NAVFAC P MANAGEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT. (True or False) Possession of a valid state operator's license is NOT required for the issuance of an OF or NAVFAC Form /2 for operating on base only. NAVFAC P Management of Transportation Read more about maintenance, transportation, vehicles, repair, requirements and motor.
|Author:||Mrs. Ron Jacobi|
|Published:||2 December 2017|
|PDF File Size:||6.96 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||44.96 Mb|
|Uploader:||Mrs. Ron Jacobi|
Statement of the Case This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions filed by the General Counsel to the attached decision of the Administrative Law Judge. The Respondent did not file an opposition to the exceptions.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section a 1 and 5 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute the Statute by terminating its past practice of issuing certain Government motor navfac p 300 permits permits to employees without providing the Charging Navfac p 300 with notice and an opportunity to negotiate over the change.
The complaint also alleges that the Respondent violated: The Judge found that, although the Respondent was not obligated to bargain over its decision to change its past practice, the Navfac p 300 violated section a 1 and 5 of the Statute by failing to notify the Union before changing the practice and affording the Union an opportunity to bargain over the impact and implementation navfac p 300 the change.
The Judge dismissed the other allegations in the complaint.
Manuals Combined: + U.S. Army Navy Air Force Marine Corps Generator - Google Libros
Pursuant to section We affirm the rulings. For the following reasons, which differ in part from those of the Judge, we conclude, navfac p 300 agreement with the Judge, that the Respondent did not violate the Statute by failing to bargain with the Union over its decision to change its past practice.
Background and Facts The facts, which are fully set forth in the Judge's decision, are navfac p 300 below.
Prior to Septemberthe Respondent issued navfac p 300 authorizing employee motor vehicle operators MVOs to drive certain types of vehicles on base without regard to whether the MVOs held valid state commercial driver's licenses CDLs to drive that type of vehicle. Accordingly, in Septemberthe Respondent rescinded those employees' permits.
At the same time, the Respondent ceased issuing such permits. With respect to the former claim, the Judge determined that the issuance of permits for employees to operate vehicles on base that they could not, under state CDLs, operate off base "was a condition of employment which afforded overtime opportunities as well as operating experience which could lead navfac p 300 future advancement.
According to the Judge, those regulations prohibited "MVOs having a state license for certain purposes and a [G]overnment 'license'. Moreover, according to the Judge, the Bulletin did not address the prohibition on an MVO possessing more than one license.
navfac p 300
- NAVY-General 3/5
- ESE - Engineering Support Equipment | AcronymAttic
- NAVY General
- Account Options
The Judge concluded that, as the Respondent's practice of issuing permits had become unlawful, the Respondent was not required to bargain navfac p 300 its decision to change its practice.
The Judge also concluded that the General Counsel failed to make a prima facie showing that Roy's permit was rescinded because he engaged in protected activity.
As relevant here, the Judge rejected the General Counsel's argument that the Respondent's actions in connection with rescinding Lavoie's permit nearly 7 months after it rescinded Roy's permit established that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Roy.
Moreover, according to the Judge, the record "affirmatively navfac p 300 overwhelmingly show[ed] that. Roy's protected activity was not a consideration in the withdrawal" of his permit. Navfac p 300 addition, the Judge found that the Respondent, through Roy's supervisor, "demonstrated extraordinary consideration" for Roy in preparing him for, and accompanying him to take, his state examination.
The Judge concluded that the Respondent's actions were "the absolute antithesis of animus toward.
UFC 2-000-05N Facility Planning Criteria for Navy/Marine Corps Shore Installations
Roy for any reason. Having concluded that the General Counsel failed to establish a prima facie showing of discrimination, the Judge navfac p 300 the allegations in the complaint that the Respondent violated section a 12 navfac p 300 4 of the Statute.
In this regard, the General Counsel contends that, based on questions 6 and 7 in the Bulletin, any requirement that a person have a valid state CDL to operate a class of motor vehicles "in effect, stops at the gates to the Respondent's shipyard[.