The „special wage practices“ described in the collective agreement and the practices described in the protocol as past practices, which are not reflected in the agreement, are a wage treatment mechanism intended to facilitate the remuneration of workers in undisputed amounts. What makes this salary „special“ is not the rate of pay, but the recognition of particular circumstances that justify such a „particular“ mechanism. The measures taken by the European Union were in line with the assertion of its right to negotiate substantial changes in the availability of special charges. Their measures were consistent with the Authority`s policy regarding the limited maintenance of terms and conditions of employment set out in an expired contract. They did not, therefore, force unions to negotiate, if necessary, to find themselves in a deadlock or not to deny the right of their bargaining partner to implement the negotiated changes. DFAS claims that interference in the bargaining report would not be incompatible with the fact that it informed the shipyard and the national trade union representatives of the progress of the transformation and recommended to various elements of the division (but not directly to the shipyard) to negotiate with the local workers` organizations the effects and issues of implementation. DFAS cites these measures as evidence that it has recognised and respected local negotiating relationships, including the relationship between the shipyard and the EU. DFAS points out that the mistake, if any, was not to keep the Union informed and to give it the opportunity to exercise all its negotiating rights at the shipyard. 6. Although DFAS does not mention it, I note that Article II(1) of the Treaty provides that `the management of all matters covered by the agreement shall be regulated by officials and servants . .
. [b]y Existing or future Ministry of Defence and Ministry of the Navy Directives and Regulations. The Consolidation of the Payroll Functions by the Agency was consistent with this provision. However, since the provision only concerns the management of (material) matters covered by the agreement, this is not the case where, as described in the United States, this is a case. . . .