First, the Agency finds that Section 6130 (a) (2) of the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1982 (Work Schedules Act), Pub. L. 97-221, 96 Stat 227 (codified at 5.C 6101 note, 6106, 6120-6133), prohibits any flexible or compressed worktop that is not expressly included in a collective agreement. The Agency argues that the EU has never negotiated that full-time EU representatives have compressed or flexible working hours within the meaning of the Working Time Act. Accordingly, the Agency argues that the allocation is inconsistent with Section 6130 A (a) (2), as there is no explicit agreement that provides for a flexible work plan. The arbitrator dismissed a complaint filed by the Agency that the Union violated the legislation, rule, regulation, prior practice and collective agreement of the parties when a union representative used official time to negotiate a collective agreement for employees of another agency. The Union argues that the evidence supports the arbitrator`s decision. According to the EU, the main representatives of the Union must set their hours of service to fulfil their representation obligations, since the Agency operates its workplace 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Union argues that the representative of the Union concerned was at the time he was negotiating the agreement for the navy, which lasted „6.5 days“.
Opposition to 3. The Union states that he arrives early at work, stays late, works weekends and shares his work day,“ he was able to perform 80 hours of representation for the [Air Force] bargaining unit. The Union states that the representative of the Union informed his supervisor that he would „change his order of work“. Therefore, on the basis of the protocol, we cannot judge whether the arbitration decision is insufficient under the work plan law, as the Agency claims, or whether the representative of the Union is entitled to the official time set by the arbitrator. In these circumstances, and in accordance with the Authority`s precedent, we will award contracts to the parties. See Army Research, 53 FLRA 1710-11. In pre-trial detention, without comparison, the parties should refer this matter to the arbitrator in order to determine, in law of the facts, whether the timetable of the representative of the Union was authorized by a collective agreement within the meaning of the work plan law and, if not, whether the representative of the Union is entitled to the official deadline on another basis.