Supplemental Digest and Index of a

Published Decisions of the Assistant

Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management

Relations Pursuant to Executive Order

11491, As Amended, July 1, 1976

through June 30,1977

U.S. Department of Labor

Labor-Management Services Administration

Supplemental Digest and Index of

Published Decisions of the Assistant

Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management

Relations Pursuant to Executive Order

11491, As Amended, July 1,1976

through June 30,1977

U.S. Department of Labor 

Ray Marshall, Secretary

Labor-Management Services Administration 

Francis X. Burkhardt

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management Relations

Office of Federal Labor-Management Relations 

Louis S. Wallerstein, Director

This'editlon covers the period of July 1, 1976-June 30, 1977. 

It supplements three editions of the Digest and Index covering 

the period of January 1, 1970-June 30, 1976.

This edition contains a Table of Contents and

Tables of Decisions and Reports on Rulings, each covering

the period of July 1, 1976-June 30, 1977

1977

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

Washington, D.C. 20402

Stock No. 029-000-00300-9

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

Page

DIGEST

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

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

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

05 12 00 Evidence ...................................... 2

05 12 04 Request for LMSA Documents

and LMSA Personnel at Hearings .... 2

05 12 08 Admissibility at Hearings .......... 2

05 16 00 Advisory Opinions ............................. 3

05 20 00 Concurrent Related Cases ..................... 3

05 24 00 Role of NLRB Decisions ....................... 3

05 28 00 Service ............... ........................ 3

05 32 00 Transitional Problems ........................ 3

05 36 00 Official Time ................................. 3

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

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

10 04 04 Representation, Filed by Labor

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

10 04 08 Agency Doubt as to Representative

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

10 04 12 Decertification of Representative,

Filed by Employee(s) (DR) ........ 6

10 04 16 Clarification of Unit (CU) ........ 6

10 04 20 Amendment of Recognition or

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

10 04 24 National Consultation Rights ...... 6

10 04 28 Consolidation of Units ............. 6

10 08 00 Posting of Notice of P e t i t i o n................ 7

10 12 00 Intervention .................................. 7

10 16 00 Showing of Interest ............................ 8

10 20 00 Labor Organization Status ..................... 8

10 24 00 Timeliness of P e t i t i o n......................... 8

10 24 04 Election Bar ........................ 8

10 24 08 Certification Bar ................... 8

10 24 12 Agreement Bar ....................... 8

iii
10 28 00 Status of Petiti on e r............................ ID

10 32 00 Qualifications to Represent Specified

Categories of Ehiployees........................ 12

10 36 00 Request for Review R i g h t s ................. . 12

10 40 00 Area Administrator's A c t i o n .................... 12

10 44 00 Defunctness..................................... 12

10 48 00 Blocking Complaints............................. 12

15 00 00 REPRESENTATION HEARING P ROCEDURE.......................... 13

15 04 00 Role of Hearing O f f i c e r ......................... 13

15 08 00 M o t i o n s..... .................................... 13

15 08 04 G e n e r a l .............................. 13

15 08 08 Amendment of P e t i t i o n............... 13

15 12 00 Evidence and Burden of P r o o f ................... 13

15 16 00 Unfair Labor Practice Allegations .............. 13

15 20 00 Obligation of P a r t i e s........................... 13

15 24 00 Post-Hearing Submissions........................ 13

15 28 00 R e m a n d ........................................... ^3

20 00 00 REPRESENTATION UNIT DETERMINATIONS........................ 15

20 04 00 C r i t e r i a ......................................... 15

20 04 04 Community of I n t e r e s t............... 15

20 04 08 Effective D e a l i n g s.................. 19

20 04 12 Efficiency of O perations............ 23

20 04 16 Agency Regulations and Parties'

Stipulations Not Binding on

Assistant Secretary ................. 27

20 04 20 Previous Certification.............. 27

20 08 00 Geographic S c o p e ................................ 28

20 08 04' Wo r l d - W i d e........................... 28

20 08 08 Nation-wide .......................... 28

20 08 12 State-wide........................... 28

20 08 16 City-wide ............................ 28

20 12 00 Organizational Scope ............................ 28

20 12 04 Agency-wide ......................... 28

20 12 08 Activity-wide ....................... 29

20 12 12 Directorate-wide .................... 29

20 12 16 Command-wide ........................ 29

20 12 20 Headquarters-wide ................... 30

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

20 12 28 Region-wide .........................

10 00 00 REPRESENTATION CASES: PRELIMINARY STAGES (Cont'd^

Page

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

20 12 00 Organizational Scope (Cont'd)

Rtge

20 12 32 31

20 12 36 31

20 12 40 31

20 12 44 32

20 12 48 32

20 12 52 32

20 12 56 32

20 12 60 Single Installation ............... 32

20 12 64 Occupational Classification ...... 33

34

20 16 04 34

20 16 08 35

20 16 12 36

20 16 16 36

20 16 20 37

20 16 24 37

20 16 28 37

20 16 32 Consolidation of Units ............ 38

20 16 36 39

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications .... ......40

20 24 00 Post-Decisional Intervention, Showing of

Interest and W i t h d r a w a l..................... ......48

20 24 04 Posting of Notice of Unit

Determination..................... ......^8

20 24 08 Showing of Interest .....................48

20 24 12 Opportunity to Withdraw-#......... ......48

25 00 00 REPRESENTATION ELECTION AND POST ELECTION STAGES ..... ......49

25 04 00 Voting Procedure ..................................49

25 04 04 Professionals ..................... ......49

25 04 08 Self-Determination................ ......49

25 04 12 Role of Observers ................. ......49

25 04 16 Severance ......................... ......49

25 08 00 Objections ................................... ..... 49

25 08 04 under EO 10988 .................... ..... 49

->■ 25 08 08 P ro c e d u r e......................... ..... 49

25 08 12 Timing of Objectionable Conduct ... 49

25 08 16 Agency Rules on Campaigning...... ..... 49

25 08 29 Campaign Communications ................ 49

25 08 24 Promises of Benefit ............... ..... 49

25 08 28 Conduct of E l e c t i o n............... ..... 49

25 08 32 Agency Neutrality................. ......49
25 12 00 Challenges ................................ ^^50

25 12 04 Eligibility of Employees ............. 50

25 12 08 Questions Concerning Ballot ......... 50

25 12 12 Timing of Challenge ................. 50

25 16 00 Certification................................... .... 50

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit ............................... 50

25 24 00 Amendment of Recognition or Certification ..... .... 52

30 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; PROCEDURE ............................ 53

30 04 00 Requisites for Charges and Complaints .............. 53

30 08 00 Complaint Proceedings: Investigation Stage .... 53

30 08 04 Blocking Complaints .................. 53

30 12 00 Hearing .......................................... 54

30 12 04 Rulings of ALJs ...................... 54

30 12 08 Untimely Amendments to Complaints ... 55

30 12 12 Failure to Appear ................... 55

30 12 16 Prejudicial Evidence ................ 55

30 12 20 Technical Deficiencies .............. 55

30 12 24 Evidence and Burden of Proof ....... 55

30 12 28 Lack of Cooperation................. 55

30 16 00 Post-Hearing .................................... 5^

30 20 00 Stipulated Record ............................... 55

30 24 00 Employee Status: Effect on Unfair Labor

Practices ........................................ 56

30 28 00 Effect of Other Proceedings or Forums ......... 56

30 32 00 Major Policy Issue Raised ...................... 57

35 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: AGENCY

35 04 00 General ......................................... 59

35 04 04 Guidance or Directives of Civil

Service Commission or Agency ....... 59

35 04 08 Waiver of Rights Granted by

Executive Order ..................... 59

35 04 12 Management Rights ................... 59

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1) ............................... 59

35 08 04 Interference ........................ 60

35 08 08 Distribution of Literature ......... 66

35 08 12 Solicitation ........................ 66

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) .............................. 66

35 16 00 Section 19(a)(3) .............................. 70

25 00 00 REPRESENTATION ELECTION AND POST ELECTION STACT.s

(Cont’d)

vi
35 20 00 Section 19(a)(4) ............................... 71

35 24 00 Section 19(a)(5) . . . ............ 72

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6) ............................... 73

35 28 04 Response to Bargaining Request...... 73

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer

Generally #•••••#••••••••••••••♦••••• 74

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on

Impact or Procedures ................ 80

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion Representation .............. 8^

35 28 20 Uncompromising Attitude ............. 87

35 28 24 Dilatory and Evasive Tactics ........ 87

35 28 28. Unilateral Changes in Terms

and Conditions of Employment ........ 87

35 28 32 Bypassing Exclusive Representatxve .................................

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information ..... 94

35 32 00 Section 19(d) .................................. 96

40 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: LABOR ORGANIZATION ............. 99

35 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: AGENCY (Cont*d) Page

40 04 00 General .......

40 08 00 Section 19(b)(1)

40 12 00 Section 19(bK2)

40 16 00 Section 19(b)(3)

40 20 00 Section 19(b)(4)

40 24 00 Section 19(b)(5)

40 28 00 Section 19(b)(6)

40 32 00 Section 19(c) ..

• ••••••••••

45 16 04 Interference, Solicitation or

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

45 16 08 Dxscrxmination ......................

45 16 12 Assisting a Labor Organization ....

45 16 16 Refusal to Accord Appropriate

Recognition ..........................

yii

45 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES; UNFAIR LABOR

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

45 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of Remedies .... 101

45 08 00 Advice of*Con^liance ...

45 10 00 Modifications to Orders 

45 12 00 Remedies for Iiqyroper Rules, Regulations 

and Orders

45 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct ............
45 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES: UNFAIR LABOR 

PRACTICES (Cont'd)

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

Page

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or

Ne^otxate ••••••••••• • • 103

45 16 24 Failure to Cooperate ................ .....107

45 20 00 Jurisdictional Questions .................. ......... 10®

50 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS;

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

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

50 08 00 Advxce of Compliance 109 

50 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations

and Orders 109

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

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

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

50 16 12 Inducing Management to Coerce an

Employee ............ • •••••••••••••• 109

50 16 16 109

50 16 20 109

50 16 24 Failure to Consult, Confer or

Negotxate ............ • •••••••••••••• 109

50 16 28 Denial of Membership .. 109

OF 111

55 04 00 Effect on Representation and Unfair Labor

Practice Cases ................. ................

55 08 00 Procedure ....................................... m

55 08 04 Jurisdiction ...... .................. H I

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

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

55 12 00 Bill of Rights ................................. H I

55 12 04 Equal Rights ......................... H i

55 12 08 Freedom of Speech .................. Ill

55 12 12 Dues, Initiation Fees and

Assessments ......................... H I

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

55 12 20 Safeguards against Improper

Disciplinary Action ................ Ill

viii
60 00 00 GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY..... ,

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

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

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

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

TABLE OF DECISIONS - ALPHABETICAL LISTING ....

TABLE OF DECISIONS - NUMERICAL LISTING, DATES 

OF ISSUANCE AND SECTIONS OF DIGEST INVOLVED ...

TABLE OF REPORTS ON RULINGS, DATES OF ISSUANCE 

AND SECTIONS OF DIGEST INVOLVED ...............

INDEX ..........................................

113

113

114 

114 

114

117

131

155

157

Page

ix

PREFACE

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

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

July 1, 1976 to June 30, 1977. Published decisions from January 1, 1970 

to June 30, 1976, are contained in three previously published editions 

of the Digest and Index (DI).

The Digest section summarizes significant decisional material and is 

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

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

the A/s on requests for review of field-level actions; and (3) those 

rulings of the Federal Labor Relations Council which remanded cases to 

the A/s or modified his decisions.

Executive Order 11491 was amende^ effective May 7, 1975, and the Regulations of the A/s were revised, effective May 7, 1975. Accordingly, 

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

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

prior to such changes.

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

entitled "Decisions and Reports on Rulings of the Assistant Secretary 

of Labor for Labor-Management Relations Pursuant to Executive Order 

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

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

of Labor.

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

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

such decisions, nor should its contents be construed as official pronouncements or interpretations of the A/S.

XX

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

AA

AC Petition 

AO

ALJ

AO

ARD

A/S

A/SLMR No.

CU Petition 

DI

EO

FLRC 

FLRC No. 

GS 

HE

HO

Area Administrator, Labor-Management Services 

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor 

(formerly Area Director, Labor-Management 

Services Administration)

Amendment of Recognition or Certification 

Petition

Area Director, Labor-Management Services 

Administration; now referred to as Area Administrator, 

Labor-Management Services Administration

Administrative Law Judge (formerly Hearing Examiner)

Area Office, Labor-Management Services Administration

Assistant Regional Director for Labor-Management 

Services; now referred to as Regional Administrator, 

Labor-Management Services Administration

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management 

Relations

Assistant Secretary for Labor-Management Relations 

Decision Number

Clarification of Unit Petition

Digest and Index of Published Decisions of the 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Labor-Management 

Relations

Executive Order 10988 where indicated; otherwise 

references are to Executive Order 11491 in cases 

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

11491, as amended, subsequent thereto

Federal Labor Relations Council

Federal Labor Relations Council Decision Number

General Schedule

Hearing Examiner (Title changed to Administrative 

Law Judge)

Hearing Officer

X l l l
LMSA

LMWP

NE

OFLMR

RA

RA 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 08 00

05 04 00 Definitions (Alphabetically Listed)

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

Meet and Confer, Consult and Negotiate. In its 1975 Report 

and Recommendations, the FLRC recognized that confusion 

had developed over the apparent interchangeable use of the 

terms "Consult," "Meet and Confer," and "Negotiate." In 

this regard, the Council stated: The parties to exclusive 

recognition have an obligation to "negotiate" rather than 

to "consult" on negotiable issues unless they mutually have 

agreed to limit this obligation in any way. In the Federal 

labor-management relations program, "consultation" is required only as it pertains to the duty owed by agencies to 

labor organizations which have been accorded national consultation rights under Sec. 9 of the EO. The term "meet 

and confer," as used in the EO, is intended to be construed 

as a synonjrm for "negotiate." (U.S. Army Electronics Command, 

Ft. Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 679)

05 08 00 Coverage of Executive Order

A/S found, in connection with ULP case, that employees 

excluded from coverage of EO under Sec. 3(b)(3) necessarily 

should be prohibited from holding union office, as their 

participation in the management of a labor organization 

would result in a conflict or apparent conflict of interest, 

or otherwise would be incompatible with law or with the 

official duties of the employee within the meaning of Sec.

1(b) of the EO. (Dept, of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco and Firearms, Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 695)

A/S noting that no determination had been rendered by the 

Secretary of the Army exempting the Activity's employees 

from the EO pursuant to Sec. 3(b)(3) and (4), found that 

the employees in the unit found appropriate were subject 

to the coverage of the EO. (Criminal Investigation Command, 

Third Region, Ft. Gillem, Forest Park, Ga., A/SLMR No. 715)

05 00 00 GENERAL PROVISIONS

6-30-77
05 12 08

A/S based upon a DOD directive indicating that pursuant 

to Sec. 3(c) of the EG, the EG does not apply to employees 

located in the Panama Canal Zone unless otherwise 

authorized by the Secretary of the Army, found that employees 

of the Activity located in the Canal Zone should be excluded 

from the unit found appropriate. (Criminal Investigation 

Command, Third Region, Ft. Gillem, Forest Park. Ga.,

A/SLMR No. 715)

A/S found that the January 12, 1970 letter approving 

recognition was in fact a confirmation of recognition 

actually granted December 31, 1969 placing it under EG 

10988. (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Administrative Services 

Center, Albuquerque, N.M., A/SLMR No. 788)

A/S concluded that Respondent's decision to change the 

minimum term for military re-enlistments did not change 

a working condition which was bargainable in any respect 

under the EG, but rather, changed a precondition for 

civilian technician employement, which is outside the purview 

of the EG, and is solely governed by statute. (N.J. Dept, 

of Defense, N.J. Air National Guard, 177th Fighter Interceptor Group, A/SLMR No. 835)

05 12 00 Evidence

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

No Entries

05 12 08 Admissibility at Hearings

A/S in agreement with ALJ concluded that two internal 

management reports which were submitted to ALJ for his 

in camera inspection at the hearings were neither relevant 

nor necessary to the union for it to intelligently 

negotiate the impact and implementation of a RIF. (Agency 

for International Development, Dept, of State,

A/SLMR No. 676)

05 08 00 Coverage of Executive Order (Cont'd)

6-30-77
05 16 00 Advisory Opinions

No Entries

05 20 00 Concurrent Related Cases

No Entries

05 24 00 Role of NLRB Decisions

No Entries

05 28 00 Service

No Entries

05 32 00 Transitional Problems

No Entries

05 36 00 Official Time

A/S in agreement with ALJ, found that the general limitation on the use of official time unilaterally imposed by 

the Respondent on all other union officials, because of a 

breach of the agreement by two union officers constituted <

flagrant and patent breach of the parties' agreement in 

violation of Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO as there was 

no contention by the Respondent that any of the conditions 

set forth in the agreement have been met with respect to 

all other union officials before the Respondent limited 

their use of official time. (Watervliet Arsenal, U.S.

Army Armament Command, Watervliet, N.J., A/SLMR No. 726)

05 36 00

05 12 00 Evidence (Cont'd)

6-30-77

10 00 00 REPRESENTATION CASES: PRELIMINARY STAGES

10 04 00 Types of Petitions; Procedure (For substantive matters 

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

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

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

No Entries

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

A/S found that there was sufficient evidence to support 

a good faith doubt by the Actlvlty-Petltloner as to the 

AFGE*s continuing majority status, based on the fact that 

there were currently no unit employees who had authorized 

dues deduction; there had been a recent history of difficulty experienced by the Activity in contacting the AFGE, 

and securing responses to proposed changes in operating 

and personnel policies; the AFGE had failed to supply the 

Activity with a list of officers or individuals authorized 

to act for the AFGE in the absence of its President; and 

for a substantial period of time the AFGE had not processed 

any grievance, either on behalf of individual members of 

the bargaining unit, or on its own behalf. A/S directed 

a election in the unit found appropriate. (Dallas Regional 

Office, SBA, A/SLMR No. 817)

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

No agreement bar found to decertification petition and 

election ordered. (HUD, Greensboro Area Office,

A/SLMR No. 813)

A/S citing Defense Supply Agency, Defense Property Disposal 

Office, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen M d ., FLRC N o . 

74A-22, found that the gaining employer was a "successor", 

and that pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the FLRC 

he should refer the following major policy issue to the 

Council: Whether the A/S can find that in a successorship 

situation, the agreement bar which existed pursuant to 

the predecessor's negotiated agreement with the exclusive 

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

exclusive representative a period of stability free from 

rival claims or other questions concerning majority 

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

A/SLMR No. 857)

10 04 12

6-30-77 c
10 04 28

10 04 16 Clarification of Unit (CU)

Reorganization which transferred the Jasper Branch Office 

from the Birmingham, Ala., Dist. to the Tuscaloosa, Ala.,

Dist. altered the scope and character of the certified 

bargaining unit to the extent that the Jasper Branch 

Office employees no longer share a community of interest 

with employees in the subject bargaining unit, and were 

excluded from the bargaining unit. However, A/S found that 

the employees of the other Birmingham Dist. offices continued 

to share a community of interest with the other employees in 

the certified unit and thus should remain in the unit, but 

that it would not effectuate the purposes and policies of 

the EO to further clarify the unit as to include all 

branch offices within the Birmingham, Ala., Dist., as it 

would automatically accrete to the unit employees of any 

branch office subsequently established in the Dist. in the 

future. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of Field Operations, A/SLMR No. 777)

Unit clarified to reflect addition of two school grades 

did not result in substantial or material changes in the 

scope or character of the existing exclusively recognized 

bargaining unit, as the new employees worked in the same 

physical location, were subject to the same supervision and 

shared common personnel policies, practices and working 

conditions. (Dependents Schools, Europe, [Sigonella 

School], A/SLMR No. 825)

10 04 20 Amendment of Recognition or Certification (AC)

No Entries

10 04 24 National Consultation Rights 

No Entries

10 04 28 Consolidation of Units (UC)

The special procedures established by the FLRC for consolidation are applicable only to the consolidation of existing 

exclusively recognized units. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of Field 

Operations, Region V, Area IV, Cleveland, Ohio,

A/SLMR No. 706)

6-30-77
10 04 28 Consolidation of Units (UC) (Cont’d)

Given the clear policy guidelines established by the FLRC 

in the consolidation of units area, there has been established » in effect, a presumption favoring the appropriateness of proposed consolidated units. This presumption may 

be rebutted only where it is found that the proposed consolidated unit is so inconsistent with the criteria contained in 

Sec. 10(b) of the EC that the overriding objective of 

creating a more comprehensive bargaining unit structure 

would be undermined by such a finding. (Education Division, 

HEW, Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 822)

Referred to the principle established in A/SLMR No. 822 

that there is a presumption favoring the appropriateness 

of proposed consolidated units. (IRS, Washington, D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 831)

A/S noted that the FLRC has indicated that a UC petition 

itself does not raise a QCR. Therefore, in his view, it 

would not effectuate the purposes of the EG to deny an 

exclusive representative the right to negotiate an agreement 

in an individual unit during the pendency of a UC petition 

which includes that unit, absent the raising of a valid 

QCR in such unit. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of Field Operations, 

Region V-A, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 832)

Referred to the principle established in A/SLMR No. 822 

that there is a presumption favoring the appropriateness of 

proposed consolidated units. (IRS, Washington, D.C.,

A/SLMR No. 853)

10 08 00 Posting of Notice of Petition

(See 20 24 00 for Post-Decisional Items)

No Entries

10 12 00 Intervention

(See 20 24 00 for Post-Decisional Items)

A/S revoked intervenor status of labor organization in CU 

proceeding where labor organization had not been accorded 

exclusive recognition pursuant to the procedures of Executive 

Orders 10988 and 11491, as amended and thus, had not met the 

intervention requirements of Sec. 202.5(e) of the A/S's 

Regulations for intervention in a CU proceeding. (GSA, FSS, 

A/SLMR No. 699)

10 12 00

6-30-77
10 24 12

Despite the fact that the labor organization's requests for 

intervention were untimely under the peculiar circumstances, 

and the fact that the intervenor had a sufficient showing of 

interest to support its intervention, the A/S granted the request 

to intervene. (Defense Property Service, Defense Property 

Disposal Regions, Memphis, Columbus and Ogden, et.al.,

A/SLMR No. 779)

10 16 00 Showing of Interest

(See 20 24 00 for Post-Decisional Items)

The Petitioner, in order to utilize employee members covered 

by a negotiated agreement with the Activity for purpose of 

showing of interest, indicated willingness (a) to terminate 

its agreement prior to election and (b) to waive its exclusive 

recognition status. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

A/SLMR No. 819)

10 20 00 Labor Organization Status 

No Entries

10 24 00 Timeliness of Petition

10 24 04 Election Bar

No Entries

10 24 08 Certification Bar

No Entries

10 24 12 Agreement Bar

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

A/S found that OFT’s European Area negotiated agreement 

covered all the professional employees of former schools 

now commingled at the Ramstein Elementary School, and is a 

bar to the petition filed by the OEA. In this connection,

A/S found that the merger herein did not result in the 

creation of a new unit involving an operation with major 

personnel and administrative changes. Nor did it result 

in the professional employees of the Ramstein Elementary 

School having a new community of interest separate and 

apart from the unit as described in the existing negotiated 

European Area agreement between the OFT and the Activity,

(U.S. Dependent Schools, European Area, A/SLMR No. 740)

10 12 00 Intervention (Cont*d)

6-30-77
10 24 12

10 24 12 Agreement Bar (Cont'd)

Pursuant to Sec. 202.3(c)(1) of the A/S's Regulations, the 

A/S found that the petition was untimely filed in that it 

was filed during the insulated period of the agreement.

(U.S. Dependent Schools, European Area, Upper Heyford High 

School, A/SLMR No. 770)

A/S, found petition filed untimely since Sec. 202.3(c)(2) 

of the Regulations provides that controlling date in computing "open period" for.filing of petition for election is 

expiration date of initial three year period of agreement, 

such as the instant agreement, which has a terminal date 

more than three years from the date it was signed and dated 

by Activity and incumbent exclusive representative. (Naval 

Air Station, Willow Grove, Pa., A/SLMR No. 772)

A/S concluded that agreement did not constitute bar to 

processing petition where: (1) Sec. 202.3(c)(1) of the 

Regulations provides that controlling date in computing 

"open period" for filing of petition for election is terminal 

date of agreement, such as the instant agreement, which has 

term of three years or less from date signed and dated by 

Activity and incumbent exclusive representative; and (2) 

third party, such as petitioner, relying solely upon 

information contained within "four corners" of agreement 

would have no means to ascertain agreement * s terminal date 

as neither the signature page nor any portion of the instant 

agreement indicated the date upon which it was approved.

(U.S. Dept, of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Forests 

of Mississippi, Jackson, Miss., A/SLMR No. 774)

Negotiated agreement, which had a duration of 3 years with 

automatic 3 year renewals unless either party requested 

renegotiations, did not bar decertification petition where 

agreement was extended for purpose of renegotiations and 

petition was filed during extension period, as party's 

request to renegotiate served to terminate agreement.

(HUD, Greensboro Area Office, A/SLMR No. 813)

As the Activity and the Petitioner stipulated that there 

were no bars to an election, the A/S found that the parties 

have, in effect, mutually waived the agreement bars in the 

four units where they have negotiated agreements. (U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, A/SLMR No. 819)

6-30-77
10 28 00

A/S dismissed representation petition not filed during 

valid challenge period as provided for in Sec. 202.3(c) 

of the Regulations. (Dependents Schools, Eurpoe, [Sigonella 

School], A/SLMR No. 825)

A/S^ held that a negotiated agreement, consummated prior 

to the certification of a consolidated unit, covering one 

of the pre-existing units would not constitute a bar to a 

subsequent election in the consolidated unit regardless of 

such agreement's duration. (Dept, of HEW, SSA, Bureau of 

Field Operations, Region V-A, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 832)

A/S dismissed representation petition not filed during 

valid challenge period as provided for in Sec. 203.3(c) of 

the Regulations. (DOD, Dependents Schools, Europe,

[Brindisi School], A/SLMR No. 840)

A/S citing Defense Supply Agency. Defense Property Disposal 

Office, Aberdeen Proving Ground. Aberdeen, M d ., FLRC N o . 

74A-22, found that the gaining employer was a "successor" 

and that pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the FLRC 

he should refer the following major policy issue to the 

Council: Whether the A/S can find that in a successorship 

situation the agreement bar which existed pursuant to the 

predecessor's negotiated agreement with the exclusive representative may continue in effect after the reorganization so 

as to afford the successor employer and the exclusive representative a period of stability free from rival claims or 

other questions concerning majority status. (U.S. Army 

Mortuary, Oakland Army Base, A/SLMR No. 857)

10 28 00 Status of Petitioner

A/S concluded that as the employees at a particular activity, 

were unrepresented and as no timely petition had been filed 

raising a QCR with respect to the employees of that activity, 

the subject petition to consolidate certain existing exclusively recognized units was not rendered defective by virtue 

of the fact that it excluded the employees of that activity. 

(HEW, SSA, Bureau of Field Operations, Region V, Area IV, 

Cleveland, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 706)

10 24 12 Agreement Bar (Cont'd)

10 6-30-77
Where Petitioner seeks unit which encompasses unit or units 

in which it already holds exclusive recognition (but no 

negotiated agreement exists), in order to permit employees 

in such unit or units to be counted for purposes of petitioner's 

showing of interest, petitioner will be required to waive its 

exclusive recognition status in such unit or units and agree, 

in effect, to risk that recognition in event that it proceeds 

to election in broad unit and loses. (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, A/SLMR No. 819)

A/s concluded that where an Activity has been found to have 

failed to meet at reasonable times for the purpose of consummating a negotiated agreement and, therefore, has been 

ordered to bargain with the incumbent exclusive representative, 

such a bargaining order must be carried out for a reasonable 

time thereafter without regard to whether or not there are 

fluctuations in the majority status of the incumbent exclusive 

representative. In the A/S's view such a policy is necessary 

to give the order to bargain its fullest effect, i.e. to give 

the parties to the collective bargaining relationship a 

reasonable time in which to conclude a negotiated agreement 

free from rival claims. Therefore, dismissal of a petition 

questioning the majority status of an incumbent exclusive 

representative filed under such circumstances would be 

warranted. (Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, Region I,

Maynard Mass., A/SLMR No. 799)

There is nothing in the EG, the Report and Recommendations of 

the FLRC, or the A/S's Regulations, which requires the A/S to 

challenge the constitutional authority of a national labor 

organization to file a unit consolidation petition on behalf 

of its exclusively recognized local chapters even when the 

vast majority, as herein, of the exclusive recognitions for 

the units sought to be consolidated, are held by the individual 

chapters of the national labor organization. While under certain 

circumstances, it may be necessary to review the constitutional 

authority of a national labor organization to take such an 

action where the constitution of the labor organization 

involved is unclear in this regard or appears to delimit such 

authority, the A/S noted that there was no contention herein, 

nor did it appear, that the Constitution and Bylaws of the NTEU 

precluded the NTEU from filing a consolidation petition on behalf 

of its constituent local chapters. He noted additionally that

10 28 00

10 28 00 Status of Petitioner (Cont*d)

6-30-77 11
10 28 00 Status of Petitioner (Cont’d)

the affected employees would be protected from arbitrary 

action by a national labor organization in seeking to consolidate the exclusively recognized units of its constituent 

locals by the provisions of the EG and the A/S’s Regulations, 

which provide for an election on the question of any proposed 

consolidation at the request of either party or 30 percent or 

more of the affected employees. Under all of these circumstances, the A/S found that the NTEU had standing to file the 

instant petition on behalf of its exclusively recognized local 

chapters. (IRS, Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 831)

A/S found, with respect to the IRS’s threshold contention that 

the NTEU was without standing to file the instant petition, 

that, as the contentions of the parties and the factual circumstances with respect to this question were identical to 

those raised in A/SLMR No. 831, and for the reasons stated 

herein, the NTEU had standing to file the instant petition on 

behalf of its exclusively recognized local chapters. (IRS, 

Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 853)

10 32 00 Qualifications to Represent Specified Categories of Employees

Petitioner found eligible under Sec. 24(2) of th EG to 

represent licensed marine engineers who were found to be 

supervisors where petitioner traditionally represented units 

of licensed marine engineers under EG, and in the private 

sector. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, A/SLMR No. 819)

10 36 00 Request for Review Rights

No Entries

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

No Entries

10 44 00 Defunctness y

(See also: 10 24 12. "Agreement Bar"

No Entries

j 0 48 00 Blocking Complaints

Absent the filing of a Request to Proceed the A/S will hold 

in abeyance the conducting of a representation election where 

a pending ULP complaint, filed by a party to the representation

proceeding, is based upon conduct of a nature which would have 

a tendency to interfere with the free choice of the employees 

in an election, were one to be conducted. *(R A/S No. 60)

10 48 00

12 6-30-77
15 00 00 REPRESENTATION HEARING PROCEDURE

15 04 00 Role of Hearing Officer

No Entries

15 08 00 Motions

15 08 04 General

No Entries

15 08 08 Amendment o£ Petition

A/S affirmed HQ's ruling granting the Petitioner, AFGE's 

motion to amend Its petition to Include the lAM and MTD 

as Jolnt-Petltloners. A/S found no merit In the NFFE's 

argument which cited Veterans Administration Hospital 

Montrose. New York, A/SLMR No. 470, that It would be 

Inappropriate to allow the amendment without the knowledge 

or consent of the employees who signed the showing of 

Interest as such employees had no opportimlty to express 

their desire as to whether or not they wished to be represented by the Jolnt-Petltloners. In affirming the HO, 

the A/S found the above case to be inapposite to the instant 

situation and further, that the employees involved will have 

an opportunity to express their desire in a secret ballot 

election as to whether or not they wish to be represented 

exclusively by the Jolnt-Petltloners. (Defense Property 

Disposal Regions, Memphis, Columbus, and Ogden, et.al., 

A/SLMR No. 779)

15 12 00 Evidence and Burden of Proof

No Entries

15 16 00 Unfair Labor Practice Allegations 

No Entries 

15 20 00 Obligation of Parties 

No Entries 

15 24 00 Post-Hearing Submissions 

No Entries ->

15 28 00 Remand ^ ^

No Entries

15 28 00

6-30-77 13

ZO 04 04

20 00 00 REPRESENTATION UNIT DETERMINATIONS 

20 04 00 Criteria

20 04 04 Coimnunlty of Interest

In finding that the Activity became the successor employer 

for two units, the A/S noted, among other things, that the 

employees in the two units continued to enjoy a clear and 

identifiable community of interest. (GSA, Central Off., 

Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 693)

Filed unit held appropriate as claimed employees share 

a clear and identifiable community of interest separate and 

distinct from all other employees of the Agency and such 

unit will promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations. (State Passport Off., Chicago, 111.,

A/SLMR No. 697)

A/S found that while the employees of one activity within 

the SSA Area encompassed by the proposed consolidated unit 

could not properly be included, the proposed consolidated unit 

would, nevertheless, unite the employees in all eight of the 

Activity’s current exclusively recognized units and that 

these employees were under the common supervision of an 

Area Director, had common work oriented relationships, and 

were subject to common personnel policies and practices 

administered on an Activity-wide basis and thus shared a 

clear and identifiable community of interest and that the 

creation of such a comprehensive imit will promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of agency operations, as well as 

being consistent with the policies of the FLRC as set forth 

in the Report and Recommendations wherein consolidation was 

proposed. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of Field Operations, Region V, 

Area IV, Cleveland, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 706)

Claimed unit is not appropriate where included employees 

do not share a clear and identifiable community of interest 

which is separate and distinct from other Ft. Knox employees, 

and that the proposed fragmented unit could not reasonably 

be expected to promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations. (U.S. Army Reception Station, Ft. Knox,

K y. , A/SLMR No. 714)

6-30-77 15
20 04 04

20 04 04 Community of Interest (Cont’d)

Region-wide unit, of nonprofessional employees found 

appropriate for exclusive recognition in view of finding 

that the claimed employees share a clear and identifiable 

community of interest and in view of holding that such unit 

would promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

operations. (Criminal Investigation Command, Third Region,

Ft. Gillem, Forest Park, Ga., A/SLMR No. 715)

A/S found that the claimed Region Headquarter’s Office 

unit was not appropriate and dismissed the petition, finding that the claimed unit did not share a clear and identifiable community of interest separate and distinct from 

other employees in the various other Region Headquarter’s 

Offices. A/S further found, that the claimed unit is only 

one of a number of operating components in the Region 

Headquarter's and could not reasonably be expected to promote 

effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations.

(HEW, Region II, SSA, Bureau of Disability Insurance,

A/SLMR No. 723)

Claimed unit was not found to be appropriate as it was only 

one component of the MSDO whose employees did not share a 

clear and identifiable community of interest which was 

separate and distinct from other employees of the MSDO. 

(Management Systems Development Office Detachment, NARF, 

Jacksonville NAS, Fla., A/SLMR No. 741)

Both proposed unit and alternative unit are not appropriate 

where included employees do not share a clear and identifiable community of interest which is separate and distinct from 

excluded employees. (U.S. Dept, of Agric., U.S. Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Forest Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore., A/SLMR No. 762)

A/S found that there is not a community of interest among 

the employees of the Riviera Beach Outpatient Clinic and the 

employees of the existing unit at the Activity to warrant the 

inclusion of the employees of the Riviera Beach Clinic in 

the existing unit without a self-determination election. (VA 

Hospital, Miami, Fla., A/SLMR No. 765)

Claimed unit not appropriate where employees of three 

separate program services were not engaged in an integrated 

operation, interchange or transfer across service lines, or 

enjoy common working conditions, job classification, skills 

and duties. (GSA, Jackson/Vicksburg, Miss., A/SLMR No. 769)

16 6-30-77
20 04 04 Community of Interest (Cont’d)

Proposed unit of professional employees found appropriate 

where, among other factors, unit was previously found 

appropriate in Office of the Regional Counsel. Western 

Region, A/SLMR No. 161, which unit was subsequently 

decertified. (Dept, of Treasury, Office of Regional Counsel, 

Western Region, A/SLMR No. 780)

Claimed unit and alternative unit not appropriate where 

petitioned for employees perform similar work, share 

similar working conditions, and are subject to the same 

personnel policies, practices, job benefits and areas of 

consideration for promotion and RIF as other Activity employees. 

(National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 

San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 789)

A petition seeking a unit of all Nuclear Engineering 

Technicians was rejected by the A/S, who noted that the 

technicians had substantial interaction and interchange with 

other employees and that the employees are subject to the 

same personnel policies and practices as other employees at 

the Activity. Under these circumstances, it was determined 

that the claimed employees did not share a distinct community 

of interest nor would such unit promote effective dealings or 

efficiency of agency operations. (Mare Island Naval Shipyard, 

Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 815)

All licensed marine engineers employed by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers in the continental United States found 

appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition as 

claimed employees constituted a homogeneous grouping of 

employees with a clear and identifiable community of 

interest separate and distinct from the other employees of 

the Activity and that they were all supervisors as defined 

by Sec. 2(c) of the EO and possessed similar skills, 

functions, job classifications and license requirements; that 

they had transferred between the various other districts of 

the Activity; and that they were subject to the same labor 

relations programs which were set forth in Activity-wide 

personnel regulations. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

A/SLMR No. 819)

20 04 04

6-30-77 17
20 04 04

20 04 04 Community of Interest (Cont'd)

A/S concluded that the employees in the unit sought 

constitute all of the eligible employees of the Education 

Division, and as such, share a common mission, common 

supervision, coiranon work classifications, essentially common 

working conditions, and essentially similar personnel and 

labor relations practices in accordance with DHEW delegations of authority. Under these circumstances, the A/S 

found that the employees in the petitioned for consolidated 

unit share a clear and identifiable community of interest. 

(Education Division, HEW, Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 822)

A petitioned for unit consisting of all employees of the 

Utah District Office, Water Resources Division, U.S.

Geological Survey was found inappropriate by the A/S as 

the employees involved did not possess a clear and 

identifiable community of interest separate and distinct 

from other employees in the Central Region and that such unit 

would not promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations. (U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Division, Central Region, Utah District, A/SLMR No. 826)

A/S found that the employees in the unit sought constitute 

all of the eligible employees in the IRS’s computeroriented Center-type operations. As such, they share a 

common mission and common supervision on a nationwide level, 

common job classifications, common types of working conditions, 

and similar personnel and labor relations practices pursuant 

to the multi-center negotiated agreement between the parties. 

Under these circumstances, he concluded that the employees 

in the petitioned for consolidated unit shared a clear and 

identifiable community of interest. (IRS, Washington, D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 831)

Proposed unit of all GS and WG employees found appropriate 

where among other factors, included employees share a 

common mission, general working conditions, overall supervision, and labor relations policies which are initiated in 

the Office of the Chief; there is substantial interchange 

among the employees; there is a common area of consideration 

for promotion and reduction-in-force procedures; and the 

Washington personnel office services the entire Washington,

D.C. metropolitan area headquarters. (Dept, of Agric.,

Forest Service, A/SLMR No. 842)

18 6-30-77
20 OA 08

A/S found that, the employees in the unit sought constitute 

all of the eligible employees of the IRS except for those in 

the IRS's specialized, computer-oriented Center-type 

operations. They are part of an integrated organization 

in which they share a common mission and common supervision 

on a nationwide level, common job classifications, common 

types of working conditions, and similar multi-District, 

multi-Regional and National Office negotiated agreements 

between the parties. Under these circumstances, the A/S 

concluded that the employees in the petitioned for consolidated unit share a clear and identifiable community of 

interest. (IRS, Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 853)

20 04 08 Effective Dealings

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

A/S found that, a claimed unit may be appropriate and be 

considered to promote effective dealings as well as efficiency of agency operations even though it does not include 

all employees directly under the area of regional head or the 

Activity officials who have final or initiating authority 

with respect to personnel, fiscal and programmatic matters. 

(DSA, DCASR, Cleveland, Ohio; DCASD, Columbia, Ohio; DSA, 

DCASR, Cleveland, Ohio; DCASD, Akron, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 687)

In finding that the Activity became the successor employer 

for two units, the A/S noted, among other things, that such 

a finding would promote effective dealings. (GSA, Central 

Off., Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 693)

Field unit held appropriate as claimed employees share a 

clear and identifiable community of interest separate and 

distinct from all other employees of the Agency and such 

unit will promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations. (State Passport Off., Chicago, 111., 

A/SLMR No. 697)

20 04 04 Conmunlty of Interest (Cont*d)

6-30-77 19
A/S found that while the employees of one activity within 

the SSA Area encompassed by the proposed consolidated unit 

could not properly be included, the proposed consolidated 

unit would, nevertheless, unite the employees in all eight 

of the Activity's current exclusively recognized units and 

that these employees were under the common supervision of 

an Area Director, had common work oriented relationships, 

and were subject to common personnel policies and practices 

administered on an Activity-wide basis and thus shared a 

clear and identifiable community of interest and that the 

creation of such a comprehensive unit will promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of agency operations, as well as 

being consistent with the policies of the FLRC as set forth 

in the Report and Recommendations wherein consolidation 

was proposed. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of Field Operations, Region 

V, Area IV, Cleveland, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 706)

Claimed unit is not appropriate where included employees do 

not share a clear and identifiable community of interest 

which is separate and distinct from other Ft. Knox employees 

and that the proposed fragmented unit could not reasonably 

be expected to promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations. (U.S. Army Reception Station, Ft. Knox, 

Ky., A/SLMR No. 714)

Region-wide unit of nonprofessional employees found 

appropriate for exclusive recognition in view of finding 

that the claimed employees share a clear and identifiable 

community of interest, and in view of holding that such unit 

would promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

operations. (Criminal Investigation Command, Third Region,

Ft. Gillem, Forest Park, Ga., A/SLMR No. 715)

Claimed Headquarter's unit not appropriate where among 

other things, it is only one of a number of Headquarter's 

Offices in the Region and could not reasonably be expected 

to promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

operations. (HEW, Region II, SSA, Bureau of Disability 

Insurance, A/SLMR No. 723)

A/S found that the proposed unit was only one component of 

the MSDO which shared the same personnel policies, procedures, 

and mission of other MDSO components and whose employees had 

similar or the same job classifications and skills of other 

MSDO employees; would artificially fragment the MSDO and 

could not be reasonably expected to promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations. (Management 

Systems Development Office Detachment, NARF, Jacksonville 

NAS, Fla., A/SLMR No. 741)

20, 04 08

20 04 08 Effective Dealings (Cont*d)

20 6-30-77
20 04 08 Effective Dealings (Cont'd)

Both proposed unit and alternative unit are not appropriate 

where, among other factors, it would result in fragmented 

units which could not reasonably be expected to promote 

effective dealings and efficiency of operation. (U.S.

Dept, of Agric., U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Sciences 

Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore., A/SLMR No. 762)

Alternative units not appropriate as such units would 

result in the artificial fragmentation of employees of the 

various program services in the Region. (GSA, Jackson/ 

Vicksburg, Miss., A/SLMR No. 769)

Proposed unit of professional employees within regional 

office found appropriate where, among other factors.

Regional Counsel retained significant discretion in personnel 

and labor relations matters, including the authority to 

negotiate labor agreements. (Dept, of Treasury, Office of 

Regional Counsel, Western Region, A/SLMR No. 780)

Unit restricted to WG employees could not reasonably be 

expected to promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations. (National Park Service, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, San Francisco, Calif.,

A/SLMR No. 789)

A petition seeking a unit of all Nuclear Engineering 

Technicians was rejected by the A/S who noted that the 

technicians had substantial interaction and interchange with 

other employees and that the employees are subject to the 

same personnel policies and practices as other employees at 

the Activity. Under these circumstances, it was determined 

that the claimed employees did not share a distinct 

community of interest nor would such unit promote effective 

dealings or efficiency of agency operations. (Mare Island 

Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 815)

A/S found that unit of all licensed marine engineers employed 

by the Acticity's Engineer Districts in the continental United 

Sates appropriate and would promote effective dealings and 

efficiency of agency operations. In this regard, he noted 

that the claimed unit would meet the objectives of the EO 

as explicated by the FLRC in its 1975 Report and Recommendation as such a unit not only would result, in effect.

20 04 08

6-30-77 21
20 04 08

In the consolidation of the existing units of licensed 

marine engineers within the Activity, but would prevent 

further fragmentation of bargaining unit structure. Also, 

he found that negotiations encompassing the more comprehensive unit sought by the Petitioner may permit the 

parties to address a wider range of matters of critical 

concern to a greater number of the claimed employees who are 

unique within the Activity and who have the same concerns 

and problems. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, A/SLMR No. 819)

A/S found that the evidence established that the OE 

Personnel Office presently services employees in both the 

OE and the OASE; the memoranda of agreement signed by the 

AFGE with the OASE and with the NIE reflect much of the same 

language contained in the negotiated agreement between the 

AFGE and the OE; the OASE and the NIE have used the services 

of the OE’s labor relations specialist in preparing their 

labor relations positions; the scope of labor relations 

authority in each agency is based on similar DREW regulations; 

and promotions within the Division are based on a Divisionwide area of consideration. Based on these factors, the A/S 

found that the proposed consolidated unit will promote 

effective dealings. (Education Division, HEW, Washington, 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 822)

A petitioned for unit consisting of all employees of the 

Utah District Office, Water Resources Division, U.S.

Geological Survey was found inappropriate by the A/S as the 

employees involved did not possess a clear and identifiable 

community of Interest separate and distinct from other 

employees in the Central Region, and that such unit would not 

promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

operations. (U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Division, Central Region, Utah District, A/SLMR No. 826)

As the evidence established that the parties had successfully negotiated at the national level two successive 

multi-unit agreements covering all the employees sought 

herein by the NTEU, the A/S found that the proposed consolidated unit would promote effective dealings. (IRS,

Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 831)

20 04 08 Effective Dealings (Cont*d)

22 6-30-77
Proposed unit of all GS and WG employees found appropriate 

where, among other factors, it was noted that the level of 

recognition would be at the same level in the Activity's 

organization where personnel and labor relations policies 

are initiated. Moreover, the parties were in agreement 

that such a unit would promote effective dealings and 

efficiency of agency operations. (Dept, of Agric., Forest 

Service, A/SLMR No. 842)

As the evidence established that the parties had successfully negotiated at the national level multi-unit agreements 

covering the District and Regional Office employees sought 

herein, and that these agreements are essentially similar 

to the National Office agreement between the parties, the 

A/S found that the proposed consolidated unit would promote 

effective dealings. (IRS, Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 853)

20 04 12 Efficiency of Operations

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

A/S found that a claimed unit may be appropriate and be 

considered to promote effective dealings as well as 

efficiency of agency operations even though it does not 

include all employees directly under the area or regional 

head or the Activity officials who have final or initiating 

authority with respect to personnel, fiscal and programmatic matters. (DSA, DCASR, Cleveland, Ohio; DCASD, 

Colxmbia, Ohio; DSA, DCASR, Cleveland, Ohio; DCASD, Akron, 

Ohio, A/SLMR No. 687)

In finding that the Activity became the successor employer 

for two units, the A/S noted, among other things, that such 

a finding would promote efficiency of operations. (GSA, 

Central Off., Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 693)

Field unit held appropriate as claimed employees share a 

clear and identifiable community of interest separate and 

distinct from all other employees of the Agency and such 

unit will promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations. (State Passport Off., Chicago, 111., 

A/SLMR No. 697)

20 04 12

20 04 08 Effective Dealings (Cont*d)

6-30-77 23
20 04 12

A/S found that while the employees of one activity within 

the SSA Area encompassed by the proposed consolidated unit 

could not properly be included, the proposed consolidated 

unit would, nevertheless, unite the employees in all eight 

of the Activity's current exclusively recognized units and 

that these employees were under the common supervision of 

an Area Director, had common work oriented relationships, 

and were subject to common personnel policies and practices 

administered on an Activity-wide basis, and thus, shared a 

clear and identifiable community of interest and that the 

creation of such a comprehensive unit will promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of agency operations, as well as 

being consistent with the policies of the FLRC as set forth 

in the Report and Recommendations wherein consolidation was 

proposed. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of Field Operations, Region V, 

Area IV, Cleveland, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 706)

Claimed unit is not appropriate where included employees do 

not share a clear and identifiable community of interest which 

is separate and distinct from other Ft. Knox employees and 

that the proposed fragmented unit could not reasonably be 

expected to promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations. (U.S. Army Reception Station, Ft. Knox,

Ky., A/SLMR No. 714)

Region-wide unit of nonprofessional employees found appropriate for exclusive recognition in view of finding that the 

claimed employees share a clear and identifiable community 

of interest, and in view of holding that such unit would 

promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations. (Criminal Investigation Command, Third Region, Ft. 

Gillem, Forest Park, Ga., A/SLMR No. 715)

Claimed Headquarter’s unit not appropriate where among 

other things, it is only one of a number of Headquarter's 

Offices in the Region and could not reasonably be expected 

to promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

operations. (HEW, SSA, Region II, Bureau of Disability 

Insurance, A/SLMR No. 723)

20 04 12 Efficiency of Operations (Cont*d)

24 6-30-77
20 04 12 Efficiency of Operations (Cont’d)

A/s found that the proposed unit was only one component 

of the MSDO which shared the same personnel policies, 

procedures, and mission of other MSDO components and whose 

employees had similar or the same job classifications and 

skills of other MSDO employees; would artifically fragment 

the MSDO and could not be reaonably expected to promote 

effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations. 

(Management Systems Development Office Detachment, NARF, 

Jacksonville NAS, Fla., A/SLMR No. 741)

Both proposed unit and alternative unit are not appropriate 

where, among other factors, it would result in fragmented 

units which could not reasonably be expected to promote 

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

Dept, of Agric., U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Sciences 

Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore., A/SLMR No. 762)

Alternative units not appropriate as such units would result 

in the artificial fragmentation of employees of the various 

program services in the Region. (GSA, Jackson/Vicksburg, 

Miss., A/SLMR No. 769)

Proposed unit of professional employees within regional 

office found appropriate where, among other factors. Regional 

Counsel retained significant discretion in personnel and 

labor relations matters, including the authority to negotiate 

labor agreements. (Dept, of Treasury, Office of Regional 

Counsel, Western Region, A/SLMR No. 780)

Unit restricted to WG employees could not reasonably be 

expected to promote effective dealings and efficiency of 

agency operations. (National Park Service, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, San Francisco, Calif.,

A/SLMR No. 789)

A petition seeking a unit of all Nuclear Engineering 

Technicians was rejected by the A/S who noted that the 

technicians had substantial interaction and interchange with 

other employees and that all employees are subject to the 

same personnel policies and practices as other employees at 

the Activity. Under these circumstances, it was determined 

that the claimed employees did not share a distinct community 

of interest nor would such unit promote effective dealings or 

efficiency of agency operations. (Dept, of the Navy, Mare 

Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 815)

20 04 12

6-30-77 25

I

I
20 04 12

26

A/S found that unit of all licensed marine engineers 

employed by the Activity's Engineer Districts in the 

continental United States appropriate and would promote 

effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations. In 

this regard, he noted that the claimed unit would meet the 

objectives of the EG as explicated by the FLRC in its 1975 

Report and Recommendations as such a unit not only would result, 

in effect, in the consolidation of the existing units of licensed 

marine engineers within the Activity, but would prevent further 

fragmentation of bargaining units, thereby promoting a more 

comprehensive bargaining unit structure. Further, he found 

that negotiations in less fragmented bargaining unit 

structures established at higher organizational levels would 

result in efficiency of agency operations in terms of cost, 

productivity and use of resources by allowing the Activity, 

as well as the Petitioner, to concentrate efforts on a 

single negotiated agreement, rather than dissipating 

resources in negotiating possibly 21 separate agreements 

with respect to the wide range of problems unique to this 

group of employees, and furthermore, that the Office of the 

Chief of Engineers plays a significant role in the coordination of personnel programs and policies, including the negotiation of agreements, and accordingly, would be an 

appropriate bargaining level for a functional Activity-wide 

grouping of employees. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

A/SLMR No. 819)

As the legislation creating the Education Division provided 

for the A/S for Education to serve as its principal officer, 

and as the evidence showed that, at a minimum, the ASE acts 

to coordinate certain activities of all of the component 

agencies within the Division, the A/S found that the proposed 

consolidated unit bears "some rational relationship to the 

operational and organizational structure" of the Education 

Division, DREW, and will therefore promote the efficiency of 

the agency’s operations. (Education Division, HEW, Washington, 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 822)

A petitioned for unit consisting of all employees of the 

Utah District Office, Water Resources Division, U.S.

Geological Survey was found inappropriate by the A/S as the 

employees involved did not possess a clear and identifiable 

community of Interest separate and distinct from other 

employees in the Central Region and that such unit would not 

promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations. 

(U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Central 

Region, Utah District, A/SLMR No. 826)

20 04 12 Efficiency of Operations (Cont*d)

6-30-77
20 04 20

20 04 12 Efficiency of Operations (Cont'd)

Noting the scope and history of the parties' current 

collective bargaining relationship, the A/S found that the 

proposed consolidated unit had already demonstrated the 

benefits to be derived from a unit structure related to a 

combination of employees of the IRS's Service Centers, Data 

Center and National Computer Center. Consequently, he 

concluded that the proposed consolidated unit will continue 

to promote the efficiency of the agency's operations. (IRS, 

Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 831)

Proposed unit of all GS and WG employees found appropriate 

where, among other factors, it was noted that the level of 

recognition would be at the same level in the Activity's 

organization where personnel and labor relations policies 

are initiated. Moreover, the parties were in agreement that 

such a unit would promote effective dealings and efficiency 

of agency operations. (Dept, of Agric., Forest Service, 

A/SLMR No. 842)

Noting the scope and history of the parties' current 

multi-unit collective bargaining relationship, the A/S 

found that the benefits to be derived from a unit structure 

related to a combination of the IRS's District Offices, 

Regional Offices and National Office, have already been 

demonstrated. In these circumstances, he concluded that the 

proposed consolidated unit will promote the efficiency of 

the agency's operations. (IRS, Washington, D.C.,

A/SLMR No. 853)

20 04 16 Agency Regulations and Parties' Stipulations Not Binding 

on Assistant Secretary

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

for Stipulations of Parties Related to Challenges.)

No Entries

20 04 20 Previous Certification

A finding of successorship was made where the two previously 

certified units were transferred to the gaining employer 

substantially intact, and where the appropriateness of the 

units remained unimpaired. (GSA, Central Off., Washington, 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 693)

6-30-77 27

!
20 12 04

20 08 00 Geographic Scope 

20 08 04 World-Wide 

No Entries 

20 08 08 Nation-wide

Unit of all licensed marine engineers employed by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers in Corps of Engineers Districts 

in the continental United States found appropriate. (U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, A/SLMR No. 819)

20 08 12 State-wide 

No Entries 

20 08 16 City-wide

Both proposed unit and alternative unit will not promote 

effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations 

where, among other factors, units are based on geographic 

location. (U.S. Dept, of Agric., U.S. Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,

Forest Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore., A/SLMR No. 762)

Claimed unit as well as alternative units not appropriate 

as employees have little or no commonality other than their 

geographical location of Jackson and Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

(GSA, Jackson/Vicksburg, Miss., A/SLMR No. 769)

20 12 00 Organizational Scope 

20 12 04 Agency-wide

A consolidated unit consisting of all the eligible employees 

in the IRS’s computer-oriented Center-type operations 

found appropriate. (IRS, Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 831)

A consolidated unit consisting of all the eligible employees 

in the IRS's District Offices, Regional Offices and National 

Office found appropriate. (See A/S 831) (IRS, Washington, 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 853)

28 6-30-77
20 12 16

20 12 08 Activity-wide

Unit limited solely to WG employees held inappropriate 

where variances between WG employees and GS employees were 

offset by the substantial evidence of their close working 

relationship. (Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, 

Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 690)

Both proposed unit and alterantive unit were found inappropriate where employees sought shared a community of 

interest at the Activity (Station) level rather than at the 

less than Activity level sought. (U.S. Dept, of Agric.,

U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Forest Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, 

Ore., A/SLMR No. 762)

Alternative unit of all Wage Grade and Wage Leader employees 

not appropriate. (National Park Service, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, San Francisco, Calif.,

A/SLMR No. 789)

A/s found that the petitioned for consolidated unit, which 

provides for bargaining in a single, rather than in the 

existing three bargaining units, will promote a more comprehensive bargaining unit structure. (Education Division, 

HEW, Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 822)

Although the parties had already been voluntarily bargaining 

on a multi-unit basis, the A/S determined that the petitioned 

for consolidated unit, which would provide bargaining for 

employees on a nationwide basis under a single unit 

structure, will reduce fragmentation, promote a more comprehensive bargaining unit structure, and is consistent with ' 

the policy of the EG set forth by the Council. (IRS, 

Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 831)

20 12 12 Directorate-wide 

No Entries 

20 12 16 Command-wide 

No Entries

6-30-77 29

I
V

20 12 28

20 12 20 Headquarters-wide

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

number of Regional H Q’s offices within the Region and 

it is highly integrated with other Region HQ's offices.

Claimed unit receives all its personnel services from the 

Regional Personnel Office and the area of consideration 

for promotions, filling of job vacancies and reductions-inforce is Regionwide; all employees of the Region including 

the unit claimed receive the same benefits, have the same 

working hours and leave policies, come under the grievance 

procedure and are serviced by the same labor relations 

section of the Regional Personnel Office. (HEW, Region II, 

SSA, Bureau of Disability Insurance, A/SLMR No. 723)

A consolidated unit consisting of all the eligible headquarters employees of the Education Division, DHEW, found 

appropriate. (Education Division, HEW, Washington, D.C., 

A/SLMR No. 822)

Unit of all nonprofessional GS and WG employees employed 

in national headquarters unit is appropriate. (U.S. Dept, 

of Agric., Forest Service, A/SLMR No. 842)

20 12 24 Field-wide 

No Entries

20 12 28 Region-wide

Region-wide unit of nonprofessional employees found 

appropriate for exclusive recognition in view of finding 

that the claimed employees share a clear and identifiable 

coimnunity of interest, and in view of holding that such unit 

would promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

operations. (Criminal Investigation Command, Third Region,

Ft. Gillem, Forest Park, Ga., A/SLMR No. 715)

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

number of Regional HQ's offices within the Region and it 

is highly integrated with other Regional HQ's offices.

Claimed unit receives all its personnel services from the 

Regional Personnel Office and the area of consideration for 

promotions, filling of job vacancies and reductions-inforce is Regionwide; all employees of the Region including 

the unit claimed receive the same benefits, have the same 

working hours and leave policies, come under the grievance 

procedure and are serviced by the same labor relations section 

of the Regional Personnel Office. (HEW, Region II, SSA,

Bureau of Disability Insurance, A/SLMR No. 723)

30 6-30-77
20 12 28 Region-wide (Cont’d)

A/S found separate units of nonprofessional employees of 

the Activities 3 regions were appropriate for the purpose 

of exclusive recogniton. A/S noted that the employees in 

each region enjoy common overall supervision, uniform 

personnel policies and practices, similar working conditions 

and there was a substantial degree of transfers of employees 

within each region as well as work related contacts. He 

further noted that authority for personnel and labor relations matters existed at the regional level. (Defense 

Property Disposal Services, Defense Property Disposal 

Regions, Memphis, Columbus, and Ogden, et.al., A/SLMR No. 779)

Region-wide unit of professional employees found appropriate 

where employees shared a clear and identifiable community of 

interest, where such unit would promote effective dealings 

and efficiency of agency operations and where A/S previously 

found unit appropriate in Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Western Region, A/SLMR No. 161, which unit was subsequently 

decertified. (Dept, of Treasury, Office of Regional Counsel, 

A/SLMR No. 780)

20 12 32 Division-wide 

No Entries

20 12 36 Area-wide 

No Entries

20 12 40 District-wide

Unit limited to General Attorneys, Nationality, at one of a 

nvimber of districts held inappropriate. (Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, San Francisco District, San Francisco, 

Calif., A/SLMR No. 730)

Activity petition claiming that reorganization changed the 

character and scope of the existing exclusively recognized 

single unit covering the New York Regional Office so as to 

render it inappropriate denied by A/S where, in the 

circumstances, it would result in unnecessary fragmentation. 

(SBA, Region II, New York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 759)

20 12 40

6-30-77 '31
20 12 60

20 12 44 Branch-wide

A/S after reconsidering cases pursuant to remand by the 

FLRC in FLRC No. 74A-41, reaffirmed his findings in 

A/SLMR No. 372 that individual bargaining units consisting 

of all employees in two separate Defense Contract Administration Offices located within a Defense Contract Administration Service Region were appropriate. (DSA, DCASR, 

Cleveland, Ohio; DCASD, Columbia, Ohio; DSA, DCASR,

Cleveland, Ohio; DCASD, Akron, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 687)

20 12 48 Base-wide 

No Entries

20 12 52 Section-wide 

No Entries

20 12 56 Multi-Installation 

No Entries

20 12 60 Single Installation

A/S found individual field office appropriate. (State 

Passport Off., Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 697)

Unit limited to employees in only one of five departments 

of the MSDO held inappropriate because employees did not 

share a clear and identifiable community of interest which 

was separate and distinct from other employees of the MSDO. 

(Management Systems Development Office Detachment, NARF, 

Jacksonville NAS, Fla., A/SLMR No. 741)

A/S found that separate units of nonprofessional employees 

of the Activity were not appropriate for the purpose of 

exclusive recognition as the employees of these offices do 

not enjoy a clear and identifiable community of interest 

separate and distinct from each other or from other employees 

in their respective regions. A/S noted that separate offices 

were organizational components of the regions and were 

subject to the authority and responsibility of the Regional 

Commanders within their respective regions. He also noted 

that the job description and duties of the employees in the 

claimed separate units were essentially similar to those of 

other employees in the regions and that all employees in the

32 6-30-77
20 12 64

20 12 60 Single Installation (Cont*d)

individual regions enjoy essentially similar working 

conditions and common personnel policies and practices 

established by the respective Regional Commanders and there 

were numerous instances of transfer among certain of the 

employees of the various individual offices within the 

respective regions. (Defense Property Disposal Service, 

Defense Property Disposal Regions, Memphis, Columbus, and 

Ogden, et.al., A/SLMR No. 779)

20 12 64 Occupational Classification

Unit of Special Policemen found appropriate where unit was 

a functionally distinct group of employees who share a 

community of interest separate and distinct from the other 

employees of the Activity and where unit would promote 

effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations.

(Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder 

Canyon Project, Boulder City, Nev., A/SLMR No. 688)

Unit limited solely to WG employees held inappropriate 

where variances between WG employees and GS employees were 

offset by the substantial evidence of their close working 

relationship. (Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, 

Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 690)

Unit of deckhands and oilers engaged in ferryboat operations 

held appropriate. (Dept, of Transportation, U.S. Coast 

Guard Support Cntr., 3rd District Governors Island, N.Y., 

A/SLMR No. 785)

Unit of Wage Grade and Wage Leader maintenance personnel 

not appropriate. (National Park Service, Golden Gate 

National Recreation Area, San Francisco, Calif.,

A/SLMR No. 789)

Claimed unit of Nuclear Engineering Technicians employed 

by the Activity found not appropriate where included 

employees had substantial interaction and interchange with 

other employees and were subject to the same personnel 

policies and practices as other employees at the Activity, 

( ^ r e Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 815)

6-30-77 33
20 16 04

20 16 00 Special Situations 

20 16 04 Severance

Severance of a unit of WG and GS employees from an existing 

larger unit where there has been a harmonious and effective 

bargaining relationship and an absence of unusual circumstances is denied. (Hq., U.S. Army Field Artillery Cntr., 

Directorate of Facilities Engineers, Ft. Sill, Okla.,

A/SLMR No. 696)

Severance of a unit of firefighters from existing larger 

unit where there had been a harmonious and effective 

bargaining relationship and an absence of unusual circumstances is denied. (Hq., U.S. Army Field Artillery Cntr., 

Directorate of Facilities Engineers, Ft. Sill, Okla.,

A/SLMR No. 696)

Severance of firefighters from existing Activity-wide 

unit denied in accordance with the policy enumerated by 

the A/S in U.S. Naval Construction Battalion Center.

A/SLMR No. 8. (U.S. Air Force, Fairchild AFB, Washington, 

D.C., A/SLMR No. 719)

Petition seeking to sever unit of registered nurses from 

existing professional and nonprofessional activity-wide 

unit, denied, where A/S found no "unusual circumstances" 

justifying severance. Petition dismissed even though 

another petition also filed for activity-wide unit and new 

election would include separate election for professional 

employees’ expression of their desires, notwithstanding the 

fact that the professional employees have already enjoyed the 

opportunity of such expression in prior elections. (Indian 

Health Service Area Office, Window Rock, Arizona, and Public 

Health Service Indian Hospital, Fort Defiance, Arizona, HEW, 

A/SLMR No. 778)

In view of petitioned for unit's accretion to Region-wide 

FDA unit, petitioner's CU petition was tantamount to a 

request for severance of the subject employees from the 

existing exclusively recognized unit. Absent any evidence 

that the incumbent labor organization had failed to represent 

petitioned for employees in a fair and effective manner, the 

severance request was denied. (HEW, FDA, Region I, Boston 

Regional Field Office, Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 823)

34 6-30-77
20 16 08 Accretion

Accretion was not found where the two units were tansferred 

substantially intact to the gaining employer and where the 

appropriateness of the units remained unimpaired with the 

gaining employer. Thus, the gaining employer became the 

successor employer with respect to the two units. (GSA, 

Central Off., Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 693)

A/S ordered that the existing exclusively recognized 

metropolitan Washington, D.C., GSA, FSS Central Office unit 

should be clarified to include transportation audit employees 

transferred to the FSS from the GAO by an Act of Congress, 

as he found that the transportation audit employees had been 

functionally and administratively integrated into the FSS 

and, thus, did not have a clear and identifiable community of 

interest that was separate and distinct from other employees 

of the FSS. (GSA, FSS, A/SLMR No. 699)

Employees of Outpatient Clinic located in Riviera Beach, 

Florida, did not constitute accretion or addition to 

existing exclusively recognized unit of employees at VA 

Hospital, Miami, Florida. (VA Hospital, Miami, Fla.,

A/SLMR No. 765)

As a result of reorganization and consolidation. Navy 

Exchange employees formally in Naval Air Station Exchange 

unit were accreted to Naval Station unit, which was redesignated Navy Exchange, Navy Base where they had become 

intermingled and indistinguishable from employees in the 

redesignated unit. (Special Services Dept., Naval Station, 

Norfolk Va., A/SLMR No. 782)

Certain employees of Naval Station clubs, messes, and 

package liquor stores who, as a result of reorganization, 

were administratively transferred to Naval Air Station 

command, accreted to Naval Air Station unit where they 

shared a clear and identifiable community of interest with 

unit employees. (Special Services Dept., Naval Station, 

Norfolk, Va., A/SLMR No. 782)

Accretion occurred where unrepresented special services 

employees at Naval Air Station were administratively transferred to Naval Station command and were thoroughly combined 

and integrated into existing special service unit at the 

Naval Station. (Special Services Dept., Naval Station, 

Norfolk, Va., A/SLMR No. 782)

20 16 08

6-30-77 35
20 16 16

20 16 08 Accretion (Cont’d)

No accretion found and petition dismissed where after reorganization components of original unit as defined in 

present contract language are clearly identifiable and 

other organizational entities sought to be accreted have 

not been comniinglfed. (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Administrative Services Center, Albuquerque, N.M., A/SLMR No. 788)

A/S ordered that the exclusively recognized Boston 

Regional Field Ofrj.ce unit should be clarified to include 

the employees of the Winchester Engineering and Analytical 

Center as he found that the employees of the Center shared 

a community of interest with, and are in fact, an integral 

part of the existing regional unit and that such inclusion 

would promote efficiency of agency operations and effective 

dealings. (HEW, FDA, Region 1, Boston Regional Field 

Office, Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 823)

20 16 12 Eligibility

Deckhands and oilers who occassionally work as masters and 

chief engineers are to be included in unit of masters and 

chief engineers, and when such employees return to their 

normal duties as deckhands and oilers they should be included in that unit. (Dept, of Transportation, U.S. Coast 

Guard Support Cntr., 3rd District, Governors, N.Y.,

A/SLMR No. 785)

20 16 16 Residual Employees

A/S found a residual unit of all nonprofessional GS employees 

of the Activity to be appropriate for the purpose of 

exclusive recognition as the petitioned for employees enjoyed 

common supervision, had the same pay structure, areas of competition for merit promotions and reduction-in-force procedure; and had little or no interchange with the WG employees. 

He also found that the claimed residual unit would promote 

effective dealings and efficiency of agency operations by 

preventing further fragmentation of the Activity's 

employees. (U.S. Dept, of Agric., Agricultural Research 

Service, Southern Regional Research Cntr., New Orleans, La., 

A/SLMR No. 757)

36 6-30-77
20 16 20 Self-Determination

No Entries

20 16 24 Supervisory Unit

Separate supervisory unit of masters and chief engineers 

held appropriate. (Dept, of Transportation, U.S. Coast 

Guard Support Cntr., 3rd District, Governors, N.Y.,

A/SLMR No. 785)

Supervisory unit of all licensed marine engineers in the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts in the continental 

United States found appropriate. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

A/SLMR No. 819)

20 16 28 Reorganization

A reorganization which merged 3 Defense Mapping Agency 

Hawaii (DMA) field offices into a new organization entity. 

Defense Mapping Agency Depot, Hawaii (DMA-DH) produced a 

new overall unit consisting of all GS and WG employees of 

the DMA-DH. Accordingly, the A/S directed an election in 

such a unit. (Defense Mapping Agency Depot, Hawaii,

A/SLMR No. 747)

A/S found that the reorganization of a high school, grades 

7 through 12, which physically separated it into a junior 

high school, grades 7 and 8, and a high school, grades 9 

through 1 2 , did not result in substantial or material changes 

in the scope of character of the existing exclusively recognized bargaining unit and that the employees of both the 

high school and the junior high school continue to enjoy the 

same community of interest with the other employees in the 

exclusively recognized unit as before tae reorganization. 

Further, the A/S found that their continued inclusion in the 

unit will promote effective dealings and efficiency of agency 

operations. (U.S. Dependents Schools, European Area Upper 

Heyford High School, A/SLMR No. 770)

Original components of exclusively recognized unit are still 

identifiable after a series of reorganizations and, therefore, CU petition seeking to accrete employees into components 

never part of unit and who have not been commingled, is 

dismissed. (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Administrative Services 

Cntr., Albuquerque, N.M., A/SLMR No. 788)

20 16 28

6-30-77 37
20 16 32

20 16 28 Reorganization (Cont'd)

A/S found that the exclusively recognized unit represented 

by AFGE continued after the reorganization, to remain 

appropriate for the purpose of exclusive recognition under 

the EC based on the fact that subsequent to the reorganization, the employees in the exclusively recognized unit 

continued to perform the same duties under the same 

immediate supervisor; they continued to enjoy a common 

mission, common overall supervision, common personnel 

policies and practices administered by the same personnel 

office; and share the same areas of consideration for promotions and reduction-in-force procedures. A/S further found 

that the establishment of two new units for the one old unit 

would result in unnecessary fragmentation and could not 

reasonably be expected to promote effective dealings and 

efficiency of agency operations. (Dallas Regional Office,

SBA, A/SLMR No. 817)

20 16 32 Consolidation of Units

A/S found that while the employees of one activity within 

the SSA Area encompassed by the proposed consolidated unit 

could not properly be included, the proposed consolidated 

unit would, nevertheless, unite the employees in all eight 

of the Activity's current exclusively recognized units and 

that these employees were under the common supervision of 

an Area Director, had common work oriented relationships, and 

were subject to common personnel policies and practices 

administered on an Activity-wide basis, and thus shared a 

clear and identifiable community of interest and that the 

creation of such a comprehensive unit will promote effective 

dealings and efficiency of agency operations, as well as 

being consistent with the policies of the FLRC as set forth 

in the Report and Recommendations wherein consolidation was 

proposed. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of Field Operations, Region V, 

Area IV, Cleveland, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 706)

The proposed consolidated unit appeared to include certain 

employees who were not currently represented by the petitioner 

in its existing exclusively recognized units. The A/S noted 

that the consolidation procedures are applicable only with 

respect to existing exclusively recognized units and therefore, the consolidated unit found appropriate would be limited 

to and/or defined by the parameters of the existing exclusively recognized units at the time of the filing of the 

instant consolidation petition. (Education Division, HEW, 

Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 822)

38 6-30-77
Unit of all licensed marine engineers employed by the

Activity's Engineer Districts in the continental United

States found appropriate will promote effective dealings

and efficiency of agency operations. In this regard, A/S

noted that the claimed unit would meet the objectives of

the EG as explicated by the FLRC in its 1975 Report and

Recommendations as such a unit not only would result, in

effect, in the consolidation of the existing units of

licensed marine engineers within the Acticity, but would

prevent further fragmentation of bargaining unit structure.

Also, he found that negotiations encompassing the more

comprehensive unit sought by the Petitioner may permit the

parties to address a wider range of matters of critical

concern to a greater number of the claimed employees who are

unique within the Activity and who have the same concerns

and problems. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, A/SLMR No. 819)

Although the parties had already been voluntarily bargaining on a multi-unit basis, the A/S determined that the

petitioned for consolidated unit, which would provide

bargaining for employees on a nationwide basis under a single

unit structure, will reduce fragmentation, promote a more

comprehensive bargaining unit structure, and is consistent

with the policy of the EG set forth by the Council. (IRS,

Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 831)

Noting the scope and history of the parties’ current multiunit collective bargaining relationship, the A/S found that

there has already been demonstrated the benefits to be

derived from a unit structure related to a combination of the

IRS's District Offices, Regional Offices and National Office.

In these circumstances, he concluded that the proposed consolidated unit will promote the efficiency of the agency's

operations. (IRS, Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 853)

20 16 36 Successorship

Successorship was found where the two units in question were

transferred substantially intact to the gaining employer;

where the appropriateness of the units remained unimpaired

after the transfer; and where no question concerning representation was pending. (GSA, Central Office, Washington,

D.C., A/SLMR No. 693)

20 16 36

20 16 32 Consolidation of Units (Cont'd)

6-30-77 39
20 20 00

A/s citing Defense Supply Agency, Defense Property Disposal

Office, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Md., FLRC N o .

74A-22, found that the gaining employer was a "successor"

and that pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the FLRC

he should refer the follov/ing major policy issue to the

Council. Whether the A/S can find that in a successorship

situation the agreement bar which existed pursuant to the

predecessor's negotiated agreement with the exclusive representative may continue in effect after the reorganization so

as to afford the successor employer and the exclusive representative a period of stability free from rival claims or

other questions concerning majority status. (U.S. Army

Mortuary, Oakland Army Base, A/SLMR No. 857)

20 20 00 Employee Categories and Classifications

Attorney (Patent Attorney) involved in the consideration of

employee adverse actions, grievances and in performance rating

dispute hearings serve as "representatives of management" and

are, in effect, "agency management" within the meaning of Sec.

2(f) of the EC. (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,

A/SLMR No. 856)

Attorney (Trial Attorneys) involved in INS employee hearings

relating to consideration of adverse actions to be taken

against those employees serve as "representative of management"

and are, in effect, "agency management" within the meaning of

Sec. 2(f) of the EO and are excluded from unit. (Immigration

and Naturalization Service, San Francisco District, and

San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 730)

Auditor, GS-12, is not a management official. (U.S. Customs

Service, A/SLMR No. 792)

Auditor, GS-13, (Senior) is not management official. (U.S.

Customs Service, A/SLMR No. 792)

Chemist (Section Chief) is a supervisor. (U.S. Dept, of

Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Conn.,

A/SLMR No. 737)

20 16 36 Successorship (ContM)

^0 6-30-77
Confidential Employees

Clerks to Area Supervisor is confidential employee.

(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Milwaukee, Wise.,

A/SLMR No. 850)

Clerical Employee in EEO office who serves as personal

secretary to EEO Officer, who is responsible for the

formulation of labor relations policy with respect to EEO,

is a confidential employee based on such duties. (HEW,

U.S. Office of Education, Hqs., A/SLMR No. 803)

Clerical Employee in EEO office is not confidential employee

based on mere access to and typing of confidential EEO

matters. (HEW, U.S. Office of Education, Hqs.,

A/SLMR No. 803)

Management Analyst in Directorate of Administration excluded

from unit as a confidential employee, as he serves in a

confidential capacity to individuals involved in formulating

and effectuating management policies in the field of labor

relations. (Army, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah,

A/SLMR No. 717)

Management Analysts in Force Development Branch and Analysis

and Evaluation Division are not confidential employees and

do not serve in a confidential capacity to an individual

or individuals involved in the formulation and effectuation

of management policies in the field of labor relations.

(Army, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah, A/SLMR NO. 717)

Patent Attorneys are not confidential employees. (U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office, A/SLMR No. 856)

Director of Cadet Musical Activities is a supervisor. (U.S.

Dept, of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London,

Conn., A/SLMR No. 737)

Engineer, Civil (Section Chief) is not a supervisor. (U.S.

Dept, of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London,

Conn., A/SLMR No. 737)

Engineers (Licensed Marine) found to be supervisors and included in a supervisory unit. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

A/SLMR No. 819)

20 20 00

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

6-30-77 41
20 20 00

Federal Personnel Work

Equal Employment Opportunity/Assistants in EEC Offices

are engaged in Federal personnel work in other than a

purely clerical capacity where they have unrestricted

access to confidential personnel files; they assist in

formulation of the affirmative action plan; they monitor

the Activity's day-to-day personnel actions; and they

assist in EEC training. (HEW, U.S. Office of Education,

Hqs., A/SLMR No. 803)

Equal Employment Opportunity/Specialists in EEC Office are

engaged in Federal personnel work in other than a purely

clerical capacity where they have unrestricted access to

confidential personnel files; they assist in formulation of

affirmative action plan; they monitor Activity's day-to-day

personnel actions; and they assist in EEO training. (HEW,

U.S. Office of Education, Hqs., A/SLMR No. 803)

Equal Employment Opportunity/Specialists found by A/S to

be engaged in Federal personnel work in other than a purely

clerical capacity and therefore excluded from work pursuant

to Sec. 10(b)(2).

Personnel Psychologist performs nonclerical Federal personnel

work and is therefore excluded from the unit. (U.S. Patent

and Trademark Office, A/SLMR No. 856)

Federal Protection Officer GS-6 (Supervisory) is not a

supervisor. (GSA, Region II, New York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 756)

General Schedule and Wage Board

Unit Not Appropriate

Unit limited solely to WG employees held inappropriate

where variances between WG employees and GS employees

were offset by the substantial evidence of their close

working relationship. (Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance

Facility, Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 690)

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

42

6-30-77
Guards

Exchange Detective, HPP-5 is a guard where existing unit

description specifically excluded guards, and A/S thus

concluded that the employee should be excluded from the

unit, absent the raising of a valid question concerning

representation of Activity guards and the issuance of an

appropriate certification. (Ft. Carson Exchange, Army and

Air Force Exchange Service, A/SLMR No. 718)

History and Government (Section Chief) is not a supervisor.

(U.S. Dept, of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New

London, Conn., A/SLMR No. 737)

Judge (Immigration Judges) involved in INS employee hearings

relating to consideration of adverse actions to be taken

against those employees serve as a "representative of

management" and are, in effect, "agency management" within

meaning of Sec. 2(f) of EC and are excluded from unit.

(Immigration and Naturalization Service, San Francisco

District, San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 730)

Librarian is a supervisor. (U.S. Dept, of Transportation, U.S.

Coast Guard Academy, New London, Conn., A/SLMR No. 737)

Librarian (Assistant) is not a supervisor. (U.S. Dept, of

Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Conn.,

A/SLMR No. 737)

Management Official

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

Attorney (Trial Attorneys) involved in INS employee

hearings relating to consideration of adverse actions to

be taken against those employees serve as a "representative

of management" and are, in effect, "agency management"

within meaning of Sec. 2(f) of EG and are excluded from

unit. (U.S. Dept, of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, San Francisco District, San Francisco,

Calif., A/SLMR No. 730)

20 20 00

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

6-30-77 43
Management Official (Cont’d)

Auditor, GS-12 is not a management official. (U.S. Customs

Service, A/SLMR No. 792)

Auditor, GS-13 (Senior) is not a management official.

(U.S. Customs Service, A/SLMR No. 792)

Information Systems Analyst is not a management official.

(U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, A/SLMR No. 856)

Judge (Immigration Judges) involved in INS employee hearings

relating to consideration of adverse actions to be taken

against those employees serve as a "representative of

management" and are, in effect, "agency management" within

meaning of Sec. 2(f) of EO and are excluded from unit.

(U.S. Dept, of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization

Service, San Francisco District, San Francisco, Calif.,

A/SLMR No. 730)

Management Analysts in the Force Development Branch are

not management officials but are resource persons whose

recommendations are subject to extensive review before

either acceptance or implementation and they are not

individuals who actively participate in the ultimate

determination of what policy, in fact, will be. (Army,

Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah, A/SLMR No. 717)

Management Analysts in the Analysis and Evaluation Division

are not management officials but are resource persons whose

recommendations are subject to extensive review before

either acceptance or implementation and they are not

individuals who actively participate in the ultimate

determination of what policy, in fact, will be. (Army,

Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah, A/SLMR No. 717)

Management Analysts are not management officials. (U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office, A/SLMR No. 856)

20 20 00

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

44

6-30-77
Management Official (Cont*d)

Program Analysts are not management officials. (U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office, A/SLMR No. 856)

Office Management Assistant. GS-301-8. found to perform

Federal personnel work in other than purely clerical capacity

and excluded from unit in CU proceeding. (U.S. Dept, of

Agric., Farmers Home Admin., Colo., A/SLMR No. 752)

Professional and Non-Professional Employees

Unit Appropriate

Actlvity—wide unit of all professional and nonprofessional

employees held appropriate. A/S found although professional

employees already enjoyed opportunity of separately expressing their desires in prior election. Sec. 10(b)(4) of EO

continues to be applicable, and ordered separate expression

by professionals under such section. (Indian Health Service

Area Office, Window Rock, Arizona, and Public Health Service

Indian Hospital, Fort Defiance, Arizona, HEW, A/SLMR No. 778)

Property Management Specialist, GS-1170-12, found to be a

supervisor and excluded from unit in CU proceeding. (U.S.

Dept, of Agric., Farmers Home Admin., Colo., A/SLMR No. 752)

Registrar is a supervisor. (U.S. Dept, of Transportation,

U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Conn., A/SLMR No. 737)

Seasonal Employees

Seasonal employees Included in unit as such employees have

expectancy of continued employment. (State Passport Off.,

Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 697)

Supervisors

Chemist (Section Chief) is a supervisor. (U.S. Dept, of

Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Conn.,

A/SLMR No. 737)

Civil Engineer (Section Chief) is not a supervisor. (U.S.

Dept, of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New

London, Conn., A/SLMR No. 737)

20 20 00

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

6-30-77 45
20 20 00

Supervisors (Cont * d)

Deckhands who occassionally work as masters and chief

engineers included in unit of masters and chief engineers

and when such employees return to their normal duties as

deckhands and oilers they should be included in that unit.

Voting eligibility of such employees to be determined at

time of election pursuant to foregoing principle. (Dept,

of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard Support Cntr., 3rd

District, Governors Island, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 785)

Department Supervisors. HPP-7 are supervisors. (Fort

Carson Exchange, Army and Air Force Exchange Service,

A/SLMR No. 718)

Director of Cadet Musical Activities is a supervisor.

(U.S. Dept, of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard Academy,

New London, Conn., A/SLMR No. 737)

Federal Protection Officer GS-6 (Supervisory) is not a

supervisor. (GSA, Region II, New York, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 756)

Firefighters Supervisory GS-6, who act as Station

Captains are not supervisors. (Dept, of the Air Force,

Hq., 317th Combat Support Group, Pope AFB, N.C.,

A/SLMR No. 836)

History and Government (Section Chief) is not a supervisor.

(U.S. Dept, of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard Academy,

New London, Conn., A/SLMR No. 737)

Librarian is a supervisor. (U.S. Dept, of Transportation,

U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Conn., A/SLMR No. 737)

Librarian (Assistant) is not a supervisor. (U.S. Dept, of

Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Conn.,

A/SLMR No. 737)

Oilers who occassionally work as masters and chief engineers

included in unit of masters and chief engineers and when

such employees return to their normal duties as deckhands

and oilers they should be included in that unit. Voting

eligibility of such employees to be determined at time of

election pursuant to foregoing principle. (Dept, of

Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard Support Cntr., 3rd

District, Governors Island, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 785)

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

46 6-30-77
Supervisors (Cont*d)

Property Management Specialist, GS-1170-12, found to be

a supervisor and excluded from unit in CU proceeding.

(U.S. Dept, of Agrlc., Farmers Home Admin., Colo.,

A/SLMR No. 752)

Registrar is a supervisor. (U.S. Dept, of Transportation,

U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, Conn., A/SLMR No. 737)

Security Policemen, GS-7 (Supervisory) were found to be

supervisors within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the EG and

excludable from the unit found appropriate. (Dept, of

the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder Canyon Project,

Boulder City, Nev., A/SLMR No. 688)

Tugboat Mate and Relief Lockage Supervisor serve as

supervisors only on an intermittent and infrequent basis

and evidence is insufficient to establish the periods in

which they exercise supervisory authority. Lacking such

evidence, the A/S made no finding as to their supervisory

status. (DOT, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp.,

A/SLMR No. 839)

Unit Supervisor is a supervisor. (State Passport Off.,

Chicago, 111., A/SLMR NO. 697)

Vessel Traffic Controller is not a supervisor. (DOT, St.

Lawrence Seaway Development Corp., A/SLMR No. 839)

Temporary Employees

Temporary Employees Included in unit as such employees

enjoy same pay scales, supervision, work assignments, and

working conditions as permanent employees and have expectancy

of continued employment. (State Passport Off., Chicago, 111.,

A/SLMR No. 697)

20 20 00

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

6-30-77 47
20 24 12

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

Withdrawal

20 24 04 Posting of Notice of Unit Determination

No Entries

20 24 08 Showing of Interest

No Entries

20 24 12 Opportunity to Withdraw

A/S, contrary to ARA, granted Petitioner's request to

withdraw, made during the hearing but noted that Petitioner,

pursuant to Sec. 202.3(j) of the A/S Regulations, would be

barred from filing a petition for the same unit or subdivision

for a period of 6 months. (Antilles Consolidated School

System, Ft. Buchanan, P.R., A/SLMR No. 712)

^8 6-30-77
25 00 00 REPRESENTATION ELECTION AND POST ELECTION STAGES

25 04 00 Voting Procedures

25 04 04 Professionals

No Entries

25 04 08 Self-Determination

No Entries

25 04 12 Role of Observers

No Entries

25 04 16 Severance

No Entries

25 08 00 Objections

25 08 04 Under EO 10988

No Entries

25 08 08 Procedure

No Entries

25 08 12 Timing of Objectionable Conduct

No Entries

25 08 16 Agency Rules on Campaigning

No Entries

25 08 20 Campaign Communications

No Entries

25 08 24 Promises of Benefit

No Entries

25 08 28 Conduct of Election

No Entries

25 08 32 Agency Neutrality

No Entries

25 08 32

6-30-77 49
25 20 00

25 12 04 Eligibility of Employees ^ ^

(See also: 20 20 00. "Employee Categories and Classxfxcatxons )

No Entries

25 12 08 Questions Concerning Ballot

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that 2 challenged

ballots affecting results of a self determination election

for professionals, should be opened and counted and directed

that a revised tally of ballots be served on the parties.

(U.S. Customs Service, A/SLMR No. 792)

Disputes involving the question of ballot validity should

be treated the same as a ballot challenge. (R A/S No. 59)

25 12 12 Timing of Challenge

No Entries

25 16 00 Certification

No Entries

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit

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

CU petition dismissed where A/S found insufficient evidence

to establish that Army employees at the Activity pursuant to

a host-tenant agreement between the Army and the Activity

constitute an accretion to the existing exclusively recognized

unit. (Nat'l. Aeronautics and Space Admin., Lewis Research

Cntr., Cleveland, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 678)

A/S clarified unit by including Production Controllers in

unit of technical employees recognized under EG 10988 rather

than in residual unit of GS employees granted under EO 11491.

(Dept, of the Navy, Long Beach Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 689)

Unit was clarified to exclude certain employees who were never

intended to be included in the unit based on the testimony

of an employee who was involved in the pre-election conference,

and of an employee who was involved in the negotiation of the

present negotiated agreement. (GSA, Central Off., Washington,

D.C., A/SLMR No. 693)

25 12 00 Challenges

50 6-30-77
Unit clarified by including in WG unit a group of positions

which had been previously included in WG unit prior to change

in their job title and method of compensation (from WG to GS)

where record indicated that the duties and location of the

positions were unchanged. (U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort

Belvoir, A/SLMR No. 744)

A/S ordered that an existing unit of "all guards and

Federal Protective Officer, including Special Police" be

clarified to include all employees assigned to the classification Supervisory Federal Protective Officer, GS-6 (Corporal),

as these employees were not supervisors within the meaning of

Sec. 2(a) of the EO. (GSA, Region II, New York, N.Y.,

A/SLMR No. 756)

Unit clarified by Including in such unit Supervisory Firefighters, GS-6 and excluding from such unit the Supervisory

Firefighters, GS-7. (Dept, of the Air Force, Hq., 317th Combat

Support Group, Pope AFB, N.C., A/SLMR No. 836)

Stipulations in which parties agreed to supervisory or

nonsupervisory status of employees, which matter had been

subject of unit clarification petition, constitute, in effect,

withdrawal requests of petitions with respect to agreed upon

employees and, in the absence of any evidence that the stipulations were improper, A/S approved the withdrawal requests.

(DOT, St. Lawrence Development Corp., A/SLMR No. 839)

Unit clarified to reflect addition of one school grade which

did not result in substantial or material changes in the scope

or character of the existing exclusively recognized bargaining

unit, as the new employee hired worked in the same physical

location as other unit employees, had teaching responsibilities

similar to other unit employees, was subject to the same overall supervision and shared common personnel policies, practices

and essentially the same working conditions. (DOD, Dependents

Schools, Europe, [Brindisi School], A/SLMR No. 840)

A/S noted that during the hearing the parties' agreed to the

supervisory or nonsupervisory status of certain employee

classifications and that the agreement of the parties' constituted,

in effect, withdrawal requests. Absent any evidence that the

parties' agreement was improper, the A/S approved the withdrawal

requests. A/S noted also that in order to expedite hearings on

those classifications at issue the parties' divided disputed

employee classifications into categories Group A, Group B and

25 20 00

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit (Cont'd)

6-30-77 51
25 24 00

Group C and stipulated that witnesses testifying within each

grouping were representative of all such individuals within

that grouping. A/S found that record showed such stipulation

not improper. Unit clarified by excluding groups categorized

Group A, Group B and Group C. (Dept, of Army, Hq., XVIII

Airborne Corps and Ft. Bragg, N.C., A/SLMR No. 854)

25 24 00 Amendment of Recognition or Certification

In CU case, the designations of two units were changed to

reflect the successorship of the new agency rather than

their accretion to another unit, as sought in the petition.

(GSA, Central Off., Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 693)

Recognition amended to encompass the normal exclusions

under the EG. (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,

A/SLMR No. 856)

25 20 00 Clarification of Unit (Cont'd)

52 6-30-77
30 04 00 Requisites for Charges and Complaints

Reassignment of union official was not specifically alleged

in pre-complaint charge, the complaint, or in Complainant’s

posthearing brief therefore A/S ordered allegation be dismissed

even though parties fully litigated the issue at the hearings.

(Dept, of Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, Region IV, Miami,

Fla., A/SLMR No. 739)

ALJ ruled that the allegation of an improper promotion to a

permanent promotion was not properly raised at the proceeding.

In so ruling, it was noted that the issue of the permanent

promotion was not specifically alleged as improper in the

pre-complaint charge, complaint, or amended complaint, and no

attempt was made to amend the complaint to include such

allegation. (Defense Mapping Agency, San Antonio Topographic

Center, Ft. Sam Houston, Tex., A/SLMR No. 818)

A/S agreed with ALJ, but for different reasons, that Respondent's

motion to dismiss, based on Complainant's alleged failure to

file a pre-complaint charge, be denied. ALJ concluded that

pre-complaint charge on another issue along with subsequent

discussions between the parties on the issue involved satisfied

the A/S's Regulations. However, A/S found that the two

allegations requiring separate pre-complaint charges. Nevertheless, A/S found dismissal unwarranted as Respondent had failed

to raise matter in a timely manner with the AA during the

investigation stage or prior to the issuance of the Notice of

Hearing. (Defense General Supply Cntr., A/SLMR No. 821)

A/S adopted ALJ's dismissal of certain aspects of ULP, either

raised in the complaint for the first time or raised at the

hearing for the first time, as the Respondent had not properly

been put on notice by a pre-complaint charge as required by

the A/S's Regulations. (Dept, of the Treasury, IRS,

Brookhaven Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 859)

30 08 00 Complaint Proceedings: Investigation Stage

30 08 04 Blocking Complaints

Absent the filing of a Request to Proceed the A/S will

hold in abeyance the conducting of a representation election

where a pending ULP complaint filed by a party to the

representation proceeding is based upon conduct of a nature

which would have a tendency to interfere with the free

choice of the employees in an election, were one to be

conducted. (R A/S No. 60)

30 08 04

30 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; PROCEDURE

6-30-77 53
30 12 04

30 12 04 Rulings of ALJs

30 12 00 Hearing

A/S noted that the ALJ improperly granted the Complainant's

motion made at the hearing, to amend the complaint and

reinstate the allegation that Respondent's conduct violated

Sec. 19(a)(5). In that regard, the A/S considered the

Complainant's previous withdrawal of the Sec. 19(a)(5)

allegation, with approval by the Regional Administrator, as

the equivalent of a dismissal of that part of the complaint.

(Norfolk Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 708)

ALJ granted Complainant's motion, made in its posthearing

brief, to amend original complaint to conform to the

evidence. (Dept, of Treasury, U.S. Customs Service,

Region IV, Miami, Fla., A/SLMR No. 739)

While permitting an amendment of the complaint to include

a Sec. 19(a)(4) allegation, the ALJ inadvertently failed to

indicate that he had permitted such amendment or to make a

specific finding with respect to such allegation. It was

clear from a reading of the ALJ's decision, however, that he

intended to dismiss the Sec. 19(a)(4) allegation, and as the

record did not support such allegation, the A/S dismissed

the Sec. 19(a)(4) allegation. (USAF, Vandenberg AFB,

A/SLMR No. 786)

In agreement with ALJ, A/S dismissed Sec. 19(a)(2) complaint,

finding that the issue of discrimination was not properly

before the ALJ because of the failure of the Complainant

to include in its complaint specific allegation of discriminatory action previously contained in the pre-complaint charge.

(U.S. Army Training Cntr., Engineer and Ft. Leonard Wood,

A/SLMR No. 787)

Contrary to the recommendation of the ALJ, A/S required the

Respondent to post a notice consistent with his remedial

order. In the A/S's view, such a notice is necessary to

inform and assure employees that the rights guaranteed

to them and their exclusive representative by the EG will

be protected. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of Field Operations, Region

V-A, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 832)

ALJ's ruling allowing the Complainant's chief witness to be

deposed after the hearing was not found to be prejudicial

by the A/S in view of the case disposition. (National

Weather Service, A/SLMR No. 847)

54 6-30-77
A/S dismissed certain portions of complaint upon which

the ALJ found violations of the EC as the particular

findings were based on allegations of violations of the EG

previously dismissed by the RA but which the ALJ allowed

as amendments to the complaint at the hearing ^ novo.

(Offutt AFB, Dept, of the Air Force, A/SLMR No. 784)

30 12 12 Failure to Appear

Complainant's failure to appear at the appointed time at

the scheduled hearing Is grounds for ALJ's granting of

Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.

(4500 Air Base Wing, Langley AFB, Va., A/SLMR No. 760)

30 12 16 Prejudicial Evidence

Receipt of unsigned amended complaint Into evidence did not

prejudice rights of either party since allegation, on which

amended complaint was based, was contained In original

complaint and was fully litigated at the hearing In this

matter. (Dept, of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms, San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 698)

A/S found that, no prejudice was suffered by the Respondent,

In view of the case disposition, where the ALJ allowed the

Complainant's chief witness to be deposed after the hearing.

(National Weather Service, A/SLMR No. 847)

30 12 20 Technical Deficiencies

No Entries

30 12 24 Evidence and Burden of Proof

No Entries

30 12 28 Lack of Cooperation

No Entries

30 12 28

30 12 08 Untimely Amendments to Complaints

6-30-77 55
30 28 00

Pursuant to authority contained in Sec. 203.16(g) of A/S

Regulations, ALJ granted Complainant's motion, made in it’s

posthearing brief, to amend the original complaint to conform

to the evidence. (Dept, of Treasury, U.S. Customs Service,

Region IV, Miami, Fla., A/SLMR No. 739)

Complainant's exceptions and supporting brief were not

considered by A/S where exceptions failed to comply with the

content requirements for exceptions as described in Sec. 203.24

(a) of the A/S's Regulations and, supporting brief, which was

filed separately, was filed untimely. (Philadelphia Service

Cntr., IRS, Philadelphia, Pa., A/SLMR No. 754)

30 20 00 Stipulated Record

No Entries

30 24 00 Employee Status; Effect on Unfair Labor Practices

No Entries

30 28 00 Effect of Other Proceedings or Forums

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

the Respondent, of its approval of official time for two

officers of the Complainant, where the parties' agreement

gave the Respondent such authority under certain conditions,

could not be said to have constituted a "patent" breach of the

agreement tantamount to a unilateral change in the terms of

the agreement, as the language of the agreement is susceptible

to varying interpretations and thus, it may be reasonably

argued that the Respondent properly interpreted the agreement,

although the ALJ withheld from making such a finding. However,

he found that the general limitation on the use of official

time unilaterally imposed by the Respondent on all other union

officials constituted a flagrant and patent breach of the

parties' agreement in violation of Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the

EC as there was no contention by the Respondent that any of the

conditions set forth in the agreement had been met with respect

to all other union officials before the Respondent limited

their use of official time. (Watervliet Arsenal, U.S. Army

Armament Command, Watervliet, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 726)

30 16 00 Post-Hearing

56 6-30-77
A/S adopted ALJ's finding that one aspect of ULP should be

dismissed as it was Identical to an issue previously raised

in another ULP before the A/S. It was noted that it would be

contrary to basic legal concepts of res .judicata and

collateral estoppel to allow simultaneous litigation of the

same issue arising out of the same facts in two different

proceedings before the same forum. (Dept, of the Treasury,

IRS, Brookhaven Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 859)

30 32 00 Major Policy Issue Raised

No Entries

30 32 00

30 28 00 Effect on Other Proceedings or Forums (Cont'd)

6-30-77 57

35 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; AGENCY

35 04 00 General

35 04 04 Guidance or Directives of Civil Seirvlce Commission

or Agency

No Entries

35 04 08 Waiver of Rights Granted by Executive Order

No Entries

35 04 12 Management Rights

No Entries

35 08 00 Section 19(a)(1)

Although complaint did not specifically allege violation of

Sec. 19(a)(1), A/S noted that a violation of any of the other

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

with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their

rights under EG and, therefore, also would derivatively

constitute a violation of Sec. 19(a)(1). (SBA, Richmond, Va.,

District Off., A/SLMR No. 674)

A/S, in agreement with the ALJ, noted that he will not

relinquish jurisdiction when the question presented is

whether rights assured by the EO have been waived. A/S further

concluded that, absent a clear and unmistakable waiver in the

parties’ negotiated agreement, the Complainant in the instant

case had a right, granted by theEO, to designate the individual

it desired to get as its representative or agent in each of

the Respondent's regions. In this respect, he found that the

Respondent therein had failed to show a clear and unmistakable

waiver under the negotiated agreement of the Complainant's

right to name its own representative in the Respondent's

regions and, at best, had shown only an ambiguity in the

disputed negotiated agreement provisions. (Dept, of the Treasury,

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, D.C.,

A/SLMR No. 680)

35 08 00

6-30-77 59
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference

60

Statements made by two of Respondent’s supervisors did not

reflect a refusal to deal with or negotiate with exclusive

representative. (Dept, of Transportation, Office of Administrative Operations, A/SLMR No. 683)

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

removing the telephone from the union president's desk

after establishing a term and condition of employment

when it granted the union's president the use of a telephone to be located on his desk. (VA, VA Regional Office,

N.Y. Region, A/SLMR No. 694)

Activity did not violate EO by denying an employee the right

to hold union office as the employee was prohibited from

holding office under Sec. 1(b) of the EO because the participation of employees who are excluded from EO coverage

under Sec. 3(b)(3) in the management of a labor organization

necessarily results in a conflict or apparent conflict of

interest. (Dept, of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms, Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 695)

Statement of Respondent's representative to -grievant and her

union representative not violative of Sec. 19(a)(1). (Dept,

of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,

San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 698)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding, noting no exceptions, that based

on disparate treatment of facility representative and the

timing of disciplinary action, it could reasonably be inferred

that the issuance of warning letter was motivated, at least

in part, by anti-union animus, and, therefore, was violative

of Sec. 19(a)(1). (FAA, A/SLMR No. 704)

A/s concluded that the Complainant failed to prove by a

fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the

Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) of the EO by making an

inquiry as to union membership. (U.S. Marshal Service,

Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 709)

A/s adopted ALJ's conclusion that Activity did not violate

Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of EO when during pendency of employee's

grievance. Activity proposed to suspend the employee 3 days

for an alleged abuse of sick leave — the same incident

giving rise to the employee's grievance where there was no

evidence of anti-union animus, that the suspension was

proposed because the grievance was filed, or discrimination

to discourage union membership. (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,

Bremerton, Wash., A/SLMR No. 710)

6-30-77
35 08 04

A/S found Respondent's statements and remarks were not

motivated by anti-union animus and consequently were not

violative of Sec. 19(a)(1). (DSA, Defense Property Disposal Service, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 713)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) where comments

made by its District Director and its Chief of the

Intelligence Division to the Complainant Local's President

concerning the selection of the Union's steward were not,

under the circumstances, intended or designed to persuade

or influence the Complainant Local's President in regard

to the selection or non-selection of the Union's steward.

(IRS, Utah District, Salt Lake City, Utah, A/SLMR No. 716)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the elimination of a

position held by an employee was based on economic considerations rather than as reprisal for his union activities.

(Army Training Cntr. Engineer and Ft. Leonard Wood, Ft.

Leonard Wood, Mo., A/SLMR No. 720)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) by Sector Manager's statements to an employee who had filed an informal grievance

under the agency grievance procedure that he should not

let the local union representative lead him around, as that

was not the way to get ahead. A/S, contrary to ALJ, found

that coercive or intimidating statements implying adverse

consequences for employees seeking or accepting union

assistance and representation in regard to such matters as

the processing of grievances are of themselves separate and

independent violations of Sec. 19(a)(1) unrelated to the

particular nature of the procedure involved. (FAA, Airways

Facilities Sector, Tampa, Fla., A/SLMR No. 725)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the credited remarks of

agency management, including the context and manner in

which they were made were not violated* of the EG.

However, in reaching this conclusion A/S did not adopt

the ALJ's general implication that encouragement of a

union steward to run for president of a local union by

agency management with an offer to assist his or her

campaign by posting campaign literature without more, would

not, under any circumstances, constitute a violation of

Sec. 19(a)(3) of the EG. (SSA, Wilkes-Barre Operations

Branch, Dept, of HEW, A/SLMR No. 729)

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

6-30-77 61
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont*d)

62

A/S agreed with ALJ's Recommendation to dismiss Sec.

19(a)(1) and (6) allegations where request for information

was made by labor organization in its representative

capacity in a grievance proceeding under an agency (nonnegotiated) procedure. Citing FLRC No. 74A-54, U.S.

Department of Navy, Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville,

Kentucky, the ALJ noted that a labor organization has no

inherent right to act on its own initiative on behalf of an

employee where the matter arises under law or regulation

rather than under a negotiated agreement or the EG. (FAA,

National Aviation Facility Experimental Center, Atlantic

City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 743)

Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) when supervisor stated to

two employees that they should have appealed a shift change

directly with him rather than seek the assistance of their

exclusive representative. (Dept, of Defense; Norfolk Naval

Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 746)

Statement made by representative of Respondent to a Union

representative, during a discussion concerning the training

of certain employees, was not violative of Sec. 19(a)(1).

(Philadelphia Service Cntr., IRS, Philadelphia, Pa.,

A/SLMR No. 754)

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

Sec. 19(a)(1) of the EG by telling employee that his union

duties interferred with his effectiveness on the job and

that it would be a negative factor in his rating. (U.S.

Customs Service, Region IV, Dept, of Treasury, Miami, Fla.,

A/SLMR NO. 764)

Pursuant to FLRC No. 75A-25 and rationale therein, A/S

reversed holding in A/SLMR No. 485, in which he found

Respondent's conduct to be violative of Sec. 19(a)(1); and

ordered that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.

(Dept, of the Air Force, Base Procurement Office, Vandenberg

AFB, Caiif., A/SLMR No. 767)

Based on the ALJ's credibility findings that the sole reason

for the temporary transfer of a union steward to a lower

grade position without loss of pay was to accommodate the

steward and allow him unlimited time to perform his union

activities without having to be involved in the deadlines

and pressures of his current job position, and in the absence

of any evidence of union animus, the A/S adopted the ALJ's

conclusion that the temporary transfer of the steward was not

violative of the EO. (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Dept, of

the Navy, Bremerton, Wash., A/SLMR No. 768)

6-30-77
35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Con'd)

A/S affirmed ALJ's findings that Respondent had violated

Sec. 19(a)(1) of the EG by the action of certain of its

supervisors in uttering disparaging remarks to representatives of the Complainant in the pressence of other employees.

(IRS, Philadelphia Service Cntr., Philadelphia, Pa.,

A/SLMR No. 771)

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

an employee about his activities as a union steward during

a job promotion interview. However, A/S found that activity

did not violate Sec. 19(a)(2) by failing to promote the

subject employee where he was unable to conclude that the

employee would have been selected but for his union beliefs

and activities, despite his conclusions that the Respondent's

violations of Sec. 19(a)(1) deprived the employee of a fair

opportunity to compete for a promotion. (Dept, of Navy,

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 775)

A/S found Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) and (4) of EG

when it disciplined Complainant for use of FTS telephone

for the purpose of conveying a message from the DGL investigating a prior complaint filed by the Complainant was,

despite the existence of an agency regulation which prohibits

the use of such facilities by a labor organization, inextricably intertwined with and derived from the filing of

the prior ULP against the Respondent and the resultant investigation by the DGL. (Airway Facilities Field Office, FAA,

St. Petersburg, Fla., A/SLMR No. 776)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(1) of the EG by making antiunion statements to an employee and by thereafter reprimanding and discharging the employee because of her union

activities. (Gffutt AFB, Dept, of the Air Force,

A/SLMR No. 784)

Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) when a supervisor interrogated an employee regarding the latter's solicitation on

behalf of a labor organization. (USAF, Vandenberg AFB,

A/SLMR No. 786)

Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) when it issued a written

reprimand to an employee following his circulation of a

union authorization petition and the reasons given for the

reprimand were pretextual in nature. (USAF, Vandenberg

AFB, A/SLMR No. 786)

6-30-77 63
35 08 04

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that Respondent had not

violated Sec. 19(a)(1) when a management official told a

unit employee he could not be represented by a union

national representative but only by an official of the local.

The A/S noted that the wording the parties contract to wit

that employees who used its grievance procedure could be

represented only by the local or an individual approved by

the local. Hence management’s statement was a reasonable

and arguable interpretation of the parties* contract.

(Commissary, Ft. Meade, Dept, of the Army, A/SLMR No. 793)

A/S found insufficient evidence to establish that Activity

violated Sec. 19(a)(1) when its agent, the school principal,

conducted an observation of the Complainant's class the day

before a holiday, and made certain statements to the

Complainant during the observation and at a post-observation meeting. (U.S. Dependents Schools, European Area

(USDESEA), A/SLMR No. 795)

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) by reprimanding a

union representative who quoted portions of an intra-agency

communication in a letter to a supervisor, copies of which

were sent to members of the general public. The A/S found

that the protection of Sec. 1(a) did not extend to the

disseminations to the general public. (Dept, of Transportation, FAA, Las Vegas Control Tower, Las Vegas, Nev.,

A/SLMR No. 796)

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

Complainant's separation from his job during his trial

employment period was not motivated by the Complainant's

union activities in violation of the EG. He found that

the Complainant was not treated disparately but was terminated

because of his unsatsifactory work performance. He concluded

also that two of the Respondent's supervisors did not make

the anti-union remarks which the Complainant attributed to

them. (HEW, Public Health Service, Indian Health Service,

Phoenix Indian Medical Cntr., A/SLMR No. 798)

Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) when supervisor issued

memo to local union president wherein a transfer was

threatened because of his activity on behalf of a labor

organization. (USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service,

A/SLMR No. 810)

35 08 04 Interference (Contd*)

64 6-30-77
Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) when supervisor struck

a unit employee and threatened to move him to another work

area when he attempted to invoke a provision of the

negotiated agreement. (FAA, Indianapolis Air Route Traffic

Control Cntr,, A/SLMR No. 812)

A/S dismissed Sec. 19(a)(1) allegation where there was

insufficient evidence to estalish that the Activity failed

to properly process individual's grievance. (VA Hospital,

St. Louis, Mo., AFGE, Local 1715, A/SLMR No. 838)

A/S adopted ALJ finding that Sec. 19(a)(1) was not

violated during hostile meeting between supervisor and Local

President as under particular circumstances supervisor felt

his promise had been breached and the alleged threat made,

i.e., holding union officer to official time requirements

of negotiated agreement. (IRS, Cincinnati Service Cntr.,

Ky., A/SLMR No. 844)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) by threatening

Complainant's President where Respondent's comment was a

positive denial of any threat. (U.S. Dept, of Agric.,

Forest Service, Quachita Nat'l. Forest, Hot Springs, Ark.,

A/SLMR No. 845)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) when its supervisor

made an alleged critical comment at a private meeting with

the Complainant’s National Representative concerning the

Complainant's President. (U.S. Dept, of Agric., Forest

Service, Quachita Nat'l. Forest, Hot Springs, Ark.,

A/SLMR No. 845)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the Respondent did not

violate the EG when it refused to recognize the appointment

of an area representative of the labor organization as the

job description and duties of the employee in question was

the same as that of the clerk to the area supervisor found

to be confidential in A/SLMR No. 538, and therefore was prohibited by Sec. 1(b) from serving as the union s area representative. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,

Milwaukee, Wise., A/SLMR No. 850)

35 08 04

35 08 04 Interference (Cont'd)

6-30-77
35 12 00

35 08 08 Distribution of Literature

No Entries

35 08 12 Solicitation

In agreement with ALJ, A/S concluded that, absent unusual

circumstances, a Notice and a Direction which had the

effect of barring union activity by employees during their

non-work time, including breaks and lunch hours, were

violative of Sec. 19(a)(1) of the EG. (Offutt AFB, Dept,

of the Air Force, A/SLMR No. 78A)

Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) when it issued a written

reprimand to an employee following his circulation of a

union authorization petition and the reasons given for the

reprimand were pretextual in nature. (USAF, Vandenberg AFB,

A/SLMR No. 786)

Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) when a supervisor interrogated an employee regarding the latter's solication on

behalf of a labor organization. (USAF, Vandenberg AFB,

A/SLMR No. 786)

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

Sec. 19(a)(1) by giving improper assistance to another union

by allowing solicitation on its premises within a unit in

which the Complainant had exclusive recognition and an

agreement. The A/S noted the absence of evidence that the

outside union had made a diligent effort to contact employees

by other means, and that the Respondent had not sufficiently

inquired into the previous efforts of outside union before

granting it access to its premises. (Commissary, Ft. Meade,

Dept, of the Army, A/SLMR No. 793)

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2)

66

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that there was insufficient

basis in the record to find that the Respondent had

discriminated against certain union members because of their

participation in the filing of grievances or complaints.

(FAA, Eastern Region, A/SLMR No. 685)

Respondent's action in the subject case did not encourage or

discourage membership in the Complainant Union by discriminating in regard to condition of employement inasmuch as the

Respondent refused to comply with the Complainant’s request for

dues withholding pending a decision from the Comptroller General

regarding the appropriateness of compliance with the Complainant's

request. (VAHosp., Murfreesboro, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 702)

6-30-77
A/S adopted ALJ finding that labor organization’s allegation concerning the removal of its President from her officially

assigned job duties because her union activities had been

raised previously under a negotiated grievance procedure, and

therefore, Sec. 19(d) barred consideration of this issue under

ULP procedures. (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

A/SLMR No. 707)

A/s adopted ALJ's conclusion that Activity did not violate

Sec. 19(a)(1) and (2) of EG when during pendency of employee's

grievance. Activity proposed to suspend the employee 3 days

for an alleged abuse of sick leave — the same incident giving

rise to the employee's grievance where there was no evidence

of anti-union animus, that the suspension was proposed because

the grievance was filed, or discrimination to discourage union

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

A/SLMR No. 710)

A/S concluded that in view of final resolution of the issues

in A/SLMR NO. 300, the Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1),

(2), (5) and (6) of the EG when it refused to recognize the

Complainant as the representative of the transferred DPDS

employees who were included prior to their transfer. (DSA,

Defense Property Disposal Service, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska,

A/SLMR No. 713)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the elimination of a position

held by an employee was based on economic considerations rather

than as a reprisal for his union activities. (Army Training

Cntr., Engineer and Ft. Leonard Wood, Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo.,

A/SLMR No. 720)

A/S found insufficient evidence that scheduling of pre-action

investigation and issuance of letters of caution or requirement

to two employees were violative of Sec. 19(a)(2) noting that

such actions-were not taken in reprisal for the employees having

exercised their rights guaranteed by the EG. (Dept, of Defense,

Norfolk Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR NO. 746)

Based on the ALJ's credibility finding that the sole reason

for the temporary transfer of a union steward to a lower grade

position without loss of pay was to accommodate the steward and

allow him unlimited time to perform his union activities without

having to be involved in the deadlines and pressures of his

35 12 00

35 12 GO Section 19(a)(2) (Cont*d)

6-30-77 67
35 12 00

current position, and in the absence of any evidence of

union animus, the A/S adopted the ALJ's conclusion that the

temporary transfer of the steward was not violative of the

EO. (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Dept, of the Navy,

Bremerton, Wash., A/SLMR No. 768)

A/S found insufficient evidence to establish that cause for

Complainant's discharge, either in whole or in part, was

because of his union activity. (Interstate Commerce Commission,

A/SLMR No. 773)

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

employee about his activities as a union steward during a job

promotion interview. However, A/S found that activity did not

violate Sec. 19(a)(2) by failing to promote the subject employee

where he was unable to conclude that the employee would have

been selected but for his union beliefs and activities, despite

his conclusions that the Respondent's violation of Sec. 19(a)(1)

deprived the employee of a fair opportunity to compete for a

promotion. (Dept, of Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard,

A/SLMR No. 775)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(2) of the EO by reprimanding and

later discharging an employee because of her union activities.

(Offutt AFB, Dept, of the Air Force, A/SLMR No. 784)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(2) when it placed an

employee on sick leave and subsequently processed his disability

discharge (which order was rescinded) because such actions were

motivated by Respondent's desire not to aggravate an injury the

employee had incurred while on the job, and not taken in

response to the employee's solicitation activities. (USAF,

Vandenberg AFB, A/SLMR No. 786)

A/S, in agreement with the Chief ALJ, found that the Complainant's

separation from his job during his trial employment period was

not motivated by the Complainant's union activities in violation

of the EO. He found that the Complainant was not treated

disparately but was terminated because of his unsatisfactory

work performance. He concluded also that two of the Respondent's

supervisors did not make the anti-union remarks which the

Complainant attributed to them. (HEW, Public Health Service,

Indian Health Service, Phoenix Indian Medical Cntr.,

A/SLMR No. 798)

35 12 00 Section 19(a)(2) (Cont’d)

68

6-30-77
35 12 00

35 12 GO Section 19(a)(2) (Cont’d)

A/S adopted ALJ's dismissal of Sec. 19(a)(2) allegations

where there was no evidence to support the allegation that

an employee was suspended because of his activities on behalf

of the Complainant, or that he was singled out to encourage

or discourage membership in a labor organization. (GSA,

Region V, Public Building Service, Milwaukee Field Office,

A/SLMR No. 801)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent did not violate

Sec. 19(a)(1) and (2) of the EO by giving a union official a

poor evaluation and by its failure to promote subject employee,

where there was no evidence of anti-union animus and where the

supervisory personnel involved in the selection process were not

aware that subject employee was a union official. (EEOC,

A/SLMR No. 802)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(2) where evidence failed

to show that its action in transferring local union president

was not based upon legitimate agency considerations. (USDA,

Agricultural Marketing Service, A/SLMR No. 810)

Contrary to ALJ, A/S found Respondent did not violate Sec.

19(a)(2) when supervisor struck unit employee and threatened

to move him to another work area when he attempted to invoke a

provision of the negotiated agreement as there was no evidence

of discrimination on the part of the Respondent toward the unit

employee. (FAA, Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Cntr.,

A/SLMR No. 812)

A/S dismissed Sec. 19(a)(2) allegation where there was no

evidence the Activity had discriminated against a unit employee

with respect to the processing of her grievance. (VA Hospital,

St. Louis, Mo., AFGE, Local 1715, A/SLMl. No. 838)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Complainant failed to meet

burden of proof that Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(2) by

changing evaluation rating from "outstanding" to "satisfactory"

of employee on whose behalf the complaint had been filed, because she was a union steward and was active in Complainant's

organizing campaign. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals,

San Juan, P.R., A/SLMR No. 861)

6-30-77 69
35 16 00

35 16 GO Section 19(a)(3)

Activity did not violate EC by denying an employee the right

to hold union office as the employee was prohibited from

holding office under Sec. 1(b) of the EG because the participation of employees who are excluded from EG coverage under

Sec. 3(b)(3) in the management of a labor organization necessarily

results in a conflict or apparent conflict of interest. (Dept,

of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,

Boston, Mass., A/SLMR No. 695)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(3) where comments made

by its District Director and its Chief of the Intelligence

Division to the Complainant Local's President concerning the

selection of the Union's steward were not, under the circumstances, intended or designed to persuade or influence the

Complainant's Local's President in regard to the selection or

non-selection of the Union's steward. (IRS, Utah District,

Salt Take City, Utah, A/SLMR No. 716)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the credited remarks of

agency management, including the context and manner in

which they were made were not violated of the EG.

However, in reaching this conclusion A/S did not adopt

the ALJ's general implication that encouragement of a

union steward to run for president of a local union by

agency management with an offer to assist his or her

campaign by posting campaign literature without more, would

not, under any circumstances, constitute a violation of

Sec. 19(a)(3) of the EG. (SSA, Wilkes-Barre Operations

Branch, Dept, of HEW, A/SLMR No. 729)

A/s in agreement with ALJ, found that Respondent violated

Sec. 19(a)(3) by giving improper assistance to an outside

union by allowing solicitation on its premises within a unit

in which Complainant had exclusive recognition and an agreement. The A/S noted the absence of evidence that the outside

union had made a diligent effort to contact the employees by

other means, and that the Respondent had not sufficiently

inquired into the previous efforts of the outside union

before granting it access to its premises. (Commissary,

Ft. Meade, Dept, of the Army, A/SLMR No. 793)

In agreement with ALJ, A/S, while finding that the Respondent

had violated Sec. 19(a)(6) of the EG, concluded that there

was no evidence to indicate that the reason for the Respondent's

stalling and delaying negotiations with the exclusive representative was to assist another labor organization. (Defense

Civil Preparedness Agency, Region I, Maynard, Mass.,

A/SLMR No. 799)

70 6-30-77
35 20 00

35 16 GO Section 19(a)(3) (Cont*d)

A/S adopted ALJ’s dismissal of Sec. 19(a)(3) allegations

that Activity had failed to prevent a labor organization from

performing alleged improper campaign activities where there

was no evidence the Activity had knowledge of the alleged

activities until after they occurred and did not sanction or

approve them. (GSA, Region V, Public Building Service,

Milwaukee Field Office, A/SLMR No. 801)

A/S dismissed Sec. 19(a)(3) allegation where grievant alleged

Activity and labor organization had improperly processed

her grievance. (VA Hospital, St. Louis, Mo., AFGE, Local 1715,

A/SLMR No. 838)

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

Sec. 19(a)(3) and (1) by furnishing services and facilities to

a labor organization by allowing the labor organization to

place an advertisement in the Respondent's contracted out

newspaper when said labor organization was not in equivalent

status with the exclusively recognized representative. (Local

3254, AFGE and Dept, of the Air Force, Grissom AFB, Peru, Ind.,

A/SLMR No. 852)

35 20 00 Section 19(a)(4)

A/S found Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) and (4) of EG

when it disciplined Complainant for use of FTS telephone where

for the purpose of conveying a message from the DOL investigating a prior complaint filed by the Complainant was, despite

the existence of an agency regulation which prohibits the use

of such facilities by a labor organization, inextricably

intertwined with and derived from the filing of the prior ULP

against the Respondent and the resultant investigation by the

DOL. (Airway Facilities Field Office, FAA, St. Petersburg, Fla.,

A/SLMR No. 776)

A/S dismissed Sec. 19(a)(4) allegation where Respondent placed

employee on sick leave and subsequently processed his disability

discharge (which order was rescinded) because such actions were

motivated by Respondent's desire not to aggravate an injury

the employee had incurred while on the job. A/S also noted that

while ALJ permitted an amendment of the complaint to include the

Sec. 19(a)(4) allegation, he inadvertently failed to indicate

that he had permitted such amendment or to make a specific

finding with respect to such allegation. It was clear from a

6-30-77 71
reading of the ALJ’s decision, however, that he intended

to dismiss the Sec. 19(a)(4) allegation, and as the record

did not support such allegation, the A/S found that the

dismissal was warranted. (USAF, Vandenberg AFB, A/SLMR No. 786)

A/S found insufficient evidence to establish that observation

of Complainant's classroom performance by Activity’s agent, and

statements made by agent during and after the observation, were

in retaliation for the filing of a prior complaint by the

Complainant. (U.S. Dependents Schools, European Area,

(USDESEA), A/SLMR No. 795)

35 24 00 Section 19(a)(5)

A/S concluded that in view of final resolution of the issues

in A/SLMR No. 300, the Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)

(1) j (2), (5) and (6) of the EG when it refused to recognize

the Complainant as the representative of the transferred DPDS

employees or honor the agreement under which said employees

were included prior to their transfer. (DSA, Defense Property

Disposal Service, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 713)

A/s held that when an agency unilaterally determines the unit

status of employees, it does so at its peril and an erroneous

determination would be viewed as tantamount to a unilateral

withdrawal of recognition with respect to part of an exclusively

recopized unit. Thus, unilateral termination of dues withholding for employees who the agency determined were no longer

in the unit was done at the agency's peril. (U.S. Naval Weapons

Station, Seal Beach, Calif., A/SLMR No. 827)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that the Respondent did not violate

the EG when it refused to recognize the appointment of an

area representative of the labor organization, as the job

description and duties of the employee in question was the

same as that of the clerk to the area supervisor found to be

confidential in A/SLMR No. 538, and therefore was prohibited

by Sec. 1(b) from serving as the union's area representative.

(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Milwaukee, Wise.,

A/SLMR No. 850)

35 24 00

35 20 00 Section 19(a)(4) (Con'd)

72

6-30-77
35 28 04

35 28 04 Response to Bargaining Request

A/S affirmed ALJ's finding that the Respondent did not

violate Sec. 19(a)(6) of the EG despite its refusal to

bargain on four admittedly negotiable proposals unless the

union agreed that the other 14 proposals were not negotiable where Respondent subsequently did, in fact, negotiate

with union on four admittedly negotiable proposals. ALJ

cited Vandenberg Air Force Base, 4392d Aerospace Support

Group, FLRC No. 74A-77 to support his conclusion that the

Respondent's "temporary and fleeting aberration from the

obligation to negotiate [was] not a refusal to meet and confer

in violation of the EG". (IRS, Chicago District,

A/SLMR No. 711)

A/S found while in one instance there may have been a

misrepresentation of the facts and in the other instance no

clear misrepresentation of the facts, neither alleged misrepresentation by Respondent, standing alone, violated Sec.

19(a)(1) and (6). A/S, found no evidence that either alleged

misrepresentation had made further bargaining a futility.

(Defense General Supply Center, A/SLMR No. 821)

In agreement with the ALJ, the A/S concluded that the

Respondent violated the EG by refusing to meet and confer

with the Complainant for the purpose of developing ground

rules for the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement

in one of the Agency district office units represented

exclusively by the Complainant during the pendency of a UC

petition filed by the Complainant to consolidate the Agency

district office units it represented exclusively. In this

regard, the A/S noted that the FLRC has indicated that a UC

petition itself does not raise a QCR. Therefore, in his

view, it would not effectuate the purposes of the EG to deny

an exclusive representative the right to negotiate an agreement in an individual unit during the pendency of a UC

petition which includes that unit, absent the raising of a

valid QCR in such unit. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of Field Operations,

Region V-A, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 832)

Contrary to the ALJ, the A/S held that the parties' obligation to negotiate an agreement with respect to an individual

unit encompassed by a UC petition ceases upon the issuance of

a certification for the consolidated unit. (HEW, SSA, Bureau

of Field Operations, Region V-A, Chicago, 111, A/SLMR No. 832)

35 28 00 Section 19(a)(6)

6-30-77 73
35 28 08

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) in refusing to

continue to negotiate on a subject which higher headquarters

had earlier determined to be a non-mandatory subject of

bargaining under the provisions of Sec. 11(b) of the EG.

A/S concluded that subject which is non-mandatory at the

outset of negotiations does not become mandatory merely

because both parties considered it during their negotiations.

(63rd Air Base Group, U.S. Air Force, Norton Air Force Base,

Calif., A/SLMR No. 834)

A/S adopted ALJ's findings that Activity did not violate

Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EG. ALJ found gravemen of

complaint was that the Activity was obligated, under the

parties' negotiated agreement, to process a grievance

submitted by the lAM. The grievance had been rejected as

not arbitrable by the Activity. ALJ noted that when a

party in good faith asserts a matter is not grievable or

arbitrable under a negotiated agreement, a determination of

grievability or arbitrability may be obtained from the A/S

pursuant to Sec. 13(d) of the EG and that this procedure is

the proper vehicle for resolution of such issue. (Naval Air

Rework Facility, Cherry Point, N.C., A/SLMR No. 849)

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally

No violation found to Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EG

where evidence established that Respondent, at the time

the unfair labor practice charge herein was filed, had

not refused to supply the Complainant with information

requested during collective bargaining negotiation. A/S

found that at the time the unfair labor practice charge was

filed there was no clear refusal to supply the information

requested because the Respondent had merely informed the

Complainant that it would look into its request because the

furnishing of the requested information could be violative

of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of

1974. Also, the evidence showed that the Respondent took

the request herein under advisement and that it promised to

research the request and respond as quickly as possible.

(Dept, of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service,

A/SLMR No. 682)

Statements made by two of Respondent's superviors did not

reflect a refusal to deal with or negotiate with exclusive

representative. (Dept, of Transportation, Off. of Administrative Operations, A/SLMR No. 683)

35 28 04 Response to Bargaining Request (Cont'd)

6-30-77
35 28 08

A/S found insufficient evidence to conclude that

Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(6) or was lacking in good

faith when it misinformed Complainant as to the identity

of the EEC Counselor. (U.S. Marshal Service, Dallas, Tex.,

A/SLMR No. 709)

A/S affirmed ALJ's finding that the Respondent did not

violate Sec. 19(a)(6) of the EG despite its refusal to

bargain on four admittedly negotiable proposals unless the

union agreed that the other 14 proposals were not negotiable

where Respondent subsequently did, in fact, negotiate with

union on the four admittedly negotiable proposals. ALJ

cited Vandenburg Air Force Base, 4392d Aeorspace Group,

FLRC No. 74A-77 to support his conclusion that the Respondent's "temporary and fleeting aberration from the obligation to negotiate [was] not a refusal to meet and confer in

violation of the EG". (IRS, Chicago District, A/SLMR No. 711)

A/S concluded that, in view of final resolution of the

issues in A/SLMR No. 300, the Respondent did not violate

Sec. 19(a)(1), (2), (5) and (6) of the EG when it refused

to recognize the Complainant as the representative of the

transferred DPDS employees or honor the agreement under which

said employees were included prior to their transfer. (DSA,

Defense Property Disposal Service, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska,

A/SLMR No. 713)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) by its

refusal to furnish information concerning a proposed RIF

where the RIF was still in the formulation stage and no

plans had been finalized. (U.S. Army Electronics Command,

Ft. Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 732)

A/S concluded that Respondent did not act in bad faith by

refusing to process Complainant’s grievance through the

negotiated procedure where Respondent stated that he did not

believe the matter involved the interpretation and application

of the negotiated agreement and that if the Complainant was

of the view that the grievance was arbitrable, it could seek

a determination on arbitrability from the A/S in accordance

with Sec. 13(d) of the EG. (VA Hospital, Waco, Tex.,

A/SLMR No. 735)

Contrary to ALJ, A/S concluded that Respondent did not

violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EG by failing to consult

in good faith with regard to the implementation of an arbitration award where Respondent had discussed the implementation with the Complainant and proceeded to implement the

award in the manner agreed upon. (VA Hospital, Waco, Tex.,

A/SLMR No. 735)

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont'd)

6-30-77 75
35 28 08

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) by issuing a

memoranduni prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages

on the Respondent's facilities without first meeting and

conferring with the exclusive representative where A/S,

contrary to ALJ, concluded that such control by Respondent

did not fall within ambit of Sec. 11(a), which encompasses

matters materially affecting and having a substantial impact

on, personnel policies, practices, and general working

conditions. (Dept, of Defense, Air National Guard, Texas

Air National Guard, Camp Mabry, Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 738)

A/S agreed with ALJ’s Recommendation to dismiss Sec. 19(a)

(1) and (6) allegations where request for information was

made by labor organization in its representative capacity in

a grievance proceeding under an agency (non-negotiated)

procedure. Citing FLRC No. 74A-54, U.S. Department of Navy,

Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky, the ALJ noted

that a labor organization has no inherent right to act on

its own initiative on behalf of an employee where the matter

arises under law or regulation rather than under a negotiated

agreement or the EC. (FAA, National Aviation Facility

Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 743)

A/S found that Respondent did violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and

(6) by refusing to close the Puerto Rico, District Office

and grant administrative leave to its employees in observance

of Good Friday, a legal holiday of the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, despite the fact that the office had been closed and

administrative leave granted to employees in observance of

this holiday in previous years inasmuch as decision not to

close the District Office was a Sec. 12(b) management right

and, therefore, they were not obligated to meet and confer

concerning the decision. A/S concluded that past practice

and bargaining history are without controlling significance

where a matter constitutes a Sec. 12(b) management right.

(SBA, District Office, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, and SBA,

Regional Office, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 751)

Contrary to the ALJ, the A/S found that Respondent did not

violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by refusing to

negotiate in good faith with the Complainant concerning proposals for changes in personnel policies prescribed by the

revised regulations and by its unilateral issuance of such

regulations without prior good faith negotiation, where

under the EO, the obligation to meet and confer in response

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont’d’)

76

6-30-77
35 28 08

to a legitimate bargaining request applies only in the

context of exclusive bargaining relationships. 'hus, as

the Academy which had not been made a respondent in this

case, afforded exclusive recognition to the Complainant,

the A/S found that Respondent could not be in violation

of Sec. 19(a)(6) of the EG based on its alleged failure to

bargain in good faith with the Complainant. (U.S. Dept, of

Commerce, U.S. Maritime Admin., A/SLMR No. 755)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) as its

action in including a particular television station as a

data source in a wage survey was not, under circumstances of

the case, in derrogation of its bargaining obligation under

the EG. (U.S. Information Agency, A/SLMR No. 763)

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont’d)

A/S found that the Respondent’s issuance of a memorandum

concerning the establishment of a "Public Service Lobby"

without prior consultation with the Complainant did not

violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) as the Respondent had the

right under Sec. 11(b) of the EG to establish the "Public

Service Lobby" without first bargaining with the Complainant.

He also found that the Complainant never requested Respondent to meet and confer regarding the impact and implementation of such decision. (IRS, Philadelphia Service Cntr.,

Philadelphia, Pa., A/SLMR No. 771)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) of EG, but fulfilled its obligations by meeting and negotiating a supplemental agreement with the Complainant, the exclusive representative. The A/S considered May 19, 1975, the date the

Respondent’s Director forwarded the supplemental agreement

to the reviewing authority, to be the one on which the

Director was deemed to have executed the supplemental agreement by virtue of the terms of the parties’ ground rules

requiring such execution as a condition precedent to its

being in effect. A/S found also that the Respondent’s

verbal notification, dated July 1, 1975, to Complainant

of disapproval by reviewing authority of specific items, and

the basis therefore, constituted timely notification within

the meaning of Sec. 15 of the EG. (U.S. Department of

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., National

Weather Service, Western Region, A/SLMR No. 794)

6-30-77 77
A/s held that Respondent did not violate parties’

negotiated agreement when it failed to inform a probationary

employee of her right to representation at interview

regarding her conduct where such discussion was not covered

by the agreement. He further found that even if such

interview were covered by the agreement. Respondent’s contrary

view and conduct would amount to a simple breach and not rise

to the level of ULP- In dismissing the complaint based on

FLRC No. 75P-2, the A/S noted that the proper forum for the

parties' disagreement as to whether the agreement is applicable

to probationary employees, should be the negotiated grievance

procedure. (SAA, Great Lakes Program Cntr., A/SLMR No. 804)

A/s found that Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) by

unilaterally establishing a policy of using radar to enforce

the speed limits within the Shipyard and noted that the

subject policy did not affect or change employee terms and

conditions of employment and that the evidence showed the

Respondent’s action did not change the existing traffic

regulations at the Shipyard. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard,

A/SLMR No. 805)

A/s, in agreement with ALJ, found that Respondent was not

obligated to consult with Complainants, who held national

consultation rights within the Agency, when it issued and

implemented a personnel manual circular which temporarily

suspended agency hearings for adverse action proceedings

resulting from position classification determinations, a

right afforded employees by Agency Regulations, as Respondent’s action did not constitute a substantial change in

personnel policy. He noted that the Agency Regulation at

issue clearly affords the Respondent the authority to deny

a hearing by merely declaring the existence of extraordinary circumstances. (HEW, A/SLMR No. 807)

The change in the work week of firefighters was integrally

related to the staffing patterns of the Respondent and thus

fell within the exclusionary language of Sec. 11(b) and

relieved the agency from the duty and/or obligation to bargain

thereon. The ALJ also found that the Respondent had not

clearly and unmistakably waived its Sec. 11(b) rights by

virtue of its action in signing a negotiated agreement containing provisions relating to work schedules and tours of duty.

A/S noted that the gravamen of the complaint was that the

Respondent’s unilateral decision was contrary to the parties’

negotiated agreement. Accordingly, as the issues involved

essentially different interpretations of the parties’ rights

and obligations under the negotiated agreement, the A/S

ordered that the complaint be dismissed. (VA, VA Hospital,

Northport, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 824)

35 28 08

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (ContM)

78 6-30-77
A/S held that when an agency unilaterally determines the

unit status of employees, it does so at its peril and an

erroneous determination would be viewed as tantamount to

a unilateral withdrawal of recognition with respect to part

of an exclusively recognized unit. Thus, unilateral determination of dues withholding for employees whom the agency

determined were no longer in the unit was done at the agency's

peril. (U.S. Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Calif.,

A/SLMR No. 827)

Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(6) by failing to bargain with

exclusive representative prior to implementing new parking

procedure. (SSA, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals,

A/SLMR No. 828)

A/S adopted ALJ's findings that the IRS had an obligation to

bargain only at the level in which the NTEU had exclusive

recognition, i.e. district, region, or service center level.

Thus, absent some form of national exclusive recognition or

national consultation rights, the IRS was not obliged to meet

and confer or consult with the NTEU at the national level

concerning the issuance of a supplement which applied

uniformly to all IRS regions including those not represented

by the NTEU. Moreover, with respect to the substance of the

supplement, the ALJ concluded that it did not deal with any

subjects in which the Commissioner had allegedly made any

prior committments. (IRS, National Office, A/SLMR No. 846)

A/s found no violation of Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) where the

issuance of a policy concerning merit promotion by a higher

organizational level, did not preclude bargaining at the subordinate levels where exclusive recognition was granted, and

where, in fact, certain negotiation on the policy in question

did take place. (National Weather Service, A/SLMR No. 847)

A/s, in agreement with ALJ, concluded that the Respondent

was obligated to bargain, in advance, about the decision to

change the competitive areas used for RIF purposes as the

change in competitive areas itself impacts on employees.

While the ALJ further concluded that the Respondent fulfilled

its obligation to supply the NFFE with requested information

necessary for the Complainant to adequately bargain about the

proposed change and that the record established that the

parties had engaged in two bargaining sessions, he concluded

that the parties had not, as required, exhausted the bargaining

35 28 08

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont*d)

6-30-77 79
35 28 12

possibilities or reached impasse concerning the issue and,

therefore, the Respondent had violated Sec. 19(a)(1) and

(6) of the EO by failing to fulfill its bargaining obligation with the exclusive representative, prior to the

implementation of the change in competitive areas. (U.S.

Army Electronics Command, Ft. Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 855)

In agreement with the ALJ, the A/S found that the Activity

did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) by rescinding policy of

granting employee 15 minutes on pay day to cash or bank

salary checks, as the Complainant refused to attend meeting

requested by Respondent even though on short notice and

without specificity. Even if violation had occurred then.

Respondent's efforts thereafter, following its reinstatement

of such leave policy, to get Complainant to consider alternative procedures which would allow the accomplishment of

a common objective belied any claim that the Respondent

refused to meet and confer in good faith as required by the

EO. (SSA, District Office, Muncie, Ind., A/SLMR No. 860)

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures

A/S did not adopt ALJ’s finding that decision to alter

competitive area for reductions-in-force was reserved for

Respondent under Sec. 11(b) and 12(b) of EO. Rather, A/S

concluded that establishment of competitive areas for

reductions-in-force is itself a procedure utilized to

effectuate a decision to make reductions-in-force.

Accordingly, A/S found that Respondent's failure to afford

Complainant, the exclusive representative of certain employees

in the subject competitive area, the opportunity to meet and

confer, to the extent consonant with law and regulations,

concerning the decision to alter the competitive area

violated Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6). (U.S. Army Electronics

Command, Ft. Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 679)

Activity did not violate EO by failing to bargain over implementation of a decision to shut down the Activity during

Christmas and Thanksgiving and did not change the existing

agreement between the Respondent and Complainant where record

showed that the Respondent notified Complainant of contemplated close-down, solicited suggestions, even though by

virtue of Sec. 11 and 12 of the EO it need not have done so,

35 28 08 Failure to Meet and Confer Generally (Cont'd)

80 6-30-77
and Complainant did not request bargaining. With respect

to alleged contract violation, A/S adopted conclusion of

ALJ that the matter is better left to arbitration in the

face of an arguable contract provision. (Dept, of the Navy,

Marine Corps Supply Cntr., Barstow, Calif., A/SLMR No. 692)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) by failing

to meet and confer over the impact and implementations of a

reduction in spaces where record showed chat Complainant was

put on notice of reduction action but failed to request

bargaining prior to its implementation. (U.S. Army Electronics

Command, Ft. Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 732)

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

its obligation to meet and confer on Pacific Area staffing

criteria where Respondent furnished Complainant with the

criteria in sufficient time to permit it to review the

criteria and to request bargaining as to its implementation

and impact, but that the Complainant did not at any time

request to meet and confer nor had the Respondent refused

to bargain concerning implementation and impact. (Dept, of

Air Force, Headquarters, Pacific Air Force, DOD Dependent

Schools, Pacific, A/SLMR No. 733)

A/s agreed with the Chief ALJ that the Respondent’s use*of

"productivity tours" was an established past practice and

did not constitute a change in employee working conditions,

and therefore, found that the Respondent had no duty to meet

and confer with the Complainant regarding the "productivity

tours" or their impact and the procedures for implementing

them. (Dept, of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard,

Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 736)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that Respondent did not

violate EO where a practice determined to be illegal was

properly discontinued unilaterally. (Dept, of Army, Dugway

Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah, A/SLMR No. 745)

A/s, in agreement with ALJ, found that although Respondent

was not obligated to consult and confer ivith the Union with

regard to its decision to grant up to two hours of administrative leave to employees, it did violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and

(6) of the EO by failing to afford the Union opportunity to

meet and confer over the implementation and impact of the

decision. (Bureau of the Mint, U.S. Dept, of the Treasury

and Bureau of the Mint, U.S. Assay Office. San Francisco,

Calif., A/SLMR No, 750)

35 28 12

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures

(Cont*d)

6-30-77 81
35 28 12

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that Respondent did not

violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by refusing to bargain concerning the impact of a newly revised position

description where the sole change occurred in the written

job description and not in the affected employees' job

duties, and thus it could not be argued that there existed

an impact over which the Respondent was obligated to bargain.

(Northeastern Program Cntr., Bureau of Retirement and

Survirors Insurance, SSA, A/SLMR No. 753)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the Activity did not

violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by its decision

to combine two shift operations into one and the resultant

abolishment of the swing shift since they were matters

within the ambit of Sec. 11(b) of the EO, and the Complainant had been afforded ample notice and an opportunity to

request bargaining concerning impact and implementation,

but had failed to do so in a timely fashion. (Hqs.

63d Air Base Group, (MAC), USAF, Norton, AFB, Calif.,

A/SLMR No. 761)

A/S found that the Respondent's issuance of a memorandtim

concerning the establishment of a "Public Service Lobby"

without prior consultation with the Complainant did not

violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) as the Respondent had the

right under Sec. 11(b) of the EO to establish the "Public

Service Lobby" without first bargaining with the Complainant. He also found that the Complainant never requested

Respondent to meet and confer regarding the impact and implementation of such decision. (IRS, Philadelphia Service

Cntr., Philadelphia, Pa., A/SLMR No. 771)

A/S found that the Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) and

(6) of the EO, by during the pendency of an RA petition,

unilaterally establishing new competitive areas for the

purpose of reduction-in-force without affording the exclusive

representative an opportunity to meet and confer concerning

the procedures involved and the impact resulting from the

decision to alter this area of consideration for the reduction-in- force. (Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Projects

Office, Yuma, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 808)

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures

(Cont’d)

82 6-30-77
A/S agreed with ALJ's dismissal of complaint based on his

finding that the Respondent timely advised the Complainant

of the establishment of a new Staff Attorney position but

that Complaint failed to request bargaining concerning the

impact and implementation of the institution of the program

after it was notified that the Staff Attorney program

was going to be instituted. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of Hearings

and Appeals, Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 816)

A/s found that Respondent had not violated EO inasmuch as

the Complainant had failed to request to bargain over the

impact of temporary promotion although it had ample opportunity to do so. (Defense Mapping Agency, San Antonio

Topographic Cntr., Ft. Sam Houston, Tex., A/SLMR No. 818)

A/S found that the Respondent had fulfilled its obligations

imposed by the EO to bargain with the exclusive representative with respect to the impact of a change in the firefighters’ workweek. (VA, VA Hospital, Northport, N.Y.,

A/SLMR No. 824)

Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(6) by failing to notify

Complainant of personnel move prior to its implementation

and thereby failing to afford Complainant opportunity to

request bargaining over impact and implementation. A/S

rejected Respondent's argument that because a member of

union's contract negotiating team knew of move prior to its

implementation, that this served as notice to the union.

(SSA, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, A/SLMR No. 828)

Contrary to ALJ, A/S found that there were no procedures

or impact over which the Respondent had an obligation to

bargain regarding its unilateral change of the minimum

military re-enlistment term for New Jersey Air National

Guard members from one year to three years. A/S noted that

military membership in the Air National Guard is, by

statute, a prerequisite for civilian employment as an Air

National Guard Technician. A/S concluded that Respondent's

decision to change the minimum term for military reenlistments did not change a working condition which was

bargainable in any respect under the EO, but, rather,

changed a precondition for civilian technician employment

which is outside the purview of the EO and is solely

governed by statute. (N.J. Dept of Defense, N.J. Air Nat'l.

Guard, 177th Fighter Interceptor Group, A/SLMR No. 835)

35 28 12

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures

(Cont'd)

6-30-77 83
35 28 16

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

Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by failing to notify the

TAM of a meeting concluded between two bargaining unit

employees and certain management officials, and, by refusing

to allow lAM representation at the aforementioned meeting.

ALJ concluded that it was unnecessary to decide whether

subject meeting was a formal discussion within the meaning

of Sec. 10(e) and the EO, as lAM was made aware of and had

sufficient notice of the meeting. Regarding right of

employees to representation, he concluded that the two

employees involved did not request union officials and, in

any event, union representatives came to the subject meeting

and participated on behalf of the union employee whose

conduct was being questioned. (U.S. Dept, of Army, Aberdeen

Proving Ground Command, Md., A/SLMR No. 837)

Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) when it failed

to (1) afford the Complainant with sufficient notice of a

change in the method of filling out the daily location

record by certain unit employees, and (2) failed in its

obligation to bargain about the impact and implementation

of the decision. (Dept, of the Treasury, IRS, Manhattan

District, A/SLMR No. 841)

35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion Representation

A/s, in agreement with ALJ, found that the failure to

afford the Complainant an opportunity to be represented

at a meeting involving a performance appraisal which was

an integral part of the grievance process constituted a

violation of Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6). (IRS, Cincinnati

District, Cincinnati, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 705)

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

denied the Complainant the right to be represented by her

exclusive representative at a discussion of her grievance

as the discussion was terminated by the Complainant when

she determined that it should not continue without the

presence of her exclusive representative, and that it was

undisputed that the grievant’s representative was present

at all subsequent discussions of the grievance. (Dept,

of the Air Force, Hqs., Tactical Air Command, Langley AFB,

Va., A/SLMR No. 742)

35 28 12 Failure to Meet and Confer on Impact or Procedures

(Cont'd)

84 6-30-77
35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion Representation

(ContM)

A/S agreed with ALJ’s Recommendation to dismiss Sec. 19

(a)(1) and (6) allegations where request for information

was made by labor organization in its representative

capacity in a grievance proceeding under an agency (nonnegotiated) procedure. Citing FLRC No. 74A-54, U.S.

Department of Navy, Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville,

Kentucky, the ALJ noted that a labor organization has no

inherent right to act on its own initiative on behalf of

an employee where the matter arises under law or regulation

rather than under a negotiated agreement or the EO. (FAA,

Nat'l. Aviation Facility Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City,

N.J., A/SLMR No. 743)

A/S adopted ALJ’s finding that discussions which were

confined solely to an employee's alleged failure to follow

a rule or regulation with respect to the time allowed for

taking luncheon breaks did not constitute "formal discussions"

within the meaning of Sec. 10(e). Accordingly, and for the

reasons set forth in FLRC No. 75P-2, the A/S found that

denial of representation at non-formal or informal meetings

did not constitute violation of Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6).

(Naval Air Rework Facility, Alameda, Calif., A/SLMR No. 781)

Respondent's denial of an employee's request for union

representation at meetings with management and by not

permitting union to be represented at such meeting held not

to be violative of Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6)- A/S adopted

ALJ's finding that aforementioned meeting was not a "formal

discussion" within the meaning of Sec. 10(e) of the EO and

recommended that complaint be dismissed consistent with

'' Council's major policy statement in FLRC No. 75P-2. (U.S.

Army Training Cntr., Engineer and Ft. Leonard Wood,

A/SLMR No. 787)

Respondent's failure to inform probationary employee of her

right to representation at interviews regarding her conduct

and by refusing the exclusive representative the right to be

represented at interview between employee and her supervisor

held not. to be violative of Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the

EO where there was no evidence of discrimination and Sec.

10(e) had no application to such information discussion.

(bSA, Great Lakes Program Cntr., A/SLMR No. 804)

Contrary to ALJ, the A/S found that prearbitration interviews of unit employees were "formal discussions" within

the meaning of Sec. 10(e), and Respondent's failure to

afford Complainant an opportunity to be represented

violated Sec. 19(a)(6). (McClellan AFB, Calif.,

A/SLMR No. 830)

35 28 16

6-30-77 85
35 28 16 Refusal to Allow Formal Discussion Representation

(Cont'd)

A/S found that Respondent had not violated Sec. 19(a)

(1) and (6) of the EO by refusing to allow an employee to

have union representation during two interviews with management as interviews were not formal discussions within the

meaning of Sec. 10(e) of the EO, as the events which were

the subject of the interviews occurred during a period of

time in which the employee was an acting supervisor and

thereby was excluded from the recognized unit. A/S, also

found pursuant to the Council's Major Policy Statement, that

in the absence of evidence that the right of an individual

employee to assistance or representation at a non-formal or

informal investigative meeting had been established by

negotiations between the Respondent and Complainant, the

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO

by its refusal to allow the employee to be represented at

the interviews involved herein. (U.S. Dept, of Treasury,

IRS, A/SLMR No. 833)

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

Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by failing to notify the

lAM of a meeting conducted between two bargaining unit

employees and certain management officials, and, by refusing

to allow lAM representation at the aforementioned meeting.

ALJ concluded that it was unnecessary to decide whether

subject meeting was a formal discussion within the meaning

of Sec. 10(e) of the EO, as lAM was made aware of and had

sufficient notice of the meeting. Regarding right of

employees to representation, he concluded that the two

employees involved did not request union representation and,

in any event, union representatives came to the subject meeting

and participated on behalf of the union employee whose

conduct was being questioned. (U.S. Dept, of Army, Aberdeen

Proving Ground Command, Md., A/SLMR No. 837)

Contrary to finding of ALJ, A/S found that Respondent

violated Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) by its failure to afford

Complainant the opportunity to be represented at meeting

deemed to be a formal discussion within the meaning of Sec.

10(e) where the meeting was between the Facility Chief and

a unit §mployee and involved the basic watch schedule, a

matter affecting the general working conditions of

bargaining unit employees. (FAA, Springfield Tower,

Springfield, Mo., A/SLMR No. 843)

As the record failed to establish that a grievance was

presented on behalf of an employee, the ALJ concluded that

a subsequent discussion between the employee and a supervisor

was not a "formal discussion" within the meaning of Sec. 10(e)

of the EO. (U.S. Customs Service, Region IV, Miami, Fla.,

A/SLMR No. 848)

35 28 16

86 6-30-77
35 28 20 Uncompromising Attitude

No Entries

35 28 24 Dilatory and Evasive Tactics

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that the unilateral refusal

to proceed to arbitration of grievance despite Complainant's

full compliance with the timely notice requirements

of the parties* negotiated agreement was a violation of

Sec. 19(a)(6)- (AAFES, Dix—McGuire Consolidated Exchange,

Ft. Dix, N.J., A/SLMR No. 700)

A/s held that where Activity Commander had dual role of

approving agreement as head of Activity and also as Section

15 approval authority, the two roles effectively merged and

approval for one purpose is approval for both. (Defense

General Supply Cntr., A/SLMR No. 790)

A/S agreed with ALJ that Activity Commander was obligated

to sign promptly an agreement reached by his authorized

negotiating team which included a representative of the

Civilian Personnel Office. He noted that, under the circumstances, the Activity Commander's signature was required merely

as a ministerial formality once the terms had been agreed upon

by his authorized negotiators. (Defense General Supply Cntr.,

A/SLMR No. 790)

In agreement with ALJ, A/S concluded that the Respondent,

by delaying the start of negotiations with the Complainant

(the incumbent exclusive representative) for several months

without good reason, and by thereafter failing on two

occasions to meet the bargaining obligations it itself had

set, had not met its obligation under Sec. 11(a) of the EO

to meet and confer at reasonable times with the Complainant

and, therefore, had violated Sec. 19(a)(6) of the EO.

(Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, Region I, Maynard, Mass.,

A/SLMR No. 799)

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

Respondent violated the EO by unilateral implementation of

a regulation issued by higher echelon within Agency as the

regulation was not a regulation of an "appropriate authority"

within the meaning of Sec. 12(a) of the EO, and, therefore,

could not serve to modify the terms of an existing local

agreement. (SBA, Richmond, Va., District Off.,

A/SLMR No. 674)

35 28 28

6-30-77 87
35 28 28

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) by implementing

change in the scheduling of annual leave, where issue involved different interpretations of the parties' negotiated

agreement rather than clear, unilateral breach of agreement.

(Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Cntr., Newark Air Force

Station, Newark, Ohio, A/SLMR No. 677)

Activity violated Sec. 19(a)(6) of the EO by unilaterally

removing the telephone from the union president's desk

after establishing a term and condition of employment when

it granted the union's president the use of a telephone to

be located on his desk. (VA, VA Regional Off., N.Y. Region,

A/SLMR No. 694)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) by prohibiting

Complainant's representative from representing employee,

when issue involved different interpretations of the parties'

negotiated agreement rather than a clear and unilateral

breach of the agreement. (Norfolk Naval Shipyard,

A/SLMR No. 708)

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

the Respondent, of its approval of official time for two

officers of the Complainant, where the parties' agreement

gave the Respondent such authority under certain conditions,

could not be said to have constituted a "patent" breach of

the agreement tantamount to a unilateral change in the terms

of the agreement, as the language of the agreement is

susceptible to varying interpretations and thus, it may be

reasonably argued that the Respondent properly interpreted

the agreement, although the ALJ withheld from making such a

finding. However, he found that the general limitation on

the use of official time unilaterally imposed by the Respondent on all other union officials constituted a flagrant

and patent breach of the parties' agreement in violation of

Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO as there was no contention

by the Respondent that any of the conditions set forth in

the agreement had not been met with respect to all other union

officials before the Respondent limited their use of official

time. (Watervliet Arsenal, U.S. Army Armament Command,

Watervliet, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 726)

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

(ContM)

88 6-30-77
A/S concluded that Activities unilateral issuance of

revised regulations which established the Taxpayers Service

Program for Fiscal Year 1975 and concerned in part, the

assignment of employees to that program did not violate

Sec. 19(a)(6) of the EO where the revised regulations would

not take precedence in the event of a conflict with the parties'

negotiated agreement and, in the absence of any evidence

that the regulations had been implemented so as to constitute a breach of the parties’ negotiated agreement. (IRS,

A/SLMR No. 731)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that Respondent's unilateral determination and issuance of Pacific Area staffing

criteria did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) of the EO inasmuch

as such a decision was privileged under Secs. 11(b) and 12(b)

of the EO. (Dept, of Air Force, Hq., Pacific Air Force,

DOD, Dependent Schools, Pacific, A/SLMR No. 733)

A/S agreed with the Chief ALJ that the Respondent's use of

"productivity tours" was an established past practice and

did not constitute a change in employee working conditions,

and therefore, found that the Respondent had no duty to meet

and confer with the Complainant regarding the "productivity

tours" or their impact and the procedures for implementing

them. (Dept, of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard,

Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 736)

Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) by issuing a

memorandum prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic

beverages on the Respondent's facilities without first

meeting and conferring with the exclusive representative

where A/S concluded, contrary to ALJ, that such control by

Respondent did not fall within ambit of Sec. 11(a), which

encompasses matters materially affecting and having a substantial impact on, personnel policies, practices and general

working conditions. (Dept, of Defense, Air Nat'l. Guard,

Texas Air Nat'l. Guard, Camp Mabry, Austin, Tex.,

A/SLMR No. 738)

Practice included in negotiated agreement but determined to

be illegal could be discontinued unilaterally without

violating Sec. 19(a)(6). (Dept, of Army, Dugway, Utah,

A/SLMR No. 745)

35 28 28

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

(Cont’d)

6-30-77 89
35 28 28

A/s, contrary to ALJ^found that Respondent did not violate

Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by granting the local

management of its field offices discretion to grant up to

two hours of administrative leave to employees on December

20, 1974, without consulting with the Union, since decision

to grant administrative leave fell within the ambit of Sec.

12(b)(3) of the EO, and, accordingly, the Respondent was not

obligated to meet and confer concerning such decisions.

However, A/S concluded that Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)

(1) and (6) of the EO by failing to afford Union the opportunity to meet and confer over the implementation and impact

of the decision. (Bureau of the Mint, U.S. Dept, of the

Treasury and Bureau of the Mint, U.S. Assay Office, San

Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 750)

Respondent violated the EO by unilaterally implementing

procedures set forth in a pamphlet issued by higher echelon

within Agency instead of following procedures contained in

Regulation incorporated in the parties' negotiated agreement, thereby in effect unilaterally changing the terms of

the negotiated agreement in violation of Sec. 19(a)(6).

(Colorado Air Nat'l. Guard, Buckley Air National Guard Base,

Aurora, Colo., A/SLMR No. 758)

A/S adopted ALJ’s finding that the Activity did not

violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of EO by its decision to

combine two shift operations into one and the resultant

abolishment of the swing shift since they were matters within

the ambit of Sec. 11(b) of the EO, and the Complainant had

been afforded ample notice and an opportunity to request

bargaining concerning impact and implementation, but had

failed to do so in a timely fashion. (Hqs. 63d Air Base

Group, (MAC), USAF, Norton AFB, Calif., A/SLMR No. 761)

A/S found, pursuant to the conclusion reached by the FLRC

in Department of the Air Force, Base Procurement Office,

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, FLRC No. 75A-25 that

the Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO

by its threatened unilaterial limitation on the amount of

official time spent by the Complainant's president discharging

responsibilities under the parties' negotiated agreement.

(IRS, Philadelphia Service Cntr., Philadelphia, Pa.,

A/SLMR No. 771)

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

(Cont'd)

90 6-30-77
Respondent's which were parties to Multi-Center Agreement

violated Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) when upon expiration of the

agreement, unilaterally eliminated those portions of the

agreement characterized as "institutional benefits" of the

Union. A/S held that only those rights and privileges based

solely on the written agreement terminate with the expiration of the agreement. (IRS, Ogden Service Cntr., and IRS,

et.al., A/SLMR No. 806)

A/S found, contrary to ALJ, that Respondent did not violate

Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) by failing to inform Complainant prior

to implementing a change in a standard position description

and by issuing and implementing said change without informing

the Complainant. A/S noted that changes in a position description are 11(b) items and reasonable notice obligation

only arises where, unlike here, an Activity takes action that

affects a change in terms and conditions of employment. A/S

found that the facts showed no such change. (IRS, Brookhaven

Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 814)

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

of employee contrary to provisions of negotiated agreement

was not violative of Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6), as temporary

promotions were specifically excepted from agency merit

promotion plan which was incorporated into the parties'

negotiated agreement. (Defense Mapping Agency, San Antonio

Topographic Cntr., Ft. Sam Houston, Tex., A/SLMR No. 818)

A/S found that a Memorandum of Understanding executed by

the Respondent, the Complainants, and a third labor organization (which was not a party to complaint) was clear and

unambiguous on its face relative to the subject of a change

in shift hours for employees within the three labor organizations, and in his view, constituted a modification of each

of the three labor organizations' negotiated agreements and

not a separate and independently enforceable agreement. Under

these circumstances, the A/S concluded that when, thereafter,

the Respondent issued a notice to all employees cancelling a

prior notice which had announced the implementation of the

change in shift hours, it violated the EO as such action

constituted a failure to comply with the terms of its

individual negotiated agreements with the Complainants, as

amended by the Memorandum of Understanding. (Portsmouth

Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 820)

35 28 28

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment

(Cent *d)

6-30-77 9d
Respondent violated Sec. 19(a)(6) by unilaterally implementing new parking pass procedure. (SSA, Bureau of Hearings

and Appeals, A/SLMR No. 828)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that Respondent did not

violate Sec. 19(a)(6) by unilaterally initiating a new

leave restriction policy, where the issue involved different

interpretations of the parties' negotiated agreement rather

than a clear, unilateral breach of the agreement and where

the evidence was insufficient to support Complainant's

contention that there was a change of policy- (Puget Sound

Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 829)

A/S adopted ALJ's findings that the IRS had an obligation

to bargain only at the level in which the NTEU had exclusive

recognition, i.e. district, region, or service center level.

Thus, absent some form of national exclusive recognition or

natxonal consultation rights, the IRS was not obliged to meet

and confer or consult with the NTEU at the national level

concerning the issuance of a supplement which applied uniformly to all IRS regions including those not represented

by the NTEU. Moreover, with respect to the substance of the

supplement, the ALJ concluded that it did not deal with any

subjects in which the Commissioner had allegedly made any

prxor commitments. (IRS, National Office, A/SLMR No. 846)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that the resolution of certain

matters raised by a complaining employee was consistent with

t e past practice of the Respondent, and, in any event, that

there was no clear unilateral breach of the parties' negotiated agreement. (U.S. Customs Service, Region IV, Miami,

Fla., A/SLMR No. 848)

^ J found no violation of Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) despite

Activity s failure to afford employee 60 days notice prior

to denial of within-grade step increase, as required by the

parties negotiated agreement, inasmuch as the activity recognized its failure to give the required notice and sought

to rectify its breach by reconsidering its decision 60 days

later. A/S found, contrary to ALJ, that Activity's failure

to give the 60 days notice could be construed as a patent

unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment in

the negotiated agreement and as such could be considered

violative conduct under the EO. However, in view of the

Activity's i^ediate rectification of such conduct and thus

the ^ minimis effect of its conduct, the A/S found that it

would not effectuate the purposes and policies of the EO to

find a violation. (SSA, Hqs., Bureaus and Offices in

Baltimore, Md., A/SLMR No. 851)

35 28 28

28 28 trilateral Changes in Terms and Conditions of Enmlovment

( C o n t ^ -^----------------------

92 6-30-77
A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Respondent violated Sec.

19(a)(1) and (6) by unilaterally discontinuing the practice

of flexible starting and quitting times at certain of its

appellate branch offices as the evidence was insufficient to

establish that the starting and quitting times are integrally related to and consequently determinative of the

Respondent's staffing patterns. A/S also included a status

quo ante remedy. (Dept, of the Treasury, IRS, Southwest

Region, Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 858)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that agency did not violate EO

when it failed to process grievances thru agency procedure

where no anti-union animus was present. (Dept, of the

Treasury, IRS, Brookhaven Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 859)

A/S found the unilateral elimination of the arbitration

provision of the negotiated agreement after the agreement's

expiration to be a violation of the EO as arbitration was not

viewed as one of these rights or privileges so uniquely tied

to a written agreement so that it terminated with the agreement's expiration. Rather, the A/S viewed arbitration as a

term or condition of employment which continues after an

agreement's expiration unless the parties expressly agree

that it terminates with the agreement's expiration. (Dept,

of the Treasury, IRS, Brookhaven Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 859)

35 28 32 Bypassing Exclusive Representative

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, noted that he will not relinquish

jurisdiction when the question presented is whether rights

assured by the EO have been waived. A/S further concluded

that, absent a clear and unmistakable waiver in the parties'

negotiated agreement, the Complainant in the instant case

had a right, granted by the EO, to designate the individual

it desired to get as its representative or agent in each of

the Respondent's regions. In this respect, he found that the

Respondent therein had failed to show a clear and unmistakable

waiver under the negotiated agreement of the Complainant's

right to name its own representative in the Respondent's

region an€, at best, had shown only an ambiguity in the

disputed negotiated agreement provisions. (Dept, of the

Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,

Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 680)

35 28 32

35 28 28 Unilateral Changes In Terms and Conditions of Employment

(Con’d)

6-30-77 93
35 28 36

A/s found that the evidence did not establish that the

Respondent attempted to deal or negotiate directly with a

unit employee or to threaten or promise benefits to him by

contacting him with regard to withholding dues from his

back pay. (VA Hospital, Murfressboro, Tenn., A/SLMR No. 702)

A/S agreed with the Chief ALJ that the Respondent’s use of

"productivity tours" was an established past practice and did

not constitute a change in employee working conditions, and

therefore, found that the Respondent had no duty to meet and

confer with the Complainant regarding the "productivity

tours" or their impact and the procedures for implementing

them. (Dept, of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard,

Vallejo, Calif., A/SLMR No. 736)

A/S found that inasmuch as supervisor's statement to two

employees that they should have appealed a shift change

directly with him rather than seek the assistance of their

exclusive representative was a single, isolated incident and

there was no concerted action on the part of the Respondent

to cause employees to bypass their exclusive representative,

there was no basis for a violation of Sec. 19(a)(6). (Dept,

of Defense, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 746)

Allegation of bypass dismissed based on Sec. 19(d) where

the resolution of grievance filed at one Service Center under

Multi-Center agreement, concerning the communication alleged

to be a bypass, would have been applicable to all of the

Service Centers under the agreement. (IRS, Ogden Service

Cntr., and IRS, et.al., A/SLMR No. 806)

Contrary to finding of ALJ, A/S found Respondent's action

of dealing directly with and soliciting the views of a unit

employee concerning a bargainable item which was currently

being negotiated constituted an improper bypass and undermining of the status of its employee's exclusive representative in violation of Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6). (FAA,

Springfield Tower, Springfield, Mo., A/SLMR No. 843)

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information

Activity did not violate Sec. 19(a)(6) by denying union

copies of all unsanitized "Furlough and Recall" rosters for

"When Actually Employed" employees, which action it claimed

was necessary to administer and police the parties'

negotiated agreement. The A/S found that the Activity did

35 28 32 Bypassing Exclusive Representative (Cont'd)

94 6-30-77
35 28 36

offer to provide the union with a "sanitized" roster

which would have fulfilled Its obligation to provide the

union with the relevant and necessary Information It was

entitled to receive In order to properly administer and

police the parties’ negotiated agreement. (IRS, Austin

Service Cntr., Austin, Tex., A/SLMR No. 675)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that the failure to furnish

requested Information was not violative where such information, upon ALJ's in camera inspection, was not found to be

relevant or necessary for the Complainant's intelligent

negotiation of RIF Impact and implementation, and where

other relevant and necessary information was supplied.

(Agency for International Development, Dept, of State,

A/SLMR No. 676)

No violation found to Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO where

evidence established that Respondent, at the time the unfair

labor practice charge herein was filed, had not refused to

supply the Complainant with information requested during

collective bargaining negotiation. A/S found that at the

time the unfair labor practice charge was filed there was

no clear refusal to supply the information requested

because the Respondent had merely informed the Complainant

that it would look into its request because the furnishing

of the requested information could be violative of the

Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974.

Also, the evidence showed that the Respondent took the

request herein under advisement and that it promised to

research the request and respond as quickly as possible.

(Dept, of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service,

A/SLMR No. 682)

Contrary to ALJ, A/S found that Respondent did not violate

Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by refusing to furnish

information to exclusive representation where the issue

had been raised by the Complainant before an arbitrator

in an adverse action hearing and was thus barred by Sec.

19(d) of the EO. (Boston District Off., A/SLMR No. 727)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that Activity violated Sec.

19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by its failure to provide the

Complainant with documents which were necessary and relevant

to its further processing of a grievance. (Long Beach

Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, Calif., A/SLMR No. 728)

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information (Cont'd)

6-30-77 95
35 32 00

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

Activity had violated Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) by refusing

to make available to the Complainant for over three weeks

certain work assignment records which were relevant and

necessary to the Complainant’s intelligent consideration

of the roofers' grievance concerning their entitlement to

environmental differential pay. (GSA, Region 3,

A/SLMR No. 734)

A/S agreed with ALJ's Recommendation to dismiss Sec. 19(a)

(1) and (6) allegations where request for information was

made by labor organization in its representative capacity

in a grievance proceeding under an agency (non-negotiated)

procedure. Citing FLRC No. 74A-54, U.S. Department of Navy,

Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky, the ALJ noted

that a labor organization has no inherent right to act on

its own initiative on behalf of an employee where the matter

arises under law or regulation rather than under a negotiated

agreement or the EO. (FAA, National Aviation Facility

Experimental Cntr., Atlantic City, N.J., A/SLMR No. 743)

35 32 GO Section 19(d)

A/S adopted ALJ's recommendation that complaint be dismissed

on grounds that Sec. 19(d) precluded Complainant from raising

same issues in complaint as had been raised previously under

a negotiated grievance procedure. (U.S. Army Transportation

Cntr., and Ft. Eustis, Va., A/SLMR No. 681)

A/S adopted ALJ's finding that labor organization's allegation

concerning the removal of its President from her officially

assigned job duties because of her union activities had been

raised previously under a negotiated grievance procedure, and

therefore. Sec. 19(d) barred consideration of this issue under

unfair labor practice procedures. (EEOC, A/SLMR No. 707)

Contrary to ALJ, A/S found that Respondent did not violate

Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EO by refusing to furnish

information to exclusive representative where the issue had

been raised by the Complainant before an arbitrator in an

adverse action hearing and was thus barred by Sec. 19(d) of

the EO. (Boston District Off., IRS, A/SLMR No. 727)

35 28 36 Refusal to Furnish Information (Cont'd)

96 6-30-77
A/s adopted ALJ's finding that further proceedings not

barred by Sec. 19(d) where evidence established that matter

of access to requested documents was not made an issue in

a grievance nor was it incorporated in or decided upon in

the grievance proceeding. (Long Beach Naval Shipyard,

Long Beach, Calif., A/SLMR No. 728)

Noting that the term "appeal" is defined in the FPM as

a "request ...for reconsideration of a decision to take an

adverse action..." and that the 1971 Report and Recommendations

of the FLRC contemplated that only a procedure which provides

third-party review would meet the exclusionary standard

established in Sec. 19(d) of the EC, the A/S concluded that

the term "appeals procedure" as used in Sec. 19(d) did not

encompass a nonstatutory appeals system which did not provide

third-party review of an agency's adverse action. In the A/S's

view, to conclude otherwise would mean employees subject to such

a system would never have the opportunity to seek independent

third-party review of any adverse action, a conclusion which

the A/S found would be clearly inconsistent with the purposes

and policies of Sec. 19(d) as explicated by the FLRC in its

1971 Report. (Offutt AFB, Dept, of the Air Force,

A/SLMR No. 784)

A/S held he was not precluded by Sec. 19(d) of the EG from

considering the discharge of a nonappropriated fund employee

under the ULP procedures of the EC where the only avenue

available to the employee for purposes of contesting her

discharge was a nonstatutory procedure which did not provide

for third-party review of the agency's action. (Offutt AFB,

Dept, of the Air Force, A/SLMR No. 784)

A/S dismissed alleged bypass based on Sec. 19(d) where the

resolution of grievance over the alleged bypass communication

would have been applicable to all Service Centers under the

Multi-Service Agreement even though the grievance was

technically filed at only one Service Center. (IRS, Ogden

Service Cntr., and IRS, et.al., A/SLMR No. 806)

Respondent's motion to dismiss on basis that local union

president had appealed his discharge for failure to report to

his new assignment to Federal Employee Appeals Authority (FEAA)

and thus Sec. 19(d) served to remove ULP proceeding from

jurisdiction of A/S denied where issued involving threat of

transfer was properly before A/S and issue of discharge was

before another appelate authority (FEAA). (USDA, Agricultural

Marketing Service, A/SLMR No. 810)

35 32 00

35 32 00 Section 19(d) (Cont'd)

6-30-77 97
35 32 00

Contrary to ALJ, A/S found issue involved not barred by

Sec. 19(d) from consideration under ULP procedure of EG

where arbitration of issue not in any real sense invoked as

arbitrator never reached merits but rather dismissed grievance

on jurisdictional basis as the parties failed to agree that

the questions involved were arbitrable. (Defense General

Supply Cntr., A/SLMR No. 821)

35 32 00 Section 19(d) (Cont'd)

6-30-77
40 04 00 General

No Entries

40 08 00 Section 19(b)(1)

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

organization did not violate Sec. 19(b)(1) and (2) of the

EO by alleging in a letter to the Activity that Complainant,

a non-supervisory unit employee who had previously filed a

petition for decertification of Respondent threatened members

of the respondent with potential loss of their jobs if they

did not terminate their membership in the Respondent union.

(AFGE, Local 2221, A/SLMR No. 721)

A/S found no evidence that the letter to the Activity was

in retaliation for Complainant’s activities in support of the

decertification petition but rather constituted merely a misplaced ULP allegation against the Complainant which does not

constitute a violation of the EO. (AFGE, Local 2221,

A/SLMR No. 721)

A/S dismissed Sec. 19(b)(1) allegation where there was no

evidence the labor organization had acted arbitrarily or in

bad faith with respect to the handling of a unit employee's

grievance. (VA Hospital, St. Louis, Mo., AFGE, Local 1715,

A/SLMR No. 838)

A/S, in agreement with ALJ, found that the AFGE did not violate

Sec. 19(b)(1) by publishing an advertisement in the Respondent's

contracted out newspaper at a time when it did not have

equivalent status with the exclusively recognized representative.

(Local 3254, AFGE and Dept, of the Air Force, Grissom AFB,

Peru, Indiana, A/SLMR No. 852)

40 12 00 Section 19(b)(2)

A/S, in agrement with ALJ, found that Respondent labor

organization did not violate Sec. 19(b)(1) and (2) of the EO

by alleging in a letter to the Activity that Complainant, a

non—supervisory unit employee who had previously filed a

petition for decertification of Respondent, threatened members

of the Respondent with potential loss of their jobs if they did

not terminate their membership in the Respondent union. A/S

found no evidence that the letter to the Activity was in retaliation for Complainant's activities in support of the decertification petition but rather constituted merely a misplaced ULP

allegation against the Complainant which does not constitute a

violation of the EO. (AFGE, Local 2221, A/SLMR No. 721)

40 12 00

40 00 00 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; LABOR ORGANIZATION

6-30-77 99
40 32 00

40 16 00 Section 19(b)(3)

No Entries

40 20 00 Section 19(b)(4)

U.S. District Court for District of Columbia vacated the

decision and order in A/SLMR No. 536, FLRC No. 75A-96,

which held that an absolute ban upon all picketing as overly

broad and violative of the First Amendment. An appeal by the

Government from that decision was withdrawn. Accordingly,

based on the District Court’s holding the Council's rationale

contained in FLRC No. 76P-4, in which it noted that the Court

had applied Sec. 19(b)(4) to the precise fact situation of the

case in its holding; and the facts of A/SLMR No. 536, the A/S

ordered that the complaint in the instant case be dismissed

in its entirety. (National Treasury Employees Union, IRS,

A/SLMR No. 783)

A/S, concurring with findings of the Chief ALJ with respect

to the nature and effect of the Respondents' "informational"

picketing on the Complainant's operations, and, in accordance

with the guidelines set forth by the Council in FLRC No. 76P-4,

found that the Respondents' picketing fell within the permissible

limits under Sec. 19(b)(4) of the EO, and dismissed the

complaints. (National Treausry Employees Union, A/SLMR No. 811)

40 24 00 Section 19(b)(5)

No Entires

40 28 00 Section 19(b)(6)

A/S found that Respondent's refusal to continue negotiations,

because of the presence of a unit employee serving as a

resource person on the management negotiating team, violated

Sec. 19(b)(6). (AFGE, AFL-CIO, A/SLMR No. 701)

A/S found that Respondent did not violate Sec. 19(b)(6) by

refusing to concur with Complainant's request to arbitrate the

question of who is responsible for the cost of a transcript in

an advisory arbitration hearing. He noted that the gravamen of

the dispute involves the parties conflicting interpretation of

their negotiated agreement which was not sufficiently unambiguous

on the matter and that differing and arguable interpretations of

such an agreement may be considered under Sec. 13(d) of the EO.

(AFGE, National Office, A/SLMR No. 809)

40 32 00 Section 19(c)

No Entries

100 6-30-77
45 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST AGENCIES; UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

45 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of Remedies

No Entries

45 08 00 Advice of Compliance

No Entries

45 10 00 Modification to Orders

No Entries

45 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules. Regulations and Orders

No Entries

45 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct

45 16 04 Interference, Solicitation or Distribution of Literature

Activity ordered to cease and desist from urging or

admonishing its employees to refrain from seeking representation or assistance from representatives of the exclusive representative concerning grievances, personnel

policies and practices, or other matters affecting

working conditions. (FAA, Airways Facilities Sector,

Tampa, Fla., A/SLMR No. 725)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from indicating to

employees that they should refrain from seeking representation or assistance from their exclusive representative.

(Dept, of Defense, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 746)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist threatening employees,

expressly or impliedly, that if they engage in activities

on behalf of the Union such activities would effect the

rating of their work performance. (U.S. Customs Service,

Region IV, Dept, of Treasury, Miami, Fla., A/SLMR No. 764)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from making disparaging

remarks to representatives of exclusive representative in the

presence of other employees and otherwise interfering with

their right to represent unit employees. (IRS, Philadelphia

Service Cntr., Philadelphia, Pa., A/SLMR No. 771)

45 16 04

6-30-77 lOI
45 16 08

Activity is ordered to cease and desist from: (1) interrogating employees as to their membership in labor organization, and (2) interfering, restraining, or coercing

employees. Activity is further ordered to take appropriate

steps to reappraise three candidates for position of

Boilermaker Instructor and insure that matters relating to

membership or non-membership do not arise in course of

interviews for the subject position. (Dept, of Navy, Mare

Island Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 775)

Respondent ordered to rescind a Notice and a Direction

both which had the effect of barring union activity by

employees during their non-work time, including breaks and

lunch hours. (Offutt AFB, Dept, of the Air Force,

A/SLMR No. 784)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from reprimanding and

interrogating employees because of their activities on behalf

of a labor organization. (USAF, Vandenberg AFB,

A/SLMR No. 786)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from threatening

local union president with possible transfer because of his

activity on behalf of a labor organization. (USDA,

Agricultural Marketing Service, A/SLMR No. 810)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from interfering with,

restraining, or coercing its employees by failing to afford

the labor organization an opportunity to be represented at

formal discussions concerning grievances, personnel policies

and practices or other matters affecting general working

conditions. (McClellan AFB, Calif., A/SLMR No. 830)

45 16 08 Discrimination

A/s ordered Activity to offer employee who was discharged

because of her union activities full reinstatement to her

former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and

to make her whole for any loss of income she may have

suffered by reason of its discrimination, by paying her a

sum of money equal to the amount she would have earned or

received from the date of her discharge to the date of the

offer of reinstatement, less any amounts earned by her

through other emplo3rment during the above noted period.

(Offutt AFB, Dept, of the Air Force, A/SLMR No. 784)

45 16 04 Interference, Solicitation or Distribution of Literature

(Cont'd)

102 6-30-77
45 16 20

45 16 12 Assisting a Labor Organization

Activity ordered to cease and desist from assisting any

labor organization which is not a party to a pending representation proceeding that raises a question concerning

representation, in conducting an organizational campaign by

permitting noncommissary employee representative of that

labor organization the use of its facilities at a time

when there is a currently recognized exclusive representative.

(Commissary, Ft. Meade, Dept, of the Airmy, A/SLMR No. 793)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from improper assistance

to union, by permitting advertisements by such union in the

Grissom Contact, or by otherwise furnishing customary and

routine services and facilities to subject union, or any

other union, at a time when such organizations are not

party to a pending representation proceeding raising a

question concerning representation and when its employees

are represented exclusively by a labor organization. (Local

3254, AFGE, and Dept, of the Air Force, Grissom AFB, Peru,

Ind., A/SLMR No. 852)

45 16 16 Refusal to Accord Appropriate Recognition

No Entries

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate

Activity ordered to abide by terms and conditions of

negotiated agreement unless modifications mutually agreed

to; post all job vacancies which occurred during term of

and in accordance with terms and conditions of agreement;

evaluate all candidates for such/vacancies under terms of

agreement and published Agency policies and regulations in

existence at time agreement was approved. If improper

failure to promote an employee, position to which employee

would have been entitled, shall be vacated, and employee

shall be promoted and reimbursed for loss of monies

occasioned by improper failure to promote. (Small Business

Admin., Richmond, Va. District Office, A/SLMR No. 674)

Activity ordered to rescind retroactively local implementation of regulation issued by higher echelon which was contrary

to one of the terms of an existing negotiated agreement.

(Small Business Admin., Richmond, Va. District Office,

A/SLMR No. 674)

6-30-77 103
45 16 20

Activity ordered to cease and desist from changing the compostition of a particular competitive area for reductionsin-force without notifying and affording the exclusive

representative of certain employees in the subject competitive

area the opportunity to meet and confer, to the extent

consonant with law and regulations, concerning the decision

to alter the competitive area involved. Activity further

ordered to take affirmative action by rescinding a command

letter modifying the competitive areas for reductionsin-force, insofar as the subject competitive area is affected.

(U.S. Army Electronics Command, Ft. Monmouth, N.J.,

A/SLMR No. 679)

Activity ordered to (1) cease and desist from unilaterally

changing the provisions of the parties' negotiated agreement by establishing general limitations on the use of

official time for representational purposes for certain

union officials where there was no contention that they

have met any of the conditions set forth in the agreement

before imposing such limitations; (2) withdraw the letter

which set forth such general limitations, and (3) make

whole any union representative for such losses as have been

sustained as the result of an improper denial, pursuant to

the parties’ negotiated agreement, of a request by such

union representative(s) for official duty time for representational purposes. (Watervliet Arsenal, U.S. Army

Armament Command, Watervliet, N.Y., A/SLMR No. 726)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from refusing to

permit the Complainant access to the documents and materials,

in a form which protects the privacy and confidentiality

of the employees involved which the Ranking Committee

considered in evaluating a grievant, and other candidates

who were certified for consideration for a vacancy. (Long

Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, Calif., A/SLMR No. 728)

Activity ordered to cease and desist withholding or failing

to provide, upon request by Complainant any information

relevant to the processing of a grievance, which information

is necessary to enable the Complainant to discharge its

obligation as the exclusive representative to represent

effectively all employees in the exclusively recognized unit.

(GSA, Region 3, A/SLMR No. 734)

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate (Cont'd)

104 6-30-77
Activity ordered to cease and desist from instituting a

policy of granting administrative leave for employees

represented exclusively by the Complainant, without

affording such representative an opportunity to meet and

confer, to the extent consonant with law and regulations,

on the procedures which management will observe in effectuating such policy and on the impact of such policy on

adversely affected employees. (Bureau of the Mint, U.S.

Dept, of Treasury and Bureau of the Mint, U.S. Assay Office,

San Francisco, Calif., A/SLMR No. 750)

Respondent ordered to abide by terms and conditions of

negotiated agreement unless modifications mutually agreed

to; if any employee was adversely affected by respondent's

action, employee shall be reinstated to appropriate

position and made whole, including reimbursement for any loss

of monies occasioned by such improper action, consistent with

procedures of the Regulation contained in the negotiated

agreement, and applicable laws, regulations, and decisions

of the Comptroller General. (Colorado Air National Guard,

Buckley Air National Guard Base, Aurora, Colo.,

A/SLMR No. 758)

A/S noted that, he was cognizant of the FLRC's decision in

Dept, of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Pro.jects

Office, A/SLMR No. 401, FLRC No. 74A-52 that where an

established appeals system which may consider the issue of

whether a RIF has been applied to particular employees in

accordance with controlling regulations. Sec. 19(d) was

applicable. However, the A/S distinguished the instant case

from: Yuma, on basis that the issue was not whether a particular

regulation had been applied properly, but, rather, which

regulation or procedure should have been followed in conducting the RIF in the instant case, and therefore the remedy

ordered by the A/S was not deemed inconsistent with the

structures set forth in Yuma. (Colorado Air National

Guard, Buckley Air National Guard Base, Aurora, Colo.,

A/SLMR No. 758)

Respondent directed to sign agreement reached by its

authorized negotiating team, retroactive to date agreement

presented to Activity Commander. (Defense General Supply

Cntr., A/SLMR No. 790)

Activity ordered to meet at reasonable times with the

exclusive representative, upon request, for the purpose of

negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. (Defense

Civil Preparedness Agency, Region I, Maynard, Mass.,

A/SLMR No. 799)

45 16 20

A5 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate (Cont'd)

6-30-77 105
Activity ordered to cease and desist from making unilateral

changes in personnel policies and practices after the expiration of a negotiated agreement containing such personnel

policies and practies in the absence of a bargaining

impasse. (IRS, Ogden Service Cntr., and IRS, et.al.,

A/SLMR No. 806)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from changing the

areas of consideration for purposes of reduction-in-force

without first notifying the exclusive bargaining respresentative and affording such representative the opportunity to

meet and confer, to the extent consonant with law and

regulations, concerning the procedures involved and the

impact of the decision to change the areas of competition.

Pursuant to the FLRC’s decision in FLRC No. 74A-52 the A/S

was precluded from issuing a status quo ante remedy by

Sec. 19(d) of the EG. (Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Projects

Office, Yuma, Ariz., A/SLMR No. 808)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from refusing to

implement the terms of its negotiated agreement with the

Complainant with respect to the shift hours of employees

represented exclusively by the Complainant, during the term

of such negotiated agreements, unless modifications are

mutually agreed to by the parties to those agreements.

(Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 820)

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from instituting

changes in the procedures, or enforcement of the procedures,

with respect to obtaining and using visitor parking passes

without first meeting and conferring with the exclusive

representatives of its employees. (SSA, Bureau of Hearings

and Appeals, A/SLMR No. 828)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from conducting formal

discussions without giving the employees' exclusive representative an opportunity to be represented at such discussions.

(McClellan APB, Calif., A/SLMR No. 830)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from refusing to meet

and confer with the exclusive representative of an individual

unit for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining

agreement for that unit, during the pendency of a UC

petition which includes said unit. (HEW, SSA, Bureau of

Field Operations, Region V-A, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 832)

45 16 20

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate (Cont'd)

106 6-30-77
Contrary to the ALJ's recommended remedy, In effect a

return to the status quo ante, the A/S ordered Respondent,

after appropriate request by Complalnanat to bargain over

the procedures for Implementation and Impact on adversely

affected employees, and prohibited a change In the method

of filling out the dally location record by certain unit

employees In the future without appropriate notification

and bargaining with the Complainant. (Dept, of Treasury,

IRS, Manhattan District, A/SLMR No. 841)

Activity ordered to cease and desist from; (1) dealing

directly with and soliciting the views of employees represented by Complainant labor organization regarding the basic

watch schedule or any other negotiable Item which Is subject

to current negotiations; and (2) conducting formal discussions

between management and employees or employee representatives

concerning the basic watch schedule or any other matter

affecting general working conditions without giving the

Complainant labor organization the opportunity to be represented at such discussions by its own representatives.

(FAA, Springfield Tower, Springfield, Mo., A/SLMR No. 843)

A/s ordered the Respondent to rescind its command letter

to January 26, 1976, modifying the competitive areas for

RIF purposes at Fort Monmouth, N.J., Insofar as the

competitive areas represented by the Complainant were

affected, and to notify the Complainant of any such intended

changes and, upon request, meet and confer in good faith,

to the extent consonant with law and regulations, on the

decision to effectuate such changes. (U.S. A m y Electronics

Command, Ft. Monmouth, N.J., A/SLMR No. 855)

A/S ordered Agency to cease and desist from unilateral

changes in the grievance-arbitration procedure after the

expiration of an agreement and ordered agency to post same

to unit employees. (Dept, of the Treasury, IRS, Brookhaven

Service Cntr., A/SLMR No. 859)

45 16 24 Failure to Cooperate

No Entries

45 16 24

45 16 20 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate (Cont'd)

6-30-77 107
45 20 00

Where all the Service Centers under the Multi-Center

Agreement and the IRS were named as the Respondents, only

the Service Centers were named in the remedial order as

the violation found involved a unilateral change which was

made at the level where exclusive recognition was held.

(IRS, Ogden Service Center and IRS, et.al., A/SLMR No. 806)

45 20 00 Jurisdictional Questions

108 6-30-77
50 04 00 Notification and Dissemination of Remedies

No Entries

50 08 00 Advice of Compliance

No Entries

50 12 00 Remedies for Improper Rules, Regulations and Orders

No Entries

50 16 00 Remedies for Improper Conduct

50 16 04 Interference

No Entries *

50 16 08 Harassment of Employee in Performance of Duties

No Entries

50 16 12 Inducing Management to Coerce an Employee

No Entries

50 16 16 Strike Activity

No Entries

50 16 20 Discrimination

No Entries

50 16 24 Failure to Consult, Confer or Negotiate

Labor Organization ordered to cease and desist from

refusing to meet and confer with the Agency, by refusing

to engage in further negotiations of a basic agreement

until such time as a bargaining unit employee, serving

as a resource person, is removed as a member of the Agency's

negotiating team. (AFGE, AFL-CIO, Local 41, A/SLMR No. 701)

50 16 28 Denial of Membership

No Entries

50 16 28

50 00 00 REMEDIAL ORDERS AGAINST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; UNFAIR LABOR

PRACTICES

6-30-77 10,

55 04 00 Effect on Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

No Entries

55 08 OO Procedure

55 08 04 Jurisdiction

No Entries

55 08 08 Bill of Rights

No Entries

55 08 12 Elections

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

violated the EC and the A/S Regulations in the way it

conducted the April 9, 1974, election of its chief

steward by its president's failure to recognize the provision of the AFGE's constitution which required that

officers be elected by a majority of the members in good

standing, who are present and voting. As a result, the

A/S ordered that the April 9, 1974, election be declared

null and void and that a new election be conducted.

(Local 1841, AFGE, AFL-CIO, A/SLMR No. 686)

A/S found that, union violated Sec. 18 of the EG and

Part 204 of the A/S Regulations by applying monies

received by way of dues or assessments to promote the

candidacy of the incumbent President in its election of

officers, and that such improper conduct may have affected

the outcome of the election. A/S ordered that said

election be declared null and void, and that a new

election be conducted under the supervision of the

Director, LMSA. (AFGE, Local 1592, A/SLMR No. 724)

55 12 00 Bill of Rights

55 12 04 Equal Rights

No Entries

55 12 08 Freedom of Speech

No Entries

55 12 12 Dues, Initiation Fees and Assessments

No Entries

55 12 16 Protection of the Right to Sue

No Entries

55 12 20 Safeguards against Improper Disciplinary Action

No Entries

55 12 20

55 00 00 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

6-30-77 m

60 GO 00 GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY

60 04 00 General

Contrary to ALJ, the A/S found that Applicant's expressed

dissatisfaction with an adverse action taken against him

is no different from a "grievance” specifically designated

as such which is processed through the negotiated grievance

procedure, and therefore fulfilled the requirements of Sec.

6(a)(5) and 13(d) of the EC. (IRS, Chicago District Office,

Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 748)

A/S disagreed with ALJ's reformation of the language of the

agreement related to the issue raised. Therefore, he found

it necessary Lo issue a ^ novo decision on the merits.

(Community Services Admin., A/SLMR No. 749)

A/S agreed with ALJ that the negotiated grievance procedure

specifically excludes from its scope matters not personal to the

employee and therefore, the Applicant could not grieve, in its

own right as a union, under the parties' negotiated grievance

procedure. (Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Hqs.,

Dallas, Tex., A/SLMR No. 791)

A/S adopted ALJ's conclusion that the failure to cite specific

contractual provisions allegedly violated was insufficient

basis for refusing to process a grievance. (U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office, Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 800)

In finding that the Application for Decision on Grievability

was filed before arbitration, provided for in the parties'

negotiated agreement, was invoked, the A/S noted that Report

on Ruling No. 61 states that "Where one of the parties to an

existing negotiated agreement has filed a grievance, all steps

including the invocation of arbitration where an arbitration

provision exists, must be exhausted before the A/S will

consider an Application filed pursuant to Sec. 205.2(a) or (b)

of the A/S Regulations." (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,

Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 800)

Grievance concerning the exclusion of an employee from various

formative meetings, which were held regarding the automation

of certain functions of the Scientific Library, found not

grievable where grievance was not on a matter subject to the

parties' negotiated grievance procedure. (U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office. Washington, D.C., A/SLMR No. 800)

60 04 00

6-30-77 113
60 16 00

60 04 00 General (Cont'd)

Where one of the parties to an existing negotiated agreement

has filed a grievance, all steps of the grievance procedure

provided for in that agreement, including the invocation

of arbitration, where an arbitration provision exists, must

be exhausted before the A/S will consider an Application filed

pursuant to Sec. 205.2(a) or (b) of the Regulations. Any

employee or group of employees in the unit who chooses to

file grievances and have them adjusted without utilizing

their exclusive representative must exhaust all of the contractual grievance steps, except for arbitration, before

the A/S will consider an Application to be timely filed.

(R A/S No. 61)

60 08 00 13(a)

Union grievance over issuance of notices of proposed reprimand

to three individual employees found grievable under Sec. 7

of negotiated grievance procedure which provided for union

grievance over disputes arising from alleged contract

violations or from the interpretation or application of the

agreement. (Dept, of the Air Force, Kelly AFB,

A/SLMR No. 766)

60 12 00 13(b)

No Entries

60 16 00 13(d)

A/S rejected the ALJ's conclusion that an arbitrator would

be precluded from interpreting an agency regulation which

was not referenced or embodied in the negotiated agreement.

He found that where, as in the instant case, a party to the

dispute introduces an agency regulation which deals with the

same subject matter as the provision in the negotiated

agreement, an arbitrator should consider those laws and

regulations introduced by the parties as relevant in resolving

a grievance arising under the agreement, whether or not those

regulations and policies are contained in the agreement.

Moreover, A/S found that the disputed agency regulation

could not be interpreted as a bar to arbitration and that the

instant grievance was within the scope and coverage of the

negotiated agreement. Thus, he concluded that the grievance

could be pursued to arbitration. (National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Admin., A/SLMR No. 703)

114 6-30-77
60 16 00

Pursuant to FLRC No. 74A-19, and rationale therein, the

A/S reconsidered his decision in Case No. 50-9667(GR).

A/s had concluded that the matters in dispute, including

the issue of grievability, should be decided under the

negotiated grievance procedure. The Council remanded the

case to the A/S to determine whether the grievance was

subject to the negotiated grievance procedure. A/S adopted

the ALJ's finding that the grievance, which concerned the

Activity's failure to comply with Article XX of the parties’

negotiated agreement, "Acceptable Level of Competence", in

connection with the termination of a WG probationary employee,

was not grievable under the agreement as the grievance did

not involve matters subject to the negotiated grievance

procedure. (Navy, Naval Ammunition Depot, Crane, Ind.,

A/SLMR No. 684)

A/S found that the underlying dispute raised by the

grievance involved an alleged unilateral change in evaluation standards and the question as to whether the Activity's

conduct subsequent to the initial grievances "settled" the

dispute within the meaning of the terms of the negotiated

agreement was capable of resolution without violating the

prohibitions of the parties' negotiated agreement, law,

regulations or the EC, and that the grievance was subject

to the grievance-arbitration procedures set forth in the

parties' negotiated agreement. (Naval Avionics Facility,

Indianapolis, Ind., A/SLMR No. 722)

A/S concluded that Respondent did not act in bad faith by

refusing to process Complainant's grievance through the

negotiated procedure where Respondent stated that he did not

believe the matter involved the interpretation and application

of the negotiated agreement and that if the Complainant was of

the view that the grievance was arbitrable it could seek a

determination on arbitrability from the A/S in accordance

with Sec. 13(d) of the EG. (VA Hospital, Waco, Tex.,

A/SLMR No. 735)

A/S, contrary to ALJ,found that the matter was not excluded

from advisory arbitration under the negotiated agreement

inasmuch as the Activity had never alleged, nor was there

any record evidence to show, that, consistent with the

exclusion from arbitration under the negotiated agreement,

the alleged falsification of a material fact in an

employment application, which if such fact had been known it

would have prevented the employee from being hired for the

position for which he applied. (IRS, Chicago District

Office, Chicago, 111., A/SLMR No. 748)

60 16 00 13(d) (Cont'd)

6-30-77 115
60 16 00

60 16 00 13(d) (Cont'd)

A/s noting that the decision of the Council in TANG, FLRC No.

74A-5, in which the Council concluded that while agencies

are not obligated to bargain over the filling of positions

outside the bargaining unit, they may do so at their own

option, rejected the Activity's argument that the position

was outside the bargaining unit. However, noting the

specific language of Amendement 11, which excludes from

coverage those positions, the A/S concluded, that the duties

of the position in question involved the Agency-wide formulation of policy and, hence such position was specifically

excluded from the coverage of Amendment 11. (Community

Services Admin., A/SLMR No. 749)

Union grievance over issuance of notices of proposed reprimand

to three individual employees found grievable under Sec. 7

of negotiated grievance procedure which provided for union

grievances over disputes arising from alleged contract

violations or from the interpretation or application of the

agreement. (Dept, of Air Force, Kelly AFB, A/SLMR No. 766)

A/S held that grievance was not grievable under the parties

negotiated agreement because it did not involve matters which

were subject to the negotiated grievance procedure. (Army

and Air Force Exchange Service, Hqs., Dallas, Tex.,

A/SLMR No. 791)

A/s adopted ALJ's finding that Activity did not violate

Sec. 19(a)(1) and (6) of the EG. ALJ found gravamen of

complaint was that the Activity was obligated, under the

parties' negotiated agreement, to process a grievance

submitted by the lAM. The grievance had been rejected as

not arbitrable by the Activity. ALJ noted that when a party

in good faith asserts a matter is not grievable or arbitrable

under a negotiated agreement, a determination of grievability

or arbitrability may be obtained from the A/S pursuant to

Sec. 13(d) of the EG and that this procedure is the proper

vehicle for resolution of such issue. (Naval Air Rework

Facility, Cherry Point, N.C., A/SLMR No. 849)

116 6-30-77
ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF DECISIONS

OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR

FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

JULY 1, 1976 - JUNE 30, 1977

6-30-77

TABLE OF DECISIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

ALPHABETICAL LISTING 1/

TITLE A/SLMR No(s). IJ

Agriculture, Department of

— Agricultural Marketing Service, 810

Grain Division, New Orleans, La.

— Agricultural Research Service 757

Southern Regional Research Center

New Orleans, La.

Farmers Home Administration, Colo. 752

— Forest Service

-- National Forests of Mississippi 774

Jackson, Miss.

-- Ouachita National Forest, 845

Hot Springs, Ark.

-- Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 762

Experiment Station, Forest Sciences

Laboratory, Corvallis, Ore.

Air Force, Department of

Aerospace Guidance and Metrology 677

Center, Newark Air Force Station

Newark, Ohio

— Base Procurement Office 767

Vandenberg AFB, Calif.

— Fairchild AFB, Wash. 719

V 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.

2J During the period covered by this Supplement, where the FLRC modified

or remanded an A/S decision, the case number of the original A/S

decision (A/SLMR No., or, in the event of an unpublished Request for

Review action, the Area Office (AO) case number) is enclosed in parentheses, followed by the FLRC No. and by the A/SLMR No. of any subsequent

A/S decision.

6-30-77 119
TITLE A/SLMR No(s)

Air Force, Department of (cont.) .'Vnj A

4500 Air Base Wing

Langley AFB, Va.

760

— Kelly AFB 766

— O'ffutt AFB 784

-- Vandenberg AFB, Calif. 786

-- Pacific Air Force, Hqs.

Dept, of Defense Dependent Schools, Pacific

733

- - 63rd Air Base Group, (MAC), Hqs.,

Norton Air Force Base, Calif.

761, 834

-- Tactical Air Command, Hqs.,

Langley Air Force Base, Va.

742

-- 317th Combat Support Group, Hqs.

Pope Air Force Base, N.C.

836

American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO

-- Local 41 701

-- Local 1592 724

-- Local 2221 721

-- National Office 809

American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3254

and

Air Force, Dept, of

Grissom AFB, Peru, Ind.

852

Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Hqs.

Dallas, Tex.

791

Army , Department of

-- Aberdeen Proving Ground Command, Md, 837

Army Armament Command

Watervliet, N.Y.

726

120 6-30-77
— Fort

-- Monmouth, Electronics Command, N.J.

-- Sam Houston, Defense Mapping Agency

San Antonio Topographic Center, Tex.

-- Sill, Field Artillery Center, Directorate

of Facilities Engineers, Hqs.

Hqs., XVIII Airborne Corps

and Fort Bragg, N.C.

— Reception Station

Fort Knox, Ky.

Tooele Army Depot

Tooele, Utah

— Training Center Engineer and Fort

Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard, Mo.

' I ' - - r T.- , f'-

— Transportation Center and Fort Eustis, Va.

Commerce, Department of

Maritime Administration

National Ocean Survey, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

-- Western Region

— National Weather Service

-- Patent and Trademark Office,

Washington, D.C.

Community Services Administration

Defense Civil Preparedness Agency,

Region I, Maynard, Mass.

Defense, Department of

-- Air Force,Department of (See: Air Force)

TITLE

Army, Department of (cont.)

A/SLMR No(s),

679, 691, 732

818

696

854

714

717

720, 787

681

755

703

794

847

800, 856

749

799

6-30-77 121
— Army Electronics Command

Fort Monmouth, N.J.

Commissary, Ft. Meade

— Corps of Engineers

— Criminal Investigation Command,

Third Region, Fort Gillem,

Forest Park, Ga.

— Defense Mapping Agency

San Antonio Topographic Center,

Fort Sam Houston, Tex.

— Dugway Proving Ground

Dugway, Utah

Electronics Command

Fort Monmouth, N.J.

— Field Artillery Center, Directorate of

Facilities Engineers, Hqs.

Ft. Sill, Okla.

— Fort

-- Belvoir, Engineer Center

-- Carson Exchange

A m y and Air Force Exchange Service

-- Dix, Army and Air Force Exchange

Service, Dix-McGuire Consolidated

Exchange

-- Eustis, Transportation Center, Va.

-- Gillem, Criminal Investigation Command

Third Region, Forest Park, Ga.

-- Knox, Reception Station, Ky.

-- Leonard Wood and Army Training

Center Engineer, Fort Leonard Wood, Mo.

-- Meade, Commissary

TITLE

Army, Department of (cont.)

855

793

819

715

818

745

679, 691, 732

696

A/SLMR No(s),

744

718

700

681

715

714

720

793

122

6-30-77
Defense, Department of (cont.)

Air National Guard

Texas Air National Guard

Camp Mabry, Austin, Tex.

-- Army, Department of (See; Army)

-- Army and Air Force Exchange System

(See; Army and Air Force)

— Defense Mapping Agency Depot, Hawaii

— Defense Supply Agency

-- Defense Contract Administration Services

Region (DCASR), Cleveland, Ohio, Defense

Contract Administration Services Office

(DCASO), Akron, Ohio

-- Defense General Supply Center

-- Defense Property Disposal Service

Elmendorf AFB, Alaska

-- Disposal Regions

Memphis, Columbus and Ogden, et al

Dependents Schools, Europe

-- Brindisi School

-- Sigonella School

-- Upper Heyford High School

— 'Navy, Norfolk, Naval Shipyard

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Federal Aviation Administration Airway

Facilities Field Office

St. Petersburg, Fla.

Fort (See; Army, and Army and Air Force)

General Services Administration

— Central Office, Washington, D.C.

TITLE A/SLMR No(s).

738

747

687

790, 821

713

779

740, 795

840

825

770

746

707, 802

776

693

6-30-77 123
TITLE A/SLMR No(s),

Health, Education and Welfare, Dept, of

— Social Security Administration

-- Baltimore, Md., Hqs. 851

-- Cleveland, Ohio 706

-- District Office, Muncie, Ind. 860

-- Great Lakes Program Center 804

Chicago, 111.

-- Northeastern Program Center, 753

Bureau of Retirement and Survivors

Insurance

-- Wilkes-Barre Operations Branch 729

Housing and Urban Development, Dept, of

— Greensboro Area Office 813

Greensboro, N.C.

Indian Health Service

-- Area Office, Window Rock, Ariz. 778

and Public Health Service Indian

Hospital, Fort Defiance, Ariz.

— Phoenix Indian Medical Center 798

Information Agency 763

Interior, Department of

— Bureau of Indian Affairs

Administrative Services Center

Albuquerque, N.M.

-- Bureau of Reclamation

Boulder Canyon Project

Boulder City, Nev.

-- Yuma Projects Office,

Yuma, Ariz.

788

688

808

124

6-30-77
Interior, Department of (cont.)

— Geological Survey, 826

Water Resources Division,

Central Region, Utah District

— National Park Service

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 789

San Francisco, Calif.

Interstate Commerce Commission 773

Internal Revenue Service (See: Treasury)

Justice, Department of

Immigration and Naturalizations 682

Service

-- San Francisco District 730

San Francisco, Calif.

Labor, Department of

Office of Labor-Management Standards 686

Enforcement, Director

Marshall Service, Dallas, Tex. 709

National Guard

— New Jersey Department of Defense 835

New Jersey Air National Guard

177th Fighter Interceptor Group

National Treasury Employees Union 783

— Chapter 162; Chapter 172; and Joint 811

Council of Customs Chapters

Navy, Department of

— Antilles Consolidated School System 712

Fort Buchanan, P.R.

— Long Beach Naval Shipyard 689, 728

title A/SLMR No (s ).

6-30-77 125
t i t l e A/SLMR No(s),

Navy, Department of (cont.)

— Management Systems Development Office 741

Naval Air Station

Jacksonville, Fla,

— Mare Island Naval Shipyard 736, 775, 815

Vallejo, Calif.

— Marine Corps Supply Center 692

Barstow, Calif.

— Naval Air Rework Facility

-- Alameda, Calif. 781, 797

-- Cherry Point, N.C, 849

— Naval Air Station 772

Willow Grove, Pa.

— Naval Ammunition Dept. 684

Crane, Ind.

— Naval Avionics Facility 722

Indianapolis, Ind.

Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance 690

Facility, Vallejo, Calif.

Naval Shipyard

— Norfolk

-- Portsmouth

— Naval Weapons Station

Sea Beach, Calif.

708, 805

820

827

— Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 7in 7As R9Q

Bremerton, Wash.

— Special Services Dept, Naval Station

Norfolk, Va.

Small Business Administration

— District Office

126

6-30-77
Small Business Administration (cont.)

— District Office (cont.)

-- Hato Rey, P.R. 751

-- Richmond, Va. 674

— Regional Office

-- Dallas, Tex. 817

— II, New York, N.Y. 751, 759

Social Security Administration

(See: Health, Education and Welfare)

State, Department of

— Agency for Inteimational Development 676

— Passport Office 697

Chicago Passport Agency

Chicago, 111.

Transportation, Department of

— Coast Guard Academy 737

New London, Conn,

— Coast Guard Support Center, 785

Third District

Governors Island, N.Y,

Federal Aviation Administration 685, 704

-- Airway Facilities Sector 725

Tampa, Fla.

-- Air Route Traffic Control Center, 812

Weir Cook Airport

Indianapolis, Ind.

-- Las Vegas Control Tower 796

Las Vegas, Nev.

-- National Aviation Facility ?43

Experimental Center,

Atlantic City, N.J.

title A/SLMR No (s ),

6-30-77,,,, , 127
Transportation, Department of (cont.)

— Federal Aviation Administration

-- Springfield Tower

Springfield, Mo.

— Office of Administrative Operations

St, Lawrence Seaway Development

Corporation

Treasury, Department of

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

-- Boston, Mass.

-- Milwaukee, Wise.

-- San Francisco, Calif.

-- Washington, D.C.

— Customs Service

— Region IV, Miami, Fla.

— --Internal Revenue Service

-- Austin, Tex.

-- Boston, Mass.

--- Brookhaven Service Center

-- Cincinnati Service Center

----- Covington, Ky.

— Chicago, 111.

-- Manhattan District

-- National Office

-- Ogden Service Center

TITLE A/SLMR No(s).

843

683

839

695

850

698

680

792

739, 848

731, 833

675

727

814, 859

705

844

711, 748

841

846

806

128 6-30-77
TITLE A/SLMR N o(s).

Treasury, Department of (cont.)

-- Internal Revenue Service

-- Philadelphia Service Center 754, 771

— Salt Lake City, Utah 716

-- Southwest Region

--- Dallas, Tex. 858

-- Washington, D.C. 831, 853

— Mint, Bureau of 750

and Bureau o.f the Mint, U.S.

Assay Office, San Francisco, Calif.

Office of Regional Counsel 780

Western Region

Veterans Administration

— Hospital

— Miami, Fla. 765

-- Murfreesboro, Tenn. 702

-- Northport, N.Y. 824

-- St. Louis, Mo. 838

American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1715

-- Waco, Tex. 735

Regional Office

New York

/

6-30-77 129

NUMERICAL TABLE OF DECISIONS

OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR

FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS

JULY 1, 1976 - JUNE 30, 1977

6-30-77 131

NUMERICAL LISTING. DATES OF ISSUANCE AND SECTIONS OF DIGEST INVOLVED

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved jL/

674 Small Business Administration, 35 08;GO; 35 28 28;

Richmond, Virginia 45 16 20;

District Office

(July 23, 1976)

675 Internal Revenue Service, 35,28 GO; 35 28 36

Austin Service Center,

Austin, Texas

(July 23, 1976)

676 Agency for International Development, 05 12 08; 35 08 04;

Department of State 35 28 36

(July 23, 1976)

677 Aerospace Guidance and Metrology 35 28 28

Center, Newark Air Force Station,

Newark, Ohio

(July 23, 1976)

678 National Aeronautics and Space 25 20 20

Administration, Lewis Research

Center, Cleveland, Ohio

(July 23, 1976)

679 Department of the Army, 05 '04 00; 35 28 12;

U.S. Army Electronics Command, 45 16 20

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey

(July 26, 1976)

680 Department of Treasury 35 08 00; 35 28 32

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms, Washington, D.C.

(July 26, 1976)

681 Department of the Army, 35 32 00

U.S. Army Transportation Center

and Fort Eustis, Virginia

(July 26, 1977)

TABLE OF DECISIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

1/ Listing includes all Sections involved except Section 20 20 00

” "Employee Categories and Classifications," in which entries are

listed alphabetically. In this connnection, it should be noted

that those decisions which reflect no digest entries are, in fact,

digested under Section 20 20 00.

6-30-77 133
682 U.S. Department of Justice, 35 28 08; 35 28 36

Immigration and Naturalization

Service

(July 26, 1976)

683 Department of Transportation, 35 28 08

Office of Administrative Operations

(July 26, 1976)

684 Department of the Navy, 60 16 00

Naval Ammunition Depot,

Crane,LIndiana

(July 26, 1976)

685 Department of Transportation, 35 08 04; 35 12 00

Federal Aviation Administration,

Eastern Region

(July 26, 1976)

686 Local 1841, American Federation 55 00 00

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

and

Director,

Office of Labor-Management

Standards Enforcement,

U.S. Department of Labor

(July 28, 1976)

687 Defense Supply Agency, 20 04 08; 20 04 12;

Defense Contract Administration 20 12 44

Services Region (DCASR),

Cleveland, Ohio, Defense Contract

Administration Services

Office (DCASO), Akron, Ohio

(July 29, 1976)

688 Department of the Interior 20 12 00; 20 12 64;

Bureau of Reclamation, 20 20 00

Boulder Canyon Project,

Boulder City, Nevada

(July 30, 1976)

689 Department of the Navy, 25 20 00

Long Beach Naval Shipyard

(August 4, 1976)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

134 6-30-77
690 Department of the Navy, 20 12 08; 20 12 64;

Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance 20 20 00

Facility, Vallejo, California

(August 4, 1976)

691 U.S. Army Electronics Command, 35 08 00

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey

(August 5, 1976)

692 Department of the Navy, 35 28 12

Marine Corps Supply Center,

Barstow, California

(August 5, 1976)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved TJ

693 General Services Administration, 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

Central Office, 20 04 12; 20 04 20;

Washington, D.C. 20 16 08; 20 16 32;

(August 5, 1976) 25 20 00; 25 24 00

694 Veterans Administration, 35 08 04; 35 28 28

Veterans Administration Regional

Office, New York Region

(August 6, 1976)

695 Department of the Treasury, 05 08 00; 35 08 04;

Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and 35 16 00

Tobacco, Boston, Massachusetts

(August 6, 1976)

696 Headquarters, United States Army 20 16 04

Field Artillery Center,

Directorate of Facilities

Engineers, Ft. Sill, Oklahoma

(August 11, 1976)

697 Department of State, Passport Office, 20 20 00; 20 12 60;

Chicago Passport Agency, 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

Chicago, Illinois 20 04 12

(August 11, 1976)

698 Department of the Treasury, 35 08 04; 30 12 16

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and

Firearms,

San Francisco, California

(August 12, 1976)

699 General Services Administration, 25 20 00; 10 12 00

Federal Supply Service

(August 12, 1976)

6-30-77 135
700 Army and Air Force Exchange 35 08 04; 35 28 24

Service, Dix-McGuire

Consolidated Exchange,

Fort Dix, New Jersey

(August 13, 1976)

701 American Federation of Government 40 28 00; 45 16 24

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 41

(August 13, 1976)

702 Veterans Administration Hospital, 35 12 00; 35 28 32

Murfreesboro, Tennessee

(August 26, 1976)

703 U.S. Department of Commerce, 60 16 00

National Ocean Survey, National

Oceanic &. Atmospheric Administration

(August 26, 1976)

704 Federal Aviation Administration 35 08 04; 35 12 00

(September 15, 1976)

705 Internal Revenue Service, 35 28 16

Cincinnati District,

Cincinatti, Ohio

(September 15, 1976)

706 U.S. Department of Health, 10 28 00; 20 16 32;

Education and Welfare 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

Social Security Administration, 20 04 12

Bureau of Field Operations,

Region V, Area IV,

Cleveland, Ohio

(September 15, 1976)

707 Equal Employment Opportunity 35 12 00; 35 32 00

Commission

(September 16, 1976)

708 Norfolk Naval Shipyard 35 28 28; 30 12 04

(September 16, 1976)

709 U.S. Marshal Service, 35 08 04; 35 28 08

Dallas, Texas

(September 16, 1976)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

136 6-30-77
710 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,

Department of the Navy,

Bremerton, Washington

(September 17, 1976)

711 U.S. Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

Chicago District

(September 17, 1976)

712 Department of the Navy,

Antilles Consolidated School System,

Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico

(September 17, 1976)

713 Defense Supply Agency,

Defense Property Disposal Service

Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska

(September 20, 1976)

714 U.S. Army Reception Station,

Fort Knox, Kentucky

(September 20, 1976)

715 U.S. Army

Criminal Investigation Command,

Third Region, Fort Gillem,

Forest Park, Georgia

(September 23, 1976)

716 Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

Utah District,

Salt Lake City, Utah

(September 23, 1976)

717 Department of the Army

Tooele Army Depot,

Tooele, Utah

(September 24, 1976)

718 Fort Carson Exchange,

Army and Air Force Exchange Service

(September 24, 1976)

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued

35 08 04; 35 12 00

Section(s) of Digest

Involved j^/

35 28 04; 35 28 08

20 24 12

35 12 00; 35 24 00;

35 28 08

20 04 0^; 20 04 08;

20 04 12

05 08 00; 20 04 12;

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 12 28

35 08 04; 35 16 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

6-30-77 137
719 U.S. Air Force, 20 16 04

Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington

(September 27, 1976)

720 U.S. Department of the Army 35 08 04; 35 12 00

U.S. Army Training Center Engineer

and Fort Leonard Wood,

Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri

(September 27, 1976)

721 American Federation of Government 40 08 00; 40 12 00

Employees, Local 2221, AFL-CIO

(September 27, 1976)

722 Department of the Navy, 60 16 00

Naval Avionics Facility

Indianapolis, Indiana

(September 28, 1976)

723 Department of Health, Education 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

and Welfare, Region II, 20 04 12; 20 12 20;

Social Security Administration, 20 12 28

Bureau of Disability Insurance 20 12 18

(October 7, 1976)

724 American Federation of Government 55 08 12

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1592

(October 7, 1976)

725 Department of Transportation, 35 08 04; 45 16 04

Federal Aviation Administration,

Airway Facilities Sector,

Tampa, Florida

(October 8, 1976)

726 Watervliet Arsenal, 05 36 00; 30 28 00

U.S. Army Armament Command, 35 28 28; 45 16 20

Watervliet, New York

(October 8, 1976)

727 Boston District Office, 35 28 36; 35 32 00

Internal Revenue Service

(October 13, 1976)

728 Department of the Navy, 35 28 36; 35 32 00

Long Beach Naval Shipyard, 45 16 20

Long Beach, California

(October 13, 1976)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

138

6-30-77
729 Social Security Administration, 35 08 04; 35 16 00

Wilkes-Barre Operations Branch,

Department of Health, Education

and Welfare

(October 19, 1976)

730 U.S. Department of Justice, 20 12 40; 20 20 00

Immigration and Naturalization

Service, San Francisco District,

San Francisco, California

(October 19, 1976)

731 Internal Revenue Service 35 28 28

(October 20, 1976)

732 U.S. Army Electronics Command, 35 28 08; 35 28 12

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey

(October 20, 1976)

733 Department of the Air Force 35 28 12; 35 28 28

Headquarters, Pacific Air Force

Department of Defense Dependent

Schools, Pacific

(October 21, 1976)

734 General Services Administration, 35 28 36; 45 16 20

Region 3

(October 21, 1976)

735 Veterans Administration Hospital, 35 08 04; 35 28 08;

Waco, Texas 60 16 00

(October 22, 1976)

736 Department of the Navy, 35 28 12; 35 28 28;

Mare Island Naval Shipyard, 35 28 32

Vallejo, California

(November, 3, 1976)

737 U.S. Department of Transportation, 20 20 00

U.S. Coast Guard Academy,

New London, Connecticut

(November 3, 1976)

738 Department of Defense 35 28 08; 35 28 28

Air National Guard,

Texas Air National Guard,

Camp Mabry, Austin, Texas

(November 4, 1976)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No,, Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

6-30-77 139
739 Department of the Treasury,

U.S. Customs Service, Region IV,

Miami, Florida

(November 4, 1976)

740 U.S. Dependent Schools,

European Area

(November 5, 1976)

741 Management Systems Development Office

Detachment, Naval Air Rework Facility,

Jacksonville Naval Air Station,

Jacksonville, Florida

(November 5, 1976)

742 Department of the Air Force

Headquarters, Tactical Air Command,

Langley Air Force Base,

Virginia

(November 8, 1976)

743 Federal Aviation Administration,

National Aviation Facility

Experimental Center,

Atlantic City, New Jersey

(November 8, 1976)

744 U.S. Army Engineer Center

and Fort Belvoir

(November 9, 1976)

745 Department of the Army

Dugway Proving Ground,

Dugway, Utah

(November 9, 1976)

746 Department of Defense,

U.S. Navy,

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

(November 9, 1976)

747 Department of Defense,

Defense Mapping Agency Depot, Hawaii

(November 9, 1976)

748 Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

Chicago District Office,

Chicago, Illinois

(November 10, 1976)

A/SLMR No«, Case Name and Date Issued

30 12 04; 30 16 00;

35 04 00; 35 08 04

Section(s) of Digest

Involved _1 /

10 24 12

20 04 04; 20 04 08;

20 04 12; 20 12 60

35 28 16

35 08 04; 35 28 08;

35 28 16; 35 28 36

25 20 00

35 28 12; 35 28 28

35 08 04; 35 12 00

35 28 32; 45 16 04

20 16 28

60 16 00

140 6-30-77
749 Community Services Administration 60 04 00; 60 16 00

(November 10, 1976)

750 Bureau of the Mint, 35 28 12; 35 28 12;

U.S. Department of the Treasury 35 28 28; 45 16 20

and

Bureau of the Mint,

U.S. Assay Office,

San Francisco, California

(November 17, 1976)

751 Small Business Administration, 35 28 08

District Office, Hato Rey,

Puerto Rico, and Small Business

Administration, Regional Office

New York, New York

(November 11, 1976)

752 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 20 20 00

Farmers Home Administration,

Colorado

(November 18, 1976)

753 Northeastern Program Center, 35 28 12

Bureau of Retirement and

Survivors Insurance,

Social Security Administration

(November 18, 1976)

754 Philadelphia Service Center, 30 16 00; 35 08 04

Internal Revenue Service,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

(November 18, 1976) #

755 U.S. Department of Commerce, 35 28 08

U.S. Maritime Administration

(November 22, 1976)

756 General Services Administration 20 20 00; 25 20 00

Region II, New York, New York

(November 23, 1976)

757 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 20 16 16

Agricultural Research Service,

Southern Regional Research Center,

New Orleans, Louisiana

(November 23, 1976)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

6-30-77 141
758 Colorado Air National Guard, 35 28 00; 45 16 20

Buckley Air National Guard Base,

Aurora, Colorado

(November 23, 1976)

759 Small Business Administration, 20 12 40

Region II,

New York, New York

(December 6, 1976)

760 f 4500 Air Base Wing, 30 12 12

Langley Air Force Base, Virginia

(December 6, 1976)

761 Headquarters, 63d Air Base Group, 35 28 00; 35 28 28

(MAC), United States Air Force,

Norton Air Force Base, California

(December 6, 1976)

762 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

U.S. Forest Service, Pacific 20 04 12; 20 08 16;

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 20 12 08

Station, Forest Sciences Laboratory,

Corvallis, Oregon

(December 10, 1976)

763 U.S. Information Agency 35 28 08

(December 10, 1976)

764 U.S. Customs Service, 35 08 04; 45 16 04

Region IV, Department of the

Treasury, Miami, Florida

(December 13, 1976)

765' Veterans-Administration Hospital, 20 16 08

Miami, Florida

(December 30, 1976)

766 Department of the Air Force, 60 08 00; 60 16 00

Kelly Air Force Base

(December 30, 1976)

767 Department of the Air Force, 35 08 04

Base Procurement Office,

Vandenberg Air Force Base,

California

(December 30, 1976)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved )J

142 6-30-77
768 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, 35 08 04; 35 12 00

Department of the Navy,

Bremerton, Washington

(December 30, 1976)

769 General Services Administration, 20 04 04; 20 04 08

Jackson /Vicksburg, Mississippi 20 04 12; 20 08 16

(December 30, 1976)

770 U.S. Dependents Schools, 10 24 12; 20 16 28

European Area,

Upper Heyford High School

(December 30, 1976)

771 Internal Revenue Service, 35 08 04; 35 28 08

Philadelphia Service Center, 35 28 12; 35 28 28;

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 45 16 04

(December 30, 1976)

772 Naval Air Station, 10 24 12

Willow Grove, Pennsylvania

(December 30, 1976)

773 Interstate Commerce Commission 35 12 00

(December 30, 1976)

774 U.S. Department of Agriculture 10 24 12

Forest Service, National Forests

of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi

(December 30, 1976)

775 Department of the Navy, 35 08 04; 35 12 00;

Mare Island Naval Shipyard 45 16 04

(December 30, 1976)

776 Airway Facilities Field Office, 35 08 04; 35 20 00

Federal Aviation Administration,

St. Petersburg, Florida

(December 30, 1976)

777 Department of Health, Education 10 04 16

and Welfare,

Social Security Administration,

Bureau of Field Operations

(January 5, 1977)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMl No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

6-30-77 143
778 Indian Health Service Area Office, 20 16 04; 20 20 00

Window Rock, Arizona, and

Public Health Service Indian

Hospital, Fort Defiance, Arizona,

Department of Health, Education

and Welfare

(January 19, 1977)

779 Defense Property Disposal Service, 10 12 00; 15 08 08;

Defense Property Disposal Regions, 20 12 28; 20 12 60

Memphis, Columbus, and Ogden, et. al.

(January 19, 1977)

780 Department of the Treasury, 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

Office of Regional Counsel, 20 04 12; 20 12 28

Western Region

(January 24, 1977)

781 Department of the Navy, 35 28 16

Naval Air Rework Facility,

Alameda, California

(January 24, 1977)

782 Department of the Navy, 20 16 08

Special Services Department,

Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia

(January 24, 1977)

783 National Treasury Employees Union, 40 20 00

(Internal Revenue Service)

(January 24, 1977)

784 Department of the Air Force, 30 12 08; 35 08 04

Offutt Air Force Base 35 08 12; 35 12 00

(January 24, 1977) 35 32 00; 45 16 04

45 16 08

785 Department of Transportation, 20 12 64; 20 16 12;

U.S. Coast Guard Support Center, 20 16 24; 20 20 00

Third District,

Governors Island, New York

(January 24, 1977)

786 U.S. Air Force, 30 12 04; 35 08 04;

Vandenberg Air Force Base, 35 08 12; 35 12 00;

California 35 20 00; 45 16 04

(January 27, 1977)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

6-30-77
787 U.S. Army Training Center, 30 04 00; 35 28 16

Engineer and Fort Leonard Wood

(January 27, 1977)

•

788 U.S. Department of the Interior, 05 08 00* 20 16 08

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 20 16 28*

Administrative Services Center,

Albuquerque, New Mexico

(January 27, 1977)

789 Department of the Interior, 20 04 04: 20 04 08*

National Park Service, 20 04 12; 20 12 08-!

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 20 12 64

San Francisco, California

(January 27, 1977)

790 Defense General Supply Center 35 28 24- 45 16 20

(February 7, 1977) ’

791 Army and Air Force Exchange Service, 60 04 00; 60 16 00

Headquarters, Dallas, Texas

(February 7, 1977)

792 U.S. Customs Service, 20 20 00; 25 12 04

(February 8, 1977)

793 Commissary, Fort Meade, 35 q8 12; 35 16 00*

Department of the Army, 45 12 ’

(February 9, 1977)

794 U.S. Department of Commerce, 35 28 08

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration,

National Weather Service,

Western Region

(February 16, 1977)

795 U.S. Dependents Schools, 35 08 04; 35 20 00

European Area (USDESEA)

(February 16, 1977)

796 Department of Transportation, 35 08 04

Federal Aviation Administration,

Las Vegas Control Tower,

Las Vegas, Nevada

(February 17, 1977)

A/CTMD M ^ Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

6-30-77 145
797 Department of the Navy, 35 08 04

Naval Air Rework Facility,

Alameda, California

(February 18, 1977)

798 Department of Health, Education 35 08 04; 35 12 00

and Welfare,

Public Health Service,

Indian Health Service,

Phoenix Indian Medical Center

(February 18, 1977)

799 Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, 10 28 00; 35 16 00;

Region I, 35 28 24; 45 16 20

Maynard, Massachusetts

(February 18, 1977)

800 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 60 04 00; 60 08 00

Washington, D.C.

(February 18, 1977)

801 General Services Administration, 35 12 00; 35 16 00

GSA Region V,

Public Building Service,

Milwaukee Field Office

(February 18, 1977)

802 Equal Employment Opportunity 35 12 00

Commission

(February 18, 1977)

803 Department of Health, Education 20 20 00

and Welfare,

U.S. Office of Education,

Headquarters

(February 18, 1977)

804 Social Security Administration, 35 28 08; 35 28 16

Great Lakes Program Center,

Chicago, Illinois

(February 18, 1977)

805 Department of the Navy, 35 28 08

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

(March 1, 1977)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved ]J

146 6-30-77
806 Internal Revenue Service,

Ogden Service Center, and

Internal Revenue Service, et. al

(March 1, 1977)

807 Department of Health,

Education and Welfare

(March 1, 1977)

808 Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Reclamation,

Yuma Projects Office,

Yuma, Arizona

(March 1, 1977)

809 American Federation of Government

Employees, AFL-CIO, National Office

(March 2, 1977)

810 U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Marketing Service,

Grain Division,

New Orleans, Louisiana

(March 2, 1977)

811 National Treasury Employees Union,

Chapter 162, NTEU, Chapter 172,

NTEU; and Joint Council of Customs

Chapters, NTEU

(March 24, 1977)

812 Department of Transportation,

Federal Aviation Administration,

Indianapolis Air Route Traffic

Control Center,

Weir Cook Airport,

Indianapolis, Indiana

(March 28, 1977)

813 Department of Housing and

Urban Development,

Greensboro Area Office,

Greensboro, North Carolina

(March 29, 1977)

814 Department of Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service,

Brookhaven Service Center

(March 29, 1977)

A/SLMR No,, Case Name and Date Issued

35 28 28; 35 28 32;

35 32 00; 45 16 20;

45 20 00

Section(s) of Digest

Involved \J

35 28 08

35 28 12; 45 16 20

40 28 00

35 08 04; 35 12 00;

35 32 00; 45 16 04

40 20 00

35 08 04; 35 12 00

10 04 12; 10 24 12

35 28 28

6-30-77 147
815 Department of the Navy, _ . , 20 04 04; 20 04 08;

Mare Island Naval Shipyard,, 20 04 12; 20 12 64

Vallejo, California

(March 31, 1977)

816 Department of Health, Education 35 28 12

and Welfare,

Social Security Administration,

Bureau of Hearings and Appeals,

Dallas, Texas

(March 31, 1977)

817 Dallas Regional Office, 10 04 08; 20 16 28

U.S. Small Business Administration,

(March 31, 1977)

818 Department of the Army, 30 04 00; 35 28 12;

"Defense Mapping Agency, - 35 28 28

San Antonio Topographic Center,

Fort Sam Houston, Texas

(April 5, 1977)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved \J

ana we it are.

Food and Drug Administration,

Region I, Boston Regional Field

Office, Boston, Massachusetts

(April 18, 1977)

819 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 10 16 00; 10 24 12

(April 5, 1977) 10 28 00; 10 32 00

20 04 04; 20 04 08

20 04 12; 20 08 08

20 16 24; 20 16 32

20 20 00

820 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, 35 28 28; 45 16 20

Department of the Navy

(April 6, 1977)

821 Defense General Supply Center 30 04 00; 35 28 04

(April 7, 1977) 35 32 00

822 Education Division, 10 04 28; 20 04 04

Department of Health, Education 20 04 08; 20 04 12

and Welfare 20 12 08; 20 16 32

Washington, D.C.

(April 7, 1977)

823 Department of Health, Education 20 16 04; 20 16 08

1^8 6-30-77
824 Veterans Administration, 35 28 08* 35 28 12 

Veterans Administration Hospital, ’

Northport, New York

(April 18, 1977)

825 Department of Defense, 10 04 16; 10 24 12 

Dependents Schools, Europe,

(Sigonella School)

(April 18, 1977)

826 U.S. Geological Survey, 20 04 04; 20 04 08; 

Department of the Interior, 20 04 12

Water Resources Division,

Central Region, Utah District 

(April 19, 1977)

827 U.S. Naval Weapons Station, 20 20 00; 35 24 00- 

Seal Beach, California, 35 28 08 *

Department of the Navy

(April 19, 1977)

828 Social Security Administration, 35 28 08; 35 28 12 

Bureau of Hearings and ^ p e a l s 35 28 28; 45 16 20

(April 19, 1977)

829 Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, 35 28 28 

U.S. Degiartment of the Navy

(April 20, 1977)

830 U.S. Air Force, 35 28 16; 45 16 04; 

McClellan Air Force Base, 45 16 20 

California

(April 21, 1977)

831 Internal Revenue Service, 10 04 28; 10 28 00; 

Washington, D.C. 20 04 04; 20 04 08; 

(April 21, 1977) 20 04 12; 20 12 04;

20 12 08

832 Department of Health, Education 10 04 28; 10 24 12;

and Welfare 30 12 04; 35 28 04;

Social Security Administration, 35 28 04; 45 16 20

Bureau of Field Operations,

Region V-A, Chicago, Illinois 

(April 27, 1977)

A /cTxro XT Section(s) of D igest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/ ---

6-30-77 149
833 United States Department of 

the Treasury, Internal 

Revenue Service 

(May 5, 1977)

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued

83/+

835

836

837

838

839

840

841

63rd Air Base Group, U.S. Air 

Force, Norton Air Force Base, 

California 

(May 5, 1977)

New Jersey Department of Defense, 

New Jersey Air National Guard,

177th Fighter Interceptor Group 

(May 5, 1977)

Department of the Air Force, 

Headquarters, 317th Combat 

Support Group,

Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina 

(May 6, 1977)

U.S. Department of the Army, 

Aberdeen Proving Ground Command, 

Maryland 

(May 6, 1977)

Veterans Administration Hospital 

St. Louis, Missouri,

American Federation of Government 

Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1715 

(May 11, 1977)

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

St. Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation 

(May 11, 1977)

Department of Defense,

Dependents Schools, Europe,

(Brindisi School)

(May 12, 1977)

Department of the Treasury,

Internal Revenue Service 

Manhattan District 

(May 16, 1977)

35 28 16

Section(s) of Digest

Involved 1/

35 28 04

05 08 00; 35 28 12

20 20 00; 25 20 00

35 28 12; 35 28 16

35 08 04; 35 12 00; 

35 16 00; 40 08 00

20 20 00; 25 20 00

10 04 16; 10 24 12;

35 28 12; 45 16 20

150 6-30-77
842 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 20 04 04; 20 04 08- 

Forest Service 20 04 12; 20 12 2 o’ 

(May 19, 1977)

843 Federal Aviation Administration, 35 28 16* 35 28 32* 

Springfield Tower, 45 15 20* *

Springfield Missouri

(May 19, 1977)

844 Internal Revenue Service, 35 08 04 

Cincinnati Service Center,

Covington, Kentucky 

(May 20, 1977)

845 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 35 08 04 

Forest Service,

Ouachita National Forest,

Hot Springs, Arkansas 

(May 20, 1977)

846 Internal Revenue Service, 35 28 08; 35 28 28 

National Office ’

(May 20, 1977)

847 National Weather Service 30 12 04; 30 12 16* 

(June 6 , 1977) 35 28 08

848 U.S. Customs Service, 35 28 16; 35 28 28 

Region IV, Miami, Florida

(June 6 , 1977)

849 Naval Air Rework Facility, 35 28 04; 60 16 00 

Cherry Point, North Carolina

(June 7, 1977)

850 Department of the Treasury, 20 20 00; 35 24 00 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

(June 7, 1977)

851 Social Security Administration, 35 28 28 

Headquarters, Bureaus and Offices

in Baltimore, Maryland 

(June 8 , 1977)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No«, Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/ ~

6-30-77 151
852 Local 3254, American Federation 35 16 00; 40 08 00;

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO 45 16 12

and

Department of the Air Force,

Grissom Air Force Base,

Peru, Indiana 

(June 9, 1977)

853 Internal Revenue Service, 10 04 28; 10 28 00 

Washington, D.C. 20 04 04; 20 04 08 

(June 9, 1977) 20 04 12; 20 12 04

20 16 32

854 Department of the Army, 25 20 00 

Headquarters, XVIII Airborne

Corps and Fort Bragg,

North Carolina 

(June 10, 1977)

855 U.S. Army Electronics Command, 35 28 08; 45 16 20 

Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 

(June 13, 1977)

856 United States Patent and 20 20 00; 25 24 00

Trademark Office 

(June 13, 1977)

857 U.S. Army Mortuary, 10 04 12; 10 24 12; 

Oakland Army Base, Oakland , 20 16 32 

Oakland, California 

(June 28, 1977)

858 Department of the Treasury, 35 28 28 

Internal Revenue Service,

Southwest Region, Dallas, Texas 

(June 28, 1977)

859 Department of the Treasury, 30 04 00; 30 28 00; 

Internal Revenue Service, 35 23 28; 45 16 20 

Brookhaven Service Center 

(June 29, 1977)

860 Social Security Administration, 35 28 08 

District Office, Muncie, Indiana 

(June 29, 1977)

Section(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued tnvolved 1/

^^2 6-30-77
861 Department of Health, Education 35 12 00

and Welfare,

Social Security Administration,

Bureau of Hearings and Appeals,

San Juan, Puerto Rico 

(June 30, 1977)

Sectlon(s) of Digest

A/SLMR No., Case Name and Date Issued Involved 1/

6-30-77

NUMERICAL LISTING. DATES OF ISSUANCE AND SECTIONS OF DIGEST INVOLVED

R A/S No. Date Issued

Section(s) of Digest 

Involved

59 7-14-76 25 12 08

60 11-12-76 10 48 00; 30 08 04

61 11-12-76 60 04 00

I T Reports on Rulings of the Assistant Secretary (R A/S) are

published summaries of significant or precedent setting decisions 

by the A/S on requests for review of actions taken at the field 

level. These Reports, originally referred to as Reports on 

Decisions, but n o w referred to as Reports on Rulings of the 

Assistant Secretary, do not identify the parties involved.

6-30-77 155

INDEX

1/

- A -

ABUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS 10 28 00

AC PETITION 2^0 04 20

ACCESS TO WORK AREAS, CAMPAIGNING 25 08 16; 35 08 00

ACCRETION 20 16 08

ACTIVITY PETITION (RA) 10 04 08

ADDITIONS TO UNIT 20 16 08 

ADEQUACY OF

Record 15 28 00

Showing of Interest 10 16 00; 20 16 08

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AT HEARINGS 05 12 08

ADVICE, ERRONEOUS BY LMSA AGENTS 10 24 12

ADVISORY OPINIONS 05 16 00 

AGENCY

Authority to Exclude Emps from EO 05 08 00

Directives, ULP 35 04 04; 35 08 04

Facilities for Campaigning 25 08 16

Petition (RA) 10 04 08

Regulations Not Binding on A/S 10 04 16; 35 04 04;

25 08 16

Rules on Campaigning 25 08 16

V Specific employee classifications or categories, such as "Accountant" 

or "Temporary Employee^" are indexed under "EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES AND 

CLASSIFICATIONS."

6-30-77
AGREEMENT

Accretion 10 24 12

AGENT - PRINCIPAL 35 08 08

Approval Pending at Higher AgencyLevel 10 24 12

Bar to Petition 10 24 12

Bar, Unilateral Waiver of 10 24 12

Extension as ULP 35 08 04

Indefinite Duration 10 24 12

Interpretation 30 28 00

Premature Extension 10 24 12

Refusal to Sign 35 28 00

Terminable at Will 10 24 12

Unilateral Termination 35 28 00

AMENDMENT

Certification 10 04 20

Complaint 30

30

08

16

00;

00

Petition 15 08 08

Recognition 10 04 20

ANTI-UNION LITERATURE 35 08 04;

APPROPRIATE UNIT 20 04 00

Accretion 20 16 08

Activity-wide 20 12 08

Agency Regulations Not 

on A/S

Binding

20 04 16

158 6-30-77
Agency-wide 20 12 0^

Area-wide 20 12 36

Base-wide 20 12 46

Branch-wide 20 12 44

City-wide 20 08 is

Clarification 25 20 00

Command-wide 20 12 16

Community of Interest 20 04 04

Criteria 20 04 00

Directorate-wide 20 12 12

District-wide 20 12 40

Division-wide 20 12 32

Effective Dealings 20 04 08

Efficiency of Operations 20 04 12

Eligibility 20 16 i2

Extent of Organization 20 04 04

Field-wide 20 12 24

Geographic Scope 20 08 00

Headquarters-wide 20 12 2!o

History of Bargaining 20 04

Multi-Installation 20 12 56

Nation-wide 20 08 08

Occupational Classifications 20 12 64

One Employee 05 04 00

Organizational Scope 20 12 00

6-30-77 159
Pattern at Similar Activities 15 12 00

Previous Certification 20 04 20

Relevance of Units Elsewhere 15 12 00

Region-wide 20 12 28

Residual Employees 20 16 16

Scope 20 08 00

■■ 20 16 00

Section-wide 20 12 52

Self-Determination 20 16 20

Severance 20 16 04

Single Employee 05 04 00

Single Installation 20 12 60

State-wide 20 08 12

Stipulations Not Binding on A/S 20 04 16

Supervisors 10 32 00

Supervisory Unit 20 16 24

World-wide 20 08 04

ARBITRATION

Cancellation as ULP 35 08 04

35 28 00

Effect on ULP 30 28 00

AREA ADMINISTRATOR (AREA DIRECTOR)

Authority for Approval of Consent

Agreement 10 40 00

Withdrawal of Approval of Consent

Agreement 10 40 00

160 6-30-77
Advisory Opinions 

Agents as Witnesses 

Authority

Documents at Hearings 

Jurisdiction 

Role of 

ATTORNEYS

Conflict of Interest 

AUTHORITY OF 

Agency 

A A 

A/S 

HO 

ARD

AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CLAUSE

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 GO

05 12 04

- B -

BAD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS 

BALLOT 

BARGAINING 

BARGAINING HISTORY 

BARS TO PETITION 

Agreement

35 28 00 

See; ELECTIONS 

See; NEGOTIATIONS 

20 04 04

10 24 12

6-30-77 161
Certification

Election

BILL OF RIGHTS

Campaigning in Lab Org Officer 

Election

Candidacy

Complaint Dismissal Criteria

Complaint Procedure

Conflict of Interest, Lab Org 

Employee and Member

Convention Delegates

Convention Participation

Delegates, Convention

Election, Certification of

Employee - Members of Lab Org

Equal Rights

Exhaustion of Remedies

Free Speech and Assembly

Hearing Requisites

Lab Org Off Election

Campaigning

Candidacy

Violations, Alleged 

Membership Meetings

BARS TO PETITION (cont.)

10 24 08

10 24 04

55 12 08

55 08 12; 55 12 04; 

55 12 08

55 08 08

55 08 00

55 12 04; 55 12 08 

55 08 12; 55 12 04 

55 12 04

55 08 12; 55 12 04 

55 08 12

55 12 04; 55 12 08 

55 12 04 

55 08 08 

55 12 08 

55 08 08

55 12 08

55 08 12; 55 12 04; 

55 12 08

55 08 12

55 12 04

162 6-30-77
Officer, Lab Org 55 12 04

Procedure 55 08 08

BINDING AGREEEMENTS 10 24 12

BLOCKING CHARGES 10 48 00; 30 08 04 

BURDEN OF PROOF

Internal Security Exclusions 15 12 00

Objections to Election 25 08 08

Rep Unit Determinations 15 12 00

ULP Cases 30 08 00; 30 12 24

35 12 00

- C -

CAMPAIGN

Lab Org Off Election 55 12 08 

Rep Case

Literature 25 08 12; 25 08 16;

25 08 20; 35 08 08

Misrepresentation 25 08 20

Work Hours 25 08 16

CAMPAIGN LITERATURE 25 08 12; 25 08 16;

25 08 20; 35 08 08

CANDIDACY, LAB ORG OFFICER 55 08 12; 55 12 04;

55 12 08

"CARVE-OUT" 20 16 04

CATEGORIES OF EMPS 20 20 00

CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS ^5 00 00; 50 00 00

BILL OF RIGHTS (cont.)

Mootness 55 08 08

6-30-77 163
CERTIFICATION

Amendment of 10 04 20

Bar to Petition 10 24 08

Revocation of 25 16 00

CHALLENGES TO

Ballot 25 12 08

Eligibility 25 12 12

Intervention 10 12 00

Showing of Interest 10 16 00

Status as Lab Org 10 20 00

Stipulations 20 12 04

Voter 20 20 00

CHANGES, NAME OF ACTIVITY OR

REPRESENTATIVE 10 04 20

CHARGE 30 04 00

CHECKOFF REVOCATION BY ACTIVITY 35 24 00

45 04 00

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

EO Sec. 25(a) Responsibilities 10 32 00

Federal Personnel Work 05 08 00

Guidance 35 04 04

CLARIFICATION OF UNIT

Clarification Determinations 

Procedure 

CLASSIFICATIONS

COLLATERAL ISSUES

25 20 00 

10 04 16

See: EMP CATEGORIES AND 

CLASSIFICATIONS

10 16 00

164 6-30-77
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING See also: NEGOTIATIONS

History 20 04 08; 

20 16 04

20 04 12;

COMMUNITY OF INTEREST 20 04 04

COMPANION CASES 05 20 00; 30 28 00

COMPLAINT See also:

PRACTICES;

CONDUCT

UNFAIR LABOR 

STANDARDS OF

Standards of Conduct 55 00 00

Procedure 55 08 00

ULP 30 00 00

4

Amendment 30 08 00; 

30 16 00

30 12 00;

Investigation 30 08 00

Limited to Allegations 30 12 00

Motion to Dismiss 30 04 00

Pre-Complaint Requirements 30 08 00

Requisites 30 04 00

Rulings of ALJs 30 12 04

Timeliness 30 08 00

Violation Not Specifically Alleged 30 12 04

COMPLIANCE WITH DECISION AND ORDER 45 00 00; 50 00 00

COMPOSITION OF UNITS 20 08 00; 

20 16 00

20 12 00;

CONCURRENT RELATED CASES 05 20 00; 30 28 00

CONDUCT OF ELECTION 25 08 08

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Attorneys 10 32 00

6-30-77 165
Employee of Lab Org and Member 

Mgt of Lab Org and Fed Employee 

Mgt Off and Lab Org Role 

CONSENT AGREEMENT

AA's Authority to Approve 

AA's Withdrawal of Approval 

Refusal to Sign i

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (cont.)

55 12 08

10 32 00

10 32 00

10 40 00 

10 40 00

10 12 00

CONSOLIDATION OF UNITS 20 16 32; 10 04 28

CONTINUANCE OF HEARING 15 04 00

CONTRACT BAR 10 24 12

CONVENTION

Delegates 55 08 12; 55 12 04

Participation 55 12 04

COOPERATION OF PARTIES 15 20 00

COVERAGE OF EO 05 08 00

CRAFT SEVERANCE 20 16 04

CROSS EXAMINATION, FAILURE TO ALLOW 15 12 00

CURRENT REPRESENTATIVE STATUS 

PETTIONER

OF 10 28 00

CU PETITION 10 04 16; 10 24 08

- D -

DECERTIFICATION

DEFINITIONS

Defunctness

10 04 12

See also: EMP CATEGORIES 

AND CLASSIFICATIONS

05 04 00

166 6-30-77
Lab Org

Management Official 

Non-Employee 

Professional Employee 

Supervisors 

Unit 

DEFUNCTNESS

DELEGATES, CONVENTION

DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE UNIT

DILATORY CONDUCT

d i s c l a i m e r OF INTEREST

DISMISSAL

DISQUALIFICATION AS LAB ORG 

DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE 

DOCUMENTS AT HEARING, LMSA 

DR PETITION

DUES CHECKOFF REVOCATION BY ACTIVITY 

DUTY TO BARGAIN

d e f i n i t i o n s (cont.)

20 20 00 Vista Volunteers 

05 04 00 

05 04 00 

05 04 00

05 04 00; 10 24 04;

10 24 12; 10 44 00

55 08 12; 55 12 04;

55 12 08

S e e ; APPROPRIATE UNITS

35 08 04; 35 28 00 

10 04 12

See: REP CASES; ULP;

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

10 20 00

See: CAMPAIGN LITERATURE 

05 12 04 

10 04 12

J

35 24 00; 35 28 00;

45 16 00

See: NEGOTIATIONS

05 04 00

05 04 00

- E -

EFFECTIVE DEALINGS 

EFFICIENCY OF OPERATIONS

20 04 08

20 04 12

6-30-77 167
ELECTION BAR TO PETITION 10 24 04

ELECTIONS See also: CHALLENGES: A ND 

OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION

Lab Org Officers

Campaigning 55 12 08

Candidacy 55 08 12; 55 12 04; 

55 12 08

Complaint Procedure 55 08 12

Representation

Ballot Markings 25 12 08

Campaigning See: OBJECTIONS TO 

ELECTION

Challenges See: CHALLENGES

Craft Severance 20 16 04; 25 04 16

Decertification 10 04 12

Eligibility 20 16 12 (See also: EMP 

CATEGORIES AND CLASSIFICATIONS)

Exclusion from Ballot 10 32 00

Mail Ballot 25 08 08; 25 12 08

Position on Ballot 10 12 00

Procedure 25 04 00

Prof Emps 25 04 04

Role of Observers 25 04 12

Refusal to Sign Consent 

Agreement

Rerun

10 12 00

25 16 00

168 6-30-77
ELECTIONS (cont.)

Representation (cont.)

Runoff 25 08 08

Self-Determination 25 08 08

Separate Voting Groups 25 04 00

Severance 20 16 04; 25 04 16

Tally 25 08 08

Tie Vote 25 16 00

Voter Intent 25 12 00

Voting Groups 25 04 00

Voting Procedures 25 04 04

ELIGIBILITY See also: CHALLENGES; 

AND EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES 

AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Seasonal Emps 20 16 12

EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES AND 

CLASSIFICATIONS

Attorney (Patent Attorney) 20 20 00 Mgt Off, Conf Emps

Attorney (Trial Attorneys) 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Auditor, GS-12 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Auditor, GS-31 (Senior) 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Chemist (Section Chief) 20 20 00 Supv

Clerk to Area Supervisor 20 20 00 Conf Emps

Clerical Eknployee 20 20 00 Conf Emps

6-30-77 169
Confidential Emps 

Deckhands 

Department Sups 

Director of Cadet Musical

20 20 00

20 20 00

20 20 00

Activities 20 20 00 Supv

Engineer, Civil (Section Chief) 20 20 00 Supv

Engineers, (Licensed Marine) 20 20 00 Supv

Equal Emplojnment 0pp./Assistants 20 20 00 Fed Pers Work

Equal Employment 0pp. Specialist 20 20 00 Fed Pers Work

Federal Protection Officer 20 20 00 Supv

Firefighters (Supervisory) 20 20 00 Supv

History and Government (Section Chief) 20 20 00 Supv

Information Systems Analyst 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Judge (immigration Judges) 20 20 00 M gt Off

Librarian 20 20 00 Supv

Librarian (Assistant) 20 20 00 Supv

Management Official 20 20 00

Management Analyst 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Management Analyst in Force 

Development Branch

Management Analysts in Analysis 

and Evaluation Division

Office Management Assistant

20 20 00 Mgt Off

20 20 00 Mgt Off 

20 20 00 Fed Pers Work

170 6-30-77
Oilers 20 20 00 Supv

Personnel Psychologist 20 20 00 Fed Pers Work

Program Analysts 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Property Mgt Specialist 20 20 00 Supv

Registrar 20 20 00 Supv

Seasonal Emps 20 20 00

Security Policemen (Supervisory) 20 20 00 Supv

Supervisors 20 20 00

Temporary Employees 20 20 00

Tugboat Mate and Relief Lockage 

Supervisor 20 20 00 Supv

Unit Supervisor 20 20 00 Supv

Vessel Traffic Controller 20 20 00 Supv

EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION See; LABOR ORGANIZATION

EMPLOYEE RIGHTS 35 08 00

EMPLOYEE STATUS: EFFECT ON ULP 30 24 00

EQUAL RIGHTS IN LAB ORG 55 12 04

ERRONEOUS ADVICE BY LMSA AGENTS 10 24 12

EVIDENCE

Adequacy of Record 15 28 00;; 20 04 16

A/S Documents at Hearings 05 12 04;; 30 12 00

A/S Pers as Witnesses 05 12 04

Burden of Proof See: BURDEN OF PROOF

Docvunents of A/S 05 12 04

6-30-77 171
Exclusion

Improper Acceptance

Limitations

Materiality

Post-Hearing Submission 

Record Sufficiency 

Rejection of Evidence 

Relevance of Evidence 

Reopening Record 

EXCLUSIONS FROM APPROPRIATE UNITS 

EXCLUSIONS FROM EO COVERAGE 

EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION, WAIVER OF 

EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION UNDER EO 10988 

EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE PETITIONER 

EO 10988, TRANSITIONAL PROBLEMS 

EO 11491, AND AS AMENDED 

Coverage

EVIDENCE (cont.)

Sec. K b ) 

2(b)

Emps Participation 

in Mgt of Lab Org

"Employee"

2(c) "Supervisor"

2(d) "Guard"

2(e) "Labor Organization:

2(e)(2) Status as Lab Org

3(b)(3) National Security

25 08 08; 15 12 00

30 12 00

15 12 00

15 12 00

15 24 00

20 04 16; 15 28 00

15 12 00; 15 24 00

15 12 00; 15 24 00

15 24 00

20 20 00

05 08 00

10 28 00

05 08 00

10 28 00

05 32 00

05 08 00

10 32 00; 35 08 04

20 20 00 Vista Volunteers, 

Commissioned Off. Corp, 

U.S. Public Health Service

30 24 00

20 04 16

05 04 00

40 20 00; 50 00 00 

05 08 00

172 6-30-77
Guards 20 20 0 0 ; 10 32 00

Heavy Mobile Equipment Mech 20 20 00 Supv

Industrial Engineer 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Loan Specialist (Realty) 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Management Analyst 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Medical Technologist 20 20 00 Prof Emps

Non-Professional Emps 20 20 00 Prof Emps

Operations Analysts 20 20 00 Conf Emps

Personnel Asst. 20 20 00 Conf Emps

Personnel Management Spec 20 20 00 Fed pers i

Physician 20 20 00 Prof Emps

Police 20 20 00 Guards

Production Controller 20 20 00 Supv

Prof Emps 05 04 00; 20 04 04;

20 20 00; 25 04 04

Psychologist 20 20 00 Prof Emps

Regional Analyst 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Registered Nurse 20 20 00 Prof Emps

Seasonal Emp 20 20 00 Temp Emp

Secretaries assigned to

Sector Mgr and Field Off. Chiefs 20 20 00 Conf Emps

Secretary 20 20 00 Conf Emps

Secretary to ALJ in Charge 20 20 00 Conf Emps

Secretary Training Cntr. Admin. 20 20 00 Conf Emps

Sr Management Analyst 20 20 00 Mgt Off

Sr Physicist 20 20 00 Mgt Off

6-30-77 173
Sec. 3(b)(4) Internal Agency Security

3(d) Unions of Lab Rel Pers.

10(b) Criteria for Appropriate

Unit

10 (b)(1) "Management Official", 

"Supervisor"

EO 11491, AND AS AMENDED (cont.)

10(b)(2)

10(b)(3)

Fed Pers Work 

Guards

10(b)(4 ) Prof Emps

10(c) Non-Guard Union

11(a) Negotiability

11(b) Negotiability

11(c)(4) Negotiability

11(d) Negotiability

13(a) Grievance Procedures

13(b) Arbitration

13(d) Question on Grievability

or Arbitrability

19(a)(1) Interference by Agency

19(a)(2) Discrimination by Agency

19(a)(3) Improper Assistance

19(a)(4) Discrimination for m 

Complaint, Testimony

19(a)(5) Refusal to Grant 

Recognition

20 04 00 to 20 20 00 

20 20 00

20 20 00; 05 08 00

10 32 00; 20 20 00; 

20 16 04

20 04 04; 20 20 00;

25 04 04; 25 12 08

10 32 00; 20 16 04

35 28 00

05 08 00; 15 12 00

10 32 00

35 28 00 

35 28 00

05 08 00; 35 28 08 

60 08 00 

60 12 00

60 16 00

35 04 04; 35 08 00 

35 12 00 ’

35 16 00

j * . I . . i

35 20 00

35 24 00

174 6-30-77
Sec. 19(a)(6) Agency Refusal to Confer,

Consult, Negotiate 35 28 00

19(b)(1) Interference by Lab Org 40 08 00

19(b)(4) Strike 40 20 00

19(b)(6) Union Refusal to Confer,

Consult, Negotiate 40 28 00

19(d) Grievance or Appeals

Procedure 35 32 00

20 Use of Official Time 30 04 00; 35 28 00

24(2) Units of Management Officials or Supervisors 10 32 00

25(a) CSC Responsibilities 10 32 00

EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES, STANDARDS OF

CONDUCT 55 08 08

EXTENT OF ORGANIZATION 20 04 04

- F -

FAILURE TO COOPERATE 15 20 00; 30 12 28

FAILURE TO SERVE DOCUMENTS 05 28 00

FED PERS WOR K 05 08 00

FIXED TERM AGREEMENT 10 24 12

FORMAL HEARINGS See: HEARINGS

FRAGMENTATION OF UNIT 20 04 08; 20 04 12 

FREE SPEECH

Representation Election 25 08 16 

Lab Org Members 55 12 08

- G -

EO 11491, AND AS AMENDED (cont.)

GOOD FAITH 35 28 00

6-30-77 175
GRIEVABILITY AND ARBITRABILITY

General 64 04 00

GRIEVANCES

Effect on ULP 30 28 00

Unilateral Adjustment 35 08 04; 35 28 00

GUARDS 20

20

04

20

16;

00 ;

20

10

16

32

04;

00

Mgt of Non-Guard Lab Org 10 32 00

Qualifications of Lab Org 

to Represent 10 32 00

- H -

HANDBILLING See; CAMPAIGN LITEl

HEAD OF AGENCY AUTHORITY TO 

EXCLUDE EMPS FROM EO 05 08 00

HE (ALJ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

AND EXCEPTIONS

Credibility Resolutions 30 16 00

Objections 25 08 08

ULP 30 16 00

HEARINGS

Acceptance into Evidence 30 16 00

Adequacy of Record 15 28 00; 20 04 16

Admissibility of Evidence 05 12 08

A/S Documents at Hearings 05 12 04

A/S Pers as Witnesses 05 12 04

Authority of HO 15 04 00

Bar to Petition 10 24 00

Burden of Proof

176

See: BURDEN OF PROOF 

6-30-77
HEARINGS (cont,)

Collateral Issues

Continuance of Hearing

Cooperation of Parties

Cross Examination, Failure 

to Allow

Documents

Documents, LMSA

Evidence

Exclusion of Testimony 

Failure to Cooperate 

HE (ALJ) Report, No Exceptions 

Inadequate Record

Location t t a

Materiality

Motions

Non-Cooperation of Parties 

Official Time to Attend

Post-Hearing Submissions 

Postponement Motion 

Record Sufficiency

Refusal to Furnish Information to HO 

Rejection of Evidence 

Relevance of Evidence 

Remand

Reopening of Record 

6-30-77

«I'

15 04 00 

15 20 0 0

■' I : ■' *

15 12 00 ■ ■' l.'S

15 12 00 

15 12 04 

See; EVIDENCE,

r- ■

25 08 08 , 

15 20 00; 30 12 29 

30 16 00 

15 28 00; 20 04 16 I’’:-.

15 08 04 ' ? :■ 'V _

15 12 00 

15 08 00 ^ H 

15 20 00; 30 12 28 

05 08 00; 15 20 00; 

35 08 04; 35 28 00 

15 24 00 - 

15 08 04 

15 24 00; 20 04 16 

15 20 00

I ’■ - <.

10 16 00

15 12 06

15 12 00 

15 28 00 

15 24 00

"a

177
Request for LMSA Pers as Witnesses

Role of HO

Rulings of ALJs

Showing of Interest Challenge

Stipulated Record

Stipulations

Submissions after Hearing

Supplemental Briefs

Testimony Exclusion

Time Allowed for Filing 

Supplemental Briefs

Transcript Correction

Witnesses

LMSA Staff

Official Time

Written Opening Statement 

HISTORY OF BARGAINING

HEARINGS (cont.)

Request for LMSA Documents

INADEQUATE SHOWING OF INTEREST 

INAPPROPRIATE UNIT 

INCUMBENT LAB ORG PETITIONER 

INSTRUCTORS, STATUS AND RIGHTS 

INSUFFICIENT RECORD

05 12 04

05 12 04

15 04 00

30 12 04

10 16 00

30 20 00

20 04 16

15 24 00

15 24 00

25 08 08

15 24 00

15 24 00

15 12 00

05 12 04

05 08 00

35 08 04

15 12 00

10 24 12

15 20 00;

See: SHOWING OF INTEREST 

20 04 00 to 20 20 00 

10 28 00

30 24 00

15 28 00; 20 04 16

178 6-30-77
INSURANCE AS CAMPAIGN BENEFIT

INTEREST, SHOWING OF

INTERFERENCE WITH EMPS RIGHTS

INTERNAL SECURITY OF AGENCY

INTERVENOR

INTERVENTION

Challenge to

Showing of Interest 

Status as Lab Org 

Dismissal 

Incumbent Lab Org 

Intervenor

Notification to Potential 

Intervenors

Opportunity to Withdraw 

Post-Decisional Intervention 

Showing of Interest 

Timeliness 

INVESTIGATION, ULP COMPLAINTS 

JOB CLASSIFICATIONS

JURISDICTION OF A/S

INSULATED PERIOD

25 08 20; 25 08 24 

10 16 00; 20 16 08 

35 08 00; 25 08 00 

05 08 00; 15 12 00 

See: INTERVENTION

10 24 12

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 CATEGORIES AND 

CLASSIFICATIONS

55 08 04; 05 08 00

6-30-77 179
- L -

IMSA

Agents

As Witnesses 

Erroneous Advice 

Documents at Hearing 

LABOR ORGANIZATION 

Bill of Rights 

Challenge to Status 

Definition

Incumbent Lab Org Petitioner 

Intervenor

L e g i s U t i v e - Executive Branch 

Representation

Management of

Meetings

. Officer Elections

Paid Employee-Members I

Qualifications to Represent 

Specified Categories of Emps

Remedial Orders Against

Sec. 19(b)(1)

19(b)(4)

19(b)(6)

Standards of Conduct

05 12 04 

10 24 12 

05 12 04

See: BILL OF RIGHTS 

10 20 00 

05 04 00 

10 28 00

See: INTERVENTION

05 08 00

10 32 00

55 12 04

See: ELECTIONS

55 12 04; 55 12 08

10 32 00

40 08 00 

40 20 00 

40 28 00

05 08 00; 05 20 OOj 

10 20 00; 55 00 00

ISO 6-30-77
LABOR ORGANIZATION (cont.)

Status as 

ULP

LEGISLATIVE - EXECUTIVE BRANCH 

LAB ORG

LITERATURE

- M -

m g t o f f

Conflict of Interest 

MARKINGS ON BALLOT 

MEMBERSHIP IN A LAB ORG, DENIAL OF 

MEMBERSHIP PINS, BUTTONS 

MERGER AT ACTIVITY

MISREPRESENTATION IN CAMPAIGN

MOONLIGHTERS

MOOTNESS

Standards of Conduct 

ULP 

MOTIONS

Amendment of Petition 

Dismissal of Petition

For Witnesses and/or Production 

of Documents

Post-Hearing Submissions

35 00 00; 40 00 00 

05 08 00

See; CAMPAIGN LITERATURE

10 20 GO

05 04 00 

10 32 00 

25 12 08 

40 32 00 

35 08 04

10 04 08; 10 04 20;

20 16 08

25 08 20

20 20 00 Off-Duty Mil Emps 

55 08 08

30 28 00; 35 20 00

15 08 08 

15 12 00

15 12 00 

15 24 00

6-30-77

181
MOTIONS (cont.)

Postponement of Hearing 15 08 04

Reopening of Record 15 24 00

Rep Cases, General 15 08 04

ULP 30 12 00

- N -

NATIONAL GUARD, EO COVERAGE 05 08 00

NLRB DECISIONS, ROLE OF 05 24 00

NATIONAL SECURITY EMPS 05 08 00

NEGOTIABILITY 35 28 00

NEGOTIATIONS 35 28 00

N E W SHOWING OF INTEREST, 

POST-DECISIONAL 20 24 08

90-60 DAY "OPEN" PERIOD 10 24 12

NO-DISTRIBUTION RULE 35 08 08

NO-SOLICITATION RULE 35 08 12

NON-ACCESS TO WORK AREAS BY NON-EMPS 25 08 16; 35 08 04

NON-COOPERATION OF PARTIES 15 20 0 0 ; 30 12 28

NONWORK AREA CAMPAIGNING 35 08 08; 35 08 12

NONWORK TIME CAMPAIGNING 35 08 08; 35 08 12

NOTICES

Compliance with ULP Decision and 

Order 45 00 0 0 ; 50 00 00

Mailing of ULP Notice 50 00 00

Notice of Petition 10 08 00

182 6-30-77
NOTICES (cont.)

Post-Hearing Notice of Unit 

Determination

ULP

NOTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE

n o t i f i c a t i o n t o POTENTIAL INTERVENORS

NURSES

- 0 -

OBJECTIONS TO REP ELECTION

Access to Employees 

Activity Facilities 

Activity Interference 

Agency Rules on Campaigning 

Anti-Union Literature 

Burden of Proof

C a m p a i g n M i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

Challenges, D i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m

Conduct of Election

Electioneering

Free Speech

HE (ALJ) Report

Impact on Election

Lack of Specificity

Mail Facilities of Activity

45 GO GO; 5G 00 00 

10 08 GO 

45 00 00; 50 00 00 

20 16 04

20 24 04

25 08 GO (see also : UNFAIR 

LABOR PRACTICES)

25 08 16

25 08 16

25 08 16; 25 08 28 

25 08 16

35 08 04; 35 08 08 

25 08 08 

25 08 20 

25 12 12 

25 08 28 

20 16 04 

25 08 16

25 08 08; 25 08 16

25 08 12 to 25 08 20;

25 08 08; 25 08 24

25 08 08

20 12 GO

6-30-77

183
OBJECTIONS TO REP ELECTION (cont.)

Non-Employee Access to Activity i :

Premises 25 08 16

Non-Intervening Union 25 08 16

Procedure 25 08 08

Promises of Benefit 25 08 24

Report on Objections, HE (ALJ) 25 08 08; 25 08 16

Runoff Election 25 08 08

Service 05 28 00

Side Agreements 25 08 08

Timeliness 25 08 08

Timing of Objectionable Conduct 25 08 12

OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES

Availability of Witnesses 15 20 00; 30 08 00;

35 08 04; 35 12 00

Bargaining See: NEGOTIATIONS

Burden of Proof See: BURDEN OF PROOF

Cooperation in Proceedings 15 20 00

Furnishing Information 30 08 00

Official Time for Witnesses 15 20 00; 

35 12 00

35 08 04;

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH NURSE 25 04 04} 25 12 08

OFF-DUTY HOURS NEGOTIATIONS 35 28 00

OFF-DUTY MIL EMPS 20 04 16; 20 20 00

OFFICIAL TIME FOR WITNESSES 05 36 00; 15 20 00;

35 08 04; 35 12 00

"OPEN PERIOD" 10 24 12

184 6-30-77
OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW PETITION 20 16 12

- “

PERS WORK, FED 05 08 00

PETITIONER, STATUS OF 10 28 00 •

PETITIONS

AC; Amendment, Recognition

or Certification 10 04 20 

Agency Doubt of Representative's

Status (RA) 10 04 08

Amendment 15 08 08

Clarification of Unit (CU) 10 04 16

Decertification (DR) 10 04 12

Dismissal 15 20 00; 20 16 08;

10 16 00; 10 24 00 to 

10 36 00

DR: Decertification 10 04 12

Opportunity to Withdraw 20 24 12

Petitioner w i t h Exclusive 

Recognition

RA: Agency Doubt of Representative's Status 10 08

Service 05 28 00

POSITION ON BALLOT 10 12 00 

POST-DECISIONAL

Intervention 20 24 04

Notices 20 24 04

"OPEN SEASON" 10 24 12

10 28 00

6-30-77 185
Showing of Interest 

Withdrawal 

POST-HEARING 

Rep Cases 

ULP 

POSTING

PRE-COMPLAINT REQUIREMENTS 

Standards of Conduct 

ULP

PREMATURE EXTENSIONS OF AGREEMENT

PREREQUISITES

PRINCIPAL-AGENT

PRIVATE SECTOR LAW, ROLE OF

PROCEDURE

POST-DECISIONAL (cont.)

PROF EMPS

PROMISES OF BENEFIT 

PROPAGANDA

QUALIFICATIONS OF LAB ORG TO 

REPRESENT SPECIFIED CATEGORIES 

OF EMPS

QUESTIONS CONCERNING BALLOT

RA PETITION

- R -

20 24 08 

20 24 12 

15 24 00 

15 24 00 

30 16 00 

See; NOTICES

55 08 08

30 04 00; 30 08 00 

10 24 12

See; REQUIREMENTS FOR 

35 08 08 

05 24 00

See Specific Captions Such 

As; ELECTIONS; OBJECTIONS; 

REP CASES; ULP; STANDARDS 

OF CONDUCT

05 04 00; 25 04 04

25 08 24

25 08 12 to 25 08 20;

35 08 08; 25 08 24

10 32 00 

25 12 08

10 04 08

186 6-30-77
RECORD See s HEARINGS 

REFUSAL TO

Bargain 35 28 GO

Cooperate 15 20 00; 30 08 00

Sign Consent Agreement 10 12 00 

REGULATIONS

Agency Regulations Not

Binding on A/S 20 04 16 

REGULATIONS OF A/S

Sec. 202.2(f) Showing of Interest 10 16 00

202.2(g) Status of Lab Org 10 20 00

202.3(b) Certification Bar 10 24 08

202.3(c) Timeliness of

Petition 10 24 00

202.3(d) Insulated Period

Following Withdrawal,

Dismissal 10 24 12

202.3(e) Premature Contract

Extension 10 24 12

202.4(b) Notice of Petition 10 08 00

(g) Response to Petition 15 08 04; 15 16 00

202.5 I n t e r v e n t i o n 20 24 04; 10 12 00

202.6(d) Request for Review

Service 05 28 00

202.7(c) Position on Ballot 10 12 00

202.12(k) Continuance of Hearing 15 04 00

202.20(a) Objections: Filing 25 08 08

Service 05 28 00

6-30-77

187
REGULATIONS OF A/S (cont.)

Sec. 202.20(d) 

203.2 

203.3(e) 

203.26

Objections: Burden 

of Proof

Requirements for 

Charge

Report of Investigation

Compliance with A/S 

Order

204.2(a)(1) Equal Rights

204.2(a)(2) Free Speech and 

Assembly

204.2(a)(5) Disciplinary Action 

204.29 Election of Officers

204.58

204.63

Dismissal of 

Standards Complaint

Complaints, Election 

of Officers

205.5(a)

REJECTION OF EVIDENCE 

RELATED CASES, CONCURRENT 

RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE 

REMAND

REMEDY: ULP

Against Agencies 

Against Lab Org 

REORGANIZATION OF ACTIVITY

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION, ULP

Stipulated Record

25 08 08

30 04 00; 30 28 00

30 08 00

45 04 00 

55 12 04

55 12 08 

55 08 08 

55 08 12

55 08 08

55 08 12 

30 20 00 

15 12 00 

05 20 00 

15 12 00 

15 28 00

45 00 00; 45 04 00 

45 08 00

10 04 08; 10 04 20; 

20 16 28

30 08 00

188

6-30-77
REPRESENTATION CASES

AC Petition 

Accretion

Activity Refusal to Respond to 

Petition

Agency Petition (RA)

Agency Regulations Not Binding 

on A/S

Agreement Bar 

Amendment

Certification 

Petition 

Recognition 

Appropriate Unit 

A A ' 8 Action 

Burden of Proof 

Certification

Amendment s

Bar 

Challenges

Clarification of Unit (CU) 

Community of Interest 

Concurrent Related Cases 

CU Petition

10 00 00 to 25 00 00 

See also Specific Topics 

Such A s : APPROPRIATE 

UNIT; ELECTIONS; HEARINGS; 

OBJECTIONS TO ELECTIONS; 

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: APPROPRIATE UNIT

10 40 00

15 12 00

25 16 00

10 04 20

10 24 08

See: CHALLENGES 

25 20 00; 10 04 16 

20 04 04 

05 20 00 

10 04 16

6-30-77 189
V

Current Representative

Status of Petitioner 10 28 00

Decertification 10 04 12

DR Petition 10 04 12

Effective Dealings 20 04 08

Efficiency of Operations 20 04 12

Election Bar to Petition 10 24 04

Eligibility 20 16 12; 20 20 00;

25 12 00

Evidence 15 12 00

Hearing Officer Role 15 04 00

Intervention 20 24 04; 20 24 08;

10 12 00

Lab Org Status 10 20 00

Motions 15 08 00 

Notice of

Petition 20 24 04; 10 08 00

Unit Determination 20 24 04

Objections See: OBJECTIONS

Obligations of Parties 15 20 00

Opportunity to Withdraw 20 24 12

Petitions, Inconsistent 10 44 00

Petitions, Types 10 04 00

Policy on Consent Agreements 10 40 00; 15 28 00

Post-Hearing Submissions 15 24 00

REPRESENTATION CASES (cont.)

190 6-30-77
Posting, Notice of

Petition 10 08 00; 20 24 04

Unit Determination 20 24 04 

Procedure

Elections 25 00 00

Hearings 15 00 00

Post-Election 25 00 00

Preliminary Stages 10 00 00 

Qualifications to Represent

Specified Categories of Employees 10 32 00

R A Petition 10 04 08

Remand 15 28 00

Request for Review Rights 10 36 00

Residual Employees 20 16 16

Self-Determination 20 16 20; 25 04 08

Service of Documents 05 28 00

Severance 20 16 04

Showing of Interest 10 16 00; 20 24 08

Standards of Conduct 05 20 00; 10 20 00 

Stipulations of Parties Not

Binding on A/S 20 04 16 

Timeliness 24 00

ULP Allegations 15 16 00

Unit Determinations 20 00 00 

Voting Procedures 25 04 00

REPRESENTATION CASES (cont.)

6-30-77
REQUEST FOR

Appearance of Witnesses 15 20 00

Documents 15 12 00

LMSA Documents 05 12 04

LMSA Pers as Witnesses 05 12 04

Witnesses 05 12 00

REQUEST FOR REVIEW

N e w Evidence 30 08 00

Objections to Election 25 08 08

Refusal to Dismiss Petition 10 36 00

Service of 05 28 00

Showing of Interest 10 16 00

Status as Lab Org 10 20 00

REQUIREMENTS FOR

Charge 30 04 00

Complaint 30 04 00

Consent Agreement 10 40 00

Intervention 10 12 00

Petition 10 24 00;

15 08 08;

Unit Determination Hearings 10 40 00

RERUN ELECTION 25 16 00

RESIDUAL UNIT 20 16 16

RESPONSE TO PETITION 15 08 04

REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATION 25 16 00

192 6-30-77
Agency Head; Exclusion of Emps, 

EO Coverage

A/S

CSC Guidance 

HO

NLRB Decisions 

RUNOFF ELECTION

ROLE OF

Agency Directives, ULP

05 08 00 

05 08 00

35 04 04 

15 04 00 

05 24 00 

25 08 08

35 04 04

- S -

SECTIONS

EO

Regulations 

SECURITY EMPS

SELF-DETERMINATION ELECTION 

Unit Determination 

Voting Procedure 

SEPARATE VOTING 

SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS 

SEVERANCE 

SHAM STIPULATION

SHOWING OF INTEREST 

Adequacy

C'D

Agency Mgt, Involvement In

See: EXECUTIVE ORDER 

11491, AND AS AMENDED

See: REGULATIONS OF A/S

05 08 00

20 16 20

25 04 08 

25 04 00

05 28 00; 25 08 08

;i 20 16 04

20 04 16; 25 12 04;

25 16 00

10 16 00; 20 24 08

10 16 00

6-30-77 193
Agreement Bar, Unilateral Waiver of 

Challenge at Hearing

SHOWING OF INTEREST (cont.)

Bill of Rights 

Elections

Equal Rights

Free Speech and Assembly 

Jurisdiction of A/S

10 16 00

10 16 00

Challenge to Intervenor 10 16 00; 20 24 08

Challenge to Petitioner 10 16 00

Inadequate for Larger Unit

Found Appropriate 20 24 08

Post-Decisional 20 24 08

Request for Review 10 16 00

Seasonal Industries 10 16 00; 20 24 08

Validity 10 16 00

SICK-OUT 40 20 00; 50 00 00

SIDE AGREEMENTS

Elections 25 08 08

Negotiations 35 28 00

SINGLE EMPLOYEE UNIT 05 04 00

SOLICITATION OF MEMBERS 35 08 04; 35 08 12

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT 05 08 00; 05 20 00

10 20 00; 55 00 00

See Also Specific Captions 

Such As: BILL OF RIGHTS; 

LAB ORG ELECTIONS; FREE 

SPEECH

55 08 08; 55 12 00

55 08 12; See Also: 

ELECTIONS; LAB ORG OFFICERS

55 12 04

55 12 08

55 08 04

194 6-30-77
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT (cont.) 

Procedure 

Rep Cases 

STATEMENT OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS 

STATUS AS LAB ORG 

STIPULATED RECORD 

STIPULATIONS

Of Parties Not Binding on A/S

Related to Challenges

Sham

STRIKE

SUBMISSIONS AFTER HEARING 

SUPERVISORS 

SUPERVISORS' UNIT 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

05 20 00; 10 20 00 

05 28 00 

10 20 00 

30 20 00

30 20 00; 15 24 00 

20 04 16 

25 12 04

20 04 16; 25 12 04; 

25 16 00

40 20 00

15 24 00

05 04 00

10 32 00

15 24 00

55 08 00

- T -

TALLY OF BALLOTS

TELETYPISTS

TEMPORARY EMPS

TERMINAL DATE OF AGREEMENT

TESTIMONY

TIE VOTE ELECTION

TIMELINESS

Allegation of ULP Complaint

Deficiency

25 08 08 

20 20 00

20 04 16 

10 24 12 

See; EVIDENCE 

25 16 00

30 08 00

6-30-77 195
Complaint

Standards of Conduct 

ULP

Correction of Transcript 

Intervention

Motion to Dismiss ULP Complaint 

N e w Evidence in Request for Review 

Objections to Rep Election 

Petition

Showing of Interest 

Withdrawal 

TRADE UNION 

TRANSCRIPT

TRANSITIONAL PROBLEMS

TIMELINESS (cont.)

- U -

UNDERMINING REPRESENTATIVE 

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Agency

Access to Agency Facilities 

by Non-Intervenor

Directives

ULP

55 08 08 

30 08 00 

15 24 00

20 24 04; 10 12 00 

30 04 00; 30 08 00 

30 08 00 

25 08 08 

10 24 00 <

20 24 08; 10 12 00

20 24 12 

See: LAB ORG 

S e e ; HEARING

05 32 00

zA. .

35 28 00

30.00 00 to 45 00 00;

See Also Specific Topics 

Such As; COMPLAINT, ULP; 

EVIDENCE; HEARINGS; 

OBJECTIONS TO ELECTIONS

35..08 12 i

35 04 04

35 00 00

L96 6-30-77
Agreement

Extension 35 08 04

Negotiation 35 08 04

Refusal to Sign 35 28 00

Amendment of Complaint 30 12 00; 30 16 00

Anti-Union Literature 35 08 04; 35 08 08

^ p r o p r i a t e Unit 35 28 00 

Arbitration

Award 30 28 00

Cancellation 35 08 04; 35 24 00;

35 28 00

Effect of 30 28 00

Assistant to Union 35 16 00

Authority of Negotiator 35 24 00; 35 28 00

Bargaining Request 35 28 00

Burden of Proof 30 08 00; 35 12 00

By-Passing Exclusive Representative 35 28 00

Cease and Desist Orders 45 00 00; 50 00 00

Charge 30 04 00

Checkoff Revocation 35 24 00; 35 28 00;

45 04 00

CSC Guidance 35 04 04

Complainant's Obligations 30 04 00; 30 08 00;

30 12 00

Complaint 30 04 00; 30 16 00;

See Also: COMPLAINT

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (cont.)

6-30-77 197
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (cont.) 

Compliance 

Counterproposals

Credibility Resolutions by HE ( A U ) 

CSC Guidance 

Dilatory Negotiations 

Discriminatory Treatment 

Dismissal of Complaint 

Disparate Treatment 

Distribution of Literature 

Dues Allotments Revocation

Effect of Other Proceedings 

Emergency Action 

Employee Status, Effect on ULP 

Evidence

Good Faith Negotiations 

Grievance

Grievance or ^ p e a l s Procedure 

Grievance, Unilateral Adjustment 

"Ground Rules" in Negotiations 

HE (ALJ) Report, No Exceptions 

Hearings

Interference

Agency

45 GO GO 

35 28 GG 

3G 16 GO 

35 04 04 

35 28 GO 

35 08 04 

30 08 00 

35 08 04 

35 08 08

35 24 GO; 35 28 00; 

45 16 GO

05 20 GO; 30 28 GO

35 28 GO

30 24 00

See: EVIDENCE

35 28 00

35 28 GO

35 32 GO

35 08 04; 35 28 GO 

35 28 GO 

30 16 00

30 12 GO; See Also: 

HEARINGS

35 08 00

198 6-30-77
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (cont.)

Interference (cont.)

Union 40 08 00

Interpretation of Agreement 30 28 00

Investigation and Report 30 08 00

Lab Org ULP 40 00 00

Limited to Complaint Allegations 30 12 00

"Make Whole" Order 35 20 00

Mootness 30 28 00; 35 20 00

Motions 30 12 00

Negotiability 35 28 00

Negotiations 35 28 00

Ground Rules 35 28 00

Side Agreements 35 28 00

No-Distribution Rule 35 08 08

No-Solicitation Rule 35 08 12

Non-Access to Work Areas 35 08 04

Nonwork Area Campaigning 35 08 08; 35 08 12

Nonwork Time Campaigning 35 08 08; 35 08 12

Notification of Compliance 45 00 00; 50 00 00

Obligation to Consult, Confer 

or Negotiate 35 28 00

Post-Hearing Procedure 30 16 00

Procedure

Hearing 30

30

16

12

00;

00

30 20 00;

6-30-77 199
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (cont.)

Procedure (cont.)

Investigation 30 08 00

Recognition, Failure to Accord 35 08 04; 35 28 00

Refusal to Confer, Consult, 

Negotiate

Agency 35 28 00

Union 40 28 00

Refusal to Sign Agreement 35 28 00

Related Proceedings 05 20 00; 30 28 00

Remedial Orders 45 00 0 0; 50 00 00

Report of Investigation 30 08 00

Request for Bargaining 35 28 00

Requisites for Charges and

Complaints 30 04 00

Responsibility for Acts of

200

Individual 35 08 08

Revocation of Checkoff 35 24 00; 

45 04 00

35 28 00;

Sections of EO See: EO 

AMENDED

11491, AND AS

Solicitation for Membership 35 08 12

Stipulated Record -•30 08 00

Strike 40 20 00

"Successorship" Doctrine - 35 .,24 ,00; 20 16 36

Terminating Agreement 35 28 00 , . ' ■' ■. ,

Undermining Exclusive 

Representative 35 28 00

-

6-30-77
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (cont.)

Unilateral Action 35 08 04; 35 28 00

Union ULP 40 00 00

Unit Appropriateness 35 28 00

Waiver of EO Rights 35 04 08

Work Stoppage 40 20 00

UNILATERAL ACTION 35 28 00

UNION See: LAB ORG

UNIT See: APPROPRIATE UNIT

- V-Z -

VALIDITY OF SHOWING OF INTEREST 10 16 00

VOTER 20 16 12

Eligibility 20 20 00

Intent 25 12 08

Prof Emps 25 04 04

Self-Determination 25 04 08

VOTING GROUPS 25 04 00

WAIVER OF

Agreement Bar Rule 10 24 12

Challenge to Intervention 25 08 08

EO Rights 35 04 08

Exclusive Recognition 10 28 00

WITHDRAWAL OPPORTUNITY 20 16 12

6-30-77 201
WITNESSES

LMSA Pers

Obligations of Parties

Official Time 

Request for Appearance 

Testimony 

WOR K AREA CAMPAIGNING 

W O R K STOPPAGE

15 12 00

05 12 04

15 20 00; 30 08 00;

35 08 04; 35 28 00

05 08 00; 35 08 04

15 20 00; 35 08 04

15 20 00

35 08 08; 35 08 12

40 24 00

202 6-30-77

* U S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-250-171:6693