In correspondence with Local 987 and again in his testimony at the hearing, John Pugh noted that his refusal to recognize Patti Williams as a duly authorized representative of the union was justified because it would be contrary to Article 4.13(a) of ACEC`s Framework Agreement. (Jt. Ex. 3, 9; Tr. 61-62). Essentially, the respondent makes an affirmative defence of the treaty interpretation.2 The respondent is of the view that the defendant`s argument is out of place. In the United States The Department of the Air Force, HQ, Air Force Materiel Command, 49 FLRA 1111, 1120 (1994), the authority clarified that the provisions of framework agreements that limit the number of union representatives authorized to work during official time do not restrict a union`s right to appoint as many representatives as circumstances require, nor do they set limits on location, from which representatives can be drawn. A complaint and hearing announcement dated September 18, 2009, based on an indictment of unfair labor practices filed on April 2, 2008 by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 987 (Union), against the Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Warner Robins, 3. April 2008 by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 987 (Union), v. Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Warner Robins, 3. Clarifying whether work related to a collective agreement containing a restriction on the use of official time may be performed by a union representative working at official time in accordance with a second collective agreement is an issue that the authority must address if it is properly presented by facts that are not present in the case. In accordance with her authority, Patti Williams acted under that authority by having correspondence with the respondent dated September 25 and 27. She prepared and signed in March 2008, in which she invoked arbitration in the cases of four claims filed under the AFMC employment contract.
(Tr. 20, 46-47; Jt. Ex. 6, 7, 8) Despite the express clarification to the respondent`s representative, John Pugh, that such acts fell within Williams` jurisdiction, he refused to recognize Williams as a representative of Local 987 and rejected the letters signed by her on March 28, 2008, in which he invoked arbitration. (Tr. 21; Jt. Ex. 9).
Therefore, unless an affirmative defence was presented, the respondent contravened the Act by refusing to recognize Patti Williams as a representative of Local 987. Moreover, in this case, the protocol provides no evidence that Patti Williams prepared and executed the letters, citing the arbitration, while working on a formal basis in accordance with her status as a steward under the DLA Framework Agreement. In fact, the statement by Williams and union president Tom Scott was that she had not prepared the letters when she was on official time and that this statement had not been challenged or refuted. (Tr. 31, 37-38, 49) More importantly, it was the testimony of John Pugh, the respondent`s representative, who rejected the letters, citing arbitration, that it did not matter to him whether or not Ms. Williams was at the official time, whether it was her status as a representative under the DLA`s employment contract that prevented her from working on issues relating to the AFMC agreement. (Hrsg. 63, 66-67) If a collective agreement contains restrictions on the use of official working time, a union representative may be prevented from working on matters relating to that agreement while in official time under another agreement.3 However, these are not the facts presented in this case, and the excessively broad exclusion of the qualification imposed by the defendant`s representative will not be legally supported, and at the time of rejection, no mention of such a power was made.
or at the hearing. Given that the appointment of Patti Williams as the official union representative one hundred percent (100%) under the DLA`s employment contract did not prevent her from supporting Local 987 in any other capacity, no affirmative defence was put forward by the respondent and the refusal to recognize a designated union representative was against the law. An employer who rejects the employee`s request for representation and continues to ask questions is committing an unfair labour practice (ULP). In such circumstances, the employee may legally refuse to answer questions. If a respondent claims, in defence of an alleged unfair labour practice, that a particular provision of the parties` collective agreement allowed its actions to constitute an unfair labour practice, the authority, including its administrative judges, will determine the meaning of the parties` collective agreement and resolve the unfair labour practice complaint accordingly. The Advocate General argues that the refusal to invoke arbitration in claims filed under the AFMC employment contract because they were signed by a person who was a full-time representative of the union under another employment contract infringes the union`s right to appoint its own representative and that the non-recognition of the duly appointed representative of the union against Article 7116 (a) (1) and (5) of the Statutes Viol. (Tr. 10-13; G.C. Letter pp. 5-7).
The Advocate General further submits that the respondent cannot justify its action on the ground that Patti Williams` involvement in complaints relating to the AFMC`s employment contract violated Article 4.13(a) of that agreement. In support of his position, the Advocate General cites the Deput of the Air Force, Materiel Command HQ, 49 FLRA 1111, 1120 (1994); AFGE Local 1738, 29 FLRA 178, 188 (1987); U.S.. Dep`t of Veterans Affairs, The defendant is an agency under section 7103(a)(3) of the Act. (G.C. Ex. 1 (f).) A trade union is a workers` organisation within the meaning of Article 7103(a)(4) of the Staff Regulations. (Id.). The trade union is the exclusive representative of a unit of workers capable of collective bargaining in the defendant`s establishment. (Id.).
Around 17 years old. In October 2007, the union informed the respondent, through its President Tom Scott, that Patti Williams would act as the union`s full-time representative for AFGE Local 987 under the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Framework Agreement. (Jt. Ex. 1). AFGE Local 987 is an organization consisting of several separate bargaining units at Warner Robins Air Force Base and other sites, including the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) and the Defense Logistics Agency, each with a separate framework agreement. (Tr. 5-17) Between March 25 and 27, 2008, Local 987 informed the respondent that it relied on arbitration for four separate complaints concerning employees subject to the FCTC Framework Agreement, and each notice was signed by Patti Williams. (Jt. Ex.
5, 6, 7 & 8). Although she signed the notices on behalf of Local 987 and was a full-time representative of the union under the DLA Framework Agreement, Ms. Williams did not represent any of the individuals in the complaint procedure established by the Framework Agreement applicable to AFMC employees. (Ed. (53) On 28 March 2008, the defendant sent a letter to the European Union in which it stated that it refused to have recourse to arbitration in Cases L08/011, 08/023, L08/030 and L08/27 on the ground that Ms Williams was a full-time representative of the European Union under the DLA Framework Agreement and that her work on matters relating to the AFMC Agreement ran counter to the ceiling of the total number of representatives on time. full of the Union admitted under that agreement. Violations. (Jt. Ex. 9) At the hearing, John Pugh, the respondent`s representative dismissing the appeal to arbitration, testified that, in his view, the Agency had established a “contract interpretation test” by appointing Patti Williams as a one-hundred percent (100%) representative of official time under 2 In Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C., 47 FLRA 1091, 1103 (1993). This test applies to unfair labour practices that involve a party`s underlying obligation to negotiate (rather than negotiate a specific object) or, as in this case, any other legal right to non-negotiation.
As explained by the authority, the protocol in this case shows that all four elements of prima facie evidence are respected. Local 987 notified Patti Williams in writing on October 19, 2007 and again on March 11, 2008, with Patti Williams` authority to act on her behalf. (Jt. Ex. 1, 2). Union President Tom Scott further clarified his status for John Pugh on March 19, 2008, stating that Williams` scope of powers was not limited to matters relating to the DLA`s employment contract and extended to his authority to sign correspondence with the respondent on behalf of Local 987. . . . .