An employer who rejects the worker`s request for representation and continues to ask questions is committing an unfair labour practice (ULP). In such circumstances, the worker may legally refuse to answer questions. Unit violates section 4.13(a) of this agreement, as it effectively gives Local 987 six stewards at 100% official time (100%) instead of the five listed in section 4.13(a) of the AFMC agreement. In accordance with her authority, Patti Williams took steps under this authority by preparing and signing correspondence with the respondent on March 25 and 27, 2008, invoking arbitration in the cases of four claims under the AFMC employment contract. (Tr. 20, 46-47; Jt. Ex. Furthermore, in this case, the minutes provide no evidence that Patti Williams drafted and executed the letters in which she invoked arbitration, while she was working in accordance with her status as a steward under the DLA framework contract at the official time. In fact, Williams and union president Tom Scott said she did not prepare the letters when she was at the time official, and that this statement has not been challenged or refuted.

(Tr. 31, 37-38, 49) More importantly, it was the testimony of John Pugh, the respondent`s representative, who dismissed the letters of appeal to arbitration, that it did not matter whether Ms. Williams was official or not, that it was her status as a representative under the DLA`s employment contract that prevented her from working on issues related to the AFMC agreement. (en. 63, 66-67) Where a framework contract contains restrictions on the use of official time, a union representative may be prevented, in accordance with another agreement, from working during the official period on matters related to that agreement.3 However, these are not the facts presented in this case and the excessively broad disqualification imposed by the respondent`s representative is not supported by law, and at the time of the refusal, no such power was cited. or oral proceedings. Given that the appointment of Patti Williams as a 100% (100%) union administrator did not preclude, under the DLA`s employment contract, supporting Local 987 in another function, the respondent did not establish a positive defence and the refusal to recognize a designated representative of the union was contrary to the statute. If a defendant, in defence of an alleged unfair labour practice, asserts that a specific provision of the parties` collective agreement authorises his actions, which are supposed to constitute an unfair labour practice, the Authority, including its administrative judges, will determine the importance of the parties` collective agreement and resolve the unfair labour practices complaint accordingly. . .

.