[ v20 p833 ]
20:0833(104)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
20 FLRA No. 104
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2782, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case No. 3-CA-30410
DECISION AND ORDER
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that
it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's
Decision.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (the Statute), the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the
Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon consideration of the
Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts the
Judge's findings, conclusions and recommended Order, only to the extent
consistent herewith.
On December 26, 1982, 45 employees were transferred from the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) to the Respondent's Headquarters in Washington,
D.C. Prior to the transfer, the Respondent and the Charging Party
bargained over the effect of the transfer on those employees already in
the unit. Subsequent to the transfer, the Charging Party, after
inspecting the location where the new employees were placed, requested
bargaining on January 3, 1983, concerning the effects of the transfer on
these new employees. A second request was made on March 7, 1983. The
requests noted the Charging Party's concerns over work space,
orientations, access to work areas, storage of material, and flextime
schedules. The Respondent refused to comply with either request.
The Judge found that the Respondent's refusal to bargain concerning
the effects of the transfer on the new employees violated section
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. He concluded that the transfer
resulted in changes in conditions of employment and that the transfer
affected these new employees as well as the pre-transfer unit employees.
Finally, relying on dictum contained in an Executive Order case, /1/ he
concluded that the Respondent was obligated to bargain over procedures
and appropriate arrangements for adversely affected new employees
resulting from the transfer.
While the only issue herein is whether the Respondent, the gaining
employer, failed to bargain in good faith concerning the effects of the
transfer on new employees in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
the Statute, the Authority concludes that it would be helpful to set
forth the respective rights and obligations with respect to those
employees affected by the decision to transfer in circumstances such as
involved herein. It should be noted at the outset, and there is no
contention to the contrary herein, that the decision to transfer and
assign employees is itself a reserved management right under section
7106(a) of the Statute, /2/ and therefore not subject to the duty to
bargain. /3/ However, it is well settled that "where management
exercises a reserved management right to change conditions of
employment, there is nonetheless a duty to bargain consistent with
section 7106(b)(2) and (3) of the Statute /4/ over the procedures that
management will follow in exercising such rights and appropriate
arrangements for employees who may be adversely affected thereby." See
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C., 20 FLRA No. 54 (1985); U.S. Customs Service, 18 FLRA
No. 34 (1985); Internal Revenue Service, 17 FLRA No. 103 (1985),
petition for review filed sub nom. National Treasury Employees Union v.
FLRA, No. 85-1361 (D.C. Cir. June 14, 1985). Accordingly, where a
decision to transfer is made, prior to its effectuation the losing
agency or activity (FTC herein) has the duty to notify the exclusive
representative of the bargaining unit(s) from which the employees are to
be transferred and provide such representative(s) an opportunity to
request bargaining pursuant to section 7106(b)(2) and (3) of the Statute
concerning procedures and appropriate arrangements for adversely
affected employees. /5/ Furthermore, if, subsequent to the transfer,
the losing agency or activity were to make further changes in conditions
of employment affecting the remaining unit employees, it would be
required to notify and bargain upon request with the exclusive
representative(s) concerning negotiable matters pertaining to such
changes.
Similarly, the gaining agency or activity (the Respondent Bureau of
Census herein) likewise would have the duty to give prior notice of the
transfer to the exclusive representative(s) of the bargaining unit(s)
into which the employees are to be transferred and provide such
representative(s) an opportunity to request bargaining concerning the
impact or reasonably foreseeable impact of the transfer on the employees
then in the unit(s) of the gaining employer. The record indicates that
the Respondent met such bargaining obligation herein by notifying the
Charging Party of the impending transfer and negotiating upon request
concerning procedures and appropriate arrangements for the Respondent's
employees already in the unit to which the new employees were to be
transferred. There is no contention that the Respondent failed to meet
its duty to bargain in good faith with the Charging Party in this
regard. Rather, it is clear that the parties met and reached agreement
concerning the effect of the transfer on those employees already in the
unit.
With regard to the only issue herein, as to whether the Respondent
unlawfully failed and refused to bargain with the Charging Party
concerning changes in the conditions of employment of the new employees
following their transfer into the bargaining unit, the Authority
concludes that the Respondent had no such duty to bargain in the
circumstances of this case and therefore its refusal to do so did not
constitute a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute as
alleged. Thus, where the Respondent has fulfilled its bargaining
obligation to the Charging Party prior to the transfer concerning the
unit employees and makes no further changes in the conditions of
employment of unit employees after the transfer has been effectuated,
but instead applies established personnel policies, practices, and
matters affecting working conditions to all the unit employees,
including the newly transferred employees, the Authority concludes that
there is no obligation under the Statute for the Respondent to negotiate
with the Charging Party concerning the application of established
policies to new employees in a bargaining unit. Were it otherwise,
there would be an obligation to bargain whenever a new employee (e.g.,
new hire) enters the bargaining unit. /6/ Of course, if the Respondent
had proposed to implement changes in conditions of employment applicable
to unit employees after the new employees had been transferred, then the
Respondent would have been required to notify and bargain upon request
with the Charging Party concerning such proposed changes to the extent
consonant with law and regulation.
In the instant case, the Judge concluded that there were a number of
changes in conditions of employment which gave rise to a bargaining
obligation:
Those changes involved space and office relocations, area of
occupancy, workable space and storage of materials within offices.
Items such as office space, crowded areas, new access location
for the union representative, and flextime arrangements-- all of
which are posed as a result of transferring a considerable number
of people to Respondent's facility-- are legitimate concerns of
the bargaining representative.
The Authority disagrees. In reaching his conclusions, the Judge
relied, for the most part, on a comparison of conditions of employment
existing before and after the transfer without considering or discussing
whether the Respondent applied the modified conditions of employment
differently to the new employees following the transfer than to those
employees who had been in the unit prior to the transfer. As to office
space and crowding, the General Counsel only provided evidence as to the
number of persons occupying the space prior to the transfer, not how new
employees' conditions of employment differed from those of the other
unit employees after the transfer occurred. As to the storage of
materials, the General Counsel did not demonstrate that the new
employees had to store more materials in their offices than other unit
employees. As to the new access location for the union representative,
the evidence demonstrates that the union representative was denied
access to a location in one isolated instance and, thus, the Respondent
did not change the access locations. As to the Charging Party's request
for an orientation for the new employees, there is insufficient evidence
to determine what the Respondent's practice was concerning orientations
for new employees generally and whether the refusal to bargain over
orientations was, in fact, a change in a condition of employment.
Further, as to the Charging Party's concerns regarding flexitime, the
General Counsel has failed to establish that a change in conditions of
employment in fact took place. In this regard, the record establishes
that the Respondent had an established flexitime policy which left to
the discretion of the supervisor, within limits, the commencement time
of the shift. In the Authority's view, the exercise of such discretion
by a supervisor as to one new Census employee which required the
employee to report for work at the same time that he had previously
reported for work at the FTC, cannot be held to constitute a change in
the Respondent's established policy regarding flexitime. See, e.g.,
Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration,
Baltimore, Maryland, 18 FLRA No. 87 (1985); United States Department of
Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, D.C. and
Central Region, 16 FLRA No. 73 (1984); Naval Amphibious Base, Little
Creek, Norfolk, Virginia, 9 FLRA 774 (1982); Department of the Navy,
Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 9 FLRA 784 (1982).
Accordingly, as the General Counsel has failed to establish that the
Respondent has changed established personnel policies, practices, and
matters affecting working conditions for all unit employees, the
Authority shall order that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 3-CA-30410 be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., December 11, 1985
---
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
---
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ In U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Federal Highway Projects, Vancouver,
Washington, 6 A/SLMR 87 (1976), the Judge, in dismissing the complaint,
concluded that no violation had occurred inasmuch as the Charging Party
had not requested bargaining over the impact of a transfer on bargaining
unit employees. The Judge also discussed the Respondent's duties and
obligations to bargain with the union over the transfer as it affected
both the transferees at the new workplace and the employees already in
the unit. In adopting the Judge's conclusion therein, the Assistant
Secretary did not pass upon the Judge's dictum pertaining to what the
Respondent's duty to bargain would have been if the Charging Party had
so requested.
/2/ Section 7106(a) provides in pertinent part:
7106. Management rights
(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, nothing in this
chapter shall affect the authority of any management official of
any agency--
(1) to determine the mission, budget, organization, number of
employees, and internal security practices of the agency; and
(2) in accordance with applicable laws--
(A) to hire, assign, direct, layoff, and retain employees in
the agency, or to suspend, remove, reduce in grade or pay, or take
other disciplinary action against such employees;
(B) to assign work, to make determinations with respect to
contracting out, and to determine the personnel by which agency
operations shall be conducted(.)
/3/ See, e.g., National Association of Government Employees, Local
R14-89 and Department of the Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Air Defense
Center and Fort Bliss, Texas, 15 FLRA No. 4 (1985); American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and Air Force Logistics Command,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 2 FLRA 604 (1980), enforced sub
nom. Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 659
F.2d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom. AFGE v. FLRA, 455
U.S. 945 (1982).
/4/ Section 7106(b)(2) and (3) provides:
7106. Management rights
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude any agency and any
labor organization from negotiating--
(2) procedures which management officials of the agency will
observe in exercising any authority under this section; or
(3) appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected
by the exercise of any authority under this section by such
management officials.
/5/ The record does not establish whether the employees transferred
from The FTC were exclusively represented and, in any event, there is no
issue herein as to whether the FTC met its obligation to notify and
bargain with its employees' exclusive representative(s) prior to the
transfer.
/6/ Indeed, imposition of such a requirement on the Respondent would
be inconsistent with the principle that management has an obligation to
notify the union and bargain upon request on negotiable matters with
regard to changes it makes in conditions of employment of unit
employees. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 19 FLRA No. 123 (1985); U.S. Army
Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center, St. Louis,
Missouri, 19 FLRA No. 40 (1985); Department of Defense, Department of
the Navy, Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia, 16 FLRA No. 72
(1984); Internal Revenue Service, Western Region, San Francisco,
California, 11 FLRA 655 (1983). Absent a management-initiated change,
there is no duty to bargain during the term of an existing agreement
concerning union-initiated proposed changes in unit employees'
conditions of employment. See Internal Revenue Service, 17 FLRA No. 103
(1985), petition for review filed sub nom. National Treasury Employees
Union v. FLRA, No. 85-1361 (D.C. Cir. June 14, 1985).
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2782, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
John Koslowe, Esquire For the Respondent
Carolyn J. Dixon, Esquire For the General Counsel
Before: WILLIAM NAIMARK Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Pursuant to a Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued on June 28, 1983
by the Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority,
Washington, D.C., a hearing was held before the undersigned on September
9, 1983 at Washington, D.C.
This case arises under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (herein called the Statute). It is based on a charge filed on
March 29, 1983 by American Federation of Government Employees, Local
2782, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union) against Bureau of the Census
(herein called Respondent).
The Complaint alleged, in substance, that since March 18, 1983
Respondent has refused to negotiate over the impact and implementation
of the transfer of approximately 40 employees on December 26, 1982 from
the Federal Trade Commission to Respondent-- all in violation of Section
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
Respondent's Answer, duly filed, admits its refusal to negotiate as
alleged in the Complaint but denies the Commission of any unfair labor
practices under the Statute.
Both parties were represented at the hearing. Each was afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to adduce evidence, and to examine as well as
cross-examine witnesses. Thereafter, briefs were filed with the
undersigned which had been duly considered. /1/
Upon the entire record herein, from my observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, and from all of the testimony and evidence adduced
at the hearing, I make the following findings and conclusions.
Findings of Fact
1. At all times material herein the Union has been, and still is, the
exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's professional and new
professional employees stationed in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan
area.
2. Both the Union and Respondent are parties to a written collective
bargaining agreement executed on June 23, 1977. The said agreement,
which is in effect, and has been at all times material herein, provides
under Article 2.4 thereof as follows:
"Changes Initiated by Employees. When, during the life of this
Agreement, the Employer proposes to act on a subject or matter
negotiable under the Act, but which requires no change in the
terms of this Agreement, the Employer will notify the Union, in
writing, setting forth the proposal. The parties shall, upon a
timely written request from the Union, meet and confer upon the
proposed action. Such a request by the Union must be submitted
within 5 work days of the original notification."
3. In August, 1982 Edward Hanlon, chief steward of the Union, was
notified by Respondent that employees from the Federal Trade Commission
would be transferred to the Bureau of the Census. Thereafter, both on
August 31, and in October, 1982 Hanlon requested bargaining re the
transfer of said employees. Management informed Hanlon that the
transferees were not "on board" as yet and could not be deemed
bargaining unit employees; that the Union did not represent them and
management felt it had no obligation to bargain over them.
4. The transfer of about 45 employees (40 were non-supervisors) from
Federal Trade Commission to Respondent became effective on December 26,
1982. These individuals were placed in the Economic Surveys Division on
the third floor. About 29 Census Bureau employees had occupied this
space before the transfer. The main hallway rooms, 3064-3068, were
occupied by six employees, but after the transfer there were 15
employees thereat. /2/
5. After inspecting the premises and making certain measurements,
Hanlon wrote a letter dated January 3, 1983 to John Marshall, Chief of
Employee Relations for Respondent. He stated therein that the Union
requested bargaining on the impact and implementation of the move
involving the former Federal Trade Commission Employees. Hanlon stated
the Union "is concerned in particular that space allocation problems
associated with the size of the work station, access to work areas,
orientation sessions for the new employees, distribution of Union
literature, etc." /3/
6. A response to Hanlon's request was made by Michael E. Freeman,
Labor Relations Specialist, in a letter dated January 12, 1983. Freeman
commented therein that Hanlon failed to indicate how the various items
mentioned by the latter has any substantial impact upon working
conditions of unit employees. As a result, Freeman stated the
Respondent was unable to determine whether a bargaining obligation
existed. He further stated that the employer would reconsider the
Union's request if Hanlon specified how the move impacted upon unit
employees.
7. Hanlon thereupon called Freeman and expressed regret at the
refusal to negotiate. He informed Freeman that the work space had been
measured and amounted, in each instance to 40 rather than 60 square feet
as required. Hanlon stated that a supervisor told him to leave the area
since it was classified. Further, the union representative mentioned an
orientation program for the new people since they are different from
other employees. Hanlon commented he wanted to bargain on these
matters, and Freeman replied that he was not convinced Respondent was
obliged to bargain.
8. After speaking with several new employees re the lack of space,
Hanlon revisited the work site on February 2, 1983. He and Assistant
Division Chief, Zarrett measured the work station size of telephone
interviewer which amounted to 40 square feet. One of the employees told
Hanlon he wanted to talk to the union agent later. Subsequent thereto
the employee visited Hanlon and mentioned he wanted to work flexitime as
scheduled at the Census Bureau. The employees, formerly with Federal
Trade Commission, had worked flexitime thereat, but the schedules
differed. Thus, flexitime at Respondent was from 7:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.,
whereas at his former employment the earliest time one could commence
work was 7:30 a.m.
9. Under date of March 7, 1983 Hanlon wrote Freeman again re the
Union's desire to negotiate re the conditions of employment resulting
from the transfers. He stated that the rooms into which they were
transferred were over crowded, particularly the area where telephone
interviews occurred; that the space for the workstation was half that
required; that employees had not been given the appropriate material to
be supplied under the bargaining agreement. Hanlon repeated his request
to discuss orientation of the new employees, and mentioned there were
questions re "core hours, use of flexitime, etc."
10. On March 8, 1983 Hanlon telephoned Freeman and they discussed the
letter written by the Union agent on the previous day. Freeman said he
was assured the work space was appropriate. Hanlon again referred to
the fact that many of the transferees needed copies of the flexitime
handbook, flexitime manual, and the various agreements and memorandas of
understanding on work and safety as well as those pertaining to
renovation and cleaning up of areas. Freeman responded that he was not
certain there was an obligation to bargain.
11. Freeman wrote a letter dated March 18, 1983 to Russell Davis,
President of the Union, in reply to Hanlon's letter of March 7, 1983.
He mentioned that the space was in compliance with regulations; that
Hanlon was not specific as to materials-- other than the "Contract"--
required by the collective bargaining agreement, and Freeman would take
appropriate action if Davis would specify materials to be given. Re
problems or complaints concerning core hours and use of flexitime,
Freeman stated that the flexitime handbook-- a copy of which are
furnished each employee-- spells out flexitime requirement and
procedures for addressing problems. The management official concluded
by stating that Respondent did not believe a bargaining obligation
existed over the transfer of the employees from the Federal Trade
Commission to the Bureau.
Conclusions
It is conceded by Respondent that it was under a duty to bargain re
the impact and implementation of the transfer of the 45 employees to the
Bureau before the transfer occurred. In this respect it cites Bureau of
Government Financial Operations Headquarters and National Treasury
Employees Union, 11 FLRA No. 68 (1983). However, the employer insists
that since the employees were not yet transferred they were not part of
the bargaining unit, and thus no obligation existed with respect to
them. Further, it is argued that no duty to bargain existed after the
transfer since there were no changes in employment conditions and
Respondent was not obliged to negotiate over mid-term proposals.
The foregoing contention is seemingly specious in nature. Conceding
that it was required to negotiate with the Union in regard to the
proposed transfer of the 45 employees to the Bureau, Respondent
impliedly agrees there were to be changes in conditions of employment,
Yet the employer rejects any duty to bargain upon the transfer by
insisting that this would constitute mid-term bargaining which can only
be mandated by changes in employment conditions. Under this theory a
union, representing agency employees, would never be able to seek
bargaining in respect to any changes arising from a reassignment or
transfer of employees from another source to such agency.
While Respondent asserts that no changes were effected as a result of
the transfer to the Bureau of 45 employees from Federal Trade
Commission, I reject such assertion. The record supports the conclusion
that, in order to accommodate the transferees, there were new space
allocations, and the main hallway rooms were occupied by twice as many
employees as previously. There is further evidence that the Union
representative was denied access to the work area of the transferred
employees on the ground that such locale was classified and restricted.
Record facts also show that, due to the over crowded work areas,
materials and furniture were stored in rooms-- all of which raised
questions re the safety of working conditions resulting from the
transfer and relocation of employees. Finally, the Union was concerned
with the flexitime schedules prevailing at the Census Bureau which
differed from those in effect at FTC. This concern arose because a
transferred employee was obliged to follow the flexitime schedule at
FTC, despite the fact that he now worked at the Bureau, and the said
employee desired to adhere to the Bureau's flexitime arrangements.
The Authority has held in Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. et
al, 7 FLRA No. 89 (1982) that such items as office size, equipment and
facilities, as well as the location of employees within an area, are
negotiable. They are incidental to the performance of the agency's work
and relate to matters affecting working conditions of employees. To the
same effect see Internal Revenue Service, Chicago, Illinois, 9 FLRA No.
73 (1982) wherein matters dealing with space design and ventilation
problems were deemed within the duty to bargain by an employer.
A case /4/ arising under Executive Order 11491, as amended, dealt
with the transfer of 21 employees from the agency's Portland office to
its Vancouver location. The Complainant union, which represented the
unit of employees which would absorb the transferees, desired to consult
with management re the impact and implementation of the transfer. While
the Assistant Secretary found that no proper demand for bargaining was
made by the union as to the impact of the decision to transfer
employees, he did adopt the findings and conclusions of Judge Fenton.
The latter concluded as follows:
"Thus, Complainant had the right, upon appropriate request, to be
consulted about implementation of the transfer as it affected the
transferees at their new workplace, and as it might affect other
employees in the Vancouver unit.
Further, he determined that such matters as arrangements for space
and for parking were clearly bargainable.
In the case at bar I am persuaded that the transfer of 45 employees
from Federal Trade Commission to the Respondent's facility occasioned
changes in working conditions. Those changes involved space and office
relocations, area of occupancy, workable space and storage of materials
within offices. Items such as office space, crowded areas, new access
location for the union representative, and flexitime arrangements-- all
of which are posed as a result of transferring a considerable number of
people to Respondent's facility-- are legitimate concerns of the
bargaining representative. The transfer could well impact upon those
assigned to the Bureau as well as those already working thereat who were
moved to accommodate the transferees. Accordingly, I am constrained to
conclude Respondent was required to bargain re the impact and
"implementation of the transfer /5/ . It was not free to ignore the
bargaining requests of January 3 and March 17, 1983, and by failing to
negotiate in those respects it violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
the Statute. /6/
Having found that Respondent violated the Statute as set forth above,
I recommend the Authority adopt the following order:
Order
Pursuant to Section 7118(a)(7) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute and Section 2423.29 of the Rules and
Regulations, it is hereby ordered that the Bureau of the Census shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 2782, AFL-CIO, the
exclusive representative of its employees, to the extent consonant
with law and regulations, concerning the impact and implementation
of the transfer on December 26, 1982 of employees to its
headquarters in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area from the
Federal Trade Commission.
(b) In any like or related manner Interfering with, restraining
or coercing employees in the exercise of rights assured by the
Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate
the policies of the Statute:
(a) Upon request, negotiate in good faith with the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 2782, AFL-CIO, the
exclusive representative of its employees, to the extent consonant
with law and regulations concerning the impact and implementation
of the transfer on December 26, 1982 of employees to its
headquarters in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area from the
Federal Trade Commission.
(b) Post at its facilities in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan
area copies of the attached notice on forms to be furnished by the
Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms,
they shall be signed by the Chief Executive of the Bureau of the
Census, and they shall be posted for 60 consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. The Chief Executive
shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materials.
(c) Notify the Regional Director, Region III, 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.
---
WILLIAM NAIMARK
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: February 22, 1984
Washington, D.C.
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 STATUTE
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT refuse to negotiate in good faith with the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 2782, AFL-CIO, the exclusive
representative of our employees, to the extent consonant with law and
regulations, concerning the impact and implementation of the transfer on
December 26, 1982 of employees to our headquarters in the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area from the Federal Trade Commission.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercises of rights assured by the Statute.
WE WILL, upon request, negotiate in good faith with the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 2782, AFL-CIO, the exclusive
representative of our employees, to the extent consonant with law and
regulations concerning the impact and implementation of the transfer on
December 26, 1982 of employees to our headquarters in the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area from the Federal Trade Commission.
---
(Agency or Activity)
Dated: ---
---
(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 question 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:
1111-18th Street, N.W., Suite 700, P.O. Box 33758, Washington, D.C.
20033-0758, and whose telephone number is 202-653-8452.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Subsequent to the hearing General Counsel and Respondent filed
with the undersigned separate Motions to Correct Transcript. No
objections having been interposed thereto, and it appearing that the
proposed corrections are proper, both motions are granted. The
transcript is hereby corrected as reflected in APPENDIX which is annexed
to this decision.
/2/ General Counsel's Exhibit 6(a) thru 6(e) purports to show the
number of employees to be relocated in various divisions, as well as
proposed modifications of space allotments. It is not clear, however,
from the exhibit alone-- and no testimony was adduced in connection
therewith-- as to what changes were related to the transfer of the 45
employees in the particular division.
/3/ During the week of December 26, 1982, Hanlon inspected the work
area and measured some work stations. These stations, to which the
transferees would be assigned, measured 40 square feet. At the time of
the inspection Hanlon was confronted by supervisor Lee who had
transferred over from the Federal Trade Commission. Lee objected to the
union agent's presence, claiming the work area was confidential and
classified.
/4/ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Federal Highway Projects, Vancouver,
Washington, 6A/SLMR No. 612 (1976).
/5/ The requests to negotiate these matters do not, in my opinion,
involve mid-term bargaining relating to new professionals by the
bargaining relating to new professionals by the bargaining agent. They
stem from the changes effected by management in working conditions as a
result of the transfer of the 45 employees.
/6/ General Counsel confined the allegation in the Complaint, as well
as contentions, to a refusal to bargain after the transfer pursuant to
demands made at that time. Hence, the conclusions and remedy are drawn
consistent therewith.