 1029)

20 16 08 Accretion

26

A/S found that the GS Electronics Technicians who rotate 

aboard the ships of the Activity were an integral part of 

the Pacific Marine Center's Electronics Technician unit 

exclusively represented by the Radio Officers Union as, since 

the establishment of the rotating GS Electronics Technicians' 

program, the employees of the Activity assigned to that 

program have been administratively and functionally integrated 

into the ROU's existing unit of PMC Electronics Technician 

employees and share a clear and identifiable community of 

interest with such employees. (Electronics Engineering Div., 

Pacific Marine Center, Nat., Ocean Survey, Nat., Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Admin., Seattle, Wash., A/SLMR No. 934)

As a result of a reorganization and disestablishment of DCASO 

Huntsville as an organizational entity, the employees remaining 

at Huntsville accreted to DCASMA Birmingham. (DCASR, Atlanta, 

Ga., A/SLMR No. 941)

6-30-77
20 16 08 Accretion (Cont'd)

A/s ordered that existing exclusive unit at U.S. Coast Guard 

Base, Portsmouth, Va. be redesignated U.S. Coast Guard 

Support Center, Portsmouth, Va., to reflect the closure of 

the Portsmouth base and the mass transfer of unit employees 

to the Support Center. He also ordered that the unit be 

clarified to include the unrepresented employees of the Public 

Works Division and the Security Section of the Administrative 

Division who were employed at the Support Center prior to the 

mass transfer of base personnel. (U.S. Coast Guard Support 

Cntr., Portsmouth, V a . , A/SLMR No. 986)

As a result of reorganization, transferred group of employees 

found to have accreted to existing unit in accordance with 

policy set forth in Department of the Army, Fort McPherson, 

Georgia, FLRC No. 76A-82, where a finding of accretion must 

take into account equal application of the three criteria 

as set forth in Section 10(b) of the Order and is not 

dependent upon thorough physical integration of employees at 

issue into an existing unit. (Naval Training Center, Orlando, 

Fla., A/SLMR No. 988)

20 16 12 Eligibility

A/s found, based on eligibility finding in an earlier case. 

Internal Revenue Service, Office of the Regional Commissioner, 

Southeast Region, A /SLMR No, 565 where the petitioner's 

petition for the same unit was dismissed upon a re-evaluation 

of the showing of interest, that it would not effectuate the 

purposes and policies of the order to permit the parties 

to relitigate the same issues including the same classifications raised in a prior hearing, in the absence of evidence 

of some change in circumstances. Accordingly, he found that 

employees in the disputed classifications should be included 

in the unit found appropriate. However, with regard to the 

‘ Budget Analyst, GS-560-12, the A/S noted that although

additional duties had been added since the earlier case,he 

s® found that they were not supervisors within the meaning of

the Order and should be included in the unit. In addition, 

and based on the parties' stipulation, the A/S found the 

•S- Appointment Clerk GS-203-5, which had not been previously

t litigated, to be engaged in Federal personnel work in other

i than a purely clerical capacity and therefore, should be

]i' excluded from the unit found appropriate. (IRS, Office of

3i: the Regional Commissioner, Southeast Region, A/SLMR No. 870)

20 16 16 Residual Employees

Jii'

jjii Where proposed unit encompassing Civilian Conservation Center

[jtii constitutes a functional unit of all unrepresented employees

in National Forest who have not had an opportunity to vote 

on question of exclusive recognition, establishment of 

petitioned for unit found to minimize fragmentation of remaining unrepresented employees of the Activity. (Cherokee National 

Forest, Jacobs Creek Civilian Conservation Cntr., A/SLMR No. 890)

20 16 16

6-30-77 27
20 16 16 Residual Employees (Cont'd)

Unit of all nonprofessional employees found appropriate will 

promote effective dealings and efficiency of operations 

where, among other things, it would reduce fragmentation as 

■ ■ • " t, a ..................

__ ___ _____ _________ ________itv.

Wash., A/SLMR No. 914)

20 16 16

where, among other things, it would reduce fragmentation as 

such unit is, in effect, a residual unit of all unrepresented 

employees at the Activity. (Navy Torpedo Station, Keyport, 

Wash.. A/SLMR No. 914)

Unit of all unrepresented nonprofessional employees held 

appropriate will promote effective dealings and efficiency 

of operations where, among other things, it would prevent 

further fragmentation of the Activity's nonprofessional 

employees. (U.S. Agric. Research Service, Georgia - South 

Carolina Area, A/SLMR No. 915)

A/S found claimed unit of all GS and WG employees assigned 

to Airway Facility Sector to be appropriate. A/S noted that 

the claimed unit constitutes, in effect, a residual regionwide unit of all unrepresented nonprofessional employees of 

the Activity, and that such employees share a common mission, 

common overall supervision, generally similar job classification and duties and enjoy uniform personnel policies and 

practices and labor relations policies. (FAA, Federal Airway 

Facility Sector, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 927)

A/S found a residual unit of all unrepresented nonprofessional 

employees of the Activity share a clear and identifiable 

community of interest, share a common mission, share common 

overall supervision, and generally have similar job classifications and duties, and enjoy uniform personnel policies and 

practices and labor relations policies. He also found that 

such unit will promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations and will prevent further fragmentation of 

units at the Activity. (FAA, Oakland Airway Facilities Sector, 

Oakland, Calif., A/SLMR No. 1010)

Residual nationwide unit of all currently unrepresented 

nonprofessional GS and WG employees of the Agency found 

appropriate where: (1 ) employees have common mission; and 

(2 ) are subject to similar personnel policies and practices 

established by Civil Service laws and by the Agency. In 

addition to community of interest, A/S found residual 

nationwide unit could reasonably expect to promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of agency operations. (The 

Smithsonian Institution, A/SLMR No. 1013)

A/S found unit of guards and detectives appropriate where, 

among other things, it was a residual unit of all of the 

Activity's unrepresented employees and as such would reduce 

the possibility of further fragmentation thereby promoting 

effective dealings and efficiency of operations. (Naval Air 

Test Cntr., Patuxent River, Md., A/SLMR No. 1019)

28 6-30-77
20 16 28

20 16 16 Residual Employees (Cont'd)

Claimed unit is not appropriate where it is only one of a 

number of medical clinics operated by the Activity, it is 

highly intergrated with other Activity clinics, and where 

although the parties stipulated that the claimed employees 

are the only unrepresented nonprofessional employees of the 

Activity; the record was insufficient to establish that they 

did constitute a residual unit. (HQ. U.S. Army Health 

Services Command, Kenner Army Hospital, DGSC Health Clinic, 

Richmond, Va., A/SLMR No. 1058)

Claimed unit not appropriate where all of the unrepresented 

employees of the Activity were included in the unit sought 

and it would lead to the artificial fragmentation of the 

Activity's unrepresented employees. (Army and Air Force 

Exchange Service, Sheppard AF Base, Tex., A/SLMR No. 1063) ^

a /s found a residual unit of all unrepresented nonprofessional, 

n on— instructor employees at the FAA Academy to be appropriate 

for the purpose of exclusive recognition as the employees 

share a clear and identifiable community of interest and the 

petitioned for unit would reduce unit fragmentation at the 

Academy and would promote effective dealings and efficiency 

of operations. The A/S noted that such unit was consistent 

with the division level bargaining history at the FAA 

Aeronautical Center in which the FAA Academy is a component 

division. (DOT, FAA, FAA Academy, Aeronautical Center, 

Oklahoma City, Okla., A/SLMR No. 1072)

^ 20 16 20 Self-Determination

A/s, in view of the incumbent's clear desire to represent 

the claimed employees as part of its existing unit, 

ordered self determination election in petitioned for unit 

of guards and detectives thereby giving the employees the ^ 

choice of voting for inclusion in the activity-wide incumbent's 

unit, the petitioned for unit or neither. (Naval Air Text 

Cntr., Patuxent River, A/SLMR No. 1019)

itii 20 16 24 Supervisory Unit

1

CtiS

No Entries 

20 16 28 Reorganization

A/S found that the Nebraska employees no longer share an 

identifiable community of interest with unit employees in 

Minnesota and Iowa who remain in the 5th Army and v^o are 

serviced by the CPO, Fort McCoy. He noted in this regard 

that Nebraska unit employees had been transferred to a 

newly established organization, the 89th Army Reserve Command 

which consisted of Army Reserve elements in North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas; the Nebraska employees 

had been transferred from 5th Army to 6 th Army; and that

6-30-77 29
20 16 28

the CPO handling their administrative matters had been 

transferred from Fort McCoy (5th Army to Fort Riley 

(6 th Army). A/S also noted that although an RA petition is 

an appropriate vehicle for an activity (or agency) to seek 

a determination of representational status of employees in 

a substantially changed unit, it does not follow that an 

election will be appropriate in each instance where some of 

an activity's employees had been previously employed by 

another activity and were included in an exclusively 

recognized unit. Thus, elections in newly established 

units which are not substantially identifiable with any 

preexisting units but, rather, essentially include employees 

who have been unrepresented, should result only from 

petitions filed by labor organizations seeking exclusive 

recognition in such units. (89th Army Reserve Coimnand,

Wichita, Kansas, A/SLMR No. 901)

RA petition seeking determination with respect to effect of 

reorganization on recognized unit dismissed where A/S 

found that the former DCASD, Hartford now DCASMA, Hartford, 

unit, while diminished in personnel and geographic area, 

continued after the reorganization to remain appropriate.

A/S found that the reorganization did not essentially alter 

either the mission or type of duties performed and that 

personnel policies and practices are still established 

within higher headquarters. He also found that the DCASMA, 

Hartford employees continued to share a clear and identifiable community of interest and that the unit continued to 

promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

operations. (Defense Contract Admin. Services Region, Boston, 

Ma s s . , A/SLMR No. 905)

A reorganization which combined two DCASG"s in Bridgeport and 

A ^ c o Corporation plant into DCASMA, Bridgeport, and encompassed 

the movement of Bridgeport employees in Avco facilities, 

produced a new unit since employees of both former units 

were so intermingled in DCASMA, Bridgeport that the former 

units lost their separate identity. A/S found that DCASMA 

emplc^ees enjoyed common policies and practices and working 

conditions, common supervision and perform their duties 

within the same geographic area. He also found that the 

petitioned for unit would promote effective dealings and 

efficiency of agency operations by establishing a bargaining 

unit which coincides with the Activity's organizational 

structure and which constitutes the level at which agreements 

may be negotiated. A/S directed an election and placed on 

ballot two NAGE Locals which had represented DCASO,

Bridgeport and DCASO, Avco. (Defense Contract Admin.

Services Region, Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 905)

20 16 28 Reorganization (Cont'd)

30 6-30-77
20 16 28

20 16 28 Reorganization (Cont'd)

A/S found that the reorganization, which abolished the 

Activity's Services Office in Toledo effected a substantial 

change in both the scope and character of the exclusively 

recognized unit and, in effect rendered such unit inappropriate. 

Thus, he concluded that the Activity was under no obligation 

to continue to recognize the exclusive representative of the 

employees in such unit. A/S found that the previous unit's 

employees were now assigned to two seperate units where they 

were under seperate personnel policies and practices, seperate 

secondary supervision and have no job contacts with employees 

of other units. (Defense Logistics Agency, DCASR, Cleveland, 

A/SLMR No. 932)

As a result of a December 3, 1976, reorganization, DCASO 

Huntsville employees had become organizationally and operationally integrated with employees of DCASMA Birmingham.

(DCASR, Atlanta, Ga., A/SLMR No. 941)

A/s found that as the consequence of a reorganization, the 

character and scope of the certified unit had been substantially and materially altered, rendering it no longer appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition under the 

Order. (U.S. Dept., of Agriculture, OADS, NOCC, A/SLMR 

No. 950)

CU petitions dismissed where existing bargaining units 

continued after reorganization to remain appropriate. Record 

revealed that there were no significant changes in day-to-day 

t e m s and conditions of employment and that the employees 

continued to perform the same type of work under the same 

immediate supervision. A/S also found that altering units 

where a history of collective bargaining existed would tend 

to promote fragmentation and inhibit effective dealings and 

efficiency of operations (U.S. Army Missile Materiel 

Readiness Comm, and U.S. Army Missile Research and Development 

Comm., A/SLMR No. 956)

A/S dismissed AC petition as being inappropriate, as he 

found more than nominal or technical changes resulted from 

reorganization, where employees transferred no longer shared 

community of interest with employees in Petitioner's unit 

and that, with different organizational structures and 

servicing personnel offices, differing personnel policies, 

and in the absence of common negotiating authority, 

retention of the transferred employees in Petitioner's unit 

as proposed in the amended unit description would not promote 

effective dealings or efficiency of agency operations.

(Navy Exchange, Naval Air Station, Memphis, Millington, Tenn., 

A/SLMR No. 970)

6-30-77 31
20 16 32

20 16 32 Consolidation of Units

A/s found that the Union's certified unit continued to be 

appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition after 

a reorganization, as the reorganization did not result in 

significant changes in the day-to-day terms and conditions 

of employment of the employees involved and that for the 

most part, they continued to perform the same type of 

work under the same immediate supervision. (Chemical Systems 

Lab. Support, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., A/SLMR No. 1029)

A/S found that the proposed consolidated unit of the 

Activity's Champaign, Illinois, Social Security District 

Office and Bureau of Field Operations Social Security 

Administration Region V-A were appropriated for the 

purpose of recognition under the Order. A/S found that the 

employees in the proposed consolidated unit shared a clear 

and identifiable community of interest and that the proposed 

consolidated unit would promote effective dealings and 

efficiency of agency's operations. He also found that the 

proposed consolidated unit, which provided for bargaining 

in a single unit, rather than in the two existing units, 

would promote more comprehensive bargaining and reduce 

fragmentation. (Bureau of Field Operations, Office of 

Program Operations, SSA, HEW, Chicago Region V-A, A/SLMR 

No. 876)

After a detailed analysis of the Agency's organizational 

structure and lines of authority the A/S found that a 

consolidated unit would satisfy the three unit criteria of 

Section 10(b) of the Order. (U.S. Customs Service, Washington, 

D. C . , A/SLMR No. 991)

Proposed consolidated unit consisting of nonprofessional 

or WG employees in seven of Activity's 16 organizational 

divisions found appropriate. However, it was unclear 

whether or not guards were intended to be included in 

proposed unit inasmuch as several of the certifications or 

grants of recognition held by the petitioner specifically 

excluded guards, while others were silent as to their 

inclusion or exclusion. A/S held that proposed consolidated 

units are limited to, and/or defined by the parameters of 

the existing exclusively recognized units at the time of 

filing of a consolidation petition, and so determined that 

the unit found appropriate herein should conform to the 

unit descriptions of the currently recognized units. (FAA, 

Aeronautical Cntr.. Oklahoma City, Okla., A/SLMR No. 1021)

32 6- 30-77
20 20 00

Proposed petition for consolidation of 19 units at 15 VA 

hospital facilities, represented by petitioner found 

appropriate where it was noted that the FLRC has 

construed the A/S's establishment of presumption in

favor of consolidation "---as recognition and affirmative

of the strong policy in the Federal Labor-management

relations program of facilitating consolidation---

(VA, A/SLMR No. 1016)

20 16 36 Successorship

In vie w of the principles enunciated in the Council's 

decision in FLRC No. 77A-69 and A/SLMR No. 857, the 

A/s interpreted his regulations to provide that in a 

successorship situation the agreement bar which existed 

pursuant to the predecessor's negotiated agreement with 

the incumbent exclusive representative continues in 

effect after a reorganization. Consequently, he found 

that the instant petition was untimely filed during the 

agreement bar period. (U.S. Army Mortuary, Oakland Army 

Base, Oakland, Calif., A/SLMR No. 1050)

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications

Administration of Labor-Management Relations Law Sec. 3(d)

A/S concluded that two groups of Petitioner's staff attorneys 

not be excluded from the exclusively recognized unit under 

Section 3(d) of the Order, where he found that the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 was not a "labor management 

relations law" within the meaning of Section 3(d), and that 

the conflicts of interest that Section 3(d) was intended 

to eliminate were not otherwise present. He also noted no 

contention or basis to find the attorneys should be 

excluded as supervisors or management officials, or under 

any other exclusionary category set forth in Section 10(b) 

of the Order. (Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission, A/SLMR No. 1018)

Confidential Employees

Administrative Technician is not a confidential employee.

A/S rejected as speculative an amendment place in the 

employee's position description on the day of the hearing 

and her designation as part of the management team on the 

day prior to the hearing and instead relied on her current 

duties. (Lake Central Region, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 

Ann Arbor, Mich., A/SLMR No. 1032)

20 16 32 Consolidation of Units (Cont'd)

6-30-77 33
20 20 00

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications

Confidential Employees (Cont'd)

Administrative A i d e , Steno, GS-301-6, is not 

confidential employee. (Overseas Private Investment 

Corp., A/SLMR No. 917)

Bookkeeper is not confidential employee. (U.S. Merchant 

Marine Academy, Ship's Service Organisation, A/SLMR 

No. 990)

Chauffeur. WG-5703-5, is not a confidential employee. 

(Overseas Private Investment Corp., A/SLMR No. 917)

Clerk (Typing), GS-5 (District Clerk) is a confidential 

employee. (Forest Service, Ouachita Nat'l Forest,

Hot Springs, Ark., A/SLMR No. 879)

Clerk-Typist, GS-2 (Management Services) is a confidential 

employee. (Forest Service, Ouachita Nat'l Forest,

Hot Springs, Ark., A/SLMR No. 879)

Secretary of ALJ in Charge is a confidential employee. 

(HEW, SSA, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, Region IV, 

A/SLMR No. 882)

Secretaries to Assistant Regional Directors are not 

confidential employees based on evidence of current 

duties. A/s rejected as speculative an amendement to 

their position descriptions made on the day of the 

hearing and their designations as part of the management 

team on the day prior to the hearing. (Lake Central 

Region, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Ann Arbor, Mich., 

A/SLMR No. 1032)

Secretary to the General Manager is confidential employee 

when serving in a confidential capacity to an individual 

involved in the formulation and effectuation of 

management policies in the field of labor relations. (U.S. 

Merchant Marine Academy, Ship's Service Organization, 

A/SLMR No. 990)

Federal Personnel Work

Appointment Clerk engaged in Federal personnel work in 

other than a purely clerical capacity. (IRS Office of the 

Regional Commissioner, Southeast Region, A/SLMR No. 870)

34 6-30-77
20 20 00

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications

Federal Personnel Work (Cont'd)

Administrative Technician is not engaged in Federal 

personnel work in other than a purely clerical capacity. 

(Lake Central Region, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,

Ann Arbor; Mich., A/SLMR No. 1032)

Intermittents

Intermittent employees should be included in the unit 

found appropriate as they have reasonable expectation 

of future employment; a larger number of "intermittent" 

employees work for a substantial period of time during 

the year; and the "intermittent" employees share with 

regular full-time and part-time employees common 

supervision, pay scales, job supervision, job assignments, working conditions, and. labor relations policies. 

(NAF Activity, HQ., 24th Inf. Div., Ft. Stewart, Ga., 

A/SLMR No. 899)

Management Official

(See also; 05 04 00, "Definitions")

Auditors are not management officials. (Comptroller 

for Guam, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,

A/SLMR No. 1002)

Attorney (Staff) is not a management official. 

(Occupational Safety and Health Review Com m . , A/SLMR 

No. 1018)

Director is agency official. (FAA, Aernautical Cntr., 

Oklahoma City, Okla., A/SLMR No. 1947)

Examiners are not management officials. (Alabama State 

Military Dept., A/SLMR No. 1008)

Federal Women's Program Coordinator is not a management 

official. (U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington 

D. C,, A/SLMR No. 869)

Flight Instructors (Aircraft) are not management 

officials. (Alabama State Military Dept., A/SLMR No. 

1008)

6-30-77 35
20 20 00

Management Official (Cont*d)

(See also: 05 04 00, "Definitions")

Spanish Speaking Program Coordinator is not a management 

(Official. (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington,

D.C., A/SLMR No. 869)

Training Specialists (Branch Advisors) are not management 

officials. (Sheppard Technical Trng. Cntr. Tex.,

'a /SLMR No. 1000)

Training Specialists (Instructor and/or Measurement Personnel 

are not management officials. (Sheppard Technical T m g . Cntr., 

Tex., A/SLMR No. 1000)

Supervisors

Accountant (General), GS-510-12, is a supervispr. (Overseas 

Private Investment Corp., A/SLMR No. 917)

Accounting Clerks are not supervisors. (Sheppard Technical 

Trng. Cntr., Tex., A/SLMR No. 1000)

Administrative Officer, GS-341-12, is a supervisor. (Overseas 

Private Investment Corp., A/SLMR No. 917)

Aircraft Armament Systems Mechanic, W G - 1 3 , is not a supervisor. 

(Florida ANG, St. Augustine, Fla., A/SLMR No. 8 8 8 )

Attorney-Advisors, GS-905-13/14, are supervisors. (Overseas 

Private Investment Corp., A/SLMR No. 917)

Attorney (Staff) is not a supervisor. (Occupational Safety 

and Health Review Comm., A/SLMR No. 1018)

Auditors when acting as auditor-in-charge, found to be a 

supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Order 

and should be excluded from the unit. (Comptroller for Guam, 

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, A/SLMR No. 1002)

Buyer-Secretary (Associate) is not supervisor. (U.S. Merchant 

Marine Academy, Ship's Service Organization, A/SLMR No. 990)

Clerk-Typists are supervisors. (Sheppard Technical Trng.

Cntr., Tex., A/SLMR No. 1000)

Clerks are not supervisors. (Sheppard Technical T m g . Cntr., 

Tex., A/SLMR No. 1000)

36 6-30-77
20 20 00

Supervisors (Cont'd)

Clerk (Typist), G S-4 (Technical Services) is a supervisor. 

(Forest Service, Ouachita Nat'l Forest, Hot Springs, Ark.,

A/SLMR No. 879)

Computer Operator, G S- 6 is a supervisor. (Forest Service, 

Ouachita Nat'l Forest, Hot Springs, Ark., A/SLMR No. 879)

Computer Specialist, GS-334-12, is not a supervisor. (Overseas 

Private Investment Corp., A/SLMR No. 917)

Criminal Investigator, GS-11 is a supervisor. (Forest Service, 

Ouachita Nat'l Forest, Hot Springs, Ark., A/SLMR No. 879)

Economic Development Representative is a supervisor. (U.S.

Dept, of Commerce, Economic Development Admin., Austin, Tex., 

A/SLMR No. 898)

Engineer (Project, GS-12 is a supervisor. (Puget Sound Naval 

Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash., A/SLMR No. 880)

Environmental Protection Specialist, GS-14, who serves as a 

program manager, is not a supervisor. (Environmental Protection 

Agency, A/SLMR No. 875)

Examiners are not supervisors. (Alabama State Military Dept., 

A/SLMR No. 1008)

Federal Protective Officer, GS-083-07 is a supervisor within 

the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Order. (GSA, Region 3,

FPSD, A/SLMR No. 948)

Financial Analyst, GS-1160-14, is not a supervisor. (Overseas 

Private Investment Corp., A/SLMR No. 917)

Flight Instructors (Aircraft) are not supervisors. (Alabama 

State Military Dept., A/SLMR No. 1008)

Forestry Technician Supervisory, GS-11 (Tree Improvement) 

is a supervisor. (Forest Service, Ouachita Nat'l Forest, Hot 

Springs, Ark., A/SLMR No. 879)

Group Leaders, GS-7 are not supervisors. (Cherokee National 

Forest Jacobs Creek Civilian Conservation Center, A/SLMR 

No. 890)

Hydromechanical Fuel Control Repairer, WG/13 is a supervisor. 

(Florida ANG, St. Augustine, Fla., A/SLMR No. 8 8 8 )

6-30-7/ 37
20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classification (Cont'd)

Supervisors

Instructors are supervisors. (Sheppard Technical Trng.

Cntr., Tex., A/SLMR No. 1000)

Medical Technicians (Military) are supervisors. (Sheppard 

Technical Trng. Cntr., Tex., A/SLMR No. 1000)

Nurses (Head) is a supervisors. (DREW, Public Health Service 

Hospital, San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 894)

Supervisors with less than Three Appropriated Fund Civilian 

Employees are supervisors. (Sheppard Technical Trng. Cntr., 

Tex., A/SLMR No. 1000)

Supervisors with less than Three Subordinates are supervisors. 

(Sheppard Technical Tng. Cntr., Tex., A/SLMR No. 1000)

Surveying Technician (Supervisory), 03-^9 is a supervisor. 

(Forest Service, Ouachita Nat'l Forest, Hot Springs, Ark., 

A/SLMR No. 879)

Temporary Task Force Leader excluded from unit, while 

serving in present temporary capacity, as a supervisor, and 

included in the unit when he returns to his rank and file 

duties. (Lake Central Region, Bureau of Outdoors Recreation, 

Ann Arbor, Mich., A/SLMR No. 1032)

Turbine Powered System Repairer, WG/12 is a supervisor. 

(Florida ANG, St. Augustine, Fla., A/SLMR No. 8 8 8 )

Students (Graduate) included in unit as such employees have been 

employed for substantial periods of time and have expectancy 

of continued employment. (EPA, Research Laboratory, Narragansett, 

R . I . , A/SLMR No. 1071)

"1040" employees included in unit as such employees have been 

employed for substantial periods of time and have expectancy 

of continued employment. (EPA, Research Laboratory, Narragansett, 

R . I . , A/SLMR No. 1071)

20 24 00 Post-Decisional Intervention, Showing of Interest and Withdrawal 

No Entries

20 24 04 Posting of Notice of Unit Determination

Where unit found appropriate is substantially different from 

that sought. A/s directed posting of a Notice of Unit Determination in areas where notices are normally posted affecting 

employees eligible to vote, pursuant to which any labor 

organization may seek intervention in accordance with Section

20 20 00

38 6-30-77
20 24 12

202.5 of Regs , for sole purpose of appearing on ballot. 

(Navy Torpedo Station, Keyport, Wash., A/SLMR No. 914)

20 24 08 Showing of Interest

Where election is directed in unit different than that 

sought, and record is unclear as to adequacy of Petitioner's 

showing of interest in unit found appropriate, before 

proceeding to election, AA is directed to re-evaluate 

showing of interest, and if inadequate, petition is to be 

dismissed (Navy Torpedo Station, Keyport, Wash., A/SLMR 

No. 914)

Where record is unclear as to adequacy of intervenor's 

showing of interest because of exclusion of disputed 

employees from its petitioned for unit, appropriate AA is 

directed to determine such adequacy before proceeding to 

election or if insufficient, it should not be placed on 

the ballot. (Navy Torpedo Station, Keyport, Wash.,

A/SLMR No. 914)

20 24 12 Opportunity to Withdraw

Where A/S directed an election in a unit substantially 

different than that sought by petitioner, it may withdraw 

its petition if it does not desire to proceed to an 

election in the unit found appropriate, upon notice to the 

appropriate A A within 10 days of A/S Decision. (Navy 

Torpedo Station, Keyport, Wash., A/SLMR No. 914)

20 24 04 Posting of Notice of Unit Determination (Cont'd)

6-30-77 39

25 04 00 Voting Procedure

25 04 04 Professionals

A/S excluded professional employees from the unit found 

appropriate, even though they were in the petitioned for 

unit, as the record reflected, and the parties did not 

dispute, that there were no professional employees 

within the meaning of the Order employed by the Activity. 

(Lake Central Region, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,

Ann Arbor, Mich., A/SLMR No. 1032)

Separate elections directed in unit containing professional 

and nonprofessional employees. (EPA, Research Laboratory, 

Narragansett, R.I., A/SLMR No. 1071)

25 04 08 Self-Determination

A/s found although professional employees already 

enjoyed opportunity of separately expressing their desires 

in prior elections, Section 10(b)(4) of the Order 

continues to be applicable, and ordered separate expression 

by professionals under such section. (U.S. Dept, of 

Commerce, Nat'l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., Nat'l. 

Weather Service, Central, Western and Southern Regions, 

A/SLMR No. 910)

A/S ordered self-determination election in proposed unit 

of guards and detectives found appropriate where exclusive 

representative of activity-wide unit had a clear desire 

to represent employees. Thus, he afforded the employees 

in the unit found appropriate the opportunity to choose 

whether or not they wish to become part of the existing 

activity-wide unit. (Naval Air Test Cntr., Patuxent River, 

Md., A/SLMR No. 1019)

25 04 12 Role of Observers

No Entries

25 04 16 Severance

No Entries

25 08 00 Objections

No Entries

25 08 04

25 GO GO REPRESENTATION ELECTION AND POST ELECTION STAGES

25 08 04 Under EO 10988

6-30-78
25 08 08 Procedure 

No Entries

25 08 12 Timing of Objectionable Conduct 

No Entries 

25 08 16 Agency Rules on Campaigning 

No Entries 

25 08 20 Campaign Communications 

No Entries 

25 08 24 Promises of Benefit 

No Entries 

25 08 28 Conduct of Election 

No Entries 

25 08 32 Agency Neutrality 

No Entries 

25 12 00 Challenges

25 12 04 Eligibility of Employees

(See also: 20 20 0 0 , Employee Categories and Classifications")

25 12 08 Questions Concerning Ballot 

No Entries

25 12 12 Timing of Challenge

No Entries

25 16 00 Certification

No Entries ■

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit

(See also: 10 04 16, "Types of Petitions: Procedures, CU")

A/S found that Federal Women's Program Coordinator and Spanish 

Speaking Program Coordinator should be included in the unit as 

they are not management officials but are resource persons who 

do not have the authority to make or influence effectively

25 20 00

42 6-30-78
25 20 00 Clarification of Unit (Cont'd

(See also: 10 04 16, "Types of Petitions: Procedures, CU")

Activity policies with respect to personnel, procedures or 

programs. (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, D. C . , 

A/SLMR No. 869)

Unit clarified by including employee classified as Environmental 

Protection Specialist, GS-14, who serves as a program manager 

and whom A/S found was not a supervisor. (Environmental 

Protection Agency, A/SLMR No. 875)

Subsequent to an administrative transfer of certain employees 

to a new command, A/S found that these employees continued to 

share a community of interest with other employees at the 

Activity where they continue to perform the same job functions 

in the same location with no substantial change in their working 

conditions, immediate supervision and job contacts or personnel 

policies. Also, he found retention of employees in the 

exclusively recognized unit would promote effective dealings 

and efficiency of agency operations. (Dept, of the Army, 

Military Traffic Mgmt. Command, Military Ocean Terminal,

Sunny Point, A/SLMR No. 877)

A/S ordered that the existing unit be clarified to exclude 

employees in seven job classifications as these employees were 

supervisors or confidential employees within the meaning of the 

Order. (Forest Service, Ouachita Nat'l Forest, Hot Springs,

Ar k . , A/SLMR No. 879)

Unit clarified based on A/S determination that certain GS-12 

project engineers are supervisors within the meaning of the 

Order and should be excluded from the unit and certain other 

project engineers are not supervisors. (Puget Sound Naval 

Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash., A/SLMR No. 880)

A/S ordered that the existing unit be clarified to exclude 

employees designated as the Secretary to the ALJ in charge 

as they are confidential employees. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of 

Hearings and Appeals, Region IV, A/SLMR No. 882)

A/s ordered that the existing unit be clarified based on his 

determination that the Hydromechanical Fuel Control Repairers 

and the Turbine Powered Systems Repairer (Foreman); were 

supervisors and that the Air Aircraft Armament Systems Mechanic 

is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Order. (Florida 

A G, St. Augustine, Fla., A/SLMR No. 888)

25 20 00

6-30-78 43
25 20 00

Unit clarified by excluding employees classified as Economic 

Development Representative, GS-301-/12-13 as they are 

supervisors within the meaning of the Order. (U.S. Dept, of 

Commerce, Economic Development Admin., Austin, Tex., A/SLMR 

No. 898)

A/S clarified unit by finding two employees were not 

confidential employees. In addition, A/S made findings with 

respect to the supervisory status of 12 other employees whose 

status Petitioner sought to clarify. (Overseas Private 

Investment Corp., A/SLMR No. 917)

Unit clarified following reorganization as DCASO Huntsville 

unit no longer remained appropriate since employees had become 

organizationally and operationally integrated with employees 

of DCASMA Birmingham. (DCASR, Atlanta, Ga., A/SLMR No. 941)

A/S amended the AFGE's recognition and clarified its unit of 

Guards and Federal Protective Officer by including employees 

found in the job classification of Contract Specialist, Protection Specialist, Equipment Specialist (electronic).

Training Instructors, General Communications Operator and 

Federal Protective Inspectors as he found these employees to be 

functionally and administratively integrated with the Federal 

Protective Officers and Guards and have a clear and identifiable 

community of interest with the employees represented by AFGE.

He also found that the unit as clarified will continue to 

promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations. 

(GSA, Region 3, FPSD, A/SLMR No. 948)

CU petitions seeking to divide 2 existing bargaining units into 

4 units following reorganization dismissed where existing units 

continued after reorganization to remain appropriate. (U.S. 

Army Missile Materiel Readiness Comm, and U.S. Army Missile 

Research and Development Command, A/SLMR No. 956)

A/s found that subsequent to an administrative transfer of 

certain Wage Grade employees to a new command, these employees 

continued to share a community of interest with other employees 

at the Activity and continued to perform the same job functions 

in the same location with no substantial change in their working 

conditions, immediate supervision, job contacts or personnel 

policies. Also, he found retention of these employees in the 

exclusively recognized unit would promote effective dealings 

and efficiency of agency operations. (U.S. Army Military 

District of Washington, Fort Myer, Va., A/SLMR No. 973)

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit (Cont'd)

44 6-30-78
Unit clarified to reflect accretion to Petitioner's existing 

unit of transferred group of employees. (Naval Training 

Cntr., Orlando, Fla., A/SLMR No. 988)

Unit clarified, pursuant to a CU petition, by (1) including 

Associate Buyer-Secretary; (2) including the Bookkeeper; and 

(3) by excluding the Secretary to the General Manager. A/S 

found that the Secretary herein is a confidential employee 

inasmuch as she acts in a confidential capacity to an official 

who, in his capacity as overall supervisor of the Activity, is 

involved in effectuating labor management relations. (U.S.

Merchant Marine Academy, Ship's Service Organization, A/SLMR 

No. 990)

Unit clarified by A/S, pursuant to principles enunciated in 

Council's decision on appeal (FLRC No. 76A-82), finding that 

employees who had been represented by AFGE Local 81 at F t .

Gillen and who had been administratively transferred to Ft. 

McPherson, have accreted into AFGE Local 1759's unit, which 

remains appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition.

(Dept, of Atmy, Ft. McPherson, Ga., A/SLMR No. 1005)

A/s concluded that two groups of Petitioner's staff attorneys 

should not be excluded from the exclusively recognized unit 

under Section 3(d) of the Order, where it was found that the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was not a "Labor 

management relations law' within the meaning of Section 3(d), 

and the conflicts of interest that Section 3(d) was intended 

to eliminate were not otherwise present. He also noted no 

contention or basis to find that the attorneys should be 

excluded as supervisors or management officials, or under any 

other exclusionary category set forth in Section 10(b) of 

the Order. (Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 

A/SLMR No. 1018)

A/S found that the Director of Operations, the Activity's designated 

Labor Relations Officer, is involved in the formulation and 

effectuation of management policies in the field of labor 

relations and that, as his Secretary serves him in a confidential 

capacity in these matters, she should be excluded from the 

exclusively recognized unit as a confidential employee.

(Consumer Product Safety Commission, Philadelphia AO, A/SLMR 

No. 1037)

A/S ordered that CU petition be dismissed inasmuch as petition 

sought to clarify the status of 60 supervisory Plant Protection 

and Quarantine Officers, who, as found in a prior proceedings, 

not only evaluate employees but also exercise independent judgment 

in directing employees. (USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, A/SLMR No. 1038)

25-20-00

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit (Cont'd)

6-30-78

45
Unit was clarified to exclude Operations Research Analysts, 

who were never intended to be included in the existing unit of 

non-professional employees, inasmuch as the evidence established 

that the Analysts were found to be professional employees 

within the meaning of the Order. (DOT, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, A/SLMR No. 1068)

25 24 00 Amendment of Recognition or Certification

No Entries

24 20 00

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit (Cont'd)

46 6-30-78
30 04 00 Requisites for Charges and Compliants

A/s found, contrary to ALJ, that procedural due process 

precluded construing a complaint so broadly as to include 

as party respondents components of national labor organizations not named in the complaint. A/S also dismissed 

violations found by AL J based on incidents not set forth in 

the complaint. (PATCO, MEBA, AFL-CIO, A / S L M R No. 878)

A/S found in agreement with the ALJ that the AFGE's withdrawal of Section 19(a)(6) allegation against the Respondent 

Agency was equivalent to a withdrawal of that part of the 

complaint against Respondent Activity as well since the 

very basis set forth in the complaint for a violation of 

Section 19(a)(6) was the asserted failure of the Respondent 

Agency to make a timely determination on the AFGE's request 

for a negotiability determination. He also found that 

Section 11(c) of the Order did not impose a direct time 

limitation on the Respondent Agency in issuing a negotiability 

determination. (Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

D. C.; Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, N.C. A/SLMR No. 943)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent had not violated 

Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of the Order as the allegation 

that Respondent had attempted to restrict employee from 

soliciting authorization cards was not contained in the 

pre-complaint charge and thus, barred from consideration.

(VA Regional Office, Honolulu, A/SLMR No. 976)

A/S found no basis for dismissal of complainant based on 

issues raised by the Respondent which it claimed had not 

been ruled on by the RA. Contention that complaint should 

be dismissed as to the Respondent Activity because it was 

not simultaneously served with a copy of the complaint was 

rejected noting that both the Activity and the Agency were 

named in the complaint, the Agency was served with a copy, 

and both parties were represented at the hearing. Claim 

that complaint should be dismissed because the Complainant 

submitted no evidence in its support was rejected where 

evidence established that the initial burden of proof was 

met. (IRS, and IRS Chicago District, Chicago, 111.,

A/SLMR No. 987)

A/S agrees with ALJ's refusal to dismiss complaint for 

failure to name an appropriate respondent because, although 

the bargaining relationship between the parties existed at 

the local level, district offices were not indispensible 

parties to the complaint where, as here, agency management

30 04 00

30 GO 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; PROCEDURE

6-30-78 47
above the exclusive recognition level is responsible for the 

improper conduct alleged.(IRS, A/SLMR No. 998)

A/s, in agreement w[ith ALJ, declined to consider the merits 

of a second issue raised at the hearing by the Complainant 

relating to an alleged change in working conditions regarding 

the use of government vehicles as it had not been raised in 

the complaint, as required by the A/S's Regulations. (Naval 

Weapons Station, Concord, Calif., A/SLMR No. 1020)

A/S found that a component of an exclusive representative had 

authority to file a ULP complaint since it was, at a minimum, 

recognized by the Respondent as the agent of the National 

Office of the exclusive representative and had standing to act 

on behalf of the exclusive representative. (SSA, Bureau of 

Retirement and Survivors Insurance, A/SLMR No. 1022)

A/S found that the prescribed period of 60 days for filing a 

timely complaint cannot be extended by filing a second precomplaint charge which essentially reiterates the same allega* 

tions as the first precomplaint charge. (Navy Commissary Store 

Region, Norfolk, Va., A/SLMR No. 1030)

A/S agreed with ALJ that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, based 

on Complainant's alleged noncompliance with the A/S's Regulations, 

be denied as it appeared that such contention was made for the 

first time at the hearing. (VA Hospital, Lexington, Ky.

A/SLMR No. 1051)

Contrary to the ALJ, the A/S found that a remark made by a 

supervisor to the employee was threatening and coercive, 

however; inasmuch as the complaint failed to contain this 

allegation, the A/S could not pass on this matter. (FAA,

William P. Hobby Airport Traffic Control Tower-TRACAB, Houston, 

Texas, A/SLMR N o . 1039)

30 08 00 Complaint Proceedings: Investigation Stage

30 08 04 Blocking Complaints

No Entries

30 12 00 Hearing

30 12 04 Rulings of ALJs

ALJ determined that as there was no factual dispute involved 

in the alleged unfair labor practice which required an evidentiary hearing, a determination of the alleged unfair labor 

practice could be made on the basis of the Respondent's motion 

to dismiss, the Complainant's response to the motion, the 

Respondent's reply and the Federal Labor Relations Council's 

Major Policy Statement concerning representational rights of 

employees under the Order (IRS, A/SLMR No. 897)

30 12 04

30 04 00 Requisites for Charges and Complaints (Cont'd)

48 6-30-78
ALJ denied Complainant's motion for a continuance as neither 

the fact that another proceeding was pending, nor the 

unsupported statement that Complainant's appointed representative had a personal emergency was a showing of good cause. 

(Defense Logistics Agency, DCASR, Los Angeles, A/SLMR No.

958)

ALJ's ruling allowing the record to remain open subsequent 

to the closing of the hearing, so that a witness of the 

Complainant could be allowed to testify by affidavit, was 

not found to be prejudicial by the A/S since no apparent 

weight was given to the statement by the ALJ and no exceptions 

were filed. (Southern Region, Nat'l Weather Service,

A/SLMR No. 959)

A/S agrees with ALJ's finding that post complaint conduct 

was properly considered as background with respect to the 

alleged ULP. Further, the fact that Respondent's subsequent 

misconduct flowed directly from the ULP made it appropriate 

to specifically remedy such conduct. (IRS, A/SLMR No. 998)

A/S, noting that no exceptions were filed by Respondent, 

found that ALJ's ruling ordering that official time be 

granted to Complainant's representative at hearing should 

not be overturned, however, A/S noted that under Section 

206.7 (g) of the A/S Regulations only necessary witnesses 

are required to be granted official time for participation 

at hearings. (SSA, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals,

A/SLMR No. 1028)

ALJ took cognizance of witness's failure to appear and noted 

that he would weigh the evidence consistent with his 

obligation under Section 206.7 (e) of the A/S Regulations 

where a party fails to comply with a Request for Appearance 

of Witnesses. (SSA, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals,

A/SLMR No. 1040)

Complainant's request for postponement of hearing on basis 

that it was not possible to get a fair hearing was denied 

by ALJ. (Hq. 2750th Air Base Wing, Wright-Patterson AFB,

Ohio, A/SLMR No. 1043)

In view of Complainant's refusal to proceed, ALJ closed 

hearing. (Hq. 2750th Air Base Wing, Wright-Patterson AFB, 

Ohio, A/SLMR No. 1043)

30 12 04

30 12 04 Rulings of ALJs (Cont*d)

6-30-78 49
30 12 08 Untimely Amendments to Complaints 

No Entries

30 12 12 Failure to Appear

» Complainant's appointed representative's failure to appear

at the hearing due to an unknown personal emergency was not 

a showing of good cause, thus tnotion for a continuance was 

denied. (Defense Logistics Agency, DCASR, Los Angeles, 

A/SLMR No. 958)

ALJ took cognizance of witness's failure to appear and 

noted that he would weigh the evidence consistent with his 

obligation under Section 206.7 (e) of the A/S Regulations 

where a party fails to comply with a Request for Appearance 

of Witnesses. (SSA, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals,

A/SLMR No. 1040)

30 12 16 Prejudicial Evidence

A/S noted that ALJ improperly received evidence on, and, 

considered allegations in the complaint which had been 

previously dismissed by the Regional Administrator. However, 

in view of his decision to dismiss the complaint, the A/S 

found that the ALJ's action did constitute prejudicial 

evidence. (SSA, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, A/SLMR 

No. 1040)

30 12 20 Technical Deficiencies

A/S in disimissing the complaint based on the record, 

rejected the Respondent's claim that the complaint should 

be dismissed based on alleged technical deficiencies the 

RA did not rule on. (IRS, and IRS Chicago District, Chicago,

111., A/SLMR No. 987)

A/S found ALJ's acceptance into evidence of offer of 

settlement was improper and he declined to rely thereon, 

as admission into evidence of such offers is inconsistent 

with purposes and policies of EO of encouraging settlement 

of ULP's, citing U.S. Department of Air Force, Norton 

Air Force Base, 3 A/SLMR No. 175, A/SLMR No. 261 (1973). 

(Directorate of Facility Engineers, Ft. Richardson, Alaska, 

A/SLMR No. 946)

30 12 24 Evidence and Burden of Proof

Complainant failed to sustain his burden of proof in 

establishing that the Respondent gave Complainant a performance rating based on his labor union representative activities rather than as an employee. (Defense Logistics Agency, 

DCASR, Los Angeles, A/SLMR No. 958)

30 12 24

50 6-30-78
Complainant failed to establish that the Union official 

present at the hearing was not capable of representing the 

Complainant when his appointed representative failed to 

appear at the hearing. (Defense Logistics Agency, DCASR,

Los Angeles, A/SLMR No. 958)

A/s adopted ALJ recommendation that complaint be dismissed 

for failure of prosecution and/or for failure to prove the 

allegation of the complaint by a preponderance of the 

evidence as Complainant was given opportunity to call 

witnesses but refused to do so, and the one exhibit received 

failed to establish the allegation of the complaint. (Hq. 

2750th Air Base Wing, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, A/SLMR 

No. 1043)

30 12 28 Lack of Cooperation

No Entries

30 16 00 Post-Hearing

A/S citing his policy of not distributing credibility 

resolutions of ALJ's unless the preponderance of all the 

relevant evidence established that such resolutions clearly 

are incorrect, adopted the findings, conclusions and 

recommendation of the ALJ, and ordered that the complaint 

be dismissed. (Canteen Service, VA Hospital, Phoenix,

Ariz., A/SLMR No. 883)

While ALJ inadvertently failed to make a specific finding 

that Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the 

Order, A/S corrected this inadvertance, noting that a 

reading of the Recommended Decision and Order made it clear 

that ALJ intended to make such a finding. (IRS, A/SLMR 

No. 998)

30 20 00 Stipulated Record

Pursuant to Section 205.5(b) of the Regs, RA transferred 

case to the A/S for decision based on stipulated record.

A/s, in dismissing the complaint based on the record, 

rejected the Respondent's claim that the complaint should 

be dismissed based on alleged technical deficiencies the 

RA did not rule on. (IRS, and IRS Chicago District,

Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 987)

Pursuant to Section 206.5(a) of A/S Regs., parties may 

waive hearing and submit joint stipulation for A/S decision 

in unfair labor practice proceeding. (SSA, Quality 

Assurance Field Staff, Flushing, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 1036)

30 20 00

30 12 24 Evidence and Burden of Proof (Cont'd)

6-30-78 51
30 32 00

30 24 00 Employee Status; Effect on Unfair Labor Practices 

No Entries

30 28 00 Effect of Other Proceedings or Forums

A/S adopted the ALJ's finding that, pursuant to Section 11(d), 

he had jurisdiction to make the negotiability determination 

necessary to resolve the merits of the alleged unfair labor 

practice. (IRS, Cleveland, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 972)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the subsequent receipt under 

FOI of a report which the Activity had refused to furnish 

when it was requested under the negotiated grievance procedure as relevant and necessary to the processing of a 

grievance did not render moot the ULP. However, the A/S 

viewed the Complainant's receipt as rendering unnecessary 

an affirmative requirement that it be produced. (IRS 

and IRS, Atlanta District Office, A/SLMR No. 975)

A/S found that the CSC's verbal response to the Respondent's 

request for an interpretation of "high work" did not 

constitute a CSC policy interpretation that the settlement 

agreement reached by the parties was invalid under the 

pertinent provisions of the FPM, but rather was a possible 

interpretation of the guidelines established by the FPM and, 

therefore, could not serve as a basis for rescinding the 

grievance settlement agreement. (GSA, Region 3, A/SLMR 

No. 996)

30 32 00 Major Policy Issue Raised 

No Entries

52 6-30-78
35 04 12

35 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: AGENCY 

35 04 00 General

35 04 04 Guidance or Directives of Civil Service Commission or Agency

Response of Civil Service Commission (CSC) merely reflected 

a possible interpretation of the guidelines established by 

the FPM and was not intended to reflect a CSC policy 

interpretation, (GSA, Region 3, A/SLMR No. 996)

Since the disposition of this case involved, in part, an 

interpretation of 4 U.S.C. Section 5342-5347 and its 

implementing CSC directives, asked the Commission for an 

interpretation of its directives as they pertained to the 

present case. On March 15, 1978, the Commission issued 

its interpretation in response to the Assistant Secretary's 

request. (Naval Exchange, Naval Training Cntr., San Diego, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 1054)

35 04 08 Waiver of Rights Granted by Executive Order

A/S rejected Respondent Activity's contention that 

Complainant waived its right to negotiate a change in 

working hours, as a result of Article 22, Sec. 3 in the 

negotiated agreement. (IRS, Chicago District Office,

A/SLMR No. 962)

A/s found that an earlier settlement agreement by the 

parties did not preclude the utilization of ULP procedures 

under EG. (Penn. Army and Air NG, A/SLMR No. 969)

A/s adopted ALJ*s rejection of Respondent's contention that 

the negotiated agreement language constituted a waiver of 

the Complainant's right to negotiate about the impact and 

implementation of a new system of quality review where 

the agreement established a requirement for uniformity 

of application of quality review system and the change 

involved the procedure for implementing the contractually 

established requirement. Further, the A/S adopted the 

ALJ's finding of a Section 19(a)(6) violation based on 

the Respondent's unilateral alteration of the system 

without notifying and affording the exclusive representative the opportunity to bargain over the impact and 

procedures. (IRS, Fresno Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 983)

35 04 12 Management Rights 

No Entries

6-30-78 53
35 04 16

A/S determined that Section 9 (b) of the Order 

established three distinct rights for labor organizations which have been granted national consultation 

rights: (1) The right to notice of proposed substantive 

changes in personnel policies affecting unit employees, 

and an opportunity to comment thereon; (2) the right 

to suggest changes in personnel policies and to have 

its views carefully considered; and (3) to consult in 

person, upon request, with agency management on 

personnel policy matters and to present its views 

thereon in writing. This third right is limited by 

the provision that consultation is not required on any 

matter on which the Activity would not be required to 

meet and confer if the labor organization was entitled 

to exclusive recognition. (Secretary of the Navy, 

Pentagon, A/SLMR No. 924)

A/S finds that although the Order itself does not 

accord to employees the right to retain their jobs, 

Section 19 (b) of the Order and the FLRC's Regulations 

cannot be read as referring only to those rights 

established by the Order, since they contemplated the 

possibility of change in such substantive rights. Thus, 

any proposal which may result in displacement of 

employees by elimination of their jobs is a fundamental 

substantive change in personnel policy. (Secretary of 

the Navy, A/SLMR No. 924)

35 04 16 National Consultation Rights

54 6-30-78
35 08 04

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1)

No Entries 

35 08 04 Interference

During the course of a promotional interview, a 

question asfced of a union steward whether her union 

business took her away from her work was found to be 

violative of Section 19(a)(1) of the EG as in the context 

of the statement, it led the steward to conclude that 

her union representational duties would tend to undermine 

her prospects for promotion. (IRS, Detroit Data Center, 

Detroit, Mich., A/SLMR No. 862)

A/s adopted ALJ's conclusion that manager of snack bar 

violated Section 19(a)(1) of the EC by stating to an 

employee, not only her own hostile views of unionism 

but also by alleging that the Food Service Manager would 

not like the employee joining the union and would find a 

way to get rid of the employee if she did go ahead and 

join the union. (Marine Corps Exchange 8-2, El Toro,

Calif., A/SLMR No. 865)

A/S found that assignment of employee to clerical duties 

was not harassment or coercion under the Order since 

there was no evidence of union animus on the part of the 

Respondent. (HUD, Los Angeles Area Office, A/SLMR No. 891)

A/S found that Respondent did not fail to inform employee 

of right to union representation pursuant to the terms 

of the negotiated agreement in proposed adverse action. 

(HUD, Los Angeles Area Office, A/SLMR No. 891)

Based on FLRC's Major Policy Statement concerning representational rights of employees under the Order, the 

A/S found that Activity did not violate Section 19(a)(1) 

of the EO by denying employee's request for union representation at investigative inteirview as it was a nonformal 

investigative interview and, as such, the employee did 

not have a right under Section 10(e) to representation 

by his exclusive representative. (IRS, A/SLMR No. 897)

Activity violated Section 19(a)(1) of the EO by questioning 

an employee concerning an informal grievance he had filed 

and indicating what consequences would ensug if the 

employee pursued the grievance. (FAA, Air Traffic Control 

Tower, Greater Pittsburgh Airport, A/SLMR No. 920)

6-30-78 55
35 08 04

A/s held.that union officials affiliated with a union 

other than the certified exclusive representative has 

no right enforceable under the Order to represent an 

employee as a personal representative. (DOD, Dependents 

Schools, Europe, A/SLMR No. 922)

A/s, found in agreement with ALJ, that the Respondent had 

engaged in conduct violative of the Order when it failed 

to afford the Complainant the right to be represented by 

his exclusive representative at a meeting at which he 

was entitled to such representation, but dismissed the 

complaint because the conduct found violative of the 

Order was ^ minimis and cured by a subsequent meeting 

held within a short period of time at which the 

exclusive representative was present. A/S noted that 

no substantive discussions were held during the meeting 

at which the Complainant was denied representation.

(DSA, DCASR, Los Angeles, A/SLMR No. 923)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that based on credited 

evidence, the Respondent did not promise the Complainant 

a promotion if he dropped a grievance. (DSA, DCASR,

Los Angeles, A/SLMR No. 923)

The Respondent's treatment of the Complainant based, in 

part, upon presenting the views of a labor organization 

to the Congress, activity which is specifically protected 

by Section 1(a) of the Order, violated Section 19(a)(1) 

as such treatment would tend to interfere with her rights 

and the rights of other employees, who could reasonably 

infer that they would suffer a similar fate if they engaged 

in the same type of protected activity. (HUD, Milwaukee 

Area Office, Milwaukee, Wise., A/SLMR No.925)

The A/S concluded, in agreement with the ALJ, that the 

Complainant failed to sustain its burden of proving an 

independent Section 19(a)(1) violation, including the 

allegation that its president was treated differently 

from its other officers and stewards. (Dept, of the AF, 

4392nd Aerospace Support Gp., Vandenberg AFB, Calif.,

A/SLMR No. 935)

A/S adopted ALJ's recommendation to dismiss Section 19(a)(1) 

allegation where Respondent restricted access to its 

buildings and parking facilities during 1976 Bicentennial 

weekend, based on finding that the matter was an internal 

security practice within the meaning of Section 11(b) of 

the EO,and that the Complainant never requested 

bargaining. (Office of Secy., DOT, A/SLMR No. 939)

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

56 6-30-78
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent did not violate 

Section 19(a)(1) of the Order when a supervisor inquired 

of an employee as to whether he was seeing stewards on 

union business, and his statement of the necessity for 

advance permission before meeting with a steward was meant 

to apply to meetings during working time in accordance 

with the parties' negotiated agreement, and that the 

employee so understood it. (IRS Chicago District,

A/SLMR No. 942)

A/S noting particularly the absence of exceptions, 

adopted ALJ's findings that Respondent violated Section 19

(a)(1) of the EC by interrogating unit employees with 

regard to membership in, or activities on behalf of a 

labor organization. (SSA, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, 

A/SLMR No. 945)

A/S, noting particularly the absence of exceptions, adopted 

ALJ's finding that payroll supervisor's statements made 

to union member and union steward during course of 

discussions concerning the union members's dual pay 

status did not violate Section 19(a)(1) of the Order.

(Dept, of Navy, United States Naval Air Station, Alameda, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 955)

A/s, noting no exceptions, adopted ALJ's finding that 

Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) of the Order 

when it had mistakenly, for a brief time, dealt with the 

wrong party to resolve a complaint. (Southern Region,

Nat'l Weather Service, A/SLMR No. 959)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding of Section 19(a)(1) violation 

where supervisor, after being approached by steward to 

discuss a grievance, threatened steward with physical 

harm, invited steward to hit him, and called steward 

"troublemaker" in presence of other employees. While 

noting supervisor's "sense of fustration" with steward,

ALJ could not excuse conduct which interfered with, 

restrained or coerced steward while engaged in activity 

protected by Section 1(a) of the EO. Moreover, such 

threats against union steward, made in presence of other 

employees, had a "chilling effect" and showed disdain for 

Complainant's representative. (Ozark-Saint Francis 

National Forest, Russellville, Ark., A/SLMR No. 977)

6-30-78 57
Investigator's interrogation of Complainant's Chief 

Steward made during the course of an administrative 

investigation with respect to the names of persons 

attending a union meeting was considered reasonable, 

under the particular circumstances of the case. A/S 

noted that the investigator sought only information 

concerning the specific agency violation and was not 

inquiring into any union matters. (GSA, Region 10,

Auburn, Wash., A/SLMR No. 985)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the Respondent's statement in a probationary employee union steward's 

performance appraisal concerning her union activities 

was violated of Section 19 (a)(1) of the EO. (IRS,

Memphis Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 989)

Activity did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of EO 

by failing to comply with terms of an oral agreement to 

furnish vacancy lists to the Complainant in connection 

with a proposed reorganization and RIF. A/S concluded 

that there was no "meeting of the minds" between the 

parties, and therefore no agreement existed. (U.S.

Army Materiel Devel. and Readiness Command, A/SLMR No. 994)

A/S adoDted ALJ's finding that Respondent violated 

Section 19(a)(1) of the Order when it met with unit 

employees over matters related to personnel policies and 

procedures and general working conditions concerning 

work assignments without first notifying the exclusive 

representative and giving it the opportunity to be 

represented at such meeting which constituted a formal 

discussion within the meaning of Section 10(e) of the 

Order. However, A/S disagreed with ALJ's finding that 

Respondent independently violated Section 19(a)(1) of 

the Order based on economic coercion as such coercion, 

standing alone, does not constitute interference with employ 

ees rights assured under the Order. (Puget Sound Naval 

Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 1003)

A/S, found in agreement with the ALJ, that the Respondent 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of the Order based on 

numerous instances of actions on the part of the 

Respondent directed at a unit employee and other active 

members of the Union which established Respondent's 

union animus and discriminatory motives in terminating 

said unit employee. A/S further found that but for the 

exercise of her rights assured under the Order, the 

employee would not have been discharged. (VA., Chicago 

Veterans Hospital, N. Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 1024)

35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

58 6-30-78
Activity violated Section 19(a)(1) of the Order where 

foreman's admitted statement to the effect that he did 

not recognize the Union's steward "as a representative 

of anything or anyone" was found to indicate disdain 

for the Union and served to restrain employees in the 

exercise of their rights under the Order. (Mare Island 

Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 1026)

A/s adopts ALJ's finding that Respondents did not violate 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order by implementing a 

furlough procedure for certain employees at a time when 

such procedures were under negotiation at the national 

level. A/S found that Respondent's District Office had 

in fact notified the Complainant of its decision and 

afforded it the opportunity to bargain over impact and 

implementation; the failure of Complainant to request such 

bargaining was found not to be based on any intentional 

misrepresentation by agency management. (IRS and IRS 

South Carolina District Office, A/SLMR No. 1027)

Respondent not obligated to make available on official 

time employees who appear solely as union representatives. 

(SSA, Quality Assurance Field Staff, Flushing, N.Y.

A/SLMR No. 1036)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that an agency requirement that 

a union representative designated as "counsel" fill out 

a request for outside employment form, where he served 

as an attorney for the agency and received remuneration 

from the union for his representational duties, did not 

constitute interference with his Section 1(a) rights of 

the EG. Thus, the ALJ found, noting the proscription of 

Section 1(b) and the agency's code of conduct with 

respect to conflicts of interest which is particularly 

stringent for attorneys that the agency's inquiry was 

within its rights. (IRS Chicago District, A/SLMR No.

1042)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Activity did not violate 

Section 19 (a)(1) of the EG by the conduct of its Chief, 

Air Traffic Division, in making statements to a PATCG 

Vice-president that he had delayed and impeded an accident 

investigation and that the controllers involved should 

be allowed to make up their ovm minds in regard to any 

statements they wished to make where the statements were 

directed over the telephone to the PATCG vice-president 

and were not made directly to unit employees (FAA,

Alaska Region, A/SLMR No. 1046)

35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

6-30-78

59
35 12 00

Noting particularly the absence of exceptions, A/S 

adopted ALJ'.s finding that Respondent did not violate 

Section 19(a)(1) of the EG when it ticketed Complainant's 

president's car where there was no evidence that the 

Complainant's president was singled out for unjust treatment. (GSA, National Archives and Records Service,

A/SLMR No. 1055)

A/S found in agreement with the ALJ that the Complainant 

failed to sustain its burden of proof that the statement, 

even if made by Respondent's supervisor to an employee, 

violated Section 19(a)(1) of the Order. (GSA, Region IX, 

A/SLMR No. 1056)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 77A-77 and rationale therein, A/S 

reversed holding in A/SLMR No. 852, in which he found 

Respondent's conduct to be violative of Section 19(a)

(3) and (1) of the EO; and ordered that the complaint 

be dismissed in its entirety. (Grissom AFB, Peru, Ind., 

A/SLMR No. 1057)

35 08 08 Distribution of Literature

No Entries

35 08 12 Solicitation

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent had not violated 

Section 19(a)(1) and (2) Of the Order as (1) the allegation 

that Respondent had attempted to restrict employee from 

soliciting authorization cards was not contained in the 

pre-complaint charge and thus, barred from consideration, 

but was, at worst, a ^ minimus violation and (2) the 

decision to reassign the employee to a new position was 

not motivated by anti-union animus, but was based on the 

Grievance Examiner's findings that she should be transferred, 

and on employee's own request for a transfer. (VA Regional 

Office, Honolulu, A/SLMR No. 976)

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2)

A/S adopted ALJ's conclusion that the termination of the 

employee's employment was not in violation of Section 

19 (a)(2) of the Order as it was not related to her union 

activities. (Marine Corps Exchange 8-2, El Toro, Calif., 

A/SLMR No. 865)

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

60 6-30-78
35 12 00

A/S concluded, in agreement with ALJ, that the Complainant 

failed to establish that the selection of one employee 

for the promotion sought by another employee was tainted 

by consideration of the latter's union sympathies and 

activities. (Naval Air Rework Facility, Marine Corps 

Air Station, Cherry Point, N.C., A/SLMR No. 868)

A/s found in concurrence with the ALJ that the Respondent's 

discharge of the Complainant did not violate Section 19(a) 

(1) and (2) of the Order, as although the Complainant's 

discharge did not appear to be free from unfairness, there 

was no evidence of anti-union animus by management, her 

union activities did not appear to have had a part in the 

Respondent's actions toward her. (Canteen Service, VA 

Hospital, Phoenix, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 883)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding, noting no exceptions, that 

the Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (2) 

of the Order when it did not offer the Complainant a 

transfer to a position at a location coinciding with that 

offered her spouse where the evidence indicated that no 

vacancies existed for which the Complainant was qualified 

within coiranunting distance, and the official responsible 

for finding a transfer position for the Complainant had 

no knowledge of her union activity. (DOD, Dependent 

Schools, Europe, A/SLMR No. 903)

A/S found in agreement with ALJ that although the 

Respondent accorded probationary employees less rights 

than non-probationary employees upon the imposition of 

discipline, and such distinction made union membership 

less attractive to probationary employees, there was no 

violation of Section 19(a)(2) of the Order because 

Respondent's conduct was not based on, or motivated, at 

least in part, by the union membership or activity of the 

employees involved. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No.

908)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found insufficient evidence 

to establish that Union President's performance evaluation' 

was discriminatory or motivated by anti-union animus.

(IRS, Indianapolis, Ind., A/SLMR No. 909)

Generally, in order to sustain a Section 19(a)(2) finding, 

there must be a specific showing that a discriminatory 

act was motivated by anti-union considerations. However, 

where agency management engages in conduct which is 

inherently destructive of a basis right guaranteed to 

employees under the Order, proof of specific knowledge 

of the union activity involved is not necessary to sustain 

a finding that such conduct is violative of Section 19(a)(2)

of the Order. In this case, the A/S found that by

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) (Cont'd)

6-30-78 61
35 12 00

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) (Cont'd)

affecting the Complainant's chances for promotion 

because she wrote a letter to Congress in her capacity 

as a union representative, the Respondent discriminated 

against her in a manner that was inherently destructive 

of a basic right assured by Section 1(a) of the Order, 

and violated Section 19(a)(2) of the Order even though 

it was not established that the Complainant wrote to 

Congress in her capacity as a union representative. (HUD, 

Milwaukee Area Office, Milwaukee, Wise., A/SLMR No. 925)

A/S in agreement with ALJ found that the Respondent did 

not violate Section 19(a)(2) of the Order by refusing 

to extend and/or grant requests for transfer to specific 

locations because of the affected employees union activity 

as the decisions and/or recommendation to extend or 

transfer the individual employees were made prior to 

circulation of the petition which led to the establishment 

of the union. (U.S. Customs Service, Region I, Boston, 

Mass., A/SLMR No. 949)

Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of 

EO where it was noted that upon discovery of material 

contained in the evaluation of an employee concerning the 

employee's union activities, the information complained of 

was deleted from consideration, replaced with a favorable 

evaluation from the employee's former supervisor, and the 

employee was re-ranked by an entirely new promotion panel.

It was further noted that the Shipyard commander immediately 

published a memorandum to supervisors designed to avoid 

repetition of similar occurrences in future evaluations. 

(Norfolk Naval Shipyard Portsmonth, Va., A/SLMR No. 967)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent had not violated 

Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of the Order as (1) the allegation 

that Respondent had attempted to restrict employee from 

soliciting authorization cards was not contained in the 

pre-complaint charge and thus, barred from consideration, 

but was, at worst, a ^ minimus violation; and (2) the 

decision to reassign employee to a new position was not 

motivated by anti-union animus, but was based on the 

Grievance Examiner's finding that she should be transferred, 

and on employee's own request for a transfer. (VA 

Regional Office, Honolulu, A/SLMR No. 976)

62 6-30-78
A/S adopted ALJ's finding that there was insufficient 

evidence to establish that a probationary employee union 

steward was terminated from employment because of her 

union activities and therefore dismissed the alleged 

Section 19(a)(2) violation. (IRS, Memphis Service Cntr., 

A/SLMR No. 989)

A/S found, contrary to ALJ, that Respondent did not 

violate Section 19(a)(2) of the Order by encouraging or 

discouraging membership in a labor organization as 

Respondent only encouraged employees to change their 

rating to another craft and did not suggest that they 

change union membership. (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,

A/SLMR No. 1003)

Agency and Activity did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (^)by 

their 1976 adverse performance appraisal of an employee 

where the reason for such appraisal was employee's 

inability to get along with others, his insensitivity in 

interpersonal relations, and the continual objections 

raised by the employee with respect to instruction given 

him, and not the employee's processing of grievances or 

complaints. (NLRB, Region 17, and NLRB, A/SLMR No. 1015)

A/S found, in agreement with the ALJ, that the Respondent 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of the Order based on 

numerous instances of actions on the part of the Respondent 

directed at a unit employee and other active members of 

the Union which established Respondent's union animus and 

discriminatory motives in terminating said unit employee.

A/S further found that but for the exercise of her rights 

assured under the Order, the employee would not have been 

discharged. (VA, Chicago Veteran Hospital, N.Chicago, 111., 

A/SLMR No. 1024)

A/S adopted ALJ's conclusion that the separation of an 

Activity employee from his job during his trial employment 

period was not motivated by the employee's vigorous 

exercise of his protected union rights in violation of the 

EG. He found that the employee was not terminated for 

pretextual reasons but was terminated because of his 

unsatisfactory work performance. (FAA, William P. Hobby 

Airport Traffic Control Tower-TRACAB, Houston, Tex.,

A/SLMR No. 1039)

35 12 00

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) (Cont’d)

6-30-78 63
35 24 00

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) (Cont'd)

A/S adopted ALJ's dismissal of Section 19(a)(2) allegation 

where no evidence was present of disparate treatment in 

an agency requirement that a union representative designated 

as "counsel" file a request for outside employment form.

(IRS Chicago District, A/SLMR No. 1042)

Noting particularly the absence of exceptions, A/S adopted 

ALJ finding that Respondent did not violate Section 19(aXl) 

and (2il of EO by discriminating with regard to the 

administration of automobile parking at Activity, as there 

was no showing of anti-union discrimination in assignment of 

parking space, and even assuming even treatment, there 

was no evidence of disparity which may be attributed to 

union activity, and no evidence of anti-union animus.

(GSA, National Archives and Records Service, A/SLMR No.

1055)

35 16 00 Section 19(a)(3)

A/s found, contrary to ALJ, that Respondent did not 

violate Section 19(a)(3) of the Order by attempting to 

sponsor, control, or assist a labor organization not 

having equivalent status as employees were given the 

opportunity to change ratings, not unions. (Puget Sound 

Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 1003)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 77A-77 and rationale therein, A/S 

reversed holding in A/SLMR No. 852, in which he found 

Respondent's conduct to be violative of Section 19(a)(3) 

and (1) of the EO; and ordered that the complaint be 

dismissed in its entirety. (Grissom AFB, Peru, Ind., 

A/SLMR No. 1057)

35 20 00 Section 19 (a)(4)

A/s found, in agreement with the ALJ, that employee 

was terminated because an ULP charge and complaint was 

failed on her behalf. A L J noted that timing of and the 

lack of justifiable reasons for employee's termination 

by the Respondent. (VA., Chicago Veteran Hospital,

N. Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 1024)

35 24 00 Section 19(a)(5)

No Entries

64 6-30-78
35 28 04

35 28 04 Response to Bargaining Request

A/S found in agreement with the ALJ that the AFGE's 

withdrawal of Section 19(a)(6) allegation against the 

Respondent Agency was equivalent to a withdrawal of 

that part of the complaint against Respondent activity 

as well since the very basis set forth in the complaint 

for violation of Section 19(a)(6) was the asserted 

failure of the Respondent Agency to make a timely 

determination on the AFGE's request for a negotiability 

determination. He also found that Section 11(c) of 

the Order did not impose a direct time limitation on the 

Respondent Agency in issuing a negotiability determination. 

(Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.; 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

N.C., A/SLMR No. 943)

A/s adopted ALJ's dismissal of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) 

allegations that Respondent refused to bargain about 

a change in tour of duty where mission dictated tour 

change and, therefore, the change was integrally related 

to and determinative of the staffing pattern and thus 

a management right under Section 11(b). (VA Hospital, 

Sheridan, Wyom., A/SLMR No. 952)

In agreement with ALJ, A/S concluded Respondent violated 

Section 19 (a)(1) and (6) of the Order by refusing to 

negotiate a specific personnel policy during the pendency 

of a unit consolidation petition. A/S also found that 

issues involved in A/SLMR No. 832 and the instant 

proceeding was distinguishable and warranted separate and 

distinct findings and remedial orders. (SSA, Bureau of 

Field Operations, Region V-A, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR 

No. 963)

A/S adopted the ALJ's finding that a work measurement 

program, as proposed, necessarily would have involved the 

formulation of evaluation criteria to be used in rating 

the job performance of affected employees. Respondent 

had an obligation to negotiate concerning this subject as 

this would involve a basic change in the terms and 

conditions of employment for such employees. The ALJ 

concluded that the Respondent, although indicating its 

uncertainty as to the negotiability of the Complainant's 

proposals did, in fact, negotiate in good faith concerning 

such proposals. (IRS, Cleveland, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 972)

35 28 00 Section 19 (a)(6)

6-30-73 65
35 28 04

66

35 28 04 Response to Bargaining Request

a /s adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent did, in fact, 

meet and confer with Complainant on an alleged discrepancy 

in the wording of a provision of an Article in a proposed 

negotiated agreement after a final accord was reportedly 

reached but that it was the Complainant which was 

inflexible. He further found no evidence in the record 

which would warrant reformation or modification of the 

Article in dispute. Accordingly, A/S found that Respondent 

did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order. 

(15th Air Base Wing, Hickam AFB, Hawaii, A/SLMR No. 1011)

Activity did not violate its obligation to meet and confer 

where there was insufficient evidence that the use of 

volunteer bartenders to staff a new lounge had a substantial impact on the personnel policies, practices and 

general working conditions of unit employees, some of 

whom were employed as paid bartenders. (Naval Communication Area Master Station, EASTPAC, Honolulu, A/SLMR 

No. 1035)

A/S found in agreement with ALJ that the Director, 

Metropolitan Washington Airport Service violated Section 

19 (a)(1) and (6) of the Order by directing the Airport 

Manager, Dulles International Airport to impose new 

employee parking permit fees on employees in the unit 

exclusively represented by the Complainant as such change 

was a matter affecting working conditions within meaning 

of Section 11(a) of the Order. (FAA Metropolitan 

Washington Airport Service, Dulles International Airport; 

and Director, Metropolitan Washington Airport, FAA,

A/SLMR No 1062)

Contrary to ALJ, A/S found that Respondent Dulles did 

not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order in 

refusing to negotiate on the change in employee parking 

permit fees as it was engaging in a ministerial act in 

compliance with the order of higher agency management, 

i.e. Respondent Director. (FAA, Metropolitan Washington 

Airport Service, Dulles International Airport; and 

Director, Metropolitan Washington Airport, FAA, A/SLMR 

No. 1062)

A/S adopted the ALJ's findings that the Respondent's 

offer to meet and discuss pursuant to the parties' 

iiegotiated agreement did not, on its face, constitute a 

refusal to negotiate within the meaning of the Order and 

that the offer to meet, to discuss and to work out a 

mutually acceptable change may well constitute an offer 

of negotiation, without regard to the name the parties 

give the procedure. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, 

Va., A/SLMR No. 1065)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont'd)

6-30-78
A/S, in agreement with ALJ, concluded that the Agency's 

regulatory requirements concerning RIF's were not 

inconsistent with the specific provisions of the parties' 

negotiated agreement and, as the negotiated agreement 

provided that it was subject to regulations of the Agency 

applicable at the time it was entered into and the 

Agency's regulations concerning RIFs were in effect at 

the time of the signing of the agreement and had not 

been waived by the terms of the negotiated agreement, 

the Respondent did not violate Section 19(a) (1) and (6) 

of the Order by refusing to negotiate concerning the 

application of the Agency's regulations concerning RIFs 

under the circumstances of the case. (Division of 

Military and Naval Affairs, State of N.Y., N.Y. ANG,

A/SLMR No. 863)

Respondent's failure to bargain on method of selection 

of Counselors violative of Section 19(a)(6) of the 

Order. A/S noted that method of selection was a 

negotiable matter within meaning of Section 11(a) of 

the Order, absent a statutory or other appropriate 

limitation, or absent a clear and unmistakable waiver 

of the right to negotiate on such a matter. (SSA, DREW, 

Wilkes-Barre Operations Branch, Wilkes-Barre, Pa.,

A/SLMR No. 889)

A/S found that the Agency violated Section 19(a)(1) and 

(6) of the Order by unilaterally issuing reduction-inforce (RIF) regulations prior to agreement with the 

exclusive representative. Although, the exclusive 

representative had initiated the agreed upon regulations, 

its membership then declined to ratify pursuant to the 

exclusive representative's constitution. However, A/S 

concluded that exclusive representative had a right to 

insist on ratification, and that it also had the right 

to request a resumption of bargaining when membership 

ratification failed. (Community Services Administration, 

A/SLMR No. 913)

Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) tbf

the Order by changing service hou*s to the public without 

negotiating with Complainant regarding the decision, as 

the employees' hours of work were not affected. While 

effectuation of the decision did change working conditions 

for some employees and Respondent would have been 

required to negotiate concerning the impact of such change, 

if requested. Complainant requested only that the decision 

itself be rescinded. (GSA, Region 2, A/SLMR No. 916)

35 28 08

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally

6-30-78 67
35 28 08

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that although 

Respondent had met its obligation to negotiate over the 

impact and implementation of its decision to change 

working hours, it violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) by 

failing to meet and confer with Complainant over the 

decision itself, a bargainable item under Section 11(a). 

Further, the agreement between the parties did not 

constitute a waiver of Complainant's right to negotiate 

a change in working hours. (IRS, Chicago District Office, 

A/SLMR No. 962)

In agreement with ALJ, A/S concluded Respondent violated 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order by refusing to 

negotiate a specific personnel policy during the pendency 

of a unit consolidation petition. A/S also found that 

issues involved in A/SLMR No. 832 and the instant 

proceeding were distinguishable and warranted separate 

and distinct findings and remedial orders. (SSA, Bureau 

of Field Operations, Region V-A, Chicago, 111.,

A/SLMR No. 963)

A/S found that Respondent's refusal to continue negotiations, 

because of the presence of a former unit employee as 

Chief Negotiator of the Union negotiating team, violated 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order. (Utah ANG, Salt Lake 

City, Utah, A/SLMR No. 966)

A/S, contrary to ALJ, found that the issuing of a 

memorandum by Respondent, ordering the use of military 

titles by civilian technicians in completing repair 

records, without first negotiating with Complainant, 

improperly constituted a change in working conditions 

in violation of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order. 

Respondent unilaterally established what had been an 

ambiguous, irregularly enforced personnel policy covering 

unit employees without affording their exclusive representative the opportunity to bargain on such matter; the 

parties earlier settlement agreement did not preclude 

the utilization of unfair labor practice procedures.

(Penn. Army and Air NG, A/SLMR No. 969)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent did not violate 

Section 19(a)(6) of the Order when it changed a form used 

in the Agency's grievance procedure. (SSA, Bureau of 

Hearings and Appeals, A/SLMR No. 979)

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont'd)

68 6-30-78
Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of 

the Order as the issue presented concerned a differing 

and arguable interpretation of the negotiated agreement, 

as distinguished from an action which would constitute 

a clear, unilateral breach of the negotiated agreement. 

(FAA, Western Region, A/SLMR No. 930)

A/s found in agreement with the ALJ that the AFGE's 

withdrawal of Section 19(a)(6) allegation against the 

Respondent Agency was equivalent to a withdrawal of that 

part of the complaint against Respondent Activity as well 

since the very basis set forth in the complaint for a 

violation of Section 19(a)(6) of the Order was the asserted 

failure of the Respondent Agency to make a timely determination on the AFGE's request for a negotiability determination. He also found that Section 11(c) of the Order did 

not impose a direct time limitation on the Respondent 

Agency in issuing a negotiability determination. 

(Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,

N. C . , A/SLMR No. 943)

A/s adopted ALJ's dismissal of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) 

allegations that Respondent refused to bargain about a 

change in tour of duty where mission dictated tour change 

and therefore, the change was integrally related to and 

determinative of the staffing pattern and thus a management right under Section 11(b). (VA Hospital, Sheridan, 

Wyo., A/SLMR No. 952)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent did not violate 

Section 19(a) (1) and (6) of the Order inasmuch as 

questions regarding potential downgradings which were 

raised at a meeting called for an unrelated purpose did 

not transform the meeting into a Section 10(e) discussion 

where Respondent neither raised the downgradings issue 

nor sought to discuss that issue. Moreover, ALJ found 

insufficient evidence to support allegation that ouster 

of Complainant's representative from the meeting undermined 

the Complainant's status. (SSA, BRSI, Northeastern Program 

Service Cntr., A/SLMR No, 957)

Activity did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) by 

failing to bargain over the impact and implementation 

of a relocation of certain unit employees where the 

record revealed that the parties discussed the proposed 

relocation several months prior to its implementation 

and the Complainant requested bargaining a few days before 

the actual move. A/S found that this request, coming 

virtually at the last moment, was not timely made. (SSA, 

Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, A/SLMR No, 960)

35 28 08

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont'd)

6-30-78 69
A/S concurred with the ALJ's determination that the 

Respondent was not obligated to afford the Complainant 

an opportunity to meet and confer on the former's 

decision to transfer claims cases from one organizational 

segment to another. However, contrary to the ALJ, the 

A/S found that the Respondent was obligated to give the 

Complainant notice and an opportunity to meet and confer 

on the impact and implementation of the transfer. Having 

found that the Respondent met its obligations in this 

regard, the A/S found that it had not violated Section 19

(a)(1) and (6) of the Order.(SSA, BRSI, Northeastern 

Program Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 984)

No violation of Section 19(a) (1) and (6) of EC where 

parties' negotiated agreement provided for consultation 

only prior to changes made in basic watch schedule and 

record revealed that consultation had, in fact, occurred. 

(FAA, A/SLMR No. 992)

Activity did not violate Section 19(a) (1) and (6) of EO 

by failing to comply with terms of an oral agreement to 

furnish vacancy lists to the Complainant in connection 

with a proposed reorganization and RIF. A/S concluded 

that there was no "meeting of the minds" between the 

parties and therefore no agreement existed. (U.S.

Army Materiel Devel. and Readiness Comm., A/SLMR No. 994)

A/S adopted ALJ finding that Respondent violated Section 

19(a)(6) of the Order when it met with unit employees 

over matters related to personnel policies and procedures 

and general working conditions concerning work assignments without first notifying the exclusive representative and giving it the opportunity to be represented at 

such meeting as the meeting constituted a formal 

discussion within the meaning of Section 10(e) of the 

Order. (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 1003)

A/s agrees with ALJ's dismissal of complaint based on his 

finding that the Complainant had notice and ample 

opportunity to bargain on the impact and implementation 

of a change in the interpretation of the Respondent's 

regulations concerning enforcement by unit employees of 

the Respondent's policy regarding the public consumption 

of alcohol on Zoo premises., (Smithsonian Institution 

Nat'l Zoological Park, A/SLMR No. 993)

A/S, adopted ALJ finding that Respondent violated Section 

19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO when it issued and implemented 

a parking and traffic order without prior notice to 

Complainant, and without affording Complainant the 

opportunity to consult, confer, or negotiate on the 

issuance of the Order, a "natter affecting working 

conditions" under Section 11(a) of the EO. (FAA 

Aeronautical Cntr., Oklahoma City, Okla., A/SLMR No. 1047)

35 28 08

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont'd)

70 6-30-78
6-30-78

A/s, in agreement with ALJ, found that Complainant had 

not sustained its burden of proving by preponderance 

of the evidence that Respondent had refused to negotiate 

regarding a change in patrol officer schedules. (U.S.

Customs Service, Region VI, Houston, Tex., A/SLMR No. 1048)

Contrary to ALJ, A/S found that Activity did not violate 

Section 19(a)(6) of the Order with regard to the Activity's 

issuance of circular concerning district communications 

where it was concluded that, while the effect of a literal 

reading of the circular would constitute a change in 

employee terms and conditions of employment, subsequent 

discussions between the parties following issuance of 

the circular served to clarify its intent and limit its 

scope. (U.S. Customs Service, Region VI, Houston, Tex., 

A/SLMR No. 1048)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that Respondent had not 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order by 

failing to bargain with Complainant over the decision to 

change the *signationof which shift would be responsible 

for relief of officers on planned leave. However, 

contrary to ALJ, the A/S found that the parties' agreement, 

by its terms, was not yet in effect at the time of 

Respondent's alleged unilateral action and, thus, the change 

could not concern differing and arguable interpretations 

of such agreement. Rather, A/S found that the decision 

was integrally related to and consequently determinative 

of the number of employees assigned to a particular 

tour of duty and, therefore, was a premissive subject of 

bargaining within the ambit a Section 11(b) of the Order.

(VA Hospital, Lexington, Ky., A/SLMR No. 1051)

A/S adopted the ALJ's findings that the Respondent's 

offer to meet and discuss pursuant to the parties' 

negotiated agreement did not, on its face, constitute 

a refusal to negotiate within the meaning of the Order 

and that the offer to meet, to discuss and to work out 

a mutually acceptable change may well constitute an offer 

of negotiation, without regard to the name the parties 

give the procedure. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth,

V a . , A/SLMR No. 1065)

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent afforded 

Complainant the opportunity to meet and confer regarding 

the impact of its decision to disestablish the 

Congressional Correspondence Office and the procedures to 

be followed. (GSA, Nat'l. Personnel Records Cntr.,

A/SLMR No. 881)

35 28 12

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont'd)

71
35 28 12

Contrary to ALJ, A/S found that the Respondent violated 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by changing a testing 

procedure for certain employees without notifying the 

exclusive representative and affording it an opportunity 

to request bargaining on the impact and implementation 

of the change. Even assuming some reference had in fact 

been made to the change at a meeting attended by the 

parties, it was not the type of precise and timely 

notification envisaged by the Order which would have 

enabled the Complainant to bargain on the impact and 

implementation of the change. (Jacksonville District,

IRS, Jacksonville, Fla., A/SLMR No. 893)

A/s found that Base Commander's memorandum to four 

branch chiefs reiterating statements in his previeus 

memoranda concerning violations of an ^ency regulation 

with respect to grooming standards did not constitute 

a change in Respondent's policy with respect to enforcement of such grooming standards but was a reaffirmation 

of the exi&ting standards and was intended to ensure 

uniformity of enforcement of the existing policy. He 

further found that the evidence established that there 

had been prior counselling and reprimanding for violations 

distinguishing this case from New Mexico National Guard, 

Department of Military Affairs, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 

A/SLMR No. 362, which involved a new policy of enforcement. 

(Alabama Nat*l Guard, Montgomery, Ala., A/SLMR No. 895)

A/S concluded that Complainant had not established that 

Respondent had ‘failed to fulfill its obligation to 

bargain about the implementation of its reorganization 

plans and was unable to demonstrate that any impact 

occurred without prior bargaining because it ignored the 

Respondent's invitations to discuss the matter. (EEO 

Commission, A/SLMR No. 900)

A/S found that although the Respondent notified the 

Complainant in October 1974, of its intentions to 

reinstitute security restrictions, it never specified 

when it intended to take such action. Accordingly, and 

noting the length of time between the "notice" afforded 

the Complainant and the action by Respondent in November 

1975, A/S found that Respondent failed in its duty to 

specifically notify the Complainant of its decision and 

provide the Complainant an opportunity to bargain about 

the impact and implementation of the decision. (IRS, 

Indianapolis, Ind., A/SLMR No. 909)

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures (Cont'd)

72 6-30-78
Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the 

EO by changing service hours to the public without 

negotiating with Complainant regarding the decision, as 

the employees' hours of work were not affected. While 

effectuation of the decision did change working conditions 

for some employees and Respondent would have been 

required to negotiate concerning the impact of such 

change, if requested, Complainant requested only that 

the decision itself be rescinded. (GSA, Region 2,

A/SLMR No. 916)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 76A-101 and rationale therein, A/S 

modified his holding in A/SLMR No. 679, finding that 

Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO 

based on its failure to notify Complainant of the decision 

to remove employees not represented by Complainant from 

a competitive area for reduction-in-force and to afford 

Complainant an opportunity, upon request, to negotiate 

concerning the impact of such removal on any remaining 

employees who are in the bargaining units represented 

by Complainant. (U.S. Army Electronics Command, Ft.

Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 919)

Activity did not violate Section 19(a)(6) of the EO 

where union had ample notification of proposed curtailment 

of annual leave for unit employees and there was no 

request made nor evidence to show that Activity refused 

to bargain on the impact of the change. (U.S. Customs 

Service, Region I, Boston, A/SLMR No 951)

A/s, in agreement with ALJ, found that although Respondent 

was not obligated to meet and confer with the Union on 

the decision to reduce work force to meet budgetary needs , 

there was no obligation to bargain on matters relating to 

the implementation and impact of such decision on unit 

employees. (Dept, of the Treasury, IRS, Jacksonville 

District, A/SLMR No. 953)

A/s found, that although Respondent was not obligated to 

meet and confer with the exclusive representative with 

regard to its decision to close the base during a snow 

emergency, a reserved management right under Section 12(b) 

of EO contary to the finding of the ALJ, it did violate 

Section 19(a)(6) of the EO by failing to afford the 

exclusive representative the opportunity to meet and 

confer over the implementing procedures and impact of the 

decision, including the change in policy of designating 

certain employees as essential and requiring them to 

remain on duty during the snow emergency closure. (Directorate 

of Facility Engineers, Ft. Richardson, Alaska, A/ SLMR No.

946)

35 28 12

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact of Procedures (Cont*d)

6-30-78 73
35 28 12

Activity did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the 

EO by failing to bargain over the impact and implementation 

of the relocation of certain unit employees where the 

record revealed that the parties discussed the proposed 

relocation several months prior to its implementation 

and the Complainant requested bargaining a few days before 

the actual move. A/S found that this request, coming 

virtually at the last moment, was not timely made. (SSA, 

Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, A/SLMR No. 960)

A/S found, contrary to ALJ, that the Respondent did not 

violate Section 19(a)(1) of the Order but had fulfilled 

its obligation to meet and confer on the impact and 

implementation of its decision to institute mandatory 

overtime. He found the Union was notified of decision 

to institute mandatory overtime and Respondent sought the 

Union's comments on implementation and considered the 

Union's proposals before the method of implementation was 

announced to employees. (SSA, Branch Office, Angleton, 

Tex., A/SLMR No. 982)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the Respondent unilaterally 

altered the method of selecting samples of work product 

of unit employees for quality review purposes without 

first notifying and affording the Complainant an 

opportunity to bargain over impact and implementation.

The ALJ, noting the Respondent's contention that the 

change had no impact found that the change did, in fact, 

have an impact on the unit employees. (IRS, Fresno 

Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 983)

A/s concurred with the ALJ's determination that the 

Respondent was not obligated to afford the Complainant 

an opportunity to meet and confer on the former's decision 

to transfer claims cases from one organizational segment 

to another. However, contrary to the ALJ, the A/S found 

that the Respondent was obligated to give the Complainant 

notice and an opportunity to meet and confer on the 

impact and implementation of the transfer. Having found 

that the Respondent met its obligations in this regard, 

the A/s found that it had not violated Section 19(a) (1) 

and (6) of the Order. (SSA, BRSI, Northeastern Program 

Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 984)

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact on Procedures (Cont'd)

74 6-30-78
35 28 12

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that although Respondent 

was not obligated to negotiate with the Union with regard 

to its decision to unilaterally cancel the existing 

practice of allowing revenue officers employed in 

Respondent's Collection Division to perform certain 

official duties at their respective homes, it did violate 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by failing to give the 

Union reasonable notice prior to the implementation of 

the change. (IRS, New Orleans Dist., A/SLMR No. 995)

Activity violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order 

by establishing and implementing a safety committee 

(which included unit employees) at the Respondent's 

Annapolis Field Office without affording the exclusive 

representative an opportunity to meet and confer concerning 

the establishment and implementation of the committee or 

its impact on unit employees. He further found that no 

"emergency" situation existed which would have precluded, 

under Section 12 (b) of the Order, the Respondent's 

obligation to meet and confer concerning the establishment 

of such committee. (EPA, Regional III., A/SLMR No.997)

A/s found, contrary to the ALJ, that Respondent violated 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order by unilaterally 

implementing a RIF involving a unit employee without 

bargaining with the exclusive representative over the 

implementation of the RIF or its impact on the unit 

employee. A/S found that the employee was not a management official and was properly within the unit of exclusive 

recognition. A/S noted, contrary to the ALJ, that an 

agency acts at its peril when it unilaterally determines 

the unit status of an employee and acts in accordance 

with such detemination. (EPA, Region III , A/SLMR No. 999)

Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order 

by failing to bargain on procedures used and impact of 

transfer on adversely affected employees. (IRS, Greensboro 

District Office, A/SLMR No. 1007)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that the Respondent 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order by 

refusing to provide information relevant to the Respondent's 

relocation decision and by its continuing refusal to 

negotiate on the matter of the implementation of the 

relocation and the impact on employees adversely affected 

by such action. (Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission, A/SLMR No 1017)

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures (Cont'd)

6-30-78 75
A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that Respondent did not 

violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO as there was 

insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent's 

official "instruction" and "note" relating to the operation 

of certain government-owned vehicles had any impact upon 

bargaining unit employees over which the Respondent was 

obligated to bargain. (Nat'l Weapons Station, Concord, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 1020)

A/S found no violation since the Respondent's insistence 

that consxjltaiton take place at the local, rather than 

Bureau level, was no more than a good faith interpretation 

of the negotiated agreement. He also found that the 

Complainant had not met its burden of proof regarding the 

failure of the Respondent to bargain at the local level. 

(SSA, Bureau of Retirement and Survivors Insurance,

A/SLMR No. 1022.)

A/S found that a component of an exclusive representative 

had authority to file an ULP complaint since it was, at 

a minimum, recognized by the Respondent as the agent of 

the National Office of the exclusive representative 

and had standing to act on behalf of the exclusive 

representative. (SSA, Bureau of Retirement and Survivors 

Insurance, A/SLMR No. 1022)

A/S, in agreement with the ALJ, found that the Respondent 

did not act in bad faith by denying Complainant's grievance 

and refusing to proceed to arbitration on the matter where 

the Respondent in good faith believed the grievance to have 

been untimely filed. A/S further noted that the matter 

involved the interpretation and application of the 

negotiated agreement and that if the Complainant was of 

the view that the grievance was arbitrable, it could seek 

a determination on arbitrability from the A/S in accordance 

with Section 13(d) of the Order. (U.S. Army Materiel Dev. 

and Readiness Command, A/SLMR No. 1025)

A/S, in finding no violation of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of 

the Order, concurred with ALJ's finding that there was a 

duty to bargain over procedures and impact of a decision 

to furlough, to the extent it would not unreasonably delay 

or otherwise negate the decision, which is reserved 

management right under Section 12(b)(3) of the Order. 

However, absent national recognition or national consultation 

rights, Respondent IRS had no obligation to bargain or 

consult with the Union with respect to matters concerning 

local management decisions. A/S also noted that Respondent 

District Office notified the Union of its decision and 

afforded it the opportunity to request impact and implementation bargaining. (IRS and IRS South Carolina District 

Office, A/SLMR No. 1027)

35 28 12

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures (Cont'd)

76 ^-30-78
6-30-78

No violation where Respondent timely notified Complainant 

of impending RIF action, and there was no request made to 

bargain on the impact or implementation of the decision. 

(Transportation Systems Cntr., Cambridge, Mass., A/SLMR 

No 1031)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent violated Section 

19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order when it met with unit 

employees over matters related to personnel policies and 

procedures and general working conditions concerning work 

assignments without first notifying the exclusive representative and giving it the opportunity to be represented at 

such meeting as the meeting constituted a formal discussion 

within the meaning of Section 10(e) of the Order. (Puget 

Sound Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 1003)

A/s found Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of 

the Order by failing to bargain on procedures used and 

impact of reassignments on adversely affected employees. 

(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, A/SLMR No. 1045)

Contrary to ALJ, A/S found that Activity did not violate 

Section 19(a)(6) of the Order with regard to the Activity's 

issurance of a circular concerning district communications 

where it was concluded that, while the effect of a 

literal reading of the circular would constitute a change 

in employee terms and conditions of employment, subsequent 

discussions between the parties following issuance of the 

circular served to clarify its intent and limit its scope. 

(U.S. Customs Service, Region VI, Houston, Tex., A/SLMR 

No. 1048)

A/S found that Activity did not violate Section 19(a)(1) 

and (2) and (6) of the EO by unilaterally changing the 

prices charged for haircuts and the commission rates of 

its barbers where upon review of the Commission's 

interpretation of the FPM and the record evidence, which 

established that Complainant had notice of the proposed 

change but failed to respond prior to implementation.

(Navy Exchange, Naval Training Cntr., San Diego, Calif., 

A/SLMR No. 1054)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Complainant had failed to 

request bargaining on the impact of some, of the overtime 

restrictions proposed by Respondent, and that Respondent 

did, in fact, bargain in good faith regarding the impact 

of those changes about which it was requested to negotiate. 

Accordingly, A/S found that Respondent did not violate 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order. (U.S. Customs 

Service, Region VI, Houston, Tex., A/SLMR No. 1061)

35 28 12

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures (Cont'd)

77
A/S adopted the ALJ's finding that, as a result of the 

parties' use of different terminology, the Complainant 

never suggested a specific date for a meeting, and never 

made a specific proposal as to the impact and implementation 

of a proposed RIF. Hence, the ALJ found that the Respondent 

did not refuse to meet discuss or refuse to consider and 

confer on any proposal, and the complaint should be dismissed. 

(Pennsylvania Army and Air NG, A/SLMR No. 1064)

Complainant failed to establish that the Activity violated 

Section 19(a)(1) and(6) of the Order when the Activity 

implemented a special operation without prior opportunity 

to the Complainant to negotiate concerning impact and 

implementation where such special operations were a longstanding Activity practice and that since agency management's 

obligation to negotiate concerning impact and implementation 

arises when the Activity takes action which alters 

established personnel policies and practices or working 

conditions. (U.S. Customs Service, Region VII, Los Angeles, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 1066)

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion Representation

A/s concluded that Respondent was not obligated to afford 

the union opportunity to be present at a proposed adverse 

action meeting as such meeting was not a formal discussion 

under the Order. (HUD, Los Angeles Area Office, A/SLMR 

No. 891)

Based on FLRC's Major Policy Statement concerning representational rights of employees under the Order A/S found 

that denial of union representation at nonformal investigative interview did not constitute violation of Section 

19(a)(6) of the Order. (IRS, A/SLMR No. 897)

A/S found that the meetings involved herein which were 

called for the purpose of terminating four probationary 

employees who had no statutory appeal from agency action 

were formal discussions within the meaning of Section 10(e) 

of the Order as they substantially affected personnel 

policies and practices as they related to the specific 

employees' job security and they also substantially affected 

personnel policies and practices as they pertained to 

other employees in the bargaining unit. Consequently, the 

A/s found that the Respondent's refusal to allow the 

Complainant to participate in the meeting was a violation 

of Section 19(a)(6) of the Order. He also found that the 

Respondents denial of the employees request for union 

representation at the meetings involved herein was violative 

of Section 19(a)(1) of the Order. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, 

A/SLMR No. 908)

35 28 16

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact and Procedures (Cont'd)

78 6-30-78
A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found meeting to be formal 

discussion within meaning of Section 10(e) of EO as meeting 

was between agency management and a unit employee and 

concerned a classification audit which was an integral 

part of the grievance process. A/S found violation of 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of EO as Respondent did not 

afford Complainant's representative an opportunity to be 

represented at such meeting and did not afford the unit 

employee an opportunity to be represented by her exclusive 

representative. (U.S. Customs Service, Region VII, Los 

Angeles, Calif., A/SLMR No. 926)

A/S, in disapeement with ALJ, found meeting to be formal 

disucssion within meaning of Section 10(e) of EO as 

meeting was between agency management and unit employees 

and concerned procedures to implement the parties' agreement for the voluntary reassignment of employees, clearly 

a matter having impact on the general working conditions 

of employees in unit. A/S found no violation of Section 

19(a) (1) and (6) of EO however, as the Complainant was 

represented at the meeting by its president and shop 

steward. (Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colo., A/SLMR 

No. 933)

ALJ found, and A/S concurred, that Activity did not 

violate the EO when it failed to afford the exclusive 

representative an opportunity to be present at briefing 

session for impending operation. The ALJ noted that 

the subject briefing was not a formal discussion within 

the meaning of Section 10(e) of the EO and, thus, the 

Respondent was not obligated to afford the Complainant 

an opportunity to be present. (U.S. Customs Service,

Region VIII, San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 978).

A/S dismissed complaint, alleging Section 19(a)(1) and (6) 

of the EO violations based on failure to allow union 

representative to continue speaking at a formal meeting 

within the meaning of Section 10(e) of the EO. He found 

that the meeting in question was a formal meeting within 

the meaning of Section 10(e) in that it was between 

management and -employees wherein suggestions were solicited 

and the matter discussed affected general working conditions. 

However, he concluded that the evidence was insufficient 

to establish that the restrictions placed on the Union 

representative were unreasonable or that he was prevented 

from representing the employees' interests or stating the 

Union's position. (iRS, and IRS Chicago District, Chicago,

111., A/SLMR No. 987)

35 28 16

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion Representation (Cont'd)

79
A/S viewed scope of Section 10(e) of the EO as not only 

encompassing discussions concerning changes or proposed 

changes in personnel policies and practices and working 

conditions but all discussions between management and 

unit employees when the subject matter concerns personnel 

policies and practices and working conditions of bargaining 

unit employees. (IRS, Atlanta Dist. Office , A/SLMR No. 

1014)

Contrary to ALJ, A/S found that failure to afford 

Complainant an opportunity to be represented at discussions 

concerning three memoranda relating to personnel policies 

and practices and working conditions was violative of 

the Order. (IRS, Atlanta Dist. Office , A/SLMR No. 1014)

A/S concluded, contrary to the ALJ that Respondent violated 

Section 19(a)Q) and (6) of the Order when it unilaterally 

withdrew its authorization for "high work" environmental 

differential pay, thereby rescinding the parties' grievance 

settlement agreement in the matter. The A/S viewed the 

grievance settlement agreement as having the same standing 

as an arbitration award and, as such, constituted an 

extension of the parties' negotiated agreement and an 

established term and condition of employment. (GSA, Region 

3, A/SLMR No. 996)

35 28 20 Uncompromising Attitude 

No Entries

35 28 24 Dilatory and Evasive Tactics

A/s, contrary to ALJ, found that the Respondent Activity 

did not engage in dilatory tactics and did not refuse to 

negotiate and confer in good faith with the union in 

violation of Section 19(a)(6) of the Order as the record 

disclosed that the Respondent was willing to meet and did, 

in&ct, meet a&^reasonable times with representatives 

of the Union and although the Respondent was engaged in 

hard bargaining with the Union, it did make a good faith 

effort to resolve their differences. A/S noted that the 

duty to bargain in "good faith" requires that parties to 

negotiations approach the bargaining table with an open 

mind and a sincere desire to reach agreement. This duty 

does not require either party to agree to a proposal or 

make concessions and no inference of bad faith bargaining 

can be drawn solely from a party's failure to retreat 

from its initial proposals. A/S further noted, that in 

addition to approaching bargaining with an open mind and 

a sincere desire to reach agreement, the duty to bargain 

in good faith requires that the parties make an earnest 

effort to reach agreement through the collective

35 28 24

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion Representation (Cont*d)

80 6-30-78
6-30-78

bargaining process. (AFGE, Local 2578 and Nat. Archives 

and Records Service, A/SLMR No. 965)

ALJ found, and the A/S concurred, that Activity did not 

violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order by reopening 

contract points that had been previously agreed upon and 

did not reflect an intent to subvert or sabotage negotiations, 

The ALJ also concluded that alleged changes in the final 

typewritten draft of the contract, as compared to the 

signed-off draft, did not clearly demonstrate bad faith.

(SSA, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, A/SLMR No. 1040)

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

A/S found that the sections of Base Regulation 35-1 

issued by the Respondent which changed the manner of 

wearing the utility unform by unit employees, a subject 

matter for bargaining under the provisions of Section 11(a) 

of the Order; constituted a unilateral change in working 

conditions in violation of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the 

Order. However, the A/S further found that the rest of 

the provisions of Base Regulation 35-1 and a directive 

entitled "Technician Work Day" constituted a restatement 

of already existing policies, and that such restatement 

did not evidence a refusal to bargain on such subjects, 

in spite of the fact that demands to change the policies 

enumerated therein were involved in negotiations. 

(Pennsylvania ANG, A/SLMR No. 866)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 76A-37 and rationale therein, A/S 

modified his holding in A/SLMR No. 608, finding tTiat 

where, as here, agency management at the departmental 

level directed the termination of environmental 

differential pay at the Activity, and the pay was 

terminated as a result of such direction, the Agency 

violated Section 19(a)(6) of the Order but that a separate 

violation would not be against the Activity based solely 

on its ministerial actions in implementing the higher 

agency directions, as the Activity had no choice but to 

comply. Accordingly, the A/S modified the order in 

A/SLMR No. 608 to require the Agency to cease and desist 

from the conduct found violative of the Order and to 

take certain affirmative actions, and he dismissed 

those portions of the complaint alleging violations of 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order by the Activity. (Naval 

Air Rework Facility, Pensacola, Florida and Secretary 

of the Navy, Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 873)

35 28 24

35 28 24 DilaJ:ory and Evasive Tactics (Cont'd)

81
35 28 28

Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(6) of the Order 

as the evidence did not establish that it unilaterally 

altered any agreed upon provision or by untimately omitting 

that section from the final version of the agreement.

(USAF, Scott AFB, A/SLMR No. 892)

Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of 

the Order by its unilateral implementation, after 

Complainant's request for negotiations, of a system for 

recording stewards' use of official time for representational 

activities, as there was an arguable basis under the 

parties' negotiated agreement for the Respondent Activity's 

position that "consultation" (as defined in the agreement), 

rather than negotiation, fulfilled its obligations before 

implementing the record keeping system. Thus, the matter 

involved differing and arguable interpretations of the 

agreement, rather than a clear, unilateral breach which 

could be the basis for an unfair labor practice finding. 

(Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Ga., A/SLMR No. 912)

Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order 

by its unilateral implementation of an impassed issue 

pending before the FSIP, as no overriding exigency 

existed which would have permitted such action. (Warner 

Robins Air Logistics Center, Ga., A/SLMR No. 912)

A/S found that Respondent Agency violated Section 19(a)(1) 

and (6) of the Order by unilaterally issuing reduction-inforce (RIF) regulations prior to agreement with the 

exclusive representative. Although, the exclusive representative had initialed the agreed upon regulations, its 

membership then declined to ratify pursuant to the 

exclusive representative's constitution. A/S concluded, 

that exclusive representative had a right to insist on 

ratification, and that it also had the right to request 

a resumption of bargaining when membership ratification 

failed. (Community Services Administration, A/SLMR No. 913)

Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) by 

changing service hours to the public without negotiating 

with Complainant regarding the decision, as the employees' 

hours of work were not affected. While effectuation of 

the decision did change working conditions for some 

employees and Respondent would have been required to 

negotiate concerning the impact of such change, if r e q u e s t e d , 

Complaint requested only that the decision itself be 

rescinded. (GSA, Region 2, A/SLMR No. 916)

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

(Cont'dT "

82 6-30-78
6-30-78

Pursuant to FLRC No. 76A-101 and rationale therein, A/S 

modified his holding in A/SLMR No. 679, finding that 

Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) based on its 

failure to notify Complainant of the decision to remove 

employees not represented by Complainant from a competitive 

area for reduction-in-force and to afford Complainant an 

opportunity, upon request, to negotiate concerning the 

impact of such removal on any remaining employees who are 

in the bargaining units represented by Complainant.

(U.S. Army Electronic Command, Ft. Monmouth, N.J.,

A/SLMR No. 919)

A/s, in agreement with the ALJ, found that the procedures 

for obtaining official time for representational activities 

were arguably within the meaning of the negotiated agreement, and that absent evidence of a flagrant and deliberate 

breach, the proper forum for the resolution of the issue 

was the negotiated grievance procedure. (Dept, of the AF, 

4392nd Aerospace Support Gp . , Vandenberg AFB, Calif.,

A/SLMR No. 935)

A/S found, in agreement with the ALJ, that the parties' 

negotiated agreement superseded any past practice that 

may have been established regarding the securing of 

official time for representational activities, and that 

the Respondent acted with due diligence in attempting to 

gain the NFFE President's compliance with the negotiated 

agreement. (Dept, of the AF, 4392nd Aerospace Support Gp., 

Vandenberg AF, Calif., A/SLMR No. 935)

A/s adopted ALJ's recommended dismissal of allegation that 

the unilateral discontinuance of the purchase of impactresistant eyeglasses was violative of EO where the 

Respondent no longer had authority to use appropriated 

funds for such matters and thereby the discontinuance 

of the past practice was necessary based on applicable 

law. (VA Hospital, Sheridan, Wyo., A/SLMR No. 940)

A/s in agreement with ALJ found that the Respondent did 

not violate Section 19(a) (6) of the Order by refusing 

to extend the assignment of certain employees in the 

Toronto, Canada, office as there was insufficient evidence 

to establish the existence of a past practice of automatically granting extensions of assignment and the record 

indicated that in the past where most requests for 

extensions had been granted, the employees were highly 

experienced and had been specially selected for assignment 

to the office, while the employees, involved herein were 

newly hired and inexperienced employees. (U.S. Customs 

Service, Region I, Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 949).

35 28 28

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of

Employment (Cont'd)

83
Activity did not violate Section 19(a)(6) of the EO where 

Union had ample notification of proposed curtailment of 

annual leave for unit employees and there was no request 

made nor evidence to show that Activity refused to bargain 

on the impact of the change. (U.S. Customs Service,

Region I, Boston, A/SLMR No. 951)

A/s, in agreement with ALJ, found that the Respondent 

violated Section 19(a)(6) of the Order by unilaterally 

implementing a new furlough procedure of "when actually 

employed" taxpayer service representatives during 1976 

filing season (IRS, Jacksonville District, A/SLMR No. 953)

No violation of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO where 

Activity issued memorandum outlining policy on administrative time inasmuch as negotiated agreement was silent on 

use of administrative time and memo merely reflected 

existing policy (IRS, St. Louis District Office, A/SLMR 

No. 961)

A/S, contrary to ALJ, found that the issuing of a memorandum by Respondent, ordering the use of military titles 

by civilian technicians in completing repair records, 

without first negotiating with Complainant, improperly 

constituted a change in working conditions in violation 

of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order. Respondent 

unilaterally established what had been an ambiguous, 

irregularly enforced personnel policy covering unit 

employees without affording their exclusive representative 

the opportunity to bargain on such matter. The parties' 

earlier settlement agreement did not preclude the 

utilization of unfair labor practice procedures. (Penn 

Army and Air NG, A/SLMR No. 969)

A/s adopted the ALJ's conclusion that the Respondent had 

acted properly when it implemented a work measurement 

program, as an impasse had been declared by the Complainant, 

the Respondent provided timely notice of its intention 

to implement the program, the Complainant had not sought 

the services of the FSIP, and the program as implemented 

was consistent with the Respondent's proposals during the 

course of its negotiations. (IRS, Cleveland, Ohio,

A/SLMR No. 972)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that the Activity did not violate 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of EO by its decision to conduct 

a 24-hour surveillance, with 12-hour shifts and mandatory 

overtime, of all suspects arriving from a specified geograph" 

ical area, since, as the ALJ noted, there had been surveillance operations of that type in the past, and that the 

Patrol Policy Statement which had been negotiated by the 

parties, included matters relating to overtime, tours of 

duty and assignments. (U.S. Customs Service, Region VIII 

San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 978)

35 28 28

35 28 2» Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

Cont * d

84 6-30-78
A/s did not adopt ALJ's conclusion that a unilateral change 

by an Agency in the agency grievance procedure could 

violate Section 19(a)(6) of the EO. (SSA, Bureau of 

Hearing and Appeals, A/SLMR No. 979)

A/S found Activity violated Section 19(a)(6) of the EO 

by implementing a unilateral change in competitive areas 

without first meeting and conferring with the Complainants 

regarding the decision to effectuate such a change. 

(Picatinny Arsenal and the Project Manager for Nuclear 

Munitions, Dover, N.J., A/SLMR No. 981)

A/s found, contrary to ALJ, that the Respondent did not 

violate Section 19(a)(6) of the EO, but had fulfilled its 

obligation to meet and confer on the impact and implementation of its decision to institute mandatory overtime. He 

found Union was notified of decision to institute mandatory 

overtime and Respondent sought the Union's comments on 

implementation and considered the Union's proposals before 

the method of implementation was announced to employees. 

(SSA, Branch Office, Angleton, Tex., A/SLMR No. 982)

A/s adopted ALJ's rejection of Respondent's contention 

that the matter in dispute involved contract interpretation 

as the allegations of the complaint raised issues involving 

rights accorded by the Order rather than rights established 

by contract. Thereafter, he adopted the ALJ's finding of 

a violation based on the Respondent's unilateral alteration 

of the method of selecting samples of work product of unit 

employees for quality review purposes without first 

notifying and affording the exclusive representative the 

opportunity to bargain over impact and implementation.

(IRS, Fresno Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 983)

A/s concurred with the ALJ's determination that the 

Respondent was not obligated to afford the Complainant an 

opportunity to meet and confer on the former's decision 

to transfer claims cases from one organizational segment 

to another. However, contary to the ALJ, the A/S found 

that the Respondent was obligated to give the Complainant 

notice and an opportunity to meet and confer on the 

impact and implementation of the transfer. Having found 

that the Respondent met its obligation in this regard, 

the A/S found that it had not violated Section 19(a)(1) 

and (6) of the Order. (SSA, BRSI, Northeastern Program 

Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 984

35 28 28

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

(Cont'dT

6-30-78 85
35 28 28

A/s found contrary to the ALJ that neither the Respondent 

Agency or Respondent Activity violated Section 19(a)(1) 

and (6) of the Order where it was noted that by virtue of a 

regulation which the Respondent Activity and the union 

incorporated into their negotiated agreement, the Respondent 

Agency had the authority to unilaterally issue a regulation 

covering RIF's and could require Respondent Activity to 

implement its provision in conducting a RIF action 

affecting employees exclusively represented by the Union. 

(Europe and Seventh Army; and Army and Air Force Exchange 

Service, Europe, A/SLMR No. 1006)

A/s found that Respondent's position reflected essentially 

a good faith interpretation of the parties negotiated 

agreement as distinguished from a clear, unilateral breach 

of the agreement. (Navy Commissary Store Region, Norfolk, 

Va., A/SLMR No. 1030)

A/S agreed with ALJ's finding that, under the particular 

circumstances, a provision for advisory arbitration 

expired upon the termination of the parties' negotiated 

agreement, compare IRS, Brookhaven Service Center, A/SLMR 

No. 859 (1977), in which final arbitration was found to 

continue as a term and condition of employment after the 

expiration of a negotiated agreement, absent agreement of 

the parties that arbitration terminates or in the event 

of a post-impasse change. A/S also noted that absent 

contract language to the contrary, dues withholding also 

would have expired: however, the agreement herein 

specifically provided for the continuation of dues withholding for 56 days after the termination of the agreement. 

(IRS, A/SLMR No. 998)

A/s, in agreement with ALJ, found a violation of Section 

19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order where Respondent unilaterally 

terminated certain provisions of an expired negotiated 

agreement when negotiations over a new agreement had reached 

an impasse, where the terminated provisions were found to 

be terms and conditions of employment, and where Complainant 

was not given an opportunity to invoke the services of the 

Federal Service Impasse Panel. (IRS, A/SLMR No. 998)

A/S adopted the ALJ's finding that the Respondent had 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of EO by unilaterally 

terminating the past practice of allowing the NTEU to use 

Activity typewriters and the services of secretaries on 

nonduty time, a term and condition of employment which 

could not be unilaterally modified. (IRS, New Orleans 

District, New Orleans, La.,A/SLMR No. 1034)

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

( C o n t M

86 6-30-78
6-30-78

35 28 28

A/s adopted ALJ finding that Respondent violated Section 19

(a)(1) and (6) of the EO when it issued and implemented a 

parking and traffic order without prior notice to 

Complainant and without affording Complainant an opportunity 

to consult, confer, or negotiate on the change. He 

found that because Respondent's order changed various 

policies regarding parking and traffic, it was a "matter 

affecting working conditions" under Section 11(a), and 

thus gave rise to an obligation on the part of the 

Respondent to consult, confer, or negotiate with Complainant 

over its issuance. (FAA Aeronautical Cntr., Oklahoma City,

Okla., A/SLMR No. 1047)

Contrary to ALJ, A/S found that Activity did not violate 

Section 19(a)(6) of the Order with regard to the Activity's 

issuance of a circular concerning district communications 

where it was concluded that, while the effect of a literal 

reading of the circular would constitute a change in 

employee terms and conditions of employment, subsequent 

discussions between the parties following issuance of the 

circular served to clarify its intent and limit its scope.

(U.S. Customs Service, Region VI, Houston, Tex-, A/SLMR 

No. 1048)

Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the 

EO by unilaterally terminating certain articles of the 

parties' expired negotiated agreement dealing with advisory 

arbitration of adverse actions. As the right of agencies 

to establish their own appeals procedures for adverse 

actions was revoked in 1974 by EO 11787, the articles 

dealing with advisory arbitration of adverse actions did 

not survive the expiration of the parties' 1974 negotiated 

agreement. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,

A/SLMR No. 1049)

Respondent violated Sections 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO 

by unilaterally terminating various agreement provisions 

at the expiration of the parties' negotiated agreement 

including such clearly mandatory subjects of bargaining 

within the ar ’ it of Section 11(a) of EO as clauses dealing 

with the parties* negotiated grievance procedure, the 

facilities and services supplied by the Respondent to the 

Union, and the right of a Union Representative and an 

affected employee to be on official time for a reasonable 

period to present grievances and appeals. (Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, A/SLMR No. 1049)

35 28 28 Unilateral Change in Terms and Conditions of Employment (Cont'd)

87
As the conduct of the Respondent’s Puerto Rico Office in 

refusing to process a grievance under the negotiated 

procedure of the parties' expired negotiated agreement 

clearly was based on instructions from higher level 

management, the A/S did not consider warranted a separate 

finding of a Section 19(a)(1) and (6) violation against 

the Puerto Rico Office. A/S noted that the remedy ordered 

for the higher level management violation would serve to 

remedy the complained of conduct by the Puerto Rico Office. 

(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, A/SLMR No. 1049)

In applying the principles enunciated by the Council in 

FLRC No. 77A“40, A/S found that the unilateral change of 

certain working conditions characterized by the Respondent 

as "institutional benefits" was violative of Section 19(a) 

(1) and (6) of EO as it was a change in Section 11(a) 

items without affording the Complainant an opportunity to 

invoke the processes of the Panel. In this regard, the 

A/S noted that under the Council's standard existing 

personnel policies and practices and matters affecting 

working conditions within the meaning of 11 (a) continue 

after the expiration of a negotiated agreement absent an 

agreement to the contrary or unless modified in a manner 

consistent with the Order. On the other hand those matters 

in an agreement excepted by 11(b) of the Order may be 

unilaterally changed, and agency regulations issued during 

an agreement's term become effective upon the agreement's 

expiration. (IRS, Ogden Service Cntr., and IRS Service, 

et.al., A/SLMR No. 1052)

In applying the principles enunciated by the Council in 

FLRC No. 77A-92, in vrfiich the Council rejected the A/S's 

standard set forth in A/SLMR No. 806 and thereafter 

applied in A/SLMR No. 859, the A/S, in a supplemental 

decision, found that a contrary result to that found in 

859 was not required. Thus, the A/S concluded that 

arbitration was clearly a matter within the ambit of 

Section 11(a) of the Order and, therefore, the unilateral 

exclusion of arbitration from the negotiated grievance 

procedure upon the expiration of the negotiated agreement 

was violative of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order.

(IRS, Brookhaven Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 1053)

A/s found that Activity did not violate Section 19(a)(l)(2) 

and (6) of the EO by unilaterally changing the prices 

charged for haircuts and the commission rates of its 

' barbers where upon review of the Commission's interpretation

of the FPM and the record evidence, which established that 

Complainant had notice of the proposed change but failed 

to respond prior to implementation. (Navy Exchange>Naval 

Training Cntr., San Diego, Calif., A/SLMR No. 1054)

35 28 28

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

(Cont'd)

88 6-30-78
6-30-78

Complainant failed to establish that the Activity violated 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order when the Activity 

implemented a special operation without prior opportunity 

to the Complainant to negotiate concerning impact and 

implementation where such special operations were a longstanding Activity practice and that since agency managements 

obligation to negotiate concerning impact and implementation 

arises when the Activity takes action which alters 

established personnel policies and practices or working 

conditions. (U.S. Customs Service, Region VII, Los Angeles, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 1066)

35 28 32 Bypassing Exclusive Representative

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent's actions 

concerning its decision to disestablish the Congressional 

Correspondence Office did not constitute improper bypass.

(GSA, Nat'l. Personnel Records Cntr., A/SLMR No. 881)

Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order 

when it bypassed the Complainant and dealt directly with 

unit employees by soliciting their recommendations on 

matters covered by the parties' negotiated agreement as 

well as related personnel policies and practices and 

general working conditions. (IRS, Ogden Service Cntr.,

A/SLMR No. 944)

Memorandum sent directly to unit employees outlining 

existing policy fpund not to be an improper attempt to 

deal directly with unit employees as it was standard 

operating procedure to communicate with employees in 

such a fashion (IRS, St. Louis District Office, A/SLMR 

No. 961)

ALJ found, and A/S concurred, that Activity did not 

violate the EO when it failed to afford the exclusive 

representative an opportunity to be present at briefing 

session for impending operation. The ALJ noted that the 

subject briefing subject was not a formal discussion 

within the meaning of Section 10(e) of the EO and, thus, 

the Respondent was not obligated to afford the Complainant 

an opportunity to be present. (U.S. Customs Service,

Region VIII, San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 978).

Exclusion of exclusive representative from discussions 

concerning terms and conditions of employment would 

result in bypassing the exclusive representative regarding 

the very matters for which it was chosen by unit employees 

to act as their spokesman. (IRS, Atlanta District Office,

A/SLMR No. 1014)

35 28 32

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment (Cont'd)

89
Respondent did not improperly bypass the Union in 

violation of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order by 

having discussions with unit employees without Union 

representatives present. (Occupational Safety and Health 

Review Commission, A/SLMR No. 1017)

A/s, in agreement with ALJ, found that the chance encounter 

and ensuing conversation between Respondent's Chief 

Negotiator and one of Complainant's negotiators was neither 

an attempt by Respondent to bypass Complainant and 

communicate directly with unit employees regarding collective 

bargaining matters nor to undermine the status of the 

exclusive representative. (SSA, Bureau of Hearings and 

Appeals, A/SLMR No. 1028)

Although the Respondent had initially informed a local 

official of the Labor organization of the impending RIF 

instead of first informing the State Council of the 

labor organization, v^ich is the exclusive representative, 

the local official had immediately informed the State 

Council and thus the ALJ found that this departure from 

protocol was without significance. (Pennsylvania Army 

and Air NG, A/SLMR No. 1064)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the Respondent bypassed 

the exclusive representative when it had a meeting with 

unit employees at which matters impacting on their working 

conditions were discussed. (Department of the Treasury, 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Midwest Region, 

Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 1070)

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information

A/S concluded that Respondent's failure to furnish 

information requested by the union concerning a proposed 

adverse action was based on the union's failure to 

indicate that it was the employee's representative 

and did not reflect union animus. (HUD, Los Angeles Area 

Office, A/SLMR No. 891)

A/S found that documents formulated following a survey 

by a "tri-partite" team which included representatives 

from the agency and the Activity contained information 

which was necessary and relevant for the exclusive 

representative to enable it to intelligently fulfill its 

collective bargaining obligations. (Dept, of Justice, 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, A/SLMR No. 902)

35 28 36

35 28 32 Bypassing Exclusive Representative (Cont*d)

90 6-30-78
6-30-78

A/S agreed with ALJ conclusion that Section 19(a)(1) and

(6) allegations be dismissed where Activity declined to 

provide certain documents to the labor organization 

during negotiations, but did not adopt his rationale for 

doing so. Thus, the A/S found, contrary to the ALJ, 

that the documents sought were necessary and relevant 

for the exclusive representative to have for negotiating 

purposes. In dismissing the complaint, however, the 

A/s determined, after an ijn camera inspection of the 

documents, that a summary of the documents offered by 

the Activity during negotiations adequately reflected 

the information to which the Complainant was entitled.

The offer by the Respondent thus fulfilled its 

obligation. (Dept, of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, A/SLMR No. 902)

A/S found in agreement with the ALJ that the Respondent 

Agency did not violate Section 19(a)(1) of the Order 

during the course of contract negotiation with the 

complainant by causing delays by either withholding or 

failing to furnish information in a timely manner, as 

the record indicated that the Respondent Agency bargained 

in good faith, attended all bargaining sessions when 

called, submitted counter proposals, and promptly 

answered all of the Complainant's request for information 

and documents. (Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C.; Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, N.C., A/SLMR No. 943)

Activity's refusal to furnish the name of an informant 

requested by the Complainant regarding an employee's 

grievance did not constitute violation of Section 19(a)

(6) where the Respondent furnished the information sought 

after the second step of the grievance procedure.

(Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Va., A/SLMR No. 968)

The A/S found that where an individual employee's right 

to have his personnel records kept private conflicts 

with other rights, such as an exclusive representative's 

right to information necessary and relevant to the 

performance of its representational functions, the 

individual's right to privacy of his records must be 

balanced against the conflicting rights in each case. He 

concluded that in the circumstances involved here were 

several rights broad enough to warrant disclosure of the 

subject's identity, including the right of the exclusive 

representative to adequately perform its representational 

functions, as well as the broad public interest in having 

the Federal government operate within its merit promotion 

system so that qualified candidates are given equitable 

treatment, while encouraging the use of nondisruptive 

grievance procedures to resolve employee disputes. (IRS, 

Milwaukee District, Milwaukee, Wise., A/SLMR No. 974)

35 28 36

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information (Cont'd)

91
A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the Respondent Activity 

violated the Order when it refused to furnish information, 

i.e., a management report related to the issue of the 

grievance, that was sought as relevant and necessary to 

the processing of a grievance filed under the negotiated 

grievance procedure. A/S also adopted A L J’s dismissal 

with respect to the agency, noting that no exception was 

made to this finding and that the complaint specified no 

act by the Respondent Agency as violative of the Order.

(IRS and IRS, Atlanta District Office, A/SLMR No. 975)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that the Respondent 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order by refusing 

to furnish information relevant and necessary to the union 

in the performance of its representational duties. The 

ALJ noted that the information sought by the union was in 

furtherance of its determination of whether an employee 

was a unit member. (EPA, Region III, A/SLMR No. 999)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the Respondent's failure to 

furnish requested information with regard to the CSC's 

inauguration of a new method for developing classification 

standards for all GS positions was violative where such 

information, upon ALJ's camera inspection, was found 

to be relevant and necessary for the Complainant's soundly 

based input in the decision-making process of the CSC's 

adoption of final occupational standards, and to represent 

the interests of affected employees with specific reference 

to potential reclassification thereunder. (IRS, A/SLMR 

No. 1001)

A/s concluded that the Respondent had no obligation under 

the EO to provide the Complainant with the statistical 

analysis it had requested, as the Complainant had failed 

to show that the information contained in the statistical 

analysis was necessary for it to process a particular 

employee's grievance, the express reason the statistical 

analysis was sought. A/S noted that, although the Complainant acknowledged that it had in its possession all the 

data contained in the statistical analysis, and it asserted 

that reconstructing the analysis would have been timeconsuming, it had not been established that the work required 

to reconstruct the analysis from the available data 

would have placed an undue burden on the Complainant. (IRS, 

Chicago Dist. Office, A/SLMR No. 1004 )

A/S concluded that the information sought herein, which 

he found to be necessary and relevant to the performance 

of the Complainant's representational function, should 

have been disclosed to the Complainant, as the circumstances 

were essentially similar to those in Department of the

35 28 36

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information (Cont'd)

92 6-30-78
35 28 40

Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 

A/SLMR No. 974 (1978), where the A/S held that an 

employee's right to privacy of his records must be balanced 

against the conflicting rights in each case. (IRS,

Chicago Dist. Office, A/SLMR No. 1004)

Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the 

Order by failing to furnish Complainant with information 

regarding transfer of unit employees until transfers 

had already occurred. (IRS, Greensboro District Office, 

A/SLMR No. 1007)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that the Respondent 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order by refusing 

to provide information relevant to the Respondent's 

relocation decision and by its continuing refusal to 

negotiate on the matter of the implementation of the 

relocation and the impact on employees adversely affected 

by such action. (Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission, A/SLMR No. 1017)

Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order 

by failing to furnish Complainant with information 

regarding reassignments which was necessary and relevant 

to the performance of the Complainant's representational 

function. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,

A/SLMR No. 1045)

35 28 40 Failure to Meet Obligations Under National Consultation 

Rights

Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order 

by refusing to consult about procedures implementing a 

change in policy and impact thereof, after Complainant 

learned of change and requested consultation pursuant 

to its national consultation rights. (Secretary of the 

Navy, A/SLMR No. 924)

Where Respondent implemented a new policy on contracting 

out without notice to Complainant, which had national 

consultation rights, A/S found Activity violated Section 

19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order as failure to give notice 

precluded Complainant from having a reasonable opportunity 

to comment on the proposed change. (Secretary of the 

Navy, A/SLMR No. 924)

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information (Cont*d)

6-30-78 93
35 32 00

35 28 40 Failure to Meet Obligations Under National Consultation 

Rights (Cont'dj

Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the 

Order by failing to afford Complainant, which had national 

consultation rights, opportunity to consult in person 

and to present its view thereon in writing. (Secretary 

of the Navy, A/SLMR No. 924)

A/S found that Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) 

of the Order when it failed to give notice to the 

Complainant of a nationwide consolidation of services 

policy, a substantive personnel policy within meaning of 

FLRC Regs which deprived the Complainant of its right to 

comment on the proposed policy. (Dept, of the Navy,

Office of Civilian Personnel, A/SLMR No. 1012)

A/S found that Respondent violated Section 19(a)(1) and

(6) when it failed to give notice to the Complainant of 

a nationwide consolidation of services policy, a substantive 

personnel policy within meaning of FLRC Regs , which 

deprived the Complainant of the opportunity to consult 

about the impact and implementing procedures to the 

policy. (Dept, of the Navy, Office of Civilian Personnel, 

A/SLMR No. 1012)

35 32 00 Section 19 (d)

A/S adopted ALJ's recommendation that Section 19(d) did 

not bar complaint, under particular circumstances of 

the case. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Va.,

A/SLMR No. 968)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that the complaint was not 

barred by Section 19(d) as the issue of the request for 

information was not litigated under the grievance 

proceeding. (IRS and IRS, Atlanta District Office, A/SLMR 

No. 975)

A/S adopted ALJ's rejection of Respondent's contention 

that the complaint was barred by Section 19(d) as the 

grievances involved were filed by employees concerning 

their rights rather than by the Complainant in its 

institutional capacity. He also adopted the ALJ's finding 

of a violation based on the unilateral alteration of the 

method of selecting samples of work product of unit 

employees for quality review purposes without notifying 

and affording the exclusive representative the opportunity 

to bargain over impact and procedures. (IRS, Fresno 

Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 983)

A/s found that the consideration of the issue of employee's 

termination under the unfair labor practice procedures of 

the Order was not precluded by Section 19(d) of the Order

94 6-30-78
since the only "appeals" procedures available to employee 

did not provide for third-party review of the Respondent's 

action. (VA., Chicago Veterans Hospital, N.Chicago, 111., 

A/SLMR No. 1024)

35 32 00

35 32 00 Section 19(d) (Cont'd)

95

6-30-78

40 40 00 General

A/S, contrary to ALJ's finding of a v i o l a t i o n by the 

local of the exclusive representative, found that procedural 

due process precluded construing a complaint so b roadly as 

to include as p a rty respondents components of national 

labor organizations not named in the complaint. A/S 

also dismissed v iolations found b y ALJ based on incidents 

not set forth in the complaint. (PATCO, MEBA, AFL-CIO,

A / S L M R No. 878)

A/s found conduct by representatives of Respondent Union on 

June 25 and 29, 1975, to be v iolative of Section 19(b)

(1) and (3) of the Order, where the evidence, including 

events o ccurring both before and after the incidents 

in question, showed a pattern of h indering of coercing the 

C o m p l a i n a n t for the purpose of impeding his w o r k performance 

and the threat of such, w h ich interfered with his protected 

right to r efrain from assisting a labor organization. (PATCO,

MEBA, AFL-CIO, A / S L M R No. 878)

R espondent U n i o n did not v iolate Section 19(b) (1) of the 

O rder w h e n it's president refused to process Complainant's 

grievances. A/S n oted that an exclusive representative's 

respon s i b i l i t y to fairly represent unit employees in the 

processing of grievances under a negotiated procedure does 

not provide such employees with an absolute right to have 

each and every grievance processed on their behalf by the 

labor organization. Rather, the exclusive representative 

m u s t be allowed full play to exercise its own discretion 

and judgment to, among other things, prevent frivolous 

grievances, protect the integrity of the union, and provide 

c o n s i stency in the treatment of grievances. The duty of fair 

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n is b reached only w h e n the exclusive representative's 

conduct is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. A/S 

found that the Complainant ha d failed to establish that the 

R espondent U n i o n was arbitrary, discriminatory or acting in 

bad faith. He also found that the Respondent Union had acted 

in a m a n n e r consistent with its contractual responsibilities 

and did not prevent the Complainant from processing his 

grievances o n his own behalf. (Local Rl-57, NAGE, A / S L M R 

No. 896)

A/ S noted in adopting ALJ's dismissal of Section 19(b) (1) and 

S ection 19(c) allegations of undemocratic and improper internal 

u n i o n procedures that such allegations should m ore appropriately 

h ave b e e n raised under Section 204 procedures rather than ULP 

procedures as they involved Standards of conduct for labor 

organizations. (IBEW, Local 2301, A / S L M R No. 954)

40 40 00

00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICIES; LABOR ORGANIZATION

6-30-78 97
40 16 00

40 08 00 Section 19(b)(1)

R espondent U nion did not vi o l a t e Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Order by refusing to a l l o w Complainant and other employees 

of Activity, who were not m embers of the labor organization 

to participate in pool on a proposal to change certain 

employee w o r k schedules. In this regard, it was n oted that 

w hile Section 10(e) of the Order guarantees to all unit 

employees the right to be fairly represented, where, as 

here the action of the labor organization is not arbitrary, 

discriminatory or in bad faith, the labor organization 

has broad latitude in fulfilling its representational 

obligations. (MEBA, AFL-CIO, Local 301, Aurora, 111.,

A / S L M R No. 918)

A/S adopted ALJ's dismissal on their merits of allegations 

that Local violated a member's Section 18 rights by 

disciplining h i m and taking other action against h i m 

designed to prevent h i m from exercising his rights under 

EG, noting that such charges should mor e properly have 

been raised under Sectipn 204 of A/S Regs. A/S also adopted ALJ's 

conclusion that as the suspension was, in fact, voided dues 

deductions were not continued improperly. (IBEW,

Local 2301, A /SLMR No. 954)

40 12 00 Section 19(b)(2) 

No Entries 

40 16 00 Section 19(b)(3)

A/S found conduct by representatives of Respondent Union 

on June 25 and 29, 1975, violative of Section 19(b)(1) and 

(3) of the Order, where the evidence, including events both 

prior to and after the incidents in questions, established 

that the Complainant was a m e mber of the Respondent during 

the critical period and that the Respondent coerced, or 

attempted to coerce, the Complainant for the purpose of 

hindering or impeding his w o r k performance. A/S noted that 

he did not v i e w the proscription of Section 19(b)(3) as 

being limited strictly to situations involving internal 

union discipline, but rather as expressing a specific concern 

to protect members of labor organization from any type of 

coercion by the organization. (PATCO, MEBA, AFL-CIO,

A/SLMR No. 878)

98 6-30-78
40 32 00

A/S, in agreement w i t h ALJ, found that the Respondent 

U n i o n v iolated Section 19(b)(4) w h e n it condoned and 

e ncouraged employees to w ithhold their services and failed 

to fulfill its affirmative duty to prevent such conduct.

(AFGE, Local 3496, A / S L M R No. 864)

A/S found that Respondent Union's informational picketing 

did not vi o l a t e Section 19(b)(4). He defined permissible 

informational picketing in Federal Sector laborm a n a g e m e n t disputes as that w h ich is directed at the 

general public, including organized labor groups, and 

w h i c h does not interfere or reasonably threaten to 

interfere w i t h the operation of the affected Government 

agency. He also found that Complainant Activity's functions 

were not so crucial and sensitive to justify an absolute ban 

against all labor-management dispute picketing at the Norfolk 

Naval Shipyard. (Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees MTC, 

A / S L M R No. 867)

40 24 00 Se ction 19(b)(5)

No Entries

40 28 00 S ection 19(b)(6)

A/S found, in agreement w ith ALJ, that the union's absence 

from four ne g o t i a t i n g sessions did not constitute a 

v i o l a t i o n of Section 19(b)(6) of the Order. The A/S 

n o t e d that, w hile the u nion team did not appear at the 

four ne g o t i a t i n g sessions, its Chief Negotiator continued 

to communicate w i t h his Act i v i t y counterpart in an 

attempt to gain favorable arrangement in regard to his 

team's exhausted official time. (AFGE, Local 2578 and 

National Archives and Records Service, A / SLMR No. 965)

40 32 00 Section 19(c)

A/S adopted ALJ's dismissal on mootness of alleged 

Section 19(c) v i o l a t i o n as suspension taken against member 

by Local was v o i d e d upon the m ember's appeal to the 

International. (IBEW, Local 2301, A / S L M R No. 954)

40 20 00 Section 19(b)(4)

6-30-78 99

^5 04 00 N o t i f i c a t i o n and Disse m i n a t i o n of Remedies

A/S found contrary to the AL J that the remedial notices 

should be posted throughout the Respondent's Midwest Region 

rather than only at the regional headquarters, as the 

v i o l a t i o n involved the failure to notify the President of 

the Complainant's Local regarding a formal discussion, and 

the Complainant's local acts as the agent for the Complainant 

in the region. Therefore, a posting coextensive with the 

C o m p lainant's jurisdiction was considered appropriate. 

(Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 

Firearms, M idwest Region, Chicago, 111., A / S L M R No. 1070)

45 08 00 A dvice of Compliance

N o Entries

45 10 00 M o d i f i c a t i o n to Orders

No Entries

45 12 00 R emedies for Improper Rules, Regulations and Orders

N o Entries

45 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct

45 16 04 Interference, Solicitation or Distribution of Literature

A c t i v i t y ordered to cease and desist from interrogating 

its employees as to the relationship between their work 

p erformance and their activities on behalf of, or their 

a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h any labor organization. (IRS, Detroit 

D ata Center, Mich-, A / S L M R No. 862)

A c t i v i t y ordered to cease and desist from interfering, 

restraining, or coercing any employee in the exercise 

of his right to join a labor organization. (Marine 

Corp. E xchange 8-2, El Toro, Calif., A / S L M R No. 865)

R espondent ordered to cease and desist from preventing a 

steward from presenting and processing grievances and 

otherwise carrying out lawful duties as a steward or 

representative of a labor organization, by physical force, 

b y v erbal abuse, or be demeaning and/or disdainful 

treatment. (Ozark-Saint Francis Nat'l Forests, Russellville, 

Ark., A / S L M R No. 977)

45 16 04

^5 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

6-30-78 101
45 16 08

102

45 16 04 Interference, Solicitation or D i s t r ibution of Literature 

(Cont*d)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from critizing, 

or taking adverse actions against an employee for the 

filing or processing of grievances pursuant to the terms 

of a negot i a t e d agreement. (Ozark-Saint Francis Nat'l 

Forests, Russellville, Ark., A / S L M R No. 977)

A ctivity ordered to cease and desist inserting any remark 

or comment in any appraisal regarding the union activities 

of any employee. (IRS, Memphis Service Cntr., A/SLMR 

No. 989)

Acti v i t y ordered to cease and desist from ma king disparaging 

remarks to representatives of exclusive representative in 

the presence of other employees and otherwise interfering 

with, restraining or coercing its employees in the 

exercise of their rights assured by the Order. (Mare 

Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif., A / S L M R No. 1026)

45 16 08 Discrimination

Activity ordered to reappraise the Complainant's work 

performance as of August 1976, without any consideration 

or reliance on her union activities, including letters 

written on behalf of a labor o r g a n ization to members of 

the Congress. In the event that such a n e w appraisal 

results in the Complainant receiving a higher promotional 

rating than that accorded to the eight individuals 

promoted pursuant to the August 1976, priority register, 

then, to the extent consonant with applicable law and 

regulations, the Respondent is ordered to promote 

the Complainant and make he r w h ole for any loss of back 

wages. (HUD, Milwaukee Are a Office, Milwaukee, Wise., 

A / S L M R No. 925)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from discharging 

or otherwise discriminating against employees because 

they filed a complaint, have a complaint filed on their 

behalf, or have given testimony u n der the Order. (VA., 

Chicago Veterans Hospital, N.Chicago, 111., A /SLMR No.

1024)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist discharging or 

otherwise discriminating against employees with regard to 

hiring, tenure, promotion, or other conditions of employment, in order to discourage membership in, or activities 

on behalf of a labor organization. (VA , Chicago Veterans 

Hospital, N. Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 1024)

45 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct

6-30-78
45 16 12 A s s i s t i n g a Labor Organi z a t i o n 

No Entries

45 16 16 Refusal to A c c o r d A p p r o priate Recognition 

No Entries

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from instituting 

a change in p olicy w ith respect to the m anner of w e a ring 

the u t i l i t y u n i f o r m by employees of the Pennsylvania 

Ai r Nati o n a l Guard w ithout notifying the exclusive 

r e p r esentative of the employees, and affording such 

repres e n t a t i v e the opportunity to mee t and confer on the 

deci s i o n to effectuate such change. (Pennsylvania ANG, 

A / S L M R No. 866)

Respon d e n t A g e n c y ordered to cease and desist from 

changing terms and conditions of employment at the Naval 

Ai r R e w o r k Facility, Pensacola, Florida, by directing 

the Naval Air Rework Facility, Pensacola, Florida,to 

di s c o ntinue payment of environmental differential pay 

ma d e pursuant to the arbitration awards of October 4, 1972, 

and October 25, 1972, rendered under the negotiated 

agreement be t w e e n the Naval Ai r R ework Facility, Pensacola, 

Florida, and the AFGE, AFL-CIO, Local 1960. (Naval 

Air R e w o r k Facility, Pensacola, F lorida and Secretary 

of the Navy, Washington, D.C., A / S L M R No. 873)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from failing to 

m e e t and confer on m e t h o d of selection of Equal Employment 

O p p o r t u n i t y Counselors. Respondent further ordered to 

mee t and confer on m e t h o d of selection, re-evaluate all 

applicants for the Counselor positions and fill the 

positions in accordance with any ^ r e e d u pon m e t h o d of 

selection. (SSA, DHEW, W i l k es-Barre Operations Branch, 

Wilkes-Barre, Pa., A / S L M R N o . 889)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from reinstituting 

security restrictions without notifying the exclusive 

bargaining representative and affording it a reasonable 

o p p o r tunity to m eet and confer on the procedures to be 

observed in implementing such change, and on the impact 

the change will have on adversely affected employees.

(IRS, Indianapolis, Ind., A / S L M R No. 909)

Respondent ordered to meet and confer, upon request, with 

Complainant concerning impact of change in testing 

procedure on adversely affected employees. (Jacksonville 

District, IRS, Jacksonville, Fla., A / S L M R No. 893)

45 16 20

‘-30-78
Respondent A c t i v i t y ordered to cease and desist from 

unil a t e r a l l y implementing m atters which have b e e n 

bargained to impasse during collective b a r gaining 

negotiations and w h ich have b een submitted to the FSIP, 

until the processes of the FSIP have been allowed to 

run their course. (Warner Robins A ir Logistics Cntr.,

G a . , A / S L M R No. 912)

Respondent A g e n c y ordered to cease and desist from 

u nilaterally taking further RIF actions pursuant to 

regulation and rescind that regulation and upon request 

m eet and confer with exclusive representative regarding 

n e w RIF procedures. (Community Services Administration, 

A/ S L M R No. 913)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 76A-101 and rationale therein, A/S 

mod i f i e d his remedy In A / S L M R No. 679, ordering that 

Respondent cease and desist from changing the composition 

of a particular competitive area for reduction-in-force 

without notifying Complainant of the decision to remove 

employees not represented b y Complainant from the 

competitive area and affording Complainant an opportunity, 

upo n request, to negotiate concerning the impact of 

such removal of any remaining employees ^ o are in the 

bargaining units represented by Complainant. Further,

A/s deleted requirement that Respondent rescind its 

command letter m odifying various competitive areas 

for reduction-in-force, insofar as the subject competitive 

area was affected. (U.S. A r m y Electronics Command,

Ft. Monmouth, N.J., A / S L M R No. 919)

Respondent ordered to meet and confer wit h Union concerning 

the impact of its 1976 furlough policy on adversely 

affected unit employees, and following those negotiations, 

Respondent will mak e whole any employee who was determined 

to have been adversely affected by Respondent's failure 

to meet arid confer concerning its n e w furlough policy of 

1976. (iRS, Jacksonville District, A / S L M R No. 953)

Respondent A ctivity ordered to cease and desist from 

refusing to negotiate specific personnel policies within 

the ambit of Section 11(a) during pendency of consolidation 

of unit peition. (SSA, Bureau of Field Operations,

Region V-A, Chicago, 111., A / S L M R No. 963)

A/s ordered the Respondent to permit the Complainant 

access to such documents and materials as are necessary 

and relevant to the Complainant's processing of a grievance 

regarding a selection process. (iRS, Milwaukee District, 

Milwaukee, Wise., A / S L M R No. 974)

45 16 20

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate (Cont'd)

l04 6-30-78
A/S ordered that the Respondent cease and desist from 

w i t h h o l d i n g or failing to provide information relevant 

and n e c e s s a r y to the processing of a grievance by the 

e xclusive representative. R espondent also ordered 

u p o n request to m a k e available all relevant and n e c e s s ­

ary information. (IRS, and IRS, Atlanta District Office, 

A / S L M R No. 975)

Due to i n s u f ficiency of the record to establish successo r s h i p after a reorganization, the A/S found contrary 

to the ALJ, that issuance of a bargaining order in this 

m a t t e r r unning to the Complainants w o uld be inappropriate 

u ntil such time that a final determination m a y be made 

in any subsequent proceeding that there is successorship 

and the Complainants still represent the employees 

involved, and ordered the A ctivity to bargain on the 

dec i s i o n to change competitive areas if such successorship is established. (Picatinny Arsenal and the Project 

M a n a g e r for N uclear Munitions, Dover, N.J., A / S L M R 

No. 981)

A c t i v i t y ordered to cease and desist from instituting 

changes in the system used for r eview of the quality 

of the w o r k of its employees without first notifying 

and affording the exclusive representative the opportunity 

to m eet and confer, to the extent consonant w ith law and 

regs., on the impact and procedures, and, upon, request, 

to m e e t and confer concerning such quality r e v i e w system. 

(IRS, Frenso Service Cntr., A / S L M R No. 983)

A/S in finding that Respondent viol a t e d Section 19(a)

(1) and (6 ) of the E.O. by failing to afford the Union 

o pportunity to n egotiate over the implementation and 

impact of a decision changing an existing practice found, 

u n d e r the particular circumstances of the case, and noting 

that Respon d e n t still allowed some employees to perform 

their duties u nder the prior practice, that a status quo 

ante remedy was appropriate for the type of conduct 

found violative. (IRS, N e w Orleans Dist., A / S L M R No. 995)

A c t i v i t y ordered to reimburse each of the affected 

employees all monies withheld from them since November 1, 

1970, by r eason of its refusal to pay the environmental 

differential for "high work" authorized pursuant to a 

grievance settlement agreement. (GSA, Region 3, A / S L M R 

No. 996)

45 16 20

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate (Cont'd)

6-30-78 105
A/s ordered that the A ctivity disestablish the Annapolis 

Field Office Safety Committee and to mee t and confer 

prior to the establishment of a n e w committee wh i c h 

includes unit members. (EPA, Region III, A / S L M R No. 997)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from refusing to 

furnish upo n request by the Complainant, such information 

as is neces s a r y and relevant to enable it to perform its 

duties. (EPA, R egion III, A / S L M R No. 999)

A ctivity ordered to cease and desist from instituting a 

RIF involving any adversely affected employee represented 

exclusively by Complainant without notifying Complainant 

and affording it the opportunity to meet and confer to the 

extent consonant with law and regulation, concerning the 

implementation of such procedures and its impact on 

adversely affected employees. (EPA, Region III, A/SLMR 

No. 999)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from withholding or 

failing to provide, upon request by the Complainant a 

summary of statistical data submitted to the CSC for each 

position at each office or facility of the Respondent to 

which a test application was made. (IRS, A / S L M R No. 1001)

Respondent ordered to meet and confer on procedures to be 

used in implementing a reassignment of unit employees and 

on the impact such reassignment would have on adversely 

affected employees. (IRS, Greensboro District Office,

A / S L M R No. 1007)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from relocating unit 

employees without first notifying the exclusive representative of its employees, and affording it a reasonable 

opportunity to meet and confer, to the extent consonant with 

law and regulations, on the procedures to be used in 

effectuating the decision to relocate and on the impact 

such decision will have on employees adversely affected 

by such action. (Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission, A /SLMR No. 1017)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from unilaterally 

altering or changing the established past practice of 

allowing officers and stewards of the exclusive representative of its employees, or any other exclusive representative, 

the use of Activity typewriters, and the nonduty-time 

assistance of certain Activity personnel, for the purpose 

of typing grievances or other u nion communications 

incident to its representational obligations, and consonant

45 16 20

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate (Cont'd)

106 6-30-78
6-30-78

w i t h the provisions of Section 20 of the Order and the 

regulations of appropriate authorities, without first 

b argaining in good faith with the exclusive representative. 

(IRS, N e w Orleans District, N e w Orleans, La., A / S L M R 

No. 1034)

Respondent ordered to mee t and confer on the procedures 

o bserved in r eaching decision as to who was subject to 

the reassignments announced, and the impact they h ad on 

a dve r s e l y affected employees, including if any agreement 

is reached, the r eturn of any reassigned employees.

(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, A / S L M R No. 1045)

A c t i v i t y ordered to rescind retroactively an order 

concerning parking and traffic, where such order was found 

to h ave been a "matter affecting working conditions" under 

S ection 11(a) of the EO, and where Complainant had not 

previously been afforded the opportunity to consult, 

confer, or n egotiate w ith the Activity over its issuance. 

(FAA A e r o n autical Cntr., Oklahoma City, Okla., A / S L M R No. 

1047)

Respondent order to cease and desist from withholding or 

failing to provide, u pon request by the Complainant, any 

information bearing on the reassignment of employees 

a nnounced in September 1 9 7 6 . (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 

and Firearms, A / S L M R No. 1045)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from changing, after 

the expira t i o n of the parties' negotiated agreement, 

e xisting p ersonnel policies and practices and matters 

a ffecting w orking conditions w ithin the ambit of Section 11 

(a) of the EO. Respondent further ordered to direct its 

P uerto Rico Office, and any of its other facilities where 

unit employees are employed, to process, upon appropriate 

request, any grievance under the parties' negotiated 

p rocedure in which past refusal to do so was predicated 

u pon the expiration of the parties' negotiated agreement. 

(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, A / S L M R No. 1049)

45 16 20

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate (Cont'd)

Respondent ordered to restore, to the extent consonant 

w ith law and regulations, all privileges and benefits, 

including annual leave, denied due to unilateral changes 

in existing personnel policies and practices and matters 

affecting wor k i n g conditions w ithin the ambit of Section 

11(a) of EO at the expiration of the parties' negotiated 

agreement. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 

A / S L M R No. 1049)

107
A/s, in a supplemental decision, m o d i f i e d his order and 

notice in A / S L M R No. 806 based on the rationale set forth 

by the Council in FLRC N o.77A-40 in w h i c h the Council 

rejected the A/S's rationale wit h respect the affect on 

. , terms and conditions of employment of the expiration of a

negotiated agreement. (IRS, O gden Service Cntr., and IRS 

et a l . , A / S L M R No. 1052)

A/S, in a supplemental decision, m o d i f i e d his order and 

notice in A / S L M R No. 859 to c onform to the principles set 

forth by the Council in FLRC No. 77A-92, in which the 

Council rejected the A/S's rationale and not the decision. 

(IRS, Brookhaven Service Cntr., A / S L M R No. 1053)

Respondent ordered to (1) cease and desist from changing 

terms and conditions of employment b y increasing employee 

parking permit fees and to rescind, in writing, the increase 

in employee parking permit fees uni l a t e r a l l y implemented;

(2) meet and confer on the increase in parking permit fees 

and not implement any further increase unless such 

implementation is agreed to by the parties; (3) and make 

whole to the extent consistent with applicable law and 

regulations, employees adversely affected by the unilateral 

increase in parking permit fees. (FAA, Metropolitan 

Washington Airport Service, Dulles International Airport; 

and Director, ^ t c o p o l i t a n W a s h i n g t o n Airport, FAA, A/SLMR 

No. 1062)

' ■ Activity ordered to cease and desist from engaging in

formal discussions w i t h unit employees concerning the impact 

of a change in the method and means by w h ich its operations 

are performed on general working conditions without 

affording the exclusive representative an opportunity to 

be present. (Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco and Firearms, Midwest Region, Chicago, Illinois, 

A /SLMR No. 1070.)

45 16 24 Failure to Cooperate

A/s ordered that the Respondent, upo n request, permit the 

Complainant access to such documents and materials as 

are necessary and relevant to the Complainant's processing 

of a grievance regarding the selection process of a GS-4 

Accounting Aide \acancy (IRS, Chicago Dist. Office,

A / S L M R No. 1004)

45 16 24

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate (Cont'd)

108 6-30-78
50 00 00 R E M E D I A L ORDERS A G A I N S T L A B O R ORGANIZATIONS; U N F A I R 

L A B O R PRACTICES

50 04 00 N o t i f i c a t i o n and D i s s e m i n a t i o n of Remedies

A/S required Respondent U n ion to m ail a copy of remedial 

notice to each of its mem b e r s at h is last k n o w n home 

address. (AFGE, Local 3486, A / S L M R No. 864)

50 08 00 A d v i c e of Compliance

N o Entries

50 12 00 Rem e d i e s for Improper Rules, Regulations and Orders

No Entries

50 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct

50 16 04 Interference

Respo n d e n t ordered to cease and desist from interrogating 

employees wh o invoke the negotiated grievance ma c h i n e r y 

concerning their m o t i v a t i o n for filing grievances and 

indicating what actions will be taken if such grievances 

are pursued. (FAA, Ai r Traffic Control Tower, Greater 

Pittsb u r g h Airport, A / S L M R No. 920)

50 16 08 Harass m e n t of Employee in Performance of Duties

A/ S ordered Respondent U n i o n to cease and desist from 

coercing, or attempting to coerce any m e m b e r of its 

organization, for the purpose of h indering or impeding 

their w o r k performance, their productivity, or the discharge 

of their dues owed to as an employee of the U.S. (PATCO, 

MEBA, AFL-CIO, A / S L M R No. 878)

50 16 12 Inducing Management to Coerce an Employee

No Entries

50 16 16 Strike A c t i v i t y

A/S ordered Respondent Union to cease and desist from 

encouraging or engaging in a w o r k stoppage and to cease 

and desist from condoning and such activity by the 

failure to take affirmative action to prevent or stop it. 

(AFGE, Local 3486, A / S L M R No. 864)

50 16 20 Discrimination

No Entries

50 16 20

6-30-78
50 16 24 Failure to C o n s u l t , Confer or Negotiate 

No Entries 

50 16 28 Denial of M e mbership 

N o Entries

50 16 28

110 6-30-78
55 04 00 Effect on R e p r e s e n t a t i o n and Unfair L a bor Practice Cases

A /S noted, in adopting ALJ's dismissal of Section 19(b)(1) 

and 19(c) allegations on their merits, that the allegations 

should m ore p roperly hav e bee n raised under Section 

204 of the A/S Regs , as they involved Standards of 

Conduct for labor organizations. (IBEW, Local 2301,

A / S L M R No. 954)

55 08 00 Pr o c e d u r e

55 08 04 J u r i s d i c t i o n

A/S dismissed the allegation that the Respondent labor 

orga n i z a t i o n ha d v iolated Section 204.2 of the A/S 

Regs b y its failure to conduct an annual election of 

delegates to the National Capital A rea Department of 

A FGE in April, 1976, as required by the Respondent's 

c o n s t itution and bylaws, because the m atter was not due 

to the conduct of an election of delegates in June, 1977, 

u n der the provision of a n e wly amended constitution and 

bylaws, and because such an allegation should properly 

h ave b e e n brought under Section 204.29 of the A/S Regs , 

E l e c t i o n of Officers, rather than under Section 204.2 

of the A/S Regs , (AFGE, Local 32, A / S L M R No. 1009)

55 08 08 Bill of Rights

No Entries

55 08 12 Elections

N o Entries

55 12 00 Bill of Rights

55 12 04 Equal Rights

A/ S concluded that the refusal of the Respondent's 

local president to recognize motions properly made 

at m e m b e r s h i p meetings and to accept the report from 

the investigative committee established at a special 

m e e t i n g viol a t e d members' rights under Section 204.2 

(a)(1) and (2) of the A/S Regs, to participate in 

mee t i n g s and to express their views u pon any business 

properly before the meetings. (AFGE, Local 32, A/S L M R 

No. 1009)

55 12 04

55 00 00 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

6-30-78 111
55 16 08

A/S concluded that the refusal of the Respondent's local 

president to recognize m otions properly made a membership 

m eetings and to accept the report from the investigative 

committee established at a special m eeting violated members' 

rights under Section 204.2 (a)(1) and (2) of the A/S Regs , 

to participate in m eetings and to express their views upon 

any business properly before the meetings. (AFGE, Local 32, 

A / S L M R No. 1009)

A/S hel d that m e m b e r s ' rights of free speech guaranteed by 

Section 204.2(a)(2) of the A/S Regs , were violated by 

threats contained in a report of the Respondent's Executive 

Council w h ich indicated that continued "unauthorized" 

activity in connection wit h attempts to bring charges 

against certain local officers could be the basis for 

expulsion. (AFGE, Local 32, A / S L M R No. 1009)

55 12 12 Dues, Initiation Fees and Assessments 

No Entries

55 12 16 Protection of the Right to Sue 

No Entries

55 12 20 Safeguards against Improper Disciplinary Action 

No Entries 

55 00 00 Standards of Conduct

55 16 00 Failure to File Financial and Other Reports

55 16 04 General

A/S adopts ALJ's recommendation that Respondent be directed to 

file certain financial disclosure reports required by Section 

18(c) of the Order. (NAGE, Local 12-69-R, A / S L M R No. 1059)

55 16 08 Procedure

A/S adopted ALJ's finding, that allegations in complaint 

were true, based on Respondent's failure to appear at 

scheduled hearing, and on the basis of evidence introduced by Complainant at the hearing. (NAGE, Local 

12-69-R, A / S L M R No. 1059)

55 12 08 Freedom of Speech

112 6-30-78
55 16 12

55 16 12 Remedial Orders

Labor O r g a n i z a t i o n ordered to cease and desist from 

failing to file financial disclosure reports, and 

affi r m a t i v e l y ordered to file delinquent reports at 

issue and all similar reports as they become due in 

the future. (NAGE, Local 12-69-R, A / S L M R No. 1059)

In light of Respondent's repeated failure to comply with 

E O procedures, A/S notes that under Section 204.92 of 

A/S Regs , h e could order cancellation of dues deduction, 

w i t h d r a w a l of r e c o g nition or refer case to the FLRC upon 

failure to c omply w i t h remedial orders. (NAGE, Local 

12-69-R, A / S L M R No. 1059)

6-30-78

60 GO 00 G R I E V A B I L I T Y A N D ARBITRA B I L I T Y 

60 04 00 General

A/S agreed w i t h the AL J that the Applicant's request for 

advisory a r b i t ration in the instant m a t t e r ha d been 

u n t i m e l y submitted to the Activity. (IRS, Greensboro, N.C., 

A / S L M R No. 874)

A/S's d e c i s i o n in A / S L M R No. 749 was reversed by the 

Council w h e r e the Council in further clarification of its 

Crane dec i s i o n d etermined that the dispute was over a 

m a t t e r w i t h i n the scope of the negoti a t e d procedure and 

should be r esolved by an arbitrator. (Community Services 

Admin., FLR C No. 76A-149. A / S L M R No. 921)

AL J found that grievance filed by two unit members concerning 

the proced u r e s u sed in the selection of an Aircraft Mechanic 

F o r e m a n p o s i t i o n is not grievable or arbitrable. Noting 

p a r t i c u l a r l y absence of exceptions, A/S adopted the findings, 

conclusions and recommendations of ALJ. (Rhode Island NG, 

Providence, RI, A / S L M R No. 947)

A/S, in agreement w i t h the ALJ, found that the Respondent 

did not act in bad faith by denying Complainant's grievance 

and refu s i n g to proceed to arbitration on the m atter where 

the Respo n d e n t in good faith believed the grievance to have 

b e e n u n t i m e l y filed. Further, A/S n oted that the matter 

involved the interpretation and application of the negotiated 

agreement and that if the Complainant was of the v i e w that 

the grievance was arbitrable, it could seek a determination 

on a r b i trability from the A/S in accordance with Section 13 (d) 

of the order. (U.S. Army Materiel Dev. and Readiness

Comm., A / S L M R No. 1025)

A/ S adopted the ALJ's conclusion that an arbitrator m a y 

pro p e r l y decide, as a threshold question, whether the 

r equests for arbitration were timely filed w ithin the meaning 

of the parties' negotiated agreement. (Newark Air Force 

Station, A e r o s p a c e Guidance and M etrology Cntr., Newark,

Ohio, A / S L M R No. 1044)

60 08 00 13(a)

A/S agreed w i t h the ALJ that the grievance in this case, 

involving the Activity's awarding of "priority consideration" 

for first-line supervisory positions to two unit employees, 

was grievable and arbitrable under the parties' negotiated 

agreement. The ALJ concluded, and the A/S concurred, that 

the issue of whe t h e r provisions of the negotiated agreement 

are applicable to first-line supervisory positions involves 

a q uestion of interpretation and application of the negotiated

60 04 00

6-30-78

115
60 16 00

60 08 00 13(a) (Coat'd

agreement and, therefore, is grievable and arbitrable under 

the procedures of the agreement. The A/S further found 

that, should it be determined that the negotiated agreement 

is applicable to first-line supervisory positions, the 

extent to which the awarding of "priority consideration" 

for such positions m a y be inconsistent wit h any provision 

of the n egotiated agreement is also a m a tter involving 

interpretation and application of the agreement and is 

grievable and arbitrable under the agreement. (Defense 

Mapping A gency Hydrographic Cntr., A / S L M R No. 964)

60 12 00 13(b)

No Entries 

60 14 00 13(d)

Council reversed A/S's decision in A / S L M R No. 749, and 

found, in further clarification of its Crane decision, that 

where the m atter in dispute was over a m a t t e r within the 

scope of the negotiated grievance procedure, it should be 

resolved by an arbitrator. Council noted that its language 

in Crane was not intended to m e a n that the A/S m a y interpret 

the substantive provisions of an agreement in resolving a 

grievability question, but rather was intended that he 

decide such a question, w h e n the question was referred to 

him, just as an arbitrator w o uld where the p a r t i e s ' 

unilaterally agree to refer such threshold issue to the 

arbitrator. (Community Services Admin., FLRC No. 76A-149, 

A / S L M R No. 921)

60 16 00 13(d)

Noting particularly the absence of exceptions, the A/S 

agreed with the ALJ that the grievance filed by AFGE, Local 

2413, concerning the application of the agency's merit 

promotion policy in the selection of a first-line supervisor, 

was arbitrable under the parties' negotiated agreement. (VA 

Hospital, Boston, Mass., A / S L M R No. 931)

A/S agreed wit h the AL J that the grievance in this case, 

involving the Activity's awarding of "priority consideration" 

for first-line supervisory positions to two unit employees, 

was grievable and arbitrable u n der the parties' negotiated 

agreement. The ALJ concluded, and the A/S concurred, that 

the issue of whether provisions of the negotiated agreement 

are applicable to first-line supervisory positions involves 

a question of interpretation and application of the negotiated 

agreement and, therefore, is grievable and arbitrable under

116 6-30-78
60 16 00

60 16 00 13(d) (Cont'd)

the procedures of the agreement. The A/S further found 

that, should it be d etermined that the negotiated agreement 

is applicable to first-line supervisory positions, the 

extent to w h i c h the awarding of "priority consideration" 

for such positions m a y be inconsistent w ith any provisions 

of the negoti a t e d agreement is also a m a t t e r involving 

interpretation and application of the agreement and is 

grievable and arbitrable under the agreement. (Defense 

M a p p i n g A g e n c y Hydr o g r a p h i c Cntr., A / S L M R No. 964)

A/S adopts A LJ's finding that because a question over the 

f illing of s u p e r visory positions from outside the b a r g a i n ­

ing unit argu a b l y concerned the interpretation and 

a p p l i c a t i o n of the negoti a t e d agreement, the dispute was 

a m a t t e r w i t h i n the scope of the negotiated procedure and 

was t herefore g rievable and arbitrable, absent any prohibition 

in e i t h e r the Order or the parties agreement which would 

e x p r e s s l y p reclude the processing of such grievance.

(Marshall Space Flight Center, M arshall Space Flight 

Cntr., Ala., A / S L M R No. 1060)

6-30-78 117

ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF DECISIONS 

OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR 

FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS 

Jul y 1, 1977 - June 30, 1978

6-30-78

T ABLE OF DECISIONS OF THE A S S I S T A N T SECRETARY

A LP H A B E T I C A L L I S T I N G 1/

T ITLE A / S L M R N O ( s ) . 2/

Agriculture, Department of

A g r i c u l t u r a l Research Service 915

Ge o r g i a S.C. A r e a

F o r e s t Service

--- Cher o k e e Nat i o n a l Forest, 890

J acobs C r eek C i v i l i a n 

C o n s e r v a t i o n Cntr.

--- Q u a c h i t a N a t i o n a l Forest, 879

H o t Springs, Ark.

— O ffice of A u t o m a t e d D a t a Systems 950 

N e w Orleans C omputer Cntr.

— Ozark-St. F rancis N ational Forests 977 

Russellville, Ark.

— Plant P r o t e c t i o n & Quara n t i n e 1038 

Air Force, D e p a r t m e n t of

— Bille t i n g Fund of Charl e s t o n 936 

AFB, S.C.

— 15th Air Base Wing, 1011 

H i c k a m AFB, Haw a i i

— 439 2nd A e r o s p a c e Support Group 935 

Va n d e n b u r g AFB, Calif.

— G r i s s o m A F B 1057 

Peru, Ind.

}J To facilitate reference, listing in this Table contain only k e y words in 

the case title. For complete official case captions, see Numerical Table 

of Cases.

During the period covered by this Supplement, where the FLRC m odified or 

rem a n d e d an A/S decision, the case number of the original A/S decision 

(A/SLMR No., or, in the event of an u n p u b lished Request for Revi e w 

action, the A rea Office (AO) case number) is enclosed in parentheses, 

followed by the FLRC No. and by the A / S L M R No. of any subsequent A/S 

decision.

6-30-78

121
title A / S L M R N o ( s ),

Ai r Force, Department of (cont.)

— Hqs- 321st Combat Support Group 1069 

Grand Forks AFB, N.D.

— Hqs. 2750th Air Base W i n g 1043 

Wrig h t - P a t t e r s o n AFB, Ohio

— N e w a r k A F Station 1044 

Aerospace Guidance & Me t r o l o g y

Cntr., Ohio

— Scott AFB 892

— Systems Command

U.S. Air Force Regional Hospital 1023

Eglin AFB, Fla.

— 3245th Airbase Group 904

— W a rner Robins Air Logistics Ctr., 912 

Robins AFB, Ga. ; ■ ^

Alabama State Mili t a r y Department 1008

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO

— Local 32 > 1009

— Local 3486 864

— Local 2578 965 

Army, Department of

— A r m y Materiel Development and 1025 

Readiness Command

— Chemical Systems Laboratory Support 1029 

Aber d e e n Proving Ground, Md.

— 89th Army Reserve C o m m a n d , 901 

Wichita, Kan.

— Europe, and Seventh Arm y and 1006 

A r m y and Air Force Exchange Service,

Europe

122 6-30-78
— Hqs., U.S. A r m y Materiel Deve l o p m e n t 

and Readiness Command

— Hqs., U.S. Q u a r t ermaster Cntr.

Ft. L e e K enner Hos p i t a l ’

— Fort

--- McPherson, Ga.

--- Monmouth, Elec t r o n i c s

C o m m a n d , N.J.

— - Richardson, Alaska,

D i r e c t o r a t e of F a c i l i t y Engineers

— M i l i t a r y Dis t r i c t of W a s h i n g t o n 

Fort Myer, Va.

— M i l i t a r y Tr a f f i c Mgmt. Command,

M i l i t a r y O c e a n Terminal,

Sunny Poi n t

— M i s s i l e M a t e r i e l Readiness Command 

Reds t o n e Arsenal, Ala.

and

M i s s i l e R e s e a r c h and D e v e l opment CooDnand 

R ed s t o n e Arsenal, Ala.

— M o r t u a r y

O a k l a n d A r m y Base, Calif.

— N o n - A p p r o p r i a t e d F und Activity, Hdqtrs., 

24th Infantry Div.,

Fort Stewart, Ga.

— P i c a t i n n y A rsenal and the Project 

M a n a g e r for Nuc l e a r M u n itions 

Dover, N.J.

— R o c k y M o u n t a i n A r s enal 

D e n v e r , Colo •

— Shep p a r d Technical T r a i n i n g Cntr., 

3 750th Ai r Base Group

S heppard AFB, Tex.

TITLE

Department of (cont.)

944

1058

A/SLMR Ho (s).

1005

919

946

973

877

956

1050

899

981

933

1000

6-30-78 123
A r m y and Air Force Exchange Service 

Sheppard AFB, Tex.

C o m m e r c e , Department of

— Economic Development A d ministration 

Austin, Tex.

National Ocean Survey, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ r a t i o n

Electronics Engineering 

Division, Pacific Marine Ctr.

Seattle, Wash.

--- National W eather Service,

Central, W e s t e r n and 

Southern Regions

Coast Guard Support Ctr.

Portsmouth, Va.

Commission on Civil Rights 

Washington, D.C.

Community Services A d ministration

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Philadelphia Area Office

Court of Military Appeals 

Washington, D. C.

Defense, Department of

— Air Force, Department of (See: Air Force)

— Defense Mapping Agency 

Hydrographic Cntr.

TITLE

Army, Department of (cont.)

A/SLMR No(s)

1063

898

934

910, 959

986

869

913, 921

1037

1041

964

124

6-30-78
— Defense Contract Administration Services 

Regi o n

--- Atlanta, Ga. 941

--- Boston, Mass. 905

--- Cleveland, Ohio 932

--- Cleveland, Ohio, Columbus, Ohio

and Akron, Ohio 884

--- Los Angeles, Calif. 923, 958

--- San Francisco, Calif. 885

--- San Francisco, Calif, and 886

Salt Lake City

--- San Francisco, Calif, and

Seattle, Wash. 887

— Dependent Schools, Europe 903, 922 

Environmental Protec t i o n A g e n c y 875

-- R e g i o n III 997, 999

— Rese a r c h Labo r a t o r y

Narragansett, R.I. 1071

— Rese a r c h Triangle Park, N.C. 943 

Equal Employment O p p o r tunity Commission 900 

Fort (See: Army, and A r m y and A i r Force)

General Services Adm i n i s t r a t i o n

— Archives & Records 1055 

Washington, D. C.

— Personnel Records Cntr., 881 

St. Louis, Mo.

— R e g i o n 2 916

TITLE A/SLMR No(s).

6-30-78 125
— Region III, Federal Protective 

Service Div.

— Region III 

Washington, D.C.

— R e g i o n IV

— Regional Office 

Re g i o n IV

— R egion IV 

Atlanta, Ga.

— R egion IX 

Calif.

— R egion X 

Auburn, Wash.

Health Education and Welfare,

Department of

— Northeastern P rogram Cntr.

— Public Health Service 

Hospital, San Francisco, Calif.

— Social Security Administration

--- Branch Office

Angleton, Tex.

--- Bureau of Retirement & Survivors

Insurance, Northeastern Pr o g r a m Cntr.

--- Bureau of Field Operations,

Chicago Region V-A,

Office of Program Operations

--- Bureau of Hearings and Appeals

TITLE

General Services Administration (cont.)

--- Wilkes-Barre Operations Branch

Wilkes-Barre, Pa.

948

996

911

928

1067

1056

985

A/SLMR No(s)

1036

894

982

957, 984, 1022

876, 963

882, 945, 960, 979, 1028, 1040

889

126 6-30-78
H o u s i n g and U rban Development,

D epart m e n t of

— Los Angeles Area Office 891

— Milwa u k e e Are a Office 925 

Milwaukee, Wise.

Interior, Department of

— Government C ontroller for G u a m 1002 

T rust Territory of the Pacific

Islands

Interior, Department of Land

Management, R iverside District 906

Office and Desert Plan Staff,

Riverside, Calif.

— O utdoor Recrea t i o n 1032 

Federal Bldg.

A n n Arbor, Mich.

International Brotherhood of 

E lectrical Workers

— Local 2301 954 

Internal Revenue Service (See: Treasury)

Justice, Department of

— Immigration and N a t u r alization 902 

Service

Labor, Department of

— O ffice of Labor-Mgmt. 1059 

Standards Enforcement

Marshall Space Flight Cntr. 1060

Ala.

Merchant M a rine Academy, 990

Ship's Service O r ganization

National A s s o c i a t i o n of Government 

Employees (NAGE)

— Local R7-51 896

TITLE A/SLMR No(s).

6-30-78
128

— A labama N G 895 

Montgomery, Ala.

— Florida Air NG, St. 888

Augustine, Fla.

— Mili t a r y and Naval Affairs, 863 

State of N.Y., NYANG

— Pennsylvania A r m y & Air N G 871, 969, 1064

— Providence, R.I. 947

— Utah A rmy N G 966 

Salt Lake City, Utah

National Labor Relations Board 1015

Region 17 and National Labor 

Relations Board

National Weather Service, 910, 959

Southern Region

Navy, Department of

— Air Station 955 

Alameda, Calif.

— Air Test Cntr. 1019 

Naval Air Station

Patuxent River, Md.

— Commissary Store 1030 

Norfolk, Va.

— Communication A rea Master 1035 

Station Eastpac, Honolulu

— Exchange

--- Naval Air Station 970

Memphis, Millington, Tenn.

--- Naval Tng Cntr. 1054

San Diego, Calif.

— Great Lakes Naval Base 938 

Public Works Ctr.

Great Lakes, 111.

title A/SLMR No ( s )

National Guard

6-30-78
Navy, Department of (cont.)

— Marine Corps

--- Air Station, Exchange 8-2 865

El Toro, Calif.

--- Air Station, Naval Air 868

Rework Facility 

Cherry Point, N.C.

--- Pensacola, and Secretary of 873

the Navy, Washington, D.C.

— Naval Shipyard

--- Mare Island 1026

Vallejo, Calif.

--- Norfolk, Va. 908, 967, 968,

1033, 1065

--- Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 880, 1003

Bremerton, Wash.

--- U.S. Naval Base 907

Charleston, S.C.

— Office of Civilian Personnel 1012

— Secretary of the N avy Pentagon 924

— Torpedo Station 914 

Keyport, Wash.

— Training Cntr. 988 

Orlando, Fla.

— Weapons Station 1020 

Concord, Calif.

Occupational Safety and 1017, 1018

Health R eview Commission

Overseas Private Investment 917

Corporation

TITLE A/SLMRNo(s).

6-30-78 129
Professional Air Traffic Controllers 

Organization, MEBA, A F L -CIO

— AF L - C I O 878

-- Local 301 918

Aurora, 111.

Smithsonian Institution 1013

Smithsonian Institution 993

National Zoological Park

Social Security A d ministration 

(See: Health, Educ a t i o n and Welfare

TITLE A/SLMR No(s)

State, Department of

— Passport Office

Chicago Passport Age n c y

--- W e s t e r n Region

— National H ighway Traffic Safety 

A d ministration

929

Tidewater Va. Federal Employees 867

Metal Trades Council, AFL- C I O

Transportation, Department of

— Federal A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 992

--- A e r o nautical Cntr. 1021, 1047, 1072

O klahoma City, Okla.

--- Air Traffic Control Tower 920

Greater P ittsburgh Airport 

Pittsburgh, Pa.

--- A laska R egion 1046

--- Dulles International Airport 1062

--- Oakland A i r w a y Facilities Sector

Oakland, Calif.

--- O'Hare A irway Facility Sector 927

Chicago, 111.

930

--- Wm. P. H obby Airport 1039

Traffic Control T o w e r ( T R A C A B )

Houston, Tex.

1068

6-30-78

130
-- Office of the Secretary

" T r a n sportation Systems cotr, 

Cambridge, Mass.

Treasury, Department of

— Bureau of A l c o h o l , Tobacco 

and Firearms

--- M idwest Region

Chicago, 111.

— Controller of the Currency 

Sixth National B a n k Region

— Customs Service

--- Region I

Boston, Mass.

--- Region VI

Houston, Tex.

--- Region VII

Los Angeles, Calif.

--- Region VIII

San Francisco, Calif.

--- St. Thomas, V.I.

--- Washington, D. C.

— Internal Revenue Service

--- Atlanta District Office

--- Brookhaven Service C n t r .

--- Chicago District Office

--- Cleveland, Ohio

--- Detroit D ata C n t r .

Detroit, Mich.

TITLE

Transportation, Department of

939

1031

A/SLMR No(s)

1045, 1049

1070

971

949, 951

1048, 1061

926, 1066

978

937

991

897, 998, 1001

975, 1014

1053

942, 962, 987 

1004, 1042

972

862

6-30-78 131
TITLE

Treasury, Department of (cont.)

--- Fresno Service Cntr.

--- Greensboro, N.C.

--- Indianapolis, Ind.

--- Jacksonville District,

Jacksonville, Fla.

--- Memphis Service Cntr.

--- Milwa u k e e District

Milwaukee, Wise.

--- N e w Orleans District

--- Ogden Service Cntr.

--- Regional Commissioner,

Southeast Region

--- South Carolina District Office

--- St. Louis D istrict Office,

St. Louis, Mo.

Veterans Adm i n i s t r a t i o n

— H e a l t h Care F a c ility 

Montrose, N.Y.

— Hospital

--- Boston, Mass.

--- C anteen S e r v i c e ,

Phoenix, Ariz.

--- Lexington, Ky.

--- Montrose, N.Y.

--- North Chicago

N orth Chicago, 111.

A / S L M R No(s) 

983

874, 1007 

909

893, 953

989

974

995, 1034 

944, 1052 

870

1027

961

1016

980

931

883

1051

872

1024

132 6-30-78
TITLE

Veterans A d m i n istration (cont.)

--- Sheridan, Wyo.

— Regional Office 

 Honolulu, Hawaii

A/SLMR No(s).

940, 952

976

6-30-78

133

NUMERICAL TABLE OF DECISIONS 

OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR 

FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS 

July 1, 1977 - June 30, 1978

6-30-78

135

TAJiLE O F DECISIONS O F TH E A S S I S T A N T S E C RETARY 

N U M E R I C A L LISTING, DATES O F ISSUANCE A N D SECTIONS OF D I G E S T INVOLVED

a / o t m t > XT , Sectlon(s) of Dleest

A / S L M R No., Case Nam e and Dat e Issued Involved 1/

862 U.S. Department of the Treasury, 35 08 OA; 45 16 04 

Internal Re v e n u e Service,

De t r o i t D a t a Center,

Detroit, M i c h i g a n 

(July 18, 1977)

863 D i v i s i o n of M i l i t a r y and N a v a l 35 28 08

Affairs, State of N e w York,

N e w Y o r k A i r Nati o n a l Guard 

(July 19, 1977)

864 A m e r i c a n Federation of Government 40 20 0 0 ; 50 04 0 0 *

Employees, L o cal 3486, A F L - C I O 50 16 16

(July 19, 1977)

865 M a r i n e Corps Exchange 8-2, 20 20 00; 35 08 04; 

M a r i n e Corps A i r Station, 35 12 00; 45 16 04 

El Toro, California

(July 20, 1977)

866 Pennsylvania A i r Nat i o n a l Guard 35 28 28: 45 16 20 

(July 21, 1977)

867 Tidewater V i r g i n i a Federal Employees 05 04 00; 40 20 00

M e t a l Trades Council, A F L - C I O 

(July 21, 1977)

868 N a val A i r R e w o r k Facility, 35 12 00 

Ma r i n e Corps A i r Station,

Cherry Point, N orth Carolina 

(July 20, 1977)

869 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 15 16 00; 20 20 00; 

Washington, D. C. 25 20 00

(July 22, 1977)

\j Listing includes all Sections involved except Section 20 20 0 0 , 

M p l o y e e Categories and Classifications," in w h i c h entries are 

listed alphabetically. In this connection, it should be noted that 

those decisions w h i c h reflect to digest entries are, in fact, digested under Section 20 20 00.

6-30.,8
870 Internal Revenue Service, 20 16 12; 20 20 00 

Office of the Regional Commissioner,

Southeast Regi o n 

(July 22, 1977)

871 Pennsylvania A r m y and Ai r National 35 28 16

Guard

(July 28, 1977)

872 Veterans Administration Hospital, 10 32 00; 20 16 04 

Montrose, N e w Y o r k

(July 28, 1977)

873 N aval A i r R e w o r k Facility, 35 28 28; 45 16 20 

Pensacola, Florida, and Secretary

of the Navy, Washington, D. C.

(August 4, 1977)

874 Internal Revenue Service, 60 04 00 

Greensboro, N orth Carolina

(August 4, 1977)

875 Environmental P rotection A g e n c y 20 20 00; 25 20 00 

(August 5, 1977)

876 Bureau of Field Operations, 20 16 32 

Office of Pr o g r a m Operations,

Social Security Administration,

Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare, Chicago R e g i o n V - A 

(August 9, 1977)

877 Department of the Army, 25 20 00 

M i l i t a r y Traffic M a n a g e m e n t Command,

M i l i t a r y O c e a n Terminal, Sunny Point 

(August 9, 1977)

878 Professional A i r Traffic Controllers 30 04 00; 40 04 00;

Organization, MEBA, A F L - C I O 40 08 00; 40 16 00;

(August 10, 1977) 50 16 08

879 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 20 20 00; 25 20 00 

Forest Service, O uachita National

Forest, Ho t Springs, Arkansas 

(August 10, 1977)

Section (s) ot uxgesi-.

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved jL/

138 6-30-78
880 Puget Sound N a v a l Shipyard,

U.S. Department of the Navy, 

Bremerton, W a s h i n g t o n 

(August 15, 1977)

881 General Services Administration, 

Nat i o n a l Personnel Records Center, 

St. Louis, M i s s o u r i

(August 26, 1977)

882 Depart m e n t of Health, E d u cation

and Welfare,

Social Security Administration, 

B u reau of Hearings and Appeals, 

R e g i o n IV 

(August 26, 1977)

883 Veterans Administration,

C anteen Service, V A Hospital, 

Phoenix, A r i z o n a

(August 26, 1977)

884 D e f e n s e Supply Agency, Defense

Contract A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Services 

R e g i o n ( D C ASR), Cleveland, Ohio, 

Def e n s e Contract Adm i n i s t r a t i o n 

Services Office (DCA S O ) ,

Columbus, Ohio

D efense Supply Agency, Defense 

Contract A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Services 

R egion (DCASR), Cleveland, Ohio, 

Def e n s e Contract Administ r a t i o n 

Services Office (DCA S O ) ,

A k r o n , Ohio 

(August 29, 1977)

885 D efense Supply Agency, Defense

Contract Admini s t r a t i o n Services 

Region, San Francisco 

(August 29, 1977)

A/SLMR No.. Case Name and Date Issued

20 20 00; 25 20 00

Section(s) of Digest

Involved

35 28 12; 35 28 32

20 20 00; 25 20 00

30 16 00; 35 12 00

20 12 44

20 04 08; 20 04 12

6-30-78 139
886 D efense Supply Agency, D efense 20 04 08; 20 04 12

Contract Admini s t r a t i o n Services 

Re g i o n (DCASR),

San F r a n c i s c o ) California,

De f e n s e Contract A d ministration 

Services District (DCASD)

Salt Lak e City, U t a h 

(August 30, 1977)

887 D efense Supply Agency, Defense 20 04 08; 20 04 12

Contract A d m i n istration Services 

Re g i o n (DCASR),

San Francisco, California,

De f e n s e Contract Administ r a t i o n 

Services District (DCASD),

Seattle, Wash i n g t o n 

(August 30, 1977)

888 F lorida A i r N ational Guard, 20 20 00; 25 20 00 

St. Augustine, Florida

(August 31, 1977)

889 Social Security Administration, 35 28 08; 45 16 20 

Department of Health, Education

and Welfare,

Wilkes-Barre Operations Branch,

Wilkes-Barre, P e n nsylvania 

(August 31, 1977)

890 U S D A Forest Service, 20 04 04; 20 04 08; 

C herokee N ational Forest, 20 04 12; 20 16 16; 

Jacobs C r e e k C ivilian C o n s e rvation 20 20 00

Center

(August 31, 1977)

891 U.S. Depart m e n t of Ho u s i n g and 35 08 04; 35 28 16;

U r b a n Development, 35 28 36

Los A ngeles A r e a Office 

(September 1, 1977)

892 U.S. Ai r Force, 35 28 00 

Scott A i r Force Base

(September 1, 1977)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR N o ., Case Name and Date Issued Involved JL/

140 6-30-78
893 J a c k s o n v i l l e District, 35 28 12; 45 16 20 

I nternal R e v e n u e Service,

Jacksonville, Florida 

(September 7, 1977)

894 D e p a r t m e n t of Health, E d u c a t i o n 10 04 16; 20 20 00

and Welfare,

P u b l i c H e a l t h Service Hospital,

San Francisco, C a lifornia 

(September 16, 1977)

895 A l a b a m a N a t i o n a l Guard, 35 28 12 

Montgomery, A l a b a m a

(September 16, 1977)

896 L o cal R7-51, Nati o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n 40 08 00

of Government Employees (NAGE)

(September 19, 1977)

897 Internal R e v e n u e Service 30 12 04; 35 08 04; 

(September 19, 1977) 35 28 16

898 U.S. Department of Commerce, 20 20 00; 25 20 00 

Economic D e v e l opment Administration,

Austin, Texas 

(September 20, 1977)

899 Non-Appr o p r i a t e d Fund Activity, 20 20 00

Headquarters, 24th Infantry Division,

Fort Stewart, G e o rgia 

(September 21, 1977)

900 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 35 28 00

C o m mission 

(September 21, 1977)

901 Department of the Army, 10 04 08; 20 16 28 

89th A r m y R eserve Command,

Wichita, Kansas 

(September 21, 1977)

902 D epartment of Justice, 35 28 36 

Immigration and Naturali z a t i o n

Service

(September 21, 1977)

Sectlon(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

6-30-78 141
903 D e p a r t m e n t of Defense 35 12 00

Dependent Schools, Europe 

(September 21, 1977)

904 U.S. Department of Defense, 10 04 20; 20 04 04; 

3245th Air b a s e Group, 20 04 08; 20 04 12 

U.S. A i r Force

(September 21, 1977)

905 D efense Contract Admini s t r a t i o n 20 16 28

Services Region,

Boston, Massachusetts 

(September 22, 1977)

906 B ureau of Lan d Management, 20 04 04; 20 04 08; 

Riverside District Office and 20 04 12; 20 08 12

Desert P l a n Staff,

Riverside, California 

(September 22, 1977)

907 U.S. N a v a l Station, 20 04 04; 20 04 08; 

U.S. Naval Base, 20 04 12; 20 12 64 

Department of the Navy,

Charleston, South Carolina 

(September 22, 1977)

908 Department of Defense, 35 12 00; 35 28 16 

U.S. Navy,

N o r f o l k N a val Shipyard 

(September 23, 1977)

909 D epartment of the Treasury, 35 12 00; 35 28 12; 

Internal Re v e n u e Service, 45 16 20 

I n d i a n a p o l i s , Indiana

(September 23, 1977)

910 U.S. D epartment of Commerce, 25 04 08 

Nat i o n a l Oceanic and A t m ospheric

Administration,

N a t i o n a l Wea t h e r Service, Central,

W e s t e r n and Southern Regions 

(September 23, 1977)

911 G eneral Services Administration, 20 04 04; 20 04 08; 

Re g i o n 4 20 04 12; 20 12 28 

(September 30, 1977)

becuionysy uj. .

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

142 6-30-78
912 W a r n e r R o b i n s A i r L ogistics Center, 

R o b i n s A i r Force Base, G e o rgia 

(October 4, 1977)

913 Commu n i t y Services A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 

(October 4, 1977)

914 Depar t m e n t of the Navy,

N a v y T orpedo Station,

Keyport, W a s h i n g t o n 

(October 4, 1977)

915 U.S. A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h Service, 

G e o r g i a - South C arolina A r e a 

(October 4, 1977)

916 General Services Administration, 

R e g i o n 2

(October 5, 1977)

917 Overseas P rivate Investment

C o r poration 

(October 5, 1977)

918 Professional A i r Traffic Controllers

Organization,

MEBA, AFL-CIO, L o cal 301,

Aurora, Illinois 

(October 5, 1977)

919 Department of the Army,

U.S. A r m y Electronics Command,

Fort Monmouth, N e w Jersey 

(October 6 , 1977)

920 Federal A v i a t i o n Administration,

A i r Traffic Control Tower,

G reater Pittsb u r g h Airport, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

(October 6 , 1977)

921 C ommunity Services A d m i n i stration 

(October 1 2 , 1977)

A/SLMR No.. Case Name and Date Issued

05 36 00; 35 28 28; 

45 16 20

Section(s) of Digest

Involved \J

35 28 08; 35 28 28; 

45 16 20

20 04 04; 20 04 08; 

20 04 1 2 ; 20 16 16; 

20 24 04; 20 24 08; 

20 24 12

20 04 04; 20 04 08; 

20 04 12; 20 16 16

35 28 08; 35 28 12; 

35 28 28

20 20 00; 25 20 00

40 08 00

35 28 12; 35 28 28; 

45 16 20

35 08 04; 50 16 04

60 00 0 0 ; 60 16 00

6-30-78 143
144

922 Department of Defense 05 08 00; 35 08 04 

Dependents Schools, Europe

(October 12, 1977)

923 Defense Supply Agency, 35 08 04 

Defense Contract Administration

Services Region, Los Angeles 

(October 12, 1977)

924 Secretary of the Navy, 35 04 16; 35 28 40 

Department of the Navy,

Pentagon

(October 13, 1977)

925 U.S. Department of Housing and 35 08 04; 35 12 00; 

Urban Development, 45 16 08 

Milwaukee A r e a Office,

Milwaukee, W i s consin 

(October 13, 1977)

926 Department of the Treasury, 35 28 16 

U. S. Customs Service, Region VII,

Los Angeles, California 

(November 3, 1977)

927 Department of Transportation, 20 16 16 

Federal Avia t i o n Administration,

O'Hare A irway F acility Sector,

Chicago, Illinois 

(November 3, 1977)

928 General Services Admini s t r a t i o n 15 28 00 

Regional Office, Region 4

(November 7, 1977)

929 Department of state, 15 28 00; 20 04 08; 

Passport Office, 20 04 12 

Chicago Passport Agency

(November 7, 1977)

930 Department of Transportation, 35 28 08 

Federal Avia t i o n Administration,

Wes t e r n Region 

(November 7, 1977)

931 Veterans Administration, 60 16 00 

Veterans Administration Hospital,

Boston, Massachusetts 

(November 8 , 1977)

SectioiHsj or uige»iA/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved \!

6-30-78
932 De f e n s e Logistics Agency,

Defense Contract Admi n i s t r a t i o n 

Services Region, Cleveland 

(November 8 , 1977)

933 R ocky M o u n t a i n Arsenal,

D e n v e r , Colorado 

(November 9, 1977)

934 Electronics En g i n e e r i n g Division, 

Pacific M arine Center,

National O c ean Survey,

National Oceanxc and A t m ospheric 

Administration, U. S. Department of 

Commerce, Seattle, W a s h i n g t o n 

(November 10, 1977)

935 Department of the Air Force,

4392nd A erospace Support Group, 

Vandenberg AFB, C a l ifornia 

(November 10, 1977)

936 Billeting Fun d of Charleston 

Air Force Base, South Carolina 

(November 11, 1977)

937 Department of the Treasury,

U. S. Customs Service,

St. Thomas, V i rgin Islands 

(November 11,1977)

938 Department of the Navy,

Great Lakes Naval Base,

Public Works Center,

Great Lakes, Illinois 

(November 15, 1977)

939 Office of the Secretary,

Department of T r ansportation 

(November 15, 1977)

940 Veterans Admini s t r a t i o n Hospital, 

Sheridan, W y o ming

(November 16, 1977)

941 Defense Contract A d ministration 

Services Region, Atlanta, Georgia 

(November 16, 1977)

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued

Section(s) of Digest

Involved

10 04 08; 20 16 28

35 28 16

20 16 04; 20 16 08

05 36 00; 35 08 04 

35 28 28

10 04 12 ; 10 24 12

10 24 12; 20 16 04

10 24 12

35 08 04 

35 28 28

20 16 08; 20 16 28; 

25 20 00

6-30-78 145
942. Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

IRS Chicago District 

(November 18, 1977)

943. Environmental Protection Agency, 04 00, 35 2 , 

Washington, D.C.; Environmental 35 28 0»,

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, N o rth Carolina 

(November 23, 1977) 

944 Internal Revenue Service, ^5 28 32 

Ogden Service Center 

(November 23, 1977)

945 Social Security Administration, 35 08 04 

Bureau of Hearings and Appeals

(November 29, 1977)

946 Directorate of Facility Engineers, 30 12 20; 35 28 12 

Fort Richardson, Alaska

(November 29, 1977)

947 Rhode Island National Guard, 60 04 00 

Providence, Rhode Island

(November 29, 1977)

948 General Services Administration, 20 20 00; 25 20 00 

Region 3, Federal Protective 

Service Division 

(November 29, 1977) 

949 Department of the Treasury, 35 12 00; 35 28 28 

U.S. Customs Service, R egion I,

Boston, Massachusetts 

(November 30, 1977)

950 U. S. Department of Agriculture, 20 16 28 

Office of Autom a t e d D ata Systems,

N e w Orleans Computer Center 

(December 6 , 19/7)

951 Department of the Treasury, 35 28 12; 35 28 28 

U. S. Customs Service, Region I,

Boston, Massachusetts 

(December 6 , 1977)

Section(s) of 'PiRest

A/SLMR No.. Case Name and Date Issued Involved

146

6-30-78
952 V eterans A d m i nistration Hospital, 

Sheridan, Wyoming

(December 6 , 1 9 7 7 J

953 Department of the Treasury, 

Internal Revenue Service, 

Jacksonville District 

(December 7, 1977)

954 International B r o t h erhood of 

Electrical Workers, Local 2301 

(December 7, 1977)

A/SLMR No ., Case Name and Date Issued

Section(s) of Digest

35 28 04; 35 28 08

35 28 1 2 ; 35 28 28; 

45 16 20

40 04 0 0 ; 40 08 00; 

40 32 00; 55 04 00

955 Department of Navy,

U n ited States Naval Air Station,

Alameda, California 

(December 30, 1977)

956 U. S. Army M issile Materiel 

Readiness Command 

Redstone A r s e n a l , A l a bama

and

U. S. A rmy M issile Research 

and Development Command,

Redstone Arsenal, A l a bama 

(December 30, 1977)

957 Department of Health, E d u c a t i o n and 

Welfare, Social Security Administration, 

BRSI, N o r t heastern Pr o g r a m Center 

(December 30, 1977)

958 Defense Logistics Agency,

Defense Contract Administration 

Services Region, Los Angeles 

(December 30, 1977)

959 Southern Region,

National We a t h e r Service 

(December 30, 1977)

960 Social Security Administration,

B ureau of Hearings and Appeals 

(January 6 , 1978)

961 Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

St. Louis District Office,

St. Louis, Missouri 

(January 6 , 1978)

35 08 04

20 16 28; 25 20 00

35 28 08

30 12 04; 30 12 12; 

30 12 24;

30 12 04; 35 08 04

35 28 12

35 28 28; 35 28 32

6-30-78 147
962 Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

Chicago District Office,

(January 6 , 1978)

963 Department of Health, Educ a t i o n and 

Welfare, Social Security Administration, 

Bureau of Field Operations,

Region V-A, Chicago, Illinois 

(Januaty 6 , 1978)

964 Defense M apping Agency,

Defense Mapping A g ency Hydrographic 

Center

(January 10, 1978)

965 A merican F ederation of Government 

Employees, Local 2578, AFL~CIO, 

and National Archives and Records 

Service

(January 11, 1978)

966 Utah Army National Guard,

Salt Lake City, Utah 

(January 11, 1978)

967 Department of the Navy,

N o r f o l k Naval Shipyard,

Portsmouth, V i r ginia 

(January 11, 1978)

968 Department of the Navy,

No r f o l k Naval Shipyard,

Portsmouth, V i r ginia 

(January 11, 1978)

969 Pennsylvania A r m y and Air N ational Guard 

(January 13, 1978)

970 Nav y Exchange,

Naval Air Station Memphis,

Millington, Tennessee 

(January 17, 1978)

971 Sixth National Ban k Region,

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency

(January 17, 1978)

A/SLciR No., Case: Name and Date Issued

35 04 08; 35 28 08

Section(s) of Diges_t

Involved

35 28 04; 35 28 08; 

45 16 20

60 08 0 0 ; 60 16 00

35 28 24; 40 28 00

35 28 08

35 12 00

35 28 36; 35 32 00 

35 04 08; 35 28 08; 

10 04 20; 20 16 28

20 12 28

148 6-30-78
972 U n i t e d States Department of the 

Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 

Cleveland, Ohio

(January 19, 1978)

973 U.S. A r m y M i l i t a r y District of 

Washington, Fort Myer, V i r g i n i a 

(January 19, 197o)

974 D epartment of the Treasury,

Intexmal Revenue Service,

M ilw a u k e e District,

Milwaukee, W i s c o n s i n 

(January 24, 1978)

975 Internal Revenue Serivce and 

IRS, A t l a n t a D istrict Office 

(January 31, 1978)

976 Veterans Administration,

Regional Office,

Honolulu, Haw a i i 

(February 2, 1978)

977 U. S. Department of Agriculture,

O zark - St. Francis N ational Forests, 

Russellville, Arkansas

(February 2, 1978)

978 U.S. Customs Service, R e gion VIII, 

Trea s u r y Department,

San Francisco, C a l ifornia 

(February 2, 1978

979 Social Security Administration,

Bureau of Hearings and Appeals 

(February 3, 1978)

980 Veterans Admini s t r a t i o n Health 

Care Facility,

M o n t r o s e , N e w Y o r k 

(February 3, 1978)

981 Picat i n n y Arsenal and 

the Project M a n a g e r for 

Nuclear Munitions,

Dover, N e w Jer s e y 

(February 3, 1978)

A/SLMR N o . , Case Name and Date Issued

30 28 00; 35 28 04; 

35 28 28

25 20 00

35 28 36; 45 16 20

Section(s) of Digest

Involved

30 28 00; 35 28 36; 

35 32 0 0 ; 45 16 20

30 04 0 0 ; 35 08 1 2 ; 

35 12 00

35 08 04; 45 16 04

35 28 16; 35 28 28; 

35 28 32

35 28 08; 35 28 28

10 24 12

35 28 28; 45 16 20

6-30-78 149
982 Social Security Administration 

Branch Office,

Angleton, Texas 

(February 6 , 1978)

983 Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

Fresno Service Center 

(February 6 , 1978)

984 Department of Health, Educatior 

Welfare, Social Security Administration, 

BRSI, Northeastern Pr o g r a m Service 

Center

(February 6 , 1978)

985 General Services Administration,

Region 10,

Auburn, W a s hington 

(February 9, 1978)

986 U. S. Coast Guard Support Center, 

Portsmouth, Virginia 

(February 9, 1978)

987 Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service 

and J.RS Chicago District,

Chicago, Illinois 

(February 15, 1978)

988 Naval Training Center,

Orlando, Florida 

(February 22, 1978)

989 Internal Revenue Service,

Memphis Service Center 

(February 23, 1978)

990 U.S. Merchant Marine 

Academy, Ship's 

Setvice Organization 

(February 23, 1978)

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued

Section(s) of Digest

Involved

35 28 12 ; 35 28 28

35 04 08; 35 28 1 2 ;

35 28 28; 35 j 2 0 0 ;

45 16 20

and 35 28 08; 3j 28 1 2 ;

35 28 28

35 08 04

10 04 2 0 ; 20 16 08

30 04 0 0 ; 30 12 2 0 ;

30 20 0 0 ; 35 28 16

25 20 0 0 ; 20 04 04;

20 04 08; 20 04 12;

20 16 08

35 08 04; 35 12 0 0 ;

45 16 04

20 20 0 0 ; 25 20 00

991 U.S. Customs Service, 10 28 0 0 ; 10 04 08;

Washington, D.C. 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

(February 23, 1978 20 08 08; 20 16 32

ISO 6-30-78
992 Federal A v i a t i o n Admi n i s t r a t i o n 

(March 1, 1978)

993 Smithsonian Institution,

National Zoological Park 

(March 1, 1978)

994 Headquarters, U.S. A r m y Materiel 

D evelopment and Readiness Command 

(March 1, 1978)

995 Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

N e w Orleans District 

(March 2, 1978)

996 General Services Administ r a t i o n 

Region 3,

Washington, D. C.

(March 2, 1978)

997 U.S. Environmental Prote c t i o n Agency, 

R egion III

(March 2, 1978)

998 Internal Revenue Service 

(March 3, 1978)

999 Environmental Protec t i o n Agency,

Region III

(March 3, 1978)

1000 Sheppard Technical T raining Center, 

3750th Air Base Group,

Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas 

(March 3, 1978)

1001 Internal Revenue Service 

(March 7, 1978)

1002 Department of the Interior,

U.S. Government C o m p t r o H e r for Guam, 

Trust Terr i t o r y of the Pacific Islands 

(March 8 , 1978)

A/SLMR N o . , Case Name and Date Issued

35 28 08

Section(s) of Digest

Involved Ij

35 28 12

35 08 04; 35 28 08

35 28 12; 45 16 20

30 28 00; 35 04 04 

35 28 28; 45 16 20

35 28 12; 45 16 20

3o 04 00; 30 12 04 

30 16 0 0 ; 35 28 28

35 28 1 2 ; 35 28 36 

45 16 20

20 20 00

35 28 36; 45 16 20

20 12 60; 20 20 00

6-30-78 151
1003 Department of the Navy,

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 

(March 9, 1978)

1004 Internal Revenue Service,

Chicago District Office 

(March 9, 1978)

1005 Department of the Army,

Fort McPherson, Georgia 

(March 9, 1978)

1006 U. S. Army, Europe 

and Seventh Army; and 

Army and Air Force 

Exchange Service, Europe 

(March 9, 1978)

1007 Department of the Treasury, 

Internal Revenue Service, 

Greensboro District Office 

(March 14, 1978)

1008 Alabama State Military Department 

(March 17, 1978)

1009 ■ American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 32' 

(March 21, 1978)

1010 Federal Avi a t i o n Admxnistration, 

Oakland A i rway Facilities Sector, 

Oakland, California

(March 21, 1978)

1011 United States Department of the 

Ai r Force, 15th Air Base Wing, 

Hi c k a m Ai r Force Base, Hawaii 

(March 22, 1978)

1012 Department of the Navy,

Office of Civilian Personnel 

(March 22, 1978)

1013 The Smithsonian Institution 

(April 11, 1978)

1014 Internal Revenue Service 

A tlanta District Office,

Atlanta, Georgia 

(April 11, 1978)

A/ S L M R No., Case Name and Date Issued

35 08 04; 35 12 00 

35 16 00; 35 28 00 

35 28 08; 35 28 16

35 28 36; 45 16 24

Section(s) of Digest

Involved Tj

25 20 00

35 28 28

35 28 12; 35 28 36 

45 16 12

20 04 20; 20 08 12

20 12 28; 20 20 00

55 08 04; 55 12 04 

55 12 08

20 16 16

35 28 04

35 28 40

20 16 16

35 28 16; 55 28 32

152 6-30-78
1015 Nati o n a l L a bor Relations Board, 

Re g i o n i7, and National Labor 

Relations Board

(April 11, 1978)

1016 Veterans A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 

(April 11, 1978)

A/SLMR No.. Case Name and Date Issued

1023

1024

1025

35 12 00

Section(s) of Digest

Involved \J

20 16 32

1017 Occupational Safety and 35 28 12; 35 28 32

H e alth R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n 35 28 36; 45 16 20

(April 12, 1978)

1018 Occupational Safety and 20 20 00; 25 20 00

H ealth R e v i e w C o m mission

(April 12, 1978)

1019 Naval Ai r Test Center/Naval 20 04 04; 20 04 08

Air Station, Patuxent River, 20 04 12; 20 12 64

Ma r y l a n d 20 16 04; 20 16 16

(April 13, 1978) 20 16 20; 25 04 08

1020 D epartment of the Navy, 30 04 00; 35 28 12

Naval W eapons Station,

Concerd, California

(April 13, 1978)

1021 Department of Transportation, 10 04 28; 20 04 04

Federal A v i a t i o n Administration, 20 04 08; 20 04 12

A e r o n autical Center, 20 16 32

O klahoma City, Oklah o m a 20 16 32

(April 13, 1978)

1022 Department of Health, E d u cation 35 28 12

and Welfare, Social Security 

Administration, Bureau of 

Retirement and Survivor's Insurance 

(April 13, 1978)

Department of the Air Force Systems 20 12 64

Command, U.S. Ai r Force Regional Hospital,

E g lin Air Force Base, Florida 

(April 18, 1978)

Veterans Administration,

N orth Chicago Veterans Hospital, 

N orth Chicago, Illinois 

(April 21, 1978)

D epartment of the Army,

U.S. Arm y Materiel

Development and readiness Command

(April 25, 1978)

35 08 04; 35 12 00 

35 20 00; 35 32 00 

45 16 08

35 28 12; 60 16 00

6-30-78 153
1026 Mare Island Naval Shipyard, 35 08 04 

Valiejo, California

(April 25, 1978)

1027 Internal Revenue Service and 35 08 04; 35 28 12 

Internal Revenue Service,

South Carolina District Office 

(April 25, 1978)

1028 Social Security Administration, 05 36 00; 30 12 04 

Bureau of Hearings and Appeals 35 28 32

(April 26, 1978)

1029 Chemical Systems Laboratory and 20 04 08; 20 04 12 

Armament Research and Development 20 16 04; 20 16 28 

Command, Chemical Systems Laboratory

Support, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland 

(April 26, 1978)

1030 Department of the Navy, 30 04 00; 35 28 28 

Navy Commissary Store Region,

Norfolk, Virginia 

(April 26, 1978)

1031 Department of Transportauion, 35 28 12 

Transportation Systems Center,

Cambridge, Massachusetts 

(April 26, 1978)

1032 Lake Central Region, 20 12 28; 25 04 04 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,

Department of the Interior,

Federal Building, A nn Arbor, Michigan 

(April 27, 1978)

1033 Department of the Navy, 24 12 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

(May 1, 1978)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

1034 U. S. Department of the Treasury, 35 28 28; 45 16 20

Internal Revenue service, ’

N e w Orleans District,

N e w Orleans, Louisiana 

(May 5, 1978)

154 6-30-78
1035 D epartment of the Navy,

Naval Communication Area

M aster Station, Eastpac, H o n o l u l u 

(May 9, 1978)

1036 Department of Health, E d u c a t i o n 

and Welfare, Social Security 

Administration, Q uality A s s urance 

Field Staff, N o r t h e a s t e r n P r o g r a m 

Service Center

Flushing, N e w Y o r k 

(May 10, 1978)

1037 Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Philadelphia A rea Office

(May 10, 1978)

1038 United States Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Servxce,

Plant Protection and Quarantine

(May 11, 1978)

1039 Department of Transportation,

Federal A v i a t i o n Administration, 

Wi l l i a m P- H o b b y Airport Traffic 

Control Tower ( T R A C A B ) ,

Houston, Texas

(May 11, 1978)

1040 Social Security Administration,

Bureau of Hearings and Appeals

(May 11, 1978)

1041 United States Court

of Military Appeals,

Washington, D. C.

(May 12, 1978)

1042 Department of the Treasury,

Internal R evenue Service 

and IRS Chicago District 

(May 12, 1978)

1043 Department of tne Air Force,

H Q 2750th Air Base Wing, 

Wright-Pa t t e r s o n Air Force Base, Ohio 

(May 12, 1978)

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued

35 28 04

Section(s) of Digest

Involved Ij

05 36 00 

15 20 00 

30 20 00 

35 08 04

25 20 00

25 20 00

30 04 00 

35 12 00

30 12 04; 30 12 12 

30 12 16; 35 28 24

05 08 00

35 08 04; 35 08 04

30 12 04; 30 12 24

6-30-78

155
1044 Department of the Air Force,

N ewark Air Force Station,

Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center, 

Newark, Ohio 

(May 16, 1978)

1045 Department of the Treasury,

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 

and Firearms

(May 16, 1978)

1046 Federal Aviation Administration,

A laska Region

(May 17, 1978)

1047 Federal Aviation Administration,

F A A Aeronautical Center,

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

(May 17, 1978)

1048 U. S. Department of the Treasury,

U. S. Customs Service, Region VI, 

Houston, Texas

(May 17, 1978)

1049 Department of the Treasury,

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 

and Firearms

(May 18, 1978)

1050 U. S. A rmy Mortuary,

Oakland A rmy Base,

Oakland, California 

(May 18, 1978)

1051 Veterans Administration,

Veterans A d m i nistration Hospital 

Lexington, Kentucky

(May 19, 1978)

1052 Internal Revenue Service,

Ogden Service Center, and 

Internal Revenue Service, et al.

(May 22, 1978)

1053 Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

Brookhaven Service Center 

(May 22, 1978)

A/SLMR No.. Case Name and Date Issued

60 04 00

Section(s) of Digest

Involved JL/

35 28 12; 35 28 36 

45 16 20;

35 08 04

20 20 00; 35 08 00; 

35 28 08; 35 28 28; 

45 16 20

35 28 08; 35 28 12; 

35 28 28

35 28 28; 45 16 20

10 24 12; 15 32 00; 

20 16 36

30 04 00; 

35 28 08

35 28 28; 45 16 20

35 28 28; 45 16 20

156 6-30-78
1054 N a v y Exchange, 35 04 04; 35 28 12 

N a v a l Training Center, 35 28 28

San Diego, California 

(June 5, 1978)

1055 General Services Administration, 35 08 04; 35 12 00 

National Arch i v e s and Records

Service 

(June 6, 1978)

1056 General Services Administration, 35 08 04 

Region IX

(June 6, 1978)

1057 D epartment of the Air Force, 35 08 04; 35 16 00 

G r i s s o m Ai r F o rce Base,

Peru, Indiana 

(June 7, 1978)

1058 Department of the Army, 20 04 12; 20 12 60; 

Headquarters, U n i t e d States 20 16 16

Arm y H e a l t h Services Command,

K enner Army Hospital, DGSC 

Health Clinic, Richmond, V i r g i n i a 

(June 7, 1978)

1059 National As s o c i a t i o n of Government 55 16 04; 55 16 08 

E m p l o y e e s , Local 12—6 9 ~ R 55 16 12

(June 8, 1978)

1060 Marshall Space Flight Center, 60 16 00 

Marshall apace Flight Center,

Alabama 

(June 8, 1978)

lOoi Department of the Treasury, 35 28 12

U.S. Customs Service, R e g i o n VI,

Houston, Texas 

(June 9, 1978)

1062 Department of Transportation, 35 28 04; 45 16 20

Federal A v i a t i o n Administration,

M e t r o p o l i t a n W a s h i n g t o n Airport Service,

Dulles International Airport; and 

Director, Met r o p o l i t a n W a s h i n g t o n Airports,

Federal Avi a t i o n Administ r a t i o n 

(June 13, 1978)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No.. Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

6-30-78
1063 A r m y and Air Force Exchange Service, 

Sheppard Ai r Force Base, Texas 

(June 21, 1978)

1064 Pennsylvania Army and 

Air National Guard 

(June 21, 1978)

1065 Department of the Navy,

N orfolk Naval Shipyard,

Portsmouth, Virginia 

(June 21, 1978)

1066 U. S. Customs Service, Region VII, 

Los Angeles, California

(June 23, 1978)

1067 General Services Administration 

Regional Offxce, Region 4 

(June 23, 1978)

1068 Department of Transportation, 

National Highway Traffic safety 

Administration

(June 26, 1978)

1069 Department of the Air Force, 

Headquarters, 321st Combat 

Support Group (SAC),

Grand Forks Air Force Base,

Grand Forks, North Dakota 

(June 26, 1978)

1070 Department of the Treasury,

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 

and Firearms, Midwest Region,

Chicago, Illinois

(June 27, 1978)

1071 Environmental Protection Agency, 

Environmental Research Laboratory, 

Narragansett, Rhode Island

(June 29, 1978)

A / S L M R No., Case Name and Date Issued

20 16 16

Section(s) of Digest

Involved V

35 28 12; 35 28 32

35 28 04; 35 28 08

35 28 12; 35 28 28

20 04 08; 20 04 12

25 20 00

10 24 12

35 28 32; 45 04 00; 

45 16 20

10 04 12; 20 04 20 

20 20 00; 25 04 04

158 6-30-78
1072 Department of Transportation, 20 16 16

Federal Aviation Administration!

Federal A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Academy,

Aeronautical Center,

Okl a h o m a City, Oklah o m a 

(June 29, 1978)

SectionCs) of Digest

A/SLMR No.» Case Name and Date Issued Involved U

159

6-30-78

INDEX

1/

- A -

ABUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS 10 28 00

AC PETITION 10 04 20

ACCESS TO WORK AREAS, CAMPAIGNING 25 08 16; 35 08 00

ACCRETION 20 16 08

ACTIVITY PETITION (RA) 10 04 08

ADDITIONS TO UNIT 20 16 08

ADEQUACY OF

Record 15 28 00

Showing of Interest 10 16 00; 20 16 08

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AT HEARINGS 05 12 08

ADVICE, ERRONEOUS BY LMSA AGENTS 10 24 12

ADVISORY OPINIONS 05 16 00

AGENCY

Authority to Exclude Emps from EO 05 08 00

Directives, ULP 35 04 04; 35 08 04

Facilities for Campaigning 25 08 16

Petition (RA) 10 04 08

Regulations Not Binding on A/S 10 04 16; 35 04 04;

25 08 16

Rules on Campaigning 25 08 16

Specific employee classifications or categories, ;such as '"Accountant"

or "Temporary Employee," are indexed under "EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES AND 

CLASSIFICATIONS."

161

6-30-78
AGENT - PRINCIPAL 35 08 08

AGREEMENT

Accretion 10 24 12

Approval Pending at Higher Agency 

Level 10 24 12

Bar to Petition 10 24 12

Bar, Unilateral Waiver of 10 24 12

Extension as ULP 35 08 04

Indefinite Duration 10 24 12

Interpretation 30 28 00

Premature Extension 10 24 12

Refusal to Sign 35 28 00

Terminable at Will 10 24 12

Unilateral Termination 35 28 00

AMENDMENT

Certification 10 04 20

Complaint 30 08 00; 

30 16 00

Petition 15 08 08

Recognition 10 04 20

ANTI-UNION LITERATURE 35 08 04;

APPROPRIATE UNIT 20 04 00 t

Accretion 20 16 08

Activity-wide 20 12 08

Agency Regulations Not Binding 

on A/S 20 04 16

162 6-30-78
Agency-wide 20 12 04

Area-wide 20 12 36

Base-wide 20 12 48

Branch-wide 20 12 44

City-wide 20 08 16

Clarification 25 20 00

Command-wide 20 12 16

Community of Interest 20 04 04

Criteria 20 04 00

Directorate-wide 20 12 12

District-wide 20 12 40

Division-wide 20 12 32

Effective Dealings 20 04 08

Efficiency of Operations 20 04 12

Eligibility 20 16 12

Extent of Organization 20 04 04

Field-wide 20 12 24

Geographic Scope 20 08 00

Headquar te rs-wide 20 12 20

History of Bargaining 20 04 08

Multi-Installation 20 12 56

Nation-wide 20 08 08

Occupational Classifications 20 12 64

One Employee 05 04 00

Organizational Scope 20 12 00

6-30-78
Pattern at Similar Activities 15 12 00

Previous Certification 20 04 20

Relevance of Units Elsewhere 15 12 00

Region-wide 20 12 28

Residual Employees 20 16 16

Scope 20

20

08

16

00:

00

Section-wide 20 12 52

Self-Determination 20 16 20

Severance 20 16 04

Single Employee 05 04 00

Single Installation 20 12 60

State-wide 20 08 12

Stipulations Not Binding on A/S 20 04 16

Supervisors 10 32 00

Supervisory Unit 20 16 24

World-wide 20 08 04

ARBITRATION

Cancellation as ULP 35

35

08

28

041 

00

Effect on ULP 30 28 00

AREA ADMINISTRATOR (AREA DIRECTOR)

Authority for Approval of Consent 

Agreement 10 40 00

Withdrawal of Approval of Consent 

Agreement 10 40 00

164 6-30-78
ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Advisory Opinions 

Agents as Witnesses 

Authority

Documents at Hearings 

Jurisdiction 

Role of 

ATTORNEYS

Conflict of Interest 

AUTHORITY OF

BALLOT 

BARGAINING 

BARGAINING HISTORY 

BARS T O PETITION 

Agreement

05 08 00; 55 08 04 

05 12 04 

05 08 00 

05 08 00

10 32 00

05 16 00

05 12 04

Agency 05 08 00

AA 10 40 00

A/S 05 08 00

HO 15 04 00

ARD 10 40 00

AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CLAUSE 10 24 12

- B -

BAD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS 35 28 00

See; ELECTIONS 

See: NEGOTIATIONS 

20 04 04

10 24 12

6-30-78

165
BARS T O PETITION (cont.)

Certification “ »8

Election 1“ “ O'*

BILL OF RIGHTS

Campaigning in Lab Org Officer a o

Election 55 12 08

Candidacy 55 « 55 12 04,

Complaint Dismissal Criteria 55 08 08

Complaint Procedure 55 08 00

Conflict of Interest, Lab Org i«) n«

Employee and Member 55 12 04; 55

Convention Delegates 55 08 12; 55 12 04

Convention Participation 55 12 04

Delegates, Convention 55 08 12; 55 12 04

Election, Certification of 55 08 12

Employee - Members of Lab Org 55 12 04; 55 12 08

Equal Rights 55 12 04

Exhaustion of Remedies 55 08 08

Free Speech and Assembly 55 12 08

Hearing Requisites 55 08 08

Lab Org Off Election

Campaigning 55 12 08

Candidacy 55 08 12; 55 12 04;

55 12 08

Violations, Alleged 55 08 12

Membership Meetings 55 12 04

166 6-30-78
BILL OF RIGHTS U o n t . >

Mootness

Officer, Lab Org 

Procedure 

BINDING AGREEEMENTS 

BLOCKING CHARGES 

BURDEN OF PROOF

Internal Security Exclusions 

Objections to Election 

Rep Unit Determinations 

ULP Cases

55 08 08 

55 12 OA 

55 08 08 

10 24 12

10 48 00; 30 08 04

15 12 00 

25 08 08 

15 12 00

30 08 00; 30 12 24 

35 12 00

-• C -

CAMPAIGN

Lab Org Off Election 

Rep Case

Literature

Misrepresentation 

Work Hours 

CAJIPAIGN LITERAT'JRS

CANDIDACY, LAB ORG OFFICER

"CARVE-OUT"

CATEGORIES OF EMPS 

CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS

55 12 08

25 08 12; 25 08 16; 

25 08 20; 35 08 08

25 08 20

25 08 16

25 08 12; 25 08 16;

25 08 20; 35 08 08

55 08 12; 55 12 04; 

55 12 08

20 16 04

20 20 00

45 00 00; 50 00 00

6-30-78 167
CERTIFICATION 

Amendment of 

Bar to Petition 

Revocation of

CHALLENGES TO 

Ballot 

Eligibility 

Intervention 

Showing of Interest 

Status as Lab Org 

Stipulations 

Voter

CHANGES, NAME OF ACTIVITY OR

REPRESENTATIVE

CHARGE

CHECKOFF REVOCATION BY ACTIVITY

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

EO Sec. 25(a) Responsibilities 

Federal Personnel Work 

Guidance

CLARIFICATION OF UNIT

Clarification Determinations 

Procedure

CLASSIFICATIONS

COLLATERAL ISSUES

10 04 20 

10 24 08 

25 16 00

25 12 08 

25 12 12 

10 12 00 

10 16 00 

10 20 00 

20 12 04

20 20 00; 25 12 04 

10 04 20

30 04 00; 30 08 00

35 24 00; 35 28 00;

45 04 00

10 32 00

05 08 00; 20 12 00 

35 04 04 V

25 20 00 

10 04 16

See; EMP CATEGORIES AND 

CLASSIFICATIONS

10 16 00

■ , ' 4 '*

168 6-30-78
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 

History

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST 

COMPANION CASES 

COMPLAINT

Standards of Conduct 

Procedure

ULP

Amendment

Investigation

Limited to Allegations

Motion to Dismiss

Pre-Complaint Requirements

Requisites

Rulings of ALJs

Timeliness

Violation Not Specifically Alleged 

COMPLIANCE WITH DECISION AND ORDER 

COMPOSITION OF UNITS

CONCURRENT RELATED CASES 

CONDUCT OF ELECTION 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST 

Attorneys

20 04 08; 

20 16 04

20 04 04

03 20 00;

See also:

PRACTICES;

CONDUCT

55 00 00

55 08 00

30 00 00

30 08 00; 

30 16 00

30 08 00

30 12 00

30 04 00

30 08 00

30 04 00

30 12 04

30 08 00

30 12 04

45 00 00;

20 08 00; 

20 16 00

05 20 00;

25 08 08

10 32 00

See also: N E G O T U T I O N S 

20 04 12;

30 28 00

UNFAIR LABOR 

STANDARDS OF

30 12 00;

50 00 00 

20 12 00;

30 28 00

6-30-78 169
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (cont.)

Employee of Lab Org and Member 55 12 08

Mgt of Lab Org and Fed Employee 10 32 00

Mgt Off and Lab Org Role 10 32 00

CONSENT AGREEMENT

AA's Authority to Approve 10 40 00

A A’s Withdrawal of Approval 10 40 00

Refusal to Sign 10 12 00

CONSOLIDATION OF UNITS 20 16 32

CONTINUANCE OF HEARING 15 04 00

CONTRACT BAR 10 24 12

CONVENTION

Delegates 55 08 12

Participation 55 12 04

COOPERATION OF PARTIES 15 20 00

COVERAGE OF EO 05 08 00

CRAFT SEVERANCE 20 16 04

CROSS EXAMINATION, FAILURE TO ALLOW 15 12 00

CURRENT REPRESENTATIVE STATUS 

PETTIONER

OF 10 28 00

CU PETITION 10 04 16

- D -

DECERTIFICATION

DEFINITIONS

Defunctness

10 on 12

See also: EMP CATEGORIES 

AND CLASSIFICATIONS

05 04 00

170 6-30-78
Lab Org

Management Official 

Non-Employee 

Professional Employee 

Supervisors 

Unit 

DEFUNCTNESS

DELEGATES, CONVENTION

DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE UNIT 

DILATORY CONDUCT 

DISCLAIMER OF INTEREST 

DISMISSAL

DISQUALIFICATION AS LAB ORG 

DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE 

DOCUMENTS AT HEARING, LMSA 

DR PETITION

DUES CHECKOFF REVOCATION BY ACTIVITY 

DUTY TO BARGAIN

Utl-iNinONS U o n t . )

20 20 00 Vista Volunteers 

05 04 GO 

05 04 00 

05 04 00

05 04 00; 10 24 04;

10 24 12; 10 44 00

55 08 12; 55 12 04;

55 12 08

See: APPROPRIATE: UNITS 

35 08 04; 35 28 00 

10 04 12

See: REP CASES; ULP; 

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

10 20 00

S e e ; CAMPAIGN LITERATURE 

05 12 04 

10 04 12

35 24 00; 35 28 00;

45 16 00

See: NEGOTIATIONS

05 04 00

05 04 00

EFFECTIVE DEALINGS 

EFFICIENCY OF OPERATIONS

- E -

20 04 08

20 Ou 12

6-30-78 171
Lab Org Officers 

Campaigning 

Candidacy

Complaint Procedure 

Representation 

Ballot Markings 

Campaigning

Challenges 

Craft Severance 

Decertification 

Eligibility

Exclusion from Ballot

Mail Ballot

Position on Ballot

Procedure

Prof Emps

Role of Observers

Refusal to Sign Consent 

Agreement

Rerun

ELECTION BAR TO PETITION

ELECTIONS See also; CHALLENGES: AND 

OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION

10 24 04

55 12 08

55 08 12; 55 12 04; 

55 12 08

55 08 12

25 12 08

See: OBJECTIONS TO 

ELECTION

See: CHALLENGES

20 16 04; 25 04 16

10 04 12

20 16 12 (See also; EMP 

CATEGORIES AND CLASSIFICATIONS)

10 32 00

25 08 08; 25 12 08 

10 12 00

25 04 00 

25 04 04 

25 04 12

10 12 00

25 16 00

172 6-30-78
10 24 0*4

Lab Org Officers 

Campaigning 

Candidacy

Complaint Procedure 

Representation 

Ballot Markings 

Campaigning

Challenges 

Craft Severance 

Decertification 

Eligibility

Exclusion from Ballot

Mail Ballot

Position on Ballot

Procedure

Prof Emps

Role of Observers

Refusal to Sign Consent 

Agreement

Rerun

ELECTIONS See also: CHALLENGES; AND 

OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION

55 12 08

55 08 12; 55 12 04; 

55 12 08

55 08 12

25 12 08

See: OBJECTIONS TO 

ELECTION

S e e : CHALLENGES 

20 16 04; 25 04 16 

10 04 12

20 16 12 (See also: EMP 

CATEGORIES AND CLASSIFICATIONS)

10 32 00

25 08 08; 25 12 08 

10 12 00

25 04 00 

25 04 04 

25 04 12

10 12 00 

25 16 00

6-30-78 173
ELI.CTIONS ( c o m . )

Representation (cont.)

Runoff

Self-Determination 

Separate Voting Groups 

Severance 

Tally 

Tie Vote 

Voter Intent 

Voting Groups 

Voting Procedures 

ELIGIBILITY

Seasonal Emps

EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES AND 

CLASSIFICATIONS

EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION 

EMPLOYEE RIGHTS

EMPLOYEE STATUS: EFFECT ON ULP 

EQUAL RIGHTS IN LAB ORG 

ERRONEOUS ADVICE BY LMSA AGENTS

EVIDENCE

Adequacy of Record 

A/S Documents at Hearings 

A/S Pers as Witnesses 

Burden of Proof 

Documents of A/S

20 16 04; 25 04 16

25 08 08

25 16 00

25 12 00

25 04 00

25 04 04

See also: CHALLENGES; 

AND EMPLOVI-E CATEGORIES 

AND CLASSIFICATIONS

20 16 12 

20 20 00

See: LABOR ORGANIZATION 

35 08 00 

30 24 00 

55 12 04 

10 24 12

15 28 00; 20 04 16 

05 12 04; 30 12 00 

05 12 04

See: BURDEN OF PROOF 

05 12 04

25 08 08

25 08 08

25 04 00

174

6-30-78
EVIDENCE (cont.)

Exclusion 25 08 08; 15 12 00

Improper Acceptance 30 12 00

Limitations 15 12 00

Materiality 15 12 00

Post-Hearing Submission 15 24 00

Record Sufficiency 20 04 16; 15 28 00

Rejection of Evidence 15 12 00; 15 24 00

Relevance of Evidence 15 12 00; 15 24 00

Reopening Record 15 24 00

EXCLUSIONS FROM APPROPRIATE UNITS 20 20 00

EXCLUSIONS FROM EO COVERAGE 05 08 00

EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION, WAIVER OF 10 28 00

EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION UNDER EO 10988 05 08 00

EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE PETITIONER 10 28 00

EO 10988, TRANSITIONAL PROBLEMS 05 32 00

EO 11491, AND AS AMENDED

Coverage 05 08 00

Sec. 1(b) Emps Participation 

in Mgt of Lab Org 10 32 00; 35 08 04

2(b) "Employee" 20 20 00 Vista Volunteers, 

Commissioned Off, Corp, 

U.S. Public Health Service

2(c) "Supervisor" 30 24 00

2(d) "Guard" 20 04 16

2(e) "Labor Organization: 05 04 GO

2(e)(2) Status as Lab Org AO 20 00; 50 00 00

3(b)(3) National Security 05 08 00

6-30-78 175
EO 11491, AND AS AMENDED (cont.)

Sec. 3(b)(4) Internal Agency Security 05 08 00; 15 12 00

3(d) Unions of Lab Rel Pers. 10 32 00

10(b) Criteria for Appropriate 

Unit

20 04 00 to 20 20 00

10 (b)(1) "Management Official", 

"Supervisor" 20 20 00

10(b)(2) Fed Pers Work 20 20 00; 05 08 00

10(b)(3) Guards 10 32 00; 

20 16 04

20 20 00;

10(b)(4) Prof Emps 20 04 04; 

25 04 04;

20

25

20 00; 

12 08

10(c) Non-Guard Union 10 32 00; 20 16 04

11(a) Negotiability 35 28 00

11(b) Negotiability 35 28 00

11(c)(4) Negotiability 35 28 00

11(d) Negotiability 05 08 00; 35 28 08

13(a) Grievance Procedures 60 08 00

13(b) Arbitration 60 12 00

13(d) Question on Grievability 

or Arbitrability 60 16 00

19(a)(1) Interference by Agency 35 04 04; 35 08 00

19(a)(2) Discrimination by Agency 35 12 00

19(a)(3) Improper Assistance 35 16 00

19(a)(4) Discrimination for 

Complaint, Testimony 35 20 00

19(a)(5) Refusal to Grant 

Recognition 35 24 00

176 6-30-78
Sec. 19(a)(6) Agency Refusal to Confer,

EO 11491, AND AS AMENDED (cont.)

Consult, Negotiate 35 28 00

19(b)(1) Interference by Lab Org 40 08 00

19(b)(4) Strike 40 20 00

19(b)(6) Union Refusal to Confer, 

Consult, Negotiate 40 28 00

19(d) Grievance or Appeals 

Procedure 35 32 00

20 Use of Official Time 30 04 00; 35

24(2) Units of Management Officials or Supervisors 10 32 00

25(a) CSC Responsibilities 10 32 00

EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES, STANDARDS OF 

CONDUCT 55 08 08

EXTENT OF ORGANIZATION 20 04 04

- F -

FAILURE TO COOPERATE 15 20 00; 30

FAILURE TO SERVE DOCUMENTS 05 28 00

FED PERS WORK 05 08 00

FIXED TERM AGREEMENT 10 24 12

FORMAL HEARINGS Seck • HEARINGS

FRAGMENTATION OF UNIT 20 04 08; 20 (

FREE SPEECH : .

Representation Election 25 08 16

Lab Org Members

- G -

55 12 08

GOOD FAITH 35 28 00

6-30-78 177
GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY

General 60 04 00

GRIEVANCES

Effect on ULP 30 28 00

Unilateral Adjustment 35 08 04; 35 28 00

GUARDS 20

20

04

20

16;

00;

20

10

16

32

04;

00

Mgt of Non-Guard Lab Org 10 32 Op

Qualifications of Lab Org

to Represent 10 32 00

- H -

HANDBILLING S e e : CAMPAIGN LITER.

HEAD OF AGENCY AUTHORITY TO

05 08 00 EXCLUDE EMPS FROM EO

HE (ALJ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

AND EXCEPTIONS

Credibility Resolutions 30 16 00

Objections 25 08 08

ULP 30 16 00

HEARINGS

Acceptance into Evidence 30 16 00

Adequacy of Record 15 28 00; 20 04 16

Admissibility of Evidence 05 12 08

A/S Documents at Hearings 05 12 04

A/S Pers as Witnesses 05 12 04

Authority of HO 15 04 00

Bar to Petition 10 24 00

Burden of Proof See: BURDEN OF PROOF

178

6-30-78
HEARINGS (cont.)

Collateral Issues 10 16 00

Continuance of Hearing 15 0^ 00

Cooperation of Parties 15 20 00

Cross Examination, Failure

to Allow 15 12 00

Documents 15 12 00

D o c u m e n t s , LMSA 15 12 04

Evidence See; EVIDENCE

Exclusion of Testimony 25 08 08

Failure to Cooperate 15 20 00; 30 12 28

HE (ALJ) Report, No Exceptions 30 16 00

Inadequate Record 15 28 00; 20 04 16

Location 15 08 04

Materiality 15 12 00

Motions 15 08 00

Non-Cooperation of Parties 15 20 00; 30 12 28

Official Time to Attend 05 08 00; 15 20 00;

35 08 04; 35 28 00

Post-Hearing Submissions 15 24 00

Postponement Motion 15 08 04

Record Sufficiency 15 24 00; 20 04 16

Refusal to Furnish Information to HO 15 20 00

Rejection of Evidence 15 12 00

Kelcvance of Evidence 15 12 00

Remand 15 28 00

Reopening of Record 15 24 00

6-30-78 179
Request for LMSA Pets as Witnesses

Role of HO

Rulings of A U s

Showing of Interest Challenge

Stipulated Record

Stipulations

Submissions after Hearing

Supplemental Briefs

Testimony Exclusion

Time Allowed for Filing 

Supplemental Briefs

Transcript Correction

Witnesses

LMSA Staff

Official Time

Written Opening Statement 

HISTORY OF BARGAINING

HEARINGS (cont.)

Request for LMSA Documents

- I, J. K -

INADEQUATE SHOWING OF INTEREST 

INAPPROPRIATE UNIT 

INCUMBENT LAB ORG PETITIONER 

INSTRUCTORS, STATUS AND RIGHTS 

INSUFFICIENT RECORD

05 12 04 

05 12 04 

15 04 00 

30 12 04 

10 16 00 

30 20 00

20 04 16; 15 24 00 

15 24 00 

15 24 00 

25 08 08

15 24 00 

15 24 00 

15 12 00 

05 12 04

05 08 00; 15 20 00;

35 08 04; 35 28 00

15 12 00

10 24 12; 20 04 08

See: SHOWING OF INTEREST 

20 04 00 to 20 20 00 

10 28 00 

30 24 00

15 28 00; 20 04 16

180 6-30-78
INSULATED PERIOD 10 24 12

INSURANCE AS CAMPAIGN BENEFIT 25 08 20; 25 08 24

INTEREST, SHOWING OF 10 16 00; 20 16 08

INTERFERENCE WITH EMPS RIGHTS 35 08 00; 25 08 00

INTERNAL SECURITY OF AGENCY 05 08 00; 15 12 00

INTERVENOR See: INTERVENTION

INTERVENTION

Challenge to

Showing of Interest 10 16 00

Status as Lab Org 10 20 00

Dismissal 10 12 00

Incumbent Lab Org 10 12 00

Intervenor 10

20

12

24

00;

12

20 24 08;

Notification to Potential 

Intervenors 10 08 00

Opportunity to Withdraw 20 24 12

Post-Decisional Intervention 20 24 04

Showing of Interest 10 16 00; 20 24 08

Timeliness 10 12 00

INVESTIGATION, ULP COMPLAINTS 30 08 00

JOB CLASSIFICATIONS S e e : EMP CATEGORIES 

CLASSIFICATIONS

JURISDICTION OF A/S 55 08 04; 05 08 00

6-30-78 181
- L -

LMSA

Agents

As Witnesses 

Erroneous Advice 

Documents at Hearing 

LABOR ORGANIZATION 

Bill of Rights 

Challenge to Status 

Definition

Incumbent Lab Org Petitioner 

Intervenor

Legislative - Executive Branch 

Representation

Management of

Meetings

Officer Elections

Paid Employee-Members

Qualifications to Represent 

Specified Categories of Emps

Remedial Orders Against

Sec. 19(b)(1)

19(b)(4)

19(b)(6)

Standards of Conduct

05 12 04 

10 24 12 

05 12 04

See; BILL OF RIGHTS 

10 20 00 

05 04 00 

10 28 00

See; INTERVENTION

05 08 00

10 32 00

55 12 04

See; ELECTIONS

55 12 04; 55 12 08

10 32 00

40 08 00 

40 20 00 

40 2*8 00

05 08 00; 05 20 00; 

10 20 00; 55 00 00

182 6-30-78
Status as

ULP

LEGISLATIVE - EXECUTIVE BRANCH

LAB ORG

LITERATURE

- M -

M A J O R POLICY ISSUE RAISED 

MGT OFF

Conflict of Interest 

MARKINGS ON BALLOT 

MEMBERSHIP IN A LAB ORG, DENIAL OF 

MEMBERSHIP PINS, BUTTONS 

MERGER AT ACTIVITY

MISREPRESENTATION IN CAMPAIGN

MOONLIGHTERS

MOOTNESS

Standards of Conduct

ULP

MOTIONS

Amendment of Petition

Dismissal of Petition

For Witnesses and/or Production 

of Documents

Post-Hearing Submissions

See: CAMPAIGN LITERATURE

15 32 00; 30 32 00

05 04 00

10 32 00

25 12 08

AO 32 00

35 08 OA

10 04 08; 10 04 20;

20 16 08

25 08 20

20 20 00 Off-Duty Mil Emps 

55 08 08

30 28 00; 35 20 00

15 08 08 

15 12 00

15 12 00 

15 24 OU

10 20 00

35 00 00; AO 00 00

05 08 00

6-30-78 183
Postponement of Hearing 

Reopening of Record 

Rep Cases, General 

ULP

NATIONAL CONSULTATION RIGHTS

MOTIONS (cont.)

- N -

15 08 06 

15 Ik GO 

15 08 04 

30 12 00

35 28 40

NATIONAL GUARD, EO COVERAGE 05 08 00

NLRB DECISIONS, ROLE OF 05 24 00

NATIONAL SECURITY EMPS 05 08 00

NEGOTIABILITY 35 28 00

NEGOTIATIONS 35 28 00

NEW SHOWING OF INTEREST, ' ^

POST-DECISIONAL 20 24 08

90-60 DAY "OPEN" PERIOD 10 24 12

NO-DISTRIDUTION RULE 35 08 08

NO-SOLICITATION RULE 35 08 12

NON-ACCESS TO WORK AREAS BY NON-EMPS 25 08 16; 35 08 04

NON-COOPERATION OF PARTIES 15 20 00; 30 12 28

NONWORK AREA CAMPAIGNING 35 08 08; 35 08 12

NONWORK TIME CAMPAIGNING 35 08 08; 35 08 12

NOTICES

<

Compliance with ULP Decision and

Order 45 00 00; 50 00 00

Mailing of ULP Notice _,50 00 00

Notice of Petition 10 08 00

184 6-30-78
NOTICES (cone.)

ULP

NOTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE 

NOTIFICATION TO POTENTIAL INTERVENORS 

NURSES

Post-Hearing Notice of Unit

Determination

45 GO 00; 50 00 GO 

20 16 04

20 24 04

45 GO GO; 50 OG GO

10 08 00

- 0 -

OBJECTIONS TO REP ELECTION

Access to Employees

Activity Facilities

Activity Interference

Agency Rules on Campaigning

Anti-Union Literature

Burden of Proof

Campaign Misrepresentation

Challenges, Distinguished from

Conduct of Election

Electioneering

Free Speech

HE (ALJ) Report

Impact on Election

Lack of Specificity

Mail Facilities of Activity

25 08 00 (see also : UNFAIR 

LABOR PRACTICES)

25 08 16

25 08 16

25 08 16; 25 08 28 

25 08 16

35 08 04; 35 08 08

25 08 08

25 08 20

25 12 12

25 08 28

20 16 04

25 08 16

25 08 08; 25 08 16

25 08 12 to 25 08 20;

25 08 08; 25 08 24

25 08 08 

20 12 00

6-30-78 185
OBJECTIONS TO REP ELECTION (cont.)

Non-Employee Access to Activity 

Premises 25 08 16

Non-Intervening Union 25 08 16

Procedure 25 08 08

Promises of Benefit 25 08 24

Report on Objections, HE (ALJ) 25 08 08; 25 08 16

Runoff Election 25 08 08

Service 05 28 00

Side Agreements 25 08 08

Timeliness 25 08 08

Timing of Objectionable Conduct 25 08 12

OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES

Availability of Witnesses 15 20 00; 30 08 00;

35 08 04; 35 12 00

Bargaining See: NEGOTIATIONS

Burden of Proof See: BURDEN OF PROOF

Cooperation in Proceedings 15 20 00

Furnishing Information 30 08 00

Official Time for Witnesses 15 20 00; 35 08 04;

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH NURSE

35

25

12

04

00

04; 25 12 08

OFF-DUTY HOURS NEGOTIATIONS 35 28 00

OFF-DUTY MIL EMPS 20 04 16; 20 20 00

OFFICIAL TIME FOR WITNESSES 05 36 00; 15 20 00;

35 08 04; 35 12 00

"OPEN PERIOD" 10 24 12

186 6-30-78
"OPtN btAbUN

OPPORTUNITY T O WITHDRAW PETITION

- P. Q -

PERS WORK, FED

PETITIONER, STATUS OF

PETITIONS

AC: Amendment, Recognition 

or Certification

Agency Doubt of Representative's 

Status (RA)

Amendment

Clarification of Unit (CU) 

Decertification (DR)

Dismissal

DR: Decertification

Opportunity to Withdraw

Petitioner with Exclusive 

Recognition

RA: Agency Doubt of Representative's Status

Service

POSITION ON BALLOT

POST-DECISIONAL

Intervention

Notices

10 Ik 12

20 16 12

05 08 00 

10 28 00

10 04 20

10 04 08

15 08 08

10 04 16

10 04 12

15 20 00; 20 16 08;

10 16 00; 10 24 00 to 

10 36 00

10 04 12

20 24 12

10 28 00

10 04 08 

05 28 00 

10 12 00

20 24 04 

20 24 04

6-30-78

187
Showing of Interest 

Withdrawal 

POST-HEARING 

Rep Cases 

ULP 

POSTING

PRE-COMPLAINT REQUIREMENTS 

Standards of Conduct 

ULP

PREMATURE EXTENSIONS OF AGREEMENT

PREREQUISITES

PRINCIPAL-AGENT

PRIVATE SECTOR LAW, ROLE OF

PROCEDURE

POST-DECISIONAL (cont.)

PROF EMPS

PROMISES OF BENEFIT 

PROPAGANDA

QUALIFICATIONS OF LAB ORG TO 

REPRESENT SPECIFIED CATEGORIES 

OF EMPS

QUESTIONS CONCERNING BALLOT

RA PETITION

- R -

20 24 08 

20 24 12 

15 24 00 

15 24 00 

30 16 00 

See: NOTICES

55 08 08

30 04 GO; 30 08 00 

10 24 12

See; REQUIREMENTS FOR 

35 08 08 

05 24 00

See Specific Captions Such 

As: ELECTIONS; OBJECTIONS; 

REP CASES; ULP; STANDARDS 

OF CONDUCT

05 04 00; 25 04 04 

25 08 24

25 08 12 to 25 08 20;

35 08 08; 25 08 24

10 32 00 

25 12 08

10 04 08

188 6-30-78
See; HEARINGS

REFUSAL TO

Bargain 35 28 00

Cooperate 15 20 00;

Sign Consent Agreement 10 12 00

REGULATIONS

Agency Regulations Not

Binding on A/S 20 04 16

REGULATIONS OF A/S

Sec. 202.2(f) Showing of Interest 10 16 00

202.2(g) Status of Lab Org 10 20 00

202.3(b) Certification Bar 10 24 08

202.3(c) Timeliness of 

Petition 10 24 00

202.3(d) Insulated Period 

Following Withdrawal,, 

Dismissal 10 24 12

202.3(e) Premature Contract 

Extension 10 24 12

202.4(b) Notice of Petition 10 08 00

202.4(f),

(g) Response to Petition 15 08 04;

202.5 Intervention 20 24 04;

202.6(d) Request for Review 

Service 05 28 00

202.7(c) Position on Ballot 10 12 00

202.12(k) Continuance of Hearing 15 04 00

202.20(a) Objections: Filing 25 08 08

Service 05 28 00

6-30-78 189
Sec; 202.20(d) Objections: Burden

REGULATIONS OF A/S (cont.)

of Proof 25 08 08

203.2 Requirements for 

Charge 30 04 00; 30 28 00

203.3(e) Report of Investigation 30 08 00

203.26 Compliance with A/S 

Order 45 04 00

204.2(a)(1) Equal Rights 55 12 04

204.2(a)(2) Free Speech and , 

Assembly- 55 12 08

204.2(a)(5) Disciplinary Action 55 08 08

204.29 Election of Officers 55 08 12

204.58 Dismissal of 

Standards Complaint 55 08 08

204.63 Complaints, Election 

of Officers 55 08 12

205.5(a) Stipulated Record 30 20 00

REJECTION OF EVIDENCE 15 12 00

RELATED CASES, CONCURRENT 05 20 00

RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE 15 12 GO

REMAND 15 28 00

REMEDY: ULP

Against Agencies 45 00 00; 45 04 00

Against Lab Org 45 08 00

REORGANIZATION OF ACTIVITY 10

20

04

16

08;

28

10 .04 20;

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION, ULP 30 08 00

190

6-30-78
AC Petition 

Accretion

Activity Refusal to Respond to 

Petition

Agency Petition (RA)

Agency Regulations Not Binding 

on A/S

Agreement Bar 

Amendment

Certification 

Petition 

Recognition 

Appropriate Unit 

AA's Action 

Burden of Proof 

Certification 

Amendment 

Bar 

Challenges

Clarification of Unit (CU) 

Comnunity of Interest 

Concurrent Related Cases 

CU Petition

10 00 00 to 25 00 00

See also Specific Topics

Such As: APPROPRIATE

UNIT; ELECTIONS; HEARINGS;

OBJECTIONS TO ELECTIONS;

Etc.

10 OA 20

20 16 08

15 16 00

10 04 08

20 04 16

10 24 12

10 08 20

15 08 08

10 04 20

See: APPROPRIATE UNIT

10 40 00

15 12 00

25 16 00

10 04 20

10 24 08

See: CHALLENGES 

25 20 00; 10 04 16

20 04 04

05 20 00

10 04 16

6-30-78

191
REPRESENTATION CASES (cont.)

Current Representative 

Status of Petitioner 10 28 00

Decertification 10 04 12

DR Petition 10 04 12

Effective Dealings 20 04 08

Efficiency of Operations 20 04 12

Election Bar to Petition 10 24 04

Eligibility > 20 16 12; 

25 12 00

20 20

Evidence 15 12 00

Hearing Officer Role 15 04 00

Intervention 20 24 04; 

10 12 00

20 24

Lab Org Status 10 20 00

Motions 15 08 00

Notice of

Petition 20 24 04; 10 08

Unit Determination 20 24 04

Objections See: OBJECTIONS

Obligations of Parties 15 20 00

Opportunity to Withdraw 20 24 12

Petitions, Inconsistent 10 44 00

Petitions, Types 10 04 00

Policy on Consent Agreements 10 40 00; 15 28 1

Post-Hearing Submissions 15 24 00

192 6-30-78
---- Posting, Notice of

Petition

Unit Determination

Procedure

Elections

Hearings

Post-Election

Preliminary Stages

Qualifications to Represent 

Specified Categories of Employees

RA Petition

Remand

Request for Review Rights 

Residual Employees 

Self-Determination 

Service of Documents 

Severance

Showing of Interest

Standards of Conduct

____ Stipulations of Parties Not

Binding on A/S

Timeliness

ULP Allegations

Unit Determinations

Voting Procedures

REPRESENTATION CASES (cont.)

25 00 00 

15 00 00 

25 00 00 

10 00 00

10 32 00 

10 04 08 

15 28 00 

10 36 00 

20 16 16

20 16 20; 25 04 08 

05 28 00 

20 16 04

10 16 00; 20 24 08 

05 20 00; 10 20 00

20 04 16 

10 24 00 

15 16 00 

20 00 00

25 04 00

10 08 00; 20 24 04

20 24 04

6-30-78

193
REQUEST FOR

.Documents 15 12 00

LMSA Documents 05 12 04

LMSA Pers as Witnesses 05 12 04

Witnesses 05 12 00 

REQUEST FOR REVIEW

New Evidence 30 08 00

Objections to Election 25 08 08

Refusal to Dismiss Petition 10 36 00

Service of 05 28 00

Showing of Interest 10 16 00

Status as Lab Org 10 20 00 

REQUIREMENTS FOR

Charge 30 04 00

Complaint 30 04 00

Consent Agreement 10 40 00

Intervention 10 12 00

Petition 10 24 00; 10 40 00;

15 08 08; 10 08 00

Unit Determination Hearings 10 40 00

RERUN ELECTION 25 16 00

RESIDUAL UNIT 20 -16 16

RESPONSE TO PETITION 15 08 04

REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATION 25 16 00

Appearance of Witnesses 15 20 00; 35 08 04

194 6-30-78
ROLE OF

Agency Head: Exclusion of Emps, 

EO Coverage

A/S

CSC Guidance 

HO

NLRB Decisions 

RUNOFF ELECTION

Agency Directives, ULP

05 08 00 

05 08 00 

35 04 04 

15 04 00 

05 24 00 

25 08 08

35 04 04

- S -

SECTIONS

EO

Regulations 

SECURITY EMPS

SELF-DETERMINATION ELECTION 

Unit Determination 

Voting Procedure 

SEPARATE VOTING 

SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS 

SEVERANCE 

SHAM STIPULATION

SHOWING OF INTEREST 

Adequacy

Agency Mgt, Involvement In

See: EXECUTIVE ORDER 

11491, AND AS AMENDED

See: REGULATIONS OF A/S

05 08 00

20 16 20 

25 04 08 

25 04 00

05 28 00; 25 08 08 

20 16 04

20 04 16; 25 12 04;

25 16 00

10 16 00; 20 24 08 

10 16 00

6-30-78

195
SHOWING OF INTEREST (cont.)

Agreement Bar, Unilateral Waiver of 10 16 00

'Challenge at Hearing 10 16 00

Challenge to Intervenor 10 16 00; 20 24 08

Challenge to Petitioner 10 16 00

Inadequate for Larger Unit

Found Appropriate 20 24 08

Post-Decisional 20 24 08

Request for Review 10 16 00

Seasonal Industries 10 16 00; 20 24 08

Validity 10 16 00

SICK-OUT 40 20 00; 50 00 00

SIDE AGREEMENTS

Elections 25 08 08

Negotiations 35 28 00

SINGLE EMPLOYEE UNIT 05 04 00

SOLICITATION OF MEMBERS 35 08 04; 35 08 12

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT 05 08 00; 05 20 00;

10 20 00; 55 00 00

Bill of Rights 

Elections

See Also Specific Captions 

Such As; BILL OF RIGHTS; 

LAB ORG ELECTIONS; FREE 

SPEECH

55 08 08; 55 12 00

55 08 12; See Also: 

ELECTIONS; LAB ORG OFFICERS

Equal Rights 55 12 04

Free Speech and Assembly 55 12 08

Jurisdiction of A/S 55 08 04

196

6-30-78
Oi/UMUAKUC) ur uuwuuCT (cont.)

Procedure 55 08 00

Rep Cases 05 20 00; 10 20

STATEMENT OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS 05 28 00

STATUS AS LAB ORG 10 20 00

STIPULATED RECORD 30 20 00 ■ V

STIPULATIONS 30 20 00; 15 24

Of Parties Not Binding on A/S 20 04 16

Related to Challenges 25 12 04

Sham ’ 20 04 16; 25 12

25 16 00

STRIKE 40 20 00

SUBMISSIONS AFTER HEARING 15 24 00

SUPERVISORS 05 04 00

SUPERVISORS' UNIT 10 32 00

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS 15 24 00

- T -

'

TALLY OF BALLOTS 25 08 08

TELETYPISTS 20 20 00

TEMPORARY EMPS 20 04 16

TERMINAL DATE OF AGREEMENT 10 24 12

TESTIMONY See: EVIDENCE

TIE VOTE ELECTION ' 25 16 00

TIMELINESS

Allegation of ULP Complaint

Deficiency 30 08 00

6-30-78

197
TIMELINESS (cont.) 

Complaint

Standards of Conduct 55 08 08

ULP 30 08 00

Correction of Transcript 15 24 00

Intervention 20 24 04; 10 12 00

Motion to Dismiss ULP Complaint 30 04 00; 30 08 00

New Evidence in Request for Review 30 08 00

Objections to Rep Election 25 08 08

Petition 10 24 00

Showing of Interest 20 24 08; 10 12 00

Withdrawal 20 24 12

TIUDE UNION Seci: LAB ORG

TRANSCRIPT See HEARING

TRANSITIONAL PROBLEMS 05 32 00

- U -

UNDERMINING REPRESENTATIVE 35 28 00

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 30 00 00 to 45 00 00;

Agency

Access to Agency Facilities

See Also Specific Topics 

Such As: COMPLAINT, ULF; 

EVIDENCE; HEARINGS; 

OBJECTIONS TO ELECTIONS

by Non-lntervenor 35 08 12

Directives 35 04 04

ULP 35 00 00

198 6-30-78
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (cont.) 

Agreement

Extension 

Negotiation 

Refusal to Sign 

Amendment of Complaint 

Anti-Union Literature 

Appropriate Unit 

Arbitration 

Award

Cancellation

Effect of 

Assistant to Union 

Authority of Negotiator 

Bargaining Request 

Burden of Proof

By-Passing Exclusive Representative

Cease and Desist Orders

Charge

Checkoff Revocation 

CSC Guidance

Complainant's Obligations 

Complaint

30 12 00; 30 16 00 

35 08 04; 35 08 08 

35 28 00

30 28 00

35 08 04; 35 24 00; 

35 28 00

30 28 00

35 16 00

35 24 00; 35 28 00 

35 28 00

30 08 00; 35 12 00 

35 28 00

45 00 00; 50 00 00 

30 04 00

35 24 00; 35 28 00; 

45 04 00

35 04 04

30 04 00; 30 08 00; 

30 12 00

30 04 00; 30 16 00; 

See Also: COMPLAINT

35 08 04

35 08 04

35 28 00

6-30-78

199
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (cont.)

Compliance 45 00 00

Counterproposals 35 28 00

Credibility Resolutions by HE (ALJ) 36 16 00

CSC Guidance 35 04 04

Dilatory Negotiations 35 28 00

Discriminatory Treatment 35 08 04

Dismissal of Complaint 30 08 00

Disparate Treatment 35 08 04

Distribution of Literature 35 08 08

Dues Allotments Revocation 35 24 00; 35 28 00;

45 16 00

Effect of Other Proceedings 05 20 00; 30 28 00

Emergency Action 35 28 00

Employee Status, Effect on ULP 30 24 00

Evidence See: EVIDENCE

Good Faith Negotiations 35 28 00

Grievance 35 28 00

Grievance or Appeals Procedure 35 32 00

Grievance, Unilateral Adjustment 35 08 04; 35 28 00

"Ground Rules" in Negotiations 35, 28 00

HE (ALJ) Report, No Exceptions 30 16 00

Hearings 30 12 00; See Also:

HEARINGS

V

Interference

Agency 35 08 00

200

6-30-78
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (cont.) 

Interference (cont.)

Union AO 08 00

Interpretation of Agreement 30 28 00

Investigation and Report 30 08 00

Lab Org ULP 40 00 00

Limited to Complaint Allegations 30 12 00

"Make Whole" Order 35 20 00

Mootness 30 28 00; 35 20 00

Motions 30 12 00

Negotiability 35 28 00

Negotiations 35 28 00

Ground Rules 35 28 00

Side Agreements 35 28 00

No-Distribution Rule 35 08 08

No-Solicitation Rule 35 08 12

Non-Access to Work Areas 35 08 04

Nonwork Area Campaigning 35 08 08; 35 08 12

Nonwork Time Campaigning 35 08 08; 35 08 12

Notification of Compliance 45 00 00; 50 00 00

Obligation to Consult, Confer

or Negotiate 35 28 00

Post-Hearing Procedure 30 16 00

Procedure

Hearing 30 16 00; 30 20 00;

30 12 00

6-30-78 201
Procedure (cont.)

Investigation 30 08 00

Recognition, Failure to Accord 35 08 04; 35 28 00

Refusal to Confer, Consult,

Negotiate

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (cont.)

Agency 35 28 00

Union 40 28 00

Refusal to Sign Agreement 35 28 00

Related Proceedings 05 20 00; 30 28 00

Remedial Orders 45 00 00; 50 00 00

Report of Investigation 30 08 00

Request for Bargaining 35 28 00

Requisites for Charges and

Complaints 30 04 00

Responsibility for Acts of

Individual 35 08 08

Revocation of Checkoff 35 24 00; 

45 04 00

35 28 00;

Sections of EO S e e : EO 

AMENDED

11491, AND AS

Solicitation for Membership 35 08 12

Stipulated Record 30 08 00

Strike 40 20 00

"Successorship” Doctrine 35 24 00; 20 16 36

Terminating Agreement 35 28 00

Undermining Exclusive 

Representat ive 35 28 00

202 6-30-78
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (cont.) 

Unilateral Action 

Union ULP

Unit Appropriateness 

Waiver of EO Rights 

Work Stoppage 

UNILATERAL ACTION 

UNION 

UNIT

35 28 00

35 04 08

AO 20 00

35 28 00

S e e : LAB ORG

See: APPROPRIATE UNIT

35 08 OA; 35 28 00

AO 00 00

- V-Z -

VALIDITY OF SHOWING OF INTEREST 10 16 00

VOTER 20 16 12

Eligibility 20 20 00

Intent 25 12 08

Prof Emps 25 04 04

Self-Determination 25 04 08

VOTING GROUPS 25 04 00

WAIVER OF

Agreement Bar Rule 10 24 12

Challenge to Intervention 25 08 08

EO Rights 35 04 08

Exclusive Recognition 10 28 00

WITHDRAWAL OPPORTUNITY 20 16 12

6-30-78 203
WITNESSES

Official Time 

Request for Appearance 

Testimony 

WORK AREA CAMPAIGNING 

W ORK STOPPAGE

LMSA Pers

Obligations of Parties

05 08 00; 35 08 04

15 20 00; 35 08 04

15 20 00

35 08 08; 35 08 12

40 24 00

15 12 00

05 12 04

15 20 00; 30 08 00;

35 08 04; 35 28 00

204 6-30-78

^UAMVBWMENTPRIimNGOITICEtlSTe 0 -2 7 S -4 7 7