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 1,1974 

through June 30, 1975

U.S. Department of Labor 

Labor-Management 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 1,1974 

through June 30, 1975

U.S. Department of Labor 

John T. Dunlop, Secretary

Labor-Management Services Administration 

Paul J. Fasser, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-IVIanagement Relations

Office of Federal Labor-Management Relations 

Louis S. Wallerstein, Director

This edition covers the period of July 1 ,1974-June 30,1975. 

It supplements the Digest and Index covering the period of 

January 1, 1970-June 30, 1974.

This edition contains a Table of Contents and

Tables of Decisions and Reports on Rulings, each covering

the period of July 1,1974 — June 30,1975.

1975
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OiBce

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.66

Stock number 029-000-00252-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ................................................................ XX

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

Page

DIGEST

05 00 00 GENERAL PROVISIONS

05 04 00 1

05 08 00 .... 1

05 12 00 ..... 2

05 12 04 Request for LMSA Documents

and LMSA Personnel at Hearings .... 2

05 12 08 Admissibility at H e a r i n g s ......... 2

05 16 00 ....... 2

05 20 00 ....... 2

05 24 00 ....... 2

05 28 00 ....... 2

05 32 00 ....... 3

05 36 00

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

10 04 00 Types of Petitions; Procedure .............. ........5

Representation, Filed by Labot

Organxzatxon (RO^ •••••••••••••••• 5

Agency Doubt as to Representative

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

Decertification of Representative,

Filed by Employee(s) ( D R ) ........ ....... 5

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

Amendment of Recognition or

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

National Consultation Rights ............. 7

Types of

10 04 04

10 04 08

10 04 12

10 04 16

10 04 20

10 04 24

10 08 00

10 12 00

10 16 00

10 20 00

10 24 00

Posting of Notice of Petition

Intervention .................

Showing of Interest .........

Labor Organization Status ... 

Timeliness of Petition .......

10 24 04 Election Bar 

10 24 08 Certification Bar 

10 24 12 Agreement Bar ....

iii
10 00 00 REPRESENTATION CASES; PRELIMINARY ■JLrt.vj£.D ^VjOiic ' a }

Page

10 28 00 Status of Petitioner 8 

10 32 00 Qualifications to Represent Specified

Categories of Employees ....................... 10

10 36 00 Request for Review Rights ..................... 10

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

10 44 00 Defunctness ..................................... 10

15 00 00 REPRESENTATION HEARING PROCEDURE ....................... 11

15 04 00 Role of Hearing Officer ...................... 11

15 08 00 Motions ................ ......................... 11

15 08 04 General .............................. 11

15 08 08 Amendment of Petition ............. 11

15 12 00 Evidence and Burden of Proof ................ 11

15 16 00 Unfair Labor Practice Allegations ...... . 11

15 20 00 Obligation of Parties ......................... 11

15 24 00 Post-Hearing Submissions ...................... 11

15 28 00 Remand .......................................... 12

20 00 00 REPRESENTATION UNIT DETERMINATIONS ..................... 13

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

20 04 04 Community of I n t e r e s t .............. 13

20 04 08 Effective Dealings ................ 14

20 04 12 Efficiency of O p e r a t i o n s .......... 14

20 04 16 Agency Regulations and Parties'

Stipulations Not Binding on

' Assistant Secretary ................ 15

20 04 20 Previous C e r t i f i c a t i o n ............. 15

20 08 00 Geographic Scope .............................. 15

20 08 04 W o r l d - w i d e ........................... 15

20 08 08 N a t i o n - w i d e ......................... 15

20 08 12 S t a t e - w i d e ........................... 16

20 08 16 City-wide ........................... 16

20 12 00 Organizational Scope ........................... 16

20 12 04

20 12 08

20 12 12

20 12 16

20 12 20

iv
20 00 00 REPRESENTATION UNIT DETERMINATIONS (Cont'd) 

20 12 00 Organizational Scope (Cont'd)

Page

20 12 24 Field-wide ........................ 17

20 12 28 18

20 12 32 18

20 12 36 18

20 12 40 18

20 12 44 18

20 12 48 19

20 12 52 19

20 12 56 19

20 12 60 19

20 12 64 20

20 16 00 Special S i t u a t i o n s ............................. ...... 21

il

1 20 16 04 S e v e r a n c e ............................ ...... 21

1 20 16 08 A c c r e t i o n ............................ ...... 22

1 20 16 12 E l i g i b i l i t y......................... ...... 22

2 20 16 16 Residual E m p l o y e e s ................. ...... 22

20 16 20 S e l f - D e t e r m i n a t i o n................. ...... 22

20 16 24 Supervisory U n i t .................. ....... 22

20 16 28 Reorganization .......................... 23

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications ........... 24

20 24 00 Post-Decisional Intervention, Showing of

Interest and W i t h d r a w a l ....................... ...... 36

20 24 04 Posting of Notice of Unit

Determination ...................... ...... 36

20 24 08 Showing of I n t e r e s t ................ ...... 36

20 24 12 Opportunity to W i t h d r a w .................. 36

25 00 00 REPRESENTATION ELECTION AND POST ELECTION STAGES ..... 37

I

25 04 00 Voting Procedure .............................. ...... 37

25 04 04 P r o f e s s i o n a l s....................... ...... 37

25 04 08 S e l f - D e t e r m i n a t i o n................. ...... 37

25 04 12 Role of Observers ................. ...... 37

25 04 16 Severance .......................... ...... 37

25 08 00 Objections ..................................... ...... 37

25 08 04 Under EO 10988 ...................... ...... 37

25 08 08 Procedure 37

25 08 12 Timing of Objectionable Conduct ... 37

25 08 16 Agency Rules on C a m p a i g n i n g....... ...... 37

25 08 20 Campaign C o m m u n i c a t i o n s .................. 37

25 08 24 Promises of B e n e f i t ................ ...... 37

25 08 28 Conduct of E l e c t i o n ................ ...... 38

25 08 32 Agency N e u t r a l i t y .................. ...... 38
25 00 00 REPRESENTATION ELECTION AND POST ELECTION STAGES

-^

25 12 00 Challenges ............... ......................... 38

25 12 04 Eligibility of E m p l o y e e s ............. .

25 12 08 Questions Concerning B a l l o t ........... 38

25 12 12 Timing of Challenge ................... 38

25 16 00 Certification ..................................... 38

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit ............................ 38

25 24 00 Amendment of Recognition or C e r t i f i c a t i o n...... 40

30 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; PROCEDURE ........................ 43

30 04 00 Requisites for Charges and Complaints ......... 43

30 08 00 Complaint Proceedings; Investigation Stage ... 44

30 12 00 Hearing ........................................... . 44

30 12 04 Rulings of ALJs ....................... 44

30 12 08 Untimely Amendments to Complaints ... 44

30 12 12 Failure to Appear ..................... 44

30 12 16 Prejudicial Evidence ................. 44

30 12 20 Technical D e f i c i e n c i e s................ 44

30 12 24 Evidence and Burden of Proof ........ 44

30 12 28 Lack of Cooperation ................... 45

30 16 00 Post-Hearing ...................................... 46

30 20 00 Stipulated Record ................................ 46

30 24 00 Employee Status; Effect on Unfair Labor

Practices •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••«•••••*• 46

30 28 00 Effect of Other Proceedings or Forums ......... 47

30 32 00 Major Policy' Issue Raised ....................... 48

35 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; AGENCY ............................ 49

35 04 00 General ............................................ 49

35 04 04 Guidance or Directives of Civil

Service Commission or Agency ...... 49

35 04 08 Waiver of Rights Granted by

Executive Order ....................... 49

35 04 12 Management Rights ..................... 49

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) ................................. 49

35 08 04 Interference ........................... 49

35 08 08 Distribution of Literature ........... 64

35 08 12 Solicitation ......................... 64

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) ................................. 64

35 16 00 Section 19(a)(3) ........................ ......... 69

Vi
35 20 00 Section 19(a)(4) .................................. 69

35 24 00 Section 19(a)(5) .................................. 70

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) .................................. 71

35 28 04 Response to Bargaining R e q u e s t ....... 71

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer

Generally »•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 71

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on

Impact or Procedures ................. 75

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Di s ­

cussion Representation ............... 78

35 28 20 Uncompromising Attitude .............. 81

35 28 24 Dilatory and Evasive Tactics ........ 82

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms

and Conditions of Employment ........ 83

35 28 32 Bypassing Exclusive Representatxve ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 86

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information ...... 89

35 32 00 Section 19(d) ..................................... 90

40 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; LABOR ORGANIZATION .............. 93

40 04 00 General ........................................... 93

40 08 00 Section 19(b)(1) ................................. 93

40 12 00 Section 19(b)(2) ................................. 94

40 16 00 Section 19(b)(3) ................................. 94

40 20 00 Section 19(b)(4) ................................. 94

40 24 00 Section 19(b)(5) ................................. 94

40 28 00 Section 19(b)(6) ................................. 94

40 32 00 Section 19(c) ..................................... 94

45 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES; UNFAIR LABOR

PRACTICES ..................................................... 97

45 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of Remedies .... 97

45 08 00 Advice of Compliance ............................. 97

45 10 00 Modifications to Orders ......................... 97

45 12 00 Remedies for Iiq>roper Rules, Regulations

and Orders ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 97

45 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct .................. 97

45 16 04 Interference, Solicitation or

Distribution of Literature ....... . 97

45 16 08 Discrimination ........................ 98

45 16 12 Assisting a Labor Organization ..... 99

45 16 16 Refusal to Accord Appropriate

Recognition ........................... 99

35 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; AGENCY (Cont'd) Page

vii
45 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct (Cont*d)

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or 

Negotiate

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

45 20 00 Jurisdictional Questions .........................

50 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS;

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ...................................... 103

50 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of Remedies .... 103

50 08 00 Advice of Compliance •••••«•••••••••••••••••••• 103

50 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations

and Orders •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 103

50 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct ........................ 103

45 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES: UNFAIR LABOR

PRACTICES (Cont'd) P a g e

50 16 04 103

50 16 08 Harassment of Employee in P e r ­

formance of Dutxes •••••••••••••••••• 103

50 16 12 Inducing Management to Coerce an

Employee ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 103

50 16 16 103

50 16 20 103

50 16 24 Failure to Consult, Confer or

Negotiate ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 104

50 16 28 104

OF CONDUCT ....................................... 105

55 04 00 Effect on Representation and Unfair Labor

Practice Cases .................................... ..... 105

55 08 00 Procedure .......................................... ..... 105

55 08 04 Jurisdiction ........................... ..... 105

55 08 08 Bill of Rights ....................... ..... 105

55 08 12 Elections ............................. ..... 105

55 12 00 Bill of Rights .................................... ..... 105

55 12 04 Equal Rights ................................ 105

55 12 08 Freedom of Speech ......................... 105

55 12 12 Dues, Initiation Fees and

Assessments ................................. 105

55 12 16 Protection of the Right to Sue .......... io5

55 12 20 Safeguards against Improper

Disciplinary Action ................. ..... io5

viii
60 00 00 GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY ........................... ..... 106

60 04 00 General ........................................... ..... 106

60 08 00 13(a) ....... ............. ..................... ..... 106

60 12 00 13(b) ........................................... ..... 106

60 16 00 13(d) ........................................... ..... 106

60 20 00 13(e) ........................................... ..... 106

TABLE OF DECISIONS - NUMERICAL LISTING, DATES

OF ISSUANCE AND SECTIONS OF DIGEST INVOLVED ....................... ..... 107

TABLE OF DECISIONS - ALPHABETICAL LISTING ......................... ..... 123

TABLE OF REPORTS ON RULINGS, DATES OF ISSUANCE

AND SECTIONS OF DIGEST INVOLVED ....................... .•............ ..... 139

INDEX ................................................................... ..... 141

ix

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, from 

July 1, 1974 to June 30, 1975. Published decisions from January 1, 1970 

to June 30, 1974, are contained in the previously published 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 Contents, 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; 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-Management 

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 pronouncements or interpretations of the A/S.

XI

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

AA

AC Petition 

AD

ALJ

AO

ARD

A/S

A/SLMR No.

CU Petition 

DI

EO

FLRC 

FLRC No. 

GS 

HE

Area Administrator, Labor-Management Services 

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; 

n o w referred to as Area Director, LaborManagement Services Administration

Amendment of Recognition or Certification 

Petition

Area Director, Labor-Management Services 

Administration (formerly 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 (formerly Regional Administrator, LaborManagement 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)

xiii
LMSA

LMWP

NE

OFLMR

RA

R A Petition 

R A/S NOo 

Regs 

SDI

Sec

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; now referred to as 

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

Unfair Labor Practice 

Wage Board

X I V
05 08 00

05 00 00 GENERAL PROVISIONS

05 04 00 Definitions (Alphabetically Listed)

(See also; 20 20 0 0 , "Employees Categories and Classifications")

A g e n c y . A/S found that Activity use of term 

"Agency" is inconsistent with definition contained 

in Sec. 2(a) of the Order. In the view of A/S, the 

Department herein is clearly an "Agency" within the 

meaning of the Order, and the ARS is a component 

Activity of that Agency. (Dept, of Agric. and Agric. 

Research Service, A/SLMR No. 519)

Supervisor. A/S rejected ALJ's rationale that supervisory status for a professional employee must flow 

from something more than the relationship between the 

professional and the professional's secretary or other 

standard or normal support person. Noting the decision 

of the FLRC in United States Department of Agriculture, 

Northern Marketing and Nutrition Research Division, 

Peoria, Illinois, FLRC No. 72A-4, which held that supervisory status was intended to be determined on the basis 

of the authority of the individual, not on the basis of 

the precise number of subordinates, A/S found that there 

was no indication in the Council's decision that a 

different test would be applicable to professional e m ­

ployees in the Federal sector. (Nat'l. Science 

Foundation, A/SLMR No. 487)

05 08 00 Coverage of Executive Order

A/S adopts ALJ's finding that Sec. 7(d)(1) does not 

confer any rights enforceable under Sec. 19; that 

where employees subject to agency grievance procedure, 

in absence of anti-union motivation, agency's improper 

failure to apply provisions of its procedure cannot be 

considered violative of Order; and that where no labor 

organization has been accorded exclusive recognition. 

Sec. 10(e) is inapplicable. (Naval Air S t a . , (North 

Island), San Diego, Cal., A/SLMR No. 452)

A/S rejected Respondent's contention that it was not 

a proper Respondent since it was not "Agency Management" within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Order.

A/S held that Respondent and its grievance examiner, 

when engaged in processing grievances, met the definitions of "Agency Management" and "representatives of 

management" respectively since both Respondent and the 

Activity are under the jurisdiction and authority of the 

Department of the Army and, Respondent is a necessary

A_'^n_7=i
05 28 00

and integral part of the labor relations program of the 

Department of the Army and has, by regulation, certain 

authority to act for the Department of the Army and to 

assist the Commanding Officer of the Activity the 

implementation of such program. (Army Civilian Appellati 

Review Agency, Sacramento, Cal,, A/SLMR No. 488)

A/S found, in agreement with ALJ, that Respondent, as a 

Govt, corporation, meets the definition of "Agency" as 

set forth in Sec. 2(a) of the Order, and does not qualify for exemption from the provisions of the Order based 

on paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of Sec. 3. (TVA, A/SLMR 

No. 509)

05 12 00 Evidence

05 12 04 Request for LMSA Documents and LMSA Personnel 

at Hearings

No Entries

05 12 08 Admissibility at Hearings

Where Respondent refused to comply with ALJ's 

Request for Procution of Documents, and evidence revealed Respondent had no justification 

for failing to comply with such requests, the 

A/S agreed with the ALJ's decision to exclude 

from evidence all documents sought in the requests which Respondent sought to introduce 

in its own case but found further, that all 

written and oral evidence related to the documents covered by the requests should have been 

excluded and not considered in the determinatioi 

of the case. Accordingly, the A/S remanded the 

19(a)(1) and (2) complaint to the ALJ for fur 

ther consideration consistent wit h his decision 

(Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash., 

A/SLMR No. 425)

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 08 00 Coverage of Executive Order (Gont*d)

6-30-75
05 36 00

05 32 00 Transitional Problems 

No Entries

05 36 00 Official Time 

No Entries

'A_'^r>-7S

10 04 12

10 04 00 Types of Positions; 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 of 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)

R A petition seeking determination with respect 

to effect of reorganization on 14 of 17 recognized units dismissed as in circumstances 

Center-wide election not warranted, (FAA,

Nat'l, Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr,, 

Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 482)

RA petitions dismissed where recognized units 

were no longer in existence as a result of a 

reorganization, thus freeing the Activity 

from the obligation of recognizing the exclusive representative involvedo (FAA, Nat'l, 

Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr.,

Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No, 482)

10 04 12 Decertification of Representative, Filed by 

Employee(s) (DR)

Noting prior decisions where petitions filed 

by a management official and a guard for a 

non-guard unit were dismissed, A/S determined 

that the HO erred in not permitting the introduction of evidence pertaining to the 

alleged supervisory status of the Petitioner 

raised in the Intervenor's pre-hearing motion 

to dismiss the petition, and remanded the 

case for further hearing with respect to 

Petitioner's supervisory status at the time 

he filed his DR petition, (Geological Survey, 

Rolla, Mo,, A/SLMR No. 413)

A/S ordered a decertification election, finding 

that the individual who filed the petition was 

not a supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2 

(c) of the Order, and thus eligible to file such

10 00 00 REPRESENTATION CASES; PRELIMINARY STAGES

oA -71;
10 04 20

petition. Further, A/S noted his earlier 

finding in A/SLMR No. 413 that the petition 

was timely filed. (Geological Survey, Rolla, 

Mo., A/SLMR No. 460)

DR election rendered unnecessary in v i e w 

of A/S finding of defunctness. (Naval Air 

S t a . ,N e w Orleans, Belle Chasse, La., A/SLMR 

No. 520)

10 04 16 Clarification of Unit (CU)

Stipulation to delete from CU petition two 

job classifications treated as withdrawal of 

petition insofar as it applies to these two 

job classifications. Accord, A/SLMR 

N o s . 370 and 121. (Navy, San Diego Marine 

Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal,, A/SLMR No. 409)

In view of positions of parties, A/S agreed 

to treat R A petitions as having been amended 

to constitute petitions for clarification of 

units. (Military Sealift Com.,Pacific Naval 

Supply Cntr., Oakland, Cal,, A/SLMR No. 494)

10 04 20 Amendment of Recognition or Certification (AC)

The A/S found that any change brought about as 

a result of the processing of a petition for 

amendment of certification or recognition 

should not affect the continuity of the unit 

employees' representation and clearly should not 

leave open questions concerning such representation. In order to assure that any such change in 

affiliation accurately reflects the desires of 

the membership and that no question concerning 

representation exists, it is necessary that the 

procedures invoked to effectuate the change in 

affiliation meet certain standards. In order 

. to assure that such an amendment conforms to the 

wishes of the membership, the A/S established 

the following steps which, as a minimum, should 

be taken: (1) A proposed change in the affiliation should be the subject of a special meeting 

of the members of the incumbent labor organization, called for this purpose only, with adequate 

advance notice provided to the entire membership; 

(2) the meeting should take place at a time and 

place convenient to all members; (3) adequate 

time for discussion of the proposed change should 

be provided, with all members given an opportunity 

to raise question within the bounds of normal 

preliamentary procedure; and (4) a vote by the

^ 6 ^ i ) - 7‘i
10 24 12

10 04 20 Amendment of Recojgnition or Certification (AC) 

(Cont* d)

members of the incumbent labor organization on 

the question should be taken by secret ballot, 

with the ballot clearly stating the change 

proposed and the choices inherent therein. 

(V.A. H o s p . ,Montrose, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 470)

AC petitions dismissed as moot where recognized units were no longer in existence as 

a result of a reorganization. (FAA, Nat'l. 

Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr., 

Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 482)

10 04 24 National Consultation Rights

No Entries

10 08 00 Posting of Notice of Petition

(See 20 24 00 for Post-Decisional Items)

No Entries

10 12 00 Intervention

(See 20 24 00 for Post-Decisional Items)

Intervention must also fall where DR petition is 

dismissed and no cross petition was filed for the 

unit in question. (Naval Air Sta.,New Orleans,

Belle Chasse, A/SLMR No, 520)

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 00, "Defunctness")
10 24 12

Rejecting the Intervener's contention that 

the undated draft basic agreement signed by 

the Intervenor and the Activity at the local 

level barred the filing of a DR petition, and 

noting the rationale in Treasury Department, 

United States Mint, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 

A/SLMR No. 45, the A/S found (1) that the controlling date in computing the "open" period 

for the filing of the petition was the terminal 

date of the one-year negotiated agrement between the parties, and (2) that the DR petition 

was timely. (Geological Survey, Rolla, Mo., 

A/SLMR No. 413)

Agreement covering all GS employees bars 

election for unit of civilian firefighters where: 

(1 ) evidence indicates that at least a small 

number of civilian firefighters were employed by 

the Activity a number of months or years prior 

to the execution of the current agreement and 

the filing of the petition; (2 ) civilian firefighters are serviced by the same civilian 

personnel office as are other unit employees; 

and (3) no evidence presented that the parties 

to the agreement sought or intended, at any time 

during their bargaining history, to exclude the 

civilian firefighter classification from the 

base-wide unit. (Air Force, Davis-Monthan AFB, 

Arlz., A/SLMR No. 462, FLRC No. 74A-92; Air 

Force, 366th Combat Support Group, Mountain 

Home AFB, Idaho, A/SLMR No, 530; Air Force,

321st Combat Support Group, Grand Forks AFB,

N.D., A/SLMR No. 531)

Where RA petition raised issue of whether exclusively recognized units remained appropriate due 

to substantial change in their character and 

composition because of reorganization, A/S found 

that the current negotiated agreements did not 

constitute bars to filing of RA petition.

(FAA, Nat'l. Aviation Facilities Experimental 

Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 482;

HQ., Army Training and Doctrine Com., (TRADOC),Ft. 

Monroe, V a . , A/SLMR No. 507)

The controlling date in computing the "open" 

period for filing of a petition is the terminal 

date provided for in the agreement, measured 

from its effective date, rather than the date 

of execution at the local level. (VA Hosp., 

Montrose, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 484)

10 24 12 Agreement Bar (Cont*d)

A-
10 28 00

An agreement, signed at the local level but 

returned unapproved, which would, under normal 

circumstances, constitute a bar to a petition 

filed thereafter, does not bar election in 

the instant case based on Section 202.3(c)(3) 

of the Regulations (unusual circumstances).

Thus, the agreement was returned to the local 

level within a reasonable time and no efforts 

were made to conform the agreement as required, 

or, if appropriate, to utilize the procedures 

under Section 11(c) of the Order during the 

two-year period between the return of the 

agreement to the local level and the filing 

of the subject petition. (Public Health 

Service Hosp., Brighton, Mass., A/SLMR 

No. 502)

Representation petition was untimely as 

barred by binding negotiated agreement resulting from agreement articles initialed by 

the Activity's and the Intervenor's negotiators 

and a memorandum of understanding, signed by 

these parties two days before the petition was 

filed, which resolved the remaining two agreement articles; the Activity and the Intervenor 

effectuated certain agreement provisions before 

the petition was filed; the negotiators were 

authorized to enter into a binding agreement; 

and the agreement does not require ratification 

by the Intervenor's members. (Naval Station,

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, A/SLMR No. 504)

To extent that RA petition raises issue whether 

exclusive representative continues to enjoy 

majority status in the existing unit, A/S found 

current negotiated agreement to constitute bar 

to filing of RA petition. (Hq., Army .Training 

and Doctrine Com., (TRADOC), Ft. Monroe, Va,, 

A/SLMR No. 507)

Activity has no remaining obligation to honor 

current negotiated agreement where exclusive 

representative found to be defunct. (Naval 

Air Sta., New Orleans, Belle Chasse, La.,

A/SLMR No. 520)

10 28 00 Status of Petitioner

Noting prior decisions where petitions filed by a management

10 24 12 Agreement Bar (Cont*d)

6-30-75 9
10 44 00

10 28 00 Status of Petitioner (Cont*d)

official and a guard for a non-guard unit were dismissed, 

A/S determined that the HO erred in not permitting the 

introduction of evidence pertaining to the alleged supervisory status of the Petitioner raised in Intervenor's 

pre-hearing motion to dismiss and remanded the case for 

further hearing with respect to Petitioner's supervisory 

status at the time he filed his DR petition. (Geological 

Survey, Rolla, Mo,, A/SLMR No. 413)

A/S ordered a decertification election, finding that the 

individual who filed the petition was not a supervisor 

within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the Order, and thus 

eligible to file such petition. Further, A/S noted his 

earlier finding In A/SLMR No. 413 that the petition was 

timely filed. (Geological Survey, Rolla, Mo., A/SLMR 

No. 460)

Decertification petition found not defective w hen A/S 

concluded that evidence did not establish that G S-8 

Computer O perators,including Petitioner, were supervisors, or that GS-12 Computer Specialist,who assisted 

in collective signatures, was management official. 

(Western Mgt. Sys. Off., Mil. Traffic Mgt. Coo,,

Oakland Army Base, Oakland, Cal., A/SLMR No. 503)

10 32 00 Qualifications to Represent Specified Categories 

of Employees

No Entries

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")

Local found to be defunct where it had no dues paying 

members; it had no officers; its funds were disbursed 

among the resigning membership; and, neither the local 

nor its National Office sought to intervene or took 

any affirmative action to represent the unit employees. 

(Naval Air Sta., New Orleans, Belle Chasse, La.,

A/SLMR No. 520)

10 6-30-75
15 24 00

15 00 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

Case remanded for further hearing where HO did *

not permit introduction of evidence pertaining 

to the alleged supervisory status of the petitioner at the time the DR petition was filed,as 

raised in the Intervenor's pre-hearing motion to 

dismiss the petition. (Geological Survey,

Rolla, Mo., A/SLMR No. 413)

Evidence did not establish that employees in units 

no longer in existence as result of major reorganization had become so integrated with other employees 

of Activity as to create a new organizational 

entity and an appropriate unit which would warrant 

an election pursuant to an RA petition. (FAA,

Nat'l. Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr., 

Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 482)

15 16 00 Unfair Labor Practice Allegations

No Entries

15 20 00 Obligation of Parties

No Entries

15 24 00 Post-Hearing Submissions

No Entries

11
15 00 00 REPRESENTATION HEARING PROCEDURE (Cont'd) 

15 28 00 Remand

15 28 00

Case remanded for further hearing where HO did 

not permit introduction of evidence pertaining 

to the alleged supervisory status of the petitioner at the time the DR petition was filed,as 

raised in the Intervenor's pre-hearing motion 

to dismiss the petition. (Geological Survey, 

Rolla, Mo., A/SLMR No. 413)

A/S remanded case to ARD for the purpose of 

receiving additional evidence as the record contained insufficient evidence to enable him to 

make a determination. (Acad, of Health Sciences, 

and HQ., Ft. Sam Houston, A/SLMR No. 426)

12 6-30-75
20 04 04

20 00 00 REPRESENTATION UNIT DETERMINATIONS

20 04 00 Criteria

20 04 04 Community of Interest

A/S found that the two individual field 

office units sought by the petitioners 

were not appropriate and dismissed the 

petitions, finding that the separate 

claimed units do not contain employees 

who share a clear and identifiable community of interest separate and distinct 

from other employees of the Activity.

A/S further found that such units, if 

established, would artifically fragment 

the Activity, and could not reasonably 

be expected to promote effective dealings 

and efficiency of agency operations, 

(Department of Agric., Off. of Automatic 

Data Systems, St. Louis, Mo,, and 

Kansas City, Mo,, A/SLMR No. 458)

Two units, one consisting of Bank Examiners 

and the other comprised of clerical employees, are appropriate where the two 

groups have different first-level supervision, work locations and duties, have 

little or no work contact, do not interchange and have separate areas of consideration for promotions and reductionsin-force. (Fed. Deposit Insurance Corp., 

A/SLMR No. 459)

Proposed District-wide unit held appropriate 

under all the circumstances, including clear 

and identifiable community of interest of 

employees i n v o l v e d , separate and distinct 

from all other employees of Region, and 

in view of holding that such unit will promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations, Cf, Defense Supply 

Agency, Defense Contract Administration 

Services Region (DCASR), Cleveland, O h i o , 

A/SLMR No, 372, (DSA, DCASR, San Francisco, Cal,; DCASD, Salt Lake City, Utah, 

A/SLMR No. 461)

6-30-75 13
20 04 12

Petitioned for unit inappropriate where 

community of interest was based essentially 

on a common state boundary, and an alternative , 

unit, agreed upon by the parties, was also found 

to be inappropriate because, among other things, 

certain facilities containing employees who 

share a community of interest with petitioned 

for employees would be excluded. However, unit 

of all headquarters employees at one geographic 

location found to be appropriate. (Naval E d ­

ucation and Training Information Services 

Activity, Pensacola, Fla. , A/SLMR No, 466)

Claimed unit is appropriate where, among other 

factors, included employees share a clear and 

identifiable community of interest. (Picatinny 

Arsenal, Dover, N. J . ,A/SLMR No. 474)

Claimed unit is not appropriate where included 

employees do not share a clear and identifiable 

community of interest which is separate and 

distinct from excluded employees. (See A/SLMR 

Nos. 480, 500, 505, and 506)

20 04 08 Effective Dealings

(See 20 04 1 2 , Efficiency of Operations")

Proposed District-wide unit held appropriate 

under all the circumstances, including clear 

and identifiable community of interest of 

employees involved separate and distinct 

from all other employees of Region, 

and in view of holding that such unit will 

promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations. Cf. Defense Supply Agency 

Defense Contract Administration Services 

Region (DCASR), Cleveland, O h i o ,

A/SLMR No. 372. (DSA, DCASR, San Francisco,

Cal.; DCASD, Salt Lake City, Utah, A/SLMR 

No. 461)

Claimed unit is not appropriate where, among 

other factors, it would result in fragmented 

units which could not reasonably be ejq>ected 

to promote effective dealings and efficiency 

of operations. (See A/SLMR Nos. 458, 480,

500, 505, 506)

20 04 12 Efficiency of Operations

(See also 20 04 08, "Effective Dealings")

20 04 04 Cotnmunity of Interest (Cont*d)

14 6-30-75
20 08 08

Claimed unit is not appropriate where, among 

other factors, it would result in fragmented 

units which could not reasonably be expected 

to promote effective dealings and efficiency 

of operations. (See A/SLMR Nos. 458, 480,

500, 505, 506)

Proposed District-wide unit held appropriate 

under all circumstances, including clear and 

identifiable community of interest of employees 

involved separate and distinct from all other 

employees of Region, and in view of 

holding that such unit will promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of agency operations.

G f . Defense Supply Agency, Defense Contract 

Administration Services Region (DCASR), 

Cleveland. O h i o , A/SLMR No. 372. (DSA, DCASR, 

San Francisco, Cal., DCASD, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, A/SLMR No. 461)

20 04 16 Agency Regulations and Parties' Stipulations 

Not Binding 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

RA petition seeking determination with respect 

to effect of reorganization on 14 of 17 recognized units dismissed as in circumstances 

Center-wide election not warranted, (FAA, 

Nat'l. Aviation Facilities Experimental C n t r . , 

Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 482)

20 08 00 Geographic Scope

20 08 04 World-Wide

No Entries

20 08 08 Nation-wide

A/S found that the two individual field office 

units sought by the Petitioners were not 

appropriate and dismissed the petitions, 

finding that the separate units do not contain 

employees who share a clear and identifiable

20 04 12 Efficiency of Operations (Cont'd)

6-30-75 15 I
20 12 08

20 08 08 Nation-Wide Cont'd)

community of interest separate and distinct 

from other employees of the Activity. 

further found that such units, if established, 

would axtifically fragment the Activity, and 

could not reasonably be expected to promote 

effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

operations. (Dept, of Agric., Office of 

Automatic Data Systems, St. Louis, Mo. and 

Kansas City, Mo., A/SLMR No. 458)

20 08 12 State-wide

Unit of all nonprofessional education and 

training employees located in Pensacola, 

rather than petitioned for State-wide unit, 

found appropriate. (Naval Education and 

Training Information Services Activity, 

Pensacola, Fla., A/SLMR No. 466

20 08 16 City-wide

Unit of all nonprofessional education and 

training employees located in Pensacola, 

rather than petitioned for State-wide unit, 

found appropriate. (Naval Education and 

Training Information Services Activity, 

Pensacola, Fla., A/SLMR No. 466)

20 12 00 Organizational Scope 

20 12 04 Agency-wide

No Entries 

20 12 08 Activity-wide

A/S found that the two individual field 

office units sought by the Petitioners were 

not appropriate and dismissed the petitions, 

finding that the separate units do not contain 

employees who share a clear and identifiable 

community of interest separate and distinct 

from other employees of the Activity. A/S further 

found that such units, if established, would 

artificially fragment the Activity, and could 

not reasonably be expected to promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of agency operations. 

(Dept, of Agric., Office of Automatic Data 

Systems, St. Louis, Mo. and Kansas City, Mo., 

A/SLMR No. 458)

6-30-75

16
20 12 24

20 12 08 Activity-wide

Unit of all nonsupervisory GS employees 

of Academy of Health Science is appropriate. 

(Acad, of Health Scl^Tices, and HQ, Array 

Health Services Com., Ft. Sam Houston, Tex., 

A/SLMR No, 490)

A/s concluded that the field employees of the 

Activity's Branch of Field Surveys shared a 

community of interest separate and distinct from 

the Activity's headquarters' employees and that 

a unit limited to the field employees would be 

appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition under the Order. He based his decision 

on the fact that there was minimal commonality 

between the Field District employees and the 

headquarters' employees in terms of job func-itions,working conditions, location, individual 

supervision and interchange. (Geological 

Survey, Mid-continent Mapping Cntr,, A/SLMR 

No. 495)

20 12 12 Directorate-wide 

No Entries 

20 12 16 Command-wide 

No Entries 

20 12 20 Headquarters-wide

Unit of all nonsupervisory GS employees of 

headquarters unit is appropriate. (Acad* 

of Health Sciences, and HQ, Army Health Services Com., Ft. Sam Houston, Tex., A/SLMR 

No. 490)

20 12 24 Field-wide

A/S concluded that the field employees of the 

Activity's Branch of Field Surveys shared a 

community of interest separate and distinct 

from the Activity's headquarters' employees 

and that a unit limited to the field employees 

would be appropriate for the purpose of exclusive 

recognition under the Order. He based his decision on the fact that there was minimal 

commonality between the Field District employees 

and the headquarters' employees in terms of job 

functions, working conditions, location, in6-30-75 17
20 12 44

18

dividual supervision and interchange. (Geological Survey, Mid-Gontinent Mapping 

Center, A/SLMR No. 495)

20 12 28 Region-wide

Unit of all professional and nonprofessional 

employees in District held appropriate in view 

of finding that such employees enjoyed a clear 

and identifiable community of interest separate 

and distinct from all other employees in 

Region. (DSA, DCASR, San Francisco, Cal.; 

DCASD, Salt Lake City, Utah, A/SLMR No. 461)

Unit limited to the largest of 18 field audit 

offices within the Region is inappropriate as 

the Regional Office performs a centralized 

planning function which, among other things, 

has resulted in interchange and transfer of 

employees among the field audit offices in the 

Region; the area of consideration for competitive promotions is broader than the claimed 

unit; and effective control and final responsibility for most personnel matters for 

employees in the Region resides within the 

Regional Office. (Defense Contract Audit 

Agency, Chicago Branch Office, A/SLMR No.

463)

20 12 32 Division-wide

No Entries

20 12 36 Area-wide

No Entries

20 12 40 District-wide

Unit of all professional and nonprofessional 

employees in District held appropriate in 

view of finding that such employees enjoyed 

a clear and identifiable community of interest 

separate and distinct from all other employees 

in Region. (DSA,DCASR, San Francisco, Cal.; 

DCASD, Salt Lake City, Utah, A/SLMR No. 461)

20 12 44 Branch-wide

Unit of all professional and nonprofessional

20 12 24 Field-wide (Cont*d)

6-30-75
20 12 60

20 12 44 Branch-wide (Cont*d)

employees of the Electronic Engineering 

Branch of the Airway Facilities Division, FAA, 

Southern Region, held inappropriate where job 

classifications of branch not unique to that 

sub-element, and b r a n c h ,.along with the other 

Region sub-elements of Division,performs a part 

of integrated work process. (FAA, Southern 

Region, A/SLMR No. 456)

Unit limited to one Branch Office, the largest 

of 18 field audit offices within the Region, 

is inappropriate as the Regional Office pe r ­

forms a centralized planning function which, 

among other things, has resulted in interchange 

and transfer of employees among the field audit 

offices in the Region; the area of consideration 

for competitive promotions is broader than the 

claimed unit; aiid effective control and final 

responsibility for most personnel matters for 

employees in the Region resides within the 

Regional Office. (Defense Contract Audit 

Agency, Chicago Branch Office, A/SLMR No. 463)

20 12 48 Base-wide

R A petition seeking determination with respect 

to effect of reorganization on 14 of 17 reorganized units dismissed as in circumstances 

Center-wide election not warranted. (FAA, 

Nat'l. Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr., 

Atlantic City, N. J., A/SLMR No. 482)

20 12 52 Section-wide

Unit of Officers' Club, one of fourteen no n ­

appropriated fund activities at base, found 

inappropriate where employees of all nonappropriated funds at base are subject to unifoirm 

personnel policies and, in many instances, have 

similar duties. (Officers Club, NAF Army 

Air Defense Center and Bliss, Ft. Bliss, Tex., 

A/SLMR No. 505)

20 12 56 Multi-Installation

No Entries

20 12 60 Single Installation

A/s found that the two individual field office 

units sought by the Petitioners were not

6-30-75 19
20 12 64

20

20 12 60 Single Installation (Cont*d)

appropriate and dismissed the petitions, 

finding that the separate units do not contain 

employees who share a clear and identifi^^^® 

community of interest separate and distinct 

from other employees of the Activity- A/S 

further found that such units, if established, 

would artificially fragment the Activity, 

and could not reasonably be expected to pr o ­

mote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations. (Dept, of Agric., Office 

of Automatic Data Systems, St, Louis, Mo, 

and Kansas City, Mo., A/SLMR No, 458)

Unit of all nonprofessional education and 

training employees located in Pensacola, 

rather than petitioned for statewide unit, 

found appropriate. (Naval Education and 

Training Information Services Activity, 

Pensacola, Fla», A/SLMR No. 466)

Single-installation shop unit is inappropriate 

where all of the Activity's shops are supervised by the same official; personnel policies 

for all technicians are centralized in the same 

authority; there have been numerous transfers 

and details between the unit petitioned for and 

other elements of the Activity; the Activity's 

shops cooperate pursuant to common functions; 

and many of the employees of the petitioned for 

unit perform the same functions as similarly 

classified employees throughout the Activity. 

(Fifth UoS. Army, Camp McCoy, Wise., 102d 

ARCOM, AMSA, Ship #44, A/SLMR No, 500)

20 12 64 Occupational Classification

Two units, one consisting of Bank Examiners and 

the other comprised of clerical employees, are 

appropriate where the two groups have different 

first-level supervision, work locations and 

duties, have little or no work contact, do not 

interchange and have separate areas of consideration in promotions and reductions-inforce, (Fed. Deposit Insurance Corp.,

A/SLMR No. 459)

WG employees of Academy of Health Sciences did 

not share clear and identifiable community of 

interest with claimed GS employees, (Acad, of 

Health Sciences, Ft. Sam Houston, Tex.: HQ, 

Health Services Com., Ft. Sam Houston, Tex,, 

A/SLMR No, 490)

6-30-75
20 16 04

20 12 64 Occupational Classification (Cont'd)

Claimed unit of clerical employees in 

County Offices not appropriate because 

included employees do not share a clear 

and identifiable community of interest which 

is separate and distinct from other employees. 

(FmHA of Agric., Little Rock, Ark.,

A/SLMR No. 506)

20 16 00 Special Situations

20 16 04 Severence

Petition seeking to sever unit of civilian 

firefighters from existing, base-wide unit 

found to have been filed untimely, inasmuch 

as civilian firefighters covered by current 

negotiated agreement. (Air Force, DavisMonthan APB, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 462, FLRC 

No. 74A-92; Air Force, 366th Combat Support 

Group, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, A/SLMR No. 530; 

Air Force, 321st Combat Support Group, Grand 

Forks AFB, N.D., A/SLMR No. 531)

A/S found that the exclusion of the BHA Denver 

Field Office employees from the existing unit 

was unwarranted and he ordered the ActivityPetitioner's CU petition dismissed. He based 

his finding on the fact that the BHA Denver 

Field Office employees were on the eligibility 

list and, in fact, voted without challenge by 

the Activity-Petitioner in the election which 

resulted in the certification of the AFGE as 

exclusive representative of the Regional Office 

unit; the Field Office employees have been 

considered to be a part of the Regional Office 

unit by the Field Office employees and by the 

Activity-Petitioner since the issuance of the 

certification; and there is no indication that 

the Field Office employees have not been fairly 

and effectively represented by AFGE. (HEW, 

Region. VIII, A/SLMR No. 476)

Severance of non-guards from combined guardnonguard unit is consistent with purposes and 

policies of EO. (VA Hosp., Montrose, N.Y.

A/SLMR No. 484)

Severance from existing unit denied where there 

is no evidence that incumbent labor organization

6-30-75 21
20 16 24

20 16 04 Severance (Cont*d)

has failed to represent petitioned for 

employees (five quality assurance specialists) 

in a fair and effective manner within a 

broader unit. (GSA, Region 5, Quality Control 

D i v , , Federal Supply Service, A/SLMR No. 526)

20 16 08 Accretion

A/S ordered that the existing exclusively 

recognized Regional Office unit should be 

clarified to include the nonprofessional 

employees of the Bureau of Hearings and 

Appeals Development Center as he found that 

the employees of the Development Center 

share a community of interest wit h and are, 

in fact, an integral part of the existing 

unit which includes the Bureau of Hearings 

and Appeals Denver Field Office. (HEW,

Region VIII, A/SLMR No. 476)

Accretion occurred where certain employees 

in the steward and unlicensed civilian marine 

personnel units at former ship operating 

Command, who were transferred pursuant to a 

reorganization, were thoroughly combined and 

integrated into existing units at another 

Command. (Military Sealift C o m . , Pacific 

Naval Supply Cntr., Oakland, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 494)

20 16 12 Eligibility 

No Entries 

20 16 16 Residual Employees

No Entries

20 16 20 Self-Determination

(For Self-Determination involving professional 

employees, (See: 20 20 00 "Employees Categories 

and Classification, Professional Employees",

See also: 20 12 6 4 , "Occupational Classification"

No Entries 

20 16 24 Supervisory Unit 

No Entries

22 6-30-75
20 16 28

20 16 28 Reorganization

RA petitions dismissed where recognized units 

were no longer in existence as a result of a 

reorganization, thus freeing the Activity 

from the obligation of recognizing the exclusive 

representative involved, (FAA, Nat'l. Aviation 

Facilities Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City,

N.J., A/SLMR No. 482)

R A petition seeking determination with respect 

to effect of reorganization on 14 of 17 recognized 

units dismissed as in circumstances Center-wide 

election not warranted, (FAA, Nat'l, Aviation 

Facilities Experimental Cntr,, Atlantic City,

N,J,, A/SLMR No, 482)

AC petitions dismissed where A/S found that 

recognized units were no longer in existence 

as a result of a reorganization. (FAA, Nat'l, 

Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr., Atlantic 

City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 482)

Evidence did not establish that employees in 

units no longer in existence as result of major 

reorganization had become so integrated with 

other employees of Activity as to create a ne w 

organizational entity and an appropriate unit 

which would warrant an election pursuant to an 

RA petition. (FAA, Nat'l. Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J.,

A/SLMR No. 482)

As a result of a reorganization abolishing certain activities, consolidating their functions 

in a new Activity, and reassigning the employees 

involved throughout the new Activity's operational segments, the exclusively represented 

unit of employees of the n e w Activity is clarified to include former employees of one of the 

discontinued Activities exclusively represented 

by another labor organization where they work 

alongside and share common supervision with 

employees in the overall unit in the new 

Activity. (Naval Education and Training Center 

(NETC), Newport, R.I., A/SLMR No. 496)

A/S ordered RA petition dismissed where previously certified bargaining unit of all 

General Schedule and Wage Grade employees of 

HQ, Continental Army Com., Ft. Monroe, V a . , now 

designated as HQ, Army Training and Doctrine C o m , , 

Ft. Monroe, Va., remained appropriate after reorganization. (HQ, Army Training and Doctrine 

Com., (TRADOC), Ft. Monroe, Va., A/SLMR No. 507)

23
20 20 00

Accounting Supervisor (Accounting), S-3 is supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 

10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

Administrative Service Assistant found not to be a 

supervisor and included in the unit. (Military Dist. 

of Wash,, Commissary Div. Office, Cameron Sta.,

A/SLMR No. 478)

Aircraft Instrument Control Systems Mechanic (Leeider) 

W G - 1 2 , is not supervisor. (Ariz. Nat'l. Guard, Air 

Nat'l. Guard, Sky Harbor Airport, A/SLMR No. 436)

Assistant Section Supervisor (Main Store), S - 1 , is 

supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 

10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

Assistant Stock Control Supervisor (Warehouse), S - 1 , 

is supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 

10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

Assistant Supervisor (Enlisted Service Club/Food 

Services),S-1, is supervisor. (Navy, San Diego 

Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

Assistant Supervisor (Pantry), H - 7 , is supervisor.

(Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal.,

A/SLMR No.409)

Assistant Utility Supervisor (Maintenance/Property)

H - 1 1 , is supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps 

Exchange 10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

Business Management Analysts are not management officials. 

(Army Club Mgt<, Directorate, TAGCEN , Ft. Meade, M d . , 

A/SLMR No. 521)

Cartographic Technicians, with the exception of those 

technicians primarily responsible for elevation meter 

operations, were supervisors. (Geological Survey, MidContinent Mapping Cntr., A/SLMR No. 495)

Clerk-Typist is not confidential employee. (Agric. 

Research Service, Plum Island Animal Disease Cntr.,

A/SLMR No. 428)

Club Management Specialists are not management officials. 

(Army Club Mgt.Directorate, TAGCEN , Ft. Meade, Md., 

A/SLMR No. 521)

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications

24 6- 30-75
Club Management Specialist is a supervisor based on 

parties' stipulation. (Army Club Mgt, Directorate, 

TAGCEN, Ft. Meade, Md., A/SLMR No. 521)

Commissioned Bank Examiners are not supervisors,

(Eed. Deposit Insurance Corp., A/SLMR No. 459)

Computer Operators, G S -8 are not supervisors.(Westeim 

Mgt. Inf. Systems Off., Mil. Traffic Mgt. Com.,

Oakland Army Base, Oakland, Cal., A/SLMR No. 503)

Computer Programmer Team Leader is not supervisor.

(VA, Data Processing Center, Austin, Tex., A/SLMR 

No. 523)

Computer Specialist, GS-12 is not management official. 

(Naval Education and Training Information Services 

Activity, Pensacola, Fla., A/SLMR No. 466)

Computer Specialist, GS-12 is not management official. 

(Western Mgt. Inf. Systems Off., Mil. Traffic Mgt.

Como, Oakland Army Base, Oakland, Cal,, A/SLMR No. 503)

Computer Systems Analysts, GS-12 are supervisors,

(Naval Education and Training Information Services 

Activity, Pensacola, Fla,, A/SLMR No, 466)

Confidential Employees

Clerk-Typist who performs administrative 

services for both Administrative Officer and 

Office Services Manager found not to be a 

confidential employee since mere access to 

personnel or statistical information is not 

sufficient to establish that employee is 

serving in a confidential capacity, (Agric, 

Research Service, Plum Island Animal Disease 

Cntr,, A/SLMR No, 428)

Secretaries excluded from unit as "confidential 

employee": Secretaries to the Activity's D i ­

rector and Chief, Engineering and Plan Management G r o u p , (Agric, Research Service, Plum 

Island Animal Disease Cntr,, A/SLMR No, 428)

Digital Computer Systems Administration Specialist is 

supervisor, where he responsibly directs employees 

using independent judgement as to regular assignment 

of work and granting leave. (VA Data Processing Cntr, 

Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 523)

20 20 00

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications (Cont*d)

6-30-75 25
20 20 00

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications (Cont'd) 

Firefighters

Firefighters assigned incidental security 

functions in addition to firefighting are 

not "guards" within the meaning of Sec. 2(d) 

of EG, (Army E n g n r . ,Waterways Experiment 

Sta., Vicksburg, Miss., A/SLMR No, 497)

Firefighter Cre w Chiefs who are stationed 

at a firehouse and whose primary job is to 

prepare for, and respond to, fires and threats 

of fires, are not guards within the meaning of 

the EG, (VA Hosp., Montrose, N . Y . , A/SLMR 

No. 484)

Shift Captains who routinely approve leave and 

assign work for other Firefighters and do not 

hire, fire, award or evaluate employees are 

not supervisors. (Army Engnr., Waterways 

Experiment Sta., Vicksburg, Miss., A/SLMR 

No. 497)

Food Activity Supervisor, GS-7 is not supervisor.

(AAFES, Redstone Arsenal Exchange, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., 

A/SLMR No. 491)

General Schedule

Unit Appropriate

Claimed units of GS employees appropriate where 

GS employees do not share a community of interest with WG employees. (Acad, of Health 

Sciences, Army, Health Services and HQ, Com.,

Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, A/SLMR No. 490)

General Supply Assistant (Item Accounting Supervisor) is 

supervisor. (Nat'l. Guard Bureau, Adjutant General's 

Dept., Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 524)

General Supply Assistant (Materiel Control Supervisor) is 

supervisor. (Nat'l, Guard Bureau, Adjutant General's 

Dept., Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No, 524)

Guards

(See also; 10 32 0 0 , "Qualifications to Represent 

Specified Categories of Employees")

26 6-30-75
20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications (Cont*d) 

Guards

Firefighters assigned incidental security 

functions in addition to firefighting are not 

"guards" within the meaning of Sec, 2(d) of E G . . 

(Army Engnr. Waterways Experiment S t a . , 

Vicksburg, Miss., A/SLMR No. 497)

Firefighter Crew Chiefs who are stationed at a 

firehouse and whose primary job is to prepare 

for, and respond to, fires and threats of fires, 

are not guards within the meaning of the EG.

(VA Hosp., Montrose, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 484)

Police Officers were guards within the meaning 

of the EG. (VA Hosp., Montrose, N.Y., A/SLMR 

No. 484)

Supervisory Policeman GS-5 (Desk Sgt.) is not a 

supervisor. (FAA, Nat'l. Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR 

No. 481)

Supervisory Policeman GS-5 (Shift Sgt.) is a 

supervisor. (FAA, Nat'l, Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, N,J,, A/SLMR 

No, 481)

Health Technician is supervisor. (Nat'l, Guard 

Bureau, Adjutant General's Dept,, Austin, Tex,,

A/SLMR No, 524)

Loan Specialists are not management officials, (Army 

Club Mgt. Directorate, TAGCEN, Ft. Meade, Md.,

A/SLMR No. 521)

Maintenance Chief (Maintenance/Property), H - 1 5 , is 

supervisor, (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 

10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

Management Official

(See also; 05 04 0 0 , "Definitions".)

Business Management Analysts are not management 

officials. (Army Club Mgt. Directorate, TAGCEN, 

Ft. Meade, Md., A/SLMR No. 521)

Club Management Specialists are not management 

officials. (Army Club Mgt. Directorate, TAGCEN, 

Ft. Meade, Md., A/SLMR No. 521)

20 20 00

6-30-75 27
20 20 00

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications (Cotit*d)_ 

Management Official (Cont*d)

Computer Specialist, GS-12 is not management 

official. (Naval Education and Training Information Services Activity, Pensacola, Fla,, 

A/SLMR No. 466)

Computer Specialist. GS-12 is not management 

official. (Inf. Systems Off., Mil. Traffic 

Mgt. Com., Oakland Army Base, Oakland, Cal., 

A/SLMR No, 503)

Loan Specialists are not management officials. 

(Army Club Mgt. Directorate, TAGCEN, Ft. Meade, 

Md., A/SLMR No. 521)

Physical Science Administrator, although an 

Assistant to the Director, is not a management 

official where his role is that of an employee 

rendering resource information or recommendations with respect to existing policies,

(Agr., Agr. Rese. S erv., Eastern Reg. Res. 

Center, Phila., Pa., A/SLMR No. 479)

Procurement Analyst is not a management official. (Army Club Mgt. Directorate, TAGCEN,

Ft. Meade, M d . , A/SLMR No. 521)

A/S found, in agreement with the ALJ, that the 

evidence did not establish that the Activity's 

Program Managers or their equivalent were 

management employees within the meaning of the 

Order, (Nat'l, Science Foundation, A/SLMR 

No. 487)

Systems Auditor possesses no indicia of supervisory or management authority, nor does he 

possess any "special status" which would preclude his taking part in decertification 

activity. (VA Data Processing Center, Austin, 

Tex., A/SLMR No. 523)

Millwright is a work leader, not a supervisor, where he 

works with employees as a crew and his supervisory 

function consists only of routinely assigning tasks to 

be performed on a day-to-day basis. (Agr., Agr. Res. 

Serv., Eastern Reg. Res. Center, Phila., Pa., A/SLMR 

No. 479)

28

6-30-75
Non-Appropriated Fund Employees 

Unit Not Appropriate

Unit of Officers' Club, one of fourteen n o n ­

appropriated fund activities at base, found 

inappropriate where employees of all n o n ­

appropriated funds at base are subject to 

uniform personnel policies and, in many 

instances, have similar duties. (Officers 

Club, NAF Army Air Defense Center and Ft, Bliss, 

Ft. Bliss, Tex., A/SLMR No. 505)

Non-Project Le a d e r s , although responsible for scientific 

research in certain specific areas and have employees 

assigned to them, are Team Leaders, not supervisors, where 

they work under the direction of a Research or Project 

Leader and their relationship to the employees is one of a 

senior employee to junior employee. (Agr., Agr. Res.

S erv., Eastern Reg. Res. Center, Phila., Pa., A/SLMR 

No. 479)

Office Supervisor (Main Store) H-10 is not supervisor. 

(Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal.,

A/SLMR No. 409)

Physical Science Administrator, although an assistant to 

the Director, is not a management official where his role 

is that of an employee rendering resource information or 

recommendations with respect to existing policies. (Agr., 

Agr. Res. Serv., Eastern Reg. Res. Center, Phila., Pa., 

A/SLMR No. 479)

Police

(See "Guards")

Procurement Analyst is not a management official. ( A m y 

Club Mgt. Directorate, TAGCEN, Ft.Meade, M d . , A/SLMR 

No. 521)

Production Controller is not supervisor. (Nat'l. Guard 

Bureau, Adjutant General's Dept. Austin, Tex., A/SLMR 

No. 524)

Professional and Non-Professional Employees

Unit of all professional and nonprofessional employees in 

District held appropriate in view of finding that such employees enjoyed a clear and identifiable community of 

interest separate and distinct from all other employees in 

Region. (DSA, DCASR, San Francisco, Cal.; DCASD, Salt Lake 

City, Utah, A/SLMR No. 461)

6-30-75 29

20 20 00

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications (Cont*d)
20 20 00

Program Managers or their equivalent are not management 

employees. In addition, nine of the Activity's Program 

Managers were not supervisors while four of the Activity's Program Managers were supervisors. (Nat'l. Science 

Foundation, A/SLMR No, 487)

Project Leader is a supervisor where, under the terms of 

a negotiated agreement, he participates in the first 

step of the grievance procedure and possesses the 

authority to adjust grievances at that level, (Agr., 

Agr. Res. Serv., Eastern Reg, Res, Center, Phila,, Pa., 

A/SLMR No. 479)

Purchasing Agent is supervisor. (Nat'l, Guard Bureau, 

Adjutant General's Dept,, Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 524)

Seasonal Employees

(See: 20 20 0 0 , "Temporary Employees")

Secretary

(See: 20 20 0 0 , "Confidential Employees")

Section Supervisor (Main Store, S - 4 , is supervisor. 

(Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal.,

A/SLMR No. 409)

Senior Buyer (Purchasing), S - 5 , is supervisor, (Navy, 

San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 409)

Senior Technician found not to be a supervisor when 

p e r f o m i n g compilations review as he did not exercise 

any of the duties attributed to a supervisor as enumerated in Sec. 2(c) of the EG and, in fact, his job 

amounts merely to a technical reviewer under the overall 

supervision of his Section Chief. (Geological Survey, 

Rolla, Mo., A/SLMR No. 460)

Senior Utility Man (Maintenance/Property) H -8 is not 

supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 

10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

Shipping Supervisor (Warehouse), S-1 is supervisor. 

(Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal.,

A/SLMR No. 409)

Stock Control Supervisor (Warehouse), S-2 is supervisor. 

(Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal.,

A/SLMR No. 409)

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications (Cont'd)

30 6 -^n_75
20 20 00

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications (Cont'd) 

Supervisors

(See also; 05 04 0 0 , ’’Definitions”; 20 20 0 0 , 

"Firefighters," "Management Officials," "Teachers," 

and "Nurses")

Accounting Supervisor (Accounting), S-3 

is supervisor, (Navy, San Diego Marine 

Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No, 409)

Administrative Service Assistant is not a 

supervisor, (Military Dist, &f Wash., 

Commissary Div. Office, Cameron Sta,,

A/SLMR No. 478)

Aircraft Instrument Control Systems Mechanic 

(Leader), WG-12 is not supervisor, (Ariz, 

Nat'l, Guard, Air Nat'l, Guard, Sky Harbor 

Airport, A/SLMR No. 436)

Assistant Section Supervisor (Main Store),

S-1 is supervisor, (Navy,San Diego Marine 

Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal,, A/SLMR No, 409)

Assistant Stock Control Supervisor (Warehouse),

S-1 is supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine 

Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No, 409)

Assistant Supervisor (Enlisted Service Club/ 

Food Services), S-1 is supervisor. (Navy,

San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 409)

Assistant Supervisor (Pantry) H-7 is supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 

10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

Assistant Utility Supervisor (Maintenance/ 

Property), H-11 is supervisor. (Navy, San 

Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal,,

A/SLMR No. 409)

Cartographic and Survey Technicians of the 

Field District, Branch of Field Surveys, with 

the exception of those Cartographic Technicians 

primarily responsible for the elevation meter 

operation, were supervisors as they had the 

authority to, and,in fact, exercised authority 

with respect to their Assistants to hire, fire,

A_-?n_7=: 31
20 20 00

Supervisors (Cont*d)

adjust grievances, evaluate job performance 

and approve leave. (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, MidContinent Mapping Center, A/SLMR No. 495)

Club Management Specialist is a supervisor 

based on parties' stipulation. (Army Club 

Mgt. Directorate, TAGCEN, Ft. Meade, M d . , 

A/SLMR No. 521)

Computer Operators, G S-8 are not supervisors. 

(Western Mgt. Inf. Systems Off., Military 

Traffic Mgt. Com., Oakland Army Base, Oakland, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 503)

Commissioned Bank Examiners are not supervisors. (Fed. Deposit Insurance Corp.,

A/SLMR No. 459)

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications (Cont*d)

Computer Systems Analysts, GS-12 are supervisors. (Naval Education and Training 

Information Services Activity, Pensacola, Fla., 

A/SLMR No. 466)

Computer Programmer Team Leaders are not 

supervisors. (VA Data Processing Center, 

Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 523)

Digital Computer Systems Administration 

Specialist is supervisor where he responsibly directs employees using independent 

judgement as to regular assignment of duties 

and granting leave. (VA Data Processing 

Center, Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 523)

32 6-30-75
20 20 00

Firefighter Shift Captains who routinely 

approve leave and assign work for other 

Firefighters and do not hire, fire, award 

or evaluate employees are not supervisors.

(Army Engnr. Waterways Experiment S t a . , 

Vicksburg, Miss., A/SLMR No. 497)

Food Activity Supervisor, GS-7 is not 

supervisor. (AAFES, Redstone Arsenal 

Exchange, Redstone Arsenal, Ala.,

A/SLMR No. 491)

General Supply Assistant (Item Accounting 

Supervisor) is supervisor. (Nat'l. Guard 

Bureau, Adjutant General's Dept., Austin,

Tex., A/SLMR No. 524)

General Supply Assistant (Materiel Control 

Supervisor) is supervisor. (Nat'l. Guard 

Bureau, Adjutant General's Dept., Austin,

Tex., A/SLMR No. 524)

Health Technician is supervisor, (Nat'l.

Guard Bureau, Adjutant General's Dept.,

Austin, Tex,, A/SLMR No. 524)

Maintenance Chief (Maintenance/Property),

H-15 is supervisor. (Navy, San Diego 

Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal,, A/SLMR 

No, 409)

Millwright is a work leader, not a supervisor, where he works with employees as a 

crew and his supervisory function consists 

only of routinely assigning tasks to be performed on a day-to-day basis, (Agr., Agr. Res. 

S e rv., Eastern Reg. Res. Center, Phila.,

Pa., A/SLMR No. 479)

Non-Project Leaders, although responsible for 

scientific research in certain specific areas 

and have employees assigned to them, are team 

leaders, not supervisors, where they work 

under the direction of a Research or Project 

Leader and their relationship to other employee 

is one of a senior employee to junior employee. 

(Agr., Agr,Res,Serv,, Eastern Reg, Res. Center, 

Phila,, Pa,, A/SLMR No. 479)

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications (Cont*d)

6-30-75 33
20 20 00

Office Supervisor (Main Store) H-10 is 

not supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine 

Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 

409)

Production Controller is not supervisor. 

(Nat'l. Guard Bureau, Adjutant General's 

Dept., Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 524)

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications (Cont'd)

A/S found that nine of the Activity's Program M a n a g e r s , or their equivalent, were 

not supervisors within the meaning of 

Section 2(c) of the Order based on the 

factors that such direction as they may have\ 

given their secretaries was routine in nature 

and that the evidence was insufficient to 

establish that they effectively evaluated 

the performance of other employees or 

effectively recommended hiring. A/S found, 

however, that four of the Activity's Program Managers or their equivalent were 

supervisors within the meaning of Section 

2(c) of the Order as they either prepared 

and signed their secretary's annual performance evaluation or effectively recommended 

their secretary for promotion. (Nat'l. Science 

Foundation,A/SLMR No. 487)

Project Leader is a supervisor where, under 

the terms of a negotiated agreement, he 

participates in the first step of the 

grievance procedure and possesses the 

authority to adjust grievances at that level. 

(Agr., Agr. Res. Serv., Eastern Reg. Res. 

Center, Phila., Pa., A/SLMR No. 479)

Purchasing Agent is supervisor. (Nat'l.

Guard Bureau, Adjutant General's Dept.,

Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 524)

Section Supervisor (Main Store).S-4 is 

supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps 

Exchange 10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

Senior Buyer (Purchasing), S - 5 . is 

supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps 

Exchange 10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

34 6-30-75
20 20 00

Senior Technician found not to be a supervisor when 

performing compilations review as he did not exercise 

any of the duties attributed to a supervisor as 

enumerated in Sec. 2(c) of the EG and, in fact, his 

job amounts merely to a technical reviewer under the 

overall supervision of his Section Chief. (Geological 

Survey, Rolla, Mo., A/SLMR No. 460)

Senior Utility Man (Maintenance/Property, H -8 is not 

supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 

10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

Shipping Supervisor (Warehouse), S-1 is supervisor. 

(Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 409)

Stock Control Supervisor (Warehouse), S-2 is supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

Supervisor (Cash Office), H-10 is supervisor, (Navy,

San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 409)

Supervisor (Enlisted Service Club/Food Services), S-3 

is supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 

10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No, 409)

Supervisory (Pantry), S-1 is supervisor. (Navy,

San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 409)

Supervisory Management Assistant is supervisor.

(Nat'l, Guard Bureau, Adjutant General's Dept.,

Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 524)

Supervisory P o 1iceman,GS-5 (Desk Sgt.) is not a supervisor. (FAA, Nat'l. Aviation Facilities Experimental 

Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 481)

Supervisory Policeman, GS-5 (Shift Sgt.) is supervisor. (FAA, Nat'l. Aviation Facilities Experimental 

Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 481)

Supply Technician is supervisor. (Nat'l, Guard Bureau, 

Adjutant General's Dept., Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 524)

Training Technician is supervisor. (Nat'l. Guard 

Bureau, Adjutant General's Dept., Austin, Tex., A/SLMR 

No. 524)

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications (Cont*d)

ft-'^n-75 35
Supervisors (Cont'd)

Utility Supervisor (Maintenance/Property)« S-1, is 

supervisor, (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 

10-2, Cal., A/SLMR No. 409)

Supply Technician is supervisor, (Nat'l. Guard Bureau, 

Adjutant General's Dept,, Austin, Tex,,A/SLMR No, 524)

Survey Technicians are supervisors, (Geological Survey, 

Mid-Continent Mapping Cntr,, A/SLMR No. 495)

Systems Auditor possesses no indicia of supervisory or 

management authority, nor does he possess any "special 

status" which would preclude his taking part in DR 

activity. (VA Data Processing Center, Austin, Tex., 

A/SLMR No. 523)

Team Leaders were not supervisor, (VA Data Processing 

Center, Austin, Tex,, V S L M R No, 523)

Temporary Employees

Topographic Field Assistants excluded from unit 

as they were hired for a specific period of time 

and had no reasonable expectation of future employment beyond that period. (Geological Survey, 

Mid-Continent Mapping Cntr,, A/SLMR No, 495)

Training Technician is supervisor, (Nat'l, Guard Bureau, 

Adjutant General's Dept», Austin, Tex,, A/SLMR No, 524)

Utility Supervisor (Maintenance/Property), S-1, is 

supervisor. (Navy, San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, 

Cal., A/SLMR No« 409)

20 24 00 Post-Decisional Intervention, Showing of Interest 

and Withdrawal

20 24 04 Posting of Notice of Unit Determination 

No Entries 

20 24 08 Showing of Interest 

No Entries 

20 24 12 Opportunity to Withdraw 

No Entries

20 24 12

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications (Cont'd)

36 6-30-75
25 00 00 REPRESENTATION ELECTION AND POST ELECTION STAGES 

25 04 00 Voting Procedures

25 04 04 Professionals 

No Entries 

25 04 08 Self-Determination 

No Entries 

25 04 12 Role of Observers 

No Entries 

25 04 16 Severance 

No Entries

25 08 00 Objections

25 08 04 Under EO 10988

No Entries.

25 08 08 Procedure

A/S will not consider conduct occurring 

prior to the filing of an election petition as grounds for setting aside the 

election. (R A/S No. 58)

25 08 12 Timing of Objectionable Conduct

A/S will not consider conduct occurring 

prior to the filing of an election petition as grounds for setting aside the 

election. (R A/S No. 58)

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 24

6-30-75 37
25 20 00

25 08 28 Conduct of Election

A/S will not consider conduct occurring 

prior to the filing of an election petition as grounds for setting aside the 

election. (R A/S No. 58)

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")

No Entries

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: Procedure, 

CU").

Established unit is clarified by inclusion of two classifications and by excluding fifteen classifications 

because they perform supervisory duties. (Navy,

San Diego Marine Corps Exchange 10-2, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 409)

A/S clarified unit by rejecting Activity's contention 

that Aircraft Instrument Control Systems Mechanic 

(Leader), WG-12 should be excluded from unit as a 

supervisor. (Ariz. Nat'l. Guard, Air Nat'l. Guard,

Sky Harbor Airport, A/SLMR No. 436)

25 08 00 Objections (Cont*d)

38 6-30-75
25 2 0 0 0

A/S found that the exclusion of the BHA Denver 

Field Office employees from the existing unit 

was unwarranted and he ordered the ActivityPetitioner's CU petition dismissed. He based his 

finding on the fact that the BHA Denver Field 

Office employees were on the eligibility list and, 

in fact, voted without challenge by the ActivityPetitioner in the election which resulted in the 

certification of the AFGE as exclusive representative of the Regional Office unit; the Field Office 

employees have been considered to be a part of the 

Regional Office unit by the Field Office employees 

and by the Activity-Petitioner since the issuance 

of the certification; and there is no indication 

that the Field Office employees have not been fairly 

and effectively represented by AFGE. (HEW,

Region VIII, A/SLMR No. 476)

A/S ordered that the existing exclusively recognized 

Regional Office unit should be clarified to include 

the nonprofessional employees of the BHA Development 

Center as he found that the employees of the Development Center share a community of interest with and 

are, in fact, an integral part of, the existing unit 

which includes the BHA Denver Field Office. (HEW, 

Region VIII, A/SLMR No. 476)

Unit clarified to exclude Project Leaders as supervisors who participate in first step of negotiated 

grievance procedure and are authorized to adjust 

grievances at that level. (Agr., Agr. Res, Serv., 

Eastern Reg. Res. Cntr., Phila., Pa., A/SLMR No. 479)

As a result of a reorganization abolishing certain 

activities, consolidating their functions in a new 

Activity, and reassigning the employees involved 

throughout the new Activity's operational segments, 

the exclusively represented unit of employees of the 

new Activity is clarified to include former employees 

of one of the discontinued activities exclusively 

represented by another labor organization where they 

work alongside and share common supervision with employees in the overall unit in the new Activity. 

(Naval Education and Training Cntr (NETC), Newport, 

R.I., A/SLMR No. 496)

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit (Cont'd)

6-30-75 39
25 24 00

Unit clarified by excluding "working leaders" in nine 

job classifications as supervisors because they 

selected, evaluated, and made effective recommendations with regard to personnel matters concerning 

members of their crews, A/S noted that those found 

supervisors based solely on authority to evaluate 

would not be considered supervisors following effective 

date of EG 11838, (Barksdale AFB, Bossier City, La,, 

A/SLMR No, 499)

Unit clarified by including "working leaders" in ten 

job classifications because their authority with 

regard to members of their crews was of a routine 

nature and dictated by established procedures.

(Barksdale AFB, Bossier City, La., A/SLMR No. 499)

CU petition dismissed where A/S found employees of 

Complex Office were not part of exclusively recognized 

unit of employees of Long Beach Navy Commissary Store. 

(Navy.Commissary Complex Office, Long Beach, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 522)

Unit clarified by excluding employees in seven of eight 

job classifications because they were found to be 

supervisors within the meaning of 2(c) of the Order. 

(Nat'l. Guard Bureau, Adjutant General's Dept.,

Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 524)

25 24 00 Amendment of Recognition or Certification

The A/S found that the petition, which sought to 

change the affiliation of the local labor organization 

from one international, the Carpenters, to another, 

the AFGE, did not meet the standards,established in the 

decision,to determine if change of affiliation met the 

desires of employees, as no special meeting of the 

membership, limited solely to the issue of a change in 

affiliation, was held; the members who signed a petition 

forwarded to the Carpenters did not have the opportunity 

to be fully apprised of the change in affiliation; and 

a vote of the members by secret ballot was never taken. 

(VA Hosp,, MontPose, N,Y., A/SLMR No, 470)

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit (Cont*d)

40 6-30-75
25 24 00

Recognition amended to reflect a change in the 

organizational location of a unit of firefighters 

and to add the designation "General Schedule" to 

the organizational title used to describe the 

covered employees. (FAA, Nat'l. Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr,, Atlantic City, N.J.,

A/SLMR No. 481)

Recognition amended to reflect a change in the 

organizational location of a unit of guards and to 

add the designation "General Schedule U n i f o m e d 

Police" to the organizational title used to describe 

the covered employees. (FAA, Nat'l. Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 481)

AC petitions dismissed where A/S found that 

recognized units were no longer in existence as 

a result of a reorganization. (FAA, Nat'l. Aviation 

Facilities Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., 

A/SLMR No. 482)

Two recognitions amended to reflect changes in the 

designation of organizational location. (FAA,

Nat'l. Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr., 

Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 482)

25 24 00 Amendment of Recognition or Certification (Cont*d)

6-30-75 41

30 04 00

30 04 00 Requisites for Charges and Complaints

The A/S,In concurrence with the ALJ granted the 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that 

the charge and/or complaint were not timely filed 

as the evidence utilized by the Complainant In 

support of Its allegation dealt solely with events 

occurring more than 6 and 9 months, respectively, 

prior to the filing of the pre-compIalnt charge 

and complaint In this matter, (HUD, Detroit Area 

Office, Mich., A/SLMR No. 414)

The A/S,in concurrence with the ALJ granted the 

Respondent's motion to dismiss on the grounds 

that the Complainant had failed to establish a 

prima facie case as there was no evidence that the 

employee involved was denied a promotion and was 

possibly subjected to more serious working conditions 

because of her union activities, (HUD, Detroit Area 

Office, Mich,, A/SLMR No. 414)

The A/S found, in agreement with the ALJ, that the 

Respondent's motion to dismiss, based on the Complainant's alleged noncompliance with the precomplaint charge requirements of the A/S's Regs., be 

denied because the Respondent failed to raise the 

matter in a timely fashion with the Area Administrator 

during the investigation period provided for in 

Sec, 203,5 of the A/S's Regs, or with the ARD prior 

to the issuance of the Notice of Hearing, The A/S, 

however, rejected the ALJ's rationale that a formal 

written charge is nothing more than "ritualistic 

adherence" to the Regs, when the parties' positions 

are already known to each other. (N.Y. Army and Air 

Nat'l. Guard, Albany, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 441)

As complaint was filed within nine months of the 

occurrence of the alleged unfair labor practice 

(although not within nine months of the Respondent's 

announcement of the policy change constituting the 

alleged unfair labor practice), the A/S concurred with 

the ALJ's determination that the complaint had been 

timely filed in accord with the A/S's Regs. (Dugway 

Proving Ground, Dept, of the Army, Dugway, Utah,

A/SLMR No. 511)

30 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; PROCEDURE

6-30-75 43
30 08 00 Complaint Proceedings: Investigation Stage 

No Entries 

30 12 00 Hearing

30 12 04 Rulings of ALJs 

No Entries

30 12 08 Untimely Amendments to Complaints

No Entries

30 12 12 Failure to Appear

No Entries

30 12 16 Prejudicial Evidence

No Entries

30 12 20 Technical Deficiencies

No Entries

30 12 24 Evidence and Burden of Proof

The A/S,in concurrence with the ALJ,granted 

the Respondent's motion to dismiss on the 

grounds that the charge and/or complaint 

were not timely filed as the evidence 

utilized by the Complainant in support of 

its allegation dealt solely with events 

occurring more than 6 and 9 months, respectively) 

prior to the filing of the pre-complaint charge 

and complaint in this matter. (HUD, Detroit 

Area Office, Mich., A/SLMR No. 414)

The A/S,in concurrence with the ALJ,granted 

the Respondent's motion to dismiss on the 

grounds that the Complainant had failed to 

establish a prima facie case as there was no 

evidence that the employee involved was denied 

a promotion and was possibly subjected to more 

serious working conditions because of her 

union activities. (HUD, Detroit Area Office, 

Mich., A/SLMR No. 414)

30 12 24

30 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; PROCEDURE (Cont*d)

44 6-30-75
Upon receipt of Civil Service Commission's 

interpretation of its directives, the FLRC 

issued its Decision on Referral of Major 

Policy issues from A/S, FLRC No. 73A-53, 

wherein it found that the Federal Personnel 

Manual (1) prohibits an employee or his 

representative from seeking the appraisal 

of another employee, or adducing evidence 

thereon, in an unfair labor practice proceeding, but (2) permits the A/S, his 

representative, and/or the ALJ, in a proceeding under the EG, to review such an 

appraisal if necessary for the execution of 

official responsibility and if done in a 

manner that maintains that appraisal's confidentiality. A/S vacated his Order Staying 

Remand and directed the ALJ to reconsider 

his decision in the subject case in accordance with the Decision and Remand in A/SLMR 

No. 295, and with the FLRC's Decision.

(NLRB, Region 17, and NLRB,

A/SLMR No. 467; FLRC No. 73A-53)

A/S rejected Complainant's post-hearing 

argument where no evidence was presented 

at the hearing that the Respondent failed 

to comply with or obstructed service of a 

Request for Appearance of Witness, and the 

Complainant failed to renew its offer of 

proof made at the commencement of the hearing 

concerning the testimony of the witness sought. 

(IRS, Fresno Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 489)

30 12 28 Lack of Cooperation

A/S adopted ALJ's findings, conclusions and 

recommendation that complaint be dismissed 

for lack of cooperation and lack of prosecution where record showed that,,despite 

numerous admonitions and warnings to Complainant that his refusal to accept certified mail 

resulted in severely impeding the orderly 

conduct of the hearing and that continued refusal would result in recommendation to dismiss, Complainant persisted in conduct which 

impeded further orderly conduct of hearing. 

(AFGE, Nat'l. Office, and AFGE Local 2677, 

A/SLMR No. 483)

30 12 28

30 12 00 Hearing (Cont'd)

30 12 24 Evidence and Burden of Proof (Cont’d)

6 - ^ n _ 7 S ^5
30 24 00

30 12 00 Hearing (Cont'd)

30 12 28 Lack of Gooperation (Cont’d)

Where Respondent refused to comply with 

ALJ's Request for Production of Documents 

and evidence revealed Respondent had no 

justification for failing to comply with 

such Requests, the A/S agreed with the 

ALJ's decision to exclude from evidence all 

documents sought in the Requests which Respondent sought to introduce in its own 

case, but further found that all written and 

oral evidence related to the documents 

covered by the Requests should have been 

excluded and not considered in the determination of the case. Accordingly, the A/S 

remanded the 19(a)(1) and (2) complaint to 

the ALJ for further consideration consistent 

with his decision. (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash,, A/SLMR No. 425)

30 16 00 Post-Hearing

Motion by Party-in-Interest,Tennessee Valley Trades 

and Labor Council,in exceptions seeking to set aside 

A L J’s Report and Recommendations and remand case for 

further hearing based on asserted failure to provide 

Party-in-Interest a full opportunity to participate in 

hearing, denied by A/S, where, as here. Party-inInterest was served with Notice of Hearing, its request 

for postponement was denied by the ARD, and Party-inInterest did not, thereafter, renew such motion before 

ALJ, nor enter an appearance at hearing. (TVA, A/SLMR 

No. 509)

30 20 00 Stipulated Record

Pursuant to Sec. 206.5(b) of Regs., ARD transferred 

case to the A/S for decision on the stipulations 

exhibits and briefs. (FAA, A/SLMR No, 517)

30 24 00 Employee Status; Effect on Unfair Labor Practices

Respondent's contention that Complainant's actions in 

passing out dues revocation forms was a violation of the 

Order because he alleged it was a supervisor, rejected 

where Complainant found not to be a supervisor under 

Sec, 2(c), (AFGE, Local 987, A/SLMR No. 420)

46 6-30-75
30 28 00

30 28 00 Effect of Other Proceedings or Forums

A/S, in agreement with ALJ's denial of Respondent's 

motion to dismiss the complaint based on the arguments 

that the principle issue in the case involved a disagreement as wp the interpretation of the terms of the 

parties' negotiated agreement which contained a grievance procedure and that the A/S should not consider the 

problem in the context of an unfair labor practice, 

found that the section of the negotiated agreement involved was clear and unambiguous and that the A/S had 

jurisdiction to decide the issues involved in this 

matter. (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash., 

A/SLMR No. 415)

Apparent holding of ALJ that action of Joint Committee 

under terms of collective bargaining agreement was, in 

effect, an arbitration procedure which, if fair and 

regular and not repugnant to the Order, would have a 

binding effect under Spielberg doctrine enunciated in 

private sector, rejected by A/S, In the view of A/S,

Joint Committee procedure was no more than a contractually 

established method of investigating work stoppage incidents and, as such, is not an extension of the contractually established grievance-arbitration machinery 

and, accordingly, the Spielberg doctrine is not 

applicable. (TVA, A/SLMR No. 509)

A/S rejected Respondent's argument that, because there 

is an established grievance machinery in the negotiated 

agreement between Respondent and the recognized exclusive 

bargaining representative of its employees, the A/S is 

precluded from asserting jurisdiction and considering 

allegations of unfair labor practices in connection with 

the Respondent's actions, (TVA, A/SLMR No, 509)

A/S rejected Respondent's contention that questions 

arising from an arbitration award are not appropriate 

matters for enforcement by the A/S within the framework 

of the unfair labor practice procedure, citing Department of the Army, Aberdeen Proving Ground, A/SLMR No, 412, 

FLRC 74A-46. (FAA, A/SLMR No, 517)

30 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; PROCEDURE (Cont'd)

6-30-75 47
30 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; PROCEDURE (Cont*d) 

30 32 00 Major Policy Issue Raised

30 32 00

Where Activity argued, by way of defense, that it 

was unable to make pajnnent of amount awarded Complainant in arbitration award because no appropriation 

existed for pa3mient and a special authorization from 

U.S. Comptroller General was needed to implement the 

award, A/S transferred case,pursuant to Sec. 2411.4 

of the Rules and Regs, of the FLRC and Sec. 203.25(d) 

of the A/S's Regs.,as involving major policy issues. 

(Army, Aberdeen Proving Ground, A/SLMR No. 412; 

see also FLRC No. 74A-46 and A/SLMR No. 518)

Upon receipt of Civil Service Commission's interpretation of its directives, the FLRC issued its Decision 

on Referral of Major Policy Issues from A/S, FLRC 

No, 73A-53, wherein it found that the Federal Personnel 

Manual (1) prohibits an employee or his representative 

from seeing the appraisal of another employee, or 

adducing evidence thereon, in an unfair labor practice 

proceeding, but (2) permits the A/S, his representative, 

and/or the ALJ, in a proceeding under the EG, to review 

such an appraisal if necessary for the execution of 

official responsibility and if done in a manner that 

maintains that appraisal's confidentiality. A/S 

vacated his Order Staying Remand and directed the ALJ 

to reconsider his decision in the subject case in 

accordance with the Decision and Remand in A/SLMR 

No. 295, and with the FLRC's Decision. (NLRB, Region 17, 

and NLRB, A/SLMR No. 467; FLRC No. 73A-53)

48 6-30-75
35 08 04

35 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: AGENCY

35 04 00 General

35 04 04 Guidance or Directives of Civil Service 

Commission or Agency

No Entries

35 04 08 Waiver of Rights Granted by Executive Order

Negotiated agreement did not constitute a 

clear and unmistakable waiver of Complainant's 

right under EG to designate a retired employee 

as a Chief Representative. (IRS, Omaha 

District Office, A/SLMR No. 417)

35 04 12 Management Rights

No Entries

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1)

A/S noted that a violation of any of other subsections 

of Sec. 19(a) necessarily would tend to interfere with, 

restrain, or coerce employees in exercise of their 

rights under Order and, therefore, also would, when 

alleged, derivatively constitute a violation of 

Sec. 19(a)(1). (AAFES, Pacific Exchange Sys., Hawaii 

Regional Exchange, A/SLMR No. 454)

35 08 04 Interference

Daily work reports filled out by employee 

which were referred to and utilized by supervisor in written report of interview which 

criticized work performance of employee found 

to constitute relevant and necessary information in connection with determining whether 

or not to initiate grievances, and refusal 

of Activity to make such reports available to 

bargaining representative, upon demand, constitutes violation of Sec, 19(a)(1). (HEW, 

SSA, Kansas City Payment Cntr., Bur. of 

Retirement and Survivors Insurance, A/SLMR 

No. 411)

6-30-75 49
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) (Cont'd)

Failure of Activity to provide, upon demand 

by bargaining representative, daily work 

reports filled out by employee which were 

referred to and utilized by supervisor in 

written report of interview as basis for 

critical remarks on work performance of employee found not violative of Sec. 19(a)(1) 

of Order where evidence showed that employee 

retained copies of such work reports and 

bargaining representative could have obtained 

them from the employee. (HEW, SSA, Kansas 

City Payment Cntr., Bur. of Retirement and 

Survivors Insurance, A/SLMR No. 411)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that in 

the absence of any evidence of anti-union 

motivation, the Complainant failed to establish that Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) 

in refusing to grant the type of passes 

previously issued to Complainant's representatives, thereby making their entry into the 

Shipyard on the Complainant's business more 

difficult. (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, 

Bremerton, Wash., A/SLMR No. 415)

Activity's issuance of insubordination notices 

to employees for their failure to attend a 

grievance meeting under an agency grievance 

procedure found not violative of Sec. 19(a)(1) 

where evidence failed to establish that such 

action was motivated by anti-union considerations or constituted disparate treatment based 

on union considerations. (GSA, Region 7,

Fort Worth, Tex., A/SLMR No. 416)

Respondent's attempt to dictate the selection 

of the Complainant's Chief Representative 

constituted an attempt to interfere improperly 

in the internal affairs of the Complainant. 

(IRS, Omaha District Office, A/SLMR No. 417)

50 6-30-75
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont*d)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) ( C o n t M )

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) by not 

conferring and consulting with Union on 

impact upon employees of reassignments it 

made, thereby evidencing to employees that 

it could act unilaterally with respect to 

negotiated terms and conditions of employment with regard to their exclusive representative. (Fed. Railroad Adm., A/SLMR 

No. 418)

Activity did not violate Sec, 19(a)(1) by 

denying employee's request for union representation during "Performance Interview" 

where it was determined that subject interview was not a formal discussion within 

meaning of Sec. 10(e) of EO. (HEW, SSA,

Great Lakes Program Cntr., A/SLMR No, 419)

Activity did not violate Sec, 19(a)(1) by 

virtue of its alleged statement to Union 

President that she would be sorry if union 

posted bulletins urging employees to boycott 

free coffee and cake offered by vending 

machine operator to promote its operation, 

as, under the circumstances, such statement 

was not deemed coercive nor motivated by 

animus toward the union, but reflected only 

Activity's overriding desire to solve its 

food problem, (IRS, Mid-Atlantic Service 

Cntr,, A/SLMR No, 421)

A/S, in agreement with the ALJ, found that 

Sec, 7(d)(1) of the Order does not confer 

any rights enforceable under Sec, 19,

(Naval Air Sta, (North Island), San Diego, 

Cal,, A/SLMR No, 422)

A/S, in agreement with the ALJ, found that 

even if the Respondent had, without justification, insisted that the Complainant state 

grievance in writing, such a violation of its 

unilaterally established grievance procedure, 

in the absence of evidence of discriminatory 

motivation or disparity of treatment based on 

union membership considerations,' would not 

violate Sec. 19(a)(1) of the Order, (Naval 

Air Sta. (North Island), San Diego, Cal., 

A/SLMR No. 422)

6-30-75 51
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) (Cont*d)

Where Respondent refused an employee's request for representation before a facility 

review board which was conducting an investigation of a systems error in which the 

employee was involved and evidence established function of the review board was 

wholly investigative, the A/S, noting an 

absence of exceptions, found, in agreement 

with the ALJ, that the proceedings before 

the review board did not constitute a formal 

discussion within the meaning of Sec. 10(e) 

of the Order and dismissed the complaint.

Also, in view of his disposition of the case, 

the A/S found it unnecessary to decide whether 

the matter had been rendered moot by subsequent events. (FAA, Las Vegas Air Traffic 

Control Tower, A/SLMR No. 429)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that proceedings 

before Agency's Facility Review Board did 

not constitute a formal discussion within 

the meaning of Sec. 10(e) and, therefore, the 

Agency's denial of representation to the 

Complainant was not violative of the Order.

(FAA, Cleveland ARTC Center, Oberlin, Ohio, 

A/SLMR No. 430)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) by posting a 

letter from Activity's Commanding Officer to 

the Union's President on bulletin boards and, 

additionally, by requiring that employees 

read and initial the posted letter. (Naval 

Air Sta., Fallon, Nev., A/SLMR No. 432)

A statement made by a representative of the 

Respondent that an employee's attempt to return to duty following an absence on Leave 

Without Pay (LWOP) necessitated by medical 

problems would only be complicated should she 

seek union representation constituted an improper 

attempt by the Respondent to encourage the 

employee to by-pass her exclusive representative and deal directly with the Respondent 

with regard to the resolution of her difficulties. 

(VA Cntr., Bath, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 433)

52 6-30-75
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont*d)

A/S found Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) 

by unilaterally terminating negotiation 

session with union based on an alleged 

impasse with respect to one subject of 

bargaining and refusing to meet and confer 

on other subjects of bargaining, (Vandenberg AFB, 4392d Aerospace Support Group,

Cal., A/SLMR No. 435)

A/S agrees with ALJ finding that RespondentActivity violated the Order when its supervisor threatened additional duties and 

announced a schedule change to a steward in 

such a manner that it was intended to be perceived as being in retaliation for the 

steward's engagement in protected activity.

(AAFES, Vandenberg AFB, Cal., A/SLMR No. 437)

Tearing of marked agreement insert by supervisor did not constitute violation of Sec.

19(a)(1) based on ALJ's credibility resolution 

and established print shop custom of destroying 

marked documents. (Naval Ordnance Sta.,

Louisville, Ky., A/SLMR No. 440)

A memoranda issued to New York National Guard 

employees regarding the use of military forms 

of address constituted a unilateral change in 

the working conditions of certain unit employees, 

as Respondent had tolerated extensive deviations 

from the requirements of a National Guard Bureau regulation which was interpreted as requiring that the employees use military forms | 

of address while performing in their civilian j 

job status. The A/S agreed with the ALJ's |i

finding that the applicable regulation gave the 

Activity certain prerogatives, that the Activity 

was obliged to meet and confer with the Complainant within the boundaries established by 

the regulation, and its unilateral conduct in 

changing a working condition which fell within 

the purview of the applicable regulation was, 

in effect, an improper by-pass of the exclusive 

representative. (N.Y. Array and Air Nat'l. Guard,

Albany* N.Y., A/SLMR No. 441)

II':

ii^

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) (Cont*d)

6-30-75 5 3
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont’d)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) (Cont'd)

Activity's unilateral change of working 

conditions of the President of the exclusive 

representative violated Sec. 19(a)(1) because 

it evidenced to the employees that the Activity can act with respect to negotiated terms 

and conditions without regard to its obligation 

thereunder to consult with the exclusive representative before instituting such changes. 

(Air Force, Kingsley Field, Klamath Falls, Ore., 

A/SLMR No. 443)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Complainant 

failed to meet burden of proof that Activity 

violated Sec. 19(a)(1) by supervisor's alleged 

confrontation of employee regarding subject 

matter of pending grievance while employee was 

without representation. (IRS, Memphis Service 

Cntr., Tenn., A/SLMR No. 444)

Based on the ALJ's credibility resolution, the 

A/S found that Activity did not violate 

Sec. 19(a)(1) by supervisor's alleged improper 

statement to employee at meeting between the 

two. (IRS, Memphis Service Cntr., Tenn., 

A/SLMR No. 444)

Based on the ALJ's credibility resolutions, 

the A/S found that Activity did not violate 

Sec. 19(a)(1) by alleged statements of supervisor and senior employee to employee to the 

effect that the employee would receive poor 

evaluation if she voluntarily furloughed herself other than during the prescribed furlough 

period and would continue to receive poor 

evaluation if she went to her exclusive rep-^ 

resentative and grieved. (IRS, Memphis Service 

Cntr., Tenn., A/SLMR No. 444)

Where the record did not establish that the 

Respondent's penalty accorded the Complainant 

for damaging Government equipment was imposed 

based on his union activities, the A/S agreed 

with the ALJ's finding that the Activity did 

not violate Sec. 19(a)(1). (Portsmouth Naval 

Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 445)

54

6-30-75
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) (Cont'd)

Contrary to ALJ's finding that a statement 

made to employee by supervisor that so long 

as employee was active in union, he would 

never be promoted, was not violative of the 

Order because in the ALJ's view,the motivation for. 

such statement was based on supervisor's belief that the employee's union business took 

up so much time that he was prevented from 

fully developing his potential, the A/S stated 

that had this been properly alleged in complaint as an independent violation of 

Sec, 19(a)(1), he would have found a violation 

of that Section. He noted that to do otherwise would result in improperly penalizing 

employees who, as union representatives, are 

exercising rights assured under the Order and 

contained in negotiated agreements. (Army 

Tank Automotive Com., Warren, Mich., A/SLMR 

No. 447)

A/S adopted ALJ's conclusion that arrests made 

by the Respondent Activity's guards of officials of the Complainant were made purely on 

the guard's initiative because of alleged 

interference by these officials with respect 

to an earlier arrest by the guards. In addition, the A/S agreed with the ALJ's determination that the union officials were not 

fulfilling an obligation of Sec. 10(e) by 

attempting to represent employees who were 

being arrested for a crime unrelated to their 

employment and, therefore, the union officials 

were not exercising rights assured by the 

Order. (VA, Wadsworth Hosp. Cntr., Los Angeles, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 449)

A/S dismissed complaint where ALJ found that 

any connection between the filing of a grievance 

and the separation of a probationary employee 

who participated in the filing of the grievance, 

was mere coincidence. (Biloxi VA Cntr., Miss., 

A/SLMR No. 450)

6 - ---- 55
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) (ContM)

A/S adopts ALJ's finding that Sec. 7(d)(1) 

does not confer any rights enforceable under 

Sec. 19; that where employees subject to 

agency grievance procedure, in absence of 

anti-union motivation, agency's improper 

failure to apply provisions of its procedure 

cannot be considered violative of Order; and 

that where no labor organization has been 

accorded exclusive recognition, Sec. 10(e) 

is inapplicable, (Naval Air Sta. (North 

Island), San Diego, Cal., A/SLMR No. 452)

Where negotiated grievance procedure provided 

that grievances relating to satisfactory rating 

would be processed exclusively through medium 

of an ad hoc board of review or statutory 

performance board and there was an absence of 

evidence of a contrary intent by the parties, 

the A/S found,in agreement with the A U , that 

Respondent's refusal to accede to the Complainant's request to submit a grievance 

pertaining to a satisfactory performance rating 

to arbitration did not constitute violation of 

Sec. 19(a)(1) of the Order. (Army Adjutant 

General, Publication Cntr., A/SLMR No. 455)

Agency's conducting of meetings or interviews 

with unit employees in which their terms and 

conditions of employment were discussed, while 

refusing the request of the exclusive representative of these employees to participate in 

such discussions, ran counter to the obligation 

owed to an exclusive representative as spokesman 

of the employees it represents, is inconsistent 

with Sec. 1(a) policy concerning an Agency 

head's obligation to assure that employee rights 

are protected, undermines status of exclusive 

representative selected by the employees of 

Respondent Activity and interferes, restrains 

and coerces unit employees in violation of 

Sec. 19(a)(1) of the Order. (NASA, A/SLMR 

No. 457)

56 6-30-75
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont*d)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) (Cont'd)

Activity violated Sec, 19(a)(1) of EO by 

statements made by its supervisor to employee 

who indicated a desire to consult with her 

bargaining representative concerning a dispute 

between supervisor and employee. As found by 

ALJ, the supervisor's statement to the employee 

indicated that she would have to deal directly 

with him, and any contact by the bargaining 

agent would be futile. Such conduct constituted 

an attempt to cause employee to relinquish her 

right to consult with her exclusive representative in violation of Sec, 19(a)(1), (Nat'l, 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm,, Nat'l, Weather 

Service, A/SLMR No. 464)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, rejected Activity's 

contention that firing a union steward for advocating changes in working conditions was 

justified because this created dissension among 

employees, and found that the Activity improperly 

interfered with the steward's rights under the 

Order. (Miramar Naval Air Sta,, Commissary Store, 

San Diego, Cal,, A/SLMR No, 472)

A/S found, in accord with Los Angeles Air Route 

Traffic Control Center, Federal Aviation Administration, A/SLMR No, 283, that the use of 

Agency bulletin boards and/or Agency facilities 

for unit employee meetings by a bargaining representative is a privilege, not a right, and 

may be subject to reasonable conditions. However, once granted, the Agency may not unilaterally establish further conditions upon the 

exercise of such privilege since such unilateral 

action has a restraining influence and coercive 

effect on the rights of unit employees in 

violation of Sec, 19(a)(1), (IRS, Office of 

the Regional Commissioner, Western Region,

A/SLMR No, 473)

Supervisor's interrogation of employee with 

respect to her alleged role in the preparation 

and distribution of a union leaflet constituted 

improper interference since it was an inquiry 

by management into the employee's union activities, (OEO, Region V,, Chicago, 111,, A/SLMR 

No, 477)

57
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) (Cont'd)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) of EG by 

statement of supervisor to Local Union 

President implying that she could be penalized if she performed certain representational duties during official work time, 

even though the use of such time was 

permitted by the negotiated agreement.

(Base Procurement Office, Vandenberg AFB,

Cal., A/SLMR No. 485)

A/S, adopting findings of ALJ, concluded 

that interviews conducted by Respondent's 

grievance examiner were "formal discussions" 

within the meaning of Sec. 10(e) of the 

Order; that Respondent is chargeable for any 

unfair labor practices engaged in while acting 

in furtherance of its delegated functions in 

processing grievances on behalf of the Activity; that the subject matter of the inquiry 

concerned a grievance, personnel policy or 

practice within the meaning of Sec. 10(e) of 

the Order; that the record failed to show 

that Complainant had waived any of its rights 

to be represented at such "formal discussion"; 

and, that Respondent, by its refusal to permit 

and failure to afford Complainant opportunity 

to be represented during interview of unit 

employees concerning the processing of a 

grievance, violated Sec. 19(a)(1) ,

Further, Respondent's denial of an employee's request for union representation 

made during the formal discussion herein constituted an independent violation of Sec. 19(a)(1). 

(U.S. Army Civilian Appellate Review Agency, 

Sacramento, Cal., A/SLMR No. 488)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO by 

threatening to remove employee from job if he 

persisted in holding union office or in participating in the management of the union where 

employee was not a supervisor. (AAFES, Redstone Arsenal Exchange, Ala., A/SLMR No. 491)

58 6-30-75
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont*d)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) ( C o n t M )

Agency not obligated to accord representative 

status to an employee designated by Complainant who was not a representative of the 

exclusive representative. (380th Combat 

Support Group, Plattsburgh AFB, N.Y., A/SLMR 

No. 493)

Discussion of an employee's appraisal does 

not constitute a formal discussion within 

meaning of Sec. 10(e) where no wider ramifications beyond employee involved and no 

grievance had been lodged at this stage of 

discussion. (380th Combat Support Group, 

Plattsburgh,AFB, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 493)

The A/S found, in agreement with the ALJ, 

that the implementation of a grievance 

recommendation is an integral part of the 

grievance procedure, and that an employee 

is entitled to representation at any meeting 

called for that purpose. (IRS, Pittsburgh 

Dist., A/SLMR No. 498)

Instituting a change in working conditions not 

to the liking of the Complainant did not violate the Order where the Activity solicited 

and received input on the proposed change 

from the Complainant and solicited additional 

comments prior to final announcement of the 

change, and where there was no evidence that 

the Complainant was intentionally misled or 

that the Order imposed the obligation that 

parties must agree on the terms of the change. 

(HEW, SSA, Western Program Cntr., San Francisco, Cal., A/SLMR No. 501)

A/S, adopting findings of ALJ, found that 

conduct of Respondent in discharging members 

of local union engaged in a work stoppage, 

while merely warning others who also engaged 

in the work stoppage but were non-members of 

the local union violated Sec. 19(a)(1). A/S 

noted in particular that his action was not,

6-30-75 59
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) (Cont'd)

in any way, a condonation of the action of 

employees engaged in a work stoppage. Such 

activity is not only unprotected under the 

Order, but is also unlawful, and employees 

engaging in such conduct are not protected 

by the Order from discipline by their Agency 

up to and including discharge. Further, an 

Agency or Activity may assess different degrees of discipline based on a distinction in 

conduct or responsibility for the improper 

conduct. However, an Agency or Activity may 

not predicate its differentiation of discipline upon conduct which is protected under 

the Order, i,e., membership in a labor 

organization, (TVA, A/SLMR No. 509)

Activity violated Sec, 19(a)(1) by failure 

to supply and/or withholding information requested by exclusive representative. A/S 

found such conduct inherently interfered with, 

restrained and coerced unit employees in 

their right to have their exclusive representative act for and represent their interests 

in matters concerning grievances, personnel 

policies and practices as assured by Sec, 10(e) 

of the Order, (Dallas Naval Air Sta,, Dallas, 

Tex,, A/SLMR No, 510)

Respondent Activity fulfilled obligation to 

meet and confer concerning change in work 

reporting site where (1) "Memorandum of Understanding" concerning reporting station was 

only a recording of an employment practice and 

not a negotiated agreement within the meaning 

of the Order, and (2) the Respondent discussed 

the policy change with an open mind with the 

Complainant labor organization prior to the 

change. (Dugway Proving Ground, Army, Dugway, 

Utah, A/SLMR No. 511)

60 6-30-75
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) (Cont'd)

Proposals from Activity official at meeting 

with employee involved and her representative 

that, in connection with her requested 

training, she give up one-third of allotted 

time for authorized labor-management business 

under parties' negotiated Memorandum of Understanding constituted improper interference 

with employee's rights in violation of Sec, 

19(a)(1), Additionally, a written memorandum 

of that official violated Sec. 19(a)(1) in that 

it indicated that her training opportunities 

would be limited so long as she continued to 

perform her authorized union represen,tational 

duties. (Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N,J,,

A/SLMR No. 512)

The Activity violated the EG by its unilateral 

decision to revoke dues authorization for 

three employees who had been members of a unit 

represented exclusively by the Complainant 

prior to being administratively transferred to 

a new organizational entity of the Agency, as 

A/S found that the three employees were performing the same jobs they had previously performed, in the same work areas, under the same 

supervision, and at essentially the same rates 

of pay and schedule of benefits as before their 

transfer, and that they remained within the 

unit represented exclusively by the Complainant, 

Respondent's action, therefore, constituted 

improper withdrawal of recognition. (AAFES, 

MacDill AFB Exchange, Fla,, A/SLMR No. 514)

A/S found, in agreement with ALJ, that evidence 

established that Respondent had permitted Complainant employee's activity as a union steward 

to play a role in its determination of her 

fitness and/or selection for promotion, or repromotion, and, further, that but for Complainant's activity as a union steward, she 

would have been selected for repromotion,

(Army Infantry Cntr,, Civilian Personnel 

Office, Ft, Benning, Ga,, A/SLMR No, 515)

61
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont*d)

A/S rejected statement by ALJ to the effect 

that agency representatives are obliged to 

give eligible employees warning or notice 

with respect to obligations imposed by specific jobs - where time away from the job is 

occasioned by protected union activity - and to 

allow the affected employees to make an 

election regarding the utilization of rights 

afforded by Sec. 1(a) of the Order, In A/S's 

view, where a right to use official time for 

the conduct of union representational duties 

has been granted by agreement, any warning or 

notice, as suggested by ALJ, with respect to 

obligations imposed by a specific job could, 

under certain circumstances, itself be violative of the Order. (Army Infantry Cntr., 

Civilian Personnel Office, Ft. Benning, Ga., 

A/SLMR No. 515)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) by interrogating 

an employee who was president of the union, 

regarding his plans and intentions to run again 

for president of the local union in the future. 

(IRS, Wilmington, Del. Dist., A/SLMR No. 516)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) when supervisor 

suggested to union president that he give some 

consideration to not running for president 

again. (IRS, Wilmington, Del, Dist., A/SLMR 

No. 516)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) when supervisor 

inserted a remark concerning an employee's union 

activities in a performance evaluation worksheet. 

(IRS, Wilmington, Del. Dist., A/SLMR No. 516)

A/S found that the Respondent's failure and 

refusal to comply with an arbitration award 

violated Sec. 19(a)(1). (FAA, A/SLMR No. 517)

A/S found that the Respondent's failure to abide 

by an arbitration award issued under a negotiated 

grievance procedure to which no exceptions were 

filed with the FLRC, violated Sec, 19(a)(1).

See, Department of the Army, Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, A/SLMR No. 412, FLRC No. 74A-46.

(Army, Aberdeen Proving Ground, A/SLMR No. 518)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) (Cont'd)

62 6-30-75
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont*d)

35 08 04 Section 19(a)(1) (Cont*d)

Participation in decertification activity 

found not violative where employees involved were found to be team leaders and 

not supervisors. (VA Data Processing Cntr., 

Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 523)

A supervisor's direct communication with 

employees regarding the positions of the 

parties as to the status of negotiations 

found violative, (VA Data Processing 

Cntr., Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 523)

Alleged failure by Respondent's supervisors 

to prevent use of internal mail system for 

distribution of DR petitions and employees' 

duty time decertification found not violative 

as Complainant failed to meet burden of proof. 

However, Respondent did violate the Order by 

not taking adequate measures to disassociate 

itself from the implication that it was 

lending support to decertification activity 

by use of its mail services, (VA Data Processing Cntr,, Austin, Tex,, A/SLMR No, 523)

Alleged participation in decertification 

activity and statements made allegedly to 

discredit the union president not violative 

where employee involved was found not to be 

a management official, (VA Data Processing 

Cntr,, Austin, Tex,, A/SLMR No, 523)

Complainant failed to meet its burden of proof 

that alleged low promotional appraisal and 

arbitrary scheduling of a job related exam by 

supervisor with respect to union steward were 

based on union activities, (VA Data Processing 

Cntr,, Austin, Tex,, A/SLMR No. 523)

Participation in decertification effort found 

violative where employee involved was found 

to be supervisor within meaning of 2(c),

(VA Data Processing Cntr,, Austin, Tex,,

A/SLMR No. 523)

Supervisor's discriminatory reporting requirement for union steward found violative of 

Order. (VA Data Processing Cntr., Austin,

Tex., A/SLMR No. 523)

63
35 12 00

35 08 04 Interference (Cont*d)

Supervisor's reading to employees of confidential EEC memorandum filed by union found 

violative of Order. (VA Data Processing 

Cntr., Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No, 523)

A/S found that statements made by Respondent's 

Director to Complainant Union's President, 

contrary to allegation of Complainant, did 

not constitute interference, restraint, or 

coercion within the meaning of Sec. 19(a)(1). 

(Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J., A/SLMR 

No. 532)

A/S found that Respondent did not violate 

Sec. 19(a)(1) distinguishing NASA, Washington, 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 457, noting that in instant 

case there was no showing that exclusive representative was by passed by virtue of higher 

level management representative dealing directly with unit employees concerning their 

terms and conditions of employment. (FAA, 

Airways Facility Sector, San Diego, Cal.,

A/SLMR No. 533)

35 08 08 Distribution of Literature

No Entries

35 08 12 Solicitation

No Entries

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that,in the absence 

of any evidence of anti-union motivation, the Complainant 

failed to establish that Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(2) 

in refusing to grant the type of passes previously 

issued to Complainant's representatives, thereby making 

their entry into the Shipyard on the Complainant's business more difficult. (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, 

Bremerton, Wash., A/SLMR No. 415)

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) (Cont'd)

64 6-30-75
35 12 00

A/S, in agreement with the A U , found that even if the 

Respondent had, without justification, insisted that 

the Complainant state grievance in writing, such a 

violation of its unilaterally established grievance 

procedure, in the absence of evidence of discriminatory 

motivation or disparity of treatment based on union 

membership considerations, would not violate Sec, 19(a)(2) 

of the Order. (Naval Air Sta., (North Island), San Diego, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 422)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(2) by withdrawing 

its agreement with respect to administrative leave and 

check-off after the parties reached an impasse during 

negotiations where evidence established that Respondent 

bargained in good faith throughout negotations and 

there was no evidence that Respondent had engaged in any 

discriminatory conduct against employees which was designed to discourage membership in a labor organization. 

(Regional Office, Small Business Adm., Seattle, Wash., 

A/SLMR No, 423)

Allegation that the Respondent's refusal to allow an 

employee to return to work and her subsequent termination were based on anti-union considerations or for 

engaging in conduct protected under the Order dismissed 

for insufficient evidence. (VA Cntr., Bath, N.Yo,

A/SLMR No. 433)

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) (Cont'd)

A/S rejects ALJ's finding that a schedule change involving a union steward was violative of Sec, 19(a)(2) 

as A/S concluded that evidence did not establish that 

schedule change was discriminatory in nature or intended 

to discourage employee in exercise of her union duties. 

Also, A/S rejected ALJ's finding of Sec, 19(a)(2) 

violation related to the assignment of additional work 

duties where there was no evidence that the alleged 

discriminatee actually was assigned those duties,

(AAFES, Vandenberg AFB, Cal,, A/SLMR No. 437)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that, under the circumstances, 

which established economic motivation. Activity did not 

violate Sec. 19(a)(2) by issuing directive reducing 

hours of employees during an organizing campaign.

(Air Force, Webb AFB, Tex,, A/SLMR No, 439)

6-30-75 65
35 12 0 0

A/S adopted ALJ^s finding that Complainant failed to 

meet burden of proof that Activity violated 

Sec, 19(a)(2) by supervisor's alleged confrontation 

of employee regarding subject matter of pending 

grievance while employee was without representation. 

(IRS, Memphis Service Cntr,, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 444)

Based on the ALJ's credibility resolution, the A/S 

found that Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(2) by 

supervisor's alleged improper statement to employee 

at meeting between the two. (IRS, Memphis Service 

Cntr., Tenn., A/SLMR No. 444)

Based on the ALJ's credibility resolutions, the A/S 

found that Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(2) by 

alleged statements of supervisor and senior employee 

to employee to the effect that the employee would receive poor evaluation if she voluntarily furloughed 

herself other than during the prescribed furlough 

period and would continue to receive poor evaluations 

if she went to her exclusive representative and 

grieved. (IRS, Memphis Service Cntr., Tenn., A/SLMR 

No. 444)

A/S adopted the ALJ's finding that Complainant failed 

to meet burden of proof that Respondent's actions 

were prompted by Complainant's union membership or 

activities. (Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 445)

Where evidence established that employee's temporary 

assignment was in accord with established policy and 

was based on economic considerations, and there was an 

absence of any evidence that the employee's assignment 

was based on either the employee's having filed 

grievances and sought union representation, or his 

having filed a pre-complaint charge, the A/S, noting 

the absence of exceptions, adopted the ALJ's recommended 

dismissal of the complaint alleging violation of 

Sec. 19(a)(2) and (4) of the Order. (Naval Air Rework 

Facility, Jacksonville, Fla., A/SLMR No, 446)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the issue of job content 

could properly have been raised under Respondent's Job 

Evaluation Complaint and Appeals Procedure, and therefore, Sec, 19(d) constituted a bar to the proceeding. 

(Army Tank Automotive Com,, Warren, Mich., A/SLMR 

No. 447)

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) (Cont'd)

6 6 6-30-75
35 12 00

A/S found no evidence of discrimination with respect 

to any condition of emplojnnent where union representatives were not exercising any rights assured by 

the Order when they attempted to represent employees 

who were being arrested for crimes unrelated to their 

employment. (VA, Wadsworth Hosp. Cntr,, Los Angeles, 

Cal., A/SLMR No. 449)

A/S dismissed complaint where ALJ found that any 

connection between the filing of a grievance and the 

separation of a probationary employee who participated 

in the filing of the grievance was mere coincidence. 

(Biloxi VA Cntr., Miss., A/SLMR No. 450)

A/S, in agreement with the ALJ, rejected Activity's 

contention that firing a union steward for advocating 

changes in working conditions was justified because 

this created dissension among employees, and found 

that the firing was discriminatory based on union 

membership considerations. (Miramar Naval Air St., 

Commissary Store, San Diego, Cal., A/SLMR No. 472)

Although violating Sec. 19(a)(1) of EO, Agendy did 

not also violate Sec, 19(a)(2) by conduct allegedly 

discouraging membership in a labor organization by 

discriminating in regard to the conditions of an 

employee's employment. (AAFES, Redstone Arsenal Exchange, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., A/SLMR No. 491)

A/S, adopting findings of ALJ, found that conduct of 

Respondent in discharging members of local union who 

engaged in a work stoppage, while merely warning others 

who also engaged in the work stoppage but were nonmembers of the local union, violated Sec. 19(a)(2) of 

the Order. A/S noted in particular that his action was 

not, in any way, a condonation of the action of employees 

engaging in a work stoppage. Such activity is not only 

unprotected under the Order, but is also unlawful, and 

employees engaging in such conduct are not protected 

by the Order from discipline by their Agency up to and 

including discharge. Further, an Agency or Activity 

may assess different degrees of discipline based on a 

distinction in conduct or responsibility for the improper conduct. However, an Agency or Activity may not 

predicate its differentiation of discipline upon conduct 

which is protected under the Order, i.e., membership in 

a labor organization. (TVA, A/SLMR No. 509)

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) (ContM)

6-30-75 67
35 12 00

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that in absence of evidence 

that the Respondent's "action was based on union membership, or other protected activity," there was 

insufficient evidence to find violation of Sec. 19(a)(2) 

of the Order0 (Dallas Naval Air Sta,, Dallas, Tex,, 

A/SLMR No. 510)

A/S found, in agreement with the ALJ, that the evidence 

established that Respondent had permitted Complainant 

employee's activity as a union steward to play a role 

in its detemination of her fitness and/or selection 

for promotion, or repromotion, and, further, that 

but for Complainant's activity as a union steward, she 

would have been selected for repromotion. (Army Infantry Cntr., Civilian Personnel Office, Ft. Benning, 

Gao, A/SLMR No. 515)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(2) where evidence 

failed to establish that failure to promote local 

union president was grounded on discriminatory considerations. (IRS, Wilmington, Del. Dist., A/SL^fil 

No. 516)

Alleged participation in decertification activity and 

statements allegedly made to discredit union steward 

not violative where employee was found not to be a 

management official. (VA Data Processing Cntr«, Austin, 

Tex., A/SLMR No. 523)

Participation by supervisor in decertification activity 

and failure of Respondent to take affirmative action to 

disassociate itself from implication that it was lending 

support to decertification activity by use of its internal mail system, while violative of Sec. 19(a)(1), 

found not violative of Sec. 19(a)(2) where no discrimination regarding a condition of employment was 

shown. (VA Data Processing Cntr., Austin, Tex.,

A/SLMR No. 523)

A/S, contrary to ALJ, found discriminatory reporting 

requirement placed on union steward by her supervisor 

not violation of Sec. 19(a)(2) of Order where no evidence adduced that she ever had to comply with this 

requirement. (VA Data Processing Cntr., Austin, Tex., 

A/SLMR No. 523)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that there was no evidence 

that the Respondent denied a promotion to one of its 

employees because of his union activities. See 

A/SLMR No. 425. (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash*, A/SLMR No. 525)

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) (Cont’d)

6 8 6-30-75
35 20 00

35 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; AGENCY (Cont'd) 

35 16 00 Section 19(a)(3)

Where it was alleged that Respondent hospital violated 

Order by granting certain nurses administrative leave 

to attend a professional workshop conference sponsored 

by a professional association which is also a labor 

organization, and evidence established that subject 

matter of the workshop was strictly professional in 

nature, and Respondent had not consulted or dealt with 

the professional association in derogation of its 

collective bargaining obligations to the Complainant, 

the A/S agreed with the ALJ that the Respondent did 

not violate the EO. (VA Hosp,, Salisbury, N.C.,- 

A/SLMR No. 424)

35 20 00 Section 19(a)(4)

Based on the ALJ's credibility resolutions, the A/S 

found that Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(4) by 

supervisor's alleged improper statement to employee 

at meeting between the two. (IRS, Memphis Service 

Cntr., Tenn., A/SLMR No. 444)

Based on the ALJ's credibility resolution, the A/S 

found that Activity did not violate Sec, 19(a)(4) by 

alleged statements of supervisor and senior employee 

to employee to the effect that the employee would receive poor evaluation if she voluntarily furloughed 

herself other than during the prescribed furlough 

period and would continue to receive poor evaluations 

if she went to her exclusive representative and grieved, 

(IRS, Memphis Service Cntr., Tenn., A/SLMR No. 444)

Where evidence established that employee's temporary 

assignment was in accord with established policy and 

based solely on economic considerations,the A/S 

adopted the ALJ's finding that it was unnecessary to 

determine whether in processing an agency grievance the 

employee was engaged in activity protected by the Order, 

or whether the protection afforded by Sec. 19(a)(4) 

extended either to giving testimony during the processing 

of a grievance or the filing of a pre-complaint charge 

under the Order and dismissed the Sec, 19(a)(4) complaint, 

(Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, Fla., A/SLMR 

No. 446)

6-30-75 69
35 24 0 0

Where evidence established that employee's temporary 

assignment was in accord with established policy 

and was based on economic consideration, and there 

was an absence of any evidence that the employee's 

assignment was based on either the employee's having 

filed grievances and sought union representation, or 

his having filed a pre-complaint charge, the A/S, 

noting the absence of exceptions, adopted the ALJ's 

recommended dismissal of the complaint alleging 

violation of Sec, 19(a)(4) of the Order. (Naval 

Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, Fla,, A/SLMR 

No, 446)

Activity did not violate the Order where a Branch 

Chief, who was charged with a previous unfair labor 

practice by the Complainant, did not approve or 

disapprove requests for training from the Complainant's 

President, but forwarded the requests to supervisors 

who subsequently approved them without any unusual 

delay, (Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J., A/SLMR No. 532)

35 24 00 Section 19(a)(5)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that proceedings before 

Agency's Facility Review Board did not constitute a 

formal discussion within the meaning of Sec. 10(e) and, 

therefore, the Agency's denial of representation was 

not violative of the Order. (FAA, Cleveland ARTC 

Cntr., Oberlin, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 430)

A/S, in agreement with the ALJ, dismissed allegation 

of violation of Sec. 19(a)(5) concerning the alleged 

failure of Respondent to afford Complainant opportunity 

to be present at three meetings of employees to discuss implementation of a mandatory 48-hour workweek.

ALJ found unnecessary a determination of whether the 

meetings were "formal discussions" within meaning of 

Sec. 10(e), since Complainant was afforded opportunity 

to be present, and was, in fact, present at one meeting 

in the person of Complainant's Vice President, (FAA, 

Nat'l, Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr,,

Atlantic City, N,J,, A/SLMR No, 438)

35 20 00 Section 19(a)(4) (Cont'd)

70 6-30-75
6- 30-75

35 28 08.

Respondent Activity fulfilled obligation to meet and 

confer concerning change in work reporting site where

(1) "Memorandum of Understanding" concerning reporting 

station was only a recording of an employment practice 

and not a negotiated agreement within the meaning of 

the Order, and (2) the Respondent discussed the policy 

change with an open mind with the Complainant-labor 

organization prior to the change. (Dugway Proving 

Ground, Army, Dugway, Utah, A/SLMR No, 511)

The Activity violated the EG by its unilateral decision 

to revoke dues authorization for three employees who 

had been members of a unit represented exclusively by 

the Complainant prior to being administratively transferred to a new organizational entity of the Agency, 

as the A/S found that the three employees were performing the same jobs they had previously performed, in 

the same work areas, under the same supervision, and at 

essentially the same rates of pay and schedule of benefits as before their transfer, and thus remained within 

the unit represented exclusively by the Complainant. 

Respondent's action, therefore, constituted improper 

withdrawal of recognition. (AAFES, MacDill AFB Exchange, MacDill AFB, Fla., A/SLMR No. 514)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6)

35 28 04 Response to Bargaining Request

A/S found that Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) 

when it unilaterally terminated meeting with 

union, based on an alleged impasse with respect to one subject of bargaining and refused 

to meet and confer on other subjects of bargaining. (Vandenberg AFB, 4392d Aerospace 

Support Group, Cal., A/SLMR No, 435)

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally

35 24 00 Section 19(a)(5) (Cont*d)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) by 

refusing to consult and confer with the Complainant, as the Complainant was not the 

majority representative of the Respondent's 

employees, and,as a result, no obligation was 

imposed by Sec, 19(a)(6) upon the Respondent 

to consult and confer. (HUD, Area Office, 

Detroit, Mich,, A/SLMR No. 414)

71
35 28 08

72

Respondent's attempt to dictate the selection 

of the Complainant's Chief Representative 

constituted an attempt to interfere improperly 

in the internal affairs of the Complainant and 

an improper refusal to meet and confer with an 

appropriate representative of the Complainant 

in violation of Sec. 19(a)(6) of the EG.

(IRS, Omaha District Office, A/SLMR No, 417)

Activity did not violate Sec, 19(a)(6) by 

posting the minutes of a labor-management 

meeting where the procedure for posting had 

been established through mutual agreement and 

past practice, (Naval Air Sta,, Fallon, Nev., 

A/SLMR No, 432)

A/S found that Activity violated Sec, 19(a)(6) 

when it unilaterally terminated meeting with 

union, based on an alleged impasse with respect to one subject of bargaining and refused 

to meet and confer on other subjects of bargaining, (Vandenberg AFB, 4392d Aerospace 

Support Group, Cal,, A/SLMR No, 435)

A/S agreed with the ALJ's finding that no 

ULP occurred based on allegation that Respondent refused to cooperate in attempts to 

settle the complaint informally, as a 19(a)(6) 

charge based on an alleged viola;ti<>n of 

Sec, 203 of the A/S's Regs, is inappropriate 

for resolution in an unfair labor practice 

proceeding. Accord, A/SLMR Nos, 211 and 352. 

(AAFES, Vandenberg AFB, Cal., A/SLMR No. 437)

A/s, in finding that the Respondent had fulfilled its obligation to meet and confer with 

Complainants, distinguished National Labor 

Relations Board, A/SLMR No. 246, noting that 

in instant case Complainants at no time specifically indicated to Respondent that there was 

insufficient time to review the draft Average 

Grade Control Plan and to formulate meaningful 

comments, or requested additional time in which 

to do so; nor did Complainants seek to meet and 

discuss the matter further with Respondent, or 

offer suggestions or comments to Respondent 

concerning the Plan subsequent .to the notification meeting. (FAA, Nat'l. Aviation Facilities, Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., 

(A/SLMR No. 438)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont'd)

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont*d)

6-30-75
35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont*d)

Activity met its obligations when it negotiated 

with respect to the issue of uniform wearing by 

civilian technicians for a year, announced on 

May 22, 1972, its intention to implement a 

longstanding regulation with respect to the 

issue, continued the negotiations, and notified the employees on August 5, 1972, of its 

intent to implement. (N.Y, Army and Air Nat'l, 

Guard, Albany, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 441)

A/S found no evidence that Respondent refused 

to meet and confer regarding the arrest of 

two unit employees for alleged bookmaking, or 

was ever asked to do so. (VA, Wadsworth 

Hosp. Cntr., Los Angeles, Cal., A/SLMR No.449)

Activity's alleged instituting a reduction-inforce (RIF) without prior notice or consultation, 

not violative of Sec. 19(a)(6), among other 

things, because (1) Activity played no part in 

decision to have RIF; (2) when notified of the 

RIF, Activity's director gave his office instruction that union should be notified; and 

(3) there is no evidence that Activity ever 

refused to meet and confer with union concerning 

RIF or any other subject. (Iowa State Agric. 

Stabilization and Conservation Service Office, 

Agric., A/SLMR No. 453)

Where Complainant union's rights as exclusive 

representative are based on exclusive recognition accorded it by Activity,' Respondent Agency 

was not obligated to meet and confer with Complainant pursuant to Sec. 11(a) of the Order. 

Therefore, since Respondent Agency was not a 

party to a bargaining relationship, it did not 

violate Sec. 19(a)(6) of the Order. (NASA,

A/SLMR No. 457)

Where evidence established that (1) no management official of the Activity exercised any 

supervision or control over Agency representative who conducted meetings with unit employees, 

and (2) no evidence that Activity refused to 

meet and confer with union concerning any matters 

involving personnel policies or practices under 

its control or direction. Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) of the Order. (NASA,

A/SLMR No. 457)

35 28 08

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont*d)

6-30-75 73
35 28 08

The FLRC, in FLRC No. 73A-64, set aside the 

A/S's findings in A/SLMR No, 322 and remanded 

case to a / s for appropriate action based on 

its finding that Defense Language Institute 

Reg. was not applicable uniformly to more than 

one Activity in that it was not directed to a 

manager or managers of more than one subordinate Activity, providing guidance concerning 

matters common to employees of these Activities, Accordingly, Defense Language Institute 

Reg, may not serve as an appropriate limitation 

on the scope of the negotiations concerning 

overseas assignments under Sec, 11(a) of the 

Order pursuant to its holding in United 

Federation of College Teachers, Local 1460 

and U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, FLRC No, 

71A-15.

Pursuant to FLRC No, 73A-64, A/S reversed 

previous findings in A/SLMR No, 322 and issued 

revised findings, (Air Force Defense Language 

Institute, English Language Branch, Lackland 

AFB, Tex,, A/SLMR No, 468)

The A/S adopted the ALJ's conclusion that the 

Order does not oblige an Agency to include 

an exclusive bargaining representative in its 

negotiations with a third party, in this case 

a food concessionaire, as long as the representative's right to meet and confer with 

regard to any decision which may impact on 

working conditions is not infringed upon, 

(Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No, 508)

Respondent Activity fulfilled obligation to 

meet and confer concerning change in work 

reporting site where (1) "Memorandtrai of Understanding" concerning reporting station was 

only a recording of an employment practice 

and not a negotiated agreement within the 

meaning of the Order, and (2) the Respondent 

discussed the policy change with an open 

mind with the Complainant labor organization 

prior to the change. (Dugway Proving Ground, 

Army, Dugway, Utah, A/SLMR No, 511)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont*d)

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont'd)

•74 6-30-75
35 28 12

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont d)

The A/S found that the Respondent did not 

violate Sec. 19(a)(6) by failing to meet and 

confer with the Complainant on its formula 

for staffing readjustment as the Respondent 

was not a party to the bargaining relationship 

herein and thus had no obligation under the 

Order to meet and confer with the Complainant, 

citing NASA. Washington. D.C., A/SLMR No. 457. 

(FAA, Airways Facilities Sector, San Diego,

Cal., A/SLMR No. 533)

3 5 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or 

Procedures

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) when it failed 

to meet and confer with the Union as to the 

procedures management intended to observe in 

effectuating its decision to reassign employees 

as a result of a reorganization, and as to the 

impact of such decision on the employees adversely affected. (Fed. Railroad Adm.,

A/SLMR No. 418)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that, although 

Respondent was obliged to meet and confer with 

Complainants concerning the formulation of and 

procedures to be utilized in effectuating a 

plan for the reduction of average grade of employees, and the impact of such plan on unit 

employers. Respondent did not violate Sec. 

19(a)(6) since it fulfilled its obligation in 

this regard and Complainants failed to avail 

themselves of this opportunity. (FAA, Nat 1. 

Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr.,

Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No, 438)

A/S. in agreement with ALJ, found that Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(6) by its action in 

failing to accord Complainant opportunity to 

be present during certain discussions with an 

employee which involved, among other things, 

institution of a departure from the mere review 

of individual work performance evaluation and 

entered into matters which had potentially far 

reaching effects with wider ramifications than

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont*d)

75
35 28 12

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or 

Procedures (Cont*d)

the dispute relative to the employee's individual rating. It was noted that the 

departure involved institution of a new 

method of evaluation which admittedly would 

have to be applied to other employees if they 

so desired, (FAA, Nat'l, Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Cntr,, Atlantic City, N,J,,

A/SLMR No. 438)

The Respondent violated the EG by contracting 

out certain of its auto repair operations 

without meeting and conferring in good faith 

on the impact of the contracting out with the 

exclusive representative. (AAFES, Pacific 

Exchange System, Hawaii Regional Exchange, 

A/SLMR No, 451)

Activity's alleged instituting a reductionin-force (RIF) without prior notice or consultation not violative of Sec. 19(a)(6), among 

other things, because (1) Activity played no 

part in decision to have RIF; (2) when notified 

of the RIF, Activity's director gave his office 

instruction that union should be notified; and 

(3) there is no evidence that Activity ever 

refused to meet and confer with union concerning 

RIF or any other subject, (Iowa State Agric. 

Stabilization and Conservation Service Office, 

Agric., A/SLMR No, 453)

Activity violated Sec, 19(a)(6) when, although 

not obligated to meet with union on reclassification decision, it instituted the reclassification without affording union meaningful 

opportunity to meet and confer on impact of 

such action on adversely affected unit employees. (AAFES, Pacific Exchange Sys.,

Hawaii Regional Exchange, A/SLMR No, 454)

The FLRC, in FLRC No, 73A-64, set aside A/S's 

findings in A/SLMR No, 322 and remanded case 

to A/S for appropriate action based on its 

finding that Defense Languge Institute Reg. 

was not applicable uniformly to more than 

one Activity in that it was not directed 

to a manager or managers of more

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont'd)

75 6- 30-75
6-30-75

35 28 12

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or 

Procedures (Cont*d)

than one subordinate Activity, providing 

guidance concerning matters common to employees of these Activities. Accordingly,

DLI Reg. may not serve as an appropriate 

limitation on the scope of the negotiations 

concerning overseas assignments under 

Sec. 11(a) of the Order pursuant to its 

holding in United Federation of College 

Teachers, Local 1460 and U.S. Merchant 

Marine Academy, FLRC No. 71A-15.

Pursuant to FLRC No. 73A-64, A/S reversed previous findings in A/SLMR No. 322 

and issued revised findings. (Air Force 

Defense Language Institute, English Language 

Branch, Lackland AFB, fex., A/SLMR No. 468)

Although there was no obligation on Respondent 

to meet and confer with Complainant on the directive which changed the recruiting obligations 

of the unit employees, there was an obligation 

to meet and confer on the procedures relating 

to the implementation of such change and on the 

impact of such policy on adversely affected 

employees. (Pa. Army Nat'l. Guard, A/SLMR 

No. 475)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) by 

instituting an employee shift change without 

affording labor organization a reasonable 

opportunity to meet and confer on the impact 

of such action on adversely affected unit employees. (Naval Plant Rep. Office, Baltimore, 

Md., A/SLMR No. 486)

No violation found where Respondent clearly 

met its obligation to meet and confer regarding 

the impact and implementation of a change in 

tours of duty. (IRS, Fresno Service Cntr., 

A/SLMR No. 489)

Instituting a change in working conditions not 

to the liking of the Complainant did not violate the Order where the Activity solicited and 

received input on the proposed change from the 

Complainant and solicited additional comments 

prior to final announcement of the change, and

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (ContM)

77
35 28 16

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or 

Procedures (Cont*d)

where there was no evidence that the Complainant was intentionally misled or that the Order 

imposed the obligation that parties must agree 

on the terms of the change. (HEW, SSA, Western 

Program Cntr., San Francisco, Cal., A/SLMR 

No. 501)

The A/S adopted the ALJ's conclusion that the 

Activity entered a meeting held with all the 

labor organizations represented at the facility, 

at which it presented its tentative plans with 

respect to changes in its food service operations, without having come to any final conclusion in that regard and that it was therefore 

incumbent upon the Complainant to seek bargaining concerning such proposals or to ask for 

additional time to consider them. (Portsmouth 

Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No, 508)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) by failing to 

notify the Complainant labor organization prior 

to implementing a higher agency directive on 

career appraisals, thereby failing to afford 

the Complainant an opportunity to meet and 

confer on the procedures and impact following 

from the directive. Activity did not violate 

the Order by failing to meet and confer on the 

decision concerning career appraisals inasmuch 

as this decision was issued by higher agency 

management in order to achieve uniformity of 

administration of a subject matter common to 

many activities. (Hq. Army Armament Com.,

Rock Island, 111., A/SLMR No. 527)

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion 

Representation

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) when 

it denied employee's request for union representation during "Performance Interview" where 

it was determined that subject interview was 

not a formal discussion within meaning of 

Sec. 10(e) of EO. (HEW, SSA, Great Lakes 

Program Cntr., A/SLMR No. 419)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont*d)

6-30-75
6-30-75

35 28 16

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion 

Representation (Cont*d)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) when 

it refused to allow union representation 

during an alleged "counselling session", as 

such session did not constitute a "formal" 

discussion within the meaning of See. 10(e) 

of EG. (IRS, Mid-Atlantic Service Cntr.,

A/SLMR No. 421)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that proceedings 

before Agency's Facility Review Board did 

not constitute a formal discussion within 

the meaning of Sec. 10(e) a n d ,therefore, 

the Agency's denial of representation to the 

Complainant was not violative of the Order,

(FAA, Cleveland ARTC Center, Oberlin, Ohio,, 

A/SLMR No. 430)

A/s, in agreement with ALJ, found that Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(6) by its action 

in failing to accord Complainant opportunity 

to be present during certain discussions with 

an employee which involved, among other things, 

institution of a departure from the mere review of individual work performance evaluation 

and entered into matters which had potentially 

far-reaching effects with wider ramifications 

than the dispute relative to the employee's 

individual rating. It was noted that the departure involved institution of a new method 

of evaluation which admittedly would have to 

be applied to other employees if they so desired. (FAA, Nat'l. Aviation Facilities 

Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J.,

A/SLMR No. 438)

A/S found, in agreement with ALJ, that a 

meeting involving Respondent's supervisor and 

employee concerning a grievance filed by employee constituted a "formal discussion" within 

meaning of Sec. 10(e) and Respondent's failure 

to afford Complainant opportunity to be present 

constituted a violation of Sec. 19(a)(6).

(FAA, Nat'l. Aviation Facilities Experimental 

Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 438)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont*d)

79
35 28 16

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion 

Representation (Cont'd)

A/S, in agreement with the ALJ, dismissed 

allegation of violation of Sec. 19(a)(6) 

concerning the alleged failure of Respondent to afford Complainant opportunity 

to be present at three meetings of employees 

to discuss implementation of a mandatory 

48-hour workweek, ALJ found unnecessary a 

determination of whether the meetings were 

"formal discussions" within meaning of 

Sec.10(e),since Complainant was afforded 

opportunity to be present, and was, in fact, 

present at one meeting in the person of 

Complainant's Vice President. (FAA, Nat'l. 

Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr., 

Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No, 438)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont'd)

Contrary to finding by the A U , A/S found 

that a meeting between an employee and her 

Division Chief was not a "formal discussion" 

within the meaning of Sec, 10(e), despite 

the fact that meeting was with employee's 

fourth-level supervisor, and meeting was an 

integral and necessary part in taking formal 

disciplinary action against the employee.

A/S noted that subject matter of the meeting 

related only to the application of Respondent's regulations to an individual employee 

and that no grievance had been filed. Therefore, denial to Respondent of opportunity to 

be present did not violate Sec, 19(a)(6) of 

EO, (FAA, Nat'l, Aviation Facilities Experimental Cntr,, Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR 

No. 438)

The A/S found that the exclusive bargaining 

representative has a right,under Sec. 10(e) or 

the Order, to be representated at meetings concerning implementation of grievance recommendation. The A/S noted that when a grievance is 

the subject of a formal discussion, the exclusive representative is entitled, under Sec.10(e)

80 6-30-75
35 28 20

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion 

Representation (Cont'd)

of the Order, to be represented, whether 

or not such grievance might have a general 

impact on unit employees. (IRS, Pittsburgh 

Dist., Pa., A/SLMR No. 498)

A/S, in agreement with the ALJ, dismissed 

19(a)(1) and (6) complaints based on alleged 

refusal of complaints examiner,in EEO hearing, 

to allow Complainant to be represented at 

hearing in contravention of Sec. 10(e) of Order, 

Complaint against Respondent Navy dismissed 

since Navy owed no bargaining obligation to 

Complainant, and took no part in EEO hearing 

nor met with any bargaining unit employee 

about EEO matter. As to Respondent CSC, A/S 

noted that under "particular circumstances of 

this case" CSC did not meet definition of 

"Agency Management" as set forth in Sec. 2(f) 

of the Order, since CSC was acting under 

authority of various statutes. Executive 

Orders and Part 713, Federal Personnel Manual 

pertaining to EEO matters and, as such, was 

not subject to jurisdiction or authority of 

either Respondent Navy or Shipyard. (Navy 

and U.S. Civil Service Commission, A/SLMR 

No. 529)

35 28 20 Uncompromising Attitude

A proposal made by the Respondent,which had 

the effect of leaving the final determination 

of an issue which was subject to bargaining 

with the chief official of the Respondent,was 

a proposal which the Complainant was free to 

reject and thus, standing alone, it was not 

violative of the EO. (N.Y, Army and Air 

Nat'l. Guard, Albany, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 441)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) by refusing to bargain separately over an unfair 

labor practice charge which was concurrently 

a topic in bargaining negotiations. (Off. 

of Fed. Highway Projects, Fed. Highway Adm., 

A/SLMR No. 513)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont'd)

6- ^ 50-75 81
35 28 24

35 28 20 Uncompromising Attitude

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) 

where, in reducing articles to writing, 

the Activity did not change or renege on 

articles already agreed upon by the parties 

and opposed changes in agreed on terms proposed by the Complainant* (Offo of Fed, 

Highway Projects, Fed, Highway Adm,, A/SLMR 

No, 513)

35 28 24 Dilatory and Evasive Tactics

Activity had not failed to provide its 

chief negotiator with sufficient bargaining 

authority as the proposals made by the Complainant went to the question of the Activity's 

authority under its Agency's regulations and, 

therefore, it was not improper for the Activity's negotiators to seek time to evaluate 

and discuss such broad proposals, (N.Y,

Army and Air Nat'l, Guard, Albany, N,Y,,

A/SLMR No, 441)

Activity did not violate Sec, 19(a)(6) where 

the Respondent's chief spokesman left the 

bargaining table after the conclusion of 

negotiations and after appointing another in 

his stead as chief spokesman, (Off. of Fed. 

Highway Projects, Fed, Highway Adm,, A/SLMR 

No, 513)

Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(6) of the EO 

by interpretation of the Department Personnel 

Manual to establish a dual level of approval 

for executed agreements and its returning of 

the agreement to the parties.

In reaching this conclusion, the A/S 

found that such an interpretation of the 

Department Personnel Manual was inconsistent 

with the intent of Sec. 15 of EO and with the 

Respondent's obligation under Sec. 11(a) of EO 

to meet at reasonable times and confer in 

good faith, (Dept, of Agric, and Agric. Research Service, A/SLMR No, 519)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont'd)

82 6-30-75
35 28 24 Dilatory and Evasive Tactics (Cont*d)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) of 

the EG by its refusal to submit a signed 

agreement to the Director of Personnel of 

the Agency within 30 days from the execution 

of the agreement by the parties, as required by Agency regulations. (Dept, of 

Agric. and Agric. Research Service, A/SLMR 

No. 519)

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions 

of Employment

Activity's refusal to comply with a binding 

arbitration award would ordinarily be violation of Sec. 19(a)(6) of Order in circumstances where such party has not availed 

itself of the right to file exceptions to 

the award under the Rules and Regs, of the 

FLRC. ( A m y , Aberdeen Proving Ground,

A/SLMR No. 412)

A/S, in agreement with the ALJ, found that 

the evidence did not support a finding of a 

violation of Sec. 19(a)(6) since the fact 

that the Respondent did not change its 

practice of freely issuing photo passes to 

the Complainant's representative until after 

the effective date of the current agreement 

did not, without more,support a finding of 

bad faith bargaining during negotiations. 

(Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton,

Wash., A/SLMR No. 415)

Respondent did not violate:-the Order by 

withdrawing its agreement with respect to 

administrative leave and check-off after 

the parties reached an impasse during negotiations where evidence established administrative leave provision conflicted with the 

FPM and Sec. 12 of the Order; Respondent 

acted in good faith throughout negotiations 

and did all it reasonably could be expected 

to do to reach a final agreement; Respondent 

reinstated its agreement on check-off; and 

Respondent continued its efforts to reach an 

agreement with the Complainant even after the 

latter terminated negotiations. (Regional 

Office, anall Business Adm., Seattle, Wash., 

A/SLMR No. 423)

35 28 28

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont'd)

6-30-75 83
35 28 28

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions 

of Employment (Cont'd)

Memoiranda issued to New York National 

Guard employees regarding the use of military forms of address constituted a unilateral change in the working conditions of 

certain unit employees, as Respondent had 

tolerated extensive deviations from the 

requirements of a National Guard Bureau 

regulation which was interpreted as requiring 

that the employees use military forms of 

address while performing in their civilian 

job status. The A/S agreed with the ALJ's 

finding that the applicable regulation gave 

the Activity certain prerogatives, that the 

Activity was obliged to meet and confer with 

the Complainant within the boundaries established by the regulation, and its unilateral 

conduct in changing a working condition which 

fell within the purview of the applicable regulation which was, in effect, an improper bypass of the exclusive representative. (N.Y, 

Army and Air Nat'l. Guard, Albany, N»Y,, 

A/SLMR No. 441)

Where negotiated grievance procedure provided 

that grievances relating to satisfactory 

rating would be processed exclusively through 

medium of ^ hoc board of review or statutory 

performance board and there was no evidence 

of a contrary intent by the parties, the A/S 

found,.-in agreement with ALJ, that the Respondent's refusal to accede to the Complainant's request to submit a grievance concerning 

a satisfactory rating to arbitration did not 

constitute violation of Sec, 19(a)(6) of the 

Order. (Army Adjutant General Publications 

Cntr., St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 455)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont'd)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent 

was under no obligation to consult and confer 

prior to instituting a change in a non-negotiable condition of employment, which owes 

its existence to higher level published 

policies and regulations that are applicable 

unifotmly to more than one Activity. The 

A/S noted that the evidence did not establish

84 6-30-75
35 28 28

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes In Terms and Conditions 

of Employment (Cont*d)

that the application of the Regulation was 

inconsistent with any of the provisions of 

the current negotiated agreement. (Army 

Adjutant General Publications Cntr.,

St. Louis, Mo., A/SLMR No. 465)

A/S found in accord with Los Angeles Air 

Route Traffic Control Center, Federal 

Aviation Administration, A/SLMR No, 283, 

that the use of Agency bulletin boards and/or 

Agency facilities for meetings by a bargaining representative is a privilege, not a 

right, and may be subject to reasonable conditions. However, such privilege, once 

granted, constitutes a term and condition of 

employment and may not thereafter be unilaterally conditioned by the Agency. Such 

action by the Agency is a unilateral change 

of working conditions in violation of 

Sec. 19(a)(6). (IRS, Office of the Regional 

Commissioner, Western Region, A/SLMR No, 473)

Respondent Activity fulfilled obligation to 

meet and confer concerning change in work reporting site where (1) "Memorandum of Understanding" concerning reporting station was 

only a recording of an employment practice 

and not a negotiated agreement within the 

meaning of the Order; and (2) the Respondent 

discussed the policy change with an open mind 

with the Complainant labor organization prior 

to the change. (Dugway Proving Ground, Army, 

Dugway, Utah, A/SIHR No. 511)

A/S, in finding a violation of Sec. 19(a)(6), 

found that an arbitration award established a 

new term and condition of employment for unit 

employees, which required both parties to meet 

and confer if either desired a modification.

The fact that the most recent negotiated 

agreement contained no specific reference to 

the above-noted term and condition of employment

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont*d)

6-30-75 85
35 28 28

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions 

of Employment (Cont'd)

was insufficient to establish that the Complainant waived the existing term and 

condition of employment as a result of the 

execution of the agreement, (FAA, A/SLMR 

No. 517)

A/S found that the Respondent's failure to 

abide by an arbitration award issued under 

a negotiated grievance procedure to which 

no exceptions were filed with the FLRC 

violated Sec. 19(a)(6). See, Department of 

the Army, Aberdeen Proving Ground, A/SLMR 

No. 412, FLRC No. 74A-46. (Army, Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, A/SLMR No, 518)

The evidence failed to establish that the 

Activity violated Sec, 19(a)(6) of the Order 

by contracting out work without notifying 

the exclusive representative in accordance 

with the negotiated agreement, where it had 

not done so in the past and the exclusive 

representative ha(} not complained; where 

employees of the Activity had not previously 

been assigned a single work order of such 

magnitude and where such employees were 

performing their regular work on a full-time 

basis; and where there was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent's interpretation of the negotiated agreement was in 

bad faith and clearly constituted a 

unilateral revision of the agreement. (GSA, 

Region 5, Public Buildings Service, Chicago 

Field Offices, A/SLMR No. 528)

35 28 32 Bypassing Exclusive Representative

Activity did not violate Sec, 19(a)(6) by 

posting the minutes of a labor-management 

meeting where the procedure for posting had 

been established through mutual agreement 

and past practice. (Naval Air Sta,, Fallon, 

Nev,, A/SLMR No, 432)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont'd)

8 6 6-30-75
35 28 32

35 28 32 Bypassing Exclusive Representative (Cont*d)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) by posting 

a letter from Activity's Commanding Officer 

to the Union's President and, additionally, 

by requiring that employees read and initial 

the posted letter. (Naval Air Sta,, Fallon, 

Nev., A/SLMR No. 432)

The Respondent failed to fulfill its obligation to meet and confer in good faith when 

it established unilateral criteria for the 

discussion of exceptions to the Agency's 

uniform wearing regulation which went beyond 

the limits inherent in the regulation. The 

Respondent could ultimately refuse to accede 

to the Complainant's position on exceptions 

to the uniform requirement and the criteria 

therefor, but it could not limit unilaterally 

the discussion to its own criteria for exceptions. (N.Y. Army and Air Nat'l. Guard, 

Albany, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 441)

A memoranda issued to New York National Guard 

employees regarding the use of military forms 

of address constituted a unilateral change in 

the working conditions of certain unit employees, as Respondent had tolerated extensive 

deviations from the requirements of a National 

Guard Bureau regulation which was interpreted 

as requiring that the employees use military 

forms of address while performing in their 

civilian job status. The A/S agreed with 

the ALJ's finding that the applicable regulation gave the Activity certain prerogatives, 

that the Activity was obliged to meet and 

confer with the Complainant within the 

boundaries established by the regulation, 

and its unilateral conduct in changing a 

working, .condition which fell within the purview of the applicable regulation was, in 

effect, a by-pass of the exclusive representative. (N.Y. Army and Air Nat'l. Guard,

Albany, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 441)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont'd)

6-30-75 87
35 28 32

88

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Complainant

failed to meet burden of proof that Activity

violated Sec. 19(a)(6) by supervisor's alleged

confrontation of employee regarding subject

matter of pending grievance while employee

was without representation, (IRS, Memphis

Service Cntr., Tenn., A/SLMR No. 444)

Respondent's failure to notify exclusive

representative of interview meetings between

supervisors and employees concerning

grievances found by A/S to be contrary to

requirements of Sec. 10(e) and therefore

violative of Sec. 19(a)(6). (IRS, SE Service

Cntr., Chamblee," Ga., A/SLMR No. 448)

A/S found no evidence that Respondent refused

to meet and confer regarding the arrest of

two unit employees for alleged bookmaking, or

was ever as.ked to do so. (VA, Wadsworth

Hosp. Cntr,', Los Angeles, Cal., A/SLMR No. 449)

Where Complainant union's rights as exclusive

representative are based on exclusive recognition accorded it by Activity, Respondent

Agency was not obligated to meet and confer

with Complainant pursuant to Sec. 11(a) of

the Order. Therefore, since Respondent Agency

was not a party to a bargaining relationship,

it did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) of the Order.

(NASA, A/SLMR No. 457)

Where evidence established that (1) no management official of the Activity exercised any

supervision or control over Agency representative

who conducted meetings with unit employees and

(2) no evidence that Activity refused to meet

and cflftfer with union concerning any matters

involving personnel policies or practices under

its control or discretion, Activity did not

violate Sec. 19(a)(6) of the Order. (NASA,

A/SLMR No. 457)

A supervisor's direct communication to employees

regarding the positions of the parties as to the

status of negotiations found violative. (VA

Data Processing Center, Austin, Tex., A/SLMR

No. 523)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont'd)

35 28 32 Bypassing Exclusive Representative (Cont'd)

6-30-75
$_'^n-7'5

35 28 36

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information

Although Activity failed inadvertently to

provide Complainant with its usual written

notification of grievance meetings, and

refused to supply in writing requested

information of efforts to find employee

grievant an alternative job based upon

health considerations, and also failed to

produce medical records of the employee

grievant, the A/S found no violation where

the evidence did not establish that these

actions prejudiced the employee's grievance

or disparaged the Union’s rights. (Air

Force, Vandenberg AFB, Cal., A/SLMR No, 410)

Daily work reports filled out by employee

which were referred to and utilized by supervisor in written report 'of interview which

criticized work performance of employee found

to constitute relevant and necessary information in connection with determining whether

or not to initiate grievances, and refusal of

Activity to make such reports available to

bargaining representative, upon demand, constitutes violation of Sec, 19(a)(6), (HEW,

SSA, Kansas City Payment Cntr, Bur, of Retirement and Survivors Insurance, A/SLMR No, 411)

Failure of Activity to provide, upon demand

by bargaining representative, daily work reports filled out by employee which were

referred to and utilized by supervisor in

written report of interview as basis for

critical remarks on work performance of employee found not violative of Sec, 19(a)(6)

of Order where evidence showed that employee

retained copies of such work reports and bargaining representative could have obtained

them-from.the employee, (HEW, SSA, Kansas

City Payment Cntr,, Bur. of Retirement and

Survivors Insurance, A/SLMR No. 411)

A/S found violation of Sec, 19(a)(6) where

Activity failed to supply and/or withheld information from exclusive representative,

thereby preventing intelligent representation

or bargaining by such representative. The A/S

also found that such action fell short of the

good faith consultation envisioned by the Order,

(Dallas Naval Air Sta,, Tex., A/SLMR No, 510)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) (Cont*d)

89
35 32 00

35 32 00 Section 19(d)

A/S adopted ALJ finding that as issue of alleged "constructive discharge" could have been raised under an

appeals procedure, in accordance with Sec, 19(d) of

the Order, it may not be raised under Sec, 19, (Navy,

Aviation Supply Office, Phila,, Pa,, A/SLMR No, 434)

A/S adopted ALJ finding that the issue of job content

could properly have been raised under Respondent's

Job Evaluation Complaint and Appeals Procedure, and

therefore. Sec, 19(d) constituted a bar to the proceeding, (Army Tank Automotive Com,, Warren, Mich,,

A/SLMR No, 447)

Issue raised under grievance procedure was not same

issue as raised under complaint, the A/S found, contrary to the ALJ's finding that Sec. 19(d) was

applicable in his view, because the Complainants had

pursued the alleged unfair labor practice through the

established grievance procedure. The A/S found that

the issue involved in the grievances concerned essentially

rights of individual employees under Agency procedure to

receive relief from disciplinary action, whereas rights

involved in complaint where those of exclusive representative under Sec. 19(e) wherein an exclusive representative must be given the opportunity to be represented

at formal discussions concerning grievances, (IRS, SE

Service Cntr,, Chamblee, Ga,, A/SLMR No, 448)

The A/S adopted the ALJ's finding that the Complainant

was not precluded from Sec, 19(d) from seeking a remedy

by using the unfair labor practice procedures under

circumstances where many employees filed individual

grievances under the Agency's internal procedure concerning the loss of certain privileges; there is no

provision for union grievances under the Agency's internal procedure; and the unfair labor practices

alleged dealt with the failure of the Activity to meet

and confer with the exclusive representative prior to

taking the action which resulted in the loss of the

individual employee privileges, as in such circumstances

the unfair labor practice spoke to the Complainant's

right as an organization to meet and confer, a right

which individuals may not claim, rather than individual

rights set forth in grievance, (Portsmouth Naval

Shipyard, A/SLMR No, 508)

90 6-30-75
35 32 00

A/S adopted-findings, conclusions and recommendations

of ALJ that Sec. 19(d) precludes A /S from consideration

of Sec. 19(a)(1) and (2) complaints by employees who

meet definition of "preference eligible employee" contained in Title 5, UoSo Code, Section 7511, since

under title 5, U.S. Code, Section 7701, such employees

were entitled to appeal any adverse action, including

discharge, to the Civil Service Commission, (TVA,

A/SLMR No. 509)

A/S held that Sec, 19(d) permits a Complainant to

pursue certain matters involving alleged breaches of

contracts through the grievance or unfair labor practice

route, but if the unfair labor practice route is chosen,

the evidence must establish that there was a patent

breach of the contract which constituted a unilateral

change in its terms. Issues herein involved questions

of contract negotiations upon which reasonable people

could differ. The evidence was insufficient to conclude

that the Activity's interpretation and application of

the negotiated contract were not in good faith, but

arose out of a simple and sincere disagreement.over the

proper interpretation and application and therefore,

its conduct was not violative of Sec. 19(a) of the

Order. (GSA, Region 5, Public Buildings Service,

Chicago Field Offices, A/SLMR No. 528)

35 32 00 Section 19(d) (Cont'd)

6-30-75 91
.J

c
40 04 00 General

No Entries

40 08 00 Section 19(b)(1)

The request that Complainant cease passing out dues

revocation forms made by officials of Respondent union

found not to be violative of Order, as a labor organization is entitled to protect itself from acts which

threaten its existence as long as such protection does

not include threats related to the job or threats of

bodily harm. (AFGE, Local 987, A/SLMR No. 420)

In the circumstances of case, statement by union

steward that he would "blackball" Complainant if he

sought to rejoin union, not found to be violation of

Order. (AFGE, Local 987, A/SLMR No. 420)

A/S, in agreement with the ALJ,found that the Respondent Union did not violate Sec. 19(b)(1) of the Order,

based on the ALJ's credibility findings that the Respondent's chief steward did not refuse to process the

Complainant's grievance, but merely declined to be his

representative due to the fact that he was, and had

been, representing the other complainant involved in

the Complainant's grievance and, in fact, had referred

the Complainant to another union steward who was prepared to represent him. In further agreement with the

ALJ, the A/S found that there was no evidence to indicate animus on the part of the newly elected slate

of the Respondent's officers towards the Complainant,

or any other former official of the Respondent. (AFGE,

Local 2028, VA Hosp., Pittsburg, Pa., A/SLMR No. 431)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, dismissed 19(b)(1) complaint, which was based on Respondent's conduct in

restricting participation in a reduced air fare

program to members of Respondent. In the view of A/S,

the evidence failed to establish that Respondent acted

inconsistent with its obligation under Sec. 10(e) to

represent all employees in the unit without discrimination

and without regard to their labor organization membership

since the evidence did not establish that Respondent had

obtained, by agreement, a term and condition of employment applicable only to members of Respondent. Rather,

the evidence disclosed that Respondent merely obtained

FAA's acknowledgement that it would not oppose Respondent *s efforts to obtain free or reduced air fare arrangements for its members, or consider the taking advantage

40 08 00

40 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: LABOR ORGANIZATION

6-30-75 93
40 32 00

of such arrangements to be violative of the FAA's code of

ethics. (PATCO-MEBA, Indianapolis, Ind., ARTCC,

No. 442)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that the Respondent violated Sec. 19(b)(1) by its steward's conduct of singling out

and reporting to the Activity the alleged work performance

deficiencies of the Complainants who were not members of the

Respondent but who were members of another labor organization,

while not raising similar known deficiencies on the part of

certain members of the Respondent. (NAGE, Local R14-32,

Newburg, Mo., (Ft, Leonard Wood, Mo.), A/SLMR No. 469)

40 12 00 Section 19(b)(2)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that the Respondent violated Sec. 19(b)(2) by its steward's conduct of singling out

and reporting to the Activity the alleged work performance

deficiencies of the Complainants who were not members of the

Respondent but who were members of another labor organization,

while not raising similar known deficiencies on the part of

certain members of the Respondent. (NAGE, Local R14-32,

Newburg, Mo., (Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo.), A/SLMR No. 469)

40 16 00 Section 19(b)(3)

No violation found where evidence insufficient to establish

that actions by Respondent's agents were intended to hinder

or impede Complainant's work performance. (AFGE, Local 987,

A/SLMR No. 420)

40 20 00 Section 19(b)(4)

No Entries

40 24 00 Section 19(b)(5)

No Entries

40 28 00 Section 19(b)(6)

No Entries

40 32 00 Section 19(c)

A labor organization may subject its members to discipline,

including expulsion, to protect its existence, if such

discipline is carried out in accordance with the labor organization's by-laws and constitution which conform to the

requirements of the Order. (AFGE, Local 987, A/SLMR No, 420)

40 08 00 Section 19(b)(1) (Cont*d)

94 6-30-75
40 32 00

Respondent's denial of reinstatement to membership

to applicant on grounds other than those set forth

in Sec. 19(c) was violative of Order. However,

denial of previous application for readmission by

applicant did not violate Order where terms of such

application went substantially beyond merely obtaining membership. (AFGE, Local 1857, A/SLMR No. 492)

Respondent labor organization's refusal to reinstate

Complainant to membership was violative of Sec. 19(c)

as refusal was based on grounds other than failure to

meet reasonable occupational standards or failure to

tender initiation fees and dues uniformly required

for admission and retaining membership. However,

denial of Complainant's earlier application for

retroactive reinstatement did not violate Sec. 19(c)

inasmuch as terms of such application went substantially

beyond merely obtaining membership. (AFGE, Local 1857,

A/SLMR No. 492)

40 32 00 Section 19(c) (Cont'd)

6-30-75 95

45 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of Remedies

FLRC issued stay of certain paragraphs of order in

A/SLMR No. 400, A/S issued supplemental decision

ordering Respondent to comply with those portions

of order in A/SLMR No. 400 which were not stayed by

the FLRC. A/S required notice to all employees be^

posted in accordance with A/SLMR No. 400, as modified

by FLRC decision. (Naval Ordnance Sta,, Louisville,

Ky., A/SLMR No. 471)

45 08 00 Advice of Compliance

No Entries

45 10 00 Modification to Orders

FLRC issued stay of certain paragraphs of order in

A/SLMR No. 400. A/S issued supplemental decision

ordering Respondent to comply with those portions of

order in A/SLMR No. 400 which were not stayed.by the

FLRC. A/S required notice to all employees be posted

in accordance with A/SLMR No. 400, as modified by

FLRC decision. (Naval Ordnance Sta., Louisville, Ky.,

A/SLMR NOo 471)

45 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations and Orders

No Entries

45 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct

45 16 04 Interference, Solicitation or Distribution

of Literature

Activity ordered to cease and desist from;

(1 ) posting letters on bulletin boards relating to meetings pertaining to the collective bargaining relationship between the

Activity and the Complainant, and (2) requir-^

ing employees to read and initial communications posted on bulletin boards relating to

meeting pertaining to the collective bargaining

relationship between the Activity and the Complainant. (Naval Air Sta., Fallon, Nev.,

A/SLMR No. 432)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from

refusing the request by any employee in the

45 16 04

45 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES; UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

97
45 16 04 Interference, Solicitations or Distribution

of Literature (Cont'd)

bargaining unit to be represented by the

employees' exclusive representative at any

formal discussion between management and the

employee convened for the purpose of discussing

the implementation of a grievance decision.

(IRS, Pittsburgh Dist., Pa., A/SLMR No. 498)

Activity ordered to expunge any reference to

union activities from employee's personnel

file. (IRS, Wilmington, Del. Dist., A/SLMR

No. 516)

45 16 08 Discrimination

In addition to ordering the Activity to

cease and desist from conduct violative of

Secs, 19(a)(1) and (2) of the Order involving the discharge of a union steward, the

A/S ordered the Activity to reimburse the

steward (a temporary limited tenure employee)

for loss of earnings suffered as a result of

her discharge. (Miramar Naval Air Sta.,

Commissary Store, San Diego, Cal., A/SLMR No.

472)

A/S ordered Activity to offer to all employees

found to have been unlawfully locked out and

discharged, full reinstatement to their former

or substantially equivalent positions, without

prejudice to their seniority or other rights

and privileges, and to make them whole for any

loss of pay they may have suffered, by reason

of its discrimination, by paying to each

employee a sum of money equal to the amount

each would have earned as wages from the date

of the refusal to permit the employees to return to work to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less any amounts earned through

other employment during the above-noted period.

(TVA,. A/SLMR No. 509)

In view of finding that Respondent had unlawfully denied Complainant a promotion, Respondent must, as part of its affirmative

actions to remedy such violation, change

Complainant's service computation date as

aGS-4, and make her whole for any loss of

pay suffered by her by reason of Respondent's

failure to promote her on that date. (Army

Infantry Center, Civilian Personnel Office,

Ft. Benning, Ga., A/SLMR No. 515)

45 16 08

98 6-30-75
45 16 12 Assisting a Labor Organization

No Entries

45 16 16 Refusal to Accord Appropriate Recognition

The Activity was ordered to cease and desist

from refusing to accord appropriate recognition

to the exclusive representative of three unit

employees whose dues authorization had been

revoked subsequent to their transfer to a

new organizational entity of the Agency, as

they were found to have remained in the unit

represented exclusively by the Complainant.

(AAFES, MacDill AFB Exchange, MacDill AFB,

Fla., A/SLMR No. 514)

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate

Activity ordered to cease and desist from

refusing to recognize the Chief Representative

designated by the Complainant. (IRS, Omaha

District Office, A/SLMR No. 417)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from:

(1 ) posting letters on bulletin boards relating to meetings pertaining to the collective bargaining relationship between the

Activity and the Complainant and (2) requiring

employees to read and initial communications

posted on bulletin boards relating to meetings

pertaining to the collective bargaining relationship between the Activity and the Complainant.

(Naval Air Sta., Fallon, Nev., A/SLMR No. 432)

A/S disagreed with ALJ's rationale that although Activity committed a "technical violation"

of Sec. 19(a)(6), such violation was rendered

"moot" by Activity's expressed willingness to

return to the bargaining table therefore not

requiring remedial order, and issued such an

order. (Vandenberg AFB, 4392d Aerospace

Support Group, Cal., A/SLMR No. 435)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from failing to notify the exclusive representative concerning changes in the implementation of reguLations which retire some of its employees to

use military forms of address, or other matters

affecting the working conditions of employees

45 16 20

6-30-75 99
45 16 20

in the unit, and to afford the exclusive representative the opportunity to meet and confer

in good faith on such matters to the extent

consonant with law and regulations.

Activity was further ordered to cease and

desist from failing to meet and confer in good

faith with the exclusive representative with

respect to exceptions to an Agency requirement

that uniforms will be worn by affected employees, by limiting discussions to its unilaterally established criteria for such

exceptions. (N.Y. Army and Air Nat'l, Guard,

Albany, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 441)

The Respondent was ordered to cease and desist

from failing to notify the exclusive representative with respect to the contracting out

of auto repair or other operations, and to

afford such representative the opportunity to

meet and confer, to the extent consonant with

the law and regulations, on the impact such

contracting out will have on the unit employees

adversely affected. (AAFES, Pacific Exchange

System, Hawaii Regional Exchange, A/SLMR No.451)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from

unilaterally changing the method or system of

selecting employees for overseas duty or

assignment without meeting and.conferring with

the AFGE, the exclusive representative of its

unit employees. (Air Force Defense Language

Institute, English Language Branch, Lackland

AFB, Tex., A/SLMR No. 468)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from

conducting formal discussions between management and unit employees, or their representatives, concerning grievances without

affording the employees' exclusive representative the opportunity to be represented at such

discussions by its own chosen representative.

(IRS, Pittsburgh Dist., Pittsburgh, Pa.,

A/SLMR No. 498)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from requiring two levels of approval of negotiated

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate (Cont'd)

100 6-30-75
agreement with each level having the

authority to require conformance with

applicable laws, policies and regulations.

(Dept, of Agric. and Agric. Research Service,

A/SLMR No. 519)

Activity ordered to (1) cease and desist

from utilizing or giving effect to any

career appraisals of employees represented

by the Complainant labor organization issued

prior to a labor-management meeting concerning

a higher agency directive on appraisal practices;

(2) notify the Complainant of any such directives

and, upon request, to meet and confer with the

Complainant on the procedures and impact of such

directives; and (3) rescind all career appraisals

issued pursuant to the instant directive

prior to the labor-management meeting on the

matter. (HQ, Army Armament Com., Rock Island,

111., A/SLMR No. 527)

45 16 24 Failure to Cooperate

Where the Respondent failed to comply with

ALJ's Requests for the Production of Documents

and because of such failure to comply the

ALJ recommended that the Respondent be required

to promote the alleged discriminatee, the

A/S concluded that such a remedy was punitive

in nature and would not effectuate the purpose and policies of the Order. (Puget

Sound Naval Shipyard,Bremerton, Wash.,

A/SLMR No. 425)

45 20 00 Jurisdictional Questions

No Entries

45 20 00

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate (Cont'd)

6-30-75 101

50 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of Remedies

No Entries

50 08 00 Advice of Compliance

No Entries

50 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations and Orders

No Entries

50 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct

50 16 04 Interference

A/S found Respondent to have singled out and

reported alleged work deficiencies of employee

members of a rival labor organization, and

ordered Respondent to cease and desist from

interfering with, restraining or coercing

employees in the exercise of rights assured

by EO. (NAGE, Local R 14-32, Newburg, Mo«,

(Ft.Leonard Wood, Mo,), A/SLMR No. 469)

50 16 08 Harassment of Employee in Performance of

Duties

No Entries

50 16 12 Inducing Management ot Coerce an Employee

Having found labor organization to have

singled out and reported to management alleged

work deficiencies of employee members of a

rival organization, A/S ordered union to cease

and desist from attempting to induce management

to coerce employees because of their membership

in rival labor organization, or because of

their non-membership in Respondent labor organization. (Local R14-32, Newburg, Mo,,(Ft.

Leonard Wood, Mo.), A/SLMR No, 469)

50 16 16 Strike Activity

No Entries

50 16 20 Discrimination

A/S ordered Respondent to cease and desist

50 16 20

50 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; UNFAIR LABOR

PRACTICES

6-30-75 103
50 16 28

from failing to represent fairly and

equally the interests of all employees

in the bargaining unit, because of their

non-membership in Respondent labor organization and/or membership in rival labor

organization. (NAGE, Local R14-32, Newburg,

Mo., (Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo.), A/SLMR No. 469)

50 16 24 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate

No Entries

50 16 28 Denial of Membership

No Entries

50 16 20 Discrimination (Cont'd)

104 6-30-75
55 04 00 Effect on Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

No Entries

55 08 00 Procedure

55 08 04 Jurisdiction

No Entries

55 08 08 Bill of Rights

No Entries

55 08 12 Elections

A/S adopted recommendation of ALJ that complaint be dismissed, which alleged that

election of delegates to AFGE National Convention was in violation of Order, Dismissal

based on Stipulation entered into between LMWP

Director and AFGE in which, among other things,

AFGE agreed to conduct its next regularly

scheduled election for District Nine VicePresident with technical assistance of Office

of Labor-Management and Weifare-Pension Reports, The Director of LMWP, and AFGE, subsequently advised ALJ that terms of Stipulation

had been carried out and reqiE sted that

complaint be dismissed. (AFGE, Dist, Nine and

Director, OLMWP, U.S, Dept, of Labor, A/SLMR

No, 427)

55 12 00 Bill of Rights

55 12 04 Equal Rights

No Entries

55 12 08 Freedom of Speech

No Entries

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 12 20

55 00 00 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

t 105

60 00 00 GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY

60 04 00 General

60 20 00

I'

I; «

For the purposes of computing the sixty (60) day

filing period of an implication for Decision on

Grievability or Arbitrability under Sec. 205.2(a)

of A/S's Regs.) there must be a final written

rejection afte'r the arbitration clause is invoked.

( R A/S No. 56)

Pursuant to Sec. 6(a)(5) of the Order, A/S is

responsible for deciding "questions as to whether

a grievance is subject to a negotiated grievance

procedure or subject to arbitration under an

agreement." Accordingly, where the parties have

entered into a settlement agreement which disposes

of the grievance, the issue or issues raised by an

Application for Decision on Grievability or Arbitrability will be considered to be moot, and the

Application will be dismissed. (R A/S No, 57)

60 08 00 13(a)

No Entries

60 12 00 13(b)

No Entries

60 16 00 13(d)

No Entries

60 20 00 13(e)

No Entries

6-30-75 107

NUMERICAL TABLE OF DECISIONS

OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR

FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

JULY 1, 1974 - JUNE 30, 1975

6-30-75 3^09

TABLE OF DECISIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

ALPHABETICAL LISTING 1/

TITLE

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Army,

Aberdeen, Maryland

Academy of Health Sciences, Army,

Ft. Sam Houston, Texas

Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Office,

Iowa State

Agriculture, Department of

-- Agricultural Research SerYice,

Philadelphia, Penna,

-- Agricultural Research Service,

Plum Island Animal Disease Center,

New York

-- Agricultural Research Service,

Washington, D.C.

— Automated Data Systems,

Kansas City, Mo.

-- State Agricultural Stabilization

and Conservation Service Office,

Iowa

Air Force, Department of

-- AFRES, 928th Tactical Airlift Group,

Chicago, Illinois

A/SLMR No(s). 2/

412, 518

426

453

479

428

519

458

453

480

1 / To facilitate reference, listings in this Table contain only key words

in the case title. For complete official case captions, see Numerical

Table of Cases.

2/ During the period covered by this Supplement, where the FLRC modified

~ or remanded an A/S decision, the case number of the original A/S

decision (A/SLMR No., or, in the event of an unpublished Request for

Review action, the Area Office (AO) case number) is enclosed in parentheses, followed by the FLRC No. and by the A/SLMR No. of any subsequent

A/S decision.

6-30-75 111
Air Force, Department of (cont.)

-- Barksdale Air Force Base,

Bossier City, La. 499

-- Davis-Monthan Air Force Base,

Arizona 462

-- Defense Language Institute,

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas 468

— Kingsley Field,

Klamath Falls, Oregon 443

-- Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D. 531

-- Lackland Air Force Base,

Defense Language Institute, Texas (322, FLRC No, 73A-64, 468)

TITLE A/SLMR No(s).

— Mountain Home Air Force Base,

Idaho 530

— Plattsburgh Air Force Base,

380th Combat Support Group, N.Y. 493

-- Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. 410

— Vandenberg Air Force Base,

Base Procurement Office, Calif. 485

-- Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.

4392d Aerospace Support Group 435

-- Warner Robins Air Material Area,

Robins AFB, Ga. 420

-- Webb Air Force Base, Texas 439

— 380th Combat Support Group

Plattsburgh Air Force Base, N.Y. 493

— 928th Tactical Airlift Group (AFRES),

Chicago, 111. 480

Airways Facilities Sector, FAA, San Diego, Calif. 533

112 6-30-75
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

-- District Nine, Dallas, Texas ■ 427

— McClellan AFB, North Highlands, Calif, 492

— National Office and Local 2677 483

Arizona Air National Guard, Phoenix, Ariz, 436

Army, Department of

-- Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. 412, 518

— Academy of Health Sciences,

Ft. Sam Houston, Texas 426

— Adjutant General Publications Center,

St, Louis, Mo. 455, 465

-- Armament Command, Rock Island, 111, 527

— Camp McCoy, Fifth U.S. Army, Wise. 500

— Civilian Appellate Review Agency,

Sacramento, Calif. 488

-- Club Management Directorate, TAGCEN,

Ft. Meade, Md. 521

— Commissary Division Office,

Military District of Washington,

Cameron Station 478

-- Corps of Engineers

— Waterways Experiment Station,

Vicksburg, Miss, 497

— Dugway Proving Ground, Utah 511

— Fifth U.S, Army, Camp McCoy, Wise, 500

-- Fort

-- Benning, Infantry Center, Ga. 515

-- Bliss, Officers Club, NAF,

Army Air Defense Center, Texas 505

TITLE A/SLMR No.(s)

6-30-75 113
Army, Department of (cont.)

— Fort (cont.)

— Meade, Club Management Directorate,

TAGCEN 521

-- Sam Houston, Health Services Command, Texas 490

-- Health Services Command,

Ft. Sam Houston, Texas 490

— Infantry Center, Ft. Benning, Ga. 515

-- Military District of Washington,

Commissary Division Office,

Cameron Station 478

-- Military Traffic Management Command,

Western Management Information

Systems Office, Oakland, Calif. 503

-- Officers Club, NAF, Army Air Defense Center

and Ft. Bliss, Texas 505

-- Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N.J. 474, 512, 532

Tank Automotive Command,

Warren, Micho

-- Training and Doctrine Command, HQ,

Washington, D.C. 507

— Western Management Information Systems

Office, Military Traffic Management

Command, Oakland, Calif. 503

Army and Air Force Exchange Service

-- MacDill Air Force Base Exchange, Fla. 514

— Pacific Exchange System,

Hawaii Regional Exchange 451, 454

— Redstone Arsenal, Ala. 491

-- Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. 437

TITLE A/oLirin. wovsy*

114 6-30-75
Army and Air National Guard, N.Y, 441

Automated Data Systems, Office of.

Department of Agriculture, Kansas City, Mo, 458

Aviation Supply Office, Navy,

Philadelphia, Penna. 434

Baltimore, Naval Plant

Representative Office, Md, 486

Barksdale Air Force Base,

Bossier City, La, 499

Camp McCoy, Fifth U,S, Army, Wise.

Civilian Appellate Review Agency,

Army, Sacramento, Calif.

TITLE A/SLMR No(s).

488

Civil Service Commission and

Department of Navy,

Los Angeles, Calif. 529

Cleveland ARTC Center, FAA 430

Commerce, Department of

-- National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

-- National Weather Service,

Pittsburgh, Penna. 464

Commissary Complex Office, Navy,

Long Beach, Calif. ^^2

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. 462

Defense, Department of

— Air Force, Department of (See: Air Force)

— Army, Department of (See; Army)

-- Army and Air Force Exchange System

(See: Army and Air Force)

— Defense Contract Audit Agency,

Chicago Branch Office, 111. 463

6-30-75 115
Defense, Department of (cont.)

-- Defense Supply Agency

— Defense Contract Administration,

Salt Lake City District, Utah 461

— Defense Contract Administration

Services Region

-- San Francisco, Calif. 461

Defense Language Institute, Air Force,

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas (322, FLRC 73A-64, 461)

Defense Supply Agency (See: Defense, Department of)

Dugway Proving Ground, Utah 511

Farmers Home Administration, Arkansas 506

Federal Aviation Administration (See: Transportation)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., N.Y, 459

Federal Highway Administration,Office of Federal

Highway Projects, Vancouver, Wash. 513

Federal Railroad Administration 418

Federal Supply Service, Region 5, General

Services Administration, Chicago, 1 1 1 . 526

Fort (See: Army, and A m y and Air Force)

Fresno Service Center,

Internal Revenue Service 489

%

General Services Administration

-- Region 5, Chicago, 111. 526, 528

-- Region 7, Ft, Worth, Texas 416

Geological Survey, U.S.

-- Mid-Continent Mapping Center 495

-- Rolla, Mo. 413, 460

t it l e A/i>L,inK 1NOI.S;,

116 6-30-75
Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D. 531

Great Lakes Program Center

HEW, Social Security Administration,

Chicago, 111, 419

Hawaii Regional Exchange,

Pacific Exchange System, AAFES 454

Health, Education and Welfare, Department of

-- Public Health Services Hospital

-- Brighton, Mass. 502

— Region VIII, Denver, Colo. 476

— Social Security Administration

— Great Lakes Program Center,

Chicago, 111, 419

— Kansas City Payment Center, Mo, 411

— Western Program Center

San Francisco, Calif, 501

Health Services Command, Army,

Ft. Sam Houston, Texas 490

Housing and Urban Development, Department of

— Detroit Area Office 414

Interior, Department of

— Geological Survey

— Mid-Continent Mapping Center 495

-- Rolla, Mo. 413, 460

Internal Revenue Service (See: Treasury)

Kingsley Field, Air Force,

Klamath Falls, Oregon 443

TITLE A/SLMR No(s).

6-30-75 117
McClellan Air Force Base, AFGE,

North Highlands, Calif. 492

Mid-Atlantic Service Center,

Treasury, IRS 421

Mid-Continent Mapping Center,

U.S. Geological Survey 495

Military District of Washington,

Commissary Division Office,

Cameron Station 478

Military Sealift Command,

Pacific, Oakland, Calif. 494

Miramar Naval Air Station,

Commissary Store, San Diego, Calif. 472

Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho 530

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Washington, D.C. 457

National Association of Government Employees,

Local R14-32, Newburg, Miss. 469

National Aviation Facilities Experimental

Center, Atlantic City, N.J. 481, 482

National Guard

-- New York Army and Air National Guard 441

-- Pennsylvania Army National Guard 475

-- Texas Adjutant General's Department,

Austin, Texas 524

National Labor Relations Board (295, FLRC No. 73A-53, 467)

National Labor Relations Board

Region 17 (295, FLRC No. 73A-53, 467)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (See: Commerce)

National Science Foundation,

Washington, D.C. 487

t i t l e A/SLMR No (s ).

118 6-30-75
National Weather Service, NOAA

Dept, of Commerce, Pittsburgh, Penna. 464

Navy, Department of

— Aviation Supply Office,

Philadelphia, Penna. 434

— Commissary Complex Office,

Long Beach, Calif. 522

— Department of Navy and Civil Service

Commission, Los Angeles, Calif. 529

— Military Sealift Command, Pacific,

Oakland, Calif. 494

-- Naval Air Rework Facility

— Jacksonville, Fla. 446

— Naval Air Station

— Belle Chasse, La. 520

— Dallas, Texas

-- Fallon, Nev.

— Miramar, San Diego, Calif.

— Pensacola, Fla.

t i t l e A/SUMR No (s ).

510

432

472

466

-- San Diego, Calif. ^22, 452

-- Naval Education and Training Center,

Newport, R.I.

-- Naval Education and Training Information

Systems Activity, Naval Air Station,

Pensacola, Fla.

— Naval Ordnance Station,

Louisville, Ky. (400, FLRC No.. 74A-54, 440, 471)

-- Naval Plant Representative Office,

Baltimore, Md. 486

6-30-75
-- Pearl Harbor, Naval Station,

Hawaii 504

— Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, N.H. 445, 508

— Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,

Bremerton, Wash, 415, 425, 525

-- San Diego Marine Corps Exchange,

San Diego, Calif.

New York Army and Air National Guard

Office of Economic Opportunity,

Region V , ,Chicago, 111,

Pacific Exchange System, AAFES,

Hawaii Regional Exchange ^51, 454

PATCO-MEBA, Federal Aviation

Administration, Indianapolis, Ind, ^^2

Pennsylvania Army National Guard

Picatinny Arsenal, ^

Dover, n !j . ^74, 512, 532

Plum Island Animal Disease Center,

Agricultural Research Service, N,Y, ^28

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, N,H, 445, 508

Public Health Service (See: Health, Education

and Welfare)

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,

Bremerton, Wash. ^15, 425, 525

Redstone Arsenal, AAFES, Ala. ^91

San Diego Marine Corps Exchange,

San Diego, Calif.

TITLE

Navy, Department of (cont.)

409

Small Business Administration,

Seattle Regional Office,

Seattle, Wash. ^23

6-30-75

120
Social Security Administration

(See: Health, Education and Welfare)

Southeast Service Center,

Internal Revenue Service,

Chamblee, Ga. 448

Tank Automotive Command,

Warren, Mich. 447

Tennessee Valley Authority 509

Texas Adjutant General's Department,

National Guard Bureau,

Austin, Texas 524

Transportation, Department of

-- Federal Aviation Administration

-- Airways Facilities Sector,

San Diego, Calif. 533

— Atlantic City, N.J. 438

-- Cleveland ARTC Center,

Oberlin, Ohio 430

— Las Vegas, Nev. 429

A

— National Aviation Facilities

Experimental Center,

Atlantic City, N.J. 481, 482

— PATCO-MEBA, Indianapolis, Ind. 442

— Southern Region (Ga.) 456

-- Washington, D.C, 517

— Federal Highway Administration,

Office of Federal Highway Projects,

Vancouver, Wash. 513

Treasury, Department of

— Internal Revenue Service

-- Fresno Service Center, Calif. 489

TITLE A/SLMR No(s).

6-30-75 12 1
Treasury, Department of (cont.)

— Internal Revenue Service (cont.)

— Memphis Service Center,

Memphis, Tenn. 444

— Mid-Atlantic Service Center, PhiIa,,Pa, 421

— Office of the Regional Commissioner,

Western Region 473

— Omaha District Office 417

— Pittsburgh, Penna, 498

— Southeast Service Center,

Chamblee, Ga. 448

— Wilmington, Del, 516

Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. 410

Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif,

— Army and Air Force Exchange Service 437

-- Base Procurement Office 485

— 4392d Aerospace Support Group 435

Veterans Administration

— Center

-- Bath, No Y, 433

-- Biloxi, Miss, 450

— Data Processing Center,

Austin, Tex, 523

— Department of Data Management,

Washington, D,C. 523

— Hospital

— Montrose, N,Y, 470, 484

— Pittsburgh, Penna, 431

t i t l e A/i>LMK NO^s;.

122 6-30-75
Veterans Administration (cont.)

— Hospital (cont.)

-- Wadsworth, Los Angeles, Calif. ^^9

Waterways Experiment Station, Army Engineers,

Vicksburg, Miss.

Webb Air Force Base, Texas ^39

Wfestem Program Center, SSA,

San Francisco, Calif.

A / S LjMR N o ( s ) .

6-30-75 123

ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF DECISIONS

OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR

FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

JULY 1, 1974 - JUNE 30, 1975

6-30-75 125

TABLE OF DECISIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

NUMERICAL LISTING, DATES OF ISSUANCE AND SECTIONS OF DIGEST INVOLVED

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued

409. Department of the Navy,

San Diego Marine Corps Exch.

San Diego, California

(7-9-74)

410. Department of the Air Force,

Vandenberg Air Force Base,

California

(7-9-74)

411. Department of HEW, SSA,

Kansas City Payment Center,

Missouri

(7-10-74)

412. Department of the Army,

Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland

(7-11-74)

413. U.S. Geological Survey,

Department of the Interior,

Rolla, Missouri

(7-11-74)

414. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Detroit Area Office,

Detroit, Michigan

(7-12-74)

415. Department of the Navy,

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,

Bremerton, Washington

(7-12-74)

416. General Services Administration,

Region 7,

Fort Worth, Texas

(7-16-74)

Section(s) of Digest

Involved 1/

10 04 16; 25 20 00

35 28 36

35 08 04; 35 28 36

30 32 00; 35 28 36

10 04 12; 10 24 12;

10 28 00; 10 32 00;

15 12 00; 15 28 00

30 04 00; 30 12 24;

35 28 08

30 28 00; 35 08 04;

35 12 00; 35 28 28

35 08 04

y Listing includes all Sections involved except Section 20 20 00,

"Employee Categories and Classifications," in which entries are

listed alphabetically. In this connection, it should be noted that

those decisions which reflect no digest entries are, in fact, digested under Section 20 20 00.

6-30-75 127
417- Internal Revenue Service,

Omaha District Office

(7-31-74)

418, Federal Railroad Administration,

Washington, D.C,

(7-31-74)

419, Department of HEW, Social

Security Administration,

Great Lakes Program Center,

Chicago

(8-1-74)

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued

35 04 08; 35 08 04;

35 28 08; 45 16 20

Section(s) of Digest

Involved

35 08 04; 35 28 12

35 08 04; 35 28 12

420, Warner Robins Air Material Area,

Robins AFB, Gerogia

(8-1-74)

30 24 00; 40 08 00;

40 16 00; 40 32 00

421, Internal Revenue Service,

Mid-Atlantic Service Center

(8-26-74)

422, United States Navy, Naval Air

Station (North Island),

San Diego, California

(8-26-74)

423, Seattle Regional Office,

Small Business Administration,

Seattle, Washington

(8-26-74)

424, Veterans Administration Hospital,

Salisbury, North Carolina

(8-27-74)

425, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,

Department of the Navy,

Bremerton, Washington

(8-28-74)

426, Academy of Health Sciences,

United States Army,

Fort Sam Houston, Texas

(9-4-74)

427, American Federation of Government

Employees, District Nine,

Dallas, Texas

(9-30-74)

35 08 04; 35 28 16

35 08 04; 35 12 00

35 12 00; 35 28 28

35 16 00

05 12 08; 30 12 28;

45 16 24

15 28 00

55 08 12

128 6-30-75
428. Agricultural Research Service,

Plum Island Animal Disease Center,

New York

(9-30-74)

429. Department of Transportation, 35 08 04

Federal Aviation Administration,

Las Vegas, Nevada

(9-30-74)

430. Federal Aviation Administration, 35 08 04; 35 24 00;

Cleveland ARTC Center, 35 28 16

Oberlin, Ohio

(9-30-74)

431. Veterans Administration Hospital, 40 08 00

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

(9-30-74)

432. Department of the Navy, 35 08 04; 35 28 08;

Naval Air Station, 35 28 32; 45 16 04;

Fallon, Nevada 45 16 20

(9-30-74)

433. Veterans Administration Center, 35 08 04; 35 12 00

Bath, New York

(9-30-74)

434. Department of the Navy, 35 32 00

Aviation Supply Office,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

(9-30-74)

435o Vandenberg Air Force Base, 35 08 04; 35 28 04;

4392d Aerospace Support Group, 35 28 08; 45 16 20

California

(9-30-74)

436. Department of the Air Force, 25 20 00

Arizona Air National Guard,

Phoenix, Arizona

(9-30-74)

437. Army & Air Force Exchange Service, 35 08 04; 35 12 00;

Vandenberg Air Force Base, 35 28 08

California

(9-30-74)

Sectlon(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No ., Case Name and Date Issued Involved

6-30-75 129
438, Federal Aviation Administration,

Atlantic City, New Jersey

(9-30-74)

439. U.S. Air Force,

Webb Air Force Base,

Texas

(9-30-74)

440. U,S, Naval Ordnance Station,

Louisville, Kentucky

(9-30-74)

441, New York Army & Air National Guard

(9-30-74)

A/SLMR No,, Case Name and Date Issued

442, Federal Aviation Administration,

PATCO-MEBA

Indianapolis, Indiana

(10-22-74)

443, U,S, Air Force, Kingsley Field,

Klamath Falls, Oregon

(10-22-74)

35 24 00; 35 28 08;

35 28 12; 35 28 16

Section(s) of Digest

Involved

35 12 00

35 08 04

30 04 00; 35 08 04

35 28 08; 35 28 20

35 28 24; 35 28 28

35 28 32; 45 16 20

40 08 00

35 08 04

444, Internal Revenue Service,

Memphis Service Center,

Memphis, Tennessee

(10-22-74)

445. U.S. Department of the Navy,

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,

Portsmouth, New Hampshire

(10-22-74)

446. U,S, Department of the Navy,

Naval Air Rework Facility,

Jacksonville, Florida

(10-22-74)

447, Department of the Army,

U,S. Army Tank Automotive Command,

Warren, Michigan

(10-31-74)

35 08 04; 35 12 00;

35 20 00; 35 28 32

35 08 04; 35 12 00

35 12 00; 35 20 00

35 08 04; 35 12 00;

35 32 00

130 6-30-75
448. Internal Revenue Service, 35 28 00; 35 32 32

Southeast Service Center,

Chamblee, Georgia

(10-31-74)

449. Veterans Administration, 35 08 04; 35 12 00;

Wadsworth Hospital, 35 28 08; 35 28 32

Los Angeles, California

(10-31-74)

450. Veterans Administration, 35 08 04; 35 12 00

Biloxi, Mississippi

(10-31-74)

451. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, 35 28 12; 45 16 20

Pacific Exchange System,

Hawaii

(10-31-74)

452. United States Navy, 05 08 00; 35 08 04

Naval Air Station (North Island),

San Diego, California

(11-5-74)

453. Iowa State Agricultural Stabilization 35 28 08; 35 28 12

and Conservation Service Office,

Department of Agriculture

(11-5-74)

454. Army & Air Force Exchange Service, 35 08 00; 35 28 12

Pacific Exchange System,

Hawaii Regional Exchange

(11-26-74)

455. U.S. Department of Defense, 35 08 04; 35 28 28

Department of the Army,

Army Adjutant General,

St. Louis, Missouri

(11-26-74)

456. U.S. Department of Transportation, 20 12 44

Federal Aviation Administration,

Southern Region (Georgia)

(11-26-74)

457. National Aeronautics & Space 35 08 04; 35 28 08;

Administration, 35 28 32

Washington, D.C.

(11-26-74)

Sectlon(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved

6-30-75 131
458. Department of Agriculture,

Office of Automated Data Systems,

Kansas City, Missouri

(11-27-74)

459. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.,

New York

(11-27-74)

460. U.S. Geological Survey,

Department of Interior,

Rolla, Missouri

(11-27-74)

461. Defense Supply Agency, Defense

Contract Administration

Services Region (DCASR)

San Francisco, California,

Defense Contract Administration

Services District (DCASD),

Salt Lake City, Utah

(11-27-74)

462. U.S. Department of the Air Force,

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base,

Arizona

(11-27-74)

463. Department of Defense,

Defense Contract Audit Agency,

Chicago Branch Office

(12-3-74)

464. U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic & Atmospheric

Administration,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

(12-3-74)

465. Department of the Army, Department

of Defense,

Adjutant General Publications Center,

St. Louis, Missouri

(12-3-74

466. Naval Education & Training Information

Systems Activity,

Naval Air Station,

Pensacola, Florida

(12-4-74)

A/SLMR No,, Case Name and Date Issued

oecT;xonv.s; oiInvolved

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 04 12; 20 08 08;

20 12 08; 20 12 60

20 04 04; 20 12 64

10 04 12; 10 28 00

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 04 12

10 24 12; 20 16 04

20 12 28; 20 12 44

35 08 04

35 28 28

20 04 04; 20 08 12;

20 08 16; 20 12 60

132 6-30-75
467, National Labor Relations Board, 30 12 24; 30 32 00

Region 17, and National Labor

Relations Board

(12-4-74)

468, Air Force Defense Language Institute, 35 28 08; 35 28 12;

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas . 45 16 20

(12-4-74)

469, National Association of Government 40 08 00; 40 12 00;

Employees, Local R14-32, 50 16 04; 50 16 12;

Newburg, Missouri 50 16 20

(12-19-74)

470, Veterans Administration Hospital, 10 04 20; 25 24 00

Montrose, New York

(12-30-74)

471, U.S. Department of the Navy, 45 04 00; 45 10 00

Naval Ordnance Station,

Louisville, Kentucky

(12-30-74)

472, Miramar Naval Air Station 35 08 04; 35 12 00;

Commissary Store 45 16 08

San Diego, California

(1-16-75)

473, Internal Revenue Service, 35 08 04; 35 28 28

Office of the Regional Commissioner,

Western Region

(1-16-75)

474, U,S, Department of the Army, 20 04 04

Picatinny Arsenal,

Dover, New Jersey

(1-16-75)

%

475, Pennsylvania Army National Guard 35 28 12

(1-16-75)

476, Department of Health, Education 20 16 04; 20 16 08;

and Welfare, Region VIII, 25 20 00

Denver, Colorado

(1-31-75)

Sectlon(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No.. Case Name and Date Issued Involved

6-30-75 133
477. Office of Economic Opportunity,

Region V,

Chicago, Illinois

(1-31-75)

478. Military District of Washington,

Commissary Division Office,

Cameron Station

(1-31-75)

479. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

(1-31-75)

480. Department of Defense, Department

of the Air Force,

928th Tactical Airlift Group (AFRES),

Chicago, Illinois

(1-31-75)

481. U.S. Department of Transportation,

Federal Aviation Administration,

Aviation Facilities Experimental

Center,

Atlantic City, New Jersey

(1-31-75)

482. U.S. Department of Transportation,

Federal Aviation Administration,

National Aviation Facilities

Experimental Center,

Atlantic City, New Jersey

(1-31-75)

483. American Federation of Government

Employees, National Office

and American Federation of

Government Employees, Local 2677

(2-4-75)

484. Veterans Administration Hospital,

Montrose, New York

(2-4-75)

485. Department of the Air Force,

Base Procurement Office,

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

(2-4-75)

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued

bectionU) ot Digest

Involved

35 08 04

25 20 00

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 04 12

25 24 00

10 04 08

10 24 12

20 04 20

20 16 28

30 12 28

10 04 20

15 12 00

20 12 48

25 24 00

10 24 12; 20 16 04

35 08 04

134

6-30-75
A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued

Section(s) of Digest

Involved

486. Department of the Navy,

Naval Plant Representative Office,

Baltimore, Maryland

(2-28-75)

35 28 12

487. National Science Foundation,

Washington, D.C.

(2-28-75)

05 04 00

488. U.S. Army Civilian Appellate

Review Agency

Sacramento, California

(2-28-75)

05 08 00; 35 08 04

489. Internal Revenue Service,

Fresno Service Center

(2-28-75)

490. U.S. Army Health Services Command,

Fort Sam Houston, Texas

(2-28-75)

491. U.S. Army and Air Force Exchange

Service,

Redstone Arsenal, Alabama

(2-28-75)

492. American Federation of Government

Employees - McClellan Air Force Base,

North Highlands, California

(2-28-75)

493. Plattsburgh Air Force Base,

380th Combat Support Group,

Plattsburgh, New York

(3-24-75)

494. Department of the Navy, Military

Sealift Command, Pacific,

Oakland, California

(3-27-75)

30 12 24; 35 28 12;

35 28 16

20 12 08; 20 12 20;

20 12 64

35 08 04; 35 12 00

40 32 00

35 08 04

10 04 16; 20 16 08

495. U.S. Department of Interior,

U.S. Geological Survey,

Mid-Continent Mapping Center

(3-31-75)

496. Naval Education and Training Center,

Newport, Rhode Island

(3-31-75)

20 12 08; 20 12 24

20 16 28; 25 20 00

6-30-75 135
497. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways

Experiment Station,

Vicksburg, Mississippi

(3-31-75)

498. U.S. Department of the Treasury, 35 08 04; 35 28 16;

Internal Revenue Service, 45 16 04; 45 16 20

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

(3-31-75)

499. Barksdale Air Force Base, 25 20 00

Bossier City, Louisiana

(3-31-75)

500. Fifth U.S. Army, 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

Camp McCoy, Wisconsin 20 04 12; 20 12 60

(3-31-75)

501. Department of Health, Education, 35 08 04; 35 28 12

and Welfare, Social Security

Administration, Western Program,

San Francisco, California

(3-31-75)

502. U.S. Public Health Hospital, 10 24 12

Brighton, Massachusetts

(4-28-75)

503. Western Management Information 10 28 00

Systems Office,

Oakland Army Base, California

(4-28-75)

504. U.S. Department of the Navy, 10 24 12

Naval Station,

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

(4-28-75)

505. Department of Defense, U.S. Army 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

Nonappropriated Fund, 20 04 12; 20 12 52

Fort Bliss, Texas

(4-29-75)

506. Farmers Home Administration, 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

State of Arkansas 20 04 12; 20 12 64

(4-29-75)

507. Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and 10 24 12; 20 16 28

Doctrine Command,

Washington, D.C.

(4-28-75)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved

136

6-30-75
A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued

Section(s) of Digest

508. Department of the Navy, 35 28 08; 35 28 1 2 ;

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, 35 32 00

Portsmouth, New Hampshire

(4-29-75)

509. Tennessee Valley Authority 05 08 00; 30 16 00;

(4-28-75) 30 28 00; 35 08 04;

35 12 00; 35 32 00;

45 16 08

510. Dallas Naval Air Station, 35 08 04; 35 12 00;

Dallas, Texas 35 28 36

(4-29-75)

511. Department of the Army, 30 04 00; 35 08 04;

Dugway Proving Ground, 35 24 00; 35 28 08;

Dugway, Utah 35 28 28

(4-30-75)

512, Department of the Army,

Picatinny Arsenal,

Dover, New Jersey

(5-16-75)

35 08 04

513. Office of Federal Highway Projects,

Federal Highway Administration,

Department of Transportation,

Vancouver, Washington

(5-23-75)

35 28 20; 35 28 24

514. Army and Air Force Exchange Service,

MacDill Air Force Base Exchange,

Florida

(5-23-75)

35 08 04; 35 24 00;

45 16 16

515. Department of the Army, U.S. Army

Infantry Center,

Fort Benning, Georgia

(5-23-75)

35 08 04; 35 12 00;

45 16 08

516. Internal Revenue Service,

Wilmington, Delaware District

(5-23-75)

35 08 04; 35 12 00;

45 16 04

517. Department of Transportation,

Federal Aviation Administration,

Washington, D.C.

(5-30-75)

30 20 00; 30 28 00;

35 08 04; 35 28 28

6-30-75 137
518, Department of the Army,

Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland

(5-30-75)

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued

35 08 04; 35 28 28

Sectlon(s) of Digest

Involved

519. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service,

Washington, D.C,

(5-30-75)

520. U.S. Naval Air Station, New Orleans,

Belle Chasse, Louisiana

(5-30-75)

521. U.S. Army Club Management Directorate,

TAGCEN, Fort Meade, Maryland

(6-23-75)

522. Department of the Navy,

Navy Commissary Complex Office,

Long Beach, California

(6-23-75)

523. Veterans Administration, Veterans

Administration Data Processing Center

and Veterans Administration, Department of Data Management,

Washington, D.C.

(6-24-75)

524. National Guard Bureau,

Texas Adjutant General's Department,

Austin, Texas

(6-30-75)

525. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard

Bremerton, Washington

(6-30-75)

526. General Services Administration,

Region 5, Federal Supply Service,

Chicago, Illinois

(6-30-75)

527. U.S. Army Armament Command,

Rock Island, Illinois

(6-30-75)

05 04 00; 35 28 24;

45 16 20

10 04 12; 10 12 00;

10 24 12; 10 44 00

25 20 00

35 08 04; 35 12 00;

35 28 32

25 20 00

35 12 00

20 16 04

35 28 12; 45 16 20

138

6-30-75
528. General Services Administration, 35 28 28; 35 32 00

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois

(6-30-75)

529. Department of the Navy and 35 28 16

United States Civil Service

Commission,

Los Angeles, California

(6-30-75)

530. U.S. Department of the Air Force, 10 24 12; 20 16 04

Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho

(6-30-75)

531. Department of the Air Force, 10 24 12; 20 16 04

Grand Forks Air Force Base,

North Dakota

(6-30-75)

532. Department of the Army, 35 08 04; 35 20 00

Picatinny Arsenal,

Dover, New Jersey

(6-30-75)

533. Federal Aviation Administration, 35 08 04; 35 28 00

Airways Facilities Sector,

San Diego, California

(6-30-75)

Sectlon(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved

6-30-75 139

T A B L E OF REPORTS ON RULINGS OF T H E A S S I S T A N T S E C R E T A R Y \J

N U M E R I C A L LISTING. DATES OF ISSUANCE A N D SECTIONS OF DIGE S T INVOLVED

Section(s) of Digest 

R A/S No. Date Issued Involved

56 10-15-74

57 11-12-74

58 2-10-75

60 04 00

60 04 00

25 08 08; 25 08

25 08 28

,1

) J Reports on Rulings of the Assistant Secretary (R A/S) are

p u b l ished summaries of significant or precedent setting decisions 

by the A/S on requests for revi e w of actions taken at the field 

level. These Reports, o r i ginally referred to as Reports on 

Decisions, but n o w referred to as Reports on Rulings of the 

A s s i s t a n t Secretary, do not identify the parties involved.

6-30-75 141

INDEX

1 /

- A -

ABUSE OF A D M I N I S T R A T I V E PROCESS 10 28 00

AC PETITION 10 04 20

ACCESS T O W O R K AREAS, C A M P A I G N I N G 25 08 16; 35 08 00

ACCRETION 20 16 08

ACTIVITY PET I T I O N (RA) 10 04 08

ADDITIONS TO UNIT 20 16 08

ADEQUACY OF

R e c o r d 15 28 00

Showing of Inter e s t 10 16 0 0 ; 20 16 08

ADMISSIBILITY OF E VIDENCE AT HEARINGS 05 12 08

ADVICE, ERRONEOUS BY L M S A AGENTS 10 24 12

ADVISORY OPINIONS 05 16 00

AGENCY

Autho r i t y to Exclude Emps from EO 05 08 00

Directives, U L P 35 04 04; 35 08 04

Facilities for Cam p a i g n i n g 25 08 16

P etition (RA) 10 04 08

Regulations Not Binding on A/S 10 04 16; 35 04 04;

25 08 16

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

y Specific employee classifications or categories, such as "Accountant" 

or "Temporary Employeeare indexed under "EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES A N D 

C LASSIFI C A T I O N S . "

6-30-75 143
A G E N T - P R I N C I P A L uo uo

A G R E E M E N T

A c c r e t i o n 10 24 12

A p p r o v a l P e nding at Higher A gency 

Level 10 24 12

Bar to P e t i t i o n 10 24 12

Bar, Unil a t e r a l W a i v e r of 10 24 12

E x t e nsion as U LP 35 08 04

Indefinite D u r ation 10 24 12

Interpretation 30 28 00

Premature E xtension 10 24 12

Refusal to Sign 35 28 00

T e r minable at Will 10 24 12

Un i lateral T e r m i n a t i o n 35 28 00

AM ENDMENT

Cert i f i c a t i o n 10 04 20

Complaint 30

30

08

16

0 0 ;

00

30 12 00;

Petition 15 08 08

Rec o g n i t i o n 10 04 20

A N T I - U N I O N LITERATURE 35 08 04; 35 08 08

APPRO P R I A T E UNIT 20 04 00 to 20 12 00

A cc r e t i o n 20 16 08

Activity-wide 20 12 08

Age n c y Regulations Not Binding 

on A/S 20 04 16

14A 6-30-75
A g e n c y - w i d e 20 12 04

A r e a - w i d e 20 12 36

B a s e - w i d e 20 12 48

Br a n c h - w i d e 20 12 44

C i t y - w i d e 20 08 16

C l a r i f i c a t i o n 25 20 00

Co m m a n d - w i d e 20 12 16

C o m m u n i t y of Interest 20 04 04

Cr i teria 20 04 00

D i r e c t o r a t e - w i d e 20 12 12

Dis t r i c t - w i d e 20 12 40

Divi s i o n - w i d e 20 12 32

Ef f e ctive Dealings 20 04 08

E f f i c i e n c y of Operations 20 04 12

Eli g i b i l i t y 20 16 12

Extent of O r g a n i z a t i o n 20 04 04

F ield-wide 20 12 24

G e o g r a p h i c Scope 20 08 00

H e a d q u a r t e r s - w i d e 20 12 20

H i s t o r y of B a r g a i n i n g 20 04 08

M u l t i - I n s t a l l a t i o n 20 12 56

Nati o n - w i d e 20 08 08

O c c u p a t i o n a l C l a ssifications 20 12 64

One Employee 05 04 00

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Scope 20 12 00

6-30-75 145
Previous C e r t i f i c a t i o n

R e l e v a n c e of Units E l sewhere

R e g i on-wide

R e s i d u a l Employees

Scope

Section-wide

S e l f - D e t e r m i n a t i o n

Severance

Single Employee

Single Installation -

State-wide

Stipulations Not Binding on A/S 

Supervisors 

Supervisory Unit 

W orld-wide 

A R B I T R A T I O N

C an c e l l a t i o n as U LP

Effect on U LP

A R E A A D M I N I S T R A T O R (AREA DIRECTOR)

A u t h o r i t y for A pproval of Consent 

Agreement

Wit h d r a w a l of Approval of Consent 

A g reement

Pattern at Similar Activities

20 04 20

15 12 00

20 12 28

20 16 16

20 08 00

20 16 00

20 12 52

20 16 20

20 16 04

05 04 00

20 12 60

20 08 12

20 04 16

10 32 00

20 16 24

20 08 04

35 08 04;

35 28 00

30 28 00

10 40 00

10 40 00

146 6-30-75
ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Advisory Opinions 

A gen t s as Wit n e s s e s 

A u t h o r i t y

D o c u ments at Hearings 

J u r i s d i c t i o n 

Role of 

ATTORNEYS

Conf l i c t of Interest 

AUTHORITY OF 

A gency 

A A 

A/S 

HO 

ARD

AUTOMATIC R E N E W A L C L AUSE

05 08 00; 55 08 04 

05 12 04 

05 08 00 

05 08 00

10 32 00

05 08 00; 35 04 04

10 40 00

05 08 00; 55 08 04

15 04 00

10 40 00

10 24 12

05 16 00

05 12 04

- B -

BAD FAITH N E G O T I A T I O N S 

BALLOT 

BARGAINING 

BARGAINING H I S T O R Y 

BARS T O PETIT I O N 

Agr e e m e n t

35 28 00 

See: ELECTIONS 

See: N E GOTIATIONS 

20 04 04

10 24 12

6-30-75 147
C e r t i f i c a t i o n

E l e c t i o n

BIL L OF RIGHTS

C a m p a i g n i n g in L a b Org Off i c e r 

Election

Can d i d a c y

Compl a i n t Dismissal C r i teria

C omplaint Procedure

Conflict of Interest, Lab Org 

Employee and M ember

C o n v e n t i o n Delegates

C on v e n t i o n P a r t i c ipation

Delegates, Conven t i o n

Election, Certif i c a t i o n of

Employee - Members of Lab Org

Equal Rights

Exhaustion of Remedies

Free Speech and Assembly

H e a ring Requisites

L ab Org Off Election

C ampaigning

Candidacy

Violations, Alleged 

M em b e r s h i p Meetings

BARS TO PETITION (cont.)

10 24 08

10 24 04

55 12 08

55 08 12; 55 12 04; 

55 12 08

55 08 08

55 08 00

55 12 04; 55 12 08 

55 08 12; 55 12 04 

55 12 04

55 08 12; 55 12 04 

55 08 12

55 12 04; 55 12 08 

55 12 04 

55 08 08 

55 12 08 

55 08 08

55 12 08

55 08 12; 55 12 04; 

55 12 08

55 08 12

55 12 04

148 6-30-75
BILL OF RIGHTS (cont.)

M o o t n e s s 55 08 08

Officer, L a b Org 55 12 04

P r o c e d u r e 55 08 08

BINDING A G R E E M E N T S 10 24 12

BURDEN OF PROOF

Internal Sec u r i t y Exclusions 15 12 00

Objections to E l e c t i o n 25 08 08

Rep Unit Determ i n a t i o n s 15 12 00

U L P Cases 30 08 0 0 ; 30 12 24

35 12 00

- C -

CAMPAIGN

Lab Org Off E l e c t i o n 55 12 08

Rep Case

L iterature 25 08 12 ; 25 08 16;

25 08 2 0 ; 35 08 08

M i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 25 08 20

W o r k Hours 25 08 16

CAMPAIGN LITERA T U R E 25 08 12 ; 25 08 16;

25 08 2 0 ; 35 08 08

CANDIDACY, LAB O R G OFF I C E R 55 08 1 2 ; 55 12 04;

55 12 08

"CARVE-OUT" 20 16 04

CATEGORIES OF EMPS 20 20 00

CEASE A N D DESIST ORDERS 45 00 0 0 ; 50 00 00

6-30-75 1A9
CERTIFICATION

A m e n d m e n t of 10 04 20

Bar to P e t i t i o n 10 24 08

R e v o c a t i o n of 25 16 00

C H A L L E N G E S T O

Ballot 25 12 08

E l i g i b i l i t y 25 12 12

I n tervention 10 12 00

Showing of Interest 10 16 00

Status as Lab Org 10 20 00

Stipulations 20 12 04

Voter 20 20 00

CHANGES, NAME OF ACTIVITY O R 

RE P R E S E N T A T I V E

CHARGE

C HECKOFF R E V O C A T I O N BY ACTIVITY

CIVIL SERVICE C OMMISSION

EO Sec. 25(a) R esponsibilities 

Federal Personnel W o r k 

Guidance 

CL A R I F I C A T I O N OF UNIT

C l a r i f i c a t i o n Determinations 

Procedure 

C L A S S I F ICATIONS

COL L A T E R A L ISSUES

10 04 20

30 04 0 0 ; 30 08 00

35 24 0 0 ; 35 28 0 0 ;

45 04 00

10 32 00

05 08 00

35 04 04

25 20 GO 

10 04 16

See: EMP CATEGORIES A N D 

CLASSIFICATIONS

10 16 00

150 6-30-75
C O L L E C T I V E B A R G A I N I N G See also: N EGOTI A T I O N S

H i s t o r y 20 04 08; 

20 16 04

20 04 12;

C OMMUNITY OF INTEREST 20 04 04

COMPANION CASES 05 20 00; 30 28 00

COMPLAINT See also: U N F A I R LAB O R

•

PRACTICES;

C OND U C T

STANDARDS OF

Standards of Con d u c t 55 00 00

Procedure 55 08 00

ULP 30 00 00

A m e n d m e n t 30 08 00; 

30 16 00

30 12 00;

Inv e s t i g a t i o n 30 08 00

L i m i t e d to Allegations 30 12 00

M o t i o n to Dismiss 30 04 00

P r e - C o m p l a i n t R e quirements 30 08 00

R e q u i s i t e s 30 04 00

R u l ings of A U s 30 12 04

T i m e l i n e s s 30 08 00

V i o l a t i o n Not Specifically Alleged 30 12 04

COMPLIANCE W I T H D E C I S I O N A N D ORD E R 45 00 00; 50 00 00

COMPOSITION OF UNITS 20 08 0 0 ; 

20 16 00

20 12 0 0 ;

CONCURRENT R E L A T E D CASES 05 20 00; 30 28 00

CONDUCT OF E L E C T I O N 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

25 08 08

A t torneys 10 32 00

6-30-75 i51
CONFLICT OF INTEREST (cont.)

E m p l o y e e of L a b Org and M e m b e r 55 12 08

M g t of L a b O r g and Fed Employee 10 32 00

Mg t Off and L a b O r g Role 10 32 00

C O N S E N T A G R E E M E N T

A A's A u t h o r i t y to Approve 10 40 00

A A's W i t h d r a w a l of Approval 10 40 00

R e f u s a l to Sign 10 12 00

C O N T I N U A N C E OF H E A R I N G 15 04 00

C ONT R A C T BAR 10 24 12

C O N V E N T I O N

Delegates 55 08 12

Par t i c i p a t i o n 55 12 04

C O O P E R A T I O N OF PARTIES 15 20 00

C OVE R A G E OF EO 05 08 00

CRAFT SEVERANCE 20 16 04

CROSS EXAMINATION, FAILURE TO A L L O W 15 12 00

C U RRENT REPRESEN T A T I V E STATUS OF 

P E T I T I O N E R 10 28 00

CU PETITION 10 04 16

- D -

DEC E R T I F I C A T I O N 10 04 12

DEFINITIONS See also: EMP CATEGORIES 

AND C L A SSIFICATIONS

Defunctness 05 04 00

152 6-30-75
L a b O rg

M a n a g e m e n t O f f icial 

N o n - E m p l o y e e 

P r o f essional E m p l o y e e 

Supervisors 

Unit 

DEFUNCTNESS

DELEGATES, C O N V E N T I O N

DETERMINATION OF A P P R O P R I A T E UNIT 

DILATORY CON D U C T 

DISCLAIMER OF INTEREST 

DISMISSAL

D I S Q UALIFICATION AS LAB ORG 

DISTRIBUTION OF L I T E R A T U R E 

DOCUMENTS AT HEARING, L M S A 

DR P E T ITION

DUES C HECKOFF R E V O C A T I O N BY A C T I V I T Y 

DUTY TO BAR G A I N

DEFINITIONS (cont.)

20 20 00 Vista Volunteers 

05 04 00 

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

S e e : APPRO P R I A T E UNITS 

35 08 04; 35 28 00 

10 04 12

See: REP CASES; ULP; 

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

10 20 00

S e e : CAM P A I G N LITERATURE 

05 12 04 

10 04 12

35 24 00; 35 28 00;

45 16 00

See; N E GOTIATIONS

05 04 00

05 04 00

- E -

EFFECTIVE DEALI N G S 

EFFICIENCY OF OPERATIONS

20 04 08 

20 04 12

6-30-75 153
E L E C T I O N B A R T O P E T I T I O N 10 24 04

ELE C T I O N S See also; CHALLENGES: A N D 

O B J ECTIONS T O E L E C T I O N

L a b O r g O f f icers

C a m p a i g n i n g 55 12 08

C a n d i d a c y 55

55

08

12

12; 55 12 04; 

08

C o m p laint Procedure 55 08 12

R e p r e s e n t a t i o n

Ballot Marki n g s 25 12 08

C a m p a i g n i n g See: O B JECTIONS T O 

E L E CTION

Challenges See: C HALLENGES

Craft Severance 20 16 04; 25 04 16

Dec e r t i f i c a t i o n 10 04 12

Eligibility 20 16 12 (See also: EMP 

CATEGORIES A N D C L A S S I F I ­

CATIONS)

E x c l u s i o n from Ballot 10 32 00

Mail Ballot 25 08 08; 25 12 08

Position on Ballot 10 12 00

Procedure 25 04 00

Prof Emps 25 04 04

Role of Observers 25 04 12

Refusal to Sign Consent 

Agreement 10 12 00

R er u n 25 16 00

15A

6-30-75
R e p r e s e n t a t i o n (cont.) 

R u n o f f

S e l f - D e t e r m i n a t i o n 

Separate V o t i n g Groups 

Severance 

T al l y 

Tie Vote 

V oter Intent 

Vo t i n g Groups 

V oti n g Procedures 

ELIGIBILITY

Seasonal Emps,

EMPLOYEE CAT E G O R I E S A N D 

CLASSIFICATIONS

ELECTIONS (cont.)

20 16 04; 25 04 16

25 08 08

25 16 00

25 12 00

25 04 00

25 04 04

See also; CHALLENGES; A N D 

EMP CATEGORIES A N D CLASSIFIFICATIONS

20 16 12

25 08 08

25 08 08

25 04 00

A c c o u n t i n g Supv 20 20 00 Supv

A dm i n i s t r a t i v e Service Asst, 20 20 00 Supv

Aircraft Instrument Control 

S y s t e m M e c h (Leader) 20 20 00 Supv

A sst Sect Supv 20 20 00 Supv

Asst Stock Control Supv 20 20 00 Supv

A sst Supv 20 20 00 Supv

Asst U t i l i t y Supv 20 20 00 Supv

Business M g t Analysts 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Car t o g r a p h i c T e c h 20 20 00 Supv

C l e r k - T y p i s t 20 20 00 Conf Emps

6-30-75 155
C l u b M g t Spec 20 20 00 M g t O f f

C o m m i s s i o n e d Ban k Examiners 20 20 00 Supv

C o m p u t e r Oper 20 20 00 Supv

Co m p u t e r Programmer T e a m Leader 20 20 00 Supv

C o n f i d e n t i a l Einps 20 20 00

Firefighters 20 20 00 Guards

Foo d A c t Supv 20 20 00 Supv

General Schedule 20 20 00

G e n Supply Asst 20 20 00 Supv

Guards 20 20 00 , 10 32 00

Heal t h T e c h 20 20 00 Supv

L oan Spec 20 20 00 Mgt O ff

M aintenance Chief 20 20 00 Supv

Mg t Off 20 20 00 Mgt Off Supv

Millwr i g h t 20 20 00 Supv

Nonap p r o p r i a t e d Fund Emps 20 20 00

Non-Prof e s s i o n a l Emps 20 20 00 Prof Emps

Non-Project Leaders 20 20 00 Supv

Office Supv 20 20 00 Supv

Physical Science A d m i n i strator 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Police 20 20 00 Guards

Procurement Analyst 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Production Controller 20 20 00 Supv

Prof Emps 05 04 0 0 ;; 20 04 04;

20 20 00 s; 25 04 04

P r o g r a m Mgr 20 20 00 Supv

Project Leader 20 20 00 Supv

156 'j-30-75
P u r c h a s i n g Agent 

S e a s o n a l Emp 

S e c r e t a r y 

Sect S u p v 

Sr Buy e r 

Sr T e c h

Sr U t i l i t y M a n 

Shipping S u p v 

Stock C o n t r o l Supv 

S upervisors 

Supply T e c h 

Systems A u d i t o r 

T e a m Leader 

Temp Emps

T o p o g r a p h i c F i e l d Asst 

T r a i n i n g T e c h 

U t i l i t y Supv 

EMPLOYEE O R G A N I Z A T I O N 

EMPLOYEE R I G H T S

EMPLOYEE STATUS: EFFE C T ON U LP 

EQUAL RIG H T S IN LAB O RG 

ERRONEOUS A D V I C E BY L M S A AGENTS

EVIDENCE

A d e q u a c y of R e c o r d

A/S Docum e n t s at Hearings

A/S Pers as Witnesses

20 20 00 Supv

20 20 00 T e m p Emp

20 20 00 C o n f Emp

20 20 00 Supv

20 20 00 Supv

20 20 00 Supv

20 20 00 Supv

20 20 00 Supv

20 20 00 Supv

20 20 00 M g t Off

20 20 00 Supv

20 20 00 M gt O f f , S u p v

20 20 00 Supv

20 20 00

20 20 00 Temp Emps

20 20 00 Supv

20 20 00 Supv

See: L ABOR ORGANI Z A T I O N

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

6-30-75 157
B u r d e n of Proof 

Documents of A/S 

E x c l u s i o n

Improper Acceptance

Limitations

Ma t e r i a l i t y

P o s t - H e a r i n g S ubmission 

R e c o r d Sufficiency 

R e j e c t i o n of Evidence 

Relevance of Evidence 

Reope n i n g R e cord 

EXCLUSIONS F R O M APPROP R I A T E UNITS 

EXCLUSIONS F R O M EO COVERAGE 

EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION, W A I V E R OF 

EXCLUSIVE R E C O G N I T I O N UNDER EO 10988 

EXCLUSIVE R E PRESENTATIVE P ETITIONER 

EO 10988, T R A N S I T I O N A L PROBLEMS 

EO 11491, A N D AS AME N D E D 

Coverage

Sec, 1(b) Emps P a r t icipation in 

Mgt of Lab Org

2(b) "Employee"

2(c) "Supervisor"

2(d) "Guard"

EVIDENCE (cont.)

See: BURD E N OF PROOF 

05 12 04

25 08 08; 15 12 00 

30 12 00 

15 12 00 

15 12 00 

15 24 00

20 04 16; 15 28 00 

15 12 00; 15 24 00 

15 12 00; 15 24 00 

15 24 00 .

20 20 00 

05 08 00 

10 28 00 

05 08 00 

10 28 00 

05 32 00

05 08 00

10 32 00; 35 08 04

20 20 00 Vista Volunteers, 

Com m i s s i o n e d Off Corps, 

U.So Public Hea l t h Service

30 24 00

20 04 16

158

6-30-75
EO 11491, AND AS AMENDED (cont.)

2 (e) "Labor Organization: 05 04 00

2 ( e ) (2 ) Status as Lab Org 40 20 0 0 ; 50 00 00

3(b)(3) N a t i o n a l Security 05 08 00

3(b)(4) Internal Age n c y Security 05 08 0 0 ; 15 12 00

3(d) U nio n s of L a b Rel Pers. 10 32 00

10 (b) C r i t e r i a for Appt o p r i a t e 

Unit 20 04 00 to 20 20 00

10 ( b ) (1 ) " M a n a g e m e n t Official"; 

" S upervisor" 20 20 00

10 (b)(2 ) F ed Pers W o r k 20 20 0 0 ; 05 08 00

10(b)(3) G uards 10

20

32

16

0 0 ;

04

20 20 0 0 ;

10(b)(4) Prof Emps 20

25

04

04

04;

04;

20

25

20

12

0 0 ;

08

10 (c) N o n - G u a r d U n i o n 10 32 0 0 ; 20 16 04

11(c)(4) N e g o t i a b i l i t y 35 28 00

13(a) Grievance Procedures 60 08 00

13(b) A r b i t r a t i o n 60 12 00

13(d) Q u e s t i o n on G r ievability 

or A r b i t r a b i l i t y 60 16 00

13(e) C o n f o r m i t y of Agreements 

to EO 60 20 00

19(a)(1) Interference by Agency 35 04 04; 35 08 00

19(a)(2) D i s c r i m i n a t i o n by Agency 35 12 00

19(a)(3) Improper A ssistance 35 16 00

19(a)(4) D i s c r i m i n a t i o n for 

Complaint, T e s t i m o n y 35 20 00

19(«)(5) R e fusal to Grant 

R e c o g n i t i o n 35 24 00

6-30-75 159
Sec. 19(a)(6) A g e n c y R e f usal to Confer,

Consult, N e g o t i a t e 35 28 00

19(b)(1) Interference by Lab Org 40 08 00

19(b)(4) Strike 40 20 00

19(b)(6) U n i o n R e fusal to Confer,

Consult, N e g o t i a t e 40 28 00

19(d) G r i e v a n c e or Appeals

Procedure 35 32 00

20 Use of Official Time 30 04 00; 35 28 00

24(2) Units of M a n a g e m e n t O f f i ­

cials or Supervisors 10 32 00

25(a) CSC Resp o n s i b i l i t i e s 10 32 00

E X H A U S T I O N OF REMEDIES, STANDARDS OF 

CON D U C T

EXT E N T OF ORG A N I Z A T I O N 20 04 04

- F -

FAILURE TO COOPERATE 15 20 00; 30 12 28

F A I L U R E T O SERVE DOCUMENTS 05 28 00

F E D PERS W O R K 05 08 00

F I X E D T E R M A G R E EMENT 10 24 12

FOR M A L HEARINGS See: HEARINGS

F R A G M E N T A T I O N OF UNIT 20 04 08; 20 04 12 

FREE SPEECH

R e p r e s e n t a t i o n Election 25 08 16

Lab O r g Members 55 12 08

- G -

EO 11491, AND AS AMENDED (cont.)

GOOD FAITH 35 28 00

160

6-30-75
- H -

g r i e v a b i l i t y a n d a r b i t r a b i l i t y

G e n e r a l 

G RIEVANCES

E f f e c t on ULP 

U n i l a t e r a l Adjustment 

GUARDS

Mgt of N o n - G u a r d L a b O rg

Qualific a t i o n s of L a b O rg 

to R e present

HANDBILLING

HEAD OF A G E N C Y A U T H O R I T Y T O 

EXCLUDE EMPS F R O M EO

HE (ALJ) R E P O R T A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 

AND EXCEPTIONS

Credib i l i t y Res o l u t i o n s

Objections

ULP

HEARINGS

A c c e p t a n c e into Evidence

A de q u a c y of R e c o r d

A d m i s s i b i l i t y of Evidence

A/S D o c u m e n t s at Hearings

A/S Pers as Wit n e s s e s

A u t h o r i t y of HO

Bar to P e t i t i o n

B u r d e n o f Pro o f

35 08 04; 35 28 00

20 04 16; 20 16 04;

20 20 0 0 ; 10 32 00

10 32 00 

10 32 00

S e e : C A M P A I G N LITERATURE 

05 08 00

64 04 GO

30 28 00

30 16 00 

25 08 08 

30 16 00

30 16 00

15 28 00; 20 04 16

05 12 08

05 12 04

05 12 04

15 04 00

10 24 00

See: BURDEN OF PROOF

6-30-75 161

I
HEARINGS (cont.)

C o l l a t e r a l Issues 10 16 00

C o n t i n u a n c e of H e a r i n g 15 04 00

C o o p e r a t i o n of Parties 15 20 00

Cross Examination, Failure 

to A l l o w 15 12 00

D o cuments 15 12 00

D o c u m e n t s , L M S A 15 12 04

Evidence See; EVIDENCE

E x c l u s i o n of T e s t i m o n y 25 08 08

Failure to Cooperate 15 20 0 0 ; 30 12 28

HE (ALJ) Report, No Exceptions 30 16 00

Inadequate R ecord 15 28 0 0 ; 20 04 16

Lo c ation 15 08 04

Ma t e r i a l i t y 15 12 00

Motions 15 08 00

N o n - C o o p e r a t i o n of Parties 15 20 0 0 ; 30 12 28

Official Time to A ttend 05

35

08

08

0 0 ;

04;

15

35

20

28

0 0 ;

00

P o s t -Hearing Submissions 15 24 00

Postponement M o t i o n 15 08 04

Record Sufficiency 15 24 0 0 ; 20 04 16

Refusal to F u rnish Information to HO 15 20 00

Re j e c t i o n of Evidence 15 12 00

Relevance of Evidence 15 12 00

R emand 15 28 00

R e o p ening of Record 15 24 00

162 6-30-75
HEARINGS (cont.)

R e q u e s t for L M S A Documents 05 12 04

R e q u e s t for L M S A Pers as W i t n e s s e s 05 12 04

Role of HO 15 04 00

Rulings of ALJs 30 12 04

Showing of Interest Cha l l e n g e 10 16 00

S t i pulated R e c o r d 30 20 00

Stipulations 20 04 16; 15 24 00

Submissions after H e a r i n g 15 24 00

Supplemental Briefs 15 24 00

T e s t i m o n y E x c l u s i o n 25 08 08

Time A l l o w e d for F iling

Supplemental Briefs 15 24 00

T r a n s c r i p t C o r r e c t i o n 15 24 00

Witnesses 15 12 00

LM S A Staff 05 12 04

Off i c i a l Time 05 08 0 0 ; 15 20 00;

I’v. 35 08 04; 35 28 00

W r i t t e n O p e n i n g Statement 15 12 00

HISTORY OF B A R G A I N I N G 10 24 12 ; 20 04 08

- h ^

INADEQUATE S H O W I N G OF INTEREST See;

INAPPROPRIATE UNIT 20 04

INCUMBENT LAB O R G P E T I T I O N E R 10 28

INSTRUCTORS, STATUS A N D RIGHTS 30 24

INSUFFICIENT R E C O R D 15 28

6-30-75 163
I N S U L A T E D P E R I O D iU 24 12

I N S U RANCE AS C A M P A I G N BENEFIT 25 08 2 0 ; 25 08 24

INTEREST, S H O W I N G OF 10 16 0 0 ; 20 16 08

INT E R F E R E N C E W I T H EMPS R IGHTS 35 08 0 0 ; 25 08 00

INTERNAL SECU R I T Y OF A G E N C Y 05 08 0 0 ; 15 12 00

INTERVENOR See; INTERVENTION

I N TERVENTION

Chall e n g e to

Showing of Interest 10 16 00

Status as Lab Org 10 20 00

Dismi s s a l * 10 12 00

Incumbent Lab Org 10 12 00

Intervenor 10

20

12

24

0 0 ;

12

20 24 08;

N o t i f i c a t i o n to Potential 

Intervenors 10 08 00

O pport u n i t y to W i t h d r a w 20 24 12

P ost-Decisional Intervention 20 24 04

Showing of Interest 10 16 0 0 ; 20 24 08

Timeliness 10 12 00

INVESTIGATION, ULP COMPLAINTS 30 08 00

JOB CLASSIFICATIONS S e e : EMP CATEGORIES 

CLASSIFICATIONS

J U R I S D I C T I O N OF A/S 55 08 04; 05 08 00

164 6-30-75
- L -

L M S A

Ag e n t s

As W i t n e s s e s 

E r r o n e o u s Advice 

D o c u ments at H e a r i n g 

LABOR O R G A N I Z A T I O N 

Bill of R i ghts 

C h a l l e n g e to Status 

D e f i n i t i o n

Incumbent Lab O r g P e t i t i o n e r 

Intervenor

L e g i s l a t i v e - E x e c utive B ranch 

R e p r e s e n t a t i o n

M a n a g e m e n t of

M e e t i n g s

O f f i c e r Elections

Paid E m p l o y e e - M e m b e r s

Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s to Represent 

S p e c i f i e d C a t e g o r i e s of Emps

R e m e d i a l Orders Agai n s t

05 12 04 

10 24 12 

05 12 04

See: BILL OF R IGHTS 

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

Sec. 19(b)(1) 

•

40 08 00

19(b)(4) 40 20 00

19(b)(6) 40 28 00

Stand a r d s of Conduct 05 08 0 0 ;

10 20 0 0 ;

6-30-75 165
LABOR ORGANIZATION (cont.)

Status as 10 20 00

U L P 35 00 0 0 ; 40 00 00

t E G I S L A T I V E - E X E C UTIVE BRANCH 

LAB O R G 05 08 00

L I T E R A T U R E See; C A M P A I G N L ITERATURE

- M -

MGT OFF 05 04 00

Conflict of Interest 10 32 00

M A R K I N G S ON BALLOT 25 12 08

M E M B E R S H I P IN A LAB ORG, D E N I A L OF 40 32 00

M E M B E R S H I P PINS, BUTTONS 35 08 04

M E R G E R AT A C T I V I T Y 10

20

04

16

08;

08

10 04 20;

M I S R E P R E S E N T A T I O N IN CAMPAIGN 25 08 20

M O O N L I G H T E R S 20 20 00 O ff-Duty M i l Emps

M O O T N E S S

Standards of Conduct 55 08 08

ULP 30 28 0 0 ; 35 20 00

MOTIONS

Amendment of Petition 15 08 08

D ismissal of P e t ition 15 12 00

For W i t n e s s e s and/or Production 

of Documents 15 12 00

P o s t - Hearing Submissions 15 24 00

166 6-30-75
MOTIONS (cont.\)

P o s t p o n e m e n t of H e a r i n g 15 08 04

R e o p e n i n g of R e cord 15 24 00

R e p Cases, General 15 08 04

U L P 30 12 00

- N -

N A T I O N A L GUARD, EO C O V E R A G E 05 08 00

N LR B DECISIONS, R O L E OF 05 24 00

N A T I O N A L SEC U R I T Y EMPS 05 08 00

N E G O T I A B I L I T Y 35 28 00

N E G O T I A T I O N S 35 28 00

N E W S H O W I N G OF INTEREST,

P O S T - D E C I S I O N A L 20 24 08

90-60 D A Y "OPEN" P E R I O D 10 24 12

N O - D I S T R I B U T I O N R U L E 35 08 08

N O - S O L I C I T A T I O N R U L E 35 08 12

N ON - A C C E S S TO W O R K A REAS BY NON-EMPS 25 08 16; 35 08 04

N O N - C O O P E R A T I O N OF PARTIES 15 20 0 0 ; 30 12 28

N O N W O R K A R E A C A M P A I G N I N G 35 08 08; 35 08 12

N O N W O R K T I M E C A M P A I G N I N G 35 08 08; 35 08 12

N OT I C E S

C o m p l i a n c e w i t h ULP Dec i s i o n and

O r d e r 45 00 0 0 ; 50 00 00

M a i l i n g of ULP N o tice 50 00 00

N o t i c e of P e t i t i o n 10 08 00

6-30-75 167
NOTICES (cont.)

Post-Hearing Notice of Unit

D e t e r m i n a t i o n 20 24 04

ULP 45 00 0 0 ; 50 00 00

N O T I F I C A T I O N OF C OMPLIANCE 10 08 00

N O T I F I C A T I O N TO P O T E N T I A L INTERVENORS 45 00 0 0 ; 50 00 00

N URSES 20 16 04

- 0 -

0

OBJECTIONS TO REP ELECTION 25 08 

L A BOR

00 (see also : 

PRACTICES)

Access to Employees 25 08 16

Act i v i t y Facilities 25 08 16

Act i v i t y Interference 25 08 16; 25 08 28

A g e n c y Rules on Campaigning 25 08 16

A n i t - U n i o n Literature 35 08 04; 35 08 08

Burd e n of Proof 25 08 08

Campaign M i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 25 08 20

Challenges, Distinguished from 25 12 12

Conduct of Election 25 08 28

E lectioneering 20 16 04

Free Speech 25 08 16

HE (ALJ) Report 25 08 08; 25 08 16

Impact on Election 25

25

08

08

12

08;

to 25 08 20 

25 08 24

L a c k of Specificity 25 08 08

M a i l Facilities of Activity 20 12 00

168 6-30-75
N o n - E m p l o y e e Access to A c t i v i t y

OBJECTIONS T O REP ELECTION (cont.)

P r e m i s e s 25 08 16

N o n - I n t e r v e n i n g U n i o n 25 08 16

Pro c e d u r e 25 08 08

Promises of Ben e f i t 25 08 24

Report on Objections, HE (ALJ) 25 08 08; 25 08 16

R u n o f f E l e c t i o n 25 08 08

Service 05 28 00

Side A g r e e m e n t s 25 08 08

T i m e l i n e s s 25 08 08

T i m i n g of O b j e c t i o n a b l e Cond u c t 25 08 12

OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES

A v a i l a b i l i t y of W i tnesses 15 20 0 0 ; 30 08 0 0 ;

35 08 04; 35 12 00

B a r g a i n i n g See: N E GOTIATIONS

B u r d e n of Proof See; BURDEN OF PROOF

C o o p e r a t i o n in Proceedings 15 20 00

F u r n i s h i n g Information 30 08 00

Off i c i a l T ime for Witnesses 15 20 0 0 ; 35 08 04;

35 12 00

OCC U P A T I O N A L H E A L T H NUR S E 25 04 04; 25 12 08

O FF-DUTY HOURS NEGOTI A T I O N S 35 28 00

OFF-DUTY M I L EMPS 20 04 16; 20 20 00

O FFICIAL T I M E F O R WIT N E S S E S 05 36 0 0 ; 15 20 0 0 ;

35 08 04; 35 12 00

"OPEN PERIOD" 10 24 12

6-30-75 169
" O P E N SEASON"

O P P O R T U N I T Y T O W I T H D R A W P E T I T I O N

10 24 12

20 16 12

-PiA -

PERS WORK, FED

PETITIONER, STATUS OF

PETITIONS

AC: Amendment, Rec o g n i t i o n 

or C e r t i f i c a t i o n

Agen c y Doubt of Representative's

05 08 00 

10 28 00

10 04 20

Status (RA) 10 04 08

Ame n d m e n t 15 08 08

C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Unit (CU) 10 04 16

D e c e r t i f i c a t i o n (DR) 10 04 12

Dismissal 15 20 00

10 16 00

10 36 00

DR; Decertif i c a t i o n 10 04 12

Opport u n i t y to W i t h d r a w 20 24 12

Petitioner w i t h Exclusive

R e c o g n i t i o n 10 28 00

RA: Agency Doubt of R e p r e ­

sentative's Status 10 04 08

Service 05 28 00

P OSITION ON BALLOT 10 12 00

POST-DEC I S I O N A L

Intervention 20 24 04

Notices 20 24 04

170 6-30-75
P O S T - D E C I S I O N A L (cont,)

S h o w i n g of Interest 

W i t h d r a w a l 

P O S T - H E A R I N G 

R ep Cases 

U LP 

POSTING

PRE-COMPLAINT R E Q U I R E M E N T S 

Standards of Conduct 

ULP

P REMATURE EXT E N S I O N S OF AGRE E M E N T

PREREQUISITES

PRINCIPAL-AGENT

PRIVATE S E C T O R LAW, R O L E OF

PROCEDURE

PROF EMPS

PROMISES OF BENEFIT

P R O P A G A N D A

QUALIFIC A T I O N S OF LAB O R G T O 

R E P R E S E N T S P E C I F I E D CATEGORIES 

OF EMPS

QUESTIONS C O N C E R N I N G BALLOT

R A P E T I T I O N

- R -

20 24 08 

20 24 12 

15 24 00 

15 24 00 

30 16 00 

S e e ; NOTICES

55 08 08

30 04 00; 30 08 00 

10 24 12

S e e ; R E Q U IREMENTS FOR 

35 08 08 

05 24 00

See Specific Captions Such 

A s : E L E C T I O N S ; O B J E C T I O N S ; 

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

6-30-75 171
R E C O R D S e e : H E A RINGS 

R E F U S A L T O

B a r g a i n 35 28 GO

C o o p e r a t e 15 20 00; 30 08 00

Sig n C o n s e n t Agreement 10 12 00 

R E G U L A T I O N S

A g e n c y R e g u l a t i o n s Not

B i nding on A/S 20 04 16

R E G U L A T I O N S 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) C e r t i f i c a t i o n Bar 10 24 08

202.3(c) Timeliness of

P etition 10 24 00

202.3(d) Insulated Period

Follo w i n g 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; 15 16 00

202,5 Intervention 20 24 04; 10 12 00

202.6(d) Request for R e v i e w

Service 05 28 00

202.7(c) Position on Ballot 10 12 00

202,12(k) Continuance of H e aring 15 04 00

202.20(a) Objections; Filing 25 08 08

Service 05 28 00

172 6-30-75
REGULATIONS OF A/S (cont.)

Sec. 2 0 2 .2 0 (d) 

203.2 

203.3(e) 

203.26

R e q u i r e m e n t s for 

C harge

R e p o r t of I n v e s t i ­

g a t i o n

C o m p l i a n c e w i t h A/S 

Or der

Objections; Burden

of Proof

204.2(a)(1) E qual Rights

204.2(a)(2) Free Speech and 

A s s e m b l y

204.2(a)(5) D i s c i p l i n a r y A c t i o n

204.29

204.58

204.63

E l e c t i o n of Officers

D i s m i s s a l of 

Standards Com p l a i n t

Complaints, E l e c t i o n 

of Officers

205.5(a) Sti p u l a t e d R e c o r d 

REJECTION OF E V I DENCE 

RELATED CASES, C O N C U R R E N T 

RELEVANCE OF E V I D E N C E 

REMAND

REMEDY: U L P

A g ainst Agencies 

A g a i n s t L a b O rg 

R E ORGANIZATION OF A C T I V I T Y

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION, U L P

30 04 00; 30 28 00

30 08 00

45 04 00 

55 12 04

55 12 08 

55 08 08 

55 08 12

55 08 08

55 08 12 

30 20 00 

15 12 00 

05 20 00 

15 12 00 

15 28 00

45 00 00; 45 04 00 

45 08 00

10 04 08; 10 04 20; 

20 16 28

30 08 00

25 08 08

6-30-75 173
REPRESENTATION CASES

AC P e t i t i o n 

A c c r e t i o n

A c t i v i t y R e f u s a l to R e spond to 

P e t i t i o n

A g e n c y Peti t i o n (RA)

Agen c y R egulations Not Binding 

on A/S

A g r e e m e n t Bar 

Am endment

J.U w \jyj Lo v\J uu

See also Specific Topics 

Such A s ; A P P R O P R I A T E 

UNIT; ELECTIONS; HEARINGS; 

OBJ E C T I O N S T O ELECTIONS; 

Etc,

10 04 20 

20 16 08

15 16 00 

10 04 08

20 04 16 

10 24 12

C e r t i f i c a t i o n 10 08 20

P etition 15 08 08

R ec o g n i t i o n 10 04 20

Approp r i a t e Unit See: A P P R O P R I A T E

AA's A c t i o n 10 40 00

Bur d e n of Proof 15 12 00

C e r t i f i c a t i o n 25 16 00

Amendment 10 04 20

Bar 10 24 08

Challenges See: CHALLENGES

C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Unit (CU) 25 20 00; 10 04

C o m m unity of Interest 20 04 04

C o n current Related Cases 05 20 00

CU Petition 10 04 16

174 6-30-75
C u r r e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n c a s e s (cont.)

Status of Petiti o n e r 10 28 00

D e c e r t i f i c a t i o n 10 04 12

D R P e t i t i o n 10 04 12

E f f e ctive Deali n g s 20 04 08

E f f i c i e n c y of Operat i o n s 20 04 12

E l e c t i o n Bar to P e t i t i o n 10 24 04

E l i g i b i l i t y 20 16 12 ; 20 20

25 12 00

Evidence 15 12 00

H e a r i n g O f f i c e r Role 15 04 00

I n t e r v e n t i o n 20 24 04; 20 24

10 12 00

Lab O r g Status 10 20 00

M ot i o n s 15 08 00

N o t i c e of

P e t i t i o n 20 24 04; 10 08

Uni t D e t e r m i n a t i o n 20 24 04

Objections See; OBJECTIONS

Ob l i g a t i o n s of Parties 15 20 00

O p p o r t u n i t y to W i t h d r a w 20 24 12

Petitions, Inconsistent 10 44 00

Petitions, Types 10 04 00

P ol i c y on C o n s e n t Agreements 10 40 0 0 ; 15 28

P o s t - H e a r i n g Submissions 15 24 00

6-30-75 175
Posting, N o t i c e of 

P e t i t i o n

U n i t D e t e r m i n a t i o n

P r o c e d u r e

Elections

He a rings

Post - E l e c t i o n

Pr e l i m i n a r y Stages

Qual i f i c a t i o n s to R e present 

Specified Categories of Employees

R A P e t ition

Remand

Re q u e s t for R e v i e w Rights 

Res i d u a l Employees 

Se l f - D e t e r m i n a t i o n 

Service of Documents 

Severance

Showing of Interest

Standards of Conduct

Stipulations of Parties Not 

B i nding on A/S

Timeliness

U L P Allegations

Unit D e t e m i n a t i o n s

Vot i n g 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

176 6-30-75
REQUEST FOR

A p p e a r a n c e of Witnesses 15 20 0 0 :

D o c u m e n t s 15 12 00

L M S A D o cuments 05 12 04

L MSA Pers as W i t n e s s e s 05 12 04

Witnesses 05 12 00

REQUEST FOR R E V I E W

N e w Evidence 30 08 00

Objections to E l e c t i o n 25 08 08

Refusal to D i s m i s s P e t i t i o n 10 36 00

Service of 05 28 00

Showing of Interest 10 16 00

Status as L a b Org 10 20 00

REQUIREMENTS F OR

Charge 30 04 00

C omplaint 30 04 00

C o nsent A g r e e m e n t 10 40 00

I n tervention 10 12 00

P e t ition 10 24 00

15 08 08

U nit D e t e r m i n a t i o n Hearings 10 40 00

RERUN E L E C T I O N 25 16 00

RESIDUAL U N I T 20 16 16

RESPONSE T O P E T ITION 15 08 04

REVOCATION OF C E R T I F I C A T I O N 25 16 00

6-30-75 177
R OLE OF

A g e n c y Head; E x c l u s i o n of Emps, 

EO Coverage

A/S

CSC Guidance 

HO

NLRB Decisions 

RUNO F F E L E CTION

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

See; E X E C U T I V E ORD E R 

11491, A N D AS A M E N D E D

See; REGULA T I O N S OF A /S

SECURITY EMPS 05 08 00

SEL F - D E T E R M I N A T I O N ELECTION

U nit D e t e r mination 20 16 20

V o t i n g Procedure 25 04 08

SEPARATE V OTING 25 04 00

SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS 05 28 0 0 ; 25 08 08

SEVERANCE 20 16 04

SHA M STIPULATION 20 04 16; 25 12 04;

25 16 00

SHOWING OF INTEREST

Adequ a c y 10 16 0 0 ; 20 24 08

A g e n c y Mgt, Involvement In 10 16 00

178 6-30-75
s h o w i n g o f i n t e r e s t (cont.)

A g r e e m e n t Bar, U n i l a t e r a l W a i v e r of

C h a l l e n g e at H e a r i n g

C h a l l e n g e to Intervener

C h a l l e n g e to P e t i t i o n e r

I nadequate for L a r g e r U n i t 

F o u n d A p p r o p r i a t e

P o s t-Decis ional

R e q u e s t for R e v i e w

Seasonal Industries

V a l i d i t y

SICK-OUT

SIDE A G R E E M E N T S

E l e c t i o n s

N e g o t i a t i o n s

SINGLE E M P L O Y E E UNIT

S O L I C ITATION OF M E M B E R S

STANDARDS OF C O N D U C T

Bill of R ights 

Ele c t i o n s

E qual R ights

F re e Spee c h and A s s e m b l y 

J u r i s d i c t i o n of A/S

20 24 08 

20 24 08 

10 16 00

10 16 0 0 ; 20 24 08 

10 16 00

40 20 0 0 ; 50 00 00

25 08 08

35 28 00

05 Oei 00

35 08 04; 35 08 12

05 08 00; 05 20 00;

10 20 00; 55 00 00 

See Also Specific Captions 

Such As: BIL L OF RIGHTS; 

LAB ORG ELECTIONS; FREE 

SPEECH

55 08 08; 55 12 00

55 08 12; See Also; 

ELECTIONS; LAB O R G OFFICERS

55 12 04

55 12 08

10 16 DO

10 16 00

10 16 00; 20 24 08

10 16 00

55 08 04

6-30-75 179
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT (cont.)

Proc e d u r e 55 08 00

Rep Cases 05 20 0 0 ; 10

S T A T E M E N T OF SERVICE OF D OCUMENTS 05 28 00

STATUS AS LAB ORG 10 20 00

S T I P U L A T E D R E C O R D 30 20 00

STIPULATIONS 30 20 0 0 ; 15

Of Parties N o t B i nding on A/S 20 04 16

Re l a t e d to Challenges 25 12 04

Sh a m 20

25

04

16

16;

00

25

STRIKE 40 20 00

SUBMISSIONS A F T E R HEAR I N G 15 24 00

SUPERVISORS 05 04 00

SUPERVISORS' UNIT 10 32 00

SUP P L E M E N T A L BRIEFS 15 24 00

- T -

T A L L Y OF BALLOTS 25 08 08

TELE T Y P I S T S 20 20 00

T E M P O R A R Y EMPS 20 04 16

T E R M I N A L DATE OF A G REEMENT 10 24 12

T E S T I M O N Y See; EVIDENCE

T I E VOTE ELECT I O N 25 16 00

TIMEL I N E S S

A l l e g a t i o n of ULP Complaint 

Defici e n c y 30 08 00

180 6-30-75
t i m e l i n e s s (cont.)

C o m p l a i n t

Standards of Con d u c t 

U L P

C o r r e c t i o n of T r a n s c r i p t 

I n t e r v e n t i o n

M o t i o n to D i s m i s s U L P C o m p l a i n t 

N e w E v i d e n c e in R e q u e s t for R e v i e w 

Obje c t i o n s to R e p E l e c t i o n 

P e t i t i o n

S h o wing of Interest 

W i t h d r a w a l 

TRADE U N I O N 

TRANSCRIPT

TRANSITIONAL PROBLEMS

20 24 04; 10 12 00 

30 04 00; 30 08 00 

30 08 00 

25 08 08 

10 24 00

20 24 08; 10 12 00 

20 24 12 

See: LAB ORG 

See: H E A R I N G 

05 32 00

55 08 08

30 08 00

15 24 00

- U -

UNDERMINING R E P R E S E N T A T I V E 

UNFAIR L A B O R P R ACTICES

35 28 00

30 00 00 to 45 00 00;

See Also Specific T o pics 

Such As: COMPLAINT, ULP; 

EVIDENCE; HEARINGS; 

OBJECTIONS T O ELECTIONS

Ag e n c y

A c c e s s to A g e n c y Facilities 

by N o n - I n t e r v e n o r

Direct i v e s

U L P

35 08 12 

35 04 04 

35 00 00

6-30-75 181
U N F A I R L A B O R PRACTICES (cont.) 

A g r e e m e n t

Ex t e n s i o n 

N e g o t i a t i o n 

R e f u s a l to Sign 

Am e n d m e n t of Com p l a i n t 

A n t i - U n i o n Literature 

^ p r o p r i a t e Unit 

A r b i t r a t i o n 

A w a r d

Ca n c e l l a t i o n

Effect of 

A s s i s t a n t to Uni o n 

A u t h o r i t y of Negoti a t o r 

B a r gaining Request 

Burd e n of Proof

B y -Passing Exclusive Representative

Ce a s e and Desist Orders

Charge

Che c k o f f R e v o c a t i o n 

CSC Guidance

Co m p lainant's Obligations 

Com p l a i n t

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; C O MPLAINT

35 08 04

35 08 04

35 28 00

182 6-30-75
u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e s (cont.)

C o m p l i a n c e 45 00 00

C o u n t e r p r o p o s a l s 35 28 00

C r e d i b i l i t y R e solutions by HE ( A U ) 30 16 00

CSC G u i d a n c e 35 04 04

D i l a t o r y Negoti a t i o n s 35 28 00

D i s c r i m i n a t o r y Treatment 35 08 04

D i s m i s s a l of Complaint 30 08 00

D i s p a r a t e T r e a t m e n t 35 08 04

D i s t r i b u t i o n of Literature 35 08 08

D ues Allo t m e n t s Revocation 35 24 00; 35 28 00

45 16 00

E f f e c t of O ther Proceedings 05 20 00; 30 28 00

E m e r g e n c y A c t i o n 35 28 00

E m p l o y e e Status, Effect on ULP 30 24 00

E v i dence See: E V I D E N C E

G o o d F a i t h Negotiations 35 28 00

G r i e v a n c e 35 28 00

G r i e v a n c e or ^ p e a l s Procedure 35 32 00

Grievance, Unilateral Adjustment 35 08 04; 35 28 00

" G r o u n d Rule s " in Negotiations 35 28 00

H E (ALJ) Report, No Exceptions 30 16 00

H e a rings 30 12 00; See Also

HEARINGS

Interference

Agency 35 08 00

6-30-75 183
U n i o n

I nte r p r e t a t i o n of A g reement 

Invest i g a t i o n and Report 

L a b Org U LP

L i m i t e d to C o m p l a i n t Allegations

"Make Whole" Order

M o o tness

Motions

Ne g o t i a b i l i t y

Negotiations

G ro u n d Rules

Side Agreements

N o - D i s t r i b u t i o n Rule

N o - S o l i c i t a t i o n Rule

Non-Access to W o r k Areas

N o n w o r k Area Cam p a i g n i n g

N o n w o r k Time Cam p a i g n i n g

N o t i f i c a t i o n of Compliance

Ob l i g a t i o n to Consult, Confer 

or Negotiate

P o s t - Hearing Procedure

Procedure

Hea r i n g

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (cont.)

Interference (cont.)

40 08 00 

30 28 00 

30 08 00 

40 00 00 

30 12 00 

35 20 00

30 28 00; 35 20 00

30 12 00

35 28 00

35 28 00

35 28 00

35 28 00

35 08 08

35 08 12

35 08 04

35 08 08; 35 08 12 

35 08 08; 35 08 12 

45 00 00; 50 00 00

35 28 00 

30 16 00

30 16 00; 30 20 00; 

30 12 00

184 6-30-75
u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e s (cont,)

Proce d u r e (cont.)

I nvestigation

R ecognition, F a i l u r e to Accord

R e f u s a l to Confer, Consult, 

N e g o t i a t e

A g e n c y

U n i o n

R e f u s a l to Sign A g r e e m e n t

R e l a t e d P r o c e e d i n g s

R e m e d i a l O rders

R e p o r t of I n v e s t i g a t i o n

R e q u e s t for B a r g a i n i n g

R e q u i s i t e s for C h arges and 

C o m p l a i n t s

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Acts of ' 

I ndividual

R e v o c a t i o n of C h e ckoff

Sections of EO

So l i c i t a t i o n for M e m b e r s h i p

S t i p u l a t e d R e c o r d

Strike

"S u c c e s s o r s h i p " Doctrine

T e r m i n a t i n g Agr e e m e n t

U n d e r m i n i n g Exc l u s i v e 

R e p r e s e n t a t i v e

30 08 00

35 08 04; 35 28 00

35 28 00 

40 28 00 

35 28 00

05 20 00; 30 28 00 

45 00 00; 50 00 00 

30 08 00 

35 28 00

30 04 00

35 08 08

35 24 00; 35 28 00;

45 04 00

See: EO 11491, A N D AS 

AMEN D E D

35 08 12

30 08 00

40 20 00

35 24 00

35 28 00

35 28 00

6-30-75 185
U N F A I R L A B O R PRACTICES (cont.) 

U n i l a t e r a l A c t i o n 

U n i o n ULP

Uni t App r o p r i a t e n e s s 

W a i v e r of EO R ights 

W o r k Stoppage 

U N I L A T E R A L A C T I O N 

U N I O N 

U N I T

40 00 00

35 28 00

35 04 08

40 20 00

35 28 00

S e e : LAB ORG

See: A P P R O P R I A T E UNIT

35 08 04; 35 28 00

- V-Z -

V A L I D I T Y OF S H OWING OF INTEREST 10 16 00

V O T E R 20 16 12

Eligibility- 20 20 0 0 ;

Intent 25 12 08

P rof Emps 25 04 04

S elf-D e t e r m i n a t i o n 25 04 08

V O T I N G GROUPS 25 04 00

W A I V E R OF

A g r e ement Bar Rule 10 24 12

Challenge to Intervention 25 08 08

EO Rights 35 04 08

Exclusive R e c o g n i t i o n 10 28 00

W I T H i m A W A L O P P ORTUNITY 20 16 12

186

6-30-75
W I T N E S S E S 15 12 00

I M S A P e r s 05 12 04

O b l i g a t i o n s of Parties 15 20 0 0 ; 30 08 00

35 08 04; 35 28 00

O f f i c i a l Time 05 08 0 0 ; 35 08 04

R e q u e s t for A p p e a r a n c e 15 20 0 0 ; 35 08 04

T e s t i m o n y 15 20 00

WORK A R E A C A M P A I G N I N G 35 08 08; 35 08 12

WORK S T O PPAGE 40 24 00

6-30-75 187

☆ U.S. g o v e r n m e n t p r i n t i n g OFFICE: 1975 O - 210-882 (50)