Click here to view the decision.
60 FLRA No. 87
Dept. of Veterans Affairs, Ralph H. Johnson Medical Center, Charleston, South
Carolina and NAGE, Local R5-136, SEIU, AFL-CIO Case Nos. AT-CA-00101 &
AT-CA-00198 (58 FLRA 432 (2003))
(Decided November 30, 2004)
This case came before the Authority pursuant to a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in National Association of Government Employees, LocalR5-136 v. FLRA, 363 F.3d 468 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (NAGE v. FLRA). The case concerned two consolidated unfair labor practice (ULP) complaints: Case Nos. AT-CA-00101 and AT-CA-00198.
The complaint in Case No. AT-CA-00101 alleged that the Respondent violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to bargain in good faith over the Union's proposals concerning parking at the facility; by declaring that no further action was required on these proposals; and by declaring that the Respondent intended to proceed with proposed changes in parking without negotiation. In . AT-CA-00198, the complaint alleged that the Respondent violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by unilaterally changing a condition of employment by permitting patients to park in an employee parking lot. In both cases, the Authority held that the Respondent did not violate the Statute as alleged and dismissed the complaints.
The court reversed the Authority's determination in AT-CA-00101 that the Respondent did not violate the Statute as alleged and upheld the Authority's order in AT-CA-00198 dismissing the complaint. Consistent with the court's decision, the Authority concluded that in AT-CA-00101, the Respondent violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute as alleged .by refusing to bargain in good faith over a condition of employment. Accordingly, the Authority found that the Respondent violated § 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by refusing to negotiate over the Union's timely submitted proposals.
With regard to the remedy to address the violations of the Statute found in this case, the Authority adopted the Judge's proposed order recommending, among other things, a status quo ante remedy, noting that the Respondent did not except to the remedy and that compliance proceedings are available as necessary to resolve disputes involving the Respondent's ability to implement the status quo ante remedy.