12 Dec 2020


On or about October 17, 2007, the Union informed the defendant, through its Chairman Tom Scott, that Patti Williams would be the union`s full-time representative for AFGE Local 987 as part of the Defense Logistics Agency`s (DLA) Master Labor 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 Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) and the Defence Logistics Agency, each with a separate master`s contract. (Tr. 5-17) Between March 25 and 27, 2008, Local 987 informed the respondent that it was considering an arbitration procedure for four separate complaints involving staff members submitted to the AFMC Executive Contract, and each notification 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 union representative under the DLA management agreement, Ms. Williams did not represent any of the individuals in the complaint procedure established by the AFMC staff framework contract. (Tr. 53) On March 28, 2008, the respondent sent a letter to the Union indicating that it was using arbitration in L08/011, 08/023, L08/030 and L08/27 rejected that Ms Williams was a full-time EU representative under the DLA Steering Contract and that her work on afMC-related matters violated the limitation of the total number of full-time representatives approved by the Union under that agreement.

(Jt. Ex. 9) During the oral proceedings, John Pugh, the respondent`s representative charged with dismissing the appeals, stated that, in his view, the appointment was 100% (100%) The Authority submitted a “contract interpretation test” by the Authority under 2 In Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C., 47 FLRA 1091, 1103 (1993). This test applies to unfair labour practices that involve the underlying bargaining obligation of a party (instead of negotiating a particular subject) or, as in this case, for any other unsealed legal right. As the Authority explained, the respondent is an agency within the meaning of section 7103, point a) (3) of the statute.

Comments are closed.