16:0602(87)CA - EPA and AFGE -- 1984 FLRAdec CA
[ v16 p602 ]
16:0602(87)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
16 FLRA No. 87
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case Nos. 3-CA-2767
3-CA-2803
3-CA-2825
DECISION AND ORDER
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action.
Exceptions to the Judge's Decision were filed by the Respondent, and an
opposition thereto was filed by the Charging Party.
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 /1/ and recommended Order as modified
herein. /2/ In this regard, it is the opinion of the Authority that a
prospective bargaining order will fully remedy the violations found.
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
Federal Labor Relations Authority and section 7118 of the Statute, the
Authority hereby orders that the Environmental Protection Agency shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Implementing procedures for the establishment of performance
standards and critical elements of employee positions without first
notifying the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the
exclusive representative of a unit of its employees, and affording such
representative the opportunity to bargain with regard to such
procedures.
(b) Failing and refusing to meet and negotiate in good faith with the
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, over ground rules
for such negotiations, or conditioning any meeting or negotiation with
the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, on the
submission by such exclusive representative of specific, substantive,
written proposals concerning the performance standard-setting process.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Statute:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a unit of its
employees, over ground rules for negotiations and over the procedures
for the establishment of performance standards and critical elements of
employee positions.
(b) Post at its facilities copies of the attached Notice to be
furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Copies of said
Notice shall be signed by the Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency, or his designee, and shall be posted and maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that such 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., November 30, 1984.
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, 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 implement procedures for the establishment of performance
standards and critical elements of employees positions without first
notifying the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the
exclusive representative of a unit of our employees, and affording such
representative the opportunity to bargain with regard to such
procedures.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to meet and negotiate in good faith with
the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, over ground
rules for such negotiations, or condition any meeting or negotiation
with the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, on the
submission by such exclusive representative of specific, substantive,
written proposals concerning the performance standard-setting process.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a unit of
our employees, over ground rules for negotiations and procedures for the
establishment of performance standards and critical elements of employee
positions.
Activity
Dated: By: (Signature) (Title)
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, Region III, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address
is: 1111 18th Street, NW., Suite 700, P.O. Box 33758, Washington, D.C.
20033-0758, and whose telephone number is: (202) 653-8456.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case Nos. 3-CA-2767
3-CA-2803
3-CA-2825
Mr. Thorne W. Chambers
Ms. Gail J. Korb
For the Respondent
Mr. James P. Jones
For the Charging Party
Eileen Hamamura Miller, Esquire
For the General Counsel, FLRA
Before: GAVIN LEE OLIVER
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
This decision concerns a consolidated unfair labor practice complaint
issued by the Regional Director, Region Three, Federal Labor Relations
Authority, Washington, D.C. against the Environmental Protection Agency
(Respondent or Agency) based on charges filed by the American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Charging Party or Union). The
complaint alleged, in substance, that Respondent violated section
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. (the Statute), by failing and refusing to
negotiate in good faith with the Union over the procedures, impact, and
implementation of performance standards. Respondent's answer denied any
violation of the Statute. The pivotal issue is whether Respondent could
require the Union to submit specific, substantive written proposals on
the performance standard-setting procedure before Respondent was
obligated to meet and negotiate ground rules for such bargaining, which
the Union insisted must be negotiated first.
A hearing was held in this matter in Washington, D.C. The
Respondent, Charging Party, and the General Counsel, FLRA were
represented and afforded full opportunity to be heard, adduce relevant
evidence, examine and cross-examine witness, and file post-hearing
briefs. Based on the entire record herein, /3/ including my observation
of the witnesses and their demeanor, the exhibits, other relevant
evidence adduced at the hearing, and the briefs, I make the following
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations.
Findings of Fact
The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Charging
Party or Union) is the certified exclusive representative of national
consolidated units of certain professional and nonprofessional employees
of Respondent. (General Counsel's Exh. Nos. 2(a) and (b)). There is no
collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Respondent
covering the consolidated units. (Tr. 40).
To administer the duties of the national consolidated exclusive
recognition between Respondent and the Union, certain delegations of
authority were made from the Union to the National EPA Council (herein
EPA Council), the EPA Council's president, and various local Union
officers. (General Counsel's Exh. Nos. 3(a) and (c)). The EPA Council
is a group of the Union's locals and was formed to administer the
day-to-day business of representing employees represented by the Union.
(Tr. 30).
By letter dated February 23, 1981, Thorne W. Chambers, Labor
Relations Officer for Respondent, informed EPA Council President Harold
Dodson that Respondent intended to use a procedure to have employees'
performance standards in place by October 1, 1981, as required by Public
Law 95-454. Specifically, Respondent proposed:
(1) Employees will receive training in preparing draft
performance standards, critical elements, and measures for
outstanding, satisfactory and unsatisfactory.
(2) Supervisors will meet with each employee and discuss the
process as it relates to the individual's position and
organizational goals.
(3) Employees then will develop and submit to their supervisors
drafts of standards, elements, and measures.
(4) Supervisors will review the submissions and arrive at the
final elements, standards and measures. Elements, standards and
measures per se are not grievable. The supervisor will discuss
the elements, standards and measures with the employee and provide
a copy to the employee.
(5) If the requirements of a position should substantially
change at any time, the elements, standards, or measures may be
modified using the above procedures.
Respondent's letter also stated that if the Union wished to make any
proposals concerning the procedure, it should do so, in writing, no
later than March 13, 1981, or the procedures outlined would be
implemented. (General Counsel's Exh. 4).
Pursuant to the Union's delegation of authority, Mr. Dodson responded
by a letter dated March 13, 1981. Mr. Dodson gave notice that the Union
requested bargaining on the development and application of performance
standards for bargaining-unit employees. The Union proposed that the
parties meet on March 18, 1981 to establish ground rules for the
negotiation of the proposed procedures. The letter set out the proposed
procedures again with slight modifications favoring the Union's proposed
involvement. The Union submitted as its proposed ground rules a
proposed memorandum of understanding which was to govern procedures for
negotiating a written agreement between Respondent and the Union for
employees in the consolidated units. The detailed proposal included
numerous explicit ground rules regarding negotiating committees,
bargaining routine, place of meeting, recesses/caucuses, maintenance of
records, supplies and equipment, impasses in negotiations, and
authority. More specifically, for Union negotiators, who are EPA
employees, there were provisions for duty status during all phases of
negotiations including preparation time. There were also provisions for
official time, travel, and per diem /4/ for ten employee representatives
and for ten employee alternates for the Union, and duty status for up to
three resource/observer persons, and for a person to take notes during
negotiations. (General Counsel's Exh. 5).
Respondent did not specifically acknowledge the Union's demand for
ground rules negotiations. Instead, by letter dated March 24, 1981,
Respondent advised the Union that since it had not submitted specific
written proposals on the performance standard-setting procedure, it must
have misunderstood Respondent's letter. Therefore, Respondent afforded
the Union additional time, to April 3, to submit its proposals and
requested that it submit "specific, substantive, written proposals
concerning the standard-setting procedure." The letter indicated that if
specific written proposals concerning the procedure were not received,
the procedure would be implemented as outlined in the February 23, 1981
letter. (General Counsel's Exh. 7).
On April 1, 1981 the Union responded by noting its previous request
for a meeting to negotiate ground rules and requested that the
Respondent "answer yes or no, as to whether it will accept the Union's
proposals for ground rules." (General Counsel's Exh. 6).
Respondent replied in writing the next day, April 2, reiterating its
request for specific written proposals on standard-setting. The
Respondent also reiterated that the Agency's proposals on the
performance standard-setting process were contained in the February 23
letter, and that these proposals were necessitated by 5 U.S.C.
4302(b)(2) which required that elements and standards be communicated to
each employee by October 1. The Respondent also stated in its April 2
letter to the Union: "Identical proposals on the standard-setting
process were sent to seven (7) other labor organizations which represent
EPA employees. None of the other unions had any problem understanding
our proposals and responding (for those who wished to negotiate) with
their own specific, substantive proposals within the designated time
frames. Furthermore, we have afforded you an additional amount of time
in which to respond with specific proposals on standard-setting, which
was not necessary for any of the other labor organizations." The letter
stated that unless specific written proposals were received, the
standard-setting procedure outlined earlier would be implemented.
(General Counsel's Exh. 8).
By letter dated April 3, 1981 the Union responded to the April 2,
1981 letter, stating that should Respondent fail to respond by April 10,
1981 to the Union's March 13, 1981 request to bargain and submission of
counter-proposals, the Union would consider Respondent's actions to be a
refusal to bargain in good faith. (General Counsel's Exh. 9).
By letter dated April 8, 1981 Respondent replied that since the Union
had repeatedly refused to submit specific substantive written proposals,
the standard-setting procedures outlined in the February 23, 1981 letter
had been implemented. (General Counsel's Exh. 10).
After the Respondent's April 8, 1981 letter informing the Union that
the February 23 proposal had been implemented, all communications
between the Respondent and the Union on this matter ceased for some
time. The Respondent proceeded to implement the agency proposal by
developing a training program and preparing related documents. (Tr.
10).
On June 12, 1981, Thorne W. Chambers and Gail Korb of the
Respondent's labor relations staff met with Ronald King and James P.
Jones of the Union at the Union's national office. The purpose of the
meeting, arranged by request of the Agency, was to present to the Union
the Agency's new Administrator's proposal for the reorganization of the
Agency. Mr. Chambers and Ms. Korb presented material to the Union on
the proposed reorganization. During the course of the meeting, the
subject of the Agency's manual for training employees on the performance
system was discussed. The Union requested a copy of the manual and the
Agency representatives readily agreed to send them one. The Union's
representatives gained the erroneous impression from the discussion that
the manual was being used to train supervisors and that the Union would
have the opportunity to negotiate "the next phase," that is, the
application of the training manual to employees. By referring to the
Union's right to negotiate "the next phase," the Agency representative,
Mr. Chambers, was actually referring to the application of the
standards, i.e., the appraisal process itself, which would come at a
later stage and not at the training stages of the standard-setting
process. The Respondent considered the Union's right to negotiate
training activities during the standard-setting process to be foreclosed
by its failure to submit specific written proposals in response to the
procedure outlined.
By the beginning of July 1981, the Respondent began giving training
courses on the development of critical job elements and performance
standards to the approximately 4,000 employees in the consolidated
bargaining units. (Tr. 9). When the EPA Council President Dodson
attended a training session as an employee on July 28, 1981 and received
the training manuals, he notified Union headquarters that such manuals
were in use. (Tr. 46, 66).
By letter dated July 30, 1981, the Union advised Respondent that it
had previously gained the impression that unit employees not yet be
involved, asked that any further implementation be halted pending
negotiations, stated that it wanted the matter elevated to the national
level for negotiation, and named Mr. Dodson as the Union's bargaining
agent. (General Counsel's Exh. 13).
The Agency's response of August 10, 1981 stated that the handbook
which was provided to the Union at its request was intended for use in
training employees. The letter further stated: "It is a matter which
falls under the training provision of management's proposal which was
provided to the union some months earlier. We do not consider this to
be a matter subject to bargaining now." (General Counsel's Exh. 14).
On August 11, 1981, the Union again asked for bargaining on the
Agency's performance standards system and requested that bargaining on
ground rules commence on August 14, 1981. (General Counsel's Exh. 15).
On the same day, Respondent replied stating, in part:
As you know, AFGE was provided an opportunity to submit
specific written proposals for bargaining on the standard-setting
process during the period February 23 through April 3 and failed
to do so. Since the union failed to bargain on standard-setting,
management proceeded to implement its proposal of record. All
aspects now being implemented fall within and are in accord with
the provisions of our proposal of February 23, 1981.
Nevertheless, I think you should know that management in the
not too distant future will have proposals ready for bargaining on
the second phase of the Performance Management System (PMS) which
will deal with the application of standards. We look forward to
bargaining with AFGE on Phase II of PMS. (General Counsel's Exh.
17).
Respondent fully implemented the standard-setting process, and all
standards and elements were established and in place by October 1, 1981.
(Tr. 66, 77, 84).
Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated section 7116(1) and
(5) when it failed to meet and negotiate with the Union in good faith
over the procedures, impact, and implementation of performance
standards. /5/ The complaint alleges that such violation occurred on
April 8, 1981 when Respondent unilaterally implemented the
standard-setting procedures contained in its February 23, 1981 letter
and, in July 1981, when Respondent began to unilaterally implement a
system of performance standards by distributing a handbook to employees.
Respondent defends on the basis that the agency met its statutory
obligation by giving the Union timely notice and an opportunity to
submit specific, substantive written proposals concerning the
performance standard-setting process. Respondent alleges that the
Union's failure to respond with specific relevant proposals and its
insistence on negotiating ground rules first precluded the consummation
of impact and implementation bargaining. Respondent contends that it
had no obligation to negotiate proposals which bore no relation to the
substance of the agency's proposals and which were meant to be either in
lieu of, or as a precondition to, bargaining on specific, substantive
proposals. Respondent terms the Union's insistence on first negotiating
ground rules "sham preconditions and bad faith pretexts" and asserts
that it had the right to insist on subject-specific proposals "lest the
bargaining process be crippled by all manner of dilatory obstructionism
and by blatant bad faith."
Respondent relies on Division of Military and Naval Affairs, State of
New York, Albany, New York, 8 FLRA No. 71 (March 26, 1982). In that
case (1-CA-16), the agency submitted its proposals concerning a position
conversion program and requested specific proposals from the union. The
union requested to bargain, but instead of responding with appropriate
proposals during the various meetings and in correspondence with the
agency, it continued to demand written proposals from the agency. The
Authority held that the agency had met its obligation to bargain. The
Authority adopted the findings and conclusions of Judge Louis Scalzo,
who stated, in part:
The Union had an obligation to either respond with appropriate
proposals, request additional information, or request additional
time in which to prepare to submit a Union position on impact and
implementation. Here, there was no reason to believe that the
Union intended to pursue any of these approaches.
In the instant case, the Union requested to bargain on the performance
standard-setting procedures, submitted specific proposals regarding
ground rules, and requested a meeting with Respondent to establish the
ground rules for the negotiations on the procedures. In the terms used
in the Division of Military and Naval Affairs case, the issue is whether
this was a response "with appropriate proposals" which triggered a
further obligation on Respondent's part.
I conclude that it was such an appropriate response. The Statute
provides for meetings to take place between the parties as part of the
collective bargaining process. The phrase, "collective bargaining" is
defined in section 7103(a)(12) of the Statute as follows:
(12) 'collective bargaining' means the performance of the
mutual obligation of the representative of an agency and the
exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit in
the agency to meet at reasonable times and to consult and bargain
in a good-faith effort to reach agreement with respect to the
conditions of employment affecting such employees and to execute,
if requested by either party, a written document incorporating any
collective bargaining agreement reached, but the obligation
referred to in this paragraph does not compel either party to
agree to a proposal or to make a concession.
See also section 7114(a)(4) and section 7114(b)(3). There is no
requirement in the Statute that all proposals must be in writing. Thus,
the request by Respondent for specific, substantive written proposals in
advance was in the nature of a proposed ground rule itself, i.e., a
guide for the conduct of the negotiations. The Union was entitled to
respond in kind with procedural proposals of its own, namely that the
parties should first negotiate ground rules, the arrangements between
the parties as to how the negotiations would be conducted.
There is no evidence that the Union's response was made in bad faith.
The proposed ground rules reveal several obvious matters of legitimate
concern to the Union and to the conditions of employment of bargaining
unit employees. The Union needed advance notice of the number of
individuals representing the agency so that it would know the number of
employees for whom official time would be authorized in the negotiations
under section 7131(a). The Union also wanted to negotiate the amount of
official time to be used by union negotiators to prepare for collective
bargaining negotiations which falls within the duty to bargain as
provided in section 7131(d) of the Statute. See Division of Military
and Naval Affairs, State of New York, Albany, New York, 7 FLRA No. 51
(1981); American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
1962, 3 FLRA No. 47 (1980). The parties had a continuing controversy
over the payment of travel and per diem for union negotiators, and the
Union wanted to ensure that employee representatives would be paid
travel expenses and per diem in accordance with applicable law. See
Interpretation and Guidance, 2 FLRA No. 31 ( 1979). The duty of an
agency and an exclusive representative to negotiate in good faith
includes the obligation under section 7114(b)(3) of the Statute "to meet
at reasonable times and convenient places as frequently as may be
necessary, and to avoid unnecessary delay." The Union's proposed ground
rules legitimately sought to determine "reasonable times and convenient
places."
There is also no evidence that the Union's response was made for
purposes of delay. The Union submitted specific proposals for the
ground rules and proposed to meet with Respondent five days later "to
establish (the) ground rules for negotiation(s) . . . ." As noted above,
the duty of an agency and an exclusive representative to negotiate in
good faith includes the obligation "to meet at reasonable times and
convenient places as frequently as necessary . . . ." It must be assumed
that, had the parties met, reasonable and minimum guides for the conduct
of negotiations would have been agreed upon. On this record, it
certainly cannot be concluded, as urged by Respondent, that negotiation
of ground rules would have crippled the bargaining process. As Judge
Naimark recently stated in California National Guard, Sacramento,
California, 9-CA-931, 9-CA-1100, OALJ-82-70 (April 14, 1982), in holding
that travel expenses and per diem should be paid to an employee union
representative for a meeting regarding ground rules, "Discussions
regarding rules which will operate as a framework for negotiations are,
in my opinion, part and parcel of the collective bargaining process."
It is concluded that Respondent violated section 7116(1) and (5) when
it failed and refused to negotiate in good faith, including the
negotiation of ground rules, and unilaterally implemented the
standard-setting procedures contained in its February 23, 1981 letter.
Since the issuance of the instructional handbook and the training
commencing in July 1981 were part of this implementation, this finding
will adequately remedy the violation, and it is unnecessary to pass upon
whether the Union's July 30, 1981 request would have otherwise created a
new obligation to negotiate. It is noted, however, that the contention
made by Respondent, that an agency has no duty to bargain with regard to
changes in conditions of employment proposed by an exclusive
representative, but only with regard to changes proposed by the agency,
has been held by the Authority to be clearly inconsistent with the
definition and purposes of "collective bargaining" under the Statute.
See Library of Congress, 9 FLRA No. 51 (1982).
The Union has requested that, as a remedy, the Authority order a
return to the status quo ante. The General Counsel does not seek a
status quo ante remedy, in view of what he considers the mandate
contained in 5 U.S.C. 4302 and the implementing regulations issued by
the Office of Personnel Management. Rather, the General Counsel asks
that retroactive effect be given to any bargaining agreement negotiated
by the parties. I agree with the General Counsel that, in this
particular instance, the requirement that any agreement be given
retroactive effect will best effectuate the purposes and policies of the
Statute. Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, I recommend
that the Authority issue the following Order:
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
Federal Labor Relations Authority and section 7118 of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
that the Environmental Protection Agency shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Establishing or implementing procedures for the
establishment of performance standards and critical elements of
employee positions without first notifying the American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of
a unit of its employees, and affording such representative the
opportunity to bargain consonant with the obligations imposed by
the Statute.
(b) Failing and refusing to meet and negotiate in good faith
with the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
over ground rules for such negotiations.
(c) Conditioning any meeting or negotiation with the American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO of the submission by
such exclusive representative of specific, substantive written
proposals concerning the performance standards-setting process.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Statute:
(a) Upon request of the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a unit of its
employees, bargain consonant with the obligations imposed by the
Statute over ground rules for negotiations and procedures for the
establishment or performance standards and critical elements of
employee positions.
(b) Give retroactive effect to any agreement reached regarding
procedures for the establishment of performance standards and
critical elements of employee positions, revise the performance
standards and critical elements implemented October 1, 1981 to the
extent they may be changed as a result of implementation of the
agreed upon procedures, and give retroactive effect to any such
revision.
(c) Post at its facilities copies of the attached Notice marked
"Appendix" on forms to be furnished by the Authority. Upon
receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, and shall be posted and
maintained by her for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. The
Administrator shall take reasonable steps to insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2423.30 notify the Regional Director,
Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region III, 1111 18th Street,
NW., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036, in writing, within 30 days
from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.
GARVIN LEE OLIVER
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: July 30, 1982
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
TITLE 5
OF THE UNITED STATED CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS WE
HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT establish or implement procedures for the establishment
of performance standards and critical elements of employee positions
without first notifying the American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a unit of our employees, and
affording such representative the opportunity to bargain consonant with
the obligations imposed by the Statute.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to meet and negotiate in good faith with
the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, over ground
rules for such negotiations.
WE WILL NOT condition any meeting or negotiation with the American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO on the submission by such
exclusive representative of specific, substantive written proposals
concerning the performance standards-setting process.
WE WILL, upon request of the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a unit of our
employees, bargain consonant with the obligations imposed by the Statute
over ground rules for negotiations and procedures for the establishment
of performance standards and critical elements of employee positions.
WE WILL give retroactive effect to any agreement reached regarding
procedures for the establishment of performance standards and critical
elements of employee positions, revise the performance standards and
critical elements implemented October 1, 1981 to the extent they may be
changed as a result of implementation of the agreed upon procedures, and
give retroactive effect to any such revision.
(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, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region III, whose
address is: 1111 18th Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036,
and whose telephone number is: (202) 653-8452.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the Treasury,
Bureau of the Public Debt, 3 FLRA 769 (1980), affirmed sub nom. National
Treasury Employees Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 691 F.2d
553 (D.C. Cir. 1982). See also Department of Defense Dependents
Schools, 14 FLRA No. 40 (1984).
/2/ The Authority does not adopt the Judge's characterization of the
Authority's finding in Library of Congress, 9 FLRA 421 (1982). In that
decision, as in the present case, the Authority found that the exclusive
representative was entitled to notice and an opportunity to bargain
regarding changes initiated by management.
/3/ The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript
is granted; the transcript is hereby corrected as requested therein.
/4/ The record reflects the existence of a long-standing dispute
between the Agency and the Union on the payment of travel and per diem
for employees representing the Union. (Tr. 56, 81).
/5/ The Authority set out the general scope of the bargaining
obligation concerning identification of critical elements and the
establishment of performance standards in Bureau of Public Debt, et al,
3 FLRA No. 119, 3 FLRA 768 (1980), appeal pending (D.C. Cir.).