Tinker Air Force Base Master Labor Agreement

Id. to 2, 3 (highlighted omitted). In addition, Section 13 of the parties` local endorsement provides that the Agency`s base commander has generally decided that drug-related offences, including uneducated offences, will be tried by a U.S. magistrate. During the pay period, which began on November 26 and ended on December 9, 1995, the union delegate negotiated “an agreement with the Defense Printing Service (Navy).” Prices at 4:00 a.m. These negotiations were conducted in the Union Hall from 0800 to 1600 hours (8 a.m. .m-4 p.m.m. The Agency learned that the representative of the Union had negotiated the agreement with the navy and provided proof of time and presence (ATT) for the same period. In the T-A file, the union representative indicated that he was carrying out activities to represent the unit at the Agency by arriving early, staying late, performing weekend representation activities and sharing his work day. See exceptions, appendix 5 (time and attendance record). The representative of the Union reported a total of 140.5 hours for the time spent negotiating the naval agreement and implementing representative activities within the Agency. Of the total number of hours reported, the UNION representative worked 72.5 hours to represent the Agency and an additional 7.5 hours of annual leave. The conciliator therefore found, on the basis of the history of the negotiations, the practice and the agreement of the parties, that it was not appropriate for the Agency to limit the “working time” of the Union representative to the daily post from 0645 to 1530 (6:45 .m-15:30.m.

Accordingly, the arbitrator found that the Agency had not demonstrated that the Union had violated the law, rule, regulation, past practice or agreement of the parties when the union representative was negotiating an agreement for the naval unit. He therefore challenged the complaint. The Agency`s exceptions that the arbitration award is contrary to Section 7131 (a) of the statute and will not conclude its essence in the parties` collective agreement are denied. With regard to the question of whether the EU representative`s timetable meets the requirements of Article 6130 A(2) of the Work Schedules Act and, if not, whether the timetable is set at 5 US States. It was allowed. (a) the possession or use of a dangerous substance controlled on the basis of that substance; The arbitrator found that the union representative provided the bargaining unit for the agency`s employees during the disputed salary period during eighty hours of representation. The Arbitrator also found that there was a previous practice where “full-time workers [union representatives 100% of official time] relax their working hours” in order to properly represent the bargaining unit and fulfill their obligations to the Agency. Prices at 6:00 a.m. According to the Arbitrator, this practice began in 1986 with the first full-time union [v. 55 p. 806] and corresponds to the Union`s position during negotiations on the collective agreement of the parties as well as with previous arbitration decisions. The Arbitrator also found that the term “otherwise in the mandatory status” of Article 4, Section 4.05, applied to workers representing part-time union representatives and not to full-time EU representatives, as described in Article 4, item 4.13.

We have come to the Union`s view that the award is contrary to Article 13 of the local endorsement, since the price does not derive its essence from the collective agreement of the parties.