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, 1978

through December 31,1978

Federal Labor Relations Authority

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 1,1978

through December 31,1978

Federal Labor Relations Authority

This edition covers the period of July 1, 1978 - December 31, 1978.

It supplements five editions of the Digest and Index covering

the period of January 1, 1970 - June 30, 1978.

This edition contains a Table of Contents and

Tables of Decisions and Reports on Rulings, each covering

the period of July 1, 1978 - December 31, 1978.

1978

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

Washington, D.C. 20402

Stock No. 063-000-00002-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE .................................................................. xi

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

DIGEST

05 00 00 GENERAL PROVISIONS ......................................... 1

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

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

05 12 00 Evidence .......................................... 1

05 12 04 Request for LMSA Documents

and LMSA Personnel at Hearings ..... ^

05 12 08 Admissibility at Hearings .......... 1

05 16 00 Advisory Opinions ............................... 1

05 20 00 Concurrent Related Cases ....................... 1

05 24 00 Role of NLRB Decisions .......................... 1

05 28 00 Service ........................................... 1

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

05 36 00 Official Time .................................... ..1

iO 00 00 REPRESENTATION CASES; PRELIMINARY STAGES ............... ..3

10 04 00 Types of Petitions: Procedure ................ ..3

10 04 04 Representation, Filed by Labor

Organization (RO) ......................3

10 04 08 Agency Doubt as to Representative

Status (RA) .............................3

10 04 12 Decertification of Representative,

Filed by Employee(s) (DR) ......... .. 3

10 04 16 Clarification of Unit (CU) ......... .. 3

10 04 20 Amendment of Recognition or

Certification (AC) ..................... 3

10 04 24 National Consultation Rights ....... .. 3

10 04 28 Consolidation of Units .............. .. 3

10 08 00 Posting of Notice of P e t i t i o n ................. ..4

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

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

10 20 00 Labor Organization Status ...................... ..4

10 24 00 Timeliness of Petition ............................4

10 24 04 Election Bar ............................4

10 24 08 Certification Bar ......................4

10 24 12 Agreement Bar ........................ ..4

iii
REPRESENTATION CASES; PRELIMINARY STAGES (Cont'd)

10 28 00 Status of Petitioner ...................

10 32 00 Qualifications to Represent Specified

Categories of Einployees...............

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

10 40 00 Area Administrator's Action ...........

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

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

4

5 

5

00 00 REPRESENTATION HEARING PROCEDURE

15 04 00 Role of Hearing Officer 

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

15 12 00

15 16 00

15 20 00

15 24 00

15 28 00

15 32 00

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

15 08 08 Amendment of Petition

Evidence and Burden of Proof .....

Unfair Labor Practice Allegations

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

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

Remand ..............................

M a j o r P o l i c y I s s u e ................

00 00 REPRESENTATION UNIT DETERMINATIONS

8

8

8

8

20 04 00 Criteria

20 08 00

20 12 00

20 04 04

20 04 08

20 04 12

20 04 16

20 04 20

Geograph:

20 08 04

20 08 08

20 08 12

20 08 16

Organizal

20 12 04

20 12 08

20 12 12

20 12 16

20 12 20

20 12 24

20 12 28

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

Effective Dealings .............

Efficiency of O p e r a t i o n s .......

Agency Regulations and Parties' 

Stipulations Not Binding on

Assistant Secretary .............

Previous Certification .........

World-Wide , 

Nation-wide 

State-wide . 

City-wide ..

Agency-wide .....

Activity-wide .... 

Directorate-wide .

Command-wide ....

Headquarters-wide

Field-wide .......

Region-wide ......

9

9

9

9

9

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

11

11

11

11

11

IV
20 00 00 REPRESENTATION UNIT DETERMINATIONS ( C o n t M )

fage

20 12 00 Organizational Scope (Cont'd)

20 12 32 Division-wide ....................... .... U

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

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

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

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

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

20 12 56 M u l t i - I n s t a l l a t i o n ...................... 12

20 12 60 Single Installation ................ .... 12

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

20 16 00 Special Situations ............................. .... 13

20 16 04 Severance ............................ .... 13

20 16 08 Accretion ............................ .... 13

20 16 12 E l i g i b i l i t y .............................. 14

20 16 16 Residual Employees ................. .... 1^

20 16 20 S e l f - D e t e r m i n a t i o n................. .... 15

20 16 24 Supervisory Unit ........................ 15

20 16 28 Reorganization ...................... .... 15

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

20 16 36 Successorship ....................... .... 17

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications ......... 17

20 24 00 Post-Decisional Intervention, Showing of

Interest and Withdrawal ....................... .... 20

20 24 04 Posting of Notice of Unit

D e t e r m i n a t i o n ....................... .... 20

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

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

25 00 00 REPRESENTATION ELECTION AND POST ELECTION STAGES .......... 21

25 04 00 Voting Procedure .............................. .... 21

25 04 04 Professionals ....................... .... 21

25 04 08 S e l f - D e t e r m i n a t i o n................. .... 21

25 04 12 Role of Observers ....................... 21

25 04 16 Severance ............................ .... 21

25 08 00 Objections ...................................... .... 21

25 08 04 Under EO 10988 ...................... .... 21

25 08 08 Procedure ............................ .... 22

25 08 12 Timing of Objectionable Conduct ... 22

25 08 16 Agency Rules on Campaigning ....... .... 22

25 08 20 Campaign Communications ................ 22

25 08 24 Promises of Benefit ................ .... 22

25 08 28 Conduct of Election ................ .... 22

25 08 32 Agency N e u t r a l i t y .................. .....22
25 12 00 Challenges .......................................... 22

25 12 04 Eligibility of Employees .............. 22

25 12 08 Questions Concerning Ballot .......... 23

25 12 12 Timing of Challenge ................... 23

25 16 00 Certification ....................................... 23

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit ............................. 23

25 24 00 Amendment of Recognition or Certification ...... 23

30 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; PROCEDURE .......................... 23

30 04 00 Requisites for Charges and Complaints .......... 25

30 08 00 Complaint Proceedings: Investigation Stage .... 25

30 08 04 Blocking Complaints .................... 25

30 12 00 Hearing .............................................. 25

30 12 04 Rulings of ALJs ........................ .....25

30 12 08 Untimely Amendments to Complaints ... 26

30 12 12 Failure to Appear ...........................26

30 12 16 Prejudicial Evidence .................. .....26

30 12 20 Technical Deficiencies .....................27

30 12 24 Evidence and Burden of P r o o f ..............27

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

30 16 00 Post-Hearing ...................................... 2c

30 20 00 Stipulated Record .................................. 28

30 24 00 Employee Status: Effect on Unfair Labor

Practices ........................................... 29

30 28 00 Effect of Other Proceedings or Forums ......... 29

30 32 00 Major Policy Issue Raised ....................... 29

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

35 04 00 General ............................................ 2x

35 04 04 Guidance or Directives of Civil

Service Commission or Agency ........ 31

35 04 08 Waiver of Rights Granted by

Executive Order .......................

35 04 12 Management Rights ..................... 3 j^

35 04 16 National Consultation R i g h t s ........ 32

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) .................................. 32

35 08 04 Interference ........................... 32

35 08 08 Distribution of Literature .......... 3g

35 08 12 Solicitation ........................... 36

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) ................................. 37

35 16 00 Section 19(a)(3) ................................. 40

25 00 00 REPRESENTATION ELECTION AMD POST ELECTION STAGES

(Cont’d )

P a g e

vi
35 20 00 Section 19(a)(4) .................................. ... 41

35 24 00 Section 19(a)(5) ...................................... 41

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) .................................. ... 41

35 28 04 Response to Bargaining R e q u e s t ...... .... 41

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer

Generally ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4Z

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on

Impact or Procedures ..................... 44

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal D iscussion Representation ............... ... 49

35 28 20 Uncompromising Attitude .............. ... 5I

35 28 24 Dilatory and Evasive Tactics ........ ... 51

35 28 28. Unilateral Changes in Terms

and Conditions of Employment ........ ... 5]^

35 28 32 Bypassing Exclusive Representative ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 56

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information ...... ... 57

35 28 40 Failure to Meet Obligation Under

National Consultations Rights ...... ... 58

35 32 00 Section 19(d) ..................................... ... 59

40 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: LABOR ORGANIZATION .............. ... 61

40 04 00 General ........................................... ... 61

40 08 00 Section 19(b)(1) .................................. ... 61

40 12 00 Section 19(b)(2) .................................. ... 61

40 16 00 Section 19(b)(3) .................................. ... 61

40 20 00 Section 19(b)(4) .................................. ... 61

40 24 00 Section 19(b)(5) .................................. ... 61

40 28 00 Section 19(b)(6) .................................. ... 61

40 32 00 Section 19(c) ............... ......................... 61

45 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES: UNFAIR LABOR

PRACTICES ......................................................... 63

45 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of Remedies .... 63

45 08 00 Advice of Compliance ............................. ... 63

45 10 00 Modifications to Orders .......................... ... 63

45 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations

and Orders 63

45 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct ...................... 63

45 16 04 Interference, Solicitation or

Distribution of Literature .............. 63

45 16 08 Discrimination ............................ 64

45 16 12 Assisting a Labor Organization ........ 64

45 16 16 Refusal to Accord Appropriate

Recognition ............................ ... 64

35 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: AGENCY (Cont'd)

Page

V I1
i 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES; UNFAIR LABOR

PRACTICES (Cont'd) Page

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

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or

Negotiate .................... . 64

45 16 24 Failure to Cooperate .................. 68

45 20 00 Jurisdictional Questions ......................... 68

I 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS;

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ....................................... 69

50 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of Remedies .... 69

50 08 00 Advice of Compliance .............................. 69

50 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations

and Orders ....................................

50 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct ................... 69

50 16 04 Interference ........................... 69

50 16 08 Harassment of Employee in Performance of Duties .................... 69

50 16 12 Inducing Management to Coerce an

Employee 69

50 16 16 Strike Activity ...................... 69

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

50 16 24 Failure to Consult, Confer or 

Negotiate

50 16 28 Denial of M e m b e r s h i p ................... 69

00 00 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ........................................ 69

55 04 00 Effect on Representation and Unfair Labor

Practice Cases .................................... 69

55 08 00 Procedure .................................... . 69

55 08 04 Jurisdiction ........................... 69

55 08 08 Bill of Rights ....................... 69

55 08 12 Elections ............................. 69

55 12 00 Bill of Rights .................................... S9

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

55 12 08 Freedom of Speech .................... 69

55 12 12 Dues, Initiation Fees and

Assessments ............................ 69

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

55 12 20 Safeguards against Improper

Disciplinary Action- ................. gg

viii
55 16 00 Failure to File Financial Reports ................... ........ 69

55 16 04 General .................................... ........ 69

55 16 08 Procedure .................................... ........ 69

55 16 12 Remedial Orders ............................. ........ 69

60 00 00 G R I E V ABILITY A N D ARBITR A B I L I T Y ............................... 69

60 04 00 General ...................................... ........ 69

60 08 00 13(a) ................................................. 69

60 12 00 13(b) ................................................. 69

60 16 00 13(d) ................................................. 69

TABLE OF DECISIONS - A L P H A B E T I C A L L I S T I N G ..................... ........ 71

TABLE OF DECISIONS - NUMERICAL LISTING, DATES

OF ISSUANCE A N D SECTIONS OF DIGEST INVOLVED ................... ........ 81

INDEX ......................................................................... 95

55 00 00 STANDARDS OF C O N DUCT ( C o n t ' d ) Page

IX

PREFACE

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

of all published decisions of the A s s i stant Secretary of L abor for 

Labo r - M a n a g e m e n t Relat i o n s (A/S) pursuant to Execu t i v e Order 11491, as 

amended, from J u l y 1, 1978 to D e c e m b e r 31, 1978. P u b l ished decisions 

from J a n u a r y 1, 1970 to June 30, 1978, are digested and indexed in 

five p r e viously published editions.

The Digest section summarizes significant decisional m aterial and is 

arranged in a functional classifi c a t i o n under m a j o r headings and s ubheadings, listed in the Table of Contents. It covers: (1) decisions 

after formal h e aring or stipulated record; (2) Reports on Rulings of 

the A/s on requests for r e v i e w of field-level actions (no Reports on 

Rulings of A s s i s t a n t Secretary were issued during this period); and (3) those 

rulings of the Federal Labor Relations Council which remanded cases 

to the A/S or m o d i f i e d his decisions.

Th e full text of A/S decisions ^re published in bound volumes entitled 

"Decisions and Reports on Rulings of the Assistant Secretary of Labor 

for Labor-Man a g e m e n t Relations pursuant to Executive Order 11491, as 

amended." E f f e ctive J a nuary 1, 1979, the functions of the A/S were 

transferred to the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Past decisions 

of the A/S m a y n o w be read at any Regional Office of the Federal Labor 

Relations Authority.

The SDI is intended as a guide to material contained 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 

DX

EO

FLRC 

FLRC No. 

GS 

HE

HO

Area Administrator, Labor-Management Services 

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor 

(formerly Area Director, Labor-Management 

Services Administration)

Amendment of Recognition or Certification 

Petition

Area Director, Labor-Management Services 

Administration; now referred to as Area Administrator, 

Labor-Management Services Administration

Administrative Law Judge (formerly Hearing Examiner)

Area Office, Labor-Management Services Administration

Assistant Regional Director for Labor-Management 

Services; now referred to as Regional Administrator, 

Labor-Management Services Administration

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management 

Relations

Assistant Secretary for Labor-Management Relations 

Decision Number

Clarification of Unit Petition

Digest and Index of Published Decisions of the 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management 

Relations

Executive Order 10988 where indicated; otherwise 

references are to Executive Order 11491 in cases 

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

11491, as amended, subsequent thereto

Federal Labor Relations Council

Federal Labor Relations Council Decision Number

General Schedule

Hearing Examiner (Title changed to Administrative 

Law Judge)

Hearing Officer

Xlll
LMSA

LMWP

NE

OFLMR

R A

R A Petition 

R A/S No. 

Regs 

SDI

Sec,

UC

ULP

WB

Labor-Management Services Administration

Office of Labor-Management and Welfare-Pension 

Reports

No entry for period covered

Office of Federal Labor-Management Relations, 

Labor-Management Services Administration

Regional Administrator, Labor-Management 

Services Administration (formerly 

Assistant Regional Director for LaborManagement Services)

Agency Doubt as to Representative's Status 

Petition

Report on Ruling of the Assistant Secretary 

Number

Regulations of the Assistant Secretary of 

Labor for Labor-Management Relations

Supplemental Digest and Index of Published 

Decisions of the Assistant Secretary of 

Labor for Labor-Management Relations

Section

Unit Consolidation Petition 

Unfair Labor Practice 

Wage Board

xiv
05 00 00 G E NERAL P ROVISIONS

05 04 00 D efinitions (Alphabetically Listed)

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

Classifications")

No Entries

05 08 00 Coverage of E x e c u t i v e Order

No Entries

05 12 00 Evidence

No Entries

05 12 04 Request for L M S A Documents and L M S A Personnel at Hearings 

No Entries 

05 12 08 A d m i s s i b i l i t y at Hearings 

No Entries 

05 16 00 A d v i s o r y Opinions 

N o Entries 

05 20 00 Concurrent Related Cases 

No Entries 

05 24 00 Role of NLRB Decisions 

No Entries 

05 28 00 Service

No Entries 

05 32 00 Transitional Problems 

No Entries 

05 36 00 Official Time 

No Entries

10 00 00 REP R E S E N T A T I O N CASES: P R E L I M I N A R Y STAGES

10 04 00 Types of Petitions: P r o c edure (for substantive matters 

on petitions see: 20 00 0 0 . " R e p r e s e n t a t i o n Unit 

Determination"; 25 20 0 0 , "Certifi c a t i o n of Unit"; and 

25 24 0 0 , "Amendment of R e c o g n i t i o n or Certification")

10 04 04 Representation, Filed by Labor O r g a n i z a t i o n ( R O )

No Entries

10 04 08 A g e n c y Doubt as to R e p r esentative's Status ( R A )

(See also 20 16 00 "Special Situations")

No Entries

10 04 12 D e c e r t i f i c a t i o n of Representative, F iled by Employee(s)

(DR) (See also 20 16 00 "Special Situations")

N o Entries

10 04 16 C l a rification of Unit (CU)

(See also 20 16 00 "Special Situations")

A/s dismissed CU aspect of petition involved in the 

proceeding where insufficient evidence was found to support 

the p roposed accretion of the employees of two 

organizational entities of the Coast Guard to the 

existing unit of Coast Guard Headquarters employees 

w h e r e the disputed employees h a d not been affected by a 

r e o r g a nization and the record reflected that their 

organizational entities were in existence at the time 

of the Headquarter's unit certification in an election 

in which they wer e not included. (U.S. Coast Guard 

Headquarters, A / S L M R No. 1164)

10 04 20 A m e n dment of R ecognition or Certification (AC)

(See also 20 16 00 "Special Situations")

N o Entries

10 04 24 N ational Consultation Rights

N o Entries

10 04 28 Consolidation of Units ( UC)

(See also 20 16 00 "Special Situations")

N o Entries

298-678 0 79-2
10 08 00 P o sting of Noti c e of P e t i t i o n

(See 20 24 00 for P o s t - D e c i s i o n a l Items)

N o Entries

10 12 00 Interv e n t i o n

(See 20 24 00 for P o s t - D e c i s i o n a l Items)

N o Entries

10 16 00 Showing of Interest

(See 20 24 00 for P o s t - D e c i s i o n a l Items)

N o Entries

10 20 00 Labor O r g a n i z a t i o n Status

N o Entries

10 24 00 Timeliness of P e t i t i o n

10 24 04 Ele c t i o n B a r

N o Entries

10 24 08 Certification B a r

N o Entries

10 24 12 Agreement Bar

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

A/S found that the parties' n e g o t i a t e d agreement became 

one of indefinite d uration after F e b r u a r y 8, 1977, and 

thus could not serve as a bar to a petition. A/S concluded 

that w hen the parties commenced negotiations immediately 

prior to and following the a nniversary date of the 

agreement, it became u n c lear as to w h e t h e r the parties 

intended to m e r e l y m o d i f y the existing agreement 

terminate the existing agreement and negotiate a n ew 

agreement w ith a different term, or continue the old 

agreement indefinitely pending c o m pletion of negotiations. 

(VA Hospital, Canandaigua, N . Y . , A / S L M R No. 1077)

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

N o Entries

10 32 00 Qualifications to Represent Specified Categories of 

Employees

N o Entries
10 36 00 Request for Rev i e w Rights 

N o Entries

10 40 00 A r e a Admin i s t r a t o r ' s A c t i o n (Area D i r e c t o r )

N o Entries

10 44 00 Defunctness

(See also: 10 24 1 2 , "Agreement Bar")

No Entries

10 48 00 B locking Complaints

No Entries

15 00 00 R E P R E S E N T A T I O N H E A R I N G P R OCEDURE

15 04 00 Role of H e a r i n g Officer

N o Entries

15 08 00 Motions

N o Entries

15 08 04 General

A/S found it u n n e c e s s a r y to pass upon m o t i o n to dismiss 

RA peti t i o n on basis that it h a d been filed by w r ong 

party in v i e w of A/S ultimate dismissal of R A petition 

on other grounds. (Dept, of Energy, A / S L M R No. 1136)

15 08 08 Amendment of P e t ition

At the hearing, parties stipulated that an employee is 

engaged in Federal personnel w o r k in other than a purely 

clerical capacity and, therefore, should be excluded 

from the unit. In the context of a unit clarification 

petition, such a stipulation is v i e w e d as a m o t i o n to 

amend the petition in order to delete and, in effect, 

w i t h d r a w the p etition as to the stipulated job 

classification. (Army Reserve, 166 th Support Group,

Fort Buchanan, P . R . , A / S L M R No. 1171)

15 12 00 Evidence and Burden of Proof

The parties hav i n g stipulated fit the h e aring that no temporary 

employees are presently employed by the Activity. A/S found 

that it w o u l d not effectuate the purposes and policies of 

the Order to clarify a unit in the absence of facts relating 

to actual employees. Accordingly, the petition, insofar as it 

sought to clarify the unit status of temporary employees, 

was dismissed. (Army Reserve, 166th Support Group, Fort 

Buchanan, P.R., A / S L M R No. 1171)

In v i e w of the lack of sufficient evidence to mak e a 

determination regarding the supervisory status of two disputed 

employees, the A/S mad e no finding in this regard as to 

their unit eligibility. (Army Reserve, 166th Support Group, 

Fort, Buchanan, P . R . , A / S L M R No. 1171)

15 16 00 Unfair Labor Practice Allegations

N o Entries
15 20 00 Obl i g a t i o n of Parties 

No Entries 

15 24 00 P o s t - H e a r i n g Submissions 

No Entries 

15 28 00 R e m a n d

N o Entries 

15 32 00 M a i o r P o l i c y Issue 

N o Entries
20 00 00 R E P R E S E N T A T I O N UNIT DETERM I N A T I O N S

20 04 00 Criteria

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

A/S r e a ffirmed finding in A / S L M R No. 697 that claimed 

employees share a clear and identifiable community of 

interest. (Dept, of State, Passport Off., Chicago P a s sport 

Agency, A / S L M R No. 1108)

20 04 08 E f f e ctive Dealings

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

The absence of a s u c c essfully n e g o t i a t e d agreement, where 

there has bee n a long bar g a i n i n g history, is not, by 

itself, sufficient basis to conclude that a unit'has 

failed to promote effective dealings. (FAA, Atlanta 

Airway Facilities Sector, A / S L M R No. 1086)

After considering evidence developed, as a result of a 

remand by the FLRC for clarification in light of the 

principles enunciated by the FLRC in the D C A S R decision,

A/s found that proposed unit w o u l d promote effective 

dealings. (Dept, of State, Passport Off., Chicago Passport 

Agency, A / S L M R No. 1108)

20 04 12 E f f i c i e n c y of Operations

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

A fter considering evidence developed, as a result of a 

remand by the FLRC for clarification in light of the 

principles enunciated by the FLRC in the D C A S R decision,

A/S found that proposed unit would promote efficiency of 

agency operations. (Dept, of State, Passport Off.,

Chicago Passport Agency, A / S L M R No. 1108)

20 04 16 Agency Regulations and Parties' Stipulations Not Binding 

on Assistant Secretary

(See also: 25 12 04, "Challenges, Eligib i l i t y of Employees", 

for Stipulations of Parties R e lated to Challenges.)

N o Entries

20 04 2 0 Previous Certification

A/S found previously certified unit continued to constitute 

an appropriate unit where record did not contain any 

n ewly discovered or p r eviously unavailable facts or 

changed circumstances since the recertification of the 

exclusive representative. (FAA, Atlanta Airway Facilities 

Sector, A / S L M R No. 1086)
No Entries

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

N o Entries

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

A/s stated that although a n a t i o n w i d e unit w o u l d result 

in reduced fragmentation, such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n b ased on 

reduced fragmentation alone w o u l d be inappropriate.

(Dept, of State, P a s s p o r t Off., C h i c a g o Pas s p o r t Agency, 

A / S L M R No. 1108)

Following r e o r g a n i z a t i o n w h i c h e s t a b l i s h e d n e w agency,

A/S found that nation - w i d e unit of employees continues 

to remain appropriate as one o r g a n i z a t i o n a l element 

within n e w agency was found to be a "successor" employer 

to employees in p r e v i o u s l y rec o g n i z e d unit. (Dept, 

of Energy, A / S L M R No. 1136)

N ation-wide unit of employees no longer found appropriate 

following reor g a n i z a t i o n w h i c h created a n e w organizational 

entity. (Dept, of Energy, A / S L M R No. 1136)

20 08 12 State-wide

N o Entries

20 08 16 City-wide

Claimed unit of professional and n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l employees, 

consisting of all the agency's e ligible employees, all 

of w h o m are e mployed in Washington, D.C., found appropriate. 

(Fed. Elec t i o n Comm'n, A / S L M R No. 1076)

20 12 00 O r ganizational Scope

20 12 04 A g e n cy-wide

Claimed unit of p r o f e ssional and n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l employees, 

consisting of all the agency's e ligible employees, found 

approprite. (Fed. E l e c t i o n Comm'n, A / S L M R No. 1076)

20 12 08 A ctivity-wide

Activi t y - w i d e unit of all Chicago Passport A g e n c y Employees 

found appropriate. (Dept, of State, Passport Off.,

Chicago P assport Agency, A/S L M R No. 1108)

20 08 00 Geo g r a p h i c Scope

10
20 12 12 D i r e c t o r a t e - w i d e 

No Entries 

20 12 16 Command-wide 

N o Entries 

20 12 20 Headquar t e r s - w i d e

Following reo r g a n i z a t i o n w h i c h created n e w organizational 

entity, A/S found H e a d q u a r t e r s - w i d e unit of employees 

appropriate. (Dept, of Energy, A / S L M R No. 1136)

A/S dismissed aspect of peti t i o n at issue where insufficient 

evidence was found to support p roposed accretion sought by 

exclusive representative of h e a d quarters unit of the 

employees of two small organizational entities of Coast 

Guard located in Washington, D . C . , where there h a d been no 

reorganization affecting disputed employees and employees' 

organizational entities were in existence at time of 

Headquarters unit certification. (U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 

A / S L M R No. 1164)

20 12 24 Field-wide

Field-wide portion of n ation-wide unit found no longer 

appropriate following agency reorganization. (Dept, of 

Energy, A / S L M R No. 1136)

20 12 28 Region-wide

A/S n o t e d that petition e d - f o r activity-wide unit is part 

of the only organizational level in the Passport Off. b e l o w 

the Nat'l Off. level and can be compared to regional offices 

in other agencies. (Dept, of State, Passport Off., Chicago 

Passport Agency, A / S L M R No. 1108)

Region-wide unit of all employees found appropriate where 

employees shared a clear and identifiable community of 

interest and where such unit w o u l d promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of agency operations, particularly 

in v i e w of established bargaining history in the p e t i t i o n e d - 

for unit. (FAA, Air w a y Facilities D i v . , Pacific Asi a Region, 

A/ S L M R No. 1130)

20 12 32 Division-wide

ilOfi No Entries

11
N o Entries

20 12 40 D i s t r i c t - w i d e

No Entries

20 12 44 B r a n ch-wide

N o Entries

20 12 48 Base-wide

N o Entries

20 12 52 Section-wide

No Entries

20 12 56 M u l t i - I n s t a l l a t i o n

No Entries

20 12 60 Single Installation

No Entries

20 12 64 Occupational C l a s sification

Unit of Sign Shop employees found a p propriate where unit 

was a functionally distinct group of employees w h o share 

a community of interest separate and distinct from other 

employees of the A ctivity and w here n o evidence that 

effective dealings and effi c i e n c y of agency operations 

were adversely affected. (GSA, Region 3, A / S L M R No. 1105)

20 12 36 A rea-vide

12
20 16 00 Special Situations 

20 16 04 Severance

A/S found that the p etition in the instant case, in effect, 

constituted an appropriate attempt to sever a unit of 

n o n p r ofessional employees from the existing m i x e d unit of 

supervisory and n o n s u p e r v i s o r y employees. (Dept, of Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Projects Office, Yuma, Ariz., 

A / S L M R No. 1151)

Petition seeking, in effect, the severance of the employees 

of the newly e s tablished DCASPRO, IBM Owego, from the DCASMA, 

Binghamton, unit, repres e n t e d exclus i v e l y b y the NAGE denied 

where reo r g a n i z a t i o n did not result in any change in the 

day-to-day terms and conditions of employment of the employees 

involved, including their physical location, job function, 

and immediate supervision. In addition both DCASMA, 

Binghamton, and the DCASPRO, IBM Owego, continued to report 

to the same organizational command, they continued to be 

serviced b y the same personnel office, they remained in the 

same areas of c o n s ideration for promotions and the same 

competitive area for reduction in force procedures, and they 

had an e s tablished h i s t o r y of collective bargaining. (DCASR, 

Boston, Mass., and DCASMA, Binghamton, N.Y., A / S L M R No. 1166)

20 16 08 Acc r e t i o n

c: i-;

i 50' “

No accretion found and CU petition dismissed where A/S found, 

among other things, that employees in a Sign Shop unit 

continued to share a community of interest separate and 

distinct from that of other employees, and that there was no 

evidence that effective dealings or efficiency of agency 

operations h a d b een adversely affected. (GSA, Region 3, 

A /S L M R No. 1105)

Following reorganization, employees previously employed in 

another agency were found to h ave accreted into a "successor" 

unit existing prior to the reorganization. (Dept, of Energy, 

A / S L M R No. 1136)

A/s concluded that employees of the 924th TAG are wit h i n the 

e xclusively recognized unit r epresented b y the AFGE at 

B ergstrom AFB. He found that when the 924th T A G was transferred on March 31, 1976, from E l l i n g t o n AFB to Bergstrom, 

the employees of the 924th T A G accreted into unit represented 

b y the A F G E and, further, that they continued to remain a 

part of such unit. RO petition deemed u ntimely with respect 

to neg o t i a t e d agreement between B e r g strom and AFGE. (Dept, 

of Air Force, 924th TAG Reserve, Bergs t r o m AFB, Tex.,

A / S L M R No. 1102)

13
20 16 08 A c c r e t i o n (Cont'd)

A/S dismissed aspect of p etition at issue where insufficient 

evidence was found to support a c c r etion sought b y exclusive 

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of H e a d q u a r t e r s unit of the employees of two 

small organiza t i o n a l entities of Coast Guard located in 

Washington, D.C. vdiere the d isputed employees h a d not been 

affected b y any r e o r g a n i z a t i o n and they did not participate 

in the e l e c t i o n in which the H e a d q u a r t e r s unit was certified. 

(U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, A / S L M R No. 1164)

E m p l o y e e s of n e w l y estab l i s h e d Tra i n i n g Institute were 

found not to have a ccreted into existing unit v^ere it was 

noted that the Institute had no organiza t i o n a l relationship 

with HEW, Region VIII, but, instead, was administratively 

under the control of its head q u a r t e r s component in 

Washington, D.C. and that the Institute was physically 

located in Regi o n VIII only b e cause of its geographic 

p roximity to those employees for w h o m it would provide 

training, and not b e c a u s e of any orga n i z a t i o n a l relationship. 

(HEW, Office of the Secretary, A / S L M R No. 1168)

20 16 12 E l i g i b i l t y 

No Entries 

20 16 16 Residual Employees

A/s found a residual unit of all u n r e p r e s e n t e d employees 

appropriate since such a unit met the three criteria of 

Section 10(b) of the E G and would prevent further fragm e n t a t i o n of the Activity. (Naval A i r E n g i n e e r i n g Center, 

Lakehurst, N.J., A / S L M R No. 1104)

A/S found claimed sector-wide unit of all unrepresented, 

n onprofessional employees of A i r w a y F a c i l i t y Sector to be 

appropriate. A/S also n oted that the c l aimed unit also 

constitutes, in effect, a residual region-wide unit of all 

unrepresented n o n p r ofessional employees of the Activity, 

and that such employees share a clear and identifiable 

community of interest and that the unit wil l promote 

effective dealings and e f f i c i e n c y of agency operations. 

(FAA, Oklahoma City A i r w a y F a c ilities Sector, W i l e y Post 

Airport, Bethany, Okla., A / S L M R No. 1132)

14
No Entries

20 16 24 Superv i s o r y Unit

A/S, noting par t i c u l a r l y the h i s t o r y of represen t a t i o n of 

the employees at issue in a m i x e d unit by the incumbent 

Union and coverage of the employees under a succession of 

lawful agreements since the late 1 9 4 0 's, and the fact 

that h i s t o r i c a l l y the incumbent U nion has represented 

jjj similar employees in private industry, found that the

incumbent's unit, containing both supervisory and nonsupervisory employees, continued to be viable pursuant to 

Section 24 of the Order. (Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Y uma Projects Office, Yuma, Ariz., A / S L M R No. 1151)

20 16 28 R e o r g anization

A/S found that as a result of a reorgani z a t i o n which 

disestablished two of three formerly separate commands and 

m e r g e d them into the A c t i v i t y , t h e r e was a material 

alteration in the scope and character of four of the six 

disputed units while no m aterial change occurred in two 

others. (Naval Air E n g i n e e r i n g Center, Lakehurst, N.J., 

A / S L M R No. 1104)

A/S found that, subsequent to a reorganization, a unit of 

Sign Shop employees remained appropriate for purpose of 

exclusive recognition, noting that in the 12 years since 

the functional craft unit was deemed appropriate for the 

purpose of exclusive recognition, including that time since

i ■ 1972-73 reorganization, its overall function and structure

underwent no appreciable change, that its employees 

continued to p e rform the same work under essentially the 

same supervision without any significant degree of 

interchange, transfer or comingling with other employees 

jl-' and that the Sign Shop h a d been in operation in its present

location under the same conditions since the reorganization, 

(GSA, Reg i o n 3, A / S L M R No. 1105)

ii-ji:

!c t e

20 16 20 Self - D e t e r m i n i a t i o n

15
As result of r e o r g a n i z a t i o n and creation of n e w o r g a n i z a ­

tional entity, which combined several formerly independent 

agencies, two existing units — a H Q - w i d e unit and a 

n a t i o n - w i d e unit — were rend e r e d inappropriate. Instead,

A/S found a H Q - w i d e unit of all eligible employees of the 

n e w a g e n c y to be approp r i a t e and so d irected an election. 

(Dept, of Energy, A / S L M R No. 1136)

Fo l l o w i n g r e o r g a n i z a t i o n and cre a t i o n of a n e w agency,

A/s found one org a n i z a t i o n a l element w i t h i n the n e w agency 

to be a "successor" employer to the for m e r l y independent 

age n c y and therefore o b l i g a t e d to accord recogn i t i o n to 

n a t i o n - w i d e unit of employees e x c l u s i v e l y recognized 

therein. (Dept, of Energy, A / S L M R No. 1136)

A/s d i s m i s s e d aspect of p etition at issue v^ere insufficient 

evidence was found to support accretion sought by exclusive 

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of H e a d q u a r t e r s unit of the employees of two 

small org a n i z a t i o n a l entities of Coast Guard located in 

Washi n g t o n , D.C. where the disputed employees h a d not been 

a f f e c t e d b y any r e o r g a n i z a t i o n and they did not participate 

in the e l e c t i o n in v^ich the Hea d q u a r t e r s unit was certified. 

(U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, A / S L M R No. 1164)

Pe t i t i o n seeking, in effect, the severance of the employees 

of the n e w l y e s t a b l i s h e d DCASPRO, IBM Owego, from the DCASMA, 

Binghamton, unit, r e p r e s e n t e d exclus i v e l y by the NAGE denied 

wh e r e r e o r g a n i z a t i o n did not result in any change in the 

day - t o - d a y terms and conditions of employment of the employees 

involved, including their physical location, job function, 

and immediate supervision. In addition both DCASMA, 

Binghamton, and the DCASPRO, IBM Owego, continued to report 

to the same organizational command, they continued to be 

serviced b y the same personnel office, they remained in the 

same areas of consideration for promotions and the same 

competitive area for r e d u c t i o n in force procedures, and they 

h a d an established h i s t o r y of collective bargaining. (DCASR, 

Boston, Mass., and DCASMA, Binghamton, N.Y., A / S L M R No. 1166)

20 16 28 R e o r g a n i z a t i o n (Cont'd)

16
Js;L

A/s found that p roposed c o n s o lidated unit consisting of 

the 13 N A G E units w i t h i n the AAFES was appropriate for the 

purposes of exclusive r e c o g n i t i o n under the Order. A/S 

n o t e d p a r t i c u l a r l y that the unit sought e s s e ntially 

included all n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l employees at the various 

m i l i t a r y exchanges involved and that personnel and labor 

r elations policies were e s t a b l i s h e d and coordinated at 

AAFES Headquarters. He also n o t e d that the parties had 

n e g o t i a t e d agreements covering 11 of the 13 units at the 

individual exchanges and that m a n y of the subjects 

included in such agreements wer e dealt with uniformly.

(Army and A i r Force E xchange Service, Dallas, Tex.,

A / S L M R No. 1163)

Proposed p etition for c o n s olidation of 8 units represented 

by petitioner found appropriate where it was noted that the 

FLRC has construed the A/S's establishment of a presumption 

in favor of c o n s o l i d a t i o n " - - - as a r ecognition and 

affirmation of the strong policy in the Federal laborm a n a g e m e n t relations p r o g r a m of facilitating consolidation

(HEW, SSA, R e g i o n V-B, Chicago, 111., A / S L M R No. 1082)

20 16 32 C o n s o l i d a t i o n of Units

— — — I!

20 16 36 Successorship

Successorship w a s found v^ere the unit in question was t r ansferred substantially intact to the gaining employer; where the 

appropriateness of the unit r emained unimpaired; and where no 

question concerning represen t a t i o n was raised. (Dept, of 

i-;: Energy, A / S L M R No. 1136)

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications

i;:::: Confidential Employees

Budget Analyst, G S - 9 , is not a confidential employee. (U.S. 

A r m y Reserve, 166th Support Group, Fort Buchanan, P.R.,

J A / S L M R No. 1171)

35;.

Conflict of Interest

A tto r n e y responsible for processing P r i v a c y Act requests 

from parties other than exclusive r e presentative is not a 

representative of man a g e m e n t under Section 2(f) the EG, and is 

not excluded from the unit, b e c a u s e any conflict of interest 

with respect to the w ork of this employee was purely 

speculative in nature. (Customs Service, Office of 

Regulations and Rulings, A / S L M R No. 1148)

17
Conflict of Interest (Cont'd)

Attorneys included in unit found a p propriate as there was 

no basis under the E O for their exclusion b a s e d upo n an 

alleged conflict of interest nor evidence they acted as 

m a n a g e m e n t officials. However, to the extent that certain 

attorneys could become involved in the implemen t a t i o n of the 

agency's labor-management r e l a tions program, the A/S found 

such attorneys should not be included in the unit. (Fed. 

E l e c t i o n Comm'n, A / S L M R No. 1076)

Aud i t o r s i ncluded in unit. (Fed. E l e c t i o n Comm'n, A/SLMR 

No. 1076)

D i s closure Ana l y s t s included in unit where A/S found no 

b asis in the c o n tention that there was a potential conflict 

of interest. (Fed. E l e c t i o n Comm'n, A / S L M R No. 1076)

Investigators included in unit. (Fed. E lection Comm'n, 

A / S L M R No. 1076)

R esearch Ana l y s t s included in unit. (Fed. Election Comm'n, 

A / S L M R No. 1076)

Federal Personnel W o r k

Social Insurance Specialists (Field Operations)(Field 

Operations Staff Specialists — FOSS), G S - 1 Q 5 - 1 2 , are 

engaged in non-clerical Federal personnel work and, 

therefore, are excluded from the unit. (HEW, SSA, Region 5, 

A / S L M R No. 1097)

M an a g e m e n t Officials

(See also: 05 04 0 0 , "Definitions")

A t t o r n e y (Customs) responsible for p r o cessing Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) requests-from exclusive representative 

is a representative of management, as such requests constitute 

"matters relating to the implementation of the agency laborm a n agement relations program" as defined in Section 2(f) of 

the EO. (Customs Service, Office of R egulations and Rulings, 

A / S L M R No. 1148)

20 20 00 Empl o y e e Categories and C l a s s i fications (Cont'd)

18
M ana g e m e n t Officials (Cont'd)

Attorneys included in unit found a ppropriate as there 

was no basis under the E O for their exclusion b ased upon 

an alleged conflict of interest nor evidence they acted 

as m a n agement officials. However, to the extent that 

certain attorneys could become involved in the i m p l e m e n ­

tation of the agency's labor-management relations program, 

the A/S found such attorneys should not be included in the 

unit. (Fed. E l e c t i o n Comm'n, A / S L M R Mo. 1076)

Budget Analyst, G S - 9 . is not a m a n a g e m e n t official. (U.S.

Arm y Reserve, 166th Support Group, Fort Buchanan, P.R.,

A / S L M R No. 1171)

Public Information Officer, G S - 9 , is a m a n agement official. 

(U.S. A r m y Reserve, 166th Support Group, Fort Buchanan,

P . R . , A / S L M R No. 1171)

Staff Training Assistants, GS-9 and G S - 1 1 , are not management 

officials. (U.S. A r m y Reserve, 166th Support Group, Fort 

Buchanan, P.R., A / S L M R No. 1171)

Supervisors

Budget Analyst, G S - 9 , is not a supervisor. (U.S. A r m y Reserve 

166th Support Group, Fort Buchanan, P.R., A / S L M R No. 1171)

F o reman I I , is supervisor. (Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Yuma Projects Office, Yuma, Ariz., A / S L M R No. 1151)

Police Officials (Supervisory Hospital), G S - 0 8 3 - 6 , are 

supervisors. (VA Medical Center, Washington, D.C., A / S L M R 

No. 1160)

Social Insurance P r ogram Specialists (Senior Data Operations 

Specialists), G S - 1 0 5 - 1 3 , are not supervisors. (HEW, SSA, 

Region 5, A / S L M R No. 1097)

Social Insurance Operations Specialists (Senior Disabi l i t y 

Program Operations Specialists), G S - 1 0 5 - 1 3 , are supervisors. 

(HEW, SSA, Region 5, A / S L M R No. 1097)

20 20 00 Empl o y e e Categories and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s (Cont'd)

19

298-678 0-79
S upervisors (Cont'd)

Social Insurance P r o g r a m Specialists (Senior Operations 

Specialists), G S - 1 0 5 - 1 3 , are not supervisors. (HEW, SSA, 

R e g i o n 5, A / S L M R No. 1097)

Social Insurance P r o g r a m Specialists (Senior Supplemental 

S ecurity Income P r o g r a m O p erations Specialists), G S - 1 0 5 - 1 3 , 

are supervisors. (HEW, SSA, R e g i o n 5, A / S L M R No. 1097)

Staff A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Assistants, G S - 9 , are supervisors.

(U.S. A r m y Reserve, 166th Support Group, Fort Buchanan, P.R,, 

A / S L M R No. 1171)

Staff T raining Assistants, G S - 9 , are not supervisors. (U.S. 

A r m y Reserve, 166th Support Group, Fort Buchanan, P.R.,

A / S L M R No. 1171)

T e m p o r a r y Employees

Te m p o r a r y employees included in unit as they have a reasonable 

expectancy of continued employment. (Fed. Ele c t i o n Comm'n, 

A / S L M R No. 1076)

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

Withdrawal

20 24 04 Posting of Notice of Unit D e t e r m i n a t i o n

No Entries

20 24 08 Showing of Interest

No Entries

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

As record contained no evidence to indicate w h e t h e r either 

of two unions would be willing to represent unit of employees 

A/S ulti m a t e l y found appropriate, A/S p e r m itted either union 

to w i t h d r a w its name from the ballot. (Dept, of Energy, 

A/S L M R No. 1136)

20 20 00 E m p l o y e e Categories and Classifications (Cont'd)

20
5S,\,

W.:'

25 00 00 R E P R E S E N T A T I O N ELE C T I O N AND POS T E L E C T I O N STAGES

25 04 00 Voting Procedures

25 04 04 P rofessionals

As unit found appropriate included both professional 

and n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l employees, the former were given 

a choice as to w h e t h e r they desired to be represented 

in ai separate p r o f e ssional unit or in a larger unit 

e n c o m passing both categories of employees. (Dept, of 

Energy, A / S L M R No. 1136)

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

N o Entries

25 04 12 Role of O b servers

No Entries

25 04 16 Severance

N o question concerning represen t a t i o n exists wit h respect 

to that portion of the existing m i x e d unit consisting of 

supervisors who wil l continue to be represented exclusively 

: by the incumbent U n i o n regardless of the outcome of the

election. In the event that a m a j o r i t y of those voting in 

the e lection choose the incumbent Union as their r e p r e s e n t a ­

tive the existing m i x e d unit and the representation thereof 

will continue. Conversely, if a m a j o r i t y of the voting 

n o n s u p e r v i s o r y employees choose the petitioner as their 

exclusive representative, such employees will be severed frpm 

the existing m i x e d unit and the petitioner will be certified 

as their exclusive representative. Those n o n s upervisory 

employees eligible shall vote whether they desire to be 

r e presented for the purpose of exclusive recognition by the 

petitioner, the incumbent Union, or neither. (Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Y uma Projects Office, Yuma, Ariz., 

A / S L M R No. 1151)

iitiier* 25 08 00 Objections

25 08 04 Under E O 10988

N o Entries

vE . I!!

21
25 08 08 Procedure 

No Entr i e s

25 08 12 Timing and Oiectionable Conduct

N o Entries

25 08 16 A g e n c y Rules and Campaigning

No Entries

25 08 20 Campaign Communications

No Entries

25 08 24 Promises of Benefit

N o Entries

25 08 28 Conduct of E l e ction

No Entries

25 08 32 Agen c y N e u t r a l i t y

No Entries

25 12 00 Challenges

25 12 04 Eligib i l i t y of Employees

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

This case involved one challenged ballot \diich was sufficient 

to affect the results of a run-off e lection in a non-pro unit 

of the Activity's employees. Contrary to the ALJ, the A/S 

concluded that the employee at issue, a C o m m u n i t y Health

Educator, was a professional employee w i t h i n the meaning of 

the Order. He noted, among other things, that the subject 

employee presents lectures on hea l t h care m a t t e r s to Navajo and 

Hopi Indians, provides instruction and answers questions, receives 

no daily supervision, and, does so b e cause of h e r specialized 

educa t i o n and unique cultural background. In the performance 

of h e r work, she c o n s i stently exercises d i s cretion and 

independent judgement. The A/S ordered that the challenged 

ballot not be opened and counted and that the appropriate 

R A cause a certification to be issued. (HEW, Public Health 

Service, Tuba City, Ariz., A / S L M R No. 1146)

22
25 12 08 Questions Concerning Ballot

No Ent r i e s

25 12 12 Timi n g of Challenge

N o Entries

25 16 00 C e r t i f i c a t i o n

No E n t r i e s

25 20 00 C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Unit

(See also: 10 04 1 6 , "Types of Petitions: Procedures, CU")

A/S o r d ered that the e xisting unit be clarified b a s e d on his 

d eterm i n a t i o n that a senior A t t o r n e y (Customs) i?esponsible for 

p r o cessing F r e e d o m of I nformation Act (FOIA) requests from 

exclusive repr e s e n t a t i v e is a "representative of man a g e m e n t " 

u nder Section 2(f) and that another senior Att o r n e y (Customs) 

responsible for p r o cessing P r i v a c y Act requests from parties 

other than exclusive r e presentative is not a r e presentative of 

management. (U.S. Customs Service, Office of Regulations and 

Rulings, A / S L M R No. 1148)

Unit clarified to reflect that employees of the N a t ' l Archives 

Trust Fun d B o a r d hav e b een and remain within the exc l u s i v e l y 

rec o g n i z e d unit of all professional and n o n professional 

employees of the N a t ' l Archives and Records Service, Washington, 

D.C., M e t r o p o l i t a n Area. (GSA, N a t ' l Archives and Records 

Service, A / S L M R No. 1075)

25 24 00 Amendment of R ecognition of Certification 

No Entries

23

30 00 00 U N F A I R L A B O R PRACTICES; PROC E D U R E

30 04 00 Requisites for Charges and Complaints

A/S found it u n n e c e s s a r y to pass upo n A L J 's apparent finding 

that Resp o n d e n t ' s conduct also constituted an independent 

Section 19(a) (1) v i o l a t i o n since the complaint contained no 

independent Section 19(a)(1) allegation. (SSA, Bureau of Data 

Processing, A l b u q u e r q u e Data Operations Center, Albuquerque, 

N.M., A / S L M R No. 1080)

A/s found that dismissal of the complaint on procedural grounds 

was u n w a r r a n t e d where the IRS N a t '1 Off. did not claim 

surprise or prejudice as a result of its not being named in 

the p r e c o mplaint charge or in the allegation contained therein 

or that at any stage of the proceeding it was not fully aware 

of the allegations against it. (IRS, Milwaukee Dist., A /SLMR 

No. 1133)

A/S adopted the ALJ's conclusion that the Region was properly 

m ade a party, in that it was served with a copy of the original 

complaint which cited its involvement in the alleged violations, 

and it did not object td its inclusion as a party in the matter 

pursuant to the amended complaint, although the Respondent 

Age n c y subsequently objected to the inclusion of the Region 

in the p r o ceeding where the Notice of Hearing included the 

Region as a party and no objection was mad e during the twomonth period b e tween the issuance of the Notice of Hearing 

and the h o l d i n g of the hearing; and where, there was no 

contention that the Region was prejudiced in this matt e r by 

surprise or was otherwise impeded in its preparation of an 

adequate defense. (Customs Service and H o u s t o n Region, A / SLMR 

No. 1135)

30 08 00 Complaint Proceedings: Investigation Stage

30 08 04 B locking Complaints

No Entries

30 12 00 Hea r i n g

30 12 04 Rulings of ALJs

A/s noted that evidence of conduct subsequent to the 

alleged refusal to bargain should have been admitted into 

the record as such evidence could be utilized to demonstrate 

that the alleged refusal had been cured Under the 

circumstances of this case, however, the Respondent was not 

found to h ave been prejudiced by the ALJ's ruling. (EEOC , 

A / S L M R No. 1096)

25
26

30 12 04 Rulings of ALJs (Cont'd)

A/S specifically did not adopt ALJ's finding of Section 19 

(a)(1) violation, where the same all e g a t i o n had b e e n 

rejected by the RA as a Section 19(a)(2) allega t i o n 

and upheld by the A/S on appeal, and, therefore, was not 

before the ALJ. (U.S. Dept, of the Army, Fort Polk, La., 

A / S L M R No. 1100)

A/S found the ALJ's admission of documents submitted posthearing, which involved the parties unsu c c e s s f u l attempts 

to reach a settlement, as improper, n o t i n g that it had 

bee n h eld pre v i o u s l y that it would not foster and afford an 

atmosphere conducive to settlement of ULPs if matters 

connected with settlement d e l iberations were admitted as 

evidence. ALJ's admission was not considered prejudicial 

as such documents w ere not considered. (GSA, N a t '1 

Arc h i v e s and Records Service, A / S L M R No. 1113)

A/S noted that the test w h e t h e r Section 19(a)(2) was violated 

is w h e ther m a n a g e m e n t has disc r i m i n a t o r i l y affected employee 

terms and conditions of emplojnnent based on union considerations. Further, such a v i o l a t i o n will be found in "mixed 

m o t i v e " situations; i.e. where a legitimate basis for the 

m a n a g e m e n t action exists, but where union considerations 

also are shown to have played a part. Accordingly, A/S 

remanded case to ALJ for the purpose of mak i n g the necessary 

c r e d i b i l i t y r e s olution and preparing and submitting to 

A/S a Supplemental Recommended D ecision and Order. (HEW,

SSA, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, Region 2, San Juan, P.R., 

A / S L M R No. 1127)

A/S agreed with ALJ's refusal to allow testimony regarding 

settlement discussions between the parties, as admission 

into evidence of such testimony would be inconsistent with 

the purposes and policies of the EG encouraging settlement 

of ULP's, citing prior case law on this issue. (NLRB and 

its General Counsel and NLRB, Region 29, A / S L M R No. 1143)

30 12 08 U ntimely Amendments to Complaints

No Entries

30 12 12 Failure to Appear

No Entries

30 12 16 Prejudicial Evidence

ALJ's gratuitous disparaging remarks to R e spondent's 

witness held not to be prejudicial to Respondent by A/S. 

However, A/S noted such remarks were uncalled for and 

inappropriate. (Dept, of the Army, Fort Polk, La., A/SLMR

No. 1100)
30 12 16 Preju d i c i a l E v i d e n c e

A/s found the ALJ's admis s i o n of documents submitted p o s t ­

hearing, w h i c h involved the parties unsuccessful attempts 

to reach a settlement, as improper, noti n g that it had 

been h e l d p r e v i o u s l y that it would not foster and afford 

an a t m osphere conducive to settlement of ULPs if matters 

connected w ith settlement d e l iberations were admitted as 

evidence. ALJ's admission was not considered prejudicial 

as such documents were not considered. (GSA, N a t '1 

Arc h i v e s and Records Service, A / S L M R No. 1113)

A/s agreed w ith ALJ's refusal to allow testimony regarding 

settlement discussions between the parties, as admission 

into evidence of such testimony would be inconsistent 

w ith the purposes and policies of the EO encouraging 

settlement of ULP's citing prior case law on this issue.

(NLRB and its General Counsel and NLRB, Region 29,

A / S L M R No. 1143)

30 12 20 Technical D e f iciencies 

No Entries

30 12 24 Evi d e n c e and Burden of Proof

A l t h o u g h the lAM alleged that certain NAR F announcements 

const i t u t e d u n i lateral changes in past practices or 

e xisting conditions of emplojmient, the ALJ made no 

specific findings wit h respect to w h ether the announcements 

c onsti t u t e d changes from existing practices. A/S, however, 

d e t ermined that the evidence was inconclusive and that 

the lAM h a d not sustained its burden of proving such 

u n ilateral changes. (Dept, of Navy, NARF, Alameda, Calif., 

A / S L M R No. 1089)

A/s issued a Dec i s i o n and Remand in A / S L M R No. 1127 

r e m a nding case to ALJ for the purpose of m a k i n g an appropriate 

finding of fact determined to be n e c e s s a r y in reaching 

a r e s olution of the Section 19(a)(2) complaint. In v i e w 

of the ALJ's finding of fact in his Supplemental Recommended 

Dec i s i o n and Order,, the A/S concluded that the evidence 

was insufficient to establish that Respondent's conduct 

was based, in whole or in part, on the union activity of 

the alleged d i s c r i m i n a t e e . (SSA, Bureau of Hearings and 

Appeals, Region II, San Juan, P . R . , A / S L M R No. 1154)

A/S adopted the ALJ's r e commendation that the case be 

d i s m issed in its entirety, as the Complainant, which called 

no w i t n e s s e s and presented only the parties' negotiated 

agreement into evidence, had not sustained its burden of 

proof. (VA Hospital, Butler, Pa., A / S L M R No. 1167)

27
30 12 28 L a c k of Cooperation 

No Entries 

30 16 00 P o s t - H e a r i n g

A/s found the ALJ's a d m i ssion of documents submitted p o s t ­

hearing, w h i c h involved the parties u n s u c c e s s f u l attempts 

to reach a settlement, as improper, n o t i n g that it had 

held p r e v i o u s l y that it w o u l d not foster and afford an 

atmosphere conducive to settlement of ULPs if matters 

co n n ected w i t h settlement delibe r a t i o n s w e r e admitted as 

evidence. ALJ's admission was not c o nsidered prejudicial 

as such documents were not considered. (GSA, N a t '1 Archives 

and Records Service, A / S L M R No. 1113)

A/s n o t e d that the test w h e t h e r Section 19(a)(2) of the EO was 

v i o l a t e d is w h e t h e r m a n a g e m e n t has d i s c riminatorily affected 

employee terms and conditions of employment based on union 

considerations. Further, such a v i o l a t i o n will be found in 

"mixed m o t i v e " situations; i.e. where a legitimate basis 

for the m a n a g e m e n t action exists, but where union considerations also are shown to have played a part. Accordingly,

A/S remanded case to A L J for the purpose of maki n g the 

n e c e s s a r y c r e d i b i l i t y r e solution and preparing and submitting 

to A/S a Supplemental Recommended Decision and Order. (HEW, 

SSA, B u r e a u of H earings and Appeals, Region 2, San Juan, P.R., 

A / S L M R No. 1127)

A/S issued a Dec i s i o n and Remand in A / S L M R No. 1127 

r e m a nding case to ALJ for the purpose of mak i n g an 

appropriate finding of fact determined to be necessary 

in reaching a resolution of the Section 19(a)(2) complaint.

In v i e w of the ALJ's finding of fact in his Supplemental 

R e commended Decision and Order. A/S concluded that the 

evidence was insufficient to establish that Respondent's 

conduct was based, in whole or in part, on the union 

activity of the alleged d i s c r i m i n a t e e . (SSA, Bureau of 

Hearings and Appeals, Region II, San Juan, P . R . , A / S L M R 

No. 1154)

30 20 00 Stipulated Record

Pursuant to Sections 203.5(b), 203.7(a)(4) and 205.5(e) of 

the A/S Regs, RA transferred case, to the A/S for decision 

ba&ed on a stipulated record in an ULP proceeding.

(IRS and Brookhaven Service Center, A / S L M R No. 1092)

28
Pur s u a n t to Section 206.5(a) of the A/S Regs., as the RA 

transferred case to A/S for dec i s i o n based on a stipulated 

record. Prior to this transfer, the R A issued a notice of 

h e a r i n g which inadv e r t e n t l y indicated that, in addition 

to an alleged v i o l a t i o n of Section 19(a)(1) an alleged 

v i o l a t i o n of Section 19 (a)(6) was still o u t s t a n d i n g and 

at issue in this case. However, the Section 19(a)(6) 

al l egation in the amended complaint was based on facts 

unrel a t e d to those stipulated by the parties and was 

dismissed by R A at an earlier stage in proceedings. A/S 

accordingly corrected RA's advertence. (HEW, Office of 

the Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, A / S L M R No. 1145)

Pursuant to Sections 203.5(b), 203.7(a)(4), and 206.5(b) 

of the A/S Regs, RA transferred case to the A/S for 

decision on the stipulations, exhibits and briefs. (NASA, 

Lewis Res e a r c h Center, Cleveland, Ohio, A / S L M R No. 1179)

30 24 00 Employee Status: Effect on Unfair Labor Practices

A/S, n o t i n g par t i c u l a r l y the absence of exceptions, adopted 

the conclusion of the ALJ, that the Respondent did not 

violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the E 0 where the 

man a g e m e n t official involved did not possess the authority 

to bind the Respondent. (FAA, N.Y. Air Route Traffic 

Control Center, A / S L M R No. 1178)

30 28 00 Effect of Other Proceedings or Forums 

No Entries

30 32 00 M a j o r Poli c y Issue Raised 

No Entries

30 20 00 Sti p u l a t e d Record

29

35 00 00 U N F A I R L A B O R PRACTICES; A GENCY 

35 04 00 General

35 04 04 Guidance or Dire c t i v e s of Civil Service C o m mission or A g e n c y 

No Entries

35 04 08 W a i v e r of Rights Granted by E x e c utive Order

N e g o t i a t e d agreement did not constitute a clear and 

u n m i s t a k a b l e w a i v e r of exclusive representative's right 

under the EG to select its own representatives when 

dealing w ith agency management. (FAA, A / S L M R No. 1073)

A/s found that the evidence was insufficient to establish 

that Complainant had wai v e d the right to n e g o tiate with 

respect to impact and implementation of the change of 

p o s t i t i o n and/or c l a s s i fication as it affected employees 

at the GS-6 level and below. (iRS, Kansas City, Ogden, 

Chamblee, Philadelphia, Austin, Covington, Fresno and 

B r o o k h a v e n Service Centers, Detroit Data Center and 

M a r t i n s b u r g N a t '1 Computer Center, A / S L M R No. 1074)

A/s adopted ALJ finding that, in v i e w of the language of 

the parties' n e g o t i a t e d agreement and the h i story of 

b a r g a i n i n g b e t w e e n the parties. Complainant knowingly 

and intentionally waived its right to designate, as its 

Section 10(e) representative, individuals other than those 

specifically enumerated in the negotiated grievance 

procedure. (iRS, N a t '1 Off., Off. of I n t '1 Operations, 

A / S L M R No. 1079)

A L J c o n c luded that the parties' n e g otiated agreement did 

not constitute a clear and unmistakable waiver by the 

Complaint of its right to negotiate pursuant to Section 11 

(a) of the EG. (EEOC, A / S L M R No. 1096)

Complainant did not clearly and u n m i s takably waive its 

right to b a rgain on the impact and implementation of 

Respondent's decision to convert temporary positions into 

permanent ones. (IRS, Austin Service Center, Austin, Tex., 

A / S L M R No. 1142)

35 04 12 Management Rights

No Entries

35 04 16 National C o n s u ltation Rights

No Entries

31
35 08 00 Section 19 (a)(1) 

No Entries 

35 08 04 I n terference

No v i o l a t i o n found w h e r e Res p o n d e n t refused to consult, 

confer or n e g o tiate wit h certain of the Complaint's 

facility representatives w here S e c t i o n 19(d) of the EG 

precluded further pro c e s s i n g of the complaint. (FAA,

A / S L M R No. 1073)

Not i n g that the S e c t i o n 19(a)(1) allegation was derivative 

in nature, rather than an independent violation, the A/S 

found no evidence that the conduct and statements of two 

supervisors, one of w h o s e s upervisory status was in 

dispute, interfered w ith the rights of unit employees, 

including one probatio n a r y / t r i a l employee w h o was 

eventually terminated. (TANG, K e l l y AFB, A / S L M R No. 1078)

A/S found, in agreement w ith the ALJ, that the Respondent 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of the E G by its removal 

of two employees from the list of those eligible to serve 

as Act i n g Group M a n a g e r as their removal was taken as a 

reprisal for discontinuing their savings bond allotments, 

an activity sponsored by the Complainant, u n d ertaken to 

support Complainant's attempt to secure a favorable 

agreement wit h the Respondent and thus protected by 

Section 1(a) of the EG. (IRS, and IRS S.S. Dist. Off.

A / S L M R No. 1081)

A/s adopted ALJ's conclusion that Respondent's conduct was 

violative of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of EG. A L J found 

remarks of the facility commander concerning the 

cancellation of 4 job announcements because of Complainant's 

bargaining position interferred with employees' rights to 

be represented. He found also, and A/S agreed, that 

publication of the results of negotiations in such a manner 

as to indicate that the outcome of such negotiations were 

inimical to employee interests, or that employees would 

receive more favorable treatment if their exclusive representative refrained from dealing wit h the Respondent, was 

improper. (Pennsylvania Army and A i r NG, A / S L M R No. 1085)

A/S did not adopt ALJ's finding of independent Section 19

(a)(1) violations as the record did not support any 

allegations of an independent Section 19(a)(1) violation. 

(Dept, of Navy, NARF, Alameda, Calif., A / S L M R No. 1089)

32
35 08 04 I n t e r ference (Cont'd)

Wh i l e d e termining that the Council's dec i s i o n in FLRC Nos. 

77A-40 and 77A-92 did not w a rrant a result contrary to 

that r e ached in A / S L M R No. 998, A/S m o d i f i e d his holding 

in that case consistent w ith the Council's rationale, 

thus finding that R e s pondent v i o l a t e d Section 19(a)(1) and

(6) by u n i l a t e r a l l y terminating certain provisions of 

an e x pired n e g o t i a t e d agreement w h i c h were m a n d a t o r y 

subjects of bar g a i n i n g u n d e r Section 11(a) of the EC, 

without giv i n g Complainants an opportunity to invoke the 

services of the Federal Service Impasses Panel. (IRS, 

A / S L M R No. 1091)

A/S found that the Respondent's conduct in denying four 

employees r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by the Complainants under the 

IRS' grievance procedure was not violative of Section 19 

(a)(1) of the EC. He n o t e d that the Respondent's conduct 

was based on provisions contained in the regulations of an 

appropriate authority outside the IRS, the CSC, whose 

regulations regulate agency grievance systems and that 

absent evidence of anti-union motivation, the enforcement 

of the rules governing the IRS' grievance procedure, 

w h i c h procedure is the creation of the IRS pursuant to the 

requirements of the CSC, is the responsibility of the 

IRS and the CSC. A/S found where the CSC has specifically 

regul a t e d agency prievance procedures by providing that 

an agency h e a d m a y deny employees a particular repres e n t a ­

tive on the grounds of conflict of interest or conflict 

of position, the ULP procedures of the EO cannot be 

u t i l i z e d to police the agency's application of the CSC's 

regulations. (IRS and Bro o k h a v e n Service Center, A / S L M R 

No, 1092)

A/S found, in agreement, w ith the ALJ, that statements 

mad e by the Respondent's supervisor to several employees 

in the unit wer e imbued wit h hostility, disdain and 

disparagement to the Union, and that said statements 

demeaned the U n i o n and tended to convey to employees the 

futility of u n i o n representation and discouraged employees 

from exercising rights granted under Section 1(a) of the 

EO and that such conduct was violative of Section 19(a)(1) 

of the EO. (GSA, Region 3, A / S L M R No. 1094)

A/S, n o t i n g par t i c u l a r l y the absence of exceptions, adopted 

ALJ's findings that Respondent did not violate Section 19(a) 

(1) of the EO, inasmuch as. Respondent's Labor-Management 

Relations O f ficer did not threaten as alleged, to have 

Complainant's P r e s ident and Vice President transferred to 

another school as a solution to labor-management problems 

at the F l a n d r e a u Indian School. (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Fland r e a u Indian School, Flandreau, S.D., A/SL M R No. 1098)

33
A/S in a dopting the ALJ's finding, to which no 

exceptions were filed, that the Respondent's Audit 

Dept. Group M a n a g e r did not mak e the alleged statements, 

c o n cerning the " j urisdiction" of the Complainant w i t h 

respect to the Respondent, attributed to h i m by the 

Complainant, found it u n n e c e s s a r y to pass upo n his 

further c o n clusion as to w h e t h e r the statements would 

have been v i o l ative of the EO if they had, in fact, 

been made, and dismissed the complaint w h i c h had alleged 

vi o l a t i o n of Section 19(a)(1) of the EO. (iRS A u s t i n 

Dist., Austin, Tex., A / S L M R No. 1099)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the Respondent violated 

the EO whe n its r e presentative threatened a unit employee 

with being found u nqualified for h e r p osition if "she 

stirred things up or dirtied up the water" by filing 

a grievance and/or going to the u n i o n over the promotion 

she sought. (Dept, of the Army, Fort Polk, La., A / S L M R 

No. 1100)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that R e s pondent had not 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of the EO by 

discharging an employee because it bel i e v e d she had 

engaged in improper conduct in connection w i t h her work 

performance and not because of her union activities.

The record failed to establish any union animus or that 

the employee was treated any d i f f e r e n t l y than employees 

who had not been active on beha l f of the Union. (Army 

and Air Force Exchange Service, A / S L M R No. 1110)

A/s found, in agreement with ALJ that the issuance of 

a letter to Complainant's r epresentatives advising 

them of their v i o l ation of security procedures and of 

the p ossibility of future discipline was justified, and, 

therefore, not violative of the EO, where the r e p r e s e n t a ­

tives were engaged in u n protected activity and there was 

no evidence of anti-union considerations. (GSA, N a t '1 

Archives and Records Service, A / S L M R No. 1113)

Alleged v i olations of Section 19(a)(1) of the EO based 

on failure to negotiate prior to changing official time 

policy and charging local president with annual leave 

for use of time beyound specified limitation were 

dismissed where A/S found the m a t t e r involved differing 

and arguable interpretations of official time provision 

of the parties' n e g otiated agreement rather than clear, 

unilateral breach thereof. (Naval Weapons Station, 

Concord, Calif., A / S L M R No. 1115)

35 08 04 I n t e r ference (Cont'd)

34
A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent's i n t e r ­

rogation of two union officers c o n cerning their union 

activities, did not constitute coercive interrogation 

of the employees involved, and therefore, did not 

violate Section 19(a)(1) of the EG. (Customs Service, 

Region 4, Miami, Fla., A / S L M R No. 1118)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that remarks made by Respondent's 

Co m missary M a n a g e r to union steward did not violate 

Section 19(a)(1) of the EG. ALJ concluded that the 

remarks dealt only w i t h the Comm i s s a r y Manager's demand 

that the steward strictly adhere to the requirements of 

the parties' neg o t i a t e d agreement in the course of her 

r epresen t a t i o n a l duties. In connection with the 

a l legation that the M a n a g e r told the steward that she 

could not conduct union business during her breaktime, 

the ALJ, on the basis of credited testimony, concluded 

that the statement had not been made. (USAF Commissary 

Command, Base Commissary, Barksdale A F B , La., A / S L M R 

No. 1123)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent did not violate 

Section 19(a)(1) of the EG by deferring the processing 

of a grievance bey o n d step 2 of the negotiated procedure 

p e nding c o m pletion of a related EEG proceeding, as such 

action was b a s e d upon a legitimate belief that regulation 

and the EG precluded the simultaneous operation of the 

two procedures. A/S noted p a r t i cularly that the 

R e spondent at all times h a d indicated its willingness 

to p r oceed w i t h the grievance once the EEG matter had 

b een resolved. (HEW, SSA, Disability Insurance Prog r a m 

Staff, Chicago, 111., A / S L M R No. 1128)

Statements m ade by the Respondent to the Complainant's 

P resident following h e r disclosure of confidential 

patient information, were violations of Section 19(a)

(1) of the EG as the statements tended to restrict the 

Complainant's legitimate concern with a matter affecting 

the w o r k i n g conditions of unit employees. (VA, Wash.,

D . C . , A / S L M R No. 1131)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that supervisor's interrogation 

of a union officer about his reasons for signing a letter 

to mana g e m e n t was v i o l a t i v e of the EG noting that the 

interrogation could reasonably be construed by the 

employee to reflect an intention by the Respondent to 

discourage h i m from engaging in protected activity.

(NLRB and its General Counsel and NLRB, Region 29, A / S L M R 

No. 1143)

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

35

298-678 0 - 79 -1+
A/s found that Res p o n d e n t ' s w r i t t e n apology to the 

union represen t a t i v e and unit employees, delivered 

some three weeks after the violations, did not w o r k 

to m i t i g a t e the R e s p o ndent's failure to meet its 

o b ligation under Section 10(e) of the E O particularly where, 

as here. Respondent did not concede that its conduct 

was violative of the EO. (HEW, Office of the 

Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, A / S L M R No. 1145)

A/S, under the p racticular circumstances, found that 

Respondent's conduct in failing to provide the union 

representative with an o p p o r t u n i t y to participate 

in a m e e t i n g c o ncerning personnel policies and 

practices and other m a tters affecting the general 

wo rking conditions of unit employees, was a 

v i o l ation of Section 19(a)(1) of the EO. (HEW,

Office of the Secretary, Office for Civil Rights,

A / S L M R No. 1145)

A/s adopted ALJ's conclusion that the Respondent had 

violated Section 19(a)(1) of the EO w h e n it prohibited 

an employee from acting s i multaneously as a part-time 

EEO counselor and as a union officer, as he found no 

conflict of interest under Section 1(b) of the EO 

because the employee's duties as union officer involve,d 

only internal management of the union and did not 

require h e r to be an adversary of m a n a g e m e n t and an 

advocate for employees. Consequently, he concluded 

that the Respondent's conduct interfered with her 

Section 1(a) right to p a rticipate in the m a n a g e m e n t 

of a labor organization. (GSA, Nat'l Personnel Records 

Center, A / S L M R No. 1174)

35 08 08 Distribution of Literature

Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) of the 

EO w hen it failed to remove literature posted by a 

labor organization with w h o m it had a contractual 

agreement where such literature was of a rival labor 

organization which was not in an equivalent status with 

the Complainant. (FAA, A l a s k a n Region, A / S L M R No. 1141)

35 08 12 Solicitation 

No Entries

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

36
35 12 00 Section 19 (a)(2)

A/S found no e vidence that probat i o n a r y / t r i a l 

e m p l o y e e ' s t ermination was d i s c r i m i n a t o r y in nature.

(TANG, K e l l y AFB, A / S L M R No. 1078)

A/S found, in agreement wit h the ALJ, that the Respondent 

v i o l a t e d Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the E G by its removal 

of two employees from the list of those eligible to serve 

as Acti n g Group M a n a g e r as their removal was taken as a 

r eprisal for disco n t i n u i n g their savings bond allotments, 

an activity sponsored by the Complainant, und e r t a k e n to 

support Complainant's attempt to secure a favorable 

agreement with the Respondent and thus protected by 

Section 1(a) of the EO. (IRS, IRS, S.C. Dist. Off.,

A / S L M R No. 1081)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Activity did not 

vi o l a t e Section 19(a)(1) and (2) whe n it dismissed 

the C omplianant from his employment as a temporary 

employee, v^ere there w a s no evidence of animus, there 

was no discrimination against the Complainant, as 

his termination occurred because his request for 

re c u rring leave was inconsistent wit h the requirements 

of the job for which he had been hired. However. A/S 

did not adopt that portion of ALJ Decision which implied 

there could be no finding of a 19(a) (2) violation 

in the above absent disparate treatment. (VA Hospital, 

Minneapolis, Minn., A / S L M R No. 1090)

A/S affirmed a Section 19(a)(1) and (2) v i olation 

found by the ALJ where a supervisor told the 

Complainant's VP that, if he h a d any influence, he 

w o u l d not promote the VP due to the fact that his 

u n i o n activities took too much time from work. (Ogden 

A i r Logistics Center, Hil l AFB, Utah, A / S L M R No. 1095)

A/s specifically did not adopt ALJ's finding of a 

v i o l a t i o n of Section 19(a)(1) of the EO, where the 

same all e g a t i o n h a d been rejected as a Section 19

(a)(2) a l l egation by the RA and upheld on appeal 

to the A/S, and, therefore, was not before the ALJ.

(Dept, of the Army, Fort, Polk, La., A / S L M R No. 1100)

37
A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent had not 

vio l a t e d Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of the EG by 

d ischarging an employee because it b elieved she h a d 

engaged in improper conduct in con n e c t i o n w ith h er 

wor k p erformance and not because of her u n ion 

activities. The record failed to establish any 

union animus or that the employee was treated any 

d i fferently than employees who had not been active 

on behalf of the Union. (Army and Air Force 

Exchange Service, A / S L M R No. 1110)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Complainant failed to 

prove by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent 

v iolated Section 1 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) , (2) or (4) of the E O by 

imposing e x t r aordinary reporting requirements and 

close scrutinization upo n the C o mplainant or that 

an official d i s c iplinary p e nalty of a h e a r i n g had 

been imposed on the C omplainant in r e t a l i a t i o n for 

the Complainant having engaged in protected activity. 

(EEOC, Boston Dist. Off., A / S L M R No. 1111)

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

of a letter to Complainant's represen t a t i v e s 

advising them of their v i o l a t i o n of security 

procedures and of the p o ssibility of future discipline 

was justified, and, therefore, not v i o l a t i v e of the 

EO, where the representatives were engaged in 

unprotected activity and there was no evidence of 

anti-union considerations. (GSA, N a t '1 Archives 

and Records Service, A / S L M R No. 1113)

A l leged v i o l ation of Section 19(a)(2) of the EO 

when local president was charged annual leave for 

use of official time in excess of a specified 

limitation were dismissed where A/S found the 

m a t t e r involved differing and arguable i n t e r p r e t a ­

tions of the official time p r o v ision of the parties' 

negotiated agreement rather than clear, unilateral 

breach thereof. (Naval Weapons Station, Concord, 

Calif., A / S L M R No. 1115)

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

Inspector's transfer was disc r i m i n a t o r i l y mot i v a t e d 

and v i o l ative of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) of EO. 

(Customs Service, Region 4, Miami, Fla., A / S L M R 

No. 1118)

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) (Cont'd)

38
A/S, cont r a r y to the ALJ, n o t e d that the test as to 

w h e t h e r Section 19(a)(2) was vio l a t e d is whether 

m a n a g e m e n t has d i s c r i m i n a t o r i l y affected employee 

terms and conditions of e m p loyment based on uni o n 

considerations. Further, such a v i o l a t i o n will 

be found in "mixed m o t i v e " situations; i.e. where 

a legitimate basis for the m a n a g e m e n t action 

exists, but where union considerations also are 

shown to have played a part. Accordingly, A/S 

remanded case to ALJ for the purpose of m a k i n g 

the n e c e s s a r y credib i l i t y r e s olution and preparing 

and submitting to A/S a Supplemental Recommended 

Deci s i o n and Order. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of Hearings 

and Appeals, Region 2, San Juan, P . R . , A / S L M R 

No. 1127)

A/S dismissed Section 19(a)(2) allegation contrary 

to ALJ, on basis that it was beyo n d the scope of the 

complaint ans was not properly before the A/S.

(VA, Wash., D.C., A / S L M R No. 1131)

A/S found in agreement with the ALJ that the 

Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (2) 

of the EG, where although the record indicated 

that employee was active in the union, it failed to 

establish that he was not selected for promotion 

to a n e w job based on his union activities. (VA 

Center, San Juan, P.R., A / S L M R No. 1137)

A/S issued a Decision and Remand in A / S L M R No. 1127 

r emanding case to ALJ for the purpose of making an 

appropriate finding of fact determined to be 

n e c e s s a r y in reaching a resolution of the Section 19

(a)(2) a l l egation of the complaint. In v i e w of the 

ALJ's finding of fact in his Supplemental Recommended 

D ecision and Order> the A/S concluded that the 

evidence was insufficient to establish that 

R espondent's conduct was based, in whole or in part, 

on the u nion activity of the alleged d i s c r i m i n a t e e . 

(SSA, Bureau of H earings and Appeals, Region II,

San Juan, P.R., A / S L M R No. 1154)

A/S found in agreement with ALJ that there was ins u f ­

ficient evidence to establish that the termination of 

a p r o b a t i o n a r y employee was b ased on, or motivated, 

at least in part, by the e m p l o y e e s’ exercise of his 

protected union rights in v i o l a t i o n of Section 19(a)

(2) of the EG. (HEW, Region IX, San Francisco, Calif., 

A / S L M R No. 1156)

35 12 00 Section 19 (a)(2) (Cont'd)

39
A/S adopted ALJ's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n that the complaint 

be dismissed, n o t i n g that the evidence failed to 

establish that R e s p o n d e n t’s conduct of extending 

a unit employee's 90-day w a r n i n g not i c e was 

discrimi n a t o r i l y motivated. (U.S. Customs Serivce,

Region IV, Miami, Fla., A / S L M R No. 1157)

A/S found in agreement with the A L J that there was 

not a scintilla of evidence on the record to establish 

that the Respondent, though its superv i s o r y employee, 

the Officer in Charge of the C i n cinnati Office, engaged 

in activity in v i o l ation of Section 19(a)(1) and (2) 

of the Order by various acts described as a systematic 

scheme designed to harass, isolate and discredit.

Complainant because of his union activities.

(Dept, of Justice, Immigration and N a t u r a l i z a t i o n 

Service, Cleveland, Ohio, A / S L M R No. 1169)

Although Respondent v iolated Section,19(a)(1) of E O by prohibiting an employee from acting s i multaneously as a part-time 

EEO counselor and as a union officer, no Section 19(a)(2) 

violation found where the individual's conditions of 

employment were unaffected by the Respondent's conduct.

(GSA, National Personnel Records Center, A / S L M R No. 1174)

35 16 00 Section 19(a)(3)

A/s, in agreement wit h the ALJ, found that there was 

insufficient evidence to establish that one of the 

respondent's fire captains who was the president of 

the exclusive representative, was a supervisor as 

alleged in the complaint and h eld that the Respondent 

h a d not v iolated Section 19(a)(1) and (3) of the EO 

by allowing the employee to remain as president.

(Naval Training Center, San Diego, C a l i f . , A / S L M R 

No. 1121)

Section 19(a)(1) and (3) allegation based on an 

employee's collection of signatures on a petition 

r equesting removal of a union steward dismissed 

where it was found that the employee involved was 

not a supervisor w i t h i n the m e a n i n g of Section 2 (c) 

of the EO. (Dept, of AF, M c C l e i l a n AFB,

A / S L M R No. 1122)

Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(3) of the 

EO when it failed to remove literature posted by a labor 

organization with w h o m it had a contractual agreement 

where such literature was of a rival labor organi z a t i o n 

which was not in an equivalent status with the C o m ­

plainant. (FAA, A l askan Region, A / S L M R No. 1141)

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) (Cont'd)

40
In agreement with A L J , A/S found that Respondent's 

conduct in g ranting leave w i thout pay to a shop foreman, 

in order that he m ight serve as an AFGE National 

V ice-President, was not v i o l a t i v e of Section 19(a)

(1) and (3) of EG. (AF, 57th Field Mainte n a n c e Squadron, 

Nellis AFB, Nev., A / S L M R No. 1162)

35 20 00 Section 19(a)(4)

35 16 00 Section 19(a)(3) (Cont'd)

A/s found no evidence that probationary/trial 

employee was terminated in reprisal for h a v i n g filed 

a grievance. (TANG, Kelly AFB, A / S L M R No. 1078)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Complainant failed to 

prove by a prepo n d e r a n c e of evidence that Respondent 

v i o l a t e d Section 19(a)(1), (2) or (4) of the EG by 

imposing e x t r a o r d i n a r y reporting requirements and 

close s c rutinization upon the Complainant or that 

an official dis c i p l i n a r y penalty of a h e a r i n g had 

bee n imposed on the Complainant in retaliation for 

the Complainant h a v i n g engaged in protected 

activity. (EEOC, Boston, Dist. Off., A / S L M R No. 1111)

35 24 00 Section 19(a)(5) 

No Entries 

35 28 00 Section 19 (a)(6)

35 28 04 Response to B a r gaining Request

A/S found that the Respondent did not violate the 

Grder where the evidence established that the Region, 

in so far as it refused to release all the necessary 

and relevant m a t e r i a l sought by the Complaint was 

acting in accordance with the directions of the 

Respondent Agency, citing Naval Air Rework F a c i l i t y , 

Pensacola, Florida, FLRC No. 76A-37 (1977).

(Customs Service and H o u s t o n Region, A/SLMR No. 1135)

41
A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent v i o l a t e d 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the Order by refusing 

to permit a rep r e s e n t a t i v e of the Complainant's 

choice to attend a m e e t i n g concerning a formal 

discussion b e tween m a n a g e m e n t and employees concerning 

personnel policies and practices w i t h i n the m e a n i n g 

of Section 10(e) of the Order. A/S further found 

that the Respondent had failed to comply w ith its 

obligation to n e g o tiate and b a r g a i n in good faith 

with the Complainant concerning the procedures that 

w ere u tilized in effectuating its decision to 

transfer cases from one office component to another 

and about the impact of the decision on adversely 

affected employees. (SSA, BRSI, N o r t h e a s t e r n Program 

Service Center, A / S L M R No. 1150)

A/S adopted ALJ's dismissal of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) 

allegation that Respondent refused to negotiate 

regarding the clarification and implementation of a 

provision of the parties' nego t i a t e d agreement dealing 

with the posting of job v a c a n c y announcements. ALJ 

found no agreement to negotiate regar d i n g the job 

announcements provisions, as there was n o t h i n g in the 

n e g otiated agreement or elsewhere to suggest that 

further clarification or revision of the p rovision 

was contemplated by the parties. (Pennsylvania Army 

and Air NG, A / S L M R No. 1155)

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally

A/S adopted ALJ's conclusion that Respondent's attempt 

to limit the discussion at a m e e t i n g with the 

Complainant concerning four drafts of personnel policy 

directions which the Respondent had submitted to the 

Complainant, to "consultation" rather than negotiation, 

constituted a refusal to b a rgain in v i o l a t i o n of 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO. In so doing, the 

ALJ concluded that the parties' nego t i a t e d agreement 

did not constitute a clear and unmistakable waiver 

by the Complainant of its right to n e g o tiate pursuant 

to Section 11(a) of the EO. (EEOC, A / S L M R No. 1096)

Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) 

of the EO by its refusal to negotiate on the 

supervisory mon i t o r i n g of Appeals Officers' conferences, as such action constituted the continuation 

of an established practice. (North-Atlantic Region, 

IRS, A / S L M R No. 112^)

35 28 04 Response to Barg a i n i n g Request (Cont'd)

42
A/S in agreement with A L J found that the Respondent's 

uni l a t e r a l act of r efusing to process a grievance at 

step 3 of the parties' n e g o t i a t e d grievance procedure 

not .only c ontravened the terms of the negoti a t e d’ 

agreement but also p r e c l u d e d the Complainant from 

proceeding to a d d itional steps in the grievance procedure, 

including a rbitration in v i o l a t i o n of Section 19(a)(1) and 

(6) of the EO. (GSA, Region 5, Chicago, 111., A / S L M R 

No. 1139)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the Respondent did not 

v i olate S e ction 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by tra n s ­

ferring in mass, officers from a tactical unit on a 

n o n - s e n i o r i t y basis, in disregard of the parties oral 

agreement. In reaching his decision, he found that the 

parties' oral agreement to use seniority as a basis 

for t r a n s ferring the officers from one unit to 

another did not apply to the tactical unit and that 

the transfers to and from this special unit were 

to be based on performance. (GSA, Region 3, Federal 

P r o tective Service Division, A / S L M R No. 1140)

Respondent did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) 

of the Order as the Respondent's refusal to approve 

supplemental local agreement w i t hout certain 

m o d i f i c a t i o n s did not reflect improper refusal to 

bargain, only a reasonable disagreement with respect 

to i n t e r p retation of a controlling agreement.

Further Complainant did not utilize procedures 

available for resolving issues involved. (NLRB,

A / S L M R No. 1149)

A/S adopted the ALJ's findings that Respondent had 

v i o l a t e d Section 19(a)(1) and (6) df the EO whe n it 

changed the workday, work w e e k and frequency of shift 

rotation without first bargaining in good faith on 

these Section ll(a) matters. A/S also found that 

while the dec i s i o n to adopt a team concept was a 

r eserved m a n a g e m e n t right wit h i n the m e a n i n g of 

Section 11(b) of the EO, Respondent v iolated 19(a)

(1) and (6) by implementing the n e w procedure without 

first affording the exclusive representative an 

o p p o r t u n i t y to bargain over impact and implementation. 

(U.S. Customs Service, Region VI, Houston, Tex.,

A / S L M R No. 1161)

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer G e n e r a l l y (Cont'd)

43
A/S found that Resp o n d e n t v i o l a t e d Section 19(a)

(1) and (6) of the EO w h e n it uni l a t e r a l l y c h anged an 

exi s t i n g policy and past practice w h e r e b y p olicemen 

in the unit r eceived advance not i c e of their a s s i g n ­

ments. Cont r a r y to the A L J the A/S found that the 

R espondent's conduct was mor e than a ^ minimus 

or technical v i o l a t i o n of the Order, d i s t i nguishing 

V a n denberg Air Force Base, 4 3 9 2 n d A e r o s p a c e Support 

Group, Vandenberg A i r Force Base, California,

FLRC No. 74A-77 (1975). (Naval A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Command, 

Naval T raining Center, Great Lakes, 111., A / S L M R 

No. 1175)

No v i o l a t i o n found where Res p o n d e n t refused to consult, 

confer or negotiate with c e rtain of the Complainant's 

facility representatives where Section 19(d) of the 

EO precluded further processing of the complaint.

(FAA, A / S L M R No. 1073)

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures

A/S found that the Respondent's refusal to negotiate 

as to the procedures use d in implementing the n e w 

standard Position Descriptions and Classi f i c a t i o n 

Guidlines as they affected employees classified as 

GS-592 series Tax Examiners and Tax Assistants, GS-6 

and below, and on the impact of such Guidelines on 

adversely affected employees consti t u t e d a violation 

of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO. (IRS,

Kansas City, Ogden, Chamblee, Philadelphia, Austin, 

Covington, Fresno and Bro o k h a v e n Service Centers,

Detroit Data Center and M a r t i n s b u r g N a t '1 Computer 

Center, A / S L M R No. 1074)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding, in a consolidated proceeding, 

that the A ctivity did not v i o late Section 19(a)(1) 

and (6) of the EO, whe n it established a change in 

tour of duty in the Activity's operating roo m late 

shift since the m a t t e r was integrally related to and 

consequently determinative of the staffing pattern 

and thus a m a n agement right under Section 11(b) of 

EO and further the Complainant had been afforded 

an opportunity, but failed to avail itself of the 

opportunity to request impact bargaining. A/S 

further adopted ALJ's finding that the A c t i v i t y 

did not violate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the 

EO whe n it continued the n e w tour despite an oral 

promise to the contrary made by a supervisor 

w h o m the A/S found lacked authority to bind the 

Activity. (VA Hosp., Lincoln, Neb., A / S L M R No. 1083)

35 28 08 Failure to Mee t and Confer G e n e rally (Cont*d)

44
A/s affirmed ALJ's finding that Respondent did not 

v i olate Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO where 

R espondent not i f i e d the Complainant and sought its 

comments on the proposed n e w pol i c y prior to its 

implementation and w h e r e c o mplainant failed to request 

b ar g a i n i n g on the n e w policy or the impact it would 

have on unit employees. (Ogden Air Logistics Center,

Hill AFB, Utah, A / S L M R No. 1084)

A/s, in agreement with ALJ, found the Respondent had 

not vio l a t e d Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by 

refusing to n e g o tiate w i t h Complainant over the 

implementation and impact of a RIF since the parties 

neg o t i a t e d agreement limited Respondent's obligation 

to n o t i f y Complainant concerning RIFs and that the 

subject RIF met the limitations set forth in the 

neg o t i a t e d agreement. (Dept, of the Air Force, DavisM o n t h a n AFB, Tucson, Ariz., A / S L M R No. 1088)

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

vio l a t e d Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by its 

failure to timely noti f y the AFGE and afford it a 

r e a sonable opport u n i t y to m eet and confer concerning 

the impact and implementation of the Respondent's 

d ecision to detail certain of its employees. (DHEW,

SSA, BRSI, NE P r o g r a m Service Center, A / S L M R No. 1101)

A/s did not adopt ALJ's R e commended Decision and Order 

insofar as it implied that bargaining on impact might 

be only a permissive subject of bargaining under 

Section 11(b) of the EO. A/S noted that it is well 

settled that the obligation to meet and confer on the 

impact of a D ecision by Agen c y management is m a n d a t o r y 

under Section 11(a) of the EO. (Army, Yakima Firing 

Center, Ft. Lewis, Wash., A / S L M R No. 1103)

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

viol a t e d Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by its 

refusal to mee t and confer on the impact on adversely 

affected employees of its decision to assign six 

mi l i t a r y augmentess to the Respondent's Fire Station.

(Army, Y a k i m a Firing Center, Ft. Lewis, Wash. A / S L M R 

No. 1103)

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or P r o cedures ( C o n t ' d )

45
A/S, contrary to the ALJ, found that the n e w basis for 

selecting cases for p e r f o r m a n c e e v a l u a t i o n effected a 

change in employee terms and conditions of emplojnnent.

Thus, prior to the change, a cross- s e c t i o n of an Appeals 

Officer's w o r k product formed the basis for evaluation, 

but subsequent to the change a skewed sample of their 

wor k product was reviewed. In the A/S's view, this 

change constituted a change in the base from which 

performance e valuations were to be made and, therefore, 

was a change in employee terms and conditions of employment 

giving rise to the obli g a t i o n of the Respondent to meet 

and confer, upon request, with the exclusive representative 

concerning the impact and i m plementation of the change.

(IRS, S.W. Region, Dallas, Tex., A / S L M R No. 1106)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that Cincinnati Dist. Off. 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by not timely 

notifying the Complainant of the decision to m ake a change 

in the level of revi e w of a dvisory a r bitration recomm e ndations and by not m e e t i n g with it to negotiate on 

the impact and implementation of the change before it 

became effective. A lthough the Dist. Off. committed the 

unfair labor practice, the remedial order was directed, in 

part, against the IRS as it was the parent organization 

ultimately responsible for the bargaining of its 

subordinate activity and found to be hel d accountable 

for the actions of its agents and subsidiaries. ^IRS, 

Cincinnati Dist. Off., A / S L M R No. 1107)

A/S, in adopting ALJ's recommended decision and order, 

n oted that as there was no change in past practice with 

respect to the assignment of chemists only to process 

certain samples, there was no o b l igation to bargain on 

the impact and implementation of the change (EPA,

Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,

O k l a . , A / S L M R No. 1114)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the Respondent had 

violated Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO when the 

Respondent changed a policy on overtime for unit employees 

and did so without giving the Complainant reasonable 

n otification prior to the change and without giving it 

ample opportunity to meet and confer with respect to 

the procedures and impact of the change. ALJ found 

that the subsequent conduct of the parties in negotiating 

a n e w agreement containing provisions covering overtime 

compensation did not render the viola t i o n her e i n moot or 

de minimus. (SSA, HQ, Bureaus and Off's, Baltimore, M d . , 

A / S L M R No. 1116)

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures CCont'd)

46
In a dopting the ALJ's conc l u s i o n that the complaint 

b ased on the Act i v i t y ' s unil a t e r a l termination of Van 

transportation, should be d i s m issed based on 19(d), as 

the same issues wer e raised u nder the parties' negotiated 

grievance procedure. A/S found it u n n e c e s s a r y to pass 

on the ALJ's further conclusions regarding the merits of 

the ULP and the v i a b i l i t y of the grievance. ( o e p t . of 

Interior, Bur e a u of Indian Affairs, P h o e n i x A rea Office, 

Phoenix, A r i z . , A / S L M R No. 1126)

A/S found that R e s pondent v i o l a t e d Section 19(a)(1) 

and (6) of the EO by its failure to noti f y the AFGE and 

afford it the o p p o r t u n i t y to b a rgain concerning the 

impact and i m plementation of its decision to suspend 

promotions of employees classified as Analysts. (SSA,

BHA, A / S L M R No. 1134)

A/S, in agreement w i t h ALJ, concluded that Section 

19(a) (1) and (6) complaint should be dismissed as 

C omplainant h a d failed to m ake timely request to 

n e g o tiate on impact or implementation of Respondent's 

decision to change area of consideration for promotions. 

(Dept, of the Army, U. S. M i l i t a r y Academy, West Point,

N . Y . , A / S L M R No. 1138)

Respondent vio l a t e d Section 19 (a)(6) of EO by failing 

to n o t i f y Complainant of its decision to convert 

temporary positions into permanent ones and thereby 

affording it an opportunity to request bargaining on 

impact and implementation. A/S noted that a request 

to b a r g a i n on impact and implementation is not necessary 

to establish a v i o l a t i o n of the Order where, as in this 

case, m a n a g e m e n t uni l a t e r a l l y mad e changes in personnel 

policies, practices or matters affecting working 

conditions without prior notice to the exclusive rep r e ­

sentative. (IRS, A u s t i n Service Center, Austin, Tex., 

A / S L M R No. 11 ^|2)

A/S adopted the ALJ's conclusion that the Respondent 

v i o l a t e d the Order by failing to negotiate over the 

implementation and impact of a temporary word processing 

study w here there was no showing of an emergency 

demanding the study's immediate implementation, and 

that the conversations concerning the study prior to 

its imp l e m e n t a t i o n could not be construed as a substitute 

for impact and implementation bargaining. (IRS,

Southwest Region, Dallas, Tex., A / S L M R No. 1 1 ^ )

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or P r o cedures (Cont'd)

47
Noting p a r t i c u l a r l y the a b s ence of exceptions, the A/S 

adopted the findings conclu s i o n s and recommendation 

of the ALJ to dismiss the complaint, in that the 

Respondent did not v i o l a t e S e c t i o n 19 (a)(1) and (6) 

of the Order. Thus, the A/S concl u d e d that in the 

absence of an a p propriate and time l y request to bargain 

by the Complainant, dismissal of the complaint was 

warranted. (Supervisor of Ship b u i l d i n g Conversion and 

Repair, U.S. Navy, Groton, Conn., A / S L M R No. 1147)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Res p o n d e n t violated 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the O r d e r by refusing to 

permit a representative of the C o m plainant's choice to 

attend a m e e t i n g concerning a formal d i s cussion between 

m a n agement and employees c o n cerning personnel policies 

and practices w i t h i n the m e a n i n g of Section 10(e) of the 

Order. A/S further found that the Res p o n d e n t had failed 

to comply with its o b ligation to n e g o t i a t e and bargain 

in good faith with the Compla i n a n t concerning the 

procedures that wer e uti l i z e d in e f f e c tuating its 

decision to transfer cases from one office component 

to another and about the impact of the decision on 

adversely affected employees. (SSA, BRSI, Northeastern 

P r ogram Service Center, A / S L M R No. 1150)

A/S adopted the ALJ's conclusion that there was no 

violation of 19 (a)(1) and (6) of the EO where rotation 

of technical assistants to different m o dules caused no 

real change in the w o r k i n g conditions, duties, or 

responsibilities of the affected employees, and resulted 

in no substantial impact upon the affected employees.

(SSA, BRSI, Nort h e a s t e r n P r o g r a m Service Center,

A/S L M R No. 1158)

A/S adopted ALJ finding that Respondent v i o lated 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of EO by failing to fulfill 

its obligation to afford the Complainant notice and an 

opportunity to meet and confer on the procedures to be 

utilized in effectuating its d ecision to assign a 

task force of claims .authorizers to clear up a backlog 

of screening w ork in a unit other than their own, and 

on the impact of its decision on adversely affected 

employees as establishment of a task force for this 

purpose constituted a change in the Respondent's past 

practice affecting the w o rking conditions of unit 

employees. (BRSI, N o r t h eastern P r o g r a m Service Center, 

A / S L M R No. 1158)

35 28 12 Failure to M e e t and Conf e r on Impact or Procedures (Cont'd)

48
A/ S a d o p t e d the A L J ' s findings that Resp o n d e n t had 

v i o l a t e d Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO w h e n it 

changed the workday, w o r k w e e k and frequency of shift 

r o t a t i o n w i t h o u t first b a r g a i n i n g in good faith on 

these S e ction 11(a) matters. A / S also found that 

w h i l e the d e c i s i o n to adopt a t eam concept was a 

reserved m a n a g e m e n t right w i t h i n the m e a n i n g of Section 11

(b) of the EO, Resp o n d e n t v i o l a t e d 19 (a)(1) and (6) 

by i m p l e m e n t i n g the n e w p r o c e d u r e w i t h o u t first affording 

the e x c l usive r e p r e s e n t a t i v e an opport u n i t y to barg a i n 

over impact and implementation. (U.S. Customs Service, 

R e g i o n VI, Houston, Tex., A / S L M R No. 1161)

A/s a d opted A LJ's finding that Resp o n d e n t did not violate 

Section 19 ( a ) (6) of the Order by unil a t e r a l l y implementing 

n e w p a r k i n g rules related to c e rtain p a rking spaces 

wi t h o u t b a r g a i n i n g w i t h respect to the impact and 

implemen t a t i o n of the change. A/S found that Respondent 

did, in fact, n o t i f y the C omplainant that it intended 

to change p a r k i n g rules and that it sought and received 

the Compla i n a n t ' s comments and proposals on the change, 

and that such acti o n c o nstituted b a r g a i n i n g on the impact 

and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the change. (HEW, SSA, BRSI, 

N o r t h e a s t e r n P r o g r a m Service Center, A / S L M R No. 1170)

A/S found in agreement w i t h the ALJ that the Respondent 

v i o l a t e d Section 19 ( a ) (1) and (6) of the Order by its 

failure to b a r g a i n w i t h Complainant concerning the 

impact and impl e m e n t a t i o n over the d ecision to change 

the m e t h o d of r e c o r d i n g time spent on Civil Actions 

Branch cases. (SSA, Bure a u of Hearings and Appeals,

A / S L M R No. 1176)

35 28 16 Refusal to A l l o w Formal D i s c u s s i o n R e p r e s e n t a t i o n

A/S, in agreement w i t h ALJ, found that Respondent had 

not v i o l a t e d Section 19 ( a ) (1) and (6) of the EO by 

refusing to permit a union attorney to attend a Step 2 

grievance m e e t i n g hel d under the parties' negotiated 

agreement to discuss an employee grievance, inasmuch as. 

Complainant k n o w i n g l y and intentionally w a i v e d its 

right to designate, as its Section 10(e) representative, 

individuals other than those specifically enumerated 

in the n e g o t i a t e d grievance procedure. (IRS, Nat'l 

Off., Off. of Int'l Operations, A / S L M R No. 1079)

35 28 12 F a i l u r e to M e e t and Confer on Impact or Pro c e d u r e s ( C o n t M )

49
A/S, in essential agreement with the ALJ, d i s m issed the 

complaint alleging v i o l a t i o n of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) 

of the EO with respect to Respondent's conducting of three 

meetings wit h unit employees w i t hout p r o v iding the 

Complainants an o pportunity to be represented as required 

by Section 10(e) of the EO. A/S agrees that two of the 

meetings wer e called solely for an instructional purpose 

and were not Section 10(e) formal discussions as they were 

called solely for an instructional purpose. A/S found 

that questions from employees w h i c h arguably related to 

personnel policies and practices and m a tters affecting 

w o rking conditions did not transform the meetings into 

formal discussions where the Respondent did not raise 

such issues, and that no bypass occurred where the 

Respondent indicated that it could give no direct o r 

conclusive response to such questions. As to the third 

meeting, A/S found, contrary to ALJ, that it was a 

Section 10(e) formal diacussion where the Respondent 

raised issues involving personnel policies and practices 

and matters affecting w o r k i n g conditions, but concludes 

that the Complainants were not deprived of their Section 10(e) 

right to be represented as they h a d actual notice of the 

m e eting and were in fact represented therein, thus 

suffering no detriment as a result of their lack of 

formal notice. (IRS, Chicago Dist., Chicago, 111.,

A / S L M R No. 1120)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent viol a t e d Section

19 (a)(1) of the Order by refusing to permit a representative 

of the Complainant's choice to attend a m e e t i n g concerning 

a formal discussion between m a nagement and employees 

concerning personnel policies and practices w i t h i n the 

meaning of Section 10(e) of the Order. (SSA, BRSI, 

Northeastern P r o gram Service Center, A / S L M R No. 1150)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found m e e t i n g to be a formal 

discussion within the m e a n i n g of Section 10(e) of the Order 

as meeting was called for the sole purpose of terminating 

a probationary employee t^o lacks statutory appeal 

rights from agency action. Thus, the A/S found that the 

failure of the Respondent to give prior notifi c a t i o n 

to the Complainant of the specific purpose of the mee t i n g 

denied the Complainant the opportunity to participate 

in the m e eting and was a violation of Section 19(a)(6) 

of the Order. (HEW, Region IX, San Francisco, Calif.,

A/S L M R No. 1156)

35 28 16 Refusal to A l l o w Formal Dis c u s s i o n R e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( C o n t ' d )

50
Contrary to ALJ, A/S found that Respondent's interview 

of a unit employee who was a poten t i a l w i tness in an 

u p c o m i n g arbitr a t i o n h e a r i n g c o n s t i t u t e d a formal 

d i s cussion w i t h i n the m e a n i n g of Section 10(e) of the EO, 

and Respondent's failure to afford C omplainant an 

op portunity to be r e p r e s e n t e d v i o l a t e d Section 19(a)

(1) and (6) of EO. (IRS, South Caro l i n a District, A / S L M R 

No. 1172)

35 28 20 U n c o m p r o m i s i n g A t t itude 

No Entries

35 28 24 Dil a t o r y and E v asive Tactics

A/S agreed with ALJ that Act i v i t y Are a Coordinator 

was obligated to sign promptly an agreement reached 

by his authorized n e g o t i a t i n g team which included the 

Superintendent. He n o t e d that, under the circumstances, 

the A c t i v i t y A rea Coordinator's signature was required 

mer e l y as a m i n i s t e r i a l formality once the terms h ad 

been agreed upo n by his authorized negotiators, in 

v i e w of his admission that rejection was not becasue 

of any v i o l a t i o n of law, regulations or the EO.

( D e p t , of the Navy, Antilles Consolidated School 

System, Fort Buchanan, San Juan, P . R . , A/SL M R No. 1173)

35 28 28 U n i l a t e r a l Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

A/s, in agreement with ALJ, found a v i o l ation of 

Section 19 (a)(1) and (6) of the E O where the Respondent 

u n i l a t e r a l l y implemented a n e w telephone policy concerning 

incoming calls to u n i o n officials, without affording the 

AFGE an opportunity to meet and confer on the implementation 

and impact of such policy. (SSA, Bureau of Data Processing, 

A lbuquerque Dat a Operations Center, Albuquerque, N.M.,

A / S L M R No. 1080)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent did not violate 

Section 19 (a)(1) and (6) of the EO by refusing to process 

an employee's grievance under the nego t i a t e d grievance 

procedure w h e r e Respondent asserted that the matter was 

n e ither grievable nor arbitrable. ALJ n oted that absent 

evidence of bad faith, such conduct does not constitute 

an unf a i r labor practice, as Complainant m a y seek a 

g r i e v a b i l i t y or arbitrability determination pursuant to 

Section 13(d) of the EO. ( P e n n s y l v a n i a Army and Air NG, 

A / S L M R No. 1087)

35 28 16 Refusal to A l l o w Formal D i s c u s s i o n R e p r e s e n t a t i o n (Cont'd)

51

298-678 0 79-5
A/S, contrary to ALJ, found that Respondent did not violate 

Section 19 (a)(1) and (6) of the EO by announcing certain 

r e s t r ictions and limitations on the use of the official 

time by lAM officers and officials. A/S found that as the 

record was insufficient to e s t a blish that Respondent's 

conduct constituted uni l a t e r a l changes from past practices, 

and as it was arguable that the Respondent's announcements 

concerning official time constituted reasonable i n t e r p r e ­

tations of the parties' n e g o t i a t e d agreement, such 

announcements did not, standing alone, constitute violations 

of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO. (Dept, of Navy,

Alameda, Calif., A / S L M R No. 1089)

While d e t e m i n i n g that the Council's dec i s i o n in FLRC Nos.

77A-40 and 77A-92 did not w a rrant a result contrary to 

that reached in A / S L M R No. 998, A/S m o d i f i e d his holding 

in that case consistent w ith the Council's rationale, thus 

finding that the Respondent vio l a t e d Section 19(a)(1) and 

(6) by unilaterally terminating certain provisions of an 

expired n e gotiated agreement w h i c h were m a n d a t o r y subjects 

subjects of bargaining under Section 11(a), without giving 

complainants an opportunity to invoke the services of the 

Federal Service Impasses Panel. (IRS, A / S L M R No. 1091)

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

viol a t e d Section 19 (a)(1) and (6) of the E O by failing 

to give Complainant an opportunity to consult, confer, 

or negotiate before changing the policy and practice of 

furnishing the Complainant, u pon request, copies of certain 

documents. (Naval W e apons Station, Concord, Calif.

A / S L M R No. 1093)

A/s noted, in adopting ALJ's recommended dismissal of 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) allegations, that as there was 

no change in past practice w i t h respect to the assignment 

of chemists only to process certain samples, there was 

no obligation to bargain on the impact and implementation 

of the change. (EPA, Robert S. K e r r Envi r o n m e n t a l 

Research Laboratory, Ada, Okla., A / S L M R No. 1114)

Alleged v i o l ation of Section 19 (a)(1) and (6) of the EO 

based on failure to negotiate prior to changing official 

time policy dismissed where A/S found the m a t t e r involved 

differing and arguable interpretations of official time 

provision of the parties' n e g o t i a t e d agreement rather 

than clear, u n i lateral breach thereof. (Naval Weapons 

Station, Concord, Calif., A / S L M R No. 1115)

35 28 28 U n i l a t e r a l Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment(Cont'd)

52
Res p o n d e n t v i o l a t e d Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the E O 

w h e n it u n i l a t e r a l l y issued a r e g ulation w h i c h instituted 

a change in pol i c y wit h respect to the m a n n e r of attire 

for civilian technicians. (Louisiana A r m y N.G., N e w Orleans La. 

A / S L M R No. 1117)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent did not violate 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the E O by changing the past 

practice in regard to the solicitation of w r i t t e n 

complaints and the oppor t u n i t y to respond to those 

complaints. The ALJ found that there had been no clear 

policy in regard to the solicitation of w r i t t e n complaints 

or the opport u n i t y to respond and that there was n o 

evidence of an intent on the part of the Respondent to 

establish a change from a past practice. (Customs Service, 

Regi o n 4, Miami, Fla., A / S L M R No. 1118)

A/S found, in agreement w ith the ALJ that the Respondent 

did not v i o l a t e Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the E O as it 

satisfied its obli g a t i o n to negotiate wit h the NFFE 

to the extent r equired in implementing a change in office 

food and d rink policy and effecting a rotation of 

employee w o r k assignments. (SSA, Cincinnati Downtown 

Dist. Off., A / S L M R No. 1124)

In adopting the ALJ's conclusion that the complaint based on 

the A c t i v i t y ' s uni l a t e r a l termination of Van transportation, 

should be dismissed based on 19(d), as the same issues 

were raised u n d e r the parties' n e gotiated grievance 

procedure. A/S found it u n necessary to pass on the ALJ's 

further conclusions regarding the merits of the ULP and 

the v i a b i l i t y of the grievance. (Dept, of Interior, Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, P h o e n i x Area Office, Phoenix, A r i z . ,

A / S L M R No. 1126)

Re s p o ndent's use of supervisory m o n i t o r i n g of Appeals 

Officer's conferences was an established practice rather 

than a n e w w o rking condition, and thus the Respondent did 

not v i o l a t e Section 19 (a)(1) and (6) of the E O by refusing 

to n e g o t i a t e on the matter. (North-Atlantic Region, IRS,

A / S L M R No. 1129)

35 28 28 U n i l a t e r a l Change in Terms and Conditions of E m ployment ( C o n t ' d )

53
A/S adopted the ALJ's finding that the Respondent v i o lated 

Section 19 (a)(1) and (6) of the E O by u n i l a t e r a l l y 

terminating the past practice of allowing the N T E U to use 

A c t i v i t y typewriters during n o n - d u t y time. The ALJ found 

that there h a d been a past practice and that the Activity 

ha d k n o w ledge of that practice. (IRS, Southwest Region,

A p p e llate Branch Office, N e w Orleans, La., A / S L M R No. 1153)

A/S adopted the ALJ's findings that Res p o n d e n t h a d violated 

Section 19 (a)(1) and (6) of the EO w h e n it changed 

the workday, w o r k w e e k and frequency of shift rotation 

wi thout first bargaining in good faith on these Section 11

(a) matters. A/S also found that while the d ecision to 

adopt a team concept was a reserved m a n a g e m e n t right 

wit h i n the m e a n i n g of Section 11(b) of the EO, Respondent 

v iolated 19 (a)(1) and (6) implementing the n e w procedure 

without first affording the exclusive representative 

an opportunity to b a rgain over impact and implementation.

(U.S. Customs Service, Reg i o n VI, Houston, Tex., A / S L M R 

No. 1161)

A/s found contrary to the ALJ that the Respondent did 

not violate Section 19 (a)(1) and (6) of the E O by 

prohibiting a shop steward and an employee from conferring 

in a particular building where Respondent's interpretation 

and application of the n e g o t i a t e d agreement in refusing 

to permit the shop steward and the employee to m e e t in 

the building involved did not constitute a clear and 

patent breach of the p a r t i e s ' agreement but rather was based 

on an arguable interpretation of the parties agreement.

(Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, C a l i f ., A / S L M R 

Nor., 1159)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Section 19(a)(6) allegation 

that previously agreed upon terms of a n e gotiated agreement 

were eliminated in reproducing the printed v e r s i o n of the 

parties' neg o t i a t e d agreement should be dismissed, where 

evidence disclosed n e g o t i a t i o n wit h respect to the disputed 

terms and agreement by the Complainant's chief negotiator 

to eliminate such terms. (Office of the Secretary, HEW,

A / S L M R No. 1165)

35 28 28 U n i l a t e r a l Changes in Terms and Conditions of E m p l o y m e n t (Cont'd)

54
A l l e g a t i o n that A c t i v i t y v i o l a t e d Section 19 (a)(6) of the

E O by filling n e w positions contrary to terms of

n e g o t i a t e d agreement dismissed where n e w positions were

found not to have a ccreted into e xisting unit, thereby

rendering the question as to w h e t h e r or not provisions of

n e g o t i a t e d agreement wer e applicable to positions outside

unit, to be one of contract interpretation rather than a clear

and patent breach of the agreement (HEW, Office of the Secretary, 

A / S L M R No. 1168)

A/s found that Resp o n d e n t v i o l a t e d Section 19 (a)(1) and

(6) of the E O w h e n it u n i l a t e r a l l y changed an existing 

policy and past practice w h e r e b y policemen in the unit 

received advance notice of their assignments. Contrary 

to the ALJ the A/S found that the Respondent's conduct 

was m o r e than a ^ m i n i m u s or technical v i o l a t i o n of the 

Order, distingu i s h i n g Vand e n b e r g Air Force Base,

4392nd Aerospace Support Group, V a n d e n b e r g Air Force B a s e , 

C a l i f o r n i a , FLRC No. 77A-77 (1975). (Naval Administrative 

Command, N a v a l T raining Center, Great Lakes, 111.,

A / S L M R No. 1175)

All e g a t i o n that Resp o n d e n t u n i l a terally implemented 

three n e w policy directives under an existing labor 

agreement w hile n e g o t iations on a n e w agreement were 

continuing with certain issues pending before the FSIP, 

d ismissed due to a lack of evidence in one instance that 

there h a d been a change in policy and in the two other 

instances that notices of p roposed changes were given but 

n o request for bar g a i n i n g had been received prior to the 

i mplementation of the changes. (SSA, Bureau of Retirement 

and Survivors Insurance, A / S L M R No. 1177)

A/S, noti n g part i c u l a r l y the absence of exceptions, adopted 

the conclusion of the ALJ, that the Respondent did not 

violate Section 19 (a) (1) and (6) of the EO where the 

m a n a g e m e n t official involved did not possess the authority 

to bind the Respondent. (FAA, N.Y. Air Route Traffic 

Control Center, A / S L M R No. 1178)

35 28 32 Bypassing E x c l usive Representative

A/S adopted ALJ's conclusions that Respondent's conduct 

was v i o l ative of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO. ALJ 

found remarks of facility Commander concerning the 

c ancellation of 4 job announcements because of Complainant's 

bargaining position interfered with employee's rights to 

be represented. He found also, and A/S agree, that 

public a t i o n of the results of negotiations in such a m a nner 

as to indicate that the outcome of such negotiations were

35 28 28 U n i l a t e r a l Changes in Terms and Conditions of E m p l o y m e n t (Cont'd)

55
inimical to employee interests, or that employees wou l d 

receive m o r e favorable treatment if their exclusive 

representative refrained from dealing w ith Respondent, 

was improper. (Pennsylvania A r m y and A i r NG., A / S L M R No. 1085)

A/S found a v i o l a t i o n of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of 

the EO where Respondent failed to noti f y and furnish 

an o pportunity to the exclusive represen t a t i v e to be 

present at a m e e t i n g in which a mana g e m e n t proposal 

impacting on employee terms and conditions of employment 

was discussed wit h employees. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

and Firearms, Midwest Region, Chicago, 111., A / S L M R No. 1112)

A/S, in essential agreement w ith the ALJ, dismissed the 

complaint alleging v i o l a t i o n of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) 

of the EO with respect to R e s p o ndent's conducting of 

three meetings with unit employees w i thout providing 

the Complainants an opport u n i t y to be represented as 

required by Section 10(e) of the EO. A/S agrees that two 

of the meetings were called solely for an instructional 

purpose and were not Section 10(e) formal discussions.

A/S found that questions from employees w h i c h arguably 

related to personnel policies and practices and matters 

affecting working conditions did not transform the meetings 

into formal discussions where the Respondent did not 

raise such issues, and that no bypass occurred where the 

Respondent indicated that it could give no direct or 

conclusive response to such questions. As to the third 

meeting, A/S found, contrary to ALJ, that it was a 

Section 10(e) formal discussion where the Respondent raised 

issues involving personnel policies and practices and 

matters affecting working conditions, but concluded that 

the Complainants were not deprived of Section 10(e) right 

to be represented as they had actual notice of the meeting 

and were in fact represented therein, thus suffering no 

detriment as a result of their lack of formal notice.

(IRS, Chicago Dist., Chicago, 111., A / S L M R No. 1120)

A/S, in agreement wit h ALJ, dismissed the 19(a)(1) and

(6) complaint finding that the remark alleged to have 

b een made by supervisor to a unit employee grieving her 

failure to receive a promotion, if made, was made in 

the context of resolving grievances at an early stage and 

was not disparaging to the Complainants. (IRS and 

Brookhaven Service Center, A / S L M R No. 1125)

35 28 32 Bypassing E x c l u s i v e R e p r e s e n t a t i v e ( C o n t ' d )

56
A/S found that R e s p o ndent's conducting of wor d processing 

survey among certain b a r g a i n i n g unit employees without 

first " c o n s u l t i n g or c onferring" with the Complainant 

did not v i o l a t e S e c t i o n 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO. A/S 

n o t e d that the F LRC has h e l d that information-gathering 

devices are permis s i b l e u n d e r certain circumstances and 

that in any commun i c a t i o n b e t w e e n m a n a g e m e n t and 

b a r g a i n i n g unit employees a d e t e r m i n a t i o n mus t be made 

as to w h e t h e r the c o m m u n i c a t i o n constitutes an attempt 

to bypass the exclusive r e presentative and deal directly 

wit h unit employees. A/S concluded that the subject 

survey was a permis s i b l e information - g a t h e r i n g device 

and did n o t reflect an intention on the part of the 

Res p o n d e n t to bypass the C omplainant and avoid its 

bargaining resp o n s i b i l i t y if, and when, it decided to 

change w o r k i n g conditions pursuant to the results of the 

survey. (NASA, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, 

A / S L M R No. 1179)

35 28 36 Refusal to F u rnish I n f o rmation

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the Respondent violated 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the E O by refusing to 

provide the C o mplainant with the n e c e ssary and relevant 

i nformation requested in connection w i t h the processing 

of a grievance on a p r o m otion action. A/S noted that 

the FLRC has indicated that there are no statutory or 

re g ulatory prohibitions p r e cluding disclosure of the 

requested m a t e r i a l and that the Respondent s belated 

decision to provide additional information did not serve 

to cure the violation. (HEW, Reg i o n 8, Regional Off., 

A / S L M R No. 1109)

A/S found a v i o l a t i o n of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of 

the E O w h e n the R e s pondent refused to allow the C(^plainant 

to examine the Respondent's investigatory file which formed 

the basis for its decision to terminate a probationary 

employee. A/S reasoned that the file was relevant and^ 

n e c e s s a r y i nformation to the performance of Respondent's 

re presentative function. (IRS, Fresno Service Center, 

A / S L M R No. 1119)

35 28 32 B y p a s s i n g Exclu s i v e Rep r e s e n t a t i v e ( C o n t M )

57
A/S found that the r e q u ested e v a l u a t i o n m a t e r i a l s were 

n e c e s s a r y and relevant to the Cpihplainants in performing 

their rep r e s e n t a t i o n a l functions and w o u l d not constitute 

an u n w a r r a n t e d invasion of an emp l o y e e ' s privacy. (IRS, 

Mi l w aukee Dist., A / S L M R No. 1133)

A/S found that IRS M i l w aukee Dist. did n o t v i olate the 

EO in performing the m i n i s t e r i a l act of deleting 

information from performance appraisals as it was implem e n t i n g the directions from h i g h e r agency authority but 

that the IRS Nat'l Off. v i o l a t e d Section 19(a)(1) and

(6) of the E O by prohibiting dis c l o s u r e of the information 

which was contained in performance appraisals used in 

connection with a promotion action. (IRS, M i lwaukee 

Dist. , A / S L M R No. 1133)

A/S in agreement with ALJ concluded, in effect, that the 

Respondent Agency viol a t e d Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of 

the Order by improperly w i t h h o l d i n g from the Complainant 

m a t e r i a l and information available to it during the 

formulation and p r eparation of notices of p r o p o s e d 

suspension and/or discipline w h i c h were issued to employees 

who had designated the Complainant as their representative. 

However, the A/S further concluded in agreement wit h ALJ 

that the Respondent properly w i t h h e l d a transcript of a 

Grand Jury proceeding which had been released to it for 

certain limited purposes by a U.S. District Court Judge. 

(Customs Service and H o uston Region, A / S L M R No. 1135)

A/S adopted ALJ's dismissal of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) 

allegation that Respondent failed to furnish certain 

information regarding geographical areas of consideration. 

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

had the requested material, but found it unnece s s a r y to 

pass upo n the ALJ's findings related to the scope and 

m o o t n e s s of the complaint. (Pennsylvania Army and Air NG, 

A / S L M R No. 1155)

35 28 40 Failure to Meet O b l igation Under N a t i o n a l Consultation 

Rights

A/S adopted ALJ's reconmended dismissal of the complaint 

not i n g that as the evidence e s tablished that the Respondent 

vas not an agsncy or primary nat i o n a l subdivision nor was 

it acting as an agent for an agency or primary national 

subdivision, when it carried out the r e organization involved 

there vas no obligation on its part to consult w i t h the 

u n i o n h o lding nat i o n a l consultation rights imposed by 

Section 19(b) of the EO with the Agency. (United States Air 

Force, A / S L M R No. 1152)

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information ( C o n t ' d )

58
35 32 00 Section 19 (d)

A/S d i s m issed complaint n o t i n g that several days prior to 

filing of the p r e - c o m p l a i n t charge, the Complainant had 

filed and actively p u r sued a c o ntractual grievance which 

raised the same issue. (FAA, A / S L M R No. 1073)

In adopting the ALJ's c o n clusion that the complaint,

alleging a v i o l a t i o n of 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO based on

the A c t ivity's u n i l a t e r a l termination of the practice of

transporting employees by g o v e r n m e n t - o v m e d vehicles

between their home and their place of w o r k should be dismissed

based on Section 19(d) of the E O , as the same issues were raised

u nder the p a r t i e s ' n e g o t i a t e d grievance procedures. A/S

found it u n n e c e s s a r y to pass on the ALJ's further

conclusions regarding the m e r i t s of the ULP and the

v i a b i l i t y of the grievance. (Dept, of Interior, Bureau of

Indian Affairs, P h o e n i x A r e a Office, Phoenix, Ariz.

A / S L M R No. 1126)

59

40 00 00 U N F A I R L A B O R PBIACTICES: L A B O R ORGANI Z A T I O N 

40 40 00 General

N o Entries 

40 08 00 Section 19(b)(1)

N o Entries 

40 12 00 Section 19(b)<-2)

N o Entries 

40 16 00 Section 19(b)(3)

No Entries 

40 20 00 Section 1 9 ( b ) ( 4 ) 

No Ent r i e s 

40 24 00 Section 1 9 ( b ) (4)

No Entries 

40 28 00 Section 19(b)(6)

No Entries 

40 32 00 Section 19(c) 

No Entries

61

45 04 00 N o t i f i c a t i o n and D i s s e m i n a t i o n of Remedies

A/S affirmed ALJ's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n that the remedial notice 

be posted at all facilities and installations of the 

Southwest Region, over the Respondent's objection that 

the conduct w h i c h led to the ULP complaint occured only 

w i t h i n the N e w Orleans A p p e llate Branch Office, as the 

unit of exclusive recogn i t i o n included all of the 

employees of the Regi o n and the Regional Office took an 

active role in rejecting the Complainant's bargaining 

request in this matter. (IRS, Southwest Region, Dallas,

T e x . , A / S L M R No. 1144)

45 08 00 Advice of Compliance

N o Entries

45 10 00 M o d i f i c a t i o n to Orders

N o Entries

45 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations and Orders 

No Entries 

45 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct 

No Entries

45 16 04 Interference, Solicitation or Distribution of Literature

Acti v i t y ordered n o t ^ t o (1)indicate to employees that 

job announcements were cancelled and will not be re-announced 

because of the bargaining position taken by u n i o n , (2) interfere, 

restrain, or coerce e m p l o y e e s * (3) deal directly with unit 

employees by publishing the results of negotiations in such 

a m a n n e r as to indicate that the outcome of such negotiations 

are inimical to employee interests, or that employees would 

receive m o r e favorable treatment if their union refrains 

from dealing with the Activity. (Pennsylvania Army and Air 

NG, A / S L M R No. 1085)

A c t i v i t y ordered to cease and desist from threatening its 

employees by threatening adverse personnel action if they 

consult their exclusive representative or file a contractual 

grievance. (Dept, of the Army, Fort Polk, La., A /SLMR 

No. 1100)

45 00 00 BIEMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES; U N F A I R L A B O R P R ACTICES

63
64

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from (l) bre a c h i n g 

the terms of the parties' n e g o t i a t e d grievance procedure 

by refusing to render a d ecision at a pres c r i b e d step in 

the n e g o t i a t e d grievance procedure set forth in the 

n e g o t i a t e d agreement, and (2) interfering with, restraining, 

or coercing its employees. Res p o n d e n t is further ordered 

to, upon request, p r oceed to Step 2 and succeeding 

steps, if necessary, of the n e g o t i a t e d grievance procedure 

concerning the grievance which sought to change one or 

m ore factor ratings on an employee performance rating.

(GSA, Region 5, Chicago, 111., A / S L M R No. 1139)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from interrogating 

its employees concerning their m e m b e r s h i p in, or activities 

on behalf of, the Complainant. (NLRB and its General 

Counsel and NLRB, Region 29, A / S L M R No. 1143)

45 16 08 Discri m i n a t i o n

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from transferring, 

assigning, disciplining, or d i scriminating in any manner 

against employees in regard to hiring, tenure, promotion 

or other conditions of employment in order to discourage 

m e m b e r s h i p in labor organization. (Customs Service, Region 4, 

Miami, Fig., A / S L M R No. 1118)

A/S denied request for reinstatement of probationary 

employee pending r e v i e w of«nployee's separation, finding 

insufficient evidence to establish that but for the 

v i o l a t i o n of Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO, the employee 

would not have been discharged. (IRS, Fresno Service Center, 

A / S L M R No. 1119)

45 16 12 Assisting a Labor O r ganization 

No Entries

45 16 16 Refusal to Accord A p p r o p r i a t e R e c ognition 

No Entries

45 16 20 F a ilure to Consult, Confer or Neg o t i a t e

A c t i v i t y ordered not to (1) indicate to employee that job 

a nnouncements wer e cancelled and will not be re-announced 

because of the bargaining posi t i o n taken by union>(2) 

interfere, restrain, or coerce e m p l o y e e s * (3) deal directly 

wi t h unit employees by publishing results of negotiations 

in such a manner as to indicate that the outcome of such 

negotiations are inimical to employee interests, or that

45 16 04 Interference, S o l i c itation or Dist r i b u t i o n of L i t e r a t u r e

( C o n t 'd)
e mployees would receive mor e f a v o rable treatment 

if their u n i o n refrains from d e aling w i t h the 

Activity. (Pa. Army and A i r N.G., A / S L M R No. 1085)

A/S m o d i f i e d ALJ's r e c o m m e n d e d order to include an 

a f firmative action w h i c h requ i r e d Respondent to not 

only cease and desist from i nstituting a change in the 

policy and practice of furnishing the Complainant, upon 

request, copies of c e rtain documents, but, in addition, 

required Respondent, upo n request, to furnish copies of 

certain of those denied documents to the Complainant.

(Naval Weapons Station, Concord, Calif., A / S L M R No. 1093)

R espondent ordered to cease and desist from instituting 

changes in the s y s t e m by w h i c h Branch Chiefs sample w o r k 

accomplished by A p peals Officers for the purpose of 

e v a luating their w o r k p e rformance w i thout nego t i a t i n g 

impact and implementation. As the specific change about 

w hich the R e s pondent failed to b a r gain on impact and 

i m plementation was terminated after six months. Respondent 

was o r dered to, u pon request, reevaluate, using the present 

sampling system, any employee whose current annual 

evaluation is based, in w h o l e or in part, on individual 

cases selected for r e v i e w during that six-month period 

based on the sampling system about which the Respondent 

failed to n e g o tiate as required. (IRS, S.W. Region,

Dallas, Tex., A / S L M R No. 1106)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from instituting 

any change in the met h o d of processing advisory arbitration 

opinions w i t h o u t first n o t i f y i n g the Complainant and 

affording it the oppor t u n i t y to meet and confer, to the 

extent consonant with law and regulations, concerning the 

impact and implemen t a t i o n of such change and rescind 

the d ecision to change the level of review of arbitrator's 

advisory opinion in the subject case reviewed by the 

appropriate level, the Regional Commissioner. (IRS, 

C i n cinnati Dist. Off., A / S L M R No. 1107)

A/s ordered R e spondent to cease and desist from refusing 

to permit Complainant access to such documents and 

m a t e r i a l s as are n e c e s s a r y and relevant to Complainant's 

p ro c e s s i n g of a grievance regarding the selection process. 

(HEW, R e g i o n 8 Regional Off., A / S L M R No. 1109)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from conducting formal 

discussions b e t w e e n m a n a g e m e n t and employees concerning 

personnel policies and practices, or other matters affecting 

general w o r k i n g conditions of employees without notifying

45 16 20 F a i l u r e to Consult, Confer or N e g o t i a t e (Cont'd)

65
and affording the exclusive r e c ognized r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 

the o p p o r t u n i t y to be r e p r e s e n t e d at such discussions 

by its own chosen representative. (Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, and Firearms, M i d w e s t Region, Chicago, 111., 

A / S L M R No. 1112)

A/S o r d ered R e s pondent to cease and desist from unilaterally 

instituting a n e w pol i c y for the o vertime compensation 

of employees repre s e n t e d e x c l u s i v e l y by the Complainant 

or any other exclusive representative, without first 

affording such r e p r e s entative an o p p o r t u n i t y to meet and 

confer, to the extent consonant w ith law and regulations, 

concerning the impact and imp l e m e n t a t i o n of such policy 

and, u pon request, to meet and confer concerning the 

procedures to be uti l i z e d in e f f e c t u a t i n g decisions on 

overtime. (SSA, HQ, Bureaus and Off's, Baltimore, M d . , 

A / S L M R No. 1116)

Acti v i t y ordered to (1) cease and desist from instituting 

a change in policy with respect to the m a n n e r of wearing 

the utility uniform, and afford u n i o n representatives the 

opportunity to meet and confer, (2) interfere, restrain 

or coerce employees, (3) r e scind p r o v i s i o n concerning 

removal of certain shirts, (4) n o t i f y unions involved of 

any intended change in policy, and (5) post notice. 

(Louisiana Arm y NG, N e w Orleans, La., A / S L M R No. 1117)

A/S ordered that Respondent permit Complainants access to 

m aterials that are n e c e ssary and relevant, after removing 

information of a sensitive or damaging personal nature, 

so that it could determine if there was an incipient 

grievance regarding a promo t i o n action. (IRS, Milwaukee 

D i s t . , A / S L M R No. 1133)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from changing job 

grade classifications and imposing p r o m o t i o n moratoriums 

affecting employees w i t hout first n o t i f y i n g and affording 

the exclusive r e presentative the o pportunity to meet and 

confer on the impact and implementation of such decisions. 

(SSA, BHA, A / S L M R No. 1134)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from refusing to 

provide to the Complainant such documents and materials 

as are n e c e ssary and relevant to determine the manner in 

which to discharge its representational obligation to 

certain employees w h o h a d designated the Complainant to be 

their r e presentative upon receipt of p roposed notices 

of suggestion and/or discipline. (Customs Service and 

Houston Region, A / S L M R No. 1135)

45 16 20 F a i l u r e to Consult. Confer or Negot i a t e ( C o n t ' d )

6 6
Resp o n d e n t ordered to m e e t and confer on p r ocedure 

u sed to determine w h i c h employees wer e subject to a 

p e r m anent reassignment and on the impact such r e a s s i g n ­

m e n t s h a d on a d v e rsely a f f e c t e d employees. Contrary to 

Complainant's request, however, A/S did not order a make 

whole rememdy for those employees a d v e rsely affected as 

there was n o evi d e n c e to e s t a b l i s h that any losses 

suffered by the emplo y e e s w o u l d n o t have been incurred 

"but for" the Res p o n d e n t ' s i mproper conduct. (IRS,

Aust i n Service Center, Austin, T e x . , A / S L M R No. 1142)

R e s p o n d e n t o r dered to cease and desist from instituting 

a w o r d pro c e s s i n g study involving employees e x c l usively 

r e p r e s e n t e d by the C o m p l a i n a n t w i t h o u t first noti f y i n g 

the C o m p l a i n a n t and affor d i n g such r e presentative the 

o p p o r t u n i t y to m e e t and confer, to the extent consonant 

wit h law and r e g u l a t i o n s , on the procedures which m a n a g e m e n t 

w ill observe in e f f e c t u a t i n g such a study, and on the 

impact of such study on a d v e rsely affected employees.

(IRS, Southwest Region, Dallas, Tex., A / S L M R No. 1144)

R e s pondent ordered to cease and desist from failing to 

afford the employees e x c l usive representative, the 

o p portunity to be repre s e n t e d at formal discussions between 

m a n a g e m e n t and employees or employee representatives 

c oncerning p e r s o n n e l p olicies and practices or other 

m a t ters affecting g e neral w o r k i n g conditions of employees 

in the unit. (HEW, Office of the Secretary, Office for 

Civil Rights, A / S L M R No. 1145)

A cti v i t y o r d ered to cease and desist from unilat e r a l l y 

altering or changing the estab l i s h e d past practice of 

allowing N T E U to use IRS typewriters for union business 

relating to labor-management correspondence incident to 

its r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l duties, and consonant with the 

appropriate a u t h o r i t i e s , w i t h o u t first bargaining in good 

faith w i t h the exclusive representative. (IRS, Southwest 

Region, A p p e l l a t e B r a n c h Office, N e w Orleans, La.,

A / S L M R No. 1153)

45 16 20 F a i l u r e to Consult, Confer or N e g o t i a t e (Cont*d)

67

298-678 0-79
Respondent ordered to cease and desist from c o n d u c t i n g 

formal d i scussions concerning grievances, p e r s o n n e l 

policies and practices, or other m a t t e r s a f f e cting general 

w o r k i n g conditions of employees in the unit w i t h o u t giving 

the e x c l usive represen t a t i v e the opport u n i t y to be 

r epres e n t e d at such d iscussions by its own chosen 

representative. (HEW, Region IX, San Francisco, Calif., 

A / S L M R No. 1156)

Re s pondent was ordered to cease and desist fro m assigning 

unit employees to a task force to p e r f o r m screening work 

outside their p e r m a n e n t w o r k unit w i t h o u t first notifying 

the C o mplainant and affording it the opport u n i t y to meet 

and confer, to the extent consonant w i t h law and 

regulations, on the procedures w h i c h m a n a g e m e n t w o uld 

observe in implementing such task force, and on the impact 

such task force w o u l d hav e on adversely affected employees 

in the e x c l u s i v e l y rec o g n i z e d unit. (SSA, BRSI,

N o r t h e a s t e r n P r o g r a m Service Center, A / S L M R No. 1158)

R es p o n d e n t o r dered to cease and desist from unilaterally 

changing terms and conditions of employment wit h i n the 

ambit of Section 11(a) of -the E O and affirmatively to restore 

the status q u o . R e spondent also ordered to bargain over 

impact and i m p l e m entation of changes in terms and 

conditions of e m ployment w i t h i n the ambit of Section 11(b). 

(U.S. Customs Service, Regi o n VI, Houston, Texas,

A / S L M R No. 1161)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from conducting 

formal discussions w i t h o u t affording the employees' 

exclusive representative an opport u n i t y to be represented 

at such discussions. (IRS, South C a r o l i n a District,

A / S L M R No. 1172)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from unilaterally 

changing the established past practice of giving the 

policeman in the unit advance notice of their assignments 

without first notif y i n g the exclusive r e presentative and 

upon request, bargaining w ith respect to such proposed 

change in policy. (Naval A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Command, Naval 

Training Center, Great Lakes, 111., A / S L M R No. 1175)

45 20 00 J u risdictional Questions 

No Entries

45 16 20 F a i l u r e to Consult, Confer or N e g o t i a t e (Cont'd)

6 8
50 00 00 R emedial Ord e r s A g a i n s t L a b o r O r g a n i z a t i o n s ; Unf a i r Lab o r 

P r actices

No entries under any h e a d i n g or subheading.

55 00 00 Standards of Conduct

No entries u n d e r any h e ading or subheading.

60 00 00 GRIE V A B I L I T Y A N D A R B I T R A B I L I T Y 

60 04 00 General

N o Ent r i e s 

60 08 00 13(a)

N o Entries

60 12 00 13(b)

No Entries

60 14 00 13(d)

No Entries

60 16 00 13(d)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent did not violate 

Section 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by refusing to 

process an employee's grievance under the negotiated 

grievance procedure where Respondent asserted that the m atter 

was n e i t h e r grievable nor arbitrable. ALJ noted that abseiit 

evidence of bad faith, such conduct does not constitute an 

unfair labor practice, as Complainant may seek a 

g r i e v a b i l i t y or a r b itrability determination pursuant to 

S e ction 13(d) of the EO. (Pennsylvania Army and Air NG, 

A / S L M R No. 1087)

69

A L P H A B E T I C A L T ABLE OF D E C I S I O N S 

OF THE A S S I S T A N T SECRETARY OF L A B O R 

F O R L A B O R - M A N A G E M E N T REL A T I O N S 

J uly 1, 1978 - D e c e m b e r 31, 1978

71

TA B L E OF D E C I S I O N S OF T H E A S S I S T A N T SECRETARY

A L P H A B E T I C A L L I S T I N G 1/

TITLE

Air Force, Dept, of the

— A r m y and A i r Force E x c h a n g e Service

— Dallas, Texas

— Fort Meade, Md.

— Commissary Command, Base Commissary, 

Barkdale AFB, La.

— D a v i s - M o n t h a n AFB,

Tucson, Ariz.

-- M c C l e l l a n A FB

— Ogden A i r L o g i s t i c s Center,

Hill AFB, Utah

— USAF

— 57th Field M a i n t e n a n c e Squadron

— 924th T actical A i r Group Reserve 

Army, Dept, of the

— Army and A i r Force E xchange Service

— Dallas, Texas

— Fort Meade, Md.

— Fort Polk, La.

A / S L M R NO(s). 2/

1163

1110

1123

1088

1122

1084, 1095 

1152 

1162 

1102

1163

1110

1100

y To facilitate reference, listing in this Table contain only key words 

in the case title. For complete official case captions, see 

Numerical Table of Cases.

“y During the period covered by this Supplement, where the FLRC m o d ified 

or remanded an A/S decision, the case number of the original A/S 

decision (A/SLMR No.) is enclosed in parentheses, followed by the 

FLRC No. and by the A / S L M R No. of any subsequent A/S decision.

73
TITLE A / S L M R NO(s)

— M i l i t a r y Academy,

Wes t Point, N.Y.

— Reserve, 166th Support Group 

Ft. Buchanan, P.R.

— Y a k i m a Firing Center,

Ft. Lewis Wash.

Coast Guard 

(See Transportation, Dept, of)

Defense, Dept, of

— Air Force, Dept, of the 

(See separate listing)

— Army, Dept, of the 

(See separate listing)

Defense Contract A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

— National Guard

(See separate listing)

— Navy, Dept, of

(See separate listing)

Energy, Dept, of 

Environmental P r o tection A g ency

— Robert S. Ker r E n v i r onmental 

Research Laboratory, ADA, O k l a h o m a

Equal Employment Oppor t u n i t y Commission

— Boston District Office

— EEOC

Federal A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 

(See Transportation, Dept, of)

Federal Ele c t i o n Commis s i o n

Army, Dept, of the (cont'd)

1138

1171

1103

1166

1136

1114

1111

1096

1076

74
TITLE A / S L M R NO(s).

General Services A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

— Nat'l Arc h i v e s and Records Service

— Nat'l Personnel Records Center

— Region 3, Washington, D. C.

— Region 3, Federal P r o t e c t i v e Service 

D i v i s i o n

— Region 5

Health, E d u c a t i o n and Welfare, Dept, of

— Office of the Secretary

— Office of the Secretary,

Office of Civil R ights

Public H e a l t h Service, N a vajo 

Area Indian H e a l t h Service

Region 8, R egional O f f i c e

— Region 9, San Francisco, Calif.

Social Sec u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

— A l b u q u e r q u e Data O p e rations Center

— BRSI

— BRSI, N.E.' P r o g r a m Serv. Center

— Bureau of Hea r i n g s and Appeals

— H earings and Appeals

— Reg i o n 2, San Juan, P.R.

— C i n cinnati D o w n t o w n District Off.

— D i s a b i l i t y Insurance 

P r o g r a m Staff, Chicago, 111.

— HQ Bureaus and Offices 

Baltimore, Md.

— Reg i o n 5

— Reg i o n 5-B, Chicago, 111.

1075, 1113 

1174

1094, 1105

1140

1139

1165, 1168

1145

1146 

1109 

1156

1080 

1177 

1101, 1170

1134, 1176 

1127, 1154 

1124

1128

1116

1097

1082

75
Interior, Dept, of

— Bureau of Indian Affairs

— F l a n dreau S. D. 1098

— P h o e n i x A rea Office 1126

— Bureau of Reclamations, Y u m a

Projects Office 1151

Internal Revenue Service 

(See Treasury)

Justice, Dept, of

— Immigration and N a t u ralization

Service, Cleveland, Ohio 1169

National Aeronautics and Space A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

— Lewis Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 1179

National Guard

— La. Army and Air NG 1117

— Pa. Army and Air NG 1085, 1087, 1155

t i t l e A / S L M R N O ( s ).

— Texas Air NG, 149th TFGP 

TexANG 1078

National Labor Relations Board

— NLR B 1149

— NLRB and its General Counsel

and NLRB, Region 29 1143

Navy, Dept, of

— Air Engine e r i n g Center

Lakehurst, N.J. 1104

— Air Rework Facility

Alameda, Calif. 1089

— Antilles C o n s o lidated School System

Ft. Buchanan, San Juan, P.R. 1173

76
TITLE A / S L M R NO(s).

— Naval Shipyard,

Long Beach, Calif.

— Supervisor of S h i pbuilding 

Conversions and Repair,

Groton, Conn.

— Training Center

— Great Lakes, 111.

— San Diego, Calif.

— Weapons Station, Concord, Calif.

State, Dept, of. P assport Office 

Transportation, Dept, of

— Coast Guard, H e a d q u a r t e r s

— Federal A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

— Air w a y F a c ilities Div.

P a c i f i c - A s i a R egion

— A l a s k a R egion

— FAA

— N e w Y o r k Air Traffic Control Center

— O k l a h o m a City Army Facilities 

Sector, W i l e y Post Airport

Navy, Dept, of (cont'd)

1159

1147

1175

1121

1093, 1115 

1108

1164

1130

1141

1073

1178

1132

Treasury, Dept, of

— Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms

— M i dwest R e gion

— Customs Service

Customs Service & H o u s t o n Region

— Office of R e gulations & Rulings

1112

1135

1148

77
— Reg i o n 4, Miami, Fla.

— Region 6, Houston, Tex.

Internal Revenue Service

— Austin District

— Aust i n Service Center

— Brookhaven Service Center

— Chicago, 111.

— Cincinnati District Office

— Fresno Service Center

— IRS

— IRS & Brookhaven Serv. Center

— IRS & Milwaukee District

— Kansas City, Ogden, Chamblee 

Philadelphia, Austin, Covington, 

Fresno and Brookhaven Seirvice

Centers, Detroit Data Cntr. & 

Martinburg Nat'l Computer Cntr.

— Nat'l Off., Off. of Int'l Operations

— North Atlantic Region 

South Carolina

— Southwest Region 

Appellate Branch Office,

N e w Orleans, La.

— Southwest Region, Dallas, Tex.

TITLE

1118, 1157 

1161

1099

1142

1092

1120

1107

1119

1091

1092, 1125 

1133

A / S L M R N O ( s ) .

1074

1079

1129

1081, 1172 

1153

1106, 1144

Veterans Admini s t r a t i o n

— H o spitals

— Butler, Pa.

— Cabadaugyam, N.Y.

1167

1077

78
t i t l e A / S L M R N O ( s )

Veterans A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (cont'd)

— H o s p i t a l s ( c o n t’d)

— Lincoln, Nebr. 1083

— M e dical Center,

Washington, D. C. 1160

— Minneapolis, Minn. 1090

— San Juan, P.R. 1137

— VA 1131

79

NU M E R I C A L TABLE OF DECI S I O N S 

OF THE A S S I S T A N T S E C R E T A R Y OF L A B O R 

FOR L A B O R - M A N A G E M E N T RELATIONS 

July 1, 1978 - D e c e m b e r 31, 1978

81

TABLE OF DECISIONS OF THE A S S I S T A N T SECRETARY 

N U M E RICAL LISTING, DATES AND ISSUANCE A N D SECTIONS OF DIGEST INVOLVED

A/SLMR N o ., Case Nam e and Date Issued

1073 D e p artment of Transportation,

Federal A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 

(July 5, 1978)

1074 Internal Revenue Service, Kansas City, 

Ogden, Chamblee, Philadelphia, Austin, 

Covington, Fre s n o and B r o o k h a v e n 

Service Centers, D e troit Data Center 

and M a r t i n s b u r g Nati o n a l Computer Center 

(July 5, 1978)

1075 General Services Administration,

National Archives and Records Service 

(July 10, 1978)

1076 Federal E l e c t i o n Commis s i o n 

(July 11, 1978)

1077 Veterans A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Hospital, 

Canandaigua, N e w Y o r k

(July 12, 1978)

1078 Texas A i r Nat i o n a l Guard,

149th TFGP TexANGj

Kelly Air Force Base, Texas 

(July 12, 1978)

1079 Internal R e venue Service ,

National Office,

Office of International Operations 

(July 13, 1978)

1080 U. S. D e p artment of Health, E d ucation 

and Welfare, Social Security 

Administration, Bur e a u of Data 

Processing, A l b u q u e r q u e D ata Operations 

Center, Albuquerque, N e w Mexico

(July 13, 1978)

Section(s) of D i g e s t 

Involved 1^/

35 04 08; 35 08 04 

35 28 08; 35 32 00

35 04 08; 35 28 12

25 20 00

20 08 16; 20 16 04 

20 20 00

10 24 12

35 08 04; 35 12 00 

35 20 00

35 04 08; 35 28 16

30 04 00; 35 28 28

y Listing includes all Sections involved except Section 20 20 00, "Employee 

Categories and Classification," in w h i c h 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.

83

298-678 0 7a - 7
1081 Internal Revenue Service and 35 08 04; 35 12 00 

Internal Revenue Service,

South Carolina D istrict Office 

(July 14, 1978)

1082 Department of Health, Education, 20 16 32 

and Welfare, Social Security 

Administration, Reg i o n V-B,

Chicago, Illinois 

(July 20, 1978)

1083 Veterans Admi n i s t r a t i o n Hospital, 35 28 12 

Lincoln, N e b raska

(July 21, 1978)

Section(s) of D i g e s t

A / S L M R No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved \J

1084 Ogden Air Logistics Center, 

Hill Air Force Base, Utah 

(July 21, 1978)

35 28 12

1085 Pennsylvania A r m y and Air 35 08 04; 35 28 32 

N a t i o L l Guard 35 16 04-; 35 16 20

(July 21, 1978)

1086 Federal A viation Administration, 20 04 20; 20 04 08 

At lanta Airw a y Facilities Sector,

Atlanta, Georgia 

(July 25, 1978)

1087 Pennsylvania Arm y and Air 60 005 35 28 28 

National Guard

(July 21, 1978)

1088 Department of the Air Force, 35 28 12 

Davis- M o n t h a n A i r Force Base,

Tucson, Arizona 

(July 25, 1978)

1089 Department of the Navy, 35 28 28; 30 12 24 

Naval Air Rewo r k Facility, 35 08 04 

Alameda, California

(July 26, 1978)

1090 Veterans A d m i n i s t r a t i o n H o s p i t a l , 35 12 00 

Minneapolis, M i n n e s o t a

(July 26, 1978)

84
1091 Internal R e venue Service 

(July 26, 1978)

1092 Internal R e venue Service and 

Bro o k h a v e n Service Center 

(July 27, 1978)

1093 Department of the Navy,

Naval W e apons Station,

Concord, C a l i f o r n i a 

(July 28, 1978)

1094 General Services Administration, 

Regi o n 3

(July 31, 1978)

1095 Ogden Air L o g i s t i c s Center,

Hill Air Force Base, Utah 

(August 4, 1978)

1096 Equal E m p loyment O p p o r t u n i t y 

Commission

(August 4, 1978)

1097 Department of Health, E d u c a t i o n 

and Welfare, Social Security 

Administration, Regi o n V 

(August 4, 1978)

1098 Department of Interior,

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Flandreau Ind i a n School, 

Flandreau, South D a kota 

(August 15, 1978)

1099 Department of the Treasury, 

Internal R e v e n u e service,

Austin District, Austin, Texas 

(August 15, 1978)

1100 United States D e p artment of the 

Army, Fort Polk, Loui s i a n a 

(August 16, 1978)

A/SLMR N o ., Case Nam e and Date Issued

35 08 04; 35 28 28

Section(s) of Digest

Involved \J

35 08 04; 30 20 00

35 28 28; 45 16 20

35 08 04

35 12 00

30 12 04; 35 04 08 

35 28 08

20 20 00

35 08 04

35 08 04

30 12 04; 30 12 16 

35 08 04; 35 12 00 

45 16 04

85
1101 Department of Health, E d ucation 

and Welfare, Social Security 

Administration, BRSI, N o r t h e a s t e r n 

Pr ogram Service Center

(August 16, 1978)

1102 Department of the Air Force,

924th Tatical Air Group Reserve, 

B e r g s t r o m Air Force Base, Texas 

(August 21, 1978)

1103 Department of the Anay,

Y a k i m a Firing Center,

Fort Lewis, Washin g t o n 

(August 21, 1978)

1104 U. S. Department of the Navy,

Naval Air E ngineering Center, 

Lakehurst, N e w Jersey 

(August 23, 1978)

1105 General Services Administration, 

Region 3

(August 23, 1978)

1106 Department of the Treasury, 

Internal Revenue Service,

Southwest Region,

Dallas, Texas

(August 29, 1978)

1107 Department of treasury,

Internal Revenue Service 

Cincinnati District Office 

(^August 30, 1978)

1108 Department of State,

Passport Office,

Chicago Passport Agency,

Chicago, Illinois 

( A u g u s t 30, 1978)

A / S L M R No., Case Name and Date Issued

35 28 12

Section(s) of Digest

Involved \j

20 16 08

35 28 12

20 16 16; 20 16 28

20 12 64; 20 16 08 

20 16 28

35 28 12; 45 16 20

35 28 12; 45 16 20

20 04 04; 20 04 08 

20 04 12; 20 12 08 

20 12 28; 20 08 08

1109 Departmenj: of Health, Education 

and Welfare, Region VIII 

Regional Office 

( A u g u s t 31, 1978)

35 28 36; 45 16 20

8 6
1110 Arm y and Air Force E x c h a n g e 

Service, Depart m e n t s of the 

Arm y and Air Force 

(August 31, 1978)

1111 Equal E m p loyment O p p o r t u n i t y 

Commission, Boston D istrict Office 

(August 31, 1978)

1112 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 

Firearms, M i dwest Region,

Chicago, Illinois

(August 31, 1978)

1113 General Services Administration, 

National A rchives and Records Service 

(September 1, 1978)

1114 E n v ironmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency, 

Robert S. Ker r Env i r o n m e n t a l 

R esearch Laboratory,

AA, O k l ahoma 

(September 1, 1978)

1115 Department of the Navy,

Naval W e apons Station,

Concord, California 

(September 5, 1.78)

1116 Social Security A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 

Headquarters Bureaus and Offices, 

Baltimore, M a r y l a n d 

(September 5, 1978)

1117 L o u i siana A r m y N ational Guard,

N e w Orleans, Lou i s i a n a 

(September 6, 1978)

1118 U. S. Customs Service, Region IV, 

Miami, Florida

(September 6, 1978)

1119 Internal Revenue Service 

Fresno Service Center 

(September 7, 1978)

1120 D e partment of the Treasury,

Internal R e venue Service,

Chicago District,

Chicago, Illinois 

(September 6, 1978)

A/SLMR No.) Case Name and Date Issued

35 08 04; 35 12 00

Section(s) of Digest

Involved 1/

35 12 00; 35 20 00

35 28 32; 45 16 20

30 12 04; 30 12 16 

30 16 00; 35 08 04 

35 12 00

35 28 12; 35 28 28

35 08 04; 35 12 00 

35 28 28

35 28 12; 45 16 20

35 28 28; 45 16 20

35 08 04; 35 12 00 

35 28 28; 45 16 08

35 28 28; 45 16 08

35 28 16; 35 28 32

87
A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued

1121

1122

1123

1124

1125

1126

1127

1128

D e p a r t m e n t of the Navy,

N a v a l T r a i n i n g Cent e r ,

San Diego, C a l i f o r n i a 

( S e p t e m b e r 12, 1978)

D e p a r t m e n t of the A i r Force, 

M c C l e l l a n A i r F o r c e B a s e 

( S e p t e m b e r 12, 1978)

U n i t e d S t a t e s A i r F o r c e 

C o m m i s s a r y C o m mand,

B a s e C o m m i s s a r y ,

B a r k s d a l e A i r F o r c e Base,

L o u i s i a n a

( S e p t e m b e r 13, 1978)

S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 

C i n c i n n a t i D o w n t o w n D i s t r i c t O f f i c e , 

C i n c i n n a t i , O h i o 

( S e p t e m b e r 13, 1978)

D e p a r t m e n t of the T r e a s u r y ,

I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e S e r v i c e 

and B r o o k h a v e n S e r v i c e C e n t e r 

( S e p t e m b e r 21, 1978)

D e p a r t m e n t of I n t e r i o r 

B u r e a u of I n d i a n A f f a i r s ,

P h o e n i x A r e a Office,

P ho e n i x , A r i z o n a 

( S e p t e m b e r 22, 1978)

35 16 GO

Section(s) of Digest

Involved _1/

35 16 GO

35 08 04

35 28 28

35 28 32

35 28 12; 35 28 28 

35 32 00

D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n a n d 

W e l f a r e , S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 35 12 00

B u r e a u of H e a r i n g s an d A p p e a l s , R e g i o n II,

S a n Juan, P u e r t o R i c o 

( S e p t e m b e r 22 , 1978)

35 12 04; 30 16 00

D e p a r t m e n t of Hea l t h , E d u c a t i o n 

an d W e l f a r e , S o c i a l S e c u r i t y 

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , D i s a b i l i t y 

I n s u r a n c e P r o g r a m Staff, 

C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 

( S e p t e m b e r 25, 1978)

35 08 04

8 8
A/SLMR No ., Case Name and Date Issued

Section(s) of Digest

Involved 1/

1129 N o r t h - A t l a n t i c Regi o n ,

I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e S e r v i c e ,

D e p a r t m e n t of the T r e a s u r y 

( S e p t e m b e r 26, 1978)

1130 F e d e r a l A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

A i r w a y F a c i l i t i e s D i v i s i o n ,

P a c i f i c - A s i a R e g i o n 

( S e p t e m b e r 26, 1978)

1131 V e t e r a n s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 

W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.

( S e p t e m b e r 27, 1978)

1132 F e d e r a l A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 

O k l a h o m a C i t y A i r w a y F a c i l i t i e s Sector, 

W i l e y P o s t A i r p o r t , B e t h a n y , O k l a h o m a 

( S e p t e m b e r 27, 1978)

1133 D e p a r t m e n t of th e T r e a s u r y ,

I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e S e r v i c e 

an d IRS M i l w a u k e e D i s t r i c t 

( S e p t e m b e r 28, 1978)

1134 S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

B u r e a u of H e a r i n g s an d A p p e a l s 

( S e p t e m b e r 29, 1978)

1135 U. S, C u s t o m s S e r v i c e a n d

H o u s t o n R e g i o n , U. S. C u s t o m s S e r v i c e 

( O c t o b e r 3, 1978)

1136 U. S. D e p a r t m e n t of E n e r g y 

( O c t o b e r 13, 1978)

1137 V e t e r a n s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Center,

San Juan, P u e r t o R i c o 

( O c t o b e r 17, 1978)

1138 D e p a r t m e n t of the Army,

U. S. M i l i t a r y A c a d e m y ,

W e s t P o int, N e w Y o r k 

( O c t o b e r 17, 1978)

1139 G e n e r a l S e r v i c e s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

R e g i o n 5, C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 

( O c t o b e r 18, 1978)

1140 G e n e r a l S e r v i c e s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

R e g i o n 3, F e d e r a l P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e 

D i v i s i o n

(O c t o b e r 18, 1978)

35 28 08; 35 28 28

20 12 28

35 08 04; 30 12 00

20 16 16

30 04 00; 35 28 36 

45 16 20

35 28 12; 45 16 20

30 04 00; 35 28 04 

35 28 36; 45 16 20

15 08 04; 20 08 08; 20 12 20;

20 12 24; 20 16 08; 20 16 28;

20 16 36; 20 24 12; 25 04 04

35 12 00

35 28 12

35 28 08; 45 16 04

35 28 08

89
1141 D e p a r t m e n t of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 35 08 08; 35 16 00 

F e d e r a l A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

A l a s k a n R e g i o n 

A n c h o r a g e , A l a s k a 

( O c t o b e r 18, 1978)

1142 D e p a r t m e n t of the T r e a s u r y , 35 04 08; 35 28 12 

I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e Serv i c e , 16 20;

A u s t i n S e r v i c e C e n t e r ,

A u s t i n , T e x a s 

( O c t o b e r 19, 1978)

1143 N a t i o n a l L a b o r R e l a t i o n s B o a r d a n d 30 12 04; 30 12 16; 

Its G e n e r a l C o u n s e l a n d N a t i o n a l 35 08 04; 45 16 04 

L a b o r R e l a t i o n s Board, R e g i o n 29

( O c t o b e r 19, 1978)

1144 D e p a r t m e n t of the T r e a s u r y , 35 28 12; 45 04 00 

I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e Service, 45 16 20 

S o u t h w e s t R e g ion,

Dallas, T e x a s 

(Oc t o b e r 20, 1978)

1145 D e p a r t m e n t of He a l t h , E d u c a t i o n 35 08 04; 30 20 00 

an d W e l f a r e , O f f i c e of the S e c r e t a r y , ^5 16 20

O f f i c e for C i v i l R i g h t s 

(Oc t o b e r 20, 1978)

1146 D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n 

and W e l f a r e , P u b l i c H e a l t h S e r v i c e ,

N a v a j o A r e a I n d i a n H e a l t h S e r vice,

T u b a City, A r i z o n a

( N o v e m b e r 15, 1978)

1147 S u p e r v i s o r of S h i p b u i l d i n g 35 28 12 

C o n v e r s i o n an d Repair,

U n i t e d S t a t e s Navy,

G roton, C o n n e c t i c u t 

(N o v e m b e r 16, 1978)

1148 U. S. C u s t o m s S ervice, 20 20 00; 25 20 00 

O f f i c e of R e g u l a t i o n s and R u l i n g s

(N o v e m b e r 17, 1978)

1149 N a t i o n a l L a b o r R e l a t i o n s B o a r d 35 28 28 

(N o v e m b e r 17, 1978)

Section(s) of Diges^

A/SLMR N o ., Case Name and Date Issued Involved W

90
1150 D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n 35 28 04; 35 28 12 

an d W e l f a r e , S o c i a l S e c u r i t y 35 28 16 

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , BRSI, N o r t h e a s t e r n

P r o g r a m S e r v i c e C e n t e r 

( N o v e m b e r 17, 1978)

1151 D e p a r t m e n t of I n t e r i o r , 20 16 04; 20 16 24 

B u r e a u of R e c l a m a t i o n , 20 20 00; 25 04 16 

Y u m a P r o j e c t s O f f i c e ,

Y u m a , A r i z o n a 

( N o v e m b e r 22, 1978)

1152 U n i t e d S t a t e s A i r F o r c e 35 28 40 

( N o v e m b e r 22, 1978)

1153 I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e S e r v i c e 35 28 28; 45 16 20 

S o u t h w e s t R e g i o n , A p p e l l a t e

B r a n c h O f f i c e , N e w O r l e a n s ,

L o u i s i a n a

( N o v e m b e r 24, 1978)

1154 D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n an d 30 12 24; 30 16 00; 

W e l f a r e , S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 35 12 00

B u r e a u of H e a r i n g s a n d A p p e a l s , R e g i o n II,

S an J u an, P u e r t o R i c o 

( D e c e m b e r 8 , 1978)

1155 P e n n s y l v a n i a A r m y an d 35 28 36; 35 28 04 

A i r N a t i o n a l G u a r d

( D e c e m b e r 8 , 1978)

1156 D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n 35 12 00; 35 28 16 

and W e l a r e , R e g i o n IX, 16 20

San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a 

( D e c e m b e r 11, 1978)

1157 U. S. C u s t o m s S e r v i c e , 12 00 

R e g i o n IV,

Miami, F l o r i d a 

( D e c e m b e r 11, 1978)

1158 D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n 35 28 12; 45 16 20 

an d W e l a r e , S o c i a l S e c u r i t y

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , BRSI, N o r t h e a s t e r n 

P r o g r a m S e r v i c e C e n t e r 

( D e c e m b e r 12, 1978)

1159 D e p a r t m e n t of the N a v y , 35 28 28 

L o n g B e a c h N a v a l S h i p y a r d ,

L o n g B each, C a l i f o r n i a 

( D e c e m b e r 12, 1978)

A/SLMR N o ., Case Name and Date Issued Section(s) of Digest

Involved

298-678 0-79 8

91
A/SLMR No.) Case Name and Date Issued

1160 V e t e r a n s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n M e d i c a l 

C enter, W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.

( D e c e m b e r 13, 1978)

1161 U n i t e d S t a t e s C u s t o m s S e r vice,

R e g i o n VI, H o u s t o n , T e x a s 

( D e c e m b e r 13, 1978)

1162 D e p a r t m e n t of the A i r Forc e ,

5 7 t h F i e l d M a i n t e n a n c e S q u a d r o n ,

N e l l i s A i r F o r c e Base, N e v a d a 

( D e c e m b e r 26, 1978)

1163 A r m y and A i r F o r c e E x c h a n g e S e r v i c e , 

D allas, T e x a s

( D e c e m b e r 26, 1978)

1164 U n i t e d S t a t e s C o a s t G u a r d H e a d q u a r t e r s 

( D e c e m b e r 27, 1978)

1165 O f f i c e of the S e c r e t a r y ,

D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n 

and W e l f a r e

( D e c e m b e r 27, 1978)

1166 D e f e n s e C o n t r a c t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 

S e r v i c e Regi o n ,

Boston, M a s s a c h u s e t t s 

and

D e f e n s e C o n t r a c t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 

Se r v i c e s M a n a g e m e n t A r e a 

B i n g h a m t o n , N e w Y o r k 

( D e c e m b e r 27, 1978)

1167 V e t e r a n s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n H o s p i t a l , 

B utler, P e n n s y l v a n i a 

( D e c e m b e r 28, 1978)

1168 D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n 

and W e l f a r e ,

O f f i c e of the S e c r e t a r y 

( D e c e m b e r 28, 1978)

1169 U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t of J u s t i c e , 

I m m i g r a t i o n and N a t u r a l i z a t i o n S e r v i c e 

C l e v e l a n d , O h i o

( D e c e m b e r 28, 1978)

20 20 00

Section(s) of Pig^s^

Involved \J

35 28 08; 35 28 12; 

35 28 28 45 16 20

35 16 00

20 16 32

10 04 16; 20 12 20 

20 16 08; 20 16 20

35 28 28

20 16 04; 20 16 28

3 0 12 24

20 16 08; 35 28 28

35 12 00

92
A/SLMR N o . , Case Name and Date Issued Section(s) of Digest

Involved 1/

1170 D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n 

a n d W e l f a r e , S o c i a l S e c u r i t y 

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , B u r e a u of R e t i r e m e n t 

a nd S u r v i v o r s I n s u r a n c e , N o r t h e a s t e r n 

P r o g r a m S e r v i c e C e n t e r

( D e c e m b e r 28, 1978)

1171 U. S. A r m y R e s e r v e , 1 6 6 t h S u p p o r t G r o u p , 

F o r t B u c h a n a n , P u e r t o R i c o

( D e c e m b e r 28, 1978)

1172 I n t e r n a l R e v e n u e S e r v i c e ,

S o u t h C a r o l i n a D i s t r i c t 

( D e c e m b e r 28, 1978)

1173 D e p a r t m e n t o f th e N a v y ,

A n t i l l e s C o n s o l i d a t e d S c h o o l S y s t e m ,

F o r t B u c h a n a n , S a n J u an, P u e r t o R i c o 

( D e c e m b e r 28, 1978)

1174 G e n e r a l S e r v i c e s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

N a t i o n a l P e r s o n n e l R e c o r d s C e n t e r 

( D e c e m b e r 29, 1978)

1175 D e p a r t m e n t of D e f e n s e ,

D e p a r t m e n t o f th e N a v y ,

N a v a l A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o m m a n d ,

N a v a l T r a i n i n g C e n t e r ,

G r e a t L a k e s , I l l i n o i s 

( D e c e m b e r 29, 1978)

1176 S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

B u r e a u of H e a r i n g s an d A p p e a l s 

( D e c e m b e r 29, 1978)

1177 S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

B u r e a u of R e t i r e m e n t a n d S u r v i v o r s 

I n s u r a n c e

( D e c e m b e r 29, 1978)

1178 D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ,

F e d e r a l A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,

N e w Y o r k A i r R o u t e T r a f f i c 

C o n t r o l C e n t e r

( D e c e m b e r 29, 1978)

1179 N a t i o n a l A e r o n a u t i c s a n d S p a c e 

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , L e w i s R e s e a r c h C e n ter, 

C l e v e l a n d , O h i o

( D e c e m b e r 29, 1978)

35 28 12

15 08 08; 15 12 00 

20 20 00

35 28 16; 45 16 20

35 28 24

35 08 04; 35 12 00

35 28 08; 35 28 28 

45 16 20

35 28 12

35 28 28

30 24 0 0 ; 30 28 28

35 28 32; 30 20 00

93

INDEX

1/

- A -

ABUSE OF A D M I N I S T R A T I V E PROCESS 

AC PETITION

ACCESS T O W O R K AREAS, C A M P A I G N I N G 

ACCRETION

ACTIVITY PETI T I O N (RA)

ADDITIONS TO UNIT 

ADEQUACY OF

AGENCY

10 28 00

10 04 20

25 08 16;

20 16 08

10 04 08

20 16 08

Record 15 28 00

Showing of I n t erest 10 16 00;

ADMISSIBILITY OF E V I D E N C E A T HEARI N G S 05 12 08

ADVICE, E R R O N E O U S BY L M S A A G E N T S 10 24 12

ADVISORY O P I N I O N S 05 16 00

Autho r i t y to Ex c l u d e Emps from EO 05 08 00

Directives, U L P 35 04 04; 35 08 04

Facilities for C a m p a i g n i n g 25 08 16

Petition (RA) 10 04 08

Regulations Not B i n d i n g 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

_!/ Specific e m p l o y e e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s or categories, such as " A ccountant" 

or "Temporary E m p l o y e e , " are indexed u nder "EMP L O Y E E C A T E G O R I E S AND 

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S . "

95
A G E N T - P R I N C I P A L 35 08 08 

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 n d i n g at H i g h e r AgencyLevel 10 24 12

Bar to P e t i t i o n 10 24 12

Bar, U n i l a t e r a l W a i v e r of 10 24 12

E x t e n s i o n as U L P 35 08 04

I ndefinite D u r a t i o n 10 24 12

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 30 28 00

P rem a t u r e E x t e n s i o n 10 24 12

R efusal to Sign 35 28 00

T e r m i n a b l e at Will 10 24 12

U n i l a t e r a l T e r m i n a t i o n 35 28 00

A M E N D M E N T

C e r t i f i c a t i o n 10 04 20

Comp l a i n t 30 08 00; 30 12 00;

30 16 00

Petition I5 08 08

Re c o g n i t i o n 10 04 20

A N T I - U N I O N L ITERATURE 35 08 04; 35 08 08

A P P R O P R I A T E UNIT 20 04 00 to 20 12 00

A c c r e t i o n 20 16 08

A c t i v i t y - w i d e 20 12 08 

A gency R egulations Not Binding

on A/S 20 04 16

96
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

B r a n c h - w i d e 20 12 44

Ci 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

C o 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 t e r i a 20 04 00

D i r e c t o r a t e - w i d e 20 12 12

D i s t r i c t - w i d e 20 12 40

D i v i s i o n - w i d e 20 12 32

Effe c t i v e D e a l i n g s 20 04 08

E f f i c i e n c y of O p e r a t i o n s 20 04 12

E l i 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 i e l d - w i d e 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 08j

M u l t i - I n s t a l l a t i o n 20 12 56

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

O c c u p a t i o n a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s 20 12 64

One E m p l o y e e 05 04 00

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Scope 20 12 00
Pa t t e r n at Si m i l a r A c t i v i t i e s 15 12 00

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

R e l e v a n c e of Units E l s e w h e r e 15 12 00

R e g i o n - w i d e 20 12 28

R e s i d u a l Employees 20 16 16

Scope 20 08 00

20 16 00

S e c tion-wide 20 12 52

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

S e v erance 20 16 04

Single E m p loyee 05 04 00

Single Insta l l a t i o n 20 12 60

S t a te-wide 20 08 12

Stip u l a t i o n s Not Bin d i n g on A/S 20 04 16

S u p ervisors 10 32 00

Su p e r v i s o r y Unit 20 16 24

Wo r l d - w i d e 20 08 04

A R B I T R A T I O N

C a n c e l l a t i o n as ULP 35 08 04

35 28 00

Effect on ULP 30 28 00

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 App r o v a l of Cons e n t

A g r eement 10 40 00

Wi t h d r a w a l of A pproval of Consent

Agreement 10 40 00

98
A dvisory O p i n i o n s 

A g ents as W i t n e s s e s 

A u t h o r i t y

Docu m e n t s at H e a r i n g s 

J u r i s d i c t i o n 

Role of 

ATTORNEYS

C o n f l i c t of I n t e r e s t 

AUTHORITY OF 

Agency 

AA 

A/S 

HO 

A RD

AUTOMATIC R E N E W A L C L A U S E

ASSISTANT SECRETARY

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 TO P E T I T I O N 

A g r e e m e n t

35 28 00 

See; EL E C T I O N S 

See: N E G O T L A T I O N S 

20 04 04

10 24 12

99
T O P E T I T I O N (cont.)

C e r t i f i c a t i o n 10 24 08

E l e c t i o n 10 24 04

OF R I G H T S

C a m p a i g n i n g in L ab O r g O f f i c e r 

Elect i o n 55 12 08

C a n d i d a c y 55

55

08

12

12;

08

55 12 04;

C o m p l a i n t D i s m i s s a l C r i t e r i a 55 08 08

C o m p l a i n t Pr o c e d u r e 55 08 00

Con f l i c t of Interest, L ab O r g 

Empl o y e e and M e m b e r 55 12 04; 55 12 08

C o n v e n t i o n Delegates 55 08 12; 55 12 04

C o n v e n t i o n P a r t i c i p a t i o n 55 12 04

Delegates, C o n v e n t i o n 55 08 12; 55 12 04

Election, C e r t i f i c a t i o n of 55 08 12

E mployee - Members of Lab Org 55 12 04; 55 12 08

Equal Rights 55 12 04

Ex h a u s t i o n of Remedies 55 08 08

Free S peech and A s s e m b l y 55 12 08

H e a r i n g Requisites 55 08 08

Lab Org Off E l e ction

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;

08

55 12 04;

Violations, A l l e g e d 55 08 12

M e m b e r s h i p Meeti n g s 55 12 04

100
M o o t n e s s

Officer, Lab O r g 

Procedure 

BINDING A G R E E E M E N T S 

BLOCKING CHARGES 

BURDEN OF PROOF

Internal S e c u r i t y E x c l u s i o n s 

O b j e c t i o n s to E l e c t i o n 

Rep Unit D e t e r m i n a t i o n s 

ULP Cases

BILL OF RIGHTS (cont.)

55 08 08 

55 12 OA 

55 08 08 

10 24 12

10 48 00; 30 08 04

15 12 00 

25 08 08 

15 12 00

30 08 00; 30 12 24 

35 12 00

C -

CAMPAIGN

Lab O rg Off E l e c t i o n 

Rep Case

L i t e r a t u r e

M i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 

Work. Ho u r s 

CAJIPAIGN L I T E R A T’JRE

CANDIDACY, LAB ORG O F F I C E R

"CARVE-OUT"

CATEGORIES O F EMPS 

CEASE A ND D E S I S T O R D E R S

55 12 08

25 08 12; 25 08 16;

25 08 20; 35 08 08

25 08 20

25 08 16

25 08 12; 25 08 16;

25 08 20; 35 08 08

55 08 12; 55 12 04;

55 12 08

20 16 04

20 20 00

45 00 00; 50 00 00

101
C E R T I F I C A T I O N

A m e n d m e n t of 

Bar to P e t i t i o n 

R e v o c a t i o n of

C H A L L E N G E S TO 

Ballot 

E l i g i b i l i t y 

I n t e r v e n t i o n 

Sho w i n g of Interest 

Status as Lab Org 

Stipul a t i o n s 

Voter

CHANGES, NAM E OF A C T I V I T Y O R

R E P R E S E N T A T I V E

CHA R G E

C H E C K O F F R E V O C A T I O N BY A C T I V I T Y

C I V I L S ERVICE C O M M I S S I O N

EO Sec. 25(a) R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 

F ederal P ersonnel W o r k 

Guidance

C L 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 Det e r m i n a t i o n s 

Procedure

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S

C O L L A T E R A L ISSUES

25 12 08 

25 12 12 

10 12 00 

10 16 00 

10 20 00 

20 12 04

20 20 00; 25 12 04 

10 04 20

30 04 00; 30 08 00

35 24 00; 35 28 00;

45 04 00

10 32 00

05 08 00; 20 12 00 

35 04 04

25 20 00 

10 04 16

See: EMP C A T E G O R I E S A N D 

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S

10 16 00

10 04 20

10 24 08

25 16 00

102
C O L L E C T I V E B A R G A I N I N G 

H i s t o r y

COblMUNITY OF INTEREST 

COMPANION CASES 

COMPLAINT

Standards of C o n d u c t 

P r o cedure

ULP

A m e n d m e n t

I n v e s t i g a t i o n

Li m i t e d to Allegations

M o t i o n to D i s miss

P r e - C o m p l a i n t R e q u i r e m e n t s

R e q u i s i t e s

R u l i n g s of ALJs

T i m e l i n e s s

V i o l a t i o n N o t S p e c i f i c a l l y Alleged 

COMPLIANCE W I T H D E C I S I O N A N D O R D E R 

COMPOSITION OF U N I T S

CONCURRENT R E L A T E D CAS E S 

CONDUCT OF ELECTIONCONFLICT OF INTEREST 

A t t orneys

20 04 08; 20 04 12;

20 16 04

20 04 04

05 20 00; 30 28 00

See also; U N F A I R LA B O R 

PRACTICES; STAN D A R D S OF 

C O N D U C T

55 00 00

55 08 00

30 00 00

30 08 00; 30 12 00;

30 16 00

30 08 00

30 12 00

30 04 00

30 08 00

30 04 00

30 12 04

30 08 00

30 12 04

45 00 00; 50 00 00

20 08 00; 20 12 00;

20 16 00

05 20 00; 30 28 00 

25 08 08

See also: NEGOTIATIONS

10 32 00

103
Employee of Lab Org and M e m b e r 

M g t of La b Org and Fed Employee 

Mg t Off and Lab O rg Role 

CON 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 A p p r o v e 

A A ' s W i t h d r a w a l of Approval 

R efusal to Sign 

C O N S O L I D A T I O N O F UNITS 

CO N T I N U A N C E OF H E A R I N G 

CON T R A C T BAR 

CON V E N T I O N 

D e l egates 

P a r t i c i p a t i o n 

C O O P E R A T I O N OF PARTIES 

C OVERAGE OF EO 

C RAFT SEVERANCE

CROSS EXAMINATION, F AILURE TO A L L O W

CURRENT R E P R E S E N T A T I V E STATUS OF 

PETTIONER

CU PETITION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (cont.)

55 12 08 

10 32 GO 

10 32 00

10 AO 00 

10 40 00 

10 12 00

20 16 32; 10 04 28 

15 04 00 

10 24 12

55 08 12; 55 12 04 

55 12 04 

15 20 00 

05 08 00 

20 16 04 

15 12 00 

10 28 00

10 04 16; 10 24 08

D ECERTIFICATION

DEFINITIONS

- D -

10 04 12

See also: EMP CATE G O R I E S 

A N D C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S

Defunctness 05 04 00
e l e c t i o n s

Lab Or g O f f i c e r s 

C a m p a i g n i n g 

C a n d i d a c y

C o m p l a i n t Pr o c e d u r e 

R e p r e s e n t a t i o n

Ballot M a r k i n g s 

C a m p a i g n i n g

Ch a l l e n g e s 

C r aft S e v e r a n c e 

D e c e r t i f i c a t i o n 

E l i g i b i l i t y

ELECTION BAR TO PETITION

See also: CHALLENGES: AND 

O B J E C T I O N S T O E L E C T I O N

10 24 04

55 12 08

55 08 12; 55 12 04; 

55 12 08

55 08 12

25 12 08

See: O BJECTIONS TO 

E L E C T I O N

See: CHA L L E N G E S

20 16 04; 25 04 16

10 04 12

20 16 12 (See also: EMP 

C A T E G O R I E S A N D CLASSIFICATIONS)

E x c l u s i o n f rom Bal l o t 10 32 00

M ail Bal l o t 25 08 08

P o s i t i o n o n Ballot 10 12 00

P r o cedure 25 04 00

Prof Emps 25 04 04

Role of O b s e r v e r s 25 04 12

R e f u s a l to S i g n C o n s e n t 

A g r e e m e n t 10 12 00

Rerun 25 16 00

105
L ab O r g

M a n a g e m e n t O f f i c i a l 

N o n - E m p l o y e e 

P r o f e s s i o n a l E m p loyee 

S u p e r v i s o r s 

Unit 

DEFU N C T N E S S

DELEGATES, C O N V E N T I O N

D E T E R M I N A T I O N OF A P P R O P R I A T E UNIT 

D I L A T O R Y C O N DUCT 

D I S C L A I M E R OF INTEREST 

D I S M I S S A L

DI S Q U A L I F I C A T I O N AS LAB ORG 

D I S T R I B U T I O N OF L I T E R A T U R E 

DOCUMENTS AT HEARING, L M S A 

DR PETITION

DUES C HECKOFF R E V O C A T I O N BY A C T I V I T Y 

DUTY TO BARGAIN

DEFINITIONS (cont.)

20 20 00 V i s t a V o l u n t e e r s 

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

See: A P P R O P R I A T E UNITS 

35 08 04; 35 28 00 

10 04 12

See: R E P CASES; ULP; 

STAN D A R D S OF C O N D U C T

10 20 00

See: C A M P A I G N L I T E R A T U R E 

05 12 04 

10 04 12

35 24 00; 35 28 00;

45 16 00

See: N E G O T I A T I O N S

05 04 00

05 04 00

- E -

E F F E C T I V E DEALINGS 

E FFICI E N C Y OF OPERATIONS

20 04 08

2 0 0^ 12

106
t u x r I O N UAK 10 I'KTITLON 

ELECTIONS

Lab Or g O f f i c e r s 

C a m p a i g n i n g 

C a n didacy

Comp l a i n t Procedure 

R e presentation 

Ballot M a r k i n g s 

Camp a i g n i n g

Challenges 

Craft S e v e r a n c e 

D e c e r t i f i c a t i o n 

E l i g i b i l i t y

Ex c l u s i o n fro m Ball o t

Mail B a l l o t

P o s i t i o n on Ballot

P r o cedure

Prof Emps

Role of O b s e r v e r s

R e f u s a l to S i g n C o n s e n t 

A g r e e m e n t

Re r u n

See also: C H A L L E N G E S : AND 

O B J E C T I O N S T O E L E C T I O N

10 2A 04

55 12 08

55 08 12; 55 12 04; 

55 12 08

55 08 12

25 12 08

See: O B J E C T I O N S TO 

E L E C T I O N

S e e : C H A L L E N G E S 

20 16 04; 25 04 16 

10 04 12

20 16 12 (See also: EMP 

C A T E G O R I E S A N D C L A S S I F I ­

CATIONS)

10 32 00

25 08 08; 25 12 08 

10 12 00 

25 04 00 

25 04 04 

25 04 12

10 12 00

25 16 00

107

298-678 0-79 9
Repres e n t a t i o n (cont.) 

Runoff

Self-De termina tion 

Separate V oting Groups 

Severance 

Tally 

Tie Vote 

Voter Intent 

V o t i n g Groups 

V oting P r o cedures 

ELIGIBILITY

tiLl.CTIONS ( c o iU .)

Seasonal Emps

EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES AND 

CLASSIFICATIONS

EMPLOYEE O R G A N I Z A T I O N 

EMPLOYEE RIGHTS

EMPLOYEE STATUS: EFFECT ON ULP 

EQUAL RIGHTS IN LAD ORG 

ERRONEOUS A D V I C E BY L M S A AGENTS 

EVIDENCE

Adequacy of Record 

A/S Docu m e n t s at H e a rings 

A/S Pers as Wi t n e s s e s 

Burden of Proof 

Documents of A/S

25 08 OS 

25 08 08 

25 04 00

20 16 04; 25 04 16

25 08 08

25 16 00

25 12 00

25 04 00

25 04 04

Sec nlso: CHALLENGES; 

AND EMPLOYEE C A T E G O R I E S 

A N D C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S

20 16 12 

20 20 00

See: L A B O R O R G A N I 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

See: BURDEN OF PR O O F 

05 12 04

108
EVIDENCE (cont.)

2(b) 'Employee'

2(c) " S u p e r v i s o r "

2(d) "Guard"

2(e) " Labor Organization:

2(e)(2) S tatus as La b Org 

3(b)(3) N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y

E x c l u s i o n 25 08 08; 15 12 00

Imp r o p e r A c c e p t a n c e 30 12 00

L i m i t a t i o n s 15 12 00

M a t e r i a l i t y 15 12 00

P o s t - H e a r i n g S u b m i s s i o n 15 24 00

R ecord S u f f i c i e n c y 20 04 16; 15 28 00

R e j e c t i o n of E v i d e n c e 15 12 00; 15 24 00

R e l e v a n c e of E v i d e n c e 15 12 00; 15 24 00

R e o p e n i n g R e c o r d 15 24 00

EXCLUSIONS F ROM A P P R O P R I A T E UN I T S 20 20 00

EXCLUSIONS F ROM EO C O V E R A G E 05 08 00

EXCLUSIVE R E C O G N I T I O N , W A I V E R OF 10 28 00

EXCLUSIVE R E C O G N I T I O N U N D E R EO 10988 05 08 00

EXCLUSIVE R E P R E S E N T A T I V E P E T I T I O N E R 10 28 00

EO 10988, T R A N S I T I O N A L P R O B L E M S 05 32 00

EO 11491, AN D AS A M E N D E D

C o v erage 05 08 00

Sec. 1(b) Emps P a r t i c i p a t i o n 

in M g t of Lab Org 10 32 00; 35 08 04

20 20 00 V ista Volunteers, 

C o m m i s s i o n e d Off. Corp, 

U.S. Public H e a l t h Service

30 24 00

20 04 16

05 04 00

40 20 00; 50 00 00 

05 08 00

109
EO 11491, AND AS AMENDED (cont.)

3(b)(4) Internal A g e n c y S e c u r i t y 05 08 00; 15 12 00

3(d) U n i o n s of Lab Rel Pers. 10 32 00

10(b) C r i t e r i a for A p p r o p r i a t e 

Uni t

20 04 00 to 20 20 00

10 (b)(1) " M a n a g e m e n t Official", 

" S u p e r v i s o r " 20 20 00

10(b)(2) Fed Pers W o r k 20 20 00; 05 08 00

10(b)(3) Guards 10

20

32

16

00;

04

20 20 00;

10(b)(4) Prof Emps 20

25

04

04

04;

04;

20

25

20

12

00;

08

10(c) N o n - G u a r d U n i o n 10 32 00; 20 16 04

11(a) N e g o t i a b i l i t y 35 28 00

11(b) N e g o t i a b i l i t y 35 28 00

11(c)(4) N e g o t i a b i l i t y 35 28 00

11(d) N e g o t i a b i l i t y 05 08 00; 35 28 08

13(a) G r i e v a n c e 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 i e v a b i l i t y 

or A r b i t r a b i l i t y 60 16 00

19(a)(1) Interference by Agen c y 35 04 04; 35 08 00

19(a)(2) D i s c r i m i n a t i o n by Age n c y 35 12 00

19(a)(3) Improper A s s i s t a n c e 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 timony 35 20 00

19(a)(5) Refusal to Grant 

R e c o g n i t i o n 35 24 00

110
Sec, 19(a)(6) A g e n c y Refusal to Confer,

Consult, N e g o t i a t e 35 28 00

19(b)(1) Interference by L a b O r g 40 08 00

19(b)(4) Strike 40 20 00

19(b)(6) U n i o n R e f u s a l 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 A p p e a l s

P r o c e d u r e 35 32 00

20 Use of O f f i c i a l T i m e 30 04 00; 35 28 00

24(2) U n its of M a n a g e m e n t O f f i ­

cials o r S u p e r v i s o r s 10 32 00

25(a) C SC R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 10 32 00

EXHAUSTION OF R EMEDIES, S T A N D A R D S OF

CONDUCT 55 08 08

EXTENT OF O R G A N I Z A T I O N 20 04 04

- F -

FAILURE T O C O O P E R A T E 15 20 00; 30 12 28

FAILURE TO S E R V E D O C U M E N T S 05 28 00

FED PERS W O R K 05 08 00

FIXED T E R M A G R E E M E N T 10 24 12

FORMAL HEA R I N G S See: H E A RINGS

f r a g m e n t a t i o n OF U N I T 20 04 08; 20 04 12

FREE SPEECH

R e p r e s e n t a t i o n E l e c t i o n 25 08 16

Lab Org M e m b e r s 55 12 08

- G -

GOOD FAITH 35 28 00

EO 11491, AND AS AMENDED (cont.)

111
- H -

G R I E V A B I L I T Y AN D A R B I T R A B I L I T Y 

Ge n e r a l 

G R I E V A N C E S

Effect on ULP 

Un i l a t e r a l A d j u s t m e n t 

GUARDS

Mgt of Non- G u a r d Lab Org

Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of Lab Org 

to Re p r e s e n t

H A N D B I L L I N G

HEAD OF A GENCY A U T H O R I T Y TO 

E XCLUDE EMPS F R O M EO

HE (ALJ) R E P O R T A N D RECOND-IENDATION'S 

A N D E X C E P T I O N S

C r e d i b i l i t y R e s o l u t i o n s 

Ob j ections 

ULP 

HEARINGS

A c c e p t a n c e into Evidence 

A dequacy of Record 

A d m i s s i b i l i t y of Evidence 

A/S Documents at Hearings 

A/S Pers as W i t nesses 

Au t h o r i t y of HO 

Bar to P e t i t i o n 

Burden of Proof

35 08 04; 35 28 00

20 04 16; 20 16 04;

20 20 00; 10 32 00

10 32 00 

10 32 00

See: C A M P A I G N L I T E R A T U R E 

05 08 00

60 04 00

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: B U R D E N OF PROOF

112
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 o f Parties 15 20 00

Cross Exam i n a t i o n , Fail u r e

to A l l o w 15 12 00

D ocuments 15 12 00

Documents, L M S A 15 12 04

Evidence See: E V I D E N C E

E x c l u s i o n of T e s t i m o n y 25 08 08

Failure to C o o p e r a t e 15 20 00; 30 12 28

HE (ALJ) Report, No E x c e p t i o n s 30 16 00

Inadequate R e c o r d 15 28 00; 20 04 16

Location 15 08 04

M a t e r i a l i t y 15 12 00

M otions 15 08 00

N o n - C o o p e r a t i o n of P a r t i e s 15 20 00; 30 12 28

Off i c i a l T i m e to A t t e n d 05 08 00; 15 20 00;

35 08 04; 35 28 00

P o s t - H e a r i n g S u b m i s s i o n s 15 24 00

P o s t p o n e m e n t M o t i o n 15 08 04

Record S u f f i c i e n c y 15 24 00; 20 04 16

Refusal to F u r n i s h I n f o r m a t i o n to HO 15 20 00

R e j e c t i o n of E v i d e n c e 15 12 00

Relev a n c e of E v i d e n c e 15 12 00

Remand 15 28 00

R e o p e n i n g of R e c o r d 15 24 00

113
Re q u e s t for L M S A Pers as W i t n e s s e s

Role of HO

Rulings of ALJs

S howing of Interest C h a l l e n g e

S t i p u l a t e d R e c o r d

Stipu l a t i o n s

Su b m i s s i o n s after H e a r i n g

S u p p l e m e n t a l Briefs

T e s t i m o n y E x c l u s i o n

T ime Al l o w e d for Fil i n g 

S u p p l e m e n t a l Briefs

T r a n s c r i p t C o r r e c t i o n

W i t nesses

L MSA Staff

O fficial T i m e

W r i t t e n O p e n i n g Statement 

H I S T O R Y OF B A R G A I N I N G

HEARINGS (cont.)

Request for LMSA Documents

INADEQUATE SHO W I N G OF INTEREST 

INAPPROPRIATE UNIT 

INCUMBENT LAB ORG PET I T I O N E R 

INSTRUCTORS, STATUS A N D RIGHTS 

I NSUFFICIENT R E C O R D

05 12 04

15 04 00

30 12 04

10 16 00

30 20 00

20 0 4 16; 15 24 00

15 24 00

15 24 00

25 08 08

15 24 00 

15 24 00 

15 12 00 

05 12 04

05 08 00; 15 20 00;

35 08 04; 35 28 00

15 12 00

10 24 12; 20 0 4 08

See: S H O W I N G OF INTEREST 

20 04 00 to 20 20 00 

10 28 00 

30 24 00

05 12 04

15 28 00; 20 04 16

114
INSUEIANCE AS C A M P A I G N BENEFIT

INTEREST, S H O W I N G OF

INTERFERENCE W I T H EMPS RIGHTS

INTERNAL S E C U R I T Y O F A G E N C Y

INTERVENOR

INTERVENTION

Challenge to

Sh o w i n g of Interest 

Status as La b Org 

Dismissal 

Incumbent L a b O r g 

Intervenor

N o t i f i c a t i o n to P o t e n t i a l 

Intervenors

Opp o r t u n i t y to W i t h d r a w 

P o s t - D e c i s i o n a l I n t e r v e n t i o n 

Showing of Inter e s t 

T im e l i n e s s 

INVESTIGATION, U L P C O M P L A I N T S 

JOB C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S

JURISDICTION O F A/S

INSULATED PERIOD 10 24 12

25 08 20: 25 08 24

10 16 00 

35 08 00 

05 08 00

20 16 08 

25 08 00 

15 12 00

See: I N T E R V E N T I O N

10 16 00

10 20 00

10 12 00

10 12 00

10 12 00; 20 24 08;

20 24 12

10 08 00 

20 24 12 

20 24 04

10 16 00; 20 24 08 

10 12 00 

30 08 00

See: EMP C A T E G O R I E S A N D 

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S

55 08 04; 05 08 00

113
- L -

L M S A

A g 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 m e n t s at H e a r i n g 

L A B O R O R G A N I Z A T I O N 

Bill of Righ t s 

C h a l l e n g e to Status 

D e f i n i t i o n

I ncumbent La b Org Pet i t i o n e r 

Intervenor

L e g i s l a t i v e - E xecutive Bra n c h 

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 tings

Off 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 peci f i e d C a t e g o r i e s of Emps

Rem e d i a l O r ders A g a i n s t

Sec. 19(b)(1)

19(b)(4)

19(b)(6)

Standards of Conduct

05 12 04 

10 24 12 

05 12 04

See; B I L L O F RIGHTS 

10 20 00 

05 04 00 

10 28 00

See: I N T E R V E N T I O N

05 08 00

10 32 00

55 12 04

See: EL E C T I O N S

55 12 04; 55 12 08

10 32 00

40 08 00 

40 20 00 

40 28 00

05 08 00; 05 20 00; 

10 20 00; 55 00 00

116
LABOK ORGANIZATION (cont.)

S t a t u s as 10 20 00

ULP 35 00 00; 40 00 00

LI-GISLATIVt: - E X E C U T I V E BRANCH 

LAB ORG 05 08 00

l i t e r a t u r e S e e : C A M P A I G N L I T E R A T U R E

- M -

MAJOR P O L I C Y I S S U E R A I S E D 15 32 00; 30 32 00

MGT OFF 05 04 00

Conflict of Interest 10 32 00

MARKINGS ON BALLOT 25 12 08

MEMBERSHIP IN A LAB ORG, D E N I A L OF 40 32 00

MEMBERSHIP PINS, B U T T O N S 35 08 04

MERGER AT A C T I V I T Y 10

20

04

16

08;

08

10 04 20;

MISREPRESENTATION IN C A M P A I G N 25 08 20

MOONLIGHTERS 20 20 00 1Off-Duty Mil Emps

MOOTNESS

Standards of C o n d u c t 55 08 08

ULP 30 28 00; 35 20 00

MOTIONS

Amendment of P e t i t i o n 15 08 08

Dismissal of P e t i t i o n 15 12 00

For W i t n e s s e s a nd/or P r o d u c t i o n 

of D o c uments 15 12 00

Post - H e a r i n g S u b m i s s i o n s 15 24 OU

117
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 Record 15 2A 00

Rep Cases, G e n e r a l 15 08 04

ULP

- N -

30 12 00

N A T I O N A L C O N S U L T A T I O N R I G H T S 35 28 40

N A T I O N A L GUARD, EO C O V E R A G E 05 08 00

NLRD DECISIONS, ROL 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 HOWING OF INTEREST, 

P O S T - D E C I S I O N A L 20 24 08

90-60 DAY " O P E N” PERIOD 10 24 12

N O - D I S T R I D U T I O N RULE 35 08 08

N O - S O L I C I T A T I O N RULE 35 08 12

NON-AC C E S S T O W O R K AREAS 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 00; 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

NO N W O R K T IME CAI'IPAIGNING 35 08 08; 35 08 12

NOTICES

C o m p l i a n c e wit h ULP D e c i s i o n 

Order

and

A5 00 00; 50 00 00

M a i l i n g of ULP Notice 50 00 00

N otice of Petition 10 08 00

118
NOTICES (cont.)

D e t e r m i n a t i o n 20 24 04

ULP 45 00 00; 50 00 00

n o t i f i c a t i o n o f c o m p l i a n c e 10 08 00

NOTIFICATION TO P O T E N T I A L I N T E R V E N O R S 45 00 00; 50 00 00

NURSES 20 16 04

- 0 -

OBJECTIONS TO REP E L E C T I O N 25 08 00 (see also :

L A B O R PRACTICES)

Access to Employees 25 08 16

Activity F a c i l i t i e s 25 08 16

Activity I n t e r f e r e n c e 25 08 16; 25 08 28

Agency Rules o n C a m p a i g n i n g 25 08 16

A nti-Union L i t e r a t u r e 35 08 04; 35 08 08

Burden of P r o o f 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, D i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m 25 12 12

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

E l e c t i o n e e r i n g 20 16 04

Free S p e e c h 25 08 16

HE (ALJ) R e p o r t 25 08 08; 25 08 16

Impact on E l e c t i o n 25 08 12 to 25 08 20

25 08 08; 25 08 24

L ack of S p e c i f i c i t y 25 08 08

M ail F a c i l i t i e s of A c t i v i t y 20 12 00

119
N o n - E m p l o y e e A c c e s s to A c t i v i t y 

Premi s e s

N o n - I n t e r v e n i n g Uni o n 

Pr o c e d u r e

Promises of Benefit

Report on Objections, HE (ALJ)

R unoff E l e c t i o n

Service

Side A g r e e m e n t s 

T i m e l i n e s s

T i m i n g of O b j e c t i o n a b l e C o n d u c t 

O B L I G A T I O N S OF PARTIES

A v a i l a b i l i t y of Wi t n e s s e s

B a r gaining 

B urden of Proof

OBJECTIONS TO REP ELECTION (cont.)

25 08 16 

25 08 16 

25 08 08 

25 08 24

25 08 08; 25 08 16

25 08 08

05 28 00

25 08 08

25 08 08

25 08 12

15 20 00; 30 08 00; 

35 08 04; 35 12 00

See: N E G O T I A T I O N S

See: B U R D E N 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 Infor m a t i o n 30 08 00

Official Time for Wit n e s s e s 15 20 00; 35 08 04

35 12 00

O C C U P A T I O N A L H EALTH NURSE 25 04 04; 25 12 08

O F F - D U T Y HOURS NEGOTI A T I O N S 35 28 00

O F F - D U T Y M I L EMPS 20 04 16; 20 20 00

O F F I C I A L T I M E FOR W I T N E S S E S 05 36 00; 15 20 00

35 08 04; 35 12 00

"OPEN PERIOD" 10 24 12

1 2 0
" O P E N S E A S O N "

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

PERS WORK, F E D

PETITIONER, S T A T U S OF

PETITIONS

AC: Amendment, R e c o g n i t i o n 

or C e r t i f i c a t i o n

Agency Doubt of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e ' s 

Status (RA)

Ame n d m e n t

C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Unit (CU) 

D e c e r t i f i c a t i o n (DR)

Dismissal

DR: D e c e r t i f i c a t i o n

O p p o r t u n i t y to W i t h d r a w

Petitioner w i t h E x c l u s i v e 

R e c o g n i t i o n

RA; A g e n c y D o u b t o f R e p r e ­

se n t a t i v e ' s S t a t u s

Service

POSITION ON B A L L O T

POST-DECISIONAL

In t e r v e n t i o n

Noti c e s

05 08 00 

10 28 00

10 0 4 20

10 0 4 08 

15 08 08 

10 04 16 

10 0 4 12

15 20 00; 20 16 08;

10 16 00; 10 24 00 to 

10 36 00

10 04 12

20 24 12

10 28 00

10 04 08 

05 28 00 

10 12 00

20 24 04

20 24 04

121
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 

Rep Cases 

U L P 

P O S TING

P R E - C O M P L A I N T R E Q U I R E M E N T S 

S t a n d a r d s of C o n duct 

ULP

P R E M A T U R E EXTENS I O N S OF A G R E E M E N T

P R E R E Q U I S I T E S

P R I N C I P A L - A G E N T

P RIVATE S E C T O R LAW, ROL E OF

P R O CEDURE

POST-DECISIONAL (cont.)

PROF EMPS

PROMISES OF B E N EFIT 

P R O P A G A N D A

Q U A L I F I C A T I O N S OF LAB ORG TO 

R E P R E S E N T S P E C I F I E D C A T E G O R I E S 

OF EMPS

Q U E S T I O N S C O N C E R N I N G BALLOT

R A P E T ITION

- R -

20 24 08 

20 24 12 

15 24 00 

15 24 00 

30 16 00 

See; N O T I C E S

55 08 08

30 04 00; 30 08 00 

10 24 12

See: R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R 

35 08 08 

05 24 00

See S p e c i f i c C a p t i o n s Such 

As: ELECTI O N S ; OBJECTIONS; 

R E P CASES; ULP; ST A N D A R D S 

OF C O N D U C T

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

122
r e c o r d See; H E A R I N G S

R E F U S A L T O

B a r g a i n 35 28 00

C o o p e r a t e 15 20 00

Sign C o n s e n t A g r e e m e n t 10 12 00

REGULATIONS

Agency R e g u l a t i o n s Not 

Binding on A/S 20 04 16

REGULATIONS OF A/S

Sec. 202.2(f) S howing of I n t e r e s t 10 16 00

202.2(g) Status of La b 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) T i m e l i n e s s of 

P e t i t i o n 10 24 00

202.3(d) I n s u l a t e d P e r i o d 

F o l l o w i n g W i t h d r a w a l , 

D i s m i s s a l 10 24 12

202.3(e) P r e m a t u r e C o n t r a c t 

E x t e n s i o n 10 24 12

202.4(b) N o t i c e of P e t i t i o n 10 08 00

202.4(f),

(g) R e s p o n s e to P e t i t i o n 15 08 04]

202.5 I n t e r v e n t i o n 20 24 04:

202.6(d) R e q u e s t for R e v i e w 

S e r v i c e 05 28 00

202.7(c) P o s i t i o n on Ball o t 10 12 00

202.12(k) C o n t i n u a n c e of H e a r i n g 15 04 00

202.20(a) O b j e c t i o n s : F i l i n g 25 08 08

S erv i c e 05 28 00

298-678 0 79 10

123
REGULATIONS OF A/S (cont.)

Sec. 202.20(d)

203.2

203.3(e)

203.26

Objections: B u r d e n 

of Proof

R e q u i r e m e n t s for 

Charge

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 

O r d e r

204.2(a)(1) Equal Rights

204.2(a)(2) Free Speech and 

Assembly2 04.2(a)(5) D i s c i p l i n a r y A c t i o n

204.29 E l e c t i o n of O f f icers

204.58

204.63

D ismissal of 

S tandards C o m p l a i n t

Complaints, E l e c t i o n 

of Officers

205.5(a) S t i p u l a t e d Reco r d 

R E J E C T I O N OF EVIDE N C E 

R E L A T E D CASES, C O N C U R R E N T 

R E L E V A N C E OF E V I D E N C E 

R E M A N D 

REMEDY; ULP

A g a i n s t Agencies 

A g a i n s t La b Org 

R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N OF A C T I V I T Y

R E P O R T OF INVESTIGATION, ULP

30 04 00; 30 28 00

30 08 00

45 0 4 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

30 08 00

25 08 08

10 04 08; 10 04 20;

20 16 28

124
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n c a s e s

AC P e t i t i o n 

Accretion

Activity Re f u s a l to R e s p o n d to 

Petition

Agency Peti t i o n (RA)

Agency R e g u l ations Not B i n d i n g 

on A/S

Agreement Bar 

Amendment

C e r t i f i c a t i o n 

Petition 

R e c o g n i t i o n 

Appropriate U n i t 

AA's Acti o n 

Burden of P r o o f 

C e r t i f i c a t i o n 

A m e n d m e n t 

Bar 

Challenges

C l a r i f i c a t i o n of U nit (CU) 

Commu n i t y of I n t e r e s t 

C o n c u r r e n t R e l a t e d C a s e s 

CU P e t i t i o n

10 00 00 to 25 00 00 

See also S p e c i f i c T o p i c s 

S u c h As: A P P R O P R I A T E 

UNIT; ELECTI O N S ; H E A R I N G S ; 

O B J E C T I O N S T O E L E C T I O N S ; 

Etc.

10 04 20 

20 16 08

15 16 00 

10 04 08

20 04 16 

10 24 12

10 08 20 

15 08 08 

10 04 20

See: A P P R O P R I A T E U N I T 

10 40 00 

15 12 00 

25 16 00 

10 04 20'

10 24 08

See: C H A L L E N G E S 

25 20 00; 10 04 16 

20 04 04 

05 20 00 

10 04 16

125
R E P R E S E N T A T I O N C A S E S (cont.) 

C u r r e n t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e

Status of P e t i t i 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

DR P e t i t i o n 10 04 12

E f f e c t i v e D e a lings 20 04 08

E f f i c i e n c y of O p e r a t 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

Hea r i n g Of f i c e r Role 15 04 00

Intervention 20 24 04; 20 24

10 12 00

Lab Or g Status 10 20 00

M o t ions 15 08 00

N o t i c e of

Petition 20 24 04; 10 08

Unit D e t e r m i n a t i o n 20 24 04

Objections S e e : O B J E C T I O N S

Obligations of Parties 15 20 00

Op 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

Policy on Consent Agr e e m e n t s 10 40, 00; 15 28

P o s t - H e a r i n g Submissions 15 24 00

126
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n c a s e s (cont.)

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 rocedure

Elections

Hearings

Pos t - E l e c t i o n

P r e l i minary Stages

Qualifications to R e p r e s e n t 

Specified C a t e g o r i e s of E m p l o y e e s

RA Petition

Remand

Request for R e v i e w R i g h t s 

Residual E m p l o y e e s 

Self-Det e r m i n a t i o n 

Service of D o c u m e n t s 

Severance

Showing of I n t e r e s t

Standards of C o n d u c t

Stipulations of P a r t i e s N o t 

Binding o n A/S

Tim e l i n e s s

ULP A l l e g a t i o n s

Unit D e t e r m i n a t i o n s

Voting P r o c e d u r e s

25 00 00 

15 00 00 

25 00 00 

10 00 00

10 32 00 

10 0 4 08 

15 28 00 

10 36 00 

20 16 16

20 16 20; 25 0 4 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

127
R E Q U E S T FOR Jif

A p p e a r a n c e of W i t n e s s e s 15 20 00;

.Documents 15 12 00

L M S A Do c u m e n t s 05 12 04

L M S A Pers as W i t n e s s e s 05 12 04

W i t n e s s e s 05 12 00

R E Q U E S T FOR R E V I E W

N e w Evide n c e 30 08 00

Ob j e c t i o n s to E l e c t i o n 25 08 08

R e f u s a l to D ismiss P e t i t i o n 10 36 00

Service of 05 28 00

Sho w i n g of Interest 10 16 00

S tatus as Lab Org 10 20 00

R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR

Charge 30 04 00

Com p l a i n t 30 04 00

C o n s e n t Ag r e e m e n t 10 40 00

I nterv e n t i o n 10 12 00

Petition 10 24 00

15 08 08

Unit 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

R E S I D U A L UNIT 20 16 16

RESP O N S E T O PETITION 15 08 04

R E V O C A T I O N OF C E R T I F I C A T I O N 25 16 00

k-‘

128
A g e n c y Di r e c t i v e s , U L P

A g e n c y Mead; E x c l u s i o n of Einps, 

EO C o v e r a g e

A/S

CSC G u i d a n c e 

HO

NLRB Decisions 

RUNOFF ELECTION

ROLE OF

05 08 00 

05 08 00 

35 0 4 04 

15 04 00 

05 24 00 

25 08 08

35 04 04

- S -

SECTIONS

EO

Regulations 

SECURITY EMPS

SELF-DETERMINATION E L E C T I O N 

Unit D e t e r m i n a t i o n 

Voting P r o c e d u r e 

SEPARATE V O T I N G 

SERVICE OF D O C U M E N T S 

SEVERANCE 

SHAM STIP U L A T I O N

SHOWING OF I N T E R E S T 

A d e q u a c y

A g e n c y Mgt, Involvement In

See: E X E C U T I V E O R D E R 

11491, A N D AS A M E N D E D

See: R E G U L A T I O N S O F A / S

05 08 00

20 16 20 

25 04 08 

25 0 4 00

05 28 00; 25 08 08 

20 16 04

20 04 16; 25 12 04;

25 16 00

10 16 00; 20 24 08

10 16 00

129
SHOWING OF INTEREST (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 10 16 00

'Challenge at H e a r i n g 10 16 00

C h a l l e n g e to Inte r v e n o r 10 16 00; 20 24 08

C h a l l e n g e to P e t i t i o n e r 10 16 00

Inadequate for L a r g e r Unit

F o u n d A p p r o p r i a t e 20 24 08

P o s t - D e c i s i o n a l 20 24 08

R e q u e s t for R e v i e w 10 16 00

S e a s o n a l Industries 10 16 00; 20 24 08

V a l i d i t y 10 16 00

S I C K-OUT 40 20 00; 50 00 00

SIDE A G R E E M E N T S

E l e ctions 25 08 08

N e g o t i a t i o n s 35 28 00

S INGLE E M P L O Y E E UNIT 05 04 00

S O L I C I T A T I O N OF MEMB E R S 35 08 04; 35 08 12

STAND A R D S OF C O N D U C T 05 08 00; 05 20 00;

10 20 00; 55 00 00

Bill of Rights 

Elections

Equal Rights

Free S p e e 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

See Also S p e c i f i c C a p t i o n s 

Such As: BIL L OF RIGHTS; 

LAB OR G ELECTIONS; F R E E 

SPEECH

55 08 08; 55 12 00

55 08 12; See Also; 

ELECTIONS; LAB OR G O F F ICERS

55 12 04

55 12 08

55 08 04

130
s t a n d a r d s o f c o n d u c t (cont.)

P r o c e d u r e 55 08 00

Rep C a s e s 05 20 00; 10 20

STATEMENT O F S E R V I C E O F D O C U M E N T S 05 28 00

STATUS AS LA B O R G 10 20 00

STIPULATED R E C O R D 30 20 00

STIPULATIONS 30 20 00; 15 24

Of P a r t i e s N o t B i n d i n g o n A / S 20 04 16

R e l a t e d to C h a l l e n g e s 25 12 04

Sham 20 04 16; 25 12

25 16 00

STRIKE 40 20 00

SUBMISSIONS A F T E R H E A R I N G 15 24 00

SUPERVISORS 05 04 00

SUPERVISORS' U N I T 10 32 00

SUPPLEMENTAL BRI E F S 15 24 00

- T -

TALLY OF B A L L O T S 25 08 08

TELETYPISTS 20 20 00

TEMPORARY EMPS 20 04 16

TERMINAL D A T E OF A G R E E M E N T 10 24 12

TESTIMONY See: E V I D E N C E

TIE VOTE E L E C T I O N 25 16 00

TIMELINESS

A l l e g a t i o n of U L P C o m p l a i n t 

D e f i c i e n c y 30 08 00

131
T I M E L I N E S S (cont.) 

C o m p l a i n t

Stand a r d s of C o n d u c t 55 08 08

U L P 30 08 00

C o r r e c t i o n of T r a n s c r i p t 15 24 00

Inter v e n t i o n 20 24 04; 10 12 00

Mo t i o n to D ismiss U L P C o m p l a i n t 30 04 00; 30 08 00

N e w Evi d e n c e in R e q u e s t for R e v i e w 30 08 00

O b j e c t i o n s to Rep E l e c t i o n 25 08 08

Pe t i t i o n 10 24 00

Showing of Interest 20 24 08; 10 12 00

Wi t hdrawal 20 24 12

T R A D E UNION S e e : LAB ORG

T R A N S C R I P T S e e : H E A R I N G

T R A N S I T I O N A L PROBLEMS 05 32 00

- U -

U N D E R M I N I N G R E P R E S E N T A T I V E 35 28 00

UN F A I R L A BOR PRACTICES

Age n c y

Access to A g e n c y F a c i l i t i e s 

by N o n - I n t e r v e n o r

Directives

ULP

30 00 00 to 45 00 00;

See Also S p e c i f i c Topics 

Such As: COMFLAIN'T, ULP; 

EVIDENCE; HEARINGS; 

O B J E C T I O N S T O E L E CTIONS

35 08 12 

35 04 04 

35 00 00

132
u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e s (cont.)

A g r e e m e n t

E x 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 

A m e n d m e n t of C o m p l a i n t 

A n t i - U n i o n L i t e r a t u r e 

Ap p r o p r i a t e U n i t 

A r b i t r a t i o n 

A w a r d

C a n c e l l a t i o n

E f f e c t of 

A s s i s t a n t to U n i o n 

A u t h o r i t y of N e g o t i a t o r 

B a r g a i n i n g R e q u e s t 

B u r d e n of Pr o o f

B y - P a s s i n g E x c l u s i v e R e p r e s e n t a t i v e

C e ase and D e s i s t O r d e r s

Charge

C h e c k o f f R e v o c a t i o n 

CSC G u i d a n c e

C o m p l a i n a n t ' s O b l i g a t i o n s 

C o m p l a i n t

35 08 04

35 08 04

35 28 00

30 12 00; 30 16 00

35 08 04; 35 08 08

35 28 00

30 28 00

35

35

08

28

04;

00

35 24 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 0 0

35

45

24

04

00;

00

35 28 00;

35 04 04

30

30

04

12

00;

00

30 08 00;

30 04 00; 30 16 00;

See Also: C O M P L A I N T

133
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (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 s o l u t i o n s by H E (ALJ) 30 16 00

CSC G u i d a n c e 35 04 04

Di l a t o r y N e g o t i a t i o n s 35 28 00

D i s c r i m i n a t o r y T r e a t m e n t 35 08 04

D i s m i s s a l of C o m p l a i n t 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 L i t e r a t u r e 35 08 08

Dues A l l o t m e n t s R e v o c a t i o n 35 24 00; 35 28 00;

45 16 00

E ffect of O t h e r P r oceedings 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 mployee Status, E f fect on ULP 30 24 00

Evidence See: E V I D E N C E

G ood F a i t h Negoti a t i o n s 35 28 00

Gr i e v a n c e 35 28 00

G rie v a n c e or Appeals Procedure 35 32 00

Grievance, U n i l a t e r a l A d j u s t m e n t 35 08 04; 35 28 00

"Ground R u l e s " in N e g o t i a t i o n s 35 28 00

HE (ALJ) Report, No Exc e p t i o n s 30 16 00

Hearings 30 12 00; See Also; 

H E A RINGS

I n terference

A g e n c y 35 08 00

134
u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e s (cont.) 

Interference (cont.)

U n i o n AO 08 00

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of A g r e e m e n t 30 28 00

I n v e s t i g a t i o n and R e p o r t 30 08 00

L ab O r g U L P 40 00 00

L i m i t e d to C o m p l a i n t A l l e g a t i o n s 30 12 00

"Make W h o l e " O r d e r 35 20 00

M o o t n e s s 30 28 00; 35 20 00

M o t i o n s 30 12 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

G r o u n d Ru l e s 35 28 00

Sid e A g r e e m e n t s 35 28 00

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 o n - A c c e s s to W o r k A r e a s 35 08 04

N o n w o r k Area 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 o t i f i c a t i o n of C o m p l i a n c e 45 00 00; 50 00 00

O b l i g a t i o n to C onsult, C o n f e r 

or N e g o t i a t e 35 28 00

P o s t - H e a r i n g P r o c e d u r e 30 16 00

P r o cedure

H e a r i n g 30 16 00; 30 20 00;

30 12 00

135
P r o c e d u r e (cont.)

I n v e s t i g a t i o n

Recognition, Fa i l u r e to Accord

R e f u s a l to Confer, Consult, 

N e g otiate

A g e n c y

Uni o n

R e f u s a l to Sig n A g r e e m e n t

Rel a t e d Proce e d i n g s

Reme d i a l Orders

R eport of Inv e s t i g a t i o n

Request for B a r g a i n i n g

Re q u i s i t e s for Ch a r g e s and 

C o m p l a i n t s

Re s p o n s i b i l i t y for Acts of 

Individual

R e v o c a t i o n of C h e c k o f f

Sections of EO

S ol i c i t a t i o n for M e m b e r s h i p

Stipu l a t e d Rec o r d

Strike

" S u c cessorship" Doctrine

T e r m i n a t i n g A g r eement

Un d e r m i n i n g E x c lusive 

R e p r e s e n t a t i v e

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (cont.)

35 08 04; 35 28 00

30 08 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 

A M E N D E D

35 08 12

30 08 00

40 20 00

35 24 00; 20 16 36 

35 28 00

35 28 00

i

136
u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e s (cont.)

Un i l a t e r a l A c t i o n 35 08 04; 35 28 00

U n i o n ULP ^0 00 00

U ni t A p p r o p r i a t e n e s s 35 28 00

W a i v e r of EO R i g h t s 35 04 08

W o r k S t o p p a g e 40 20 00

UNILATERAL A C T I O N 35 28 00

UNION See, • LAB ORG

UNIT See, • 

■ • A P P R O P R I A T E UNIT

- v-z -

VALIDITY OF S H O W I N G O F I N T EREST 10 16 00

VOTER 20 16 12

E l i g i b i l i t y 20 20 00

Intent 25 12 08

Prof Emps 25 04 04

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

VOTING GROU P S 25 04 00

WAIVER OF

A g r e e m e n t Ba r Rule 10 24 12

C h a l l e n g e to I n t e r v e n t i o n 25 08 08

EO Rights 35 04 08

Excl u s i v e R e c o g n i t i o n 10 28 00

WITHDRAWAL O P P O R T U N I T Y 20 16 12

137
W I T N E S S E S 15 12 00

L M S A Pers 05 12 OA

O b l i g a t i o n s of Parties 15 20 00; 30 08 00

35 08 04; 35 28 00

Offi c i a l Time 05 08 00; 35 08 04

R e q u e s t for A p p e a r a n c e 15 20 00; 35 08 04

T e s t i m o n y 15 20 00

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

W O R K S T O P P A G E UO 24 00

U. s. G O V E R N M E N T P R I N T I N G O F F I C E : 1979 0 - 298-678