National Science Foundation (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3403, AFL-CIO (Complainant) 



[ v01 p1020 ]
01:1020(116)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 1 FLRA No. 116
 
 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 3403, AFL-CIO
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 22-08764(CA)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    ON DECEMBER 15, 1978, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
 ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
 PROCEEDING, FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN THE UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND
 DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS AS SET FORTH IN
 THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.
 THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENT AND THE COMPLAINANT FILED EXCEPTIONS WITH
 RESPECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER.  IN ADDITION, THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM) AND THE
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) WERE PERMITTED TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS
 IN THIS MATTER.  THE COMPLAINANT SUBMITTED A RESPONSE TO THE OPM BRIEF.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, WERE
 TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION PLAN
 NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
 IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (44 F.R. 7).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
 THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7135(B) OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION
 RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY
 HAS REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE
 HEARING AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS
 ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE
 SUBJECT CASE, INCLUDING THE PARTIES' EXCEPTIONS AND THE AMICUS CURIAE
 BRIEFS OF THE OPM AND THE DOD, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AS
 MODIFIED HEREIN.  /1/
 
    IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS
 THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE
 ORDER.  IN THIS REGARD, THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO AFFORD THE COMPLAINANT
 ADEQUATE ADVANCE NOTICE OF AN IMPENDING REORGANIZATION AND
 REDUCTION-IN-FORCE, AND THEREBY FAILED TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATION TO GIVE
 THE COMPLAINANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK BARGAINING ABOUT THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS PLANNED ACTIONS, /2/ INCLUDING THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY CHANGES IN ITS REDUCTION-IN-FORCE APPEAL
 PROCEDURES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MANDATED BY CHANGES IN THE FEDERAL
 PERSONNEL MANUAL.  ACCORDINGLY, HAVING FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT ENGAGED
 IN CONDUCT VIOLATIVE OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE AUTHORITY SHALL ISSUE
 AN APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL ORDER.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS OF
 THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7135 OF THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS
 THAT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INSTITUTING A REORGANIZATION AND REDUCTION-IN-FORCE WITHOUT
 AFFORDING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3403,
 AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES,
 ADEQUATE NOTICE AND A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE
 EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE PROCEDURES TO BE
 FOLLOWED IN IMPLEMENTING THE REORGANIZATION AND REDUCTION-IN-FORCE,
 INCLUDING THOSE CONNECTED WITH ANY MANDATED CHANGE IN THE
 REDUCTION-IN-FORCE APPEAL PROCEDURES, AND ON THE IMPACT OF SUCH ACTIONS
 ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
 
    (A) IN THE FUTURE, GIVE THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3403, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
 AFFECTED EMPLOYEES, ADEQUATE NOTICE AND A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET
 AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE
 PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN IMPLEMENTING THE REORGANIZATION AND
 REDUCTION-IN-FORCE, INCLUDING THOSE CONNECTED WITH ANY MANDATED CHANGE
 IN THE REDUCTION-IN-FORCE APPEAL PROCEDURES, AND ON THE IMPACT OF SUCH
 ACTIONS ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) POST AT ALL OF ITS FACILITIES COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE
 MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED
 BY THE AGENCY'S DIRECTOR AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR
 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE
 THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY IN WRITING WITHIN 30
 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO
 COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 24, 1979
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                   FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY /3/
 
        APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND
 
           ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN
 
          ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE
 
                5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE
 
              LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR
 
                             EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT INSTITUTE A REORGANIZATION AND REDUCTION-IN-FORCE WITHOUT
 AFFORDING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3403,
 AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES,
 ADEQUATE NOTICE AND A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE
 EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE PROCEDURES TO BE
 FOLLOWED IN IMPLEMENTING THE REORGANIZATION AND REDUCTION-IN-FORCE,
 INCLUDING THOSE CONNECTED WITH ANY MANDATED CHANGE IN THE
 REDUCTION-IN-FORCE APPEAL PROCEDURES, AND ON THE IMPACT OF SUCH ACTIONS
 ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    WE WILL, IN THE FUTURE, GIVE THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3403, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
 AFFECTED EMPLOYEES, ADEQUATE NOTICE AND A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET
 AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE
 PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN IMPLEMENTING A REORGANIZATION AND
 REDUCTION-IN-FORCE, INCLUDING THOSE CONNECTED WITH ANY MANDATED CHANGE
 IN THE REDUCTION-IN-FORCE APPEAL PROCEDURES, AND ON THE IMPACT OF SUCH
 ACTIONS ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
                            AGENCY OR ACTIVITY
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WHOSE ADDRESS IS:
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, ROOM 416, VANGUARD BUILDING, 1111
 20TH STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C., AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:
 (202) 254-6581.
 
    LEWIS E. GROTKE, ESQUIRE
 
    CHARLES HERZ, ESQUIRE
 
    OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.  20550
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    RICHMAN B. SEIDEL
 
    NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES
 
    8020 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE
 
    HYATTSVILLE, MARYLAND 20283
 
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    BEFORE:  SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                      RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    PURSUANT TO A COMPLAINT FILED ON FEBRUARY 15, 1978 UNDER EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ORDER) BY AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3403, AFL-CIO (HEREINAFTER
 CALLED THE UNION OR LOCAL 3403 AFGE) AGAINST THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
 FOUNDATION (HEREINAFTER CALLED NSF, THE ACTIVITY OR RESPONDENT) A NOTICE
 OF HEARING ON COMPLAINT WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 29, 1978 BY THE UNITED
 STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ACTING REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR THE PHILADELPHIA,
 PENNSYLVANIA REGION.
 
    BASICALLY THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THAT THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED SECTIONS
 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY INSTITUTING A REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF)
 AND ISSUING RIF NOTICES WITHOUT AFFORDING THE UNION ADEQUATE TIME TO
 NEGOTIATE THE PROCEDURES TO BE USED IN THE RIF AND THE ADVERSE IMPACT
 THAT WOULD RESULT AND FURTHER BY ISSUING THE RIF NOTICES WHEN NO
 AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REACHED WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVERSE IMPACT WHICH
 WOULD RESULT AND BY REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE ABOUT THE PROCEDURES TO BE
 USED IN AFFECTING THE RIF.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED IN WASHINGTON, D.C.  BOTH
 PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED AND WERE AFFORDED A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 HEARD, TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AND TO EXAMINE THE CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.
 BOTH PARTIES WERE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE ORALLY AND BOTH
 PARTIES FILED BRIEFS, WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, FROM MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM ALL THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
 ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    1.  SINCE OCTOBER 1975 AFGE LOCAL 3403 HAS BEEN THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR A UNIT CONSISTING OF MOST NON-SUPERVISORY
 EMPLOYEES OF THE ACTIVITY.
 
    2.  ON JULY 11, 1977 AFGE LOCAL 3403 AND NSF ENTERED INTO A
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDED, IN ITS PREAMBLE,
 
    "IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF ALL MATTERS COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT, ALL
 OFFICIALS AND
 
    EMPLOYEES OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ARE GOVERNED BY EXISTING
 OR FUTURE LAWS, ORDERS,
 
    INSTRUCTIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND RULES AND REGULATIONS OF APPROPRIATE
 AUTHORITIES;  (AND) BY
 
    PUBLISHED AGENCY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME
 THE AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED,
 
    UNLESS SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY THIS AGREEMENT . . . ".
 
    3.  ARTICLE II. B. OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PROVIDES
 THAT
 
    "AMENDMENTS TO THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN
 APPLICABLE LAWS,
 
    ORDERS, RESTRICTIONS, INSTRUCTIONS, OR RULES AND REGULATIONS OF
 APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES, MADE
 
    OR ISSUED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT.  THEREFORE, AT
 ANY TIME DURING THE LIFE
 
    OF THIS AGREEMENT, UPON WRITTEN NOTICE BY ONE PARTY TO THE OTHER,
 THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE OPENED
 
    FOR THE NEGOTIATION OF CHANGES BEARING DIRECTLY ON, AND FALLING
 WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SUCH LAWS,
 
    ORDERS, RESTRICTIONS, RULES, REGULATIONS, OR INSTRUCTIONS.
 
    "IN ADDITION, THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE OPENED AT ANY TIME DURING THE
 LIFE THEREOF, WITH THE
 
    PRIOR MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF BOTH PARTIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
 NEGOTIATING AMENDMENTS
 
    THERETO.  THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT TO REOPEN THE CONTRACT SHALL BE
 EVIDENCED IN WRITING, AND SHALL
 
    STATE THE SPECIFIC AREAS OR PROVISIONS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR
 AMENDMENT."
 
    ARTICLE XVIII. B. OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PROVIDES
 THAT
 
    "THIS AGREEMENT DEFINES THE COMPLETE AGREEMENTS AND UNDERSTANDINGS
 BETWEEN THE PARTIES
 
    THERETO.  ALL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FOUNDATION NOT
 SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY THIS
 
    AGREEMENT REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT."
 
    4.  IN EARLY SUMMER 1977 THE NSF INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE UNION
 ABOUT THREE PROPOSED NEW ISSUANCES THAT COULD AFFECT EMPLOYEES IN THE
 BARGAINING UNIT.  ONE OF THE ITEMS, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE MATTER
 HEREIN, WAS A PROPOSED REVISED VERSION OF NSF CIRCULAR NO. 33,
 CONCERNING RIF PROCEDURES.  THIS CIRCULAR PROVIDED, IN PART, FOR BOTH AN
 NSF APPEAL AND A CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPEAL.  A CIVIL SERVICE
 COMMISSION REVISION OF THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL APPARENTLY
 ELIMINATED INTERNAL AGENCY APPEALS IN RIF SITUATIONS, THUS REQUIRING
 SOME CHANGES IN NSF CIRCULAR NO. 33.
 
    5.  SOME DISCUSSION CONCERNING SOME OF THESE ITEMS TOOK PLACE BETWEEN
 THE PARTIES BUT THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED REVISION OF
 CIRCULAR NO. 33.  ON SEPTEMBER 6 OR 7, 1977 MANAGEMENT WITHDREW ALL
 THREE PROPOSED CHANGES ON THE GROUND THAT THEY HAD INADVERTEDLY BEEN
 PRESENTED TO AFGE LOCAL 3403 BEFORE BEING APPROVED BY TOP MANAGEMENT.
 THE UNION DID NOT OBJECT.
 
    6.  IN LATE SEPTEMBER 1977, AFTER ABOUT A YEAR OF STUDY, NSF DIRECTOR
 RICHARD ATKINSON APPROVED A REORGANIZATION WITHIN NSF'S DIRECTORATE FOR
 SCIENTIFIC, TECHNOLOGICAL AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (STIA).  THE STIA
 DIRECTORATE HAD BEEN FORMED ABOUT TWO YEARS EARLIER BY A COMBINATION OF
 EXISTING SEPARATE UNITS.  THE NSF DIRECTOR'S DECISION ESTABLISHED WHICH
 STIA FUNCTIONS WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF AND WHICH WOULD BE REDUCED
 OR ELIMINATED.
 
    7.  ON OR ABOUT THE AFTERNOON OF OCTOBER 6, 1977 NSF'S LABOR
 RELATIONS OFFICER, JOHN MOSTAKIS TELEPHONED UNION PRESIDENT JOSEPH
 GANNON AND INFORMED HIM OF THE PLANNED REORGANIZATION OF STIA AND
 SUGGESTED THAT THEY MEET THE NEXT DAY.  UNION PRESIDENT GANNON AGREED TO
 MEET THE FOLLOWING DAY, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1977.
 
    8.  AT THE OCTOBER 7, 1977 MEETINGS BOTH NSF AND AFGE LOCAL 3403 WERE
 REPRESENTED.  STIA DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LEONARD LEDERMAN EXPLAINED
 THE PLANNED REORGANIZATION AND ITS BACKGROUND TO THE UNION
 REPRESENTATIVES AND ADVISED THE UNION THAT NSF PLANNED TO ISSUE THE
 OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE REALIGNMENT ON OCTOBER 12, 1977 AND TO
 DELIVER THE RIF NOTICES TO AFFECTED EMPLOYEES ON OCTOBER 14,1977.  NSF
 ALSO PROVIDED THE UNION WITH THE NAMES OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
 BARGAINING UNIT WHO MIGHT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
 REORGANIZATION AND WITH A DRAFT OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE REALIGNMENT
 FOR THE SIGNATURE OF THE NSF DIRECTOR.  THE UNION REQUESTED THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE OVER THE PROCEDURES TO BE
 UTILIZED IN EFFECTING THE RIF AND OVER ITS ADVERSE IMPACT ON AFFECTED
 EMPLOYEES.  ALSO AT THE MEETING NSF STATED THAT IT WOULD LIKE TO
 PROMPTLY ADVISE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES OF THE REORGANIZATION AND
 ITS POSSIBLE IMPACT ON THEM BEFORE THEY HEARD ABOUT IT BY RUMORS.  NSF
 INVITED THE UNION TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES AT SUCH MEETINGS WHEN THE
 SUPERVISORS MET WITH THESE EMPLOYEES.  THE UNION RAISED NO OBJECTIONS TO
 THIS PROCEDURE BUT DECLINED TO BE PRESENT AT THE MEETINGS.
 
    9.  ON OCTOBER 11 NSF LABOR RELATIONS OFFICER MOSTAKIS ADVISED UNION
 PRESIDENT GANNON TELEPHONICALLY OF THE SCHEDULE OF THE MEETINGS BETWEEN
 SUPERVISORS AND POTENTIALLY EFFECTED EMPLOYEES AND INVITED THE UNION TO
 HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT.  THE UNION AGAIN DECLINED.  THE SCHEDULED
 MEETINGS TOOK PLACE ON OCTOBER 11 AND 12, WERE INFORMAL AND DID NOT
 CONSTITUTE FORMAL RIF NOTIFICATIONS.
 
    10.  ON OCTOBER 11 AND 12 UNION AND NSF REPRESENTATIVES MET TO
 DISCUSS THE PROCEDURES THAT WOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THE REORGANIZATION AND
 THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR POTENTIALLY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.  THESE MEETINGS
 WERE TAKEN UP WITH GENERAL DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THE REORGANIZATION
 INCLUDING THE METHOD MANAGEMENT WAS USING FOR DEVELOPING RETENTION
 REGISTERS;  HOW THE NOTICES WERE TO BE PREPARED, ETC.
 
    11.  THE NEXT NEGOTIATION MEETING TOOK PLACE DURING THE MORNING OR
 AFTERNOON OCTOBER 14, 1977.  DURING THE MORNING THE UNION SUBMITTED A
 PROPOSED "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING" CONTAINING 20 ITEMS.  DURING BOTH
 THE MORNING AND AFTERNOON MEETINGS THE PARTIES DISCUSSED THE 20 ITEMS
 WITH THE UNION PRIMARILY ANSWERING QUESTIONS AND NSF GIVING INITIAL
 REACTIONS.  NSF REPRESENTATIVES ADVISED THE UNION THAT RIF NOTICES TO
 AFFECTED EMPLOYEES, ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO BE ISSUED OCTOBER 14, WOULD
 BE ISSUED OCTOBER 17, 1978.  NSF GAVE THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES A COPY
 OF ONE OF THE PROPOSED NOTICES, WITH THE NAME OF THE EMPLOYEE DELETED
 BECAUSE OF PRIVACY ACT CONSIDERATION.  THIS RIF NOTICE ADVISED THE
 EMPLOYEE THAT HE MAY REQUEST "AGENCY REVIEW" AND ALSO ATTACHED
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AN APPEAL WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
 THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES ASKED THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE RIF NOTICES BE
 DELAYED UNTIL THE UNION PROPOSALS HAD BEEN DISPOSED OF.
 
    12.  RIF NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 17.  THE NOTICES
 WERE TO BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 DAYS AFTER THEY WERE ISSUED UNLESS
 SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED.  MOST ALL OF THEM WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED SO
 THAT THE FIRST EMPLOYEE WAS NOT TERMINATED UNTIL JANUARY 18, 1978.
 EIGHT EMPLOYEES WERE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED, FOUR BY PROPOSED SEPARATION
 AND FOUR BY PROPOSED DOWNGRADING.  OF THIS NUMBER, THREE SECURED OTHER
 JOBS OUTSIDE NSF, TWO EMPLOYEES WERE LAID OFF AND THREE DOWNGRADED.  OF
 THOSE LAID OFF BOTH WERE EXCEPTED SERVICE EMPLOYEES AS WAS ONE OF THE
 DOWNGRADED EMPLOYEES.
 
    13.  NSF AND UNION REPRESENTATIVES MET NEXT ON OCTOBER 21, 1978 AND
 THEN AGAIN ON OCTOBER 27.  AT THESE TWO MEETINGS NSF REPRESENTATIVES
 ASKED THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE PROPOSALS
 INCLUDED IN THE OCTOBER 14 PROPOSED "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING" AND
 RESPONDED TO EACH OF THE PROPOSALS.
 
    14.  THE 20 PROPOSALS, AS SET FORTH IN THE OCTOBER 14 "MEMORANDUM OF
 UNDERSTANDING," AND NSF'S RESPONSES WERE AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "(1) ALL FOUNDATION EMPLOYEES WILL RECEIVE A COPY OF THE NEGOTIATED
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 
    CONTRACT NOW IN EFFECT AT THE AGENCY, AND BEFORE ANY PERSONNEL
 ACTIONS DUE TO THE
 
    REORGANIZATION TAKE PLACE."
 
    MANAGEMENT CONTENDED THAT THIS PROPOSAL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
 STIA REALIGNMENT IN ANY
 
    DIRECT WAY AND WAS COVERED BY THE CONTRACT ITSELF, WHICH REQUIRES
 (ARTICLE XVIII. A.) THAT A
 
    COPY WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE FOUNDATION TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 3403.  THE
 
    RECORD REVEALS THAT THE PARTIES HAD DISAGREED OVER THE MEANING OF
 "MADE AVAILABLE" AND THAT
 
    MANAGEMENT HAD NOT BEEN WILLING TO DISTRIBUTE COPIES, AS OPPOSED TO
 HAVING THEM AVAILABLE AT A
 
    DESIGNATED OFFICE IN THE FOUNDATION, UNTIL ANOTHER MATTER OUTSTANDING
 FOR NEGOTIATION HAD BEEN
 
    RESOLVED.
 
    "(2) THE REORGANIZATION WILL NOT VIOLATE PRESIDENTIAL POLICY THAT
 REORGANIZATION WILL NOT
 
    RESULT IN LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT."
 
    MANAGEMENT WAS WILLING TO AGREE NOT TO VIOLATE THE PRESIDENTIAL
 POLICY.  THE PARTIES
 
    DEBATED THE MEANING OF THE PRESIDENTIAL POLICY AND ITS APPLICATION,
 BUT THE UNION DID NOT
 
    SPECIFY PRECISELY WHAT IT WANTED.
 
    "(3) BEFORE ANY REDUCTIONS-IN-FORCE, DOWNGRADINGS, OR REASSIGNMENTS
 RESULTING FROM THE
 
    REORGANIZATION OCCUR, THE NSF CIRCULAR #33, REV. #1, COVERING
 REDUCTION-IN-FORCE WILL BE
 
    NEGOTIATED BY LOCAL #3403 AND THE AGENCY.  THIS WILL INCLUDE
 ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEGOTIATED
 
    CIRCULAR BY THE U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AS CONSISTENT WITH THE
 FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL
 
    (FPM)."
 
    MANAGEMENT SAID IT COULD NOT SEE ANY OBLIGATION TO RENEGOTIATE THE
 EXISTING CIRCULAR IN THE
 
    CONTEXT OF AND AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE STIA REALIGNMENT.  IT ASKED
 FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON
 
    WHAT SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE CIRCULAR THE UNION WANTED TO ADDRESS, BUT
 RECEIVED NONE.  THE
 
    UNION DID DISPLAY CONCERN OVER APPEAL RIGHTS, AS TO WHICH A CHANGE IN
 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
 
    POLICY HAD TO SOME EXTENT SUPERSEDED THE CIRCULAR.  THE RECORD SHOWS
 THAT THERE WAS
 
    CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION OF APPEAL RIGHTS, THAT MANAGEMENT EXPLAINED
 CAREFULLY THE EFFECT OF
 
    THE NEW CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION POLICY, THAT EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO
 REDUCTION-IN-FORCE ACTIONS
 
    WERE ALLOWED BOTH AN INTERNAL AGENCY "REVIEW" AND AN APPEAL TO THE
 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
 
    THAT BOTH THE INTERNAL "REVIEW" AND THE EXTERNAL APPEAL WERE
 AVAILABLE TO EXCEPTED SERVICE
 
    EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS COMPETITIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEES.  APPEALS WERE
 TAKEN TO THE CIVIL SERVICE
 
    COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE STIA REALIGNMENT AND THE ASSOCIATED
 RIF.
 
    "(4) PRECEDING ANY ADVERSE PERSONNEL ACTIONS THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
 FOUNDATION WILL REQUEST A
 
    MORATORIUM ON RIFS FROM OMB AND THE AGENCY WILL HIRE NO MORE
 EMPLOYEES UNTIL ATTRITION REDUCED
 
    NSFS EMPLOYMENT TO THE LEVEL REQUIRED BY OMB.  LOCAL #3403 WILL
 TIMELY RECEIVE A COPY OF ALL
 
    CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN NSF AND OMB IN THIS MATTER."
 
    THIS POINT APPARENTLY AROSE FROM THE UNION NEGOTIATORS' CONCEPTION
 THAT THE OFFICE OF
 
    MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WAS REQUIRING A CUT OF 40 POSITIONS FROM NSF'S
 AUTHORIZED STRENGTH, AND
 
    THAT THIS CUT WAS SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE STIA REALIGNMENT.
 MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATORS ASSURED
 
    THEM THAT NO SUCH CUT WAS IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE STIA REALIGNMENT.
  THEY TOOK THE POSITION
 
    THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSAL WAS THEREFORE IRRELEVANT TO THE REALIGNMENT
 NEGOTIATION AND IN ANY
 
    EVENT ENROACHED UPON RESERVED MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS.
 
    "(5) ANY EXCEPTED NSF EMPLOYEE HIRED WITHOUT REGARD TO USUAL FEDERAL
 SALARY AND OTHER
 
    CONSIDERATIONS, AND WHO IS RIFED, WILL RECEIVE SEVERANCE PAY
 EQUIVALENT TO THAT WHICH COULD BE
 
    PROVIDED A COMPETITIVE SERVICE EMPLOYEE WITH LIKE YEARS OF FEDERAL
 SERVICE."
 
    MANAGEMENT SAID THAT THIS WAS ALREADY AGENCY POLICY UNDER CIRCULAR 43
 AND THAT IT WOULD
 
    "HAVE NO PROBLEM IN REITERATING THIS IN ANY AGREEMENT."
 
    "(6) LOCAL #3403 WILL BE GIVEN TIMELY ACCESS TO ANY SF 50 OR 52 CUT
 AS A RESULT OF THE
 
    REORGANIZATION.  THESE FORMS WILL NOT BE SANITIZED FOR UNION REVIEW."
 
    MANAGEMENT AGREED THAT THIS REQUEST COULD BE ACCOMMODATED, SUBJECT
 ONLY TO REQUIREMENTS OF
 
    THE PRIVACY ACT.
 
    "(7) PRECEDING REORGANIZATION PERSONNEL ACTIONS, THE NSF WILL REQUEST
 FROM THE CSC A
 
    MORATORIUM ON DOWNGRADING FLOWING FROM THE REORGANIZATION.  NSF WILL
 TIMELY PROVIDE LOCAL
 
    #3403 A COPY OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN NSF AND THE CSC IN THIS
 MATTER."
 
    MANAGEMENT TOOK THE POSITION THAT IT IS OBLIGATED TO CONDUCT ITS
 BUSINESS IN THE BEST
 
    INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND THAT THIS PROPOSAL WAS IN DEROGATION
 OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY--
 
    IN EFFECT THAT IT ENROACHED UPON RESERVED MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS.
 
    "(8) LOCAL #3403 WILL BE INVOLVED FULLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
 RETENTION REGISTER FOR GS
 
    AND EXCEPTED EMPLOYEES USED IN THE REORGANIZATION."
 
    MANAGEMENT REPLIED THAT THE CRITERIA FOR FORMATION OF RETENTION
 REGISTERS WERE ESTABLISHED
 
    BY THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL, BUT AGREED THAT THE UNION WOULD HAVE
 FULL OPPORTUNITY TO
 
    REVIEW ALL OF THE MATERIAL USED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RETENTION
 REGISTERS.  THE RECORD SHOWS
 
    THAT UNION AND MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATORS AND OFFICIALS SPENT
 CONSIDERABLE TIME DISCUSSING NSF'S
 
    "PRELIMINARY RETENTION REGISTERS," AS WELL AS THE FINAL RETENTION
 REGISTERS USED IN THE
 
    REDUCTION IN FORCE.
 
    "(9) THE REORGANIZATION WILL BE BASED ON ALL APPLICABLE STATUTES,
 RULES, REGULATIONS,
 
    POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT NOW IN EFFECT
 BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES."
 
    MANAGEMENT INDICATED THAT THIS PROPOSAL EXPRESSED WHAT WAS ALREADY
 AGENCY POLICY, BUT THAT
 
    MANAGEMENT WAS WILLING TO INCLUDE IT IN ANY AGREEMENT.
 
    "(10) PERSONNEL ACTIONS WILL BE BASED ON THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL
 AS FULLY UPDATED."
 
    MANAGEMENT INDICATED THAT THIS PROPOSAL EXPRESSED WHAT WAS ALREADY
 AGENCY POLICY, BUT THAT
 
    MANAGEMENT WAS WILLING TO INCLUDE IT IN ANY AGREEMENT.
 
    "(11) THE AGENCY AGREES TO TAKE ALL POSSIBLE MEASURES TO PRECLUDE
 ADVERSE IMPACT UPON
 
    EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY THE STIA REORGANIZATION."
 
    MANAGEMENT INDICATED THAT THIS PROPOSAL EXPRESSED WHAT IT WAS ALREADY
 DOING AND WAS ALREADY
 
    AGENCY POLICY, BUT THAT MANAGEMENT WAS WILLING TO INCLUDE IT IN ANY
 AGREEMENT WITH ONLY A
 
    POSSIBLE CHANGE IN WORDING TO AVOID AN EXTREME INTERPRETATION OF THE
 PHRASE "ALL POSSIBLE
 
    MEASURES."
 
    "(12) ANY EMPLOYEE WHOSE FUNCTIONS ARE TRANSFERRED OR RETAINS THE
 GREATER PART OF THOSE
 
    FUNCTIONS WILL NOT BE DOWNGRADED OR RIFED."
 
    MANAGEMENT TOOK THE VIEW THAT THIS PROPOSAL ENCROACHED UPON RESERVED
 MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS.
 
    "(13) THE REORGANIZATION WILL BE BASED ON SOUND MANAGEMENT
 PRINCIPLES.  FOR EXAMPLE,
 
    POSITIONS THAT ARE PRIMARILY RESEARCH-ORIENTED WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED
 UNTIL PROPER METHODS OF
 
    EVALUATING EMPLOYEE RESEARCH ARE NEGOTIATED WITH LOCAL #3403.
 PROGRAMMATIC AND RESEARCH
 
    ASPECTS OF POSITIONS WILL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED."
 
    MANAGEMENT INDICATED THAT IT DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS INTENDED BY
 THIS PROPOSAL.  IT
 
    POINTED OUT THAT THE METHOD OF EVALUATING PERFORMANCE IS SPELLED OUT
 IN THE PERFORMANCE RATING
 
    ACT, WHICH WAS IMPLEMENTED BY AN EXISTING NSF CIRCULAR.  THE UNION
 ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT
 
    A STATUTORY BAR ON CONDUCT OF RESEARCH BY NSF EMPLOYEES.  MANAGEMENT
 EXPLAINED THAT THIS BAR
 
    DID NOT APPLY TO ANY WORK BEING CONSIDERED IN THE PROPOSAL FOR
 REALIGNMENT OF THE STIA
 
    DIRECTORATES.  WHATEVER THE UNION HAD IN MIND, IT PRESENTED NO
 SPECIFIC PROPOSAL FOR "METHODS
 
    OF EVALUATING EMPLOYEES RESEARCH" OR FOR DELINEATION OF "PROGRAMMATIC
 AND RESEARCH ASPECTS OF
 
    POSITIONS."
 
    "(14) THE FOUNDATION AGREES TO HEREAFTER RETAIN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
 ROTATORS AND OF IGPAS
 
    AT THE LEVEL OF AUGUST 5, 1977."
 
    MANAGEMENT EXPLAINED THAT NO "ROTATORS" WERE INVOLVED IN THE STIA
 REALIGNMENT AND THAT
 
    "IGPAS" ARE NOT SUBSTITUTES FOR REGULAR PERSONNEL BECAUSE THEIR
 RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY
 
    ARE LIMITED BY THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT.  IT THEREFORE
 TOOK THE VIEW THAT THIS
 
    PROPOSAL WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE STIA REALIGNMENT.
 
    "(15) THE SUM OF THE WORKLOAD UNDER THE STIA REORGANIZATION IN THE
 AFFECTED UNITS WILL BE
 
    LESS THAN BEFORE THE REORGANIZATION."
 
    MANAGEMENT ARGUES THAT IT COULD NOT PREDICT WORKLOAD, SINCE THE
 WORKLOAD IS GENERATED
 
    OUTSIDE THE AGENCY, AND POINTED OUT THAT THE AGENCY IMPOSES NO WORK
 QUOTAS, REQUIRING ONLY
 
    THAT THERE BE EIGHT HOURS OF WORK.
 
    "(16) THERE WILL BE NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE, RELIGION, ETHNIC
 GROUP, SEX, AGE,
 
    GRADE LEVEL, FEDERAL EMPLOYEE STATUS, OR SUPERVISORY OR MANAGEMENT
 STATUS IN THE SELECTION OF
 
    PERSONNEL REASSIGNED, REDUCTION-IN-FORCE, OR REDUCTION-IN-GRADE."
 
    MANAGEMENT INDICATED THAT NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE,
 RELIGION, ETHNIC GROUP,
 
    SEX, OR AGE WAS ALREADY AGENCY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT WAS WILLING TO
 CONFIRM THAT POLICY IN ANY
 
    AGREEMENT.  IT ASKED WHAT WAS MEANT BY THE REFERENCE TO "FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEE STATUS, OR
 
    SUPERVISORY OR MANAGEMENT STATUS." THE UNION NEVER EXPLAINED SO THAT
 MANAGEMENT COULD
 
    UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS WANTED HERE.  IN GENERAL, HOWEVER, MANAGEMENT
 INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO
 
    DISCUSS AND REACH AGREEMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL.
 
    "(17) NOTHING IN THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT CONTRACT NOW IN EFFECT AT THE
 NSF WILL PRECLUDE FINAL
 
    AND TIMELY APPEAL OF ADVERSE ACTIONS UNDER THE STIA REORGANIZATION."
 
    MANAGEMENT INDICATED THAT THIS PROPOSAL CERTAINLY WAS APPROPRIATE FOR
 DISCUSSION AND
 
    EMPHASIZED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WOULD BE OBSERVED,
 UNLESS THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL
 
    MANUAL OR OTHER REGULATIONS WERE OVERRIDING.
 
    "(18) EMPLOYEES WHOSE APPEALS OF ADVERSE ACTIONS ARE PENDING WILL NOT
 BE REDUCED-IN-FORCE
 
    OR BE PUT ON LEAVE WITHOUT PAY."
 
    MANAGEMENT TOOK THE POSITION THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD REQUIRE AN
 INDEFINITE DELAY IN THE
 
    AGENCY'S EXERCISE OF RESERVED MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS AND SEEMED TO
 CONFLICT WITH MANAGEMENT'S
 
    RIGHT TO EXERCISE THOSE FUNCTIONS.  IT ALSO SAID, HOWEVER, THAT IF AN
 EMPLOYEE'S POSITION WERE
 
    SUSTAINED ON APPEAL, APPROPRIATE ACTION SUCH AS REINSTATEMENT WOULD
 BE TAKEN.
 
    "(19) SECURITY CLEARANCE OR LACK OF IT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED IN
 EMPLOYEE RANKING ON
 
    RETENTION ROSTERS OF EITHER THE COMPETITIVE OR EXCEPTED SERVICE
 EMPLOYEES."
 
    MANAGEMENT EXPLAINED THAT UNDER POLICY PRESCRIBED BY THE CIVIL
 SERVICE COMMISSION SECURITY
 
    CLEARANCE IS NEVER CONSIDERED IN RANKING EMPLOYEES ON RETENTION
 REGISTERS.
 
    "(20) EVERY RIFED EMPLOYEE WILL BE GIVEN THE FULL 90 DAYS (CALENDAR)
 OF EMPLOYMENT AFTER
 
    HAVING RECEIVED OFFICIAL WRITTEN NOTICE OF RIF."
 
    MANAGEMENT AGREED THAT THIS PROPOSAL COULD BE DISCUSSED AND AGREED
 TO, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE
 
    CONDITION THAT THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNED REQUEST THE EXTENSION TO THE
 FULL NINETY DAYS.  LIBERAL
 
    EXTENSION UP TO NINETY DAYS WAS ALREADY THE EXPRESSED POLICY OF THE
 AGENCY FOR EMPLOYEES
 
    AFFECTED BY THE STIA REDUCTION IN FORCE.
 
    15.  THE PARTIES MET AGAIN ON OCTOBER 31, 1977 AND THE UNION PROPOSED
 A 14 ITEM "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING" AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR ITS PREVIOUS
 20 POINT PROPOSAL.  THE UNION POSITION WAS THAT IF NSF ACCEPTED ALL OF
 THE 14 POINTS, THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE ACCEPTED AND THE PRIOR OCTOBER 14
 20 POINT PROPOSAL, WOULD BE WITHDRAWN;  IF NSF REFUSED TO AGREE TO ALL
 14 POINTS, THEN THE 20 POINT OCTOBER 14 PROPOSAL WOULD BE BACK THE
 UNION'S PROPOSAL.  NSF WOULD NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE 14 POINTS AND
 THEREFORE THE OCTOBER 14 PROPOSAL "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING" WAS THE
 FRAMEWORK FOR FURTHER BARGAINING.
 
    16.  NSF AND AFGE 3403 REPRESENTATIVES MET ON NOVEMBER 4, 1977.  THE
 UNION CONTENDED THAT THE ACTIVITY SHOULD NOT GO AHEAD WITH THE STIA
 REORGANIZATION WITHOUT FIRST REACHING AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION.  NSF
 DISAGREED AND AT THE END OF THE MEETING THE UNION PRESENTED NSF WITH THE
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE IN THE SUBJECT CASE.
 
    17.  DURING THE NEGOTIATION MEETINGS, TO SOME LIMITED EXTENT, NSF
 INDICATED TO THE UNION THAT NSF WOULD CONSIDER UNION ARGUMENTS ON
 NEGOTIABILITY AND ALSO THAT NSF MIGHT CONSIDER SOME OF THE UNION'S
 PROPOSALS EVEN WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN NON-NEGOTIABLE ITEMS.
 
    18.  AT VARIOUS OF THE NEGOTIATION MEETINGS NSF REPRESENTATIVES,
 ASKED THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES IF IT HAD ANY SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ON
 ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED.  THE UNION
 REPRESENTATIVES INDICATED THAT THEY FELT THE "MEMORANDUM OF
 UNDERSTANDING" REPRESENTED THE BEST WAY TO HELP AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    19.  AFTER PRESENTATION OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE ON
 NOVEMBER 4, 1977, THE NEGOTIATORS MET AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 7, 15, AND 18
 AND ON SUBSEQUENT DATES IN AN EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE CHARGE AND TO REACH
 A MEETING OF THE MINDS ON THE STIA REALIGNMENT AND RIFS.  ON NOVEMBER 15
 MANAGEMENT PRESENTED A PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE CHARGE, INCLUDING AMONG OTHER THINGS A FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE
 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RIF NOTICES.  THE UNION PRESENTED ANOTHER PROPOSED
 "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING" OF 5 POINTS RELATED TO THE UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE COMPLAINT.  ON NOVEMBER 18 IT PRESENTED ANOTHER PROPOSED
 "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING" OF 28 POINTS ADDRESSED TO THE "THE STIA
 REALIGNMENT/REORGANIZATION" AS A WHOLE.  AT THE SAME NOVEMBER 18 MEETING
 THE UNION FORMALLY REQUESTED CERTAIN INFORMATION, WHICH MANAGEMENT
 SUBSEQUENTLY SUPPLIED IN WRITING.  ON DECEMBER 22 THE UNION BROUGHT IN
 THE FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE.  NO AGREEMENT WAS
 REACHED.
 
    20.  ON DECEMBER 2, 1977 NSF DR. ATKINSON RESPONDED TO THE UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE INDICATING THAT IN HIS OPINION NSF HAD NOT
 COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  IN THIS LETTER, AS REITERATED BY
 NSF IN ITS BRIEF, DIRECTOR ATKINSON ADDRESSED THESE ISSUES RAISED BY THE
 UNION AS FOLLOWS:
 
    (1) THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN THE UNION TO NEGOTIATE THE
 PROCEDURES TO BE USED FOR
 
    RIFS.  DR. ATKINSON INDICATED THAT TO THE EXTEND RIF PROCEDURES ARE
 REQUIRED BY LAW;  BY THE
 
    FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL;  BY NSF CIRCULAR NO. 33, WHICH WAS IN
 EXISTENCE AT THE TIME THE
 
    COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED;  OR BY SUBSEQUENT
 CHANGES MANDATED BY THE FEDERAL
 
    PERSONNEL MANUAL, MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATORS HAD BEEN AND WOULD CONTINUE
 TO BE UNWILLING-- IN HIS
 
    VIEW PROPERLY UNWILLING-- TO NEGOTIATE THEM IN CONNECTION WITH THE
 STIA REALIGNMENT.  BUT TO
 
    THE EXTENT THAT RIF PROCEDURES REMAIN OPEN TO NEGOTIATION BECAUSE
 THEY ARE NOT COVERED BY
 
    THOSE AUTHORITIES, MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATORS HAD BEEN AND WOULD CONTINUE
 TO BE "READY AND WILLING
 
    TO NEGOTIATE."
 
    (2) THAT MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATORS HAD BEEN UNWILLING TO NEGOTIATE A
 NUMBER OF ITEMS ON THE
 
    UNION'S NEGOTIATING LIST.  DR. ATKINSON INDICATED THAT THE MANAGEMENT
 NEGOTIATORS HAD NOT
 
    FINALLY RULED OUT NEGOTIATING ON ITEMS THAT HAD SEEMED TO THEM
 NONNEGOTIABLE IN THE CONTEXT OF
 
    THE STIA REALIGNMENT, BUT HAD INVITED CONTRASTING VIEWS AND ARGUMENTS
 ON NEGOTIABILITY FROM
 
    THE UNION AND WOULD REMAIN WILLING TO CONSIDER THEM.  BUT HE SAID
 THAT THE MANAGEMENT
 
    NEGOTIATORS WOULD BE "GUIDED BY CERTAIN PRINCIPLES." SPECIFICALLY, HE
 REITERATED THAT CHANGES
 
    IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL, NSF CIRCULAR NO.
 33, AND CERTAIN OTHER
 
    AUTHORITIES WOULD NOT BE NEGOTIABLE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STIA
 REALIGNMENT.  ALSO
 
    NONNEGOTIABLE WOULD BE PROPOSALS THAT CALLED FOR ENCROACHMENT UPON
 RESPONSIBILITIES RESERVED
 
    TO MANAGEMENT BY SECTIONS 11(B) AND 12(B) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
 
    (3) THAT RIF NOTICES HAD BEEN ISSUED BEFORE MANAGEMENT REACHED
 AGREEMENT WITH THE
 
    UNION.  DR. ATKINSON INDICATED THAT MANAGEMENT WOULD HAVE PREFERRED
 TO REACH AGREEMENT WITH
 
    THE LOCAL BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH RIF NOTICES AND THE STIA REALIGNMENT
 OF FUNCTIONS, BUT HAD
 
    CONCLUDED THAT EARLY AGREEMENT WAS UNLIKELY "BECAUSE OF THE SWEEPING
 SCOPE OF THE ITEMS THE
 
    LOCAL'S NEGOTIATORS PRESENTED AND THE DISINCLINATION OF THE LOCAL'S
 NEGOTIATORS TO FOCUS ON
 
    AND NEGOTIATE SPECIFIC 'APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES
 ADVERSELY AFFECTED'." UNDER
 
    THESE CIRCUMSTANCES HE CONCLUDED THAT "ISSUANCE OF RIF NOTICES TO THE
 EIGHT BARGAINING-UNIT
 
    EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BEFORE AGREEMENT COULD BE REACHED WITH THE LOCAL
 DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN
 
    UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE."
 
    21.  ON JANUARY 17, AFGE LOCAL 3403 FILED THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 COMPLAINT IN THE SUBJECT CASE.
 
                            CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
 
    IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER OBLIGATED THE
 ACTIVITY TO PROVIDE AFGE LOCAL 3403 AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN ABOUT THE
 PROCEDURES TO EFFECT IMPLEMENTATION AND THE IMPACT OF THE RIF. CF.
 COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, A/SLMR NO. 913;  DEPARTMENT OF ARMY
 ELECTRONICS COMMAND, FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY, A/SLMR NO. 679.  SUCH
 NOTICE MUST BE PROMPT AND SUFFICIENTLY IN ADVANCE OF THE CONTEMPLATED
 ACTION SO AS TO PERMIT REASONABLE BARGAINING ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION
 AND IMPACT OF THE RIF.  CF. GREAT LAKES NAVAL HOSPITAL, A/SLMR NO. 289.
 FURTHER ABSENT ANY EMERGENCY OR OTHER COMPELLING CONSIDERATION IT IS
 CLEAR THAT THE PARTIES MUST FULLY AND REASONABLY EXHAUST THEIR
 BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATING, TO IMPASSE IF NO AGREEMENT IS REACHED,
 BEFORE THE ACTIVITY CAN INSTITUTE THE RIF AND ISSUE THE NOTICES.  CF.
 COMMUNITY SERVICE ADMINISTRATION, A/SLMR NO. 913.
 
    IN THE SUBJECT CASE THE ACTIVITY NOTIFIED THE UNION OF THE IMPENDING
 REORGANIZATION ALMOST TWO WEEKS AFTER NSF DIRECTOR ATKINSON APPROVED THE
 REORGANIZATION AND ONLY ONE WEEK BEFORE NSF INTENDED TO GIVE OUT THE RIF
 NOTICES AND ONLY TEN DAYS BEFORE THE RIF NOTICES WERE ACTUALLY
 DISTRIBUTED.  THE UNION, UPON NOTIFICATION, DID PROMPTLY REQUEST TO MEET
 AND BARGAIN ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF THE REORGANIZATION
 AND DID MEET PROMPTLY;  IN FACT THE PARTIES MET ON THE VERY NEXT DAY
 AFTER THE UNION WAS INFORMED.  FURTHER THE PARTIES MET AGAIN ON THE VERY
 NEXT WORKING DAY SO THAT THE ACTIVITY COULD CONTINUE TO EXPLAIN THE
 REORGANIZATION AND ANSWER THE UNION'S QUESTIONS.  ON OCTOBER 14, ONLY
 ONE WEEK AFTER BEING NOTIFIED THE REORGANIZATION THE UNION CAME UP WITH
 A SERIES OF 20 NEGOTIATING ITEMS WHICH, IT CONTENDED, DEALT THE
 IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF THE REORGANIZATION AND ATTEMPTED TO BARGAIN
 ABOUT THESE ITEMS.  IT IS CLEAR THAT MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THESE PROPOSALS
 DID DEAL WITH THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REORGANIZATION.  THE
 UNION ASKED NSF TO POSTPONE THE ISSUANCE OF THE RIF NOTICES UNTIL
 AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REACHED ON THE UNION PROPOSALS.  THE ACTIVITY REFUSED
 AND THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON OCTOBER 17.
 
    THE ACTIVITY CONTENDS THAT IT DID BARGAIN ABOUT THOSE ITEMS IT WAS
 OBLIGED TO AND THAT THERE WERE OTHER ITEMS WHICH WERE NONNEGOTIABLE, BUT
 ABOUT WHICH IT WOULD RECEIVE SUGGESTIONS.  MANAGEMENT, HOWEVER, HAD NOT
 FULLY RESPONDED TO ALL OF THE UNION POINTS AND, IN FACT, HAD NOT
 COMPLETED ITS RESPONSE UNTIL ABOUT OCTOBER 21, 1977.  FURTHER ALTHOUGH
 THE ACTIVITY AGREED TO SOME OF THE ITEMS, THE EXACT NATURE OF THE
 AGREEMENTS WERE NOT VERY SPECIFIC AND WITH RESPECT TO SOME OTHER ITEMS
 NSF AGREED TO BARGAIN ABOUT THEM FURTHER, E.G. ITEMS 16, 17 AND 20, BUT
 HAD NOT EITHER REACHED AGREEMENT OR IMPASSE WHEN THE RIF NOTICES WERE
 ISSUED.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NOTING THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY
 SHOWING OF EMERGENCY OR JUSTIFICATION OF WHY THE RIF COULD NOT BE
 DELAYED, AND FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE
 ACTIVITY VIOLATED SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.  THE ACTIVITY
 VIOLATED THE ORDER BECAUSE IT FAILED TO GIVE THE UNION ADEQUATE ADVANCE
 NOTICE OF THE IMPENDING REORGANIZATION AND, BECAUSE NEITHER AGREEMENT
 NOR IMPASSE HAD BEEN REACHED BEFORE THE RIF NOTICES HAD BEEN ISSUED.
 THUS NSF HAD NOT SUFFICIENTLY MET ITS OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN WITH THE
 UNION CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REORGANIZATION
 BEFORE IT WAS PUT INTO EFFECT.  /4/
 
    ITEM 13 OF THE UNION PROPOSALS WAS A REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING
 NSF CIRCULAR NO. 33 WHICH SET FORTH THE NSF RIF PROCEDURES AND HAD BEEN
 INCORPORATED INTO THE CONTRACT.  HOWEVER, CERTAIN TERMS OF CIRCULAR NO.
 33 WERE IN CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL AND ACCORDINGLY
 THE RIF NOTICE CHANGED CIRCULAR NO. 33 BY, IN EFFECT, DELETING
 PROVISIONS PROVIDING FOR AN NSF APPEAL AND SUBSTITUTING SOME FORM OF NSF
 REVIEW.  ALTHOUGH NORMALLY IT WOULD SEEM CLEAR THE UNION COULD NOT
 REQUEST TO BARGAIN ABOUT A TERM ALREADY COVERED BY THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT, IN THE INSTANT SITUATION, WHERE THE ACTIVITY HAD
 CHANGED SUCH A TERM, THE UNION'S REQUEST WAS QUITE APPROPRIATE.
 
    IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE PURPOSES OF THE ORDER, TO INSURE MEANINGFUL
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE ACTIVITY BARGAIN ABOUT
 SUCH AN ITEM.  THE ACTIVITY, CITING NEW YORK AIR NATIONAL GUARD, A/SLMR
 NO. 863, CONTENDS, THAT SINCE NSF RAISED THE NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE THE
 UNION WAS REQUIRED TO PURSUE THE ORDER'S SECTION 11(C) PROCEDURES.
 HOWEVER THE SUBJECT CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE NEW YORK AIR
 NATIONAL GUARD CASE BECAUSE IN THE INSTANT CASE MANAGEMENT HAD, IN
 EFFECT, MADE A UNILATERAL CHANGE IN THE CIRCULAR NO. 33 PROCEDURE AND
 THUS, BY SO DOING, MADE ITS CONDUCT SUBJECT TO THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER.  THUS IT IS CONCLUDED THAT BY REFUSING TO
 NEGOTIATE WITH THE UNION, AS PART OF THE UNION'S ATTEMPT TO BARGAIN
 ABOUT IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, WITH RESPECT TO CIRCULAR NO. 33, AT
 LEAST IN SO FAR AS NSF HAD CHANGED THOSE APPEALS PROCEDURES, NSF
 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.
 
    FINALLY HAVING CONCLUDED THAT NSF VIOLATED SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6)
 OF THE ORDER BECAUSE IT FAILED TO GIVE TIMELY NOTICE AND FAILED TO MEET
 ITS OBLIGATIONS TO BARGAIN ABOUT THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
 REORGANIZATION IT IS FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES HEREIN
 PRESENT THE IMPOSITION OF A STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDY WOULD NOT BE
 APPROPRIATE.  CF. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
 YUMA PROJECTS OFFICE, FLRC NO.  74A-52, COMMUNITY SERVICES
 ADMINISTRATION, A/SLMR NO. 913.  /5/
 
                              RECOMMENDATION
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT NSF HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT WHICH VIOLATES SECTIONS
 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, I RECOMMEND THAT
 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY ADOPT THE FOLLOWING ORDER.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 AND SECTION 203.26(B) OF THE REGULATIONS, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
 LABOR FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE NATIONAL
 SCIENCE FOUNDATION SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    TAKING FURTHER REDUCTION-IN-FORCE ACTIONS PURSUANT TO THE PROCEDURES
 SET FORTH IN NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION CIRCULAR NO. 33.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER:
 
    (A) RESCIND NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION CIRCULAR NO. 33 AND, UPON
 REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH AFGE LOCAL 3403, AFL-CIO, REGARDING
 REDUCTION-IN-FORCE PROCEDURES.
 
    (B) IN THE FUTURE GIVE AFGE LOCAL 3403, AFL-CIO ADEQUATE AND TIMELY
 NOTICE OF ANY IMPENDING REORGANIZATION AND UPON REQUEST OF LOCAL 3403,
 BARGAIN WITH IT CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT AND THE ADVERSE
 IMPACT OF ANY SUCH REORGANIZATION.
 
    (C) POST AT ALL OF ITS FACILITIES COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE
 MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
 LABOR FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY
 SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE AGENCY'S DIRECTOR AND SHALL BE POSTED AND
 MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS
 PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO
 EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE
 STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED
 BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) PURSUANT TO SECTION 203.27 OF THE REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS
 ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                           SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  DECEMBER 15, 1978
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
    SAC:YW
 
        APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND
 
               ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 
           LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE
 
             THE POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED
 
           LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE WE
 
                    HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER REDUCTION-IN-FORCE ACTIONS PURSUANT TO THE
 PROCEDURES SET FOR IN NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION CIRCULAR NO.33.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION CIRCULAR NO. 33 AND, UPON
 REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION CIRCULAR
 NO. 33, AFGE LOCAL 3403, AFL-CIO, REGARDING REDUCTION-IN-FORCE
 PROCEDURES.
 
    WE WILL GIVE AFGE LOCAL 3403, AFL-CIO ADEQUATE AND TIMELY NOTICE OF
 ANY IMPENDING REORGANIZATION AND, UPON REQUEST OF LOCAL 3403, BARGAIN
 WITH IT CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT AND THE ADVERSE IMPACT OF
 ANY SUCH REORGANIZATION.
 
                                 (AGENCY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE REGIONAL
 ADMINISTRATOR, LABOR-MANAGEMENT SERVICE ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES
 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WHOSE ADDRESS IS 3535 MARKET STREET, ROOM 14120,
 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19104.
 
    /1/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
 OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS
 OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
  THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
 MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE O