AfLC and Council 214 are parties to a master`s contract (MLA). Section 33.02 of the CGA deals with order-level negotiations, i.e. negotiations at the level of exclusive recognition. In section 33.02 v. of the GW, “the parties can agree on each other to delegate responsibility for negotiation to subordinate activities and local union officials.” Section 33.03 deals with activity-level negotiations and includes the provisions of Section 33.02 (c). We conclude that if the arbitrator had understood that the MOA was not applicable by the Union, he would not have upheld the complaint that the MOA wanted to make. Therefore, the central factual finding underlying its price is patently erroneous, but for which it would have achieved a different result. See z.B. United States Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., 18 FLRA 374, 375-76 (1985) (granting an agreement that was not for mourning because it had been cancelled as a basis for a non-fact). There is nothing in the minutes to indicate that the adjudicator`s findings below have been challenged. For these reasons, we conclude that the central fact underlying the award is manifestly wrong, but for which the arbitrator would have obtained a different result and the award is therefore deficient. See 375-76. In November 1987, the AFLC and the Council exchanged 214 proposals at national level on mid-term negotiation procedures initiated by the Union.
On November 23, 1987, the Commission presented an unfair labour practice to 214, stating that the AFLC refused to negotiate the negotiations mid-term and, on March 18, 1988, another unfair labour practice, stating that the AFLC was delaying negotiations on other matters until the mid-term negotiation procedures were completed. General Counsel filed complaints regarding both cases and the Authority found that the AFLC had committed alleged unfair labour practices. See U.S. Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 36 FLRA 524 (1990) (Wright-Patterson I) and 36 FLRA 912 (1990) (Wright-Patterson II). Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah and Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 39 FLRA No. 121 (1991) (Wright-Patterson III) found that the respondent AFLC engaged in an unfair labour practice by intervening in the bargaining relationship between Ogden and AFGE, the exclusive representative of its employees, by refusing to wear ogres. to negotiate a medium-term proposal until interim negotiations are concluded. The grieving man was provided with a traffic ticket by AFMC, Tinker AFB`s host agency, because he was not wearing adequate safety equipment while riding the motorcycle. See the price at 2 o`clock. The victim filed a complaint as part of the control agreement between the DLA and the Union, which questioned the ticket. In the complaint, the Union attempted to impose a Memorandum of Understanding (MOA) on motorcycle safety between AFMC and AFGE, Council 214.