[ v02 p213 ]
02:0213(24)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
2 FLRA No. 24
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
47TH FLYING TRAINING WING
LAUGHLIN AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1749, AFL-CIO
LAUGHLIN AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS
Complainant
Assistant Secretary
Case No. 63-8164(CA)
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
ON JANUARY 25, 1979, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ALEXANDER KARST ISSUED
HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING,
FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMPLAINT
BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY. THEREAFTER, THE COMPLAINANT FILED
EXCEPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED
DECISION AND ORDER. ON JULY 9, 1979, THE AUTHORITY ISSUED ITS DECISION
AND ORDER IN THIS MATTER. 1 FLRA NO. 81.
THEREAFTER, ON JULY 18, 1979, THE RESPONDENT FILED A MOTION
REQUESTING THAT THE AUTHORITY REOPEN AND RECONSIDER ITS DECISION AND
ORDER. IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION, THE RESPONDENT ALLEGED THAT IT HAD NOT
RECEIVED A COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, AND SUPPORTING BRIEF, AND
CONSEQUENTLY HAD NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST LEAVE TO FILE AN
ANSWERING BRIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS. ON
AUGUST 10, 1979, THE COMPLAINT ADVISED THE AUTHORITY THAT IT HAD MAILED
A COPY OF ITS EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTING BRIEF, BY CERTIFIED MAIL, TO THE
RESPONDENT ON FEBRUARY 9, 1979. HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT OFFERED NO
PROOF OF RECEIPT THEREOF BY THE RESPONDENT.
CONSEQUENTLY, AS IT APPEARED THAT THE COMPLAINANT'S EXCEPTIONS AND
SUPPORTING BRIEF WERE NOT IN FACT RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT, THE
AUTHORITY ISSUED AN ORDER RESCINDING DECISION AND ORDER ON AUGUST 23,
1979, WHICH REQUIRED THE COMPLAINANT TO SERVE A COPY OF ITS EXCEPTIONS
ON THE RESPONDENT AND GAVE THE RESPONDENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPLY
THERETO. THE RESPONDENT'S ANSWERING BRIEF WAS RECEIVED BY THE AUTHORITY
ON OCTOBER 5, 1979.
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, WERE
TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION PLAN
NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
(44 F.R. 44741, JULY 30, 1979). THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN
SECTION 7135(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215). UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN
THIS MATTER, INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED
DECISION AND ORDER, THE EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND THE
RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN REPLY THERETO, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT A RESULT
CONTRARY TO THAT REACHED IN 1 FLRA NO. 81 IS NOT WARRANTED AS THE
RESPONDENT'S BRIEF RAISED NO ISSUES THAT WERE NOT CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY.
THUS, IN HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1)
AND (6) OF THE ORDER WHEN IT IMPLEMENTED A CHANGE IN THE TELEPHONE
SYSTEM OF ITS CIVIL ENGINEERING FACILITY WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE TO THE
COMPLAINANT. IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, HE FOUND, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
THAT BY DISCUSSING THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGE WITH THE COMPLAINANT AFTER
ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND BY MAKING EFFORTS TO REMEDY THE TECHNICAL
DEFICIENCIES OF THE NEW TELEPHONE SYSTEM, THE RESPONDENT HAD DISCHARGED
SATISFACTORILY ITS DUTY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE COMPLAINANT OVER THE
IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS ACTION. HE ALSO FOUND THAT THE
RESPONDENT WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE
COMPLAINANT BEFORE DECIDING TO MODIFY ITS TELEPHONE SYSTEM AND, FURTHER,
THAT THE FACT THAT THE NEW SYSTEM MADE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE
COMPLAINTANT'S OFFICIALS TO CARRY OUT THEIR UNION DUTIES FAILED TO GIVE
RISE TO AN INDEPENDENT VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION IS ADOPTED INSOFAR AS
IT DISMISSED THE PORTIONS OF THE INSTANT COMPLAINT ALLEGING VIOLATIONS
OF SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE RESPONDENT'S ALLEGED FAILURE TO
BARGAIN OVER ITS DECISION TO MODIFY THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM. HOWEVER,
CONTRARY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, IT IS CONCLUDED, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THAT THE RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE
COMPLAINANT OF THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MODIFICATION DENIED THE
COMPLAINANT ITS RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE OVER THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
A CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS, THEREBY VIOLATING SECTION 19(A)(1) AND
(6) OF THE ORDER. FURTHER, THE RESPONDENT'S SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATIONS
OVER THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGE, SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THE NEW TELEPHONE
SYSTEM WAS INSTALLED, DID NOT SERVE TO REMEDY THE INITIAL FAILURE TO
NOTIFY THE COMPLAINANT. /1/
ORDER /2/
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7135 OF THE FEDERAL
SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 47TH FLYING TRAINING WING,
LAUGHLIN AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, SHALL:
1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(A) CHANGING ESTABLISHED PRACTICES WITH REGARD TO THE CIVIL
ENGINEERING TELEPHONE SYSTEM
WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 1749, AFL-CIO, THE
EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AND AFFORDING IT A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON
THE PROCEDURES TO BE
OBSERVED IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGES, AND THE IMPACT THE CHANGES
WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY
AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
(B) ON ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
AMENDED.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
(A) UPON REQUEST BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 1749, AFL-CIO,
MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES
TO BE OBSERVED IN IMPLEMENTING CHANGES IN ITS CIVIL ENGINEERING
TELEPHONE SYSTEM, AND ON THE
IMPACT SUCH CHANGES WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
(B) POST AT ITS CIVIL ENGINEERING FACILITY COPIES OF THE ATTACHED
NOTICE MARKED
"APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY. UPON RECEIPT OF
SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE WING COMMANDER AND SHALL BE
POSTED AND MAINTAINED FOR
60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING
BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER
PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED. THE WING
COMMANDER SHALL TAKE
REASONABLE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.
(C) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN
30 DAYS FROM THE DATE
OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE REMAINDER OF THE COMPLAINT IN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE NO. 63-8164(CA) BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
DISMISSED.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., DECEMBER 5, 1979
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A SUPPLEMENTAL
DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF
CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL
SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR
EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT CHANGE ESTABLISHED PRACTICES WITH REGARD TO THE CIVIL
ENGINEERING TELEPHONE SYSTEM WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1749, AFL-CIO, THE EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AND AFFORDING IT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON
THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGES, AND ON THE
IMPACT THE CHANGES WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
WE WILL TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW, REGULATIONS OF APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITIES, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AFFORD AFGE LOCAL
1749 THE OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN OVER THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
CHANGES AFFECTING PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS,
INCLUDING CHANGES IN THE CIVIL ENGINEERING TELEPHONE SYSTEM.
(AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
DATED: BY: (SIGNATURE)
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.
IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE
ADDRESS IS: BRYAN AND ERVAY STREETS, P.O. BOX 2640, DALLAS, TEXAS
75221; AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS: (214) 767-4996.
MAJOR JAMES E. DUMERER
CENTRAL LABOR LAW OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
727 E. DURANGO BOULEVARD, SUITE B604
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78206
FOR THE RESPONDENT
ROY FLORES, PRESIDENT
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1749
P.O. BOX 1165
DEL RIO, TEXAS 78840
FOR THE COMPLAINANT
DOYLE F. HUNTSMAN, NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
442 ROTHE LOOP
NEW BRAUNFELS, TEXAS 78130
FOR THE COMPLAINANT
BEFORE: ALEXANDER KARST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DECISION AND ORDER
IN THIS PROCEEDING UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, HEARD IN DEL RIO,
TEXAS ON OCTOBER 3, 1978, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1749, AFL-CIO (HEREINAFTER AFGE OR UNION), COMPLAINS
THAT IN OCTOBER 1977, THE LAUGHLIN AIR FORCE BASE (HEREINAFTER LAUGHLIN
OR RESPONDENT), UNILATERALLY CHANGED THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM IN ITS CIVIL
ENGINEERING SHOPS WITHOUT NOTICE TO AFGE AND WITHOUT PRIOR NEGOTIATIONS
ABOUT THE CHANGE OR ITS IMPACT.
PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1977, THE CIVIL ENGINEERING SHOPS AT LAUGHLIN HAD
CONVENTIONAL DIRECT DIALING TELEPHONES ON WHICH CALLS COULD BE MADE ON
OR OFF-BASE. ON OCTOBER 11, 1977, LAUGHLIN REPLACED THESE TELEPHONES
WITH A NEW SYSTEM REQUIRING ALL CALLS TO BE MADE TO A CENTRAL
SWITCHBOARD. INITIALLY THE CALLER COULD ONLY SPEAK WITH THE CENTRAL
SWITCHBOARD OR BE CALLED BY IT, AND COULD NOT BE CONNECTED WITH ANY
OTHER TELEPHONE. THE CHANGE WAS MADE TO COMPLY WITH AIR FORCE
REGULATION AFR 85-1 PROMULGATED IN 1972 WHICH REQUIRED A CONVERSION OF
THE CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO A "CONTROLLER SYSTEM" WHEREUNDER ALL
WORK ASSIGNMENTS AND TELEPHONE CALLS WOULD BE COMMUNICATED THROUGH A
CENTRAL CONTROLLER. THE CHANGE OF THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM WAS A PART OF
THE SWITCH OVER TO THE CONTROLLER SYSTEM.
THE UNION CLAIMS THAT SINCE ITS FIRST COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
WITH LAUGHLIN WAS ENTERED INTO IN 1971, THE CHANGE OF THE TELEPHONE
SYSTEM COULD NOT BE MADE WITHOUT PRIOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNION, EVEN
IF SUCH A CHANGE WERE MANDATED BY AFR 85-1, BECAUSE THE UNION CONTRACT
PRE-DATED AFR 85-1. LAUGHLIN MAINTAINS THAT THE CHANGE WAS IN FACT MADE
DURING THE LIFE OF A LATER UNION CONTRACT ENTERED INTO IN 1974, AND THAT
THE LATTER CONTRACT INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ALL EXISTING AIR FORCE
REGULATIONS INCLUDING AFR 85-1.
IT DOES APPEAR THAT WHEN AFR 85-1 WAS PROMULGATED BY THE AIR FORCE IN
1972, THERE WAS IN EFFECT BETWEEN LAUGHLIN AND AFGE A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT OF NOVEMBER 16, 1971. ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE
INTRODUCED DOES NOT SHOW IT, AFGE'S "FINAL BRIEF" STATES, NO DOUBT
CORRECTLY, THAT THE 1971 AGREEMENT EXPIRED IN NOVEMBER 1973, BUT WAS
EXTENDED UNTIL THE 1974 AGREEMENT CAME INTO EFFECT. IT WAS STIPULATED
THAT AT THE TIME THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM WAS CHANGED THE 1974 AGREEMENT WAS
IN EFFECT.
ASSUMING, ARGUENDO, THAT THE CHANGE OF THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM AFFECTED
WORKING CONDITIONS, THERE IS SOME QUESTION WHETHER THESE TELEPHONES
COULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED WITHOUT NEGOTIATION DURING THE LIFE OF THE 1971
AGREEMENT. BUT IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT WHEN THAT AGREEMENT EXPIRED, AND
THE 1974 AGREEMENT CAME INTO BEING, THE 1972 AFR 85-1 BECAME OPERATIVE.
THE LABOR RELATIONS COUNCIL HAS SO HELD IN ITS DECISION IN DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION ISSUED ON MARCH 17,
1978 (FLRC NOS. 77A-40 AND 77A-92):
. . . (T)HOSE AGENCY REGULATIONS ISSUED DURING THE TERM OF AN
AGREEMENT AND WHICH WERE NOT
OPERATIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE BARGAINING UNIT DURING SUCH TERM BECOME
EFFECTIVE UPON THE
EXPIRATION OF THAT AGREEMENT. SUCH A RESULT IS MANDATED BY SECTION
12(A) OF THE ORDER, WHICH,
AS EXPLAINED IN THE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE ORDER, REQUIRES THAT "'AN
AGREEMENT MUST BE
BROUGHT INTO CONFORMANCE WITH CURRENT AGENCY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
AT THE TIME IT IS
RENEGOTIATED OR BEFORE IT IS EXTENDED, EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFIC
EXCEPTIONS ARE GRANTED OR
RENEWED.'"
NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED SHOWING THAT AFR 85-1 WAS EXCEPTED FROM
THIS AUTOMATIC INCORPORATION INTO THE 1974 AGREEMENT. THUS AFR 85-1
BECAME OPERATIVE AT LAUGHLIN AT THE TIME THE 1974 AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED
INTO AND THEREFORE RESPONDENT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET AND CONFER WITH
AFGE BEFORE IT BEGAN CARRYING OUT THE MANDATE OF AFR 85-1.
RESPONDENT ALSO ARGUES THAT SINCE SEC. 12(B) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
LEFT LAUGHLIN FREE TO "MAINTAIN THE EFFICIENCY OF (ITS) OPERATIONS" AND
"TO DETERMINE THE METHODS (AND) MEANS . . . " BY WHICH TO DO IT, IT
COULD SWITCH OVER TO THE PRESUMABLY MORE EFFICIENT CONTROLLER SYSTEM OF
WORK AND COMMUNICATIONS WITHOUT NEGOTIATING ABOUT IT WITH THE UNION. I
AGREE WITH THIS CONTENTION. SECTIONS 12(B)(4) AND (5) CLEARLY PERMIT
LAUGHLIN TO CHANGE ITS METHODS OR MEANS OF CARRYING ON ITS OPERATIONS
WITHOUT HAVING TO FIRST BARGAIN WITH LABOR UNIONS ABOUT SUCH CHANGES.
THE CHANGE TO THE CONTROLLER SYSTEM AND THE ATTENDANT CHANGE OF THE
TELEPHONE SYSTEM HERE IN ISSUE WAS A CHANGE IN METHOD OF OPERATIONS AND
LAUGHLIN NEED NOT HAVE BARGAINED ABOUT IT BEFOREHAND WITH THE UNION.
IT APPEARS ALSO THAT THE CHANGE OF THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM WAS A PART OF
"THE TECHNOLOGY OF PERFORMING (LAUGHLIN'S) WORK,' WHICH CHANGE IS
EXEMPTED FROM THE DUTY TO NEGOTIATE BY SEC. 11(B) OF THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER.
RESPONDENT CONCEDES THAT IT HAD THE DUTY TO NEGOTIATE OVER IMPACT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF AFR 85-1, BUT ASSERTS THAT IT FULFILLED THAT
OBLIGATION.
ABOUT A MONTH AFTER THE TELEPHONE CHANGE ON NOVEMBER 15, 1977, THERE
WAS A MEETING BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE
CHANGE. THESE PROBLEMS INCLUDED INTERFERENCE ON THE TELEPHONE LINES,
FREQUENT BUSY SIGNALS, INABILITY TO RECEIVE OFF-BASE EMERGENCY CALLS
FROM THE EMPLOYEES' FAMILIES, AVAILABILITY OF INSTRUMENTS ON WHICH
EMPLOYEES COULD CALL OFF-BASE, INABILITY OF THE SEVERAL UNION OFFICIALS
TO TELEPHONE ONE ANOTHER, AND AN INEFFICIENT SYSTEM OF HANDLING
TELEPHONE MESSAGES. AFTER THESE DISCUSSIONS LAUGHLIN OFFERED TO INSTALL
A "TELEPATCHER" SYSTEM, I.E., FACILITIES ENABLING THE CENTRAL
SWITCHBOARD TO CONNECT THE CALLER TO ANY OTHER INSTRUMENT ON OR
OFF-BASE, AND TO PROVIDE A MEANS OF HANDLING EMERGENCY CALLS AND
MESSAGES.
ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES WERE TO MEET AGAIN BY MID-DECEMBER, THEY DID NO
FORMALLY DISCUSS THE SUBJECT AGAIN UNTIL JANUARY 5, 1978. EACH SIDE
BLAMES THE OTHER FOR THE DELAYS. THE RECORD IS NOT CLEAR WHICH SIDE, IF
EITHER, OR THE CHRISTMAS SEASON, SHOULD BE BLAMED FOR THE TWENTY-DAY
DELAY. IN ANY EVENT, SOMETIME IN EARLY 1978, THE TELEPATCHER EQUIPMENT
WAS INSTALLED, AND PROCEDURES WERE WORKED OUT WHEREUNDER ANY CALLER,
WHETHER ON OR OFF-BASE, WHO STATED THAT IT WAS AN EMERGENCY, WOULD BE
CONNECTED WITH THE DESIRED TELEPHONE INSTRUMENT OR PERSON.
AFGE FILED THIS ACTION BECAUSE IT CONTINUES TO BE DISSATISFIED WITH
THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM CLAIMING THAT IT MAKES FOR MUCH SLOWER
COMMUNICATIONS WHICH INTERFERES WITH EFFICIENT HANDLING OF UNION
BUSINESS, THAT EMPLOYEES CANNOT CONVENIENTLY CALL OFF-BASE DURING
BREAKS, AND THAT THE MESSAGES COMING FROM THE SWITCHBOARD OPERATOR ARE
INEFFICIENTLY DELIVERED.
IN AN AGE OF ALMOST INSTANT COMMUNICATIONS IT DOES SEEM THAT THE NEW
TELEPHONE SYSTEM, AT LEAST INITIALLY, LEFT MUCH TO BE DESIRED. THE
CONTROLLER WHOSE FUNCTION IS AKIN TO THAT OF A DISPATCHER, ALSO OPERATES
THE CENTRAL SWITCHBOARD. AND ALTHOUGH THERE ARE TWO CONTROLLERS ON
DUTY, THEIR NON-TELEPHONE MINDING DUTIES KEEP THEM SO BUSY AS TO CAUSE
THE OPERATION OF THE SWITCHBOARD TO BE LESS THAN OPTIMAL. THE NEW
SYSTEM ALSO HAS CONSIDERABLE NOISE ON THE LINES. BUT HOWEVER POOR A
TELEPHONE SYSTEM IT MAY BE, IT MAY HAVE BROUGHT ABOUT SOME OTHER
EFFICIENCIES DESIRED BY LAUGHLIN. IN ANY CASE, THE QUALITY OF THE NEW
TELEPHONE SYSTEM IS NOT IN ISSUE. THE ISSUE BEFORE ME IS WHETHER
LAUGHLIN COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE BY FAILING TO NEGOTIATE
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGE PRIOR TO MAKING THE CHANGE, BUT DOING SO
SOME THIRTY DAYS LATE.
ADMITTEDLY LAUGHLIN SHOULD HAVE CONFERRED WITH THE UNION ABOUT THE
IMPACT BEFORE IT DID. BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE TARDINESS WAS
OTHER THAN INADVERTANT OR THAT IT WAS MOTIVATED BY ANY ILL WILL TOWARDS
THE UNION OR BY BAD FAITH. A UNION OFFICIAL WAS ONE OF THE PLANNERS OF
THE CHANGE AND IT DOES NOT SEEM UNREASONABLE FOR LAUGHLIN TO HAVE
ASSUMED THAT THE UNION WAS AWARE OF THE IMPENDING CHANGE.
WHEN MANAGEMENT DID LEARN OF THE UNION'S UNHAPPINESS IT DID MEET AND
CONFER WITH THE UNION. NOT ONLY DID LAUGHLIN NEGOTIATE ABOUT THE
IMPACT, BUT IT HAS SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM AND THE
EMERGENCY CALL PROCEDURES TO MEET THE UNION'S OBJECTIONS. THAT LAUGHLIN
DID SO SOMEWHAT TARDILY IS AT MOST A TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER, AND IN MY VIEW, DE MINIMUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE V. LOCAL UNION 1001 NFFE, 3 FLRC 492, FLRC NO.
74A-77. THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT LAUGHLIN'S DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
UNION ABOUT IMPACT WERE OTHER THAN IN GOOD FAITH. WHILE THE RESULTS
WERE NOT SATISFACTORY TO THE UNION, THE EXECUTIVE ORDER DID NOT IMPOSE
ON LAUGHLIN THE DUTY TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE TO THE UNION'S SATISFACTION.
ALL THE ORDER REQUIRES IS THAT LAUGHLIN MEET WITH THE UNION AND CONFER
IN GOOD FAITH, AND I FIND THAT LAUGHLIN DID DO THAT.
THE UNION PLACES MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE POINT THAT THE NEW TELEPHONE
SYSTEM HAMPERS THE VARIOUS UNION OFFICIALS IN CARRYING OUT THEIR LAWFUL
UNION FUNCTIONS. BUT I FIND NO AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT
LAUGHLIN IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE UNION'S OFFICIALS A MORE EFFICIENT
TELEPHONE SYSTEM THAN THE ONE LAUGHLIN USES TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS. IN
THE ABSENCE OF DELIBERATE EFFORT TO INTERFERE WITH UNION ACTIVITIES, OF
WHICH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SHOWING, THE UNION CANNOT COMPLAIN UNDER
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER MERELY BECAUSE THE OLD SYSTEM PERMITTED A MORE
EXPEDITIOUS HANDLING OF ITS BUSINESS.
ACCORDINGLY, I FIND NO SIGNIFICANT VIOLATION OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
BY RESPONDENT AND CONCLUDE THAT THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE COMPLAINT IN THIS MATTER BE
DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
SO ORDERED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1979, IN SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA.
ALEXANDER KARST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
AK:VAG
/1/ COMPARE VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, 4392D AEROSPACE SUPPORT GROUP,
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, 4 A/SLMR 626, A/SLMR NO. 435, 3
FLRC 492, FLRC NO. 74A-77 (1975), WHERE A REFUSAL TO CONTINUE
NEGOTIATIONS WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION WAS FOUND TO BE MERELY A
TECHNICAL OR DE MINIMUS VIOLATION OF THE ORDER IN LIGHT OF THE
RESPONDENT'S RENEWED EFFORTS THE FOLLOWING DAY TO RESUME THE
NEGOTIATIONS.
/2/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS
OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE
RESULT WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN
UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE ORDER.