[ v11 p334 ]
11:0334(68)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
11 FLRA No. 68
BUREAU OF GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL
OPERATIONS HEADQUARTERS
Respondent
and
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Charging Party
Case No. 3-CA-1807
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.
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 recommendations. /1A/
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is
hereby ordered that the Bureau of Government Financial Operations
Headquarters, Washington, D.C. shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Instituting a reassignment of employees represented exclusively
by the National Treasury Employees Union, without first notifying the
exclusive representative and affording it an opportunity to bargain
concerning the implementation of such reassignment and its impact on
affected employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative actions in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute.
(a) Give prior notification to the National Treasury Employees Union
of any intended reassignment of employees, and, upon request, bargain
with such representative concerning the implementation of such
reassignment and its impact on affected employees.
(b) Post at its facility at the Liberty Loan Building, Washington,
D.C., 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 Director, or his designee, and shall be posted
for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to insure that the Notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, 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.
Issued, Washington, D.C., February 10, 1983
Ronald W. Haughton, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
Leon B. Applewhaite, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
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 any reassignment with respect to employees
represented by the National Treasury Employees Union, without first
notifying such representative and affording it the opportunity to
bargain concerning the implementation of such reassignment and its
impact on affected employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
WE WILL give prior notification to the National Treasury Employees ,
Union of any intended reassignment and, upon request, bargain with such
representative concerning the implementation of such reassignment and
its impact on 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 any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
Regional Director, Region III, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose
address is: 1111 18th Street, Room 700, P.O. Box 33758, Washington,
D.C. 20033-0758, and whose phone number is (202) 653-8507.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Erick J. Genser, Esq.
For the General Counsel
Lynn Sylvester, Esq.
For the Charging Party
Arthur S. Rosenzweig
For the Respondent
Before: ELI NASH, JR.
Administrative Law Judge
Decision
Statement of the Case
Pursuant to a Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued on February 25,
1981 by the Regional Director for the Federal Labor Relations Authority,
Washington, D.C. Region, a hearing was held in this matter on April 21,
1981 in Washington, D.C.
The proceeding arose under the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, 92 Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C 7101 et seq. (herein called
the Statute). It is based upon a charge filed on December 29, 1980 by
the National Treasury Employees Union (herein called the Union) against
Bureau of Government Financial Operations Headquarters (herein called
Respondent).
The Complaint in this matter alleges that Respondent, on or about
December 3, 1980, implemented a reassignment of employees without
providing the Union adequate notice and opportunity to negotiate over
the impact and implementation of those assignments in violation of
section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
Respondent filed an Answer on March 13, 1981 denying the commission
of any unfair labor practices.
All parties were represented at the hearing. Each was afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to adduce evidence, and to examine and
cross-examine witnesses and to argue orally. The Respondent and
Charging Party thereafter filed timely 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 and conclusions.
Findings of Fact
1. At all times material herein the Union has been the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees involved in this matter.
2. At all times material herein Respondent and the Union were
parties to a collective bargaining agreement containing a section
regarding reassignment of employees. Article XVI, Section 2 of that
Agreement reads as follows:
Section 2
A. When the EMPLOYER determines that an involuntary
reassignment of an employee is necessary due to a staffing
imbalance (See Section 2.B. of this Article) and that the
involuntary reassignment involves a shift to another building for
an employee, the EMPLOYER shall use the following procedures;
1. Of the excess positions to be shifted by such reassignment,
the EMPLOYER shall identify the three (3) qualified employees with
the least length of service with the EMPLOYER.
2. The EMPLOYER will consider reassigning such employee(s) by
least length of service with the EMPLOYER. If the EMPLOYER
decides not to reassign one (1) of the three (3) least senior
employees, it may reassign any employee it determines is qualified
for the position.
3. Upon written request, the EMPLOYER will provide the UNION
with a written explanation of the reason(s) why it did not
reassign one (1) of the three (3) least senior employees.
B. It is clearly understood that the provisions of this
section only pertain to a staffing imbalance in connection with a
building change, and do not preclude or limit the EMPLOYER from
making any reassignment due do its assessments of its needs and
employee abilities and qualifications. Further, the parties agree
that this Section does not cover situations where a Division,
Staff or component thereof is being phased-out or a
reduction-in-force is in effect. It is strictly limited to a
staffing imbalance situation, where the EMPLOYER determines that
excess employees in a Division, Staff or component thereof must be
involuntarily reassigned to another Division, Staff or component
thereof in another building where there is a shortage of that type
of employee, and where the EMPLOYER determined that the sending
Division, Staff or component thereof shall continue its operations
indefinitely.
3. Sometime around September 8, 1980 the Division of Check Claims,
one of Respondent's components was reorganized. Following that
reorganization it became apparent to Respondent that a staffing
imbalance was causing a significant work backlog in one area in the
Liberty Loan Building. Respondent's managers, therefore, sought
permission to reassign a number of employees between the claims
adjudication branches and adjudication control branch to reduce the
aforementioned backlog, but were prevented from carrying out the
reassignments until new hiring ceiling for the affected organizational
units, the adjudication claims branches and the adjudication control
branch were alloted. Around the fourth week in November 1980, the
managers were notified of the controlling ceilings and given authority
to proceed with the reassignments. All employees involved in the
proposed transfer were clerical.
4. The record shows that the adjudication claims branches contained
claims examiners and claim clerks who process cases which are
provisionally in order for collection. Claims adjudication branch
employees investigate and decide whether a claim for the proceeds of
government checks are proper and make the decision whether to settle or
deny a claim or to conduct a further investigation. The adjudication
control branch was composed of the files for the units and employees
there put the cases together for the claims adjudication branches.
5. As previously noted, the employees transferred were all clerical.
Acting as claims clerks in the adjudication branches the clerical
employees aided the claims examiners in making sure that all information
was in the case file, obtained further information needed to complete
the cases, were required to have some familiarity with the nature of
claims adjudication and some understanding of how cases were developed,
processed and adjudicated. These positions also required some typing.
The adjudication control branch employees were concerned primarily with
batching cases. Their work involved filing, alphabetizing or numbering
cases and putting rubber bands around cases.
6. Shop Steward Steven Osheroff, the official union contact point
for labor-management matters in the claims adjudication and adjudication
control branches testified that on November 25, 1980, he was called by
the Acting Division Assistant Director, Mr. Robert Covington and
informed that nine (9) employees were to be transferred. According to
Osheroff, he asked Mr. Covington for an impact statement. Mr. Covington
responded that there "wasn't any impact, they were just going to
transfer the employees." Osheroff states that he suggested a change of
procedures meant "he was implementing something, they had an impact on
employees so therefore there was an impact and he should get me an
impact statement." Mr. Covington told Osheroff that, "he would get back
to me."
7. The following day, November 26, 1980 Osheroff received a
memorandum from Covington stating:
This memorandum is to inform you that effective December 1,
1980, nine of the employees currently filing Clerk (Typing)
GS-303-02/03 positions in the three Claims Adjudication Branches
are being reassigned to the Adjudication Control Branch.
The reassignments are being made due to budgeting constraints
in filling positions in a critical area of the Division's work
processes.
The reassignments will not affect the grades of the employees
nor will their position descriptions be changed.
Osheroff after reviewing the contractual provision relating to
realignments called Covington and asked "why he wasn't complying with
the contract." Covington again told Osheroff that he would get back to
him. Thereupon, Osheroff wrote Covington a note asking to be provided a
"written explanation of why you did not reassign the employees with the
lease length of service . . . " After delivering the note to Covington,
Osheroff received a telephone call from Covington, who told him that,
"his understanding was he wasn't in violation of the contract."
8. On November 26, 1980, after conferring with the Union's
president, Osheroff wrote Covington another letter in which he invoked
the right to negotiate, offered a counter proposal that the processes
for reassignment contained in Article XVI, Section 2 of the collective
bargaining agreement be used and requested certain information used by
Respondent in determining the individuals preselected.
9. On November 28, 1980, Covington responded, by memorandum which
stated, in pertinent part:
Your request that we use length of service as a basis for
reassignment and the NTEU be furnished all information used by
management to select the individuals involved, is hereby denied.
Article XVI Section 2.B of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
clearly states that the provisions under the section pertain to a
building change, which in no way relates to the situation
described in my memorandum of November 25, 1980.
As for NTEU's rights to negotiate the change in working
conditions, I am willing to discuss any of your concerns relative
to implementation and impact, but the decision to reassign or the
parties scheduled for reassignment will not be discussed. For the
purpose of allowing discussion on implementation or impact, I am
postponing the reassignments until December 3, 1980.
As the record disclosed, November 28, 1980 was a Friday following the
Thanksgiving holiday for that year. Osheroff, because he had taken
annual leave on that day, as he always had done in the past, did not
receive the memorandum until the next Monday morning, December 1, 1980.
Subsequently, on that day, Osheroff contacted a Union Field
Representative Lynn Sylvester and asked what could be done. According
to Osheroff, he informed Sylvester that the request for information had
already been denied. Sylvester told him that she would get back to him.
However, she did not do so on that day.
10. The following day, December 2, 1980, Osheroff, in a conversation
primarily related to another matter discussed the reassignments with
Respondent's Labor Relations Specialist, Mr. Rosenzweig. Rosenzweig,
according to Osheroff, suggested that he meet with Mr. Covington, but
Osheroff stated that Covington had already denied the Union's request
for information, so what could the Union hope to get from such a
meeting. Rosenzweig reiterated that the Union should meet with
Covington.
11. On December 3, 1980, Osheroff called Covington and was told by
Covington that, "he didn't see there was much to meet around or much to
discuss." Osheroff then called Field Representative Sylvester who
suggested that Osheroff request that Covington put his position in
writing Osheroff complied, writing Covington a December 3, 1980
memorandum requesting that they meet "to clarify your position and to
discuss the impact and implementation of this transfer." Pursuant to
this request, it appears that the parties eventually met on December 8,
1980.
12. According to Osheroff, the reassignment of the nine clerical
employees affected not only clerical employees, but employees such as
the claims examiners. He further testified that during this period he
was "able to do very little investigation," concerning the impact of the
reassignment. On rebuttal, Osheroff testified that the Union had been
given fourteen days notice when other reassignments were effected.
13. Mr. Covington testified that during previous reassignments the
Union had been given as little as "two days" notification before
implementation. Covington further testified that his understanding was
"the selection procedures were taken into account when the contract was
negotiated." He states that because Respondent did not know what the
Union had in mind the November 28, 1980 memorandum was "an offer" and
"if there were some other concerns involving implementation and impact,
what we were trying to do there was accommodate those concerns."
14. According to Covington a situation of exigency existed. In his
view, the situation had become quite unsettling with rumors of the
reassignment; because of the personnel ceilings involved the work was
not being moved or processed as expected; they were not meeting the
expected goals on the adjudication of executed claims; and, employees
were learning new and obsolete procedures, which if they were to be
transferred, they did not need to know. He, therefore, felt that since
he had not heard from the Union between December 1 and 3, his obligation
to negotiate concerning the reassigned employees had been concluded.
Discussion and Conclusions
The only question involved in this matter is whether or not the Union
received reasonable notice to allow it to engage in meaningful
bargaining concerning the reassignment of employees from the
adjudication claims branches to the adjudication control branch on or
about December 3, 1980. Respondent maintains that an overriding
exigency dictated that the move be accomplished during early December
1980, that the counterproposal submitted by the Union was already
covered by the collective bargaining agreement, and it therefore had no
obligation to bargain on the one counterproposal submitted by the Union
on November 26, 1980.
The record disclosed that existing ceilings had prevented Respondent
from reassigning employees for almost two months and that an imbalance
in branches existing during that entire period. However, there is no
record evidence to support a finding that an overriding exigency
requiring immediate action existed. The imbalance referred to by
Respondent had existed for well over two months and Respondent had
indeed made its decision /2/ that the moves would have to be made
shortly after the September 1980 reorganization. Furthermore, during
the interim period, since Respondent was well aware that the
reassignments were imminent, an opportunity to bargain existed.
Respondent cannot now claim that when it received ceiling authorization
it had to act with urgency.
The General Counsel presented evidence on rebuttal that the Union had
on occasion been given at least fourteen days prior to implementation of
changes in working conditions to respond to proposed changes.
Respondent, on the other hand, offered testimony that on occasion it had
given as little as two days notice. Neither of these times is
controlling in the instant matter since it appears from the record that
those reassignments were made under different conditions involving
totally different circumstances, such as inter-building moves. Clearly
notices given in the past were variable, but the only issue here is
whether the notice given for this reassignment allowed sufficient time
for a meaningful bargaining relationship to develop.
In this matter, Respondent notified the Union of proposed changes in
working conditions which originally were scheduled to occur on December
1, 1980 on November 25, 1980. It is noteworthy that, November 25, 1980
was a Tuesday, before a Thursday, Thanksgiving holiday of that year.
Steward Osheroff testified that he had traditionally taken annual leave
on the Friday after Thanksgiving, as do many government employees. It
is reasonable to assume that union representatives, employees and
management personnel involved would also take such a long-weekend
holiday and that notice given in this posture would not have afforded
the Union three days, as Respondent suggests, but actually only one day,
November 26. In my view, the Union, in reality, received only one days
notice between November 25, 1980 and December 1, 1980 to investigate and
formulate its counterproposals. I, therefore, find that the Union's
hastily prepared counterproposal submitted on November 26, 1980, was
formulated before there was a full opportunity to explore the impact of
the reassignment and would not preclude it from submitting further
proposals concerning implementation and impact, had the parties in fact
engaged in negotiations over the matter. It is further noted that, on
November 25, the Union asked for an impact statement and for certain
information regarding the reassignments, neither of which was ever
supplied. Furthermore, Osheroff states that he attempted to explain the
full range of impact and implementation to Covington on November 25, but
found no audience. Without any information or an opportunity to
investigate coupled with a statement from Respondent's representative
that "there wasn't any impact", it can hardly be suggested that the
Union had an opportunity to formulate any meaningful bargaining
proposals particularly since at that time the changes were to be made on
December 1.
On November 28, Respondent granted a two day extension until December
3 before implementing the reassignments. Respondent suggests that the
Union should have acted before the expiration of that extension. The
record shows that the Union did just that, for on December 3, it
requested to meet with Mr. Covington "to discuss the impact and
implementation", nonetheless no meeting was held until December 8, 1980,
four days after the reassignments were effected. Moreover, the November
28 notice of extension was not received by the Union until December 1
and any argument that it did not respond in a reasonable length of time
to the extension must be rejected.
Federal sector cases concerning notification and the parties'
obligation to negotiate have established that:
"the right to engage in a dialogue with respect to matters for
which there is an obligation to meet and confer becomes meaningful
only when agency management has afforded the exclusive
representative reasonable notification and an ample opportunity to
explore fully the matters involved prior to taking any action."
/3/
No such opportunity was offered to Osheroff. Telephone calls between
the two principal characters in which one is asking for negotiations and
the other stating that there is nothing to bargain about cannot be
characterized as bargaining.
Contrary to Respondent's argument, I find that the Union was not
given nine days notice, but only, five working days, at best, with one
of those working days being over a traditional four day holiday period.
Having found that the Union was allowed only five working days, at best,
to formulate proposals, the question becomes whether or not this was a
reasonable amount of time to allow it to investigate and formulate
proposals and engage in meaningful bargaining concerning the
reassignments. Despite Respondent's argument to the contrary, it is my
opinion, that five working days, where nine employees were to be
reassigned was not reasonable notification to allow the Union in this
instance to explore fully and to develop meaningful bargaining
proposals.
Respondent further contends that the Union had contractually waived
its right to bargain concerning seniority as a part of the transfer and
that this was the only counterproposal offered by the Union during the
entire period between receipt of notice and implementation of the
reassignments on December 4, 1980. In my view, the one counterproposal
prepared on a single days notice, which involved only seniority, does
not waive the Union's right to bargain concerning other impacts of the
reassignment. In fact, the submission of this counterproposal indicates
that the Union was concerned with the impact of this reassignment. Nor
would I find that this single counterproposal limited the scope of any
further impact bargaining on the subject of seniority as Respondent's
arguments seem to suggest. Osheroff's testimony clearly indicates that
the Union had concerns other than seniority, but that he was unable to
impress Mr. Covington with that position on November 25.
Respondent also maintains that it moved to implement the changes on
December 3, only after it did not hear from the Union for two days.
However, as previously noted Osheroff received the notice on December 1
and requested a meeting on December 3, prior to the December 4
implementation, but the parties did not meet until December 8. In light
of the Union's obvious interest in negotiating the change, it was not
unreasonable for the Union to take the two additional days allowed to
develop its counterproposals and contact management to schedule
negotiations. /4/ Since there was a request to negotiate on the
implementation and impact and no showing of any overriding exigency
which would have required it to act on the reassignments prior to
discussing implementation and impact as requested by the Union on
December 3 it appears that there is no reason why Respondent could not
have delayed reassignment until after it had met with the Union. In all
the circumstances of the case, I find that no overriding exigency
existed, that the five days notification afforded the Union prior to
implementing the reassignments did not allow it ample opportunity to
investigate and formulate meaningful counterproposals and that the
parties were unable to explore fully the matter prior to implementation
because the Union was not given reasonable notice of the implementation.
Based on the foregoing, it is found that the Union was not afforded
reasonable notice and an opportunity to develop proposals and meet with
management to discuss those proposals in any meaningful fashion prior to
the implementation of the reassignment and that Respondent's failure to
give reasonable notice concerning the reassignments prevented full
exploration of the matter before any action was taken and constituted a
violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. /5/
Remedy
In its brief, the Charging Party requested a status quo ante remedy
in this matter.
The imposition of such a remedy could possibly cause a potential
disruption of Respondent's operation and create a hardship on the part
of the branches concerned. In such circumstances, while the Respondent
clearly has an obligation to bargain concerning the implementation and
impact of its decision to make the reassignments, it is my view that
because of potential hardships and disruption a status quo ante remedy
would be unwarranted. See, San Antonio Air Logistics Center (AFLC)
Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, 5 FLRA No. 22. However, it is recommended
that Respondent be ordered to bargain concerning the impact and
implementation of the reassignment as it affected those employees
represented by the Union.
Having found that Respondent violation section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
the Statute, it is recommended that the following Order be adopted.
ORDER
Pursuant to section 7105(g)(3) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute, and section 2400.2 of its
Regulations, it is hereby ordered that the Bureau of Government
Financial Operations Headquarters, Washington, D.C. shall:
(a) Instituting a reassignment of employees represented
exclusively by National Treasury Employees Union, without first
notifying the exclusive representative and affording it an
opportunity to meet and confer, to the extent consonant with law
and regulation, concerning the implementation of such
reassignments and its impact on affected employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured
by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative actions in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute:
(a) Notify the National Treasury Employees Union, of any
intended reassignment of employees, and, upon request consult and
negotiate with such representative to the extent consonant with
law and regulations, concerning the impact and implementation of
such reassignment.
(b) Post at its facility at the Liberty Loan Building,
Washington, D.C., copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix",
on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Upon receipt of such form they shall be signed by the Director
and they shall be posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all 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, what steps have been
taken to comply therewith.
ELI NASH, JR.
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: June 12, 1981
Washington, D.C.
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 any reassignment with respect to employees
represented by the National Treasury Employees Union, without first
notifying such representative and affording it the opportunity to
consult and negotiate, to the extent consonant with law and regulations,
concerning the impact and implementation of such reassignment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
WE WILL notify the National Treasury Employees Union, of any intended
reassignment and, upon request, consult and negotiate, to the extent
consonant with law and regulations, on the impact and implementation of
such reassignment.
(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 any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
Regional Director, Region III, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose
address is: 1133 - 15th Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C.
20005, and whose phone number is (202) 653-8452.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1A/ The Respondent excepts to certain remarks and comments allegedly
made by the Judge at the prehearing conference, contending they indicate
that the Judge had already formed an irrevocable opinion before
management was afforded its opportunity to present and argue its case.
The purpose and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute include encouraging parties to resolve disputes by
fostering and affording an atmosphere conducive to the settlement of
unfair labor practice allegations and preventing and avoiding needless
litigation. To this end, section 2423.19(j) of the Authority's Rules
and Regulations authorizes the Judge to hold conferences for the
settlement or simplification of issues. In the Authority's view, to
unduly restrict or eliminate a free exchange of views at a prehearing
conference would inhibit the settlement of unfair labor practice
allegations. Upon review of the Respondent's exceptions and the overall
record herein, the Authority specifically finds no merit to this
exception.
/1/ The name appears as amended at the hearing.
/2/ Respondent's right to make the decision to reassign employees has
not been challenged.
/3/ See Federal Railroad Administration, A/SLMR No. 418, A/SLMR 498
(1974); See also, Army and Air Force Exchange, Hawaii Regional
Exchange, A/SLMR No. 454, 4 A/SLMR 791 (1974).
/4/ Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, New Orleans
District, A/SLMR No. 995, 8 A/SLMR 243 (1978).
/5/ In view of the above, I reject Respondent's contention that the
complaint in this matter was not of sufficient clarity to constitute the
basis for a violation of the Statute.