In applying the criteria set by the Authority within the CFI, I come to the conclusion that a status quo ante remedy is appropriate. The actions of the DE Centre were a deliberate failure of the negotiations. Thus, during the third round of negotiations, Taylor abruptly declared “We are finished” and then rejected the Union`s efforts to entrap the aid of a mediator. While the centre based its conduct on its allegation that the purpose of the amendment was covered, the only agreement relied upon by the respondent in support of its position was a 1995 agreement. The respondent`s attitude showed that VA Center was aware that this position was misleading since VA Center invoked section 20 of the parties` current MA in the oral proceedings and did not mention or demonstrate the existence of a 1995 agreement. At the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 47 FLRA 1004 (1993) (SSA), FLRA stated that an agency was not required to negotiate if the purpose of a union`s bargaining request was covered or contained by the parties` collective agreement. In the Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan Air Force Base, California, 47 FLRA 1161 (1993), the Authority stated that it would apply its “covered/included” analysis in SSA in cases where there would be unilateral changes in working conditions, in which an agency states that it is not required to negotiate on the subject because of the terms of a negotiated agreement. The authority described this approach as follows: Ibidun Roberts: The union seeks fairness in the agreement. That is why we always offer conditions that require fair action from management. B for example, by communicating something to employees, by allowing employees to react, management performs due diligence, such as an investigation before making a decision. So these are things that the Union would impose. And the panel pulled out these things.
There are therefore several clauses in which the Agency suggested that they would simply comply with the law, and the panel gave them that none of the procedures were in place. It will not be clear how management will carry out these tasks, because the body has resumed the procedures that we would have proposed and negotiated. Tom Temin: Give us an idea of the situation in which the whole treaty is in terms of the timing and expiration of the existing treaty. AFGE filed with FSIP on June 3, arguing that the Department of Veterans Affairs had proposed significant changes to its collective agreement with the union and then refused to negotiate in good faith with AFGE representatives for counter-proposals substantially similar to those of the current agreement. Ibidun Roberts: Oh yes. The VA is therefore seeking a ten-year contract. We are looking for the traditional three-year contract.