Air Force Collective Bargaining Agreement

1. All alternative work schedules currently approved and in effect at the time of approval of this agreement remain in effect for the duration of this agreement, unless the employer is authorized to hire it in accordance with section g below. In areas where no alternative work plan has been approved at this time, there is nothing to prevent the parties from voluntarily agreeing to the implementation of coverage as part of a compressed work programme. Furthermore, in that case, the record provides no evidence that Patti Williams wrote and executed the letters in which she invoked arbitration while working on the official time in accordance with her steward status under the DLA master`s agreement. In fact, the statement by Williams and the President of the Union, Tom Scott, was that she was not preparing the letters while it was official and that statement had not been questioned or refuted. (Tr. 31, 37-38, 49) More importantly, it was the testimony of John Pugh, the respondent`s representative, who rejected the letters in which the arbitration claimed that it was for him to be of tenure or not, whether it was his status as a representative under the DLA employment contract that prevented him from working on matters related to the AFMC agreement. (Tr. 63, 66-67) If a principal employment contract contains restrictions on the use of official time, a union delegate may be excluded from work on matters related to this agreement, while he is on an official date under another agreement.3 However, these are not the facts presented in this case and the excessively extensive disqualification imposed by the respondent`s representative is not supported by the law. , and no documents were presented to this authority at the time of rejection or to the oral procedure. As the appointment of Patti Williams 100% (100%) Official Time Union Steward under the DLA employment contract did not prevent her from supporting Local 987 in another function, a positive defence was not established by the respondent and the refusal to recognize a designated representative of the Union violated the statute. The respondent is an agency within the meaning of section 7103, point a) (3), of the statute. (G.C Ex.

1 (f)). The Union is a labour organisation within the meaning of .7103 A) (4) of the statute. (Id.) The Union is the exclusive representative of a unit of workers capable of negotiating collective agreements in the respondents` labour camp. (Id.) With regard to the paid noon hours, we find that the parties` proposals and arguments are deeply tinged with the story surrounding the subject, including the FLRA decision in the Travis AFB, which, as expected, sets out in its outdated CBA. With regard to the merits of their respective positions as to what should be included in their succession agreement, we believe that paid lunches should only be necessary in exceptional cases, as the employer has decided.