[ v03 p413 ]
03:0413(64)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
3FLRA No. 64
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
NAVAL UNDERWATER SYSTEMS CENTER,
NEWPORT NAVAL BASE
Respondent
and
FEDERAL UNION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL R1-144
Complainant
Assistant Secretary
Case No. 31-11669(CA)
DECISION AND ORDER
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING, FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
NOT ENGAGED IN THE TWO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT
AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED. THE COMPLAINANT,
FEDERAL UNION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R1-144, (NAGE), FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, WERE TRANSFERRED TO
THE AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 304 OF REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 (43
F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS IMPLEMENTED BY SEC. 2400.2
OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 F.R. 3482, JANUARY 17,
1980). THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF
THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 7135(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS SERVICE (92 STAT. 1215).
THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SEC. 24002.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS AND SEC. 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED
THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING AND
FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED. THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY
AFFIRMED. UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE,
INCLUDING THE EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY
ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN.
THE AMENDED COMPLAINT HEREIN ALLEGED, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT THE
RESPONDENT VIOLATED SEC. 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BY ITS
ACTIONS IN AUGUST, SEPTEMBER AND NOVEMBER 1977, IN UNILATERALLY IMPOSING
RESTRICTIONS ON THE UTILIZATION OF OFFICIAL TIME BY THE NAGE'S
PRESIDENT, FOR REPRESENTATIONAL PURPOSES, AND ADDITIONALLY, BY REFUSING
THE COMPLAINANT'S REQUEST FOR A COPY OF A MONTHLY RETENTION REGISTER
PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT. IN RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMPLAINT BE
DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND THAT THE
NAGE AND RESPONDENT HAD NOT NEGOTIATED AN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE USE
OF OFFICIAL TIME FOR REPRESENTATIONAL PURPOSES; THE USE OF OFFICIAL
TIME FOR SUCH PURPOSES IS NOT AN INHERENT RIGHT UNDER THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER; THAT THE NAGE'S PRESIDENT COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE SPENT
LEGITIMATELY THE AMOUNT OF OFFICIAL TIME CREDITED TO HIM ON "UNION
BUSINESS"; AND THE ACTIVITY'S ACTION WAS NOT AN UNREASONABLE
RESTRICTION, WAS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL
MANUAL, AND WAS CONSISTENT WITH MANAGEMENT'S PREROGATIVES UNDER SEC.
12(B) OF THE ORDER. IN ADDITION, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND, IN
ESSENCE, THAT THE MONTHLY RETENTION REGISTER SOUGHT BY THE NAGE WAS NOT
NECESSARY AND RELEVANT INFORMATION NEEDED BY THE NAGE IN ORDER TO
DISCHARGE ITS RESPONSIBILITIES AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
CONTRARY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES
THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SEC. 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER BY ITS ACTION IN RESTRICTING THE UTILIZATION OF OFFICIAL TIME BY
THE PRESIDENT OF THE NAGE FOR REPRESENTATIONAL PURPOSES. IT IS WELL
SETTLED UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT THE USE OF OFFICIAL TIME FOR
REPRESENTATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF AN EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE IS
SUBJECT TO BARGAINING BY THE PARTIES AND, UPON AGREEMENT, TO BE REDUCED
TO WRITING. SEE MATTER OF GAO, NO. B-156287, 3 FLRC 874, FLRC NO.
75P-1(1975). IT IS ALSO WELL ESTABLISHED THAT PARTIES MAY ESTABLISH
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BY PRACTICE, OR OTHER FORM OF TACIT
OR INFORMAL AGREEMENT, AND THAT THIS, LIKE OTHER ESTABLISHED TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, MAY NOT BE ALTERED BY EITHER PARTY IN THE
ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT OR IMPASSE FOLLOWING GOOD FAITH BARGAINING. SEE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, NEW ORLEANS
DISTRICT, 8 A/SLMR 497, A/SLMR NO. 1043(1978).
AS MORE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, THE UTILIZATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
NAGE OF OFFICIAL TIME FOR REPRESENTATIONAL PURPOSES FOR UP TO 40 HOURS
PER WEEK HAD BEEN CONSISTENTLY EXERCISED FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME
WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF THE RESPONDENT'S SUPERVISORS. IN THE
AUTHORITY'S VIEW, THE PARTIES' ACTIONS CONSTITUTE THE ESTABLISHMENT BY
PRACTICE OF A TERM AND CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT. UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS IN
RESTRICTING THE AMOUNT OF OFFICIAL TIME AVAILABLE TO BE UTILIZED IN THE
PRESIDENT OF THE NAGE WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING AND BARGAINING IN GOOD
FAITH WITH THE NAGE CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF SEC. 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF
THE ORDER.
WE REACH THIS CONCLUSION WITHOUT DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN
ABUSE OF THE OFFICIAL TIME ALLOWED FOR REPRESENTATIONAL PURPOSES BY THE
UNION PRESIDENT HEREIN. HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITY DOES NOT WISH TO LEAVE
THE IMPRESSION THAT IT CONDONES, IN ANY WAY, ABUSE OR MISUSE OF OFFICIAL
TIME BY UNION OFFICIALS. IF AGENCY MANAGEMENT BELIEVES THAT A UNION
OFFICIAL IS NOT USING OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE PERMITTED REPRESENTATIONAL
PURPOSES BUT RATHER, IS ABUSING OR MISUSING ITS OFFICIAL TIME, IT MAY
TAKE WHATEVER CORRECTIVE ACTION, INCLUDING DISCIPLINARY ACTION,
CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE. HOWEVER, AS NOTED ABOVE, SUCH CORRECTIVE OR
DISCIPLINARY ACTION COULD NOT INVOLVE THE RESTRICTION OR ALTERATION OF
AN ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF ALLOWING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF OFFICIAL TIME
FOR REPRESENTATIONAL PURPOSES WITHOUT FIRST NEGOTIATING WITH THE
EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
FINALLY, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, THE
AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE MONTHLY
RETENTION REGISTER WAS NECESSARY AND RELEVANT TO THE NAGE IN DISCHARGING
ITS OBLIGATION TO EFFECTIVELY REPRESENT EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING
UNIT, THE REFUSAL OF THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE NAGE A COPY WITHOUT
CHARGE DID NOT VIOLATE SEC. 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER. /1/
ORDER
PURSUANT TO SEC. 2400.2 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL
LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SEC. 7135 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE
OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF THE NAVAL UNDERWATER SYSTEMS CENTER, NEWPORT NAVAL
BASE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, SHALL:
1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM
(A) INSTITUTING CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO THE PRACTICE OF USING
OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES, OR ANY
OTHER TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING AND, UPON
REQUEST, BARGAINING IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE FEDERAL UNION OF SCIENTISTS
AND ENGINEERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
R1-144, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THESE EMPLOYEES.
(B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR
COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS:
(A) RESCIND AND REVOKE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT SET
FORTH IN THE MEMORANDUM OF AUGUST 5, 1977, CONCERNING THE USE OF
OFFICIAL TIME BY UNION OFFICIALS PERFORMING REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES, AND
ANY SUBSEQUENT MEMORANDA ISSUED TO EFFECTUATE THEM.
(B) UPON REQUEST, NEGOTIATE WITH THE FEDERAL UNION OF SCIENTISTS AND
ENGINEERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R1-144,
WITH RESPECT TO ANY PROPOSED CHANGES RELATING TO THE UTILIZATION BY
UNION OFFICIALS OF OFFICIAL TIME TO PERFORM REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES, OR
ANY OTHER ESTABLISHED TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.
(C) POST AT THE NAVAL UNDERWATER SYSTEMS CENTER, NEWPORT NAVAL BASE,
COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED
BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY. UPON RECEIPT OF THE FORMS,
THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, AND THEY SHALL BE SIGNED
BY THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, AND THEY SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM
FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES CUSTOMARILY ARE POSTED. THE OFFICER
IN CHARGE SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT NOTICES ARE NOT
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY MATERIAL.
(D) 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 FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE
NO. 31-11669(CA), INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE FAILURE OF THE
RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE A MONTHLY RETENTION REGISTER, OUGHT TO BE, AND IT
HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 16, 1980
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 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 INSTITUTE CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO THE PRACTICE OF USING
OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES, OR ANY
OTHER TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING AND, UPON
REQUEST, BARGAINING IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE FEDERAL UNION OF SCIENTISTS
AND ENGINEERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FAITH WITH THE FEDERAL UNION OF
SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL R1-144, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES.
WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
WE WILL RESCIND AND REVOKE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT SET
FORTH IN OUR MEMORANDUM OF AUGUST 5, 1977, CONCERNING THE USE OF
OFFICIAL TIME BY UNION OFFICIALS PERFORMING REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES, AND
ANY SUBSEQUENT MEMORANDA ISSUED TO EFFECTUATE THEM.
WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, NEGOTIATE WITH THE FEDERAL UNION OF SCIENTISTS
AND ENGINEERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
R1-144, WITH RESPECT TO ANY PROPOSED CHANGES RELATING TO THE UTILIZATION
BY UNION OFFICIALS OF OFFICIAL TIME TO PERFORM REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES,
OR ANY OTHER ESTABLISHED TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.
. . . .
(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: 441 STUART STREET, 8TH FLOOR, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02116,
AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (617) 223-0920.
BEFORE: ROBERT G. MAHONY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
A. GENE NIRO, ESQ.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
666 SUMMER ST.
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210
FOR THE RESPONDENT
RICHARD REMMES, ESQ.
285 DORCHESTER AVE.
SOUTH BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
FOR THE COMPLAINANT
RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
THIS PROCEEDING ARISES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491,
AS AMENDED, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ORDER). PURSUANT TO THE
REGULATIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY), A NOTICE OF
HEARING ON COMPLAINT ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1978 WITH REFERENCE TO
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER. /2/
THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON APRIL 24, 1978 AND AMENDED ON JULY 25,
1978 AND AUGUST 24, 1978. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGED, IN ESSENCE,
THAT MANAGEMENT, IN VIOLATION OF A VERBAL UNION PRESIDENT COULD DEVOTE
TO REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES, AND, ADDITIONALLY, MANAGEMENT REFUSED TO
PROVIDE THE UNION WITH A COPY OF A MONTHLY RETENTION REGISTER. /3/
THE ACTIVITY ANSWERED ON JUNE 1, 1978 AND CONTENDED THAT ANY OFFICIAL
TIME SPENT ON UNION ACTIVITIES MUST BE NEGOTIATED OR, IN THE ABSENCE OF
A NEGOTIATED PERIOD, WITH THE PERMISSION OF MANAGEMENT. IT WAS THE
ACTIVITY'S POSITION THAT, ABSENT A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, A PERIOD OF ONE
HOUR PER DAY WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE UNION PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT NORMAL
UNION BUSINESS. HOWEVER, IF THE UNION FELT THAT THIS WAS INSUFFICIENT,
MANAGEMENT INVITED NEGOTIATIONS ON THE MATTER. THE ACTIVITY FURTHER
STATED THAT THE UNION DID NOT GET A RETENTION REGISTER UNTIL IT AGREED
TO PAY FOR THE DUPLICATION COSTS, AND, IN ANY EVENT, SUFFERED NO
PREJUDICE BY NOT HAVING THE REGISTER.
A HEARING WAS HELD ON DECEMBER 7, 1978 AT BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS AT
WHICH TIME THE PARTIES WERE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE WITNESSES,
INTRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT. THE RECORD
REMAINED OPEN UNTIL FEBRUARY 15, 1979 FOR THE FILING OF BRIEFS WHICH
HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THE FEDERAL UNION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS (FUSE), A DIVISION OF
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R1-144, BECAME
THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT FOR THE PROFESSIONALS AT THE NAVAL
UNDERWATER SYSTEMS CENTER (NUSC), NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND ON MAY 21, 1976.
DOMINIC LEPORE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL, WHICH CONSISTED OF
ABOUT 500 TO 600 EMPLOYEES. NO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS IN
EXISTENCE DURING THE TIME COVERED BY THE COMPLAINT.
FROM MAY 22, 1976 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 24, 1977, MR. LEPORE ACCOUNTED
FOR PRACTICALLY ALL OF HIS WORKING HOURS BY ALLOCATING IT TO UNION
BUSINESS. ONLY 12 PERCENT OF HIS TIME WAS ALLOCATED TO ACTIVITY TASKS.
/4/ LEPORE TOLD MR. LOUIS BISCI, HIS SUPERVISOR, THAT BECAUSE THIS WAS A
NEW LOCAL, HE WAS SPENDING A GREAT DEAL OF TIME ON UNION BUSINESS TO
DEVELOP A "PACKAGE" FOR NEGOTIATIONS. HOWEVER, BY SEPTEMBER 1976, BISCI
TESTIFIED THAT LEPORE'S WORK PERFORMANCE BECAME UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE HE
SPENT SO MUCH TIME ON ALLEGED UNION BUSINESS.
ON OCTOBER 4, 1976, MR. BISCI ASKED MR. LEPORE, TO CRITIQUE A REPORT
INVOLVING THE ADVANCED LIGHT WEIGHT TORPEDO PROGRAM. BISCI CONSIDERED
THIS A ONE OR TWO DAY JOB, BUT HE GAVE LEPORE UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 1976.
LEPORE ADVISED BISCI THAT HE WOULD ACCEPT THIS ASSIGNMENT BUT HE DIDN'T
KNOW IF HE COULD COMPLETE THE TASK IN THE ALLOTTED TIME BECAUSE UNION
BUSINESS HAD PRIORITY, AND HE INTENDED TO WORK ON UNION MATTERS. /5/
BISCI TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THAT OFFICIAL TIME COULD NOT BE
USED FOR NEGOTIATIONS. LEPORE WAS ALSO UNABLE TO COMPLETE ANOTHER WORK
ASSIGNMENT ALTHOUGH EXTENTIONS WERE GRANTED, BECAUSE HE TOOK THE
POSITION THAT UNION BUSINESS CAME FIRST AND ACTIVITY WORK ASSIGNMENTS
SECOND.
ON OCTOBER 4, 1976, BISCI, BY MEMORANDUM, SOUGHT ADVICE FROM A
PERSONNEL SPECIALIST, MS. DEBBIE PETTI AS TO HOW LEPORE WOULD BE ALLOWED
TO SPEND HIS TIME BETWEEN THE UNION AND HIS WORK TASKS, BECAUSE BISCI
WAS, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, COMPLETELY LOSING LEPORE'S SERVICES.
ULTIMATELY, THE ISSUE OF LEPORE'S USE OF TIME WAS BROUGHT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE ACTIVITY'S LABOR RELATIONS SPECIALIST, STEWART FISHER,
HE ADVISED THAT LEPORE WAS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO
REPRESENTATIONAL TIME, AND IT COULD BE OBTAINED ONLY BY MANAGEMENT
GRANTING HIM TIME OR THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS. STEWART ALSO ADVISED THAT
LEPORE WAS REQUIRED TO DO THE WORK ASSIGNED TO HIM, AND THAT ASSIGNMENTS
TO LEPORE SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED, AND A RECORD KEPT OF HIS WORK PROGRESS.
HOWEVER, ALTHOUGH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS CONTINUED TO DISCUSS WHAT TO DO
ABOUT THE TIME LEPORE WAS ALLEGEDLY SPENDING ON UNION BUSINESS, NOTHING
WAS DONE TO RESTRICT LEPORE'S TIME UNTIL AUGUST 5, 1977 WHEN LEPORE WAS
ADVISED IN WRITING BY THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, CPT. W. E. TRUEBLOOD, THAT
HE WOULD BE GRANTED ONE HOUR PER DAY, IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO HIS LUNCH
HOUR, FOR THE CONDUCT OF UNION BUSINESS. /6/
BY MEMORANDUM DATED AUGUST 19, 1977. MR. LEPORE, ON BEHALF OF FUSE
REQUESTED TO NEGOTIATE REASONABLE TIME "FOR REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES BEGINNING ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1977. IN ADDITION FUSE
REQUESTS A STATUS QUO ANTE UNTIL THE ISSUE IS RESOLVED." THE SEPT. 13TH
DATE WAS SUGGESTED TO THE UNION CHIEF NEGOTIATOR COULD BE AVAILABLE.
BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 23, 1977., CPT. TRUEBLOOD DENIED THE UNION
REQUEST FOR A STATUS QUO ANTE, AND INSISTED THAT LEPORE RESTRICT HIS
TIME TO THE ONE HOUR PER DAY. HOWEVER, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
DIRECTIVE WAS EXTENDED FROM AUGUST 23, 1977 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 "TO
PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSITION IN THE INTERNAL WORK LOAD OF YOUR
ORGANIZATION". NEVERTHELESS, LEPORE EFFECTIVELY IGNORED THIS DIRECTIVE
AND CONTINUED TO SPEND MOST OF HIS TIME ON ALLEGED UNION BUSINESS.
BY LETTERS DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1977 AND NOVEMBER 23, 1977, CPT.
TRUEBLOOD, EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT MR. LEPORE FELT HE COULD NOT ABIDE BY
THE ONE HOUR PER DAY LIMIT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SEVEN WEEKS
FROM SEPT. 12, 1977 TO OCTOBER 29, 1977 MR. LEPORE UTILIZED A MINIMUM OF
33% AND A MAXIMUM OF 100% OF HIS TIME ON UNION REPRESENTATIONAL
ACTIVITIES. CPT. TRUEBLOOD WENT ON TO STATE:
IN AS MUCH AS THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME
YOU HAVE SPENT
CONDUCTING GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AS A RESULT OF MY LETTER TO YOU DATED
5 AUGUST 1977 AND 12
SEPTEMBER 1977, YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO USE NO MORE THAN ONE (1)
PER DAY PERFORMING
REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES. ALL VISITS, ALL CALLS, THOSE SITUATIONS
THAT YOU HAVE CLASSIFIED AS
"EMERGENCIES" DURING THE PAST FEW MONTHS, AND ANY OTHER UNION
REPRESENTATIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES, MUST BE DEFERRED TO A TIME BETWEEN THE HOURS OF
1100 AND 1200 DAILY, OR
DURING NON-WORKING HOURS. NON-WORK HOURS ARE THOSE HOURS BEFORE AND
AFTER WORK AND DURING
YOUR LUNCH PERIOD, AND ANYTIME FOR WHICH YOUR SUPERVISOR HAS APPROVED
YOUR REQUEST FOR
LEAVE. DEVIATIONS FROM THIS REQUIREMENT WHICH WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE
THE BEGINNING OF THE
FIRST WORKDAY FOLLOWING YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER, WILL NOT BE
ALLOWED.
THE UNION ALSO ALLEGES THAT IT WAS IMPROPERLY DENIED A DOCUMENT
REFERRED TO AS A "RETENTION REGISTER". THE ACTIVITY'S POSITION IS THAT
A "SANITIZED" VERSION OF THE RETENTION REGISTER WOULD BE PROVIDED IF THE
UNION AGREED TO PAY FOR IT. FURTHER, IN THE EVENT OF A REDUCTION IN
FORCE (RIF), A REGISTER WOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE UNION FREE OF CHARGE.
THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE "RETENTION REGISTER" IS AS FOLLOWS.
BY LETTER DATED FEB. 14, 1977, MR. STEWART FISHER, THE ACTIVITY'S
LABOR RELATIONS SPECIALIST STATED TO MR. LEPORE:
SOMETIME AGO YOU REQUESTED TO BE PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE NUSC
RETENTION REGISTER ON A
MONTHLY BASIS. I INITIALLY INFORMED YOU THAT BECAUSE OF THE PRIVACY
ACT WE COULD ONLY PROVIDE
YOU WITH A SANITIZED VERSION OF THIS REGISTER. THIS SANITIZED
VERSION WOULD INCLUDE POSITION
TITLE, SERIES AND GRADE, NAME AND SPECIALTY TITLE (WHEN THEY BECAME
EFFECTIVE). ALL REGISTERS
ARE SET UP BY COMPETITIVE AREA AND COMPETITIVE LEVEL. THE COST OF A
COPY OF THE INITIAL
REGISTER WOULD BE $15.00 PLUS FIVE CENTS PER PAGE WITH APPROXIMATELY
20 PAGES. SUBSEQUENT
MONTHLY COPIES OF THIS REGISTER WOULD COST 2.00 PLUS FIVE CENTS PER
PAGE, WITH THE SAME
APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF PAGES. IF YOU DESIRE COPIES OF THIS REGISTER,
PLEASE NOTIFY ME AND
ARRANGEMENTS WILL BE MADE FOR YOUR RECEIPT OF SAME.
ALMOST SIX MONTHS LATER ON AUGUST 3, 1977, LEPORE REPLIED AS FOLLOWS:
FUSE EXERCISES ITS RIGHTS TO REQUEST A COPY OF THE RETENTION REGISTER
BASED ON THE FACTS OF
THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF A RIF (LARGE OR SMALL) IN THE NEAR FUTURE, TO
MEET CEILING REQUIREMENTS.
ON JANUARY 26, 1978 LEPORE, ON BEHALF OF FUSE, WROTE TO FISHER
CONTENDING THAT THE UNION REQUESTED A COPY OF THE RETENTION REGISTER ON
OCTOBER 6, 1976 AS WELL AS ON SEVERAL OTHER OCCASIONS AND STATED THAT IT
WAS NEGOTIATED THAT THE UNION WAS TO GET A MONTHLY COPY OF THE SANITIZED
REGISTER. IN THIS LETTER FUSE ACCUSED THE ACTIVITY OF DILATORY TACTICS
IN SUPPLYING THE REGISTER. AFTER SOME FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE, THE
REGISTER WAS PROVIDED TO THE UNION ON APRIL 4, 1978, THE UNION PAID THE
$10.35 CHARGE ON MAY 27, 1978. IN AUGUST, 1978 THE UNION WAS GIVEN A
SECOND RETENTION REGISTER FREE OF CHARGE THAT MANAGEMENT USED IN
CONNECTION WITH (RIF), ALTHOUGH THIS RIF DID NOT AFFECT MEMBERS OF
LEPORE'S UNION.
ISSUES
1. DID THE USE OF UP TO FORTY HOURS PER WEEK FROM MAY 21, 1976 TO
AUGUST 5, 1977 FOR UNION REPRESENTATIONAL FUNCTIONS BY THE UNION
PRESIDENT CONSTITUTE AN ESTABLISHED PAST PRACTICE?
2. DID THE ACTIVITY VIOLATE SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY
UNILATERALLY RESTRICTING TO ONE HOUR PER DAY THE AMOUNT OF TIME THE
UNION PRESIDENT COULD DEVOTE THE REPRESENTATIONAL FUNCTIONS?
3. DID THE ACTIVITY VIOLATE SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY
REQUIRING PAYMENT FROM THE UNION IN ORDER FOR THE UNION TO RECEIVE A
MONTHLY RETENTION REGISTER FOR PERIODS OTHER THAN WHEN A REDUCTION IN
FORCE WAS TO BE EFFECTUATED.
DISCUSSION
I. USE OF OFFICIAL TIME
COMPLAINANT CONTENDS, IN ESSENCE, THAT IT WAS AN ESTABLISHED PRACTICE
FOR THE UNION PRESIDENT TO SPEND UP TO 40 HOURS PER WEEK FOR
UNION-RELATED BUSINESS; THAT THIS PRACTICE CONTINUED FOR OVER ONE YEAR,
AND WHEN THE ACTIVITY UNILATERALLY IMPOSED A LIMITATION ON THE AMOUNT OF
TIME MR. LEPORE COULD SPEND ON BUSINESS, IT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1)
AND (6) OF THE ORDER.
IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY THAT THE USE OF OFFICIAL
TIME FOR THE CONDUCT OF UNION BUSINESS IN NOT AN INHERENT RIGHT UNDER
THE ORDER. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, BASE PROCUREMENT OFFICE,
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE CALIFORNIA, A/SLMR NO. 485(1975); DEPARTMENT
OF THE ARMY, PICATINNY ARSENAL DOVER, NEW JERSEY A/SLMR NO. 512(1975).
WHEN THE BARGAINING UNIT WAS FORMED IN MAY 1976, AND MR. LEPORE
BECAME PRESIDENT, HE APPARENTLY PERSUADED HIS FIRST LINE SUPERVISOR, MR.
BISCI, THAT THE LARGE AMOUNT OF TIME BEING SPEND ON UNION BUSINESS WAS
REQUIRED TO PUT TOGETHER A BARGAINING "PACKAGE" FOR NEGOTIATIONS. BISCI
TESTIFIED THAT MANAGEMENT IN THE INITIAL DAYS OF THE UNION EXISTENCE,
WANTED TO BE COOPERATIVE IN ASSISTING THE UNION IN ESTABLISHING ITSELF.
BASED ON LEPORE'S REPRESENTATIONS, BISCI WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT
LEPORE'S TIME ON ALLEGED UNION BUSINESS WOULD NOT CONTINUE OVER A
PROLONGED PERIOD.
ONCE, HOWEVER, IT BECAME APPARENT THAT LEPORE COULD NOT OR WOULD NOT
MEANINGFULLY PERFORM ACTIVITY TASKS BECAUSE OF HIS ALLEGED
REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES, THIS BECAME THE SUBJECT OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN
MR. BISCI AND THE ACTIVITY'S PERSONNEL AND LABOR MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS.
HOWEVER, THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE ACTIVITY, CPT. TRUEBLOOD, WAS
NOT AWARE OF THE PROBLEM UNTIL ABOUT ONE MONTH BEFORE HE ISSUED HIS
AUGUST 5, 1977 LETTER RESTRICTING LEPORE'S TIME TO ONE HOUR PER DAY.
SINCE, THE PARTIES DID NOT HAVE A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT THAT COVERED
THE USE OF OFFICIAL TIME FOR REPRESENTATIONAL PURPOSES, THE
OFFICER-IN-CHARGE BASED HIS DECISION UPON THE FPM GUIDELINES IMPOSING
WHAT HE DETERMINED TO BE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR UNION BUSINESS.
OF COURSE, WHAT IS REASONABLE HAS TO BE DETERMINED IN THE CONTEXT OF
A GIVEN SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
AFTER OBSERVING MR. LEPORE'S DEMEANOR, AND LISTENING TO HIS TESTIMONY
IN HIS EFFORT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE TIME HE ALLEGEDLY SPENT ON UNION
BUSINESS, I FIND THAT HIS ENTIRE TESTIMONY IS TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE AND I
ACCORD IT NO WEIGHT WHATSOEVER. HE WAS EVASIVE, UNRESPONSIVE AND
UNPERSUASIVE. HIS DOCUMENTATION, WHICH GENERALLY CONSISTED OF A FEW
PIECES OF PAPER WITH CRYPTIC NOTES DOCUMENTING HIS "HELP AND ADVISE" TO
UNION MEMBERS, WAS TOTALLY UNRELIABLE AS A GAUGE OF TIME SPENT ON UNION
BUSINESS. I FIND AND CONCLUDE THAT LEPORE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE
LEGITIMATELY SPENT ANYWHERE NEAR THE HUNDREDS OF HOURS ON "UNION
BUSINESS" THAT HE ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY. MORE LIKELY, HE USED HIS
POSITION AS UNION PRESIDENT TO AVOID PERFORMING HIS ACTIVITY TASKS.
ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, I FIND AND CONCLUDE THAT THE DECISION OF
THE ACTIVITY TO PROVIDE MR. LEPORE ONE HOUR PER DAY FOR UNION BUSINESS
WAS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT OR CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
THAT THIS WAS AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION, A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
OF THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL CONCERNING THE USE OF OFFICIAL TIME FOR
UNION BUSINESS, AND CONSISTENT WITH MANAGEMENT'S PREROGATIVES UNDER
SECTION 12(B) OF THE ORDER.
THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT MANAGEMENT REFUSED TO CONSULT,
CONFER OR NEGOTIATE WITH THE COMPLAINANT ON THE ISSUE OF
REPRESENTATIONAL TIME AND I FIND AND CONCLUDE THAT THE DIRECTION TO MR.
LEPORE, TO LIMIT HIS TIME SPENT ON UNION BUSINESS TO ONE HOUR PER DAY,
WHICH IN ANY EVENT HE EFFECTIVELY IGNORED, WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF
SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.
THE MONTHLY RETENTION REGISTER
"RETENTION REGISTERS" ARE DOCUMENTS USED BY MANAGEMENT FOR JOB
REASSIGNMENTS OR SEPARATIONS IN THE EVENT OF A REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF).
THE ACTIVITY MAINTAINS A "MONTHLY RETENTION GROUP REPORT," WHICH COULD
NOT BE USED IN THE EVENT OF A RIF, UNTIL IT WAS UPDATED BECAUSE IT DOES
NOT REFLECT PERSONNEL CHANGES THAT OCCUR ON A DAILY BASIS.
IN JULY 1976, MR. LEPORE REQUESTED A "RETENTION REGISTER" FROM MR.
FISHER. FISHER TOLD LEPORE HE COULD GET A "SANITIZED" VERSION (DELETING
INFORMATION COVERED BY THE PRIVACY ACT) IF THE UNION PAID FOR IT,
BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SPECIALLY PREPARED FOR THE UNION AS IT WAS
NOT KEPT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. FISHER TESTIFIED THAT, BY
REGULATION, THE UNION IS ONLY ENTITLED TO A FREE COPY OF THE ACTUAL
RETENTION REGISTER AFTER A RIF IS ANNOUNCED. DURING OCTOBER THE ISSUE
OF OBTAINING A REGISTER WAS BROUGHT UP IN DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, BUT THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISHES WHETHER AT
THIS TIME, MANAGEMENT REQUESTED PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OR WHETHER THE UNION
AGREED TO PAY AFTER IT WAS SENT.
THE MOST CREDIBLE EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF THE RETENTION REGISTER
BEGINS WITH THE FEBRUARY 14, 1977 LETTER FROM THE ACTIVITY WHICH ADVISED
LEPORE THAT HE COULD HAVE A COPY OF THE REGISTER AND THE APPROXIMATE
COST. LEPORE, ON BEHALF OF THE UNION, DID NOT RESPOND UNTIL OCTOBER 3,
1977 REQUESTING A COPY OF THE REGISTER ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT A RIF WAS
COMING IN THE NEAR FUTURE. CERTAINLY, BY WAITING ALMOST EIGHT MONTHS TO
REPLY IT APPEARS THAT THE UNION WAS IN NO HURRY TO OBTAIN THE REGISTER
PRIOR TO RECEIVING SOME INFORMATION THAT A RIF MIGHT OCCUR.
LEPORE RENEWED HIS REQUEST ON JANUARY 26, 1978 CONTENDING THAT THE
PARTIES HAD "NEGOTIATED" ON OCTOBER 7, 1976 THAT THE UNION WOULD BE
PROVIDED WITH A "SANITIZED" VERSION OF THE REGISTER. SUBSEQUENTLY,
LEPORE ADVISED FISHER THAT THE UNION WOULD PAY, AND ON APRIL 4, 1978 A
VALIDATED RETENTION REGISTER WAS FURNISHED TO LEPORE. THE COST WAS
$10.35 AND WAS PAID ON MAY 27, 1978. IN AUGUST, 1978 A RIF OCCURRED AND
THE UNION WAS GIVEN, WITHOUT CHARGE, A SECOND RETENTION REGISTER THAT
WAS USED IN THE RIF.
I FIND AND CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF ANY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO EITHER PROVIDE OR PAY FOR A RETENTION
REGISTER IN OCTOBER, 1976. THE FIRST DEFINITIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT
I CREDIT ON THIS ISSUE IS THE FEBRUARY 14, 1977 LETTER WHICH CONSISTED
AN OFFER TO SELL A COPY OF THE REGISTER, WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY ACCEPTED
AND PAYMENT TENDERED. THE UNION OFFERED NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT IT
NEEDED SUCH A DOCUMENT, ABSENT A BONA FIDE RIF, IN ORDER TO EXERCISE ITS
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER SECTION 10(E) OF THE ORDER.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS I FIND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT
SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER WAS VIOLATED BY THE ALLEGED
FAILURE TO PROVIDE A RETENTION REGISTER.
I FURTHER FIND AND CONCLUDE THAT BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS
CASE THE COMPLAINANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE THAT THE ACTIVITY COMMITTED ANY VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1)
AND (6) OF THE ORDER.
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
ROBERT G. MAHONY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DATED: JULY 26, 1979
WASHINGTON, D.C.
RFM:PAC
/1/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SEC. 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 EXECUTIVE ORDER.
/2/ SECTION 19 STATES, IN PERTINENT PART:
(A) AGENCY MANAGEMENT SHALL NOT--
(1) INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR COERCE AN EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF
THE RIGHTS ASSURED BY THIS ORDER;
(6) REFUSE TO CONSULT, CONFER, OR NEGOTIATE WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION
AS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER.
/3/ THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHDREW THE ALLEGATION THAT
MANAGEMENT IMPROPERLY INTERFERED IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE UNION.
THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED HEREIN.
/4/ (TABLE OMITTED)
/5/ BISCI TESTIFIED THAT LEPORE MET THE NOV. 1ST DEADLINE BUT THE
WORK PRODUCT WAS UNSATISFACTORY. LEPORE WAS GIVEN TO NOVEMBER 22ND TO
COMPLETE THE TASK. HE MET THE NOVEMBER 22ND DEADLINE, BUT ADVISED BISCI
THAT HE WISHED HE COULD DO A BETTER JOB, HOWEVER; UNION BUSINESS TOOK
PRECEDENCE.
/6/ . . . THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS TAKEN FROM REFERENCE (C) (FPM LTR
711-114 DTD 14 OCT. 1976) APTLY STATE THE POSITION TAKEN BY THIS CENTER
RELATIVE TO THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE USE OF OFFICIAL TIME ALLOWED TO
LABOR ORGANIZATION OFFICIALS WHEN PERFORMING REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES AND
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.
A. "IN ALL CASES, THE AMOUNT OF OFFICIAL TIME TO BE AUTHORIZED AND
THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED TO BE ON OFFICIAL TIME FOR
REPRESENTATIONAL FUNCTIONS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY BALANCING THE
EFFECTIVE CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS WITH THE RIGHTS OF
EMPLOYEES TO BE REPRESENTED IN MATTERS RELATING TO THEIR EMPLOYMENT."
B. "ALSO RELEVANT TO THIS DECISION IS MANAGEMENT'S JUDGMENT AS TO
THE IMPACT UPON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY, AS WELL AS ON THE
EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT THAT WILL DERIVE FROM EMPLOYEE
REPRESENTATION IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS."
C. "IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE AMOUNT APPROVED RESULT IN SERIOUS
INTERFERENCE WITH THE ASSIGNED RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ACTIVITY OR BE
UNJUSTIFIABLE IN LIGHT OF THE BENEFITS, INCLUDING SOUND LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS, TO BE DERIVED."
D. THEREFORE, USING THE ABOVE GUIDANCE, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PERFORM
ALL ASSIGNED TASKS IN A MANNER COMMENSURATE WITH YOUR GRADE LEVEL AND
WITHIN THE IMPOSED TIME LIMITATIONS. YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED ONE (1)
HOUR PER DAY TO SPEND ON UNION REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES. THIS HOUR WILL BE SPENT IN THE NAGE UNION OFFICE ON
THE SECOND FLOOR OF BUILDING 148, AND WILL BE THE HOUR IMMEDIATELY PRIOR
TO YOUR LUNCH PERIOD. YOU WILL, THEREFORE, BE ACCOUNTABLE TO YOUR
SUPERVISOR FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF ASSIGNED GOVERNMENT BUSINESS ON THE
BASIS OF SEVEN (7) HOURS PER DAY, EXCLUSIVE OF LEAVE OR OTHER OFFICIALLY
ASSIGNED OR ACCEPTED DUTIES. ALL NORMAL UNION BUSINESS WILL BE DEFERRED
TO THIS ONE (1) HOUR THAT YOU WILL BE LOCATED IN THE NAGE OFFICE.
TELEPHONE CALLS AND VISITS FROM UNION SOURCES AND EMERGENCY CALLS AND
VISITS FROM EMPLOYEES MAY BE RECEIVED AT YOUR NORMAL WORK SITE;
HOWEVER, YOU MUST FIRST SEEK PERMISSION FROM YOUR SUPERVISOR PRIOR TO
LEAVING YOUR WORK TO HANDLE THESE SITUATIONS. IF YOU FIND THAT
COMPLICATIONS ARISE BETWEEN TRYING TO SATISFY THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS AND YOUR REPRESENTATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES, YOU
MUST FIRST SEEK APPROVAL FROM YOUR SUPERVISOR TO DEVIATE FROM HIS
DIRECTION. ULTIMATELY, YOU MUST ABIDE BY THIS DISCRETION AND BRING THE
ISSUE TO MY ATTENTION IF YOU FEEL THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO DO SO. IF YOU
DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE POSITION, THEN YOUR REQUEST TO
NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE IS WELCOMED.