Council 214 is a group of AFGE Locals within Af Force Materiel Command (AFMC), who have come together to form a bargaining council. We have exclusive recognition from the AFGE National Office to negotiate any work matter involving two or more of our constituents. In accordance with her authority, Patti Williams took action within this authority by preparing and signing correspondence with the respondent on March 25 and 27, 2008, who invoked arbitration in the cases of four complaints filed under the AFMC employment contract. (Tr. 20, 46-47; Jt. Ex. 6, 7, 8) Despite explicit clarification to the respondent`s agent John Pugh that such acts fell within the scope of Williams` authority, he refused to recognize Williams as a representative of Local 987 and rejected the letters she signed on March 28, 2008. (Tr. 21; Jt Ex. 9). Accordingly, unless no positive defence was presented, the respondent breached the status by refusing to recognize Patti Williams as the representative of Local 987.

However, the respondent`s argument has no place. At U.S. Dep`t of Air Force, HQ, Air Force Materiel Command, 49 FLRA 1111, 1120 (1994) clarified that provisions under master contracts limiting the number of union representatives authorized to work on official time do not restrict a union`s right to appoint as many representatives as circumstances require, or to set limits on the location from which representatives may be appointed. 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 official representative of the time under The General Counsel argues: that the rejection of the opposition of arbitrations against complaints filed under the AFMC employment contract because they were signed by a full-time EU representative under another employment contract violates the Union`s right to appoint its own representative and that the non-recognition of the Union representative, 7116 A(a) and 5 of the statute. (Tr. 10-13; G.C.

Short at 5-7). The General Counsel also argues that the respondent cannot justify its action by the fact that Patti Williams violated Section 4.13 (a) of that agreement in the event of complaints about the AFMC employment contract.