After carefully assessing the arguments and evidence put forward in this regard, we conclude that the parties should accept the UNION`s proposal, which has been amended as follows: “The field of competition will be negotiated in every defence logistics agency filing”. In this regard, the protocol reflects the fact that the parties are bound by a provision of their MCBA stipulating that all other agreements must comply with their terms. (7) We note that, of the parties` proposals, only those of the Union are compatible with Article 31, paragraph 13, of the MCBA of the parties. However, the proposal must be amended to include “competition areas” and not “compliance areas” and specify that competition negotiations could only take place once in each filing during the duration of the supplementary CBA. This should, to some extent, allay the employer`s concerns that local competition negotiations will lead to disruption to staff. With regard to the employer`s non-negotiation argument, it is apparent from the protocol that it was raised on the assumption that the Union`s final offer would have extra-unit effects. Neither the Union`s actual final offer nor our amended version necessarily have such effects, since they both simply demand that negotiations take place at the local level. However, the employer can argue during local negotiations if it believes that the proposed competition sectors would have an impact on workers in another bargaining unit. (8) Section 4. 1.: The Union is authorised as a representative on each committee set up by the Agency with the SLFA. In the second award, the Adjudicator found that after the pas1 complaint was submitted to the AFMC Base Commander, the appeal did not receive “the attention it receives .
. . . DLA [master contract]. Id. The Adjudicator also noted that the “bottom line of the complaint” is that “the ticket must be removed from the grieving minutes and that the [A]gencies immediately correspond to the MOA.” Id. According to the arbitrator, the agencies decided not to send representatives to the arbitration hearing and “did not provide written documents of the form of evidence to support their positions.” Id. As a result, the arbitrator found that the agencies “did not offer anything to the registration .
. . . discuss the contractual basis or its absence in order to declare that they are not dealing properly with the complaint. Id. The organisation of the captain`s contract between the Union and the DLA by the arbitrator is not credible and goes against its purpose. In this regard, the Arbitrator found that the negotiated appeal procedure was available in this framework contract to enforce an AAD in which neither the Union nor the DLA participate. As it is indisputable that AFMC is not a party to this framework agreement, the negotiated appeal procedure therefore does not apply to AFMC.
