Source: http://www.flra.gov/decisions/v44/44-011.html
Timestamp: 2015-03-03 00:51:45
Document Index: 172082630

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2423', '§ 7118', '§ 7118', '§ 752', '§ 7513', '§ 752', '§ 7513', '§ 7513']

44:0117(11)CA - - HQ, Air Force, Washington, DC and 375th Combat Support Group, Scott AFB, IL and NAGE Local R7-23 - - 1992 FLRAdec CA - - v44 p117 | FLRA.GOV
Authority Chairman and Members Find Types of Cases, Biographical Data, and Contact Information.Office of the General Counsel Regional Offices, Guidances, Policies, Manuals, ULP Process, Forms, Representation, ADR Services, and Training.Federal Service Impasses Panel Find Jurisdiction, Statute, Work Schedules Act, Biographical Data, and Contact Information.Solicitor, Administrative Law Judges, IG & Others Find General Information about these Offices and Contact Information.training & alternative dispute resolutionFind FLRA Training Information and ADR Services. 44:0117(11)CA - - HQ, Air Force, Washington, DC and 375th Combat Support Group, Scott AFB, IL and NAGE Local R7-23 - - 1992 FLRAdec CA - - v44 p117 Other Files: ALJ's Decision [ v44 p117 ] 44:0117(11)CA
The decision of the Authority follows: 44 FLRA No. 11 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D.C. AND 375TH COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS (Respondents) and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R7-23, AFL-CIO, SEIU (Charging Party/Union) 75-CA-10048 DECISION AND ORDER February 27, 1992 Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.(1) I. Statement of the Case This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions
Judge. The Respondent filed an opposition to the exceptions. The complaint alleges that Respondent Headquarters, U.S. Air Force (HQ
USAF) violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by directing Respondent 375th
Combat Support Group, Scott Air Force Base (Scott AFB) to issue notices of
proposed furlough to employees. The complaint further alleges that Respondent
Scott AFB violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by issuing the
notices of proposed furlough without providing the Union with adequate notice
and an opportunity to negotiate over the impact and implementation of the
notices. The Judge concluded that the portions of the complaint alleging that
Respondent HQ USAF violated the Statute were barred by section 7118(a)(4) of
the Statute and dismissed them. The Judge further concluded that Respondent
Scott AFB did not violate the Statute by issuing the notices of proposed
furlough to bargaining unit employees because the notices did not effect a
change in conditions of employment. Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
at hearing and find that no prejudicial error was committed. We affirm the
rulings. We find, however, contrary to the Judge, that Respondent HQ USAF
violated the Statute, as alleged in the complaint. We further find, for reasons
which differ from those of the Judge, that Respondent Scott AFB did not violate
the Statute. II. Background The Union is the exclusive representative of two bargaining units of
employees assigned to Respondent Scott AFB. Respondent Scott AFB is a
subordinate level activity of Respondent HQ USAF. On August 20, 1990, the Office of Management and Budget issued a report
indicating that the President would be required under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, to issue
an initial sequestration order to withhold funds beginning October 1, 1990.
Following the issuance of the report, Respondent HQ USAF "was hoping that a
budget resolution could be reached or at least that a continuing resolution
could be reached." Respondents' Post-Hearing Brief at 5. Respondent HQ USAF
"was also reviewing other sources for the anticipated budget sequester."
Id. When the President vetoed the Congressional Budget Act on September 14,
1990, Respondent HQ USAF "decided that resolution was not likely and that
notices of proposed furlough were necessary." Id. at 5. Accordingly, on
September 14, Respondent HQ USAF directed all subordinate Air Force units to
issue notices of proposed furlough to all appropriated fund civilian employees
in the Air Force by September 18, 1990. Also on September 14, Respondent Scott
AFB informed the acting Union President that management would issue notices of
proposed furlough to unit employees on Monday September 17, 1990. The acting
Union President informed Respondent Scott AFB that "the Union did not concur
with the issuance of the notices." Judge's Decision at 3. On September 17, Respondent Scott AFB delivered a sample copy of the
notice to the acting Union President. The Union President, who had returned
from leave, informed Respondent Scott AFB that "the Union did not concur with
the issuance of the notices." Id. Respondent Scott AFB distributed the
notices of proposed furlough to approximately 3500 Scott AFB employees on
September 18, 1990. The furlough mentioned in the notice of proposed furlough
did not occur. On October 16, 1990, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge
alleging that Respondent Scott AFB violated the Statute by issuing furlough
letters to unit employees "over the objections of the union and without notice
to or negotiations with the union." G.C.'s Exh. 1(a). On March 15, 1991, the
Union filed an amended unfair labor practice charge alleging that Respondents
HQ USAF and Scott AFB violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute when
"on or about September 17 and 18, 1990, the Employer issued notices of proposed
furloughs to unit employees without providing the union with prior notice or
opportunity to bargain." G.C. Exh. 1(c). The General Counsel issued a complaint
alleging that: (1) Respondent HQ USAF violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
Scott AFB and the Union; and (2) Respondent Scott AFB violated section
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by issuing the notices of proposed furlough
without providing the Union with adequate notice and an opportunity to
negotiate over the impact and implementation of the notices. Respondent HQ USAF filed a motion with the Administrative Law Judge
pursuant to §2423.22 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations requesting
that the complaint against it be dismissed on the grounds that (1) the amended
charge against it was untimely filed; and (2) it was not properly served with a
copy of the amended charge. III. Administrative Law Judge's Decision A. Motion to Dismiss At the opening of the hearing, the Judge granted Respondent HQ USAF's
motion to dismiss the complaint as to it. The Judge found that the amended
charge against Respondent HQ USAF was barred by section 7118(a)(4) because it
was filed more than 6 months after the alleged unfair labor practice occurred.
In the Judge's view, "any action that was taken by Headquarters which may have
constituted an unfair labor practice occurred on September 14, 1990[.]"
Transcript at 8-9. The Judge also found that the amended charge did not put
Respondent HQ USAF on notice that it might be required to defend itself against
an allegation that it committed an independent unfair labor practice. The Judge
issued an order dismissing the complaint as to Respondent HQ USAF. B. Merits The Judge concluded that Respondent Scott AFB did not violate section
to bargaining unit employees because, in the Judge's view, the issuance of the
notices did not change unit employees' "conditions of employment," as defined
in section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute. The Judge noted the General Counsel's contention that the issuance of
the notices of proposed furlough to unit employees changed their working
conditions by placing them in a status in which they were subject to being
furloughed within 30 days if a decision was later made to implement a furlough.
The Judge stated that "there [was] no question but that the change of an
employee's status from working and being paid to not working and not being paid
[was] a change in conditions of employment, whatever the mechanism for the
change." Judge's Decision at 4-5. However, in the Judge's view, the issue in
this case was "whether a contemplated change in a condition of employment was
or was not actually 'implemented.'" Id. at 5. The Judge noted that, in Department of the Air Force, Scott Air
Force Base, Illinois, 35 FLRA 844 (1990) (Member Armendariz dissenting)
(Scott AFB), the Authority rejected the agency's contention that the
issuance of RIF notices to unit employees did not constitute implementation of
the RIF. The Judge also noted that in Scott AFB, the Authority held that
the issuance of RIf notices changed conditions of employment because "the
issuance of specific RIF notices identifies particular employees who will be
affected by the RIF, subjects those employees to changes in pay status due to
lack of work or funds, and requires employees to make decisions which affect
significantly their employment in an agency[.]" Judge's Decision at 6 (quoting
Scott AFB, 35 FLRA at 854). However, according to the Judge, this case
was distinguishable from Scott AFB because: [t]he employees who received the notice of proposed furlough in the
instant case had not by then been subject to a determination that their
positions would be affected by a furlough in the event a furlough occurred.
Their receipt of the notice did not subject them to any change in pay status
during the notice period. Id. (footnote omitted). In the Judge's view, the notice
"naturally caused [employees] concern and made it advisable [for them] to plan
for such eventuality," but did not require them "'to make decisions which
affect[ed] significantly their employment' in the sense in which the Authority
used this phrase in [Scott AFB]." Id. Therefore, the Judge found
that the issuance of the notices of proposed furlough to the employees did not
constitute a change in their conditions of employment. The Judge also considered, and rejected, the General Counsel's
contentions that the Union was entitled to an opportunity to bargain over the
content of the furlough notice and the amount of official time available to
employees to prepare a response to the notice. The Judge determined that the
content of the notice was negotiable and that "a union may, in anticipation of
the possibility of a future RIF-producing development, compel an agency to
negotiate in advance over contract language to cover the contents of a RIF
notice necessitated by such future event." Id. at 7. However, according
to the Judge, until such an agreement was reached, "agencies were free to draft
notices unilaterally in the absence of specific proof that their issuance
changed conditions of employment." Id. Regarding the General Counsel's
contention that the Union is entitled to negotiate over the amount of official
time available to employees to prepare a response to the notice, the Judge
concluded that whether official time for such preparation is negotiable must be
determined in a negotiability appeal. IV. General Counsel's Exceptions A. Motion to Dismiss The General Counsel asserts that the Judge incorrectly ruled that the
first amended charge was untimely filed under 5 U.S.C. § 7118(a)(4). The
General Counsel argues that Respondent HQ USAF's involvement in the matter did
not end on September 14, but "continued throughout the issuance of the Notices
themselves on September 18th." G.C.'s Exceptions at 14. Consequently, the
General Counsel maintains that the first amended charge, filed on March 15,
1990, was filed within the 6-month time limit set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7118(a)(4). The General Counsel also contends that the first amended charge put
Respondent HQ USAF on notice that it would be required to defend itself against
an independent unfair labor practice and that Respondent HQ USAF "had a full
and adequate opportunity to prepare its defense prior to the hearing and to
address the allegations in the [c]omplaint." Id. at 22. Alternatively, the General Counsel argues that the 6-month time limit
for the filing of the charge must be tolled under 5 U.S.C. 7118(a)(4)(B)(i)(ii)
because: (1) the parties stipulated that "the Union did not become aware until
early March 1991 of Headquarter['s] involvement in the decision to expedite
issuance of the Notices[]"; and (2) Respondent Scott AFB "owed a duty to the
Union to explain the reasons it allowed Headquarters to control its side of the
bargaining relationship." Id. at 17 (emphasis omitted). B. Merits The General Counsel contends that the Judge erred in concluding that
issuance of the notices of proposed furlough did not change conditions of
employment of unit employees. The General Counsel argues, in this regard, that
the notices of proposed furlough concern "conditions of employment" under the
Consolidated School System, 22 FLRA 235 (1986) (Antilles). The General Counsel also argues that the issuance of the notices of
proposed furlough changed conditions of employment because the notice initiates
the furlough procedure. The General Counsel notes that 5 C.F.R. § 752.401
provides that "employees cannot legally be furloughed" prior to the receipt of
the 30-day advance notice. G.C.'s Exceptions at 9 (emphasis omitted). The
General Counsel disputes the Judge's finding that "the employees who received
the notice of proposed furlough had not by then been subject to a determination
that their positions would be affected by a furlough in the event one
occurred." Id. The General Counsel contends that "[t]he notice clearly
informs the employees that they have been targeted for furlough." Id.
The General Counsel also excepts to the Judge's failure to find that
Respondent HQ USAF interfered in the bargaining relationship between the
Respondent Scott AFB and the Union. According to the General Counsel,
Respondent HQ USAF violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute when it
directed all subordinate units to issue notices of proposed furlough to
employees by September 18. V. Respondents' Opposition The Respondents contend that the Judge properly concluded that the
proposed notices of furlough did not constitute a change in conditions of
employment. The Respondents argue that Scott AFB is distinguishable from
this case because Scott AFB dealt with a RIF notice and the facts in
this case "reveal the possibility of a furlough, no final decision of
any actual furlough having been made." Respondents' Opposition at 4 (emphasis
in original). According to the Respondents, "[a]s opposed to the furlough
notice and its accompanying possibility of further action, the RIF notice
results when the Agency has already determined the employees who will be
affected by the action." Id. at 5. The Respondents also contend that the Judge properly granted Respondent
HQ USAF's motion to dismiss the complaint as to it. VI. Analysis and Conclusions A. Timeliness of Charge Against Respondent HQ USAF Section 7118(a)(4)(A) of the Statute provides, in pertinent part: [N]o complaint shall be issued based on any alleged unfair labor
the Authority. The record in this case reveals that on October 16, 1990, the Union
filed a charge alleging that Respondent Scott AFB violated the Statute because
"[o]n or about September 17 and 18 and days following, the Employer issued
furlough letter to unit employees." G.C.'s Exh. 1(a). On March 15, 1991, the
Union filed the first amended charge, which added Respondent HQ USAF as a party
in the case, and which alleged that the Respondents violated section 7116(a)(1)
and (5) of the Statute when "[o]n or about September 17 and 18, 1990, the
Employer issued notices of proposed furloughs to unit employees without
providing the union prior notice or opportunity to bargain." G.C. Exh. 1(c).
The complaint alleges that Respondent HQ USAF violated section 7116(a)(1) and
(5) of the Statute when: [o]n or about September 14, 1990, HQ USAF directed Scott AFB to issue
Notices of Proposed Furlough to employees no later than September 18, 1990.
G.C.'s Exhibit 1(d) at 2. Based on its plain wording, we conclude that the first amended charge
put Respondent HQ USAF on notice that it was being charged with a violation of
the Statute in connection with Respondent Scott AFB's issuance of notices of
proposed furlough to unit employees on September 18, 1990. We also conclude
that Respondent HQ USAF may properly be charged with violating the Statute on
September 18, 1990, when Respondent Scott AFB carried out Respondent HQ USAF's
directive to issue the notices. Therefore, we find that the March 15, 1990,
charge against Respondent HQ USAF was timely filed under section 7118(a)(4)(A)
of the Statute and we will consider the merits of the complaint against this
Respondent. B. The Issuance of the Notices of Proposed Furlough Changed
Conditions of Employment It is clear from applicable law and regulation that: (1) before an
agency can furlough an employee for 30 days or less, the agency must issue the
employee a written notice of proposed furlough; and (2) employees who have
received such notices can be furloughed immediately after the expiration of the
30-day notice period.(2) Therefore, the
issuance of the notices of proposed furlough constitutes a step necessary to
furlough employees and, in fact, places employees in a status in which they can
be furloughed. In this regard, the notices of proposed furlough issued to
employees in this case are similar to the RIF notices issued to employees in
Scott AFB. Both notices changed affected employees' conditions of
employment by placing the employees in a status in which they "became subject
to actions to which they had not been subject prior to the issuance of the
notices." Scott AFB, 35 FLRA at 854. Therefore, consistent with Scott
AFB, we find that the issuance of notices of proposed furlough to unit
employees in this case changed the employees' conditions of employment. C. Respondent Scott AFB was Obligated to Negotiate With the
Union Before Issuing the Notices of Proposed Furlough The notices of proposed furlough changed unit employees' conditions of
employment. Prior to implementation of a change in conditions of employment of
unit employees, an agency must provide a union with adequate notice of the
proposed change and an opportunity to bargain over those aspects of the change
that are negotiable. See, for example, U.S. Department of the
Army Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot Lexington, Kentucky, 38 FLRA 647, 661
(1990). The notice provided by an agency must be provided sufficiently in
advance of the contemplated change in order that a union will have a reasonable
opportunity to prepare for and request bargaining. See Ogden Air
Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah and Air Force Logistics Command,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio, 41 FLRA 690, 698 (1991). 1. Respondent HQ USAF When management at a higher level in an agency directs or requires
management at a subordinate level to act in a manner that is inconsistent with
the subordinate level's bargaining obligations under the Statute, the higher
level entity violates section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. See,
for example, Commander Naval Air Pacific, San Diego, California and
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Oak Harbor, Washington, 41 FLRA
662, 676 (1991); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service and Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, Appalachian Laboratory for Occupational Safety and
Health, 39 FLRA 1306, 1316 (1991) (PHS, CDC). See generally
Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, Washington, D.C., 22 FLRA 875
(1986). The record establishes that, as early as August 20, 1990, Respondent HQ
USAF was aware of possible furloughs of unit employees beginning on October 15,
1990. Transcript at 108. At that time, Respondent HQ USAF was also aware that
notices of proposed furlough had to be issued to employees by September 18,
1990 to meet the minimum 30 days' advance notice required by 5 U.S.C § 7513. Id. 102-03. The record reflects that Respondent HQ USAF was
"hoping" that it would not be necessary to issue notices of proposed furlough
to employees. Respondents Post-Hearing Brief at 5. However, the record also
reflects that Respondent HQ USAF "elected not to send out notices of furlough
early on because [it] felt that [it] could take the money from other areas[]"
to cover the civilian payroll for a period of time. Transcript at 111. In our view, the timing of Respondent HQ USAF's directive precluded
Respondent Scott AFB from fulfilling its statutory duty to give the Union
adequate advance notice of an impending change and a reasonable opportunity to
bargain before implementation of the change. Although Respondent HQ USAF was
aware in August of possible furloughs, it "elected" to wait until Friday,
September 14, to direct its subordinate activities to issue notices of proposed
furlough by Tuesday, September 18. Id. at 111. Moreover, Respondent HQ
USAF makes no assertion that it could not have provided notice earlier. By its
actions, Respondent HQ USAF directed its subordinate activity to act at a time
which prevented the subordinate activity from complying with its obligations
under the Statute and, thereby, unlawfully interfered in the bargaining
relationship between Respondent Scott AFB and the Union. See PHS,
CDC, 39 FLRA at 1316. We conclude, in these circumstances, that Respondent
HQ USAF violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. 2. Respondent Scott AFB Where a subordinate level activity merely carries out higher level
instructions and acts ministerially and without discretion in the matter, the
Authority will not find that the subordinate level activity violated the
Statute by its actions. See, for example, Ogden Air Logistics
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 39 FLRA 1381, 1392 (1991); U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. and U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, Western Regional Office, San Francisco,
California, 37 FLRA 804, 805 (1990), application for enforcement filed
sub nom. FLRA v. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
Nos. 90-70517, 90-70542 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 1990). It is undisputed that on Friday, September 14, 1990, Respondent Scott
AFB was directed by Respondent HQ USAF to issue notices of proposed furlough by
Tuesday, September 18, 1990. There is no argument, or basis on which to
conclude, that Respondent Scott AFB could or should have provided the Union
with notice and an opportunity to bargain over the furlough notices prior to
receiving direction from Respondent HQ USAF on September 14. In these
circumstances, we conclude that Respondent HQ USAF's directive deprived
Respondent Scott AFB of its discretion to provide the Union with adequate
notice of, and an opportunity to bargain over, the issuance of the proposed
furlough notices and that it would not effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Statute to find that Respondent Scott AFB violated the Statute when it
implemented the directive. Accordingly, we will dismiss the complaint against
Respondent Scott AFB. VII. Summary Respondent HQ USAF violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute
by unlawfully interfering with Respondent Scott AFB's collective bargaining
relationship with the Union. Respondent Scott AFB did not violate the Statute
because the actions of Respondent HQ USAF prevented Respondent Scott AFB from
complying with its obligations under the Statute. VIII. Remedy As a remedy, the General Counsel requests that the notice to all
employees be posted at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, and Headquarters, U.S.
Air Force, Washington, D.C. In the circumstances of this case, we find that the
remedy requested by the General Counsel is appropriate and will effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Statute. IX. Order Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, it
is hereby ordered that the Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, Washington D.C.,
shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with the collective bargaining relationship between the
National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23 and the 375th Combat
Support Group, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, by taking actions which prevent
the 375th Combat Support Group from complying with its obligations under the
Statute. (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or
purposes and policies of the Statute: (a) Post at its HQ USAF Washington D.C. facilities and the facilities
at Scott Air Base, Illinois, where bargaining unit employees represented by the
National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23 are located, copies
Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the Secretary of
the Air Force and they shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days
Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply. The complaint against the Respondent Scott AFB is dismissed. NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE WE NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT: WE WILL NOT interfere with the collective bargaining relationship
between the National Association of Government Employees, R7-23 and the 375th
Combat Support Group, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, by taking actions which
prevent the 375th Combat Support Group from complying with its obligations
under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. _____________________________________Headquarters, U.S. Air
Force Washington, D.C. Dated:________ By: ______________________________ (Signature)
1244 Speer Boulevard, Suite 100, Denver, CO 80204 and whose telephone number
is: (303) 844-5224. Dissenting Opinion of Member Armendariz I respectfully dissent from my colleagues' opinion in this case. I
would not find that Respondent HQ USAF violated sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
the Statute for the simple reason that Respondent Scott AFB was under no
obligation to negotiate with the Union prior to issuing the notices of a
proposed furlough to employees because the notices did not, in and of
themselves, constitute a change in unit members' conditions of employment.
Therefore, Respondent HQ USAF could not have violated the Statute by unlawfully
interfering with Respondent Scott AFB's collective bargaining relationship with
the Union. For the reasons set forth more fully in my dissenting opinion in
Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23, SEIU, AFL-CIO, 35 FLRA
844, 865-868 (Scott), I find that the outcome in this case hinges on
whether the issuance to employees of notices of a proposed furlough constituted
implementation of the furlough and, thus, a change in unit members' conditions
of employment. Whether unit members' conditions of employment are changed when
the notices of a purposed furlough are issued to employees, or on the effective
date of the furlough, is crucial to determining the point at which an agency
risks a violation of the Statute if it has not satisfied its bargaining
obligations. I conclude, consistent with my holding in Scott, that the
issuance to employees of notices of a proposed furlough did not constitute a
change in unit members' conditions of employment, and, thus, that Respondent
Scott AFB had no duty to bargain with the Union prior to issuing those
notices. The Judge concluded, and I agree, that, "as is clear from the face of
the notice, no decision had been made to furlough any employee who received the
notice." Judge's decision at 4. In fact, the Judge went on to state that "[t]he
only respect in which the status of those who received the notice changed was
that as of that date they were subject to being furloughed within 30 days if a
decision were later made to implement the proposed furlough." Id.
Clearly, the issuance to employees of notices of a proposed furlough did not
constitute implementation of the furlough. Therefore, I agree with the Judge
that the notices of a proposed furlough to employees did not constitute a
change in the conditions of employment of unit members. Consequently,
Respondent Scott AFB was under no obligation to bargain with the Union prior to
issuing those notices. Therefore, HQ USAF could not have violated the Statute,
as found by my colleagues, because it did not direct Respondent Scott AFB to
act in a manner that was inconsistent with its bargaining obligations under the
have footnotes.) 1. The dissenting opinion of Member Armendariz follows
2. 5 C.F.R. § 752.404(a), which applies to furloughs
of 30 days or less, provides that an employee against whom such action is
proposed is entitled to the procedures provided in 5 U.S.C. § 7513(b). 5
U.S.C. § 7513(b)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that an employee is
entitled to: at least 30 days' advance written notice, unless there is reasonable
cause to believe the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of
imprisonment may be imposed, stating the specific reasons for the proposed
action[.] Ethics | FOIA | Inspector General | No FEAR Act & EEO | Privacy Policy | 508 Compliance