L`Union asserts that, although the Agency has decided not to prosecute, the infringement of the remedy is the nature that can be referred to the US judge for trial and, as such, AFR 110-15 and the Agency`s local addendum prohibit the initiating of a separate administrative disciplinary measure. The European Union also argues that the arbitral award would be contrary to previous arbitration decisions, which would interpret AFR 110-15 by excluding administrative discipline for offences that were or could have been referred to the US judge. In applying the criteria set out by the AMF in the CFI to the facts of this case, I conclude that a remedy with status quo ante is appropriate. The actions of the VA Center were a deliberate failure to negotiate. Thus, at the third negotiating meeting, Taylor abruptly declared, “We are ready” and then rejected the Union`s efforts to seek the help of a mediator. While the VA Center based its conduct on its assertion that the subject matter of the amendment was covered by an agreement, the only agreement relied on by the respondent to base its position was a 1995 Memorandum of Understanding. The respondent`s conduct suggested that VA Center was aware that this position was misleading, given that during the oral proceedings VA Center relied on Article 20 of the parties` current placing on the market and did not mention or introduce a 1995 declaration of intent. Perkins served on the breakout team responsible for Article 44. During his duties as union president during the previous MA, his attempts at bargaining on the ground were thwarted because management claimed that there was no obligation to bargain because of the collective agreements covered by the doctrine. The intention of Article 44, Section 1(c) was to give local trade unions the right to negotiate issues already covered by the MA. During the negotiations, AFGE made it clear that if Section 1(c) was not included in the ma, AFGE would explicitly add a language to each part of the Treaty, in order to cover “almost every situation that the Union might invent, thus creating a massive framework agreement”. In the Department of Health and Human Services of the U.S. Department of Health, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 47 FLRA 1004 (1993) (SSA), the FLRA stated that an authority was not entitled to negotiate if the subject matter of a union`s bargaining request was covered or included in the parties` collective agreement.
. . .