Click here to view the decision.
57 FLRA No. 183
U. S. Dept. of The Air Force, 913th Air Wing, Willow Grove Air Reserve Station, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania and NAGE, Local R3-32, SEIU, AFL-CIO, Case Nos. BN-CA-00252, BN-CA-00354 (Decided June 14, 2002)
The consolidated complaints alleged that the Respondent violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute by refusing to provide notice of changes in conditions of employment to the Union's president, and by implementing two particular changes in its security guards' duties and staffing requirements without providing the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain. The Authority adopted the Judge's findings and conclusions that the Respondent violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. However, the Authority set aside the Judge's determination that a status quo ante remedy was warranted with regard to the change in the staffing requirement.
The Authority found that the Judge did not err in finding that the Respondent failed to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to bargain over changes in conditions of employment. Additionally, the Authority found that the Union did not waive its right to bargain, and that the effect of the change in lead guard duties was more than de minimis.
As to the remedy, the Authority found that status quo ante remedy with respect to the change in the staffing requirement was not appropriate. The Authority explained that where an agency has failed to bargain over the impact and implementation of a management decision, the Authority evaluates the appropriateness of a status quo ante remedy using the following factors: (1) whether and when notice was given to the union by the agency concerning the change; (2) whether and when the union requested bargaining; (3) the willfulness of the agency's conduct in failing to discharge its bargaining obligation; (4) the nature and extent of the adverse impact on unit employees; and (5) whether and to what degree a status quo ante remedy would disrupt or impact the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency's operations.
The Authority further explained that the appropriateness of a status quo ante remedy must be determined on a case-by-case basis, carefully balancing the nature and circumstances of the particular violation against the degree of disruption in government operations that would be caused by such a remedy. Here, the Respondent claimed that a status quo ante remedy would seriously impair its security by leaving its assets unprotected. The Authority found that such a remedy would adversely affect the security level at the Air Reserve station and, as such, would disrupt and impair the efficiency and effectiveness of the Respondent's operations.