[ v21 p455 ]
21:0455(62)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
21 FLRA No. 62
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND
Respondent
and
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE EMPLOYEES
ORGANIZATION, MEBA, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case No. 7-CA-40783
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 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, and the General Counsel filed an opposition to the
Respondent's 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, /1/ conclusions, and recommended Order as modified
herein.
The Authority agrees with the Judge that the Respondent violated
section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by failing and refusing
to provide the Union with the requested performance appraisal plans of
certain named unit employees, for the purpose of impact and
implementation bargaining at its National Service Training Center,
Kansas City, Missouri (the Center). Thus, we agree with the Judge that
the Respondent had agreed to bargain as to the impact and implementation
of the newly adopted performance rating system on employees at the
Center; that the request for information was made by the Union's
properly designated representative; and that the information requested
was necessary in order for the Union to intelligently engage in such
bargaining at the Center.
With regard to the posting of the remedial unfair labor practice
notice, the Authority finds that a posting limited to the Respondent's
Kansas City, Missouri facility, where the employees involved are
located, will best effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute,
and we shall modify the Judge's recommended order accordingly. /2/
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 National Weather Service, Silver Spring,
Maryland shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish the National Weather Service
Employees Organization, MEBA, AFL-CIO, the employees' exclusive
bargaining representative, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent
Mills, Paul Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented on April 1, 1984.
(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 action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute:
(a) Furnish the National Weather Service Employees Organization,
MEBA, AFL-CIO, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent Mills, Paul
Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented on April 1, 1984.
(b) Post at its facilities at Kansas City, Missouri, 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 a
responsible official and shall be posted and maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
bulletin boards and other places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken 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 VII, 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., April 24, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, 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 fail and refuse to furnish the National Weather Service
Employees Organization, MEBA, AFL-CIO, the employees' exclusive
bargaining representative, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent
Mills, Paul Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented on April 1, 1984.
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 furnish the National Weather Service Employees Organization,
MEBA, AFL-CIO, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent Mills, Paul
Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented on April 1, 1984.
(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 of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region VII, whose
address is: 535 16th Street, Suite 310, Denver, Colorado 80202, and
whose telephone number is: (303) 837-5224.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Case No. 7-CA-40783
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND
Respondent
and
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION, MEBA,
AFL-CIO
The Charging Party
C.J. Schmidt, Esq.
For the Respondent
Michael A. Silvestri
For the Charging Party
Nicholas J. LoBurgio, Esq.
For the General Counsel
Before: SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
This case arose under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C. Section 7101,
et seq.
Upon an unfair labor practice charge filed by the National Weather
Service Employees Organization, MEBA, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to
as the Union or NWSEO) against the National Weather Service, Silver
Spring, Maryland (hereinafter referred to as Respondent), the General
Counsel of the Authority, by the Regional Director for Region VII,
issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing alleging Respondent violated
section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by failing and refusing
to provide the Union with performance and appraisal information of three
named unit employees.
A hearing on the Complaint was conducted in Washington, D.C. at which
all parties were represented and afforded full opportunity to adduce
evidence, call, examine and cross-examine witnesses and argue orally.
Briefs were filed by Counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent and
have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this matter, /3/ my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor and from my evaluation of the evidence, I
make the following:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
At all times since April 1981, the Union has been the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of a nationwide unit of various of
Respondent's employees including approximately 26 to 30 Instructors
employed at the National Service Training Center, Kansas City, Missouri
(herein the Center). The unit is not presently covered by a nationwide
collective bargaining agreement although various elements of the unit,
excluding the Center, are covered by agreements pre-dating unit
consolidation. However, Respondent and the Union have been engaged in
contract negotiations for a nationwide agreement since 1982,
negotiations proceeding on a face to face basis in 1982 and early 1983
followed by negotiations by mail at least through 1984.
In early 1984 Respondent notified the Union that it was implementing
a revision of its performance appraisal system. The new system
restructured the prior plan by primarily providing a narrative
description of performance standards as compared with the prior one word
description; adding a new system of weighting standards; and adding a
numerical scoring system. Information regarding the plan was given to
the Union and the parties met on numerous occasions to discuss various
aspects of the new plan. None of the discussions however dealt with
specific application of the new system to Instructors at the Center.
The new appraisal system was implemented agencywide on April 1, 1984 but
Respondent and the Union continued to meet and discuss specific Union
concerns regarding application of the plan. On May 26, 1984,
representatives of Respondent met with Leo Harrison, President of the
Union, and Richard Horn, the Union's General Counsel, to further discuss
the matter. According to the testimony of Joseph Smith, Respondent's
Chief of Workforce Management (Labor Relations Chief), during the
meeting after the parties resolved a question concerning employee
accountability, which apparently was the primary purpose of the meeting,
the parties discussed core elements and performance standards for
Meteorological Technicians. While weights were designated for some of
the elements, one element did not contain any indication of the weight
range to be assigned since the weight for that element would vary among
the various field stations. According to Smith, Union President
Harrison was concerned with this and the parties " . . . agreed at that
meeting that there'd be no negotiation but the local union could discuss
with the local supervisor that weight and then the supervisor would make
the final decision on the weight for that particular element." Smith
continued: "As I said we discussed this and agreed that local
discussion would occur that was not negotiations on these particular
weights or elements or standards." Smith went on to testify, without
further explanation, that the parties agreed there would be no other
negotiations at the local level concerning the appraisal system, but
"(t)here would be discussion". /4/
Labor Relations Officer Pauline Shanker testified, in conclusionary
fashion with no reference to the question of weights, that at the
conclusion of negotiations on employee responsibility she " . . . made
very certain that we understood there would be no negotiations at any
level below national but encouraged both management and the union to
discuss . . . . "
Union President Harrison denied that he ever indicated there would be
no negotiations, only discussions, below the national level on matters
concerning the new appraisal plan. Harrison denied any agreement or
even any discussion on this subject. He testified that when considering
the weighting that was to be accorded critical elements, only the range
of weights was discussed. Harrison explained that the assignment of
specific weights could only be determined by workload and importance of
a particular job in a particular station and accordingly he "assumed"
that such matters would be left to local impact and implementation
bargaining. /5/
Meanwhile, on March 8, 1984 Michael Silvestri, an Instructor at the
Kansas City Training Center and the Union's Region 6 Chairman since
October 1983, /6/ received from management the performance plan under
the new system for which he would be rated for the April 1, 1984 through
March 31, 1985 appraisal period. The plan set out specific performance
elements and assigned designated numerical weights for those elements.
/7/ The other Instructors at the Center also received their particular
performance plans around this time.
Sometime after March 9, 1984, Silvestri met Union President Harrison
at a Union meeting and questioned whether there had been any discussion
with management on the new performance appraisal plan. Harrison
acknowledged he talked to management about the plan but added that
Silvestri, as the representative of employees at the Center, was free to
negotiate on the plan at the Center. /8/
By letter of May 16, 1984 to S.L. Braden, Respondent's Labor
Management Relations Designee at Kansas City, Silvestri requested copies
of the new performance appraisal plans of four named Center Instructors,
all members of the bargaining unit. Silvestri indicated that the
request was " . . . in accordance with U.S.C. Title 5, Chapter 51" and
the information was " . . . needed for evaluation for the purpose of
negotiations by NWSEO." Braden, on instructions from Labor Relations
Chief Smith, responded on June 1, stating:
"Before a response to your inquiry can be made, clarification
is needed as to what "negotiations" you are referring to, and the
stated purpose for which the documents are needed. The second
paragraph in your letter reads, "This request is in accordance
with U.S.C. Title 5, Chapter 71," but it is a section which
encompasses many areas. Please be specific."
On June 18, 1984 the Union was notified by Respondent that it was
changing its method of conducting business with NWSEO Region 6 and, in
the future, the contact for all matters not covered by a negotiated
agreement would be Labor Relations Chief Smith. Accordingly, by letter
to Smith of August 12, 1984 Silvestri requested the new performance
appraisal plans for three of the employees referred to in his prior
letter of May 16, /9/ again indicating the data was, " . . . requested
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. of Chapter 71" and was " . . . necessary for review
for possible submissions on negotiations." On August 21, 1984 Smith
replied to Silvestri, with language identical to that in Braden's June 1
letter, supra.
At no time thereafter did the Union clarify or explain its need for
the information nor did Respondent furnish the data to the Union.
Silvestri testified that he requested the performance plans of the
three Instructors: to ascertain whether they varied in such matters as
weighting factors for possible impact and implementation bargaining on
the new performance appraisal system at the local level; to determine
whether safety related items in the plans might require attention during
national negotiations; /10/ to determine whether the particular needs
of unique and small groups of employees in the unit such as Instructors
might require special provisions in a national contract; and, being of
the opinion that the national agreement should contain some provision
relating to performance plans, to prepare himself for those
negotiations. Silvestri further testified that he did not respond to
Smith's request that he clarify his need for the documents since
Respondent was aware of Silvestri's authority to bargain on impact and
implementation at the local level and that he was a member of the
national negotiating team.
Smith gave the following reasons for the response given to
Silvestri's request for the documents: a concern for the "privacy
nature" of the information; no negotiations were being conducted at
that time /11/ except national negotiations which did not " . . .
involve the training center per se except . . . from a general
standpoint;" and, Respondent " . . . had already negotiated with Mr.
Harrison over the implementation of this system."
Section 7114(b)(4) provides that an agency must:
" . . . furnish to the exclusive representative involved, or
its authorized representative, upon request and, to the (extent
not prohibited by law, data --
"(A) which is normally maintained by the agency in the regular
course of business; (and)
"(B) which is reasonably available and necessary for full and
proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation of subjects
within the scope of collective bargaining(.)"
In the case herein Silvestri was an "authorized representative" of
the Union within the meaning of the Statute. As the Union's Region 6
Chairman, Silvestri was authorized to engage in "impact or
implementation bargaining peculiar to the Training Center," as
Harrison's letter to Respondent of March 15, 1984, supra, clearly
states. Further, Silvestri was also a member of the Union's national
negotiating team whose function was to bargain with Respondent on a
nationwide agreement which fact had been communicated to Smith by July
20, 1984. Accordingly, Respondent was aware of Silvestri's
representative status on the local and national level on August 12, 1984
when Smith failed to comply with Silvestri's request for documents.
Production of the documents was not prohibited by law notwithstanding
that Smith testified he had "privacy concerns" with providing Silvestri
the specific requested performance appraisal plans of named individuals.
While providing unsanitized information to a union might, in some
situations, run afoul of the Privacy Act, /12/ in my view privacy
considerations are not present herein. Thus, the performance plans
requested do not contain any personal information other than the
position and grade of the individual nor contain any "stigmatizing
information" /13/ concerning the employee. Rather, the documents only
set forth the performance elements and objections for each position with
an assigned weight for each particular element; the major activities or
results which need to be accomplished in support of the performance
element; and a blank item entitled "Criteria for Evaluation" for
generic standards or supplemental performance standards. When Silvestri
requested the documents none of the employees had yet been rated as to
their particular job performance since the actual rating would not have
taken place until March or April 1985.
Next for consideration is whether the information sought was
necessary for full and proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation
of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining. /14/ The Union
and the General Counsel contend the information requested was necessary
for possible local negotiations on implementation and impact aspects of
the new performance appraisal system and for possible negotiations at
the national level. Respondent contends that Union President Harrison
essentially waived the right to negotiate on impact and implementation
aspects at local levels when he agreed on May 26, 1984 there would be no
"negotiations," only "discussions" at local levels. With regard to use
of the information by Silvestri in preparation for national
negotiations, Respondent contends Smith did not formally know until
December 1984 that Silvestri was a member of the Union's national
negotiating team and, in any event, it was Smith's understanding that
negotiations were conducted through the Union's chief negotiator.
Accordingly, Respondent argues that in light of these circumstances
Smith's request for clarification was reasonable regarding what
negotiations Silvestri was referring to in his request for information.
In my view the information requested by Silvestri was necessary for
full and proper discussion, understanding and negotiation on the impact
and implementation at the local level of the newly adopted performance
rating system. At a minimum the information was necessary to ascertain
whether the performance criteria in each of the Instructor's performance
plans were uniform and whether the weights were uniformly applicable.
Such information was therefore required before Silvestri could determine
whether any employee was adversely affected and what, if any, proposals
should be made.
I reject Respondent's contention that Harrison waived all rights of
the Union to impact and implementation at the local level. Rather, I
credit Union President Harrison's testimony over that of Labor Relations
Chief Smith and Labor Relations Officer Shanker and find Harrison did
not agree on May 26, 1984 that no negotiations, only discussions, would
occur on all matters relating to performance plans at the local level.
I found Harrison's testimony to have the "ring of truth" to it whereas
Smith's and Shanker's did not. Thus, Harrison's testimony that while
the range of weights was discussed, he, in fact, did not have sufficient
specific knowledge to bargain on the application of the weights to
particular job tasks and therefore assumed such matters would be left to
negotiations at the local level. This approach is reasonable and
understandable. On the other hand, Smith testified that the parties
agreed, for some unstated reason, that only local discussion and not
negotiation on weights or the appraisal system itself would be permitted
at the local level. Shanker similarly gave no indication of why
Harrison would enter into such an agreement. The record contains no
evidence of a quid pro quo for such a waiver and one would expect to
find some explanation or reason for a conscious yielding sufficient to
establish a waiver as alleged. /15/
Even if I were to find that the parties agreed on May 26 that only
discussion on the new performance plan would occur at the local level, I
would conclude nevertheless that Respondent was obligated to provide
Silvestri with the information he requested. Smith testified that there
was agreement to discuss " . . . that weight and then the supervisor
would make the final decision on the weight for that particular
element." The discussion, which would have been a substitute for the
Statutory right to negotiate, could only occur in an intelligent fashion
if the local Union had knowledge of the elements and weights from which
to make meaningful judgements. That knowledge could only come from
viewing the elements and weights for each job, i.e. the performance
plans themselves. Indeed, section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute
specifically requires the production of data " . . . necessary for the
full and proper discussion, understanding and negotiations" (emphasis
supplied) of bargaining subjects. Further, there is neither claim nor
evidence that Union President Harrison waived the Statutory right to
information in connection with whatever "discussion" might take place as
Respondent contends.
Accordingly, I conclude Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5)
and (8) of the Statute by its failure to provide the Union with data as
alleged. In view of this conclusion I need not treat the parties
arguments regarding the information request for national negotiations
preparations as it will have no impact on the remedy recommended herein.
In any event, I reject Respondent's contention that in the
circumstances herein Smith's request for clarification regarding what
negotiations Silvestri was referring to in his request for information
was "reasonable." Since the data Silvestri requested was necessary for a
purpose relating to a subject within the scope of collective bargaining
then, in my opinion, an agency is obligated to furnish the data upon
demand without engaging in the type of "endless bickering and jockeying"
referred to by National Labor Relations Board Chairman Guy Farmer, when
discussing a similar issue in Whitin Machine Works, 108 NLRB 1537 at
1541 (1954), enf'd, NLRB v. Whitin Machine Works, 217 F. 2d 593 (4th
Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 905 (1955). In that case Chairman
Farmer stated:
"I would not require that the union show the precise relevancy
of the requested information to particular current bargaining
issues. It is enough for me that the information relate to the
wages or fringe benefits of the employees. Such information is
obviously related to the bargaining process, and the union is
therefore entitled to ask and receive it.
"My interpretation of the employer's obligation under Section
8(a)(5) in this respect, of course, also presupposes that the
bargaining agent, in this area as in all others, will seek the
wage-rate information as a good-faith act in the discharge of its
duty as the representative of the employees. I would, therefore,
hold that, short of evidence that union requests for wage data are
used as an harassing tactic and not in good-faith effort to secure
pertinent bargaining information, the employer has a continuing
obligation to submit such data upon request to the bargaining
agent of his employees . . . . I am convinced, after careful
consideration of the import of the problem on the
collective-bargaining process, that this broad rule is necessary
to avoid the disruptive effect of the endless bickering and
jockeying which has theretofore been characteristic of union
demands and employer reaction to requests by unions for wage and
related information. The unusually large number of cases coming
before the Board involving this issue demonstrates the disturbing
effect upon collective bargaining of the disagreements which arise
as to whether particular wage information sought by the bargaining
agent is sufficiently relevant to particular bargaining issues. I
conceive the proper rule to be that wage and related information
pertaining to employees in the bargaining unit should, upon
request, be made available to the bargaining agent without regard
to its immediate relationship to the negotiation or administration
of the collective-bargaining agreement."
Based upon the entire foregoing, I recommend the Authority issue the
following:
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations Rules and
Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is hereby ordered that
the National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish National Weather Service
Employees Organization, MEBA, AFL-CIO, the employees exclusive
representative, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent
Mills, Paul Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented April 1, 1984.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
assured by the Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and the policies of the Federal Labor-Management Relations
Statute:
(a) Furnish National Weather Service Employees Organization,
MEBA, AFL-CIO, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent Mills,
Paul Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented April 1, 1984.
(b) Post at its facilities in Kansas City, Missouri and where
unit employees are located copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix" on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by a
responsible official and shall be posted and maintained by him for
60 consecutive days thereafter, excluding holiday and vacation
periods, in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and
other places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
The responsible official shall take reasonable steps to insure
that notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director VII, Federal Labor Relations
Authority, 1531 Stout Street, Suite 301, Denver, Colorado 80202,
in writing within 30 days from the date of this Order as to what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
/s/ SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: June 12, 1985
Washington, D.C.
FOOTNOTES$ --------
(1) The Respondent excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Judge. The demeanor of witnesses is a factor of consequence in
resolving issues of credibility, and the Judge has had the advantage of
observing the witnesses while they testified. The Authority will not
overrule a Judge's resolution with respect to credibility unless a clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence demonstrates such resolution
was incorrect. The Authority has examined the record carefully, and
finds no basis for reversing the Judge's credibility findings.
(2) See, e.g., United States Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, 18 FLRA No. 8 (1985).
(3) Unopposed motions to correct the transcript filed by Counsel for
the General Counsel and Respondent are both hereby granted.
(4) Smith testified without contradiction that at some undisclosed
time since May 26 a Union Regional Councilman in Tennessee attempted to
meet with area managers to negotiate further on performance plans.
According to Smith, subsequent communications between Respondent's
Regional management and the Union's Regional Council Chairman indicated
that use of the word "negotiate" was "unfortunate" and the parties
agreed to "discussion" only.
(5) Harrison testified without contradiction that upon receiving
information that a local unit in Alpena, Michigan had been denied
"input" regarding the new performance plan and told Harrison had agreed
to waive local bargaining, Harrison called Smith and denied any such
agreement. According to Harrison, Smith indicated he would call Central
Region Management to correct the situation.
(6) The Union's Region 6 represented employees at the Center and
other national elements in the Kansas City area and national
headquarters elements in Washington, D.C. To "clarify" representative
contacts at the Center, Harrison wrote Respondent on March 15, 1984 and
notified Respondent, inter alia:
"Mr. Silvestri will serve as my representative to receive
notification of all proposed changes in working conditions at the
Kansas City Training Center and other matters which may require
impact and implementation bargaining. He is also designated by
the national level of this organization to negotiate on its behalf
on those proposed changes or impact and implementation bargaining
peculiar to the Training Center, Reconditioning Center and NWS
SELS.
"Mr. Silvestri will also serve as the union representative for
all other matters on behalf of those Weather Service Employees who
are TDY at the Training Center and all permanent employees of the
Reconditioning Center and SELS."
(7) The form states, inter alia: "Weights reflect the level of
importance and/or amount of time devoted to accomplishing the element."
(8) Around the time of this conversation Silvestri was notified he
would be a member of the Union's national bargaining team. Silvestri
testified Labor Relations Chief Smith was notified of this in March or
April 1984. Smith testified he first received such notification from
Silvestri in July 1984. In any event, a letter from Smith to Silvestri
dated July 25, 1984 indicates that Smith was aware of Silvestri's status
as national bargaining team member at least by July 20. Written
notification from the Union that Silvestri was a member of the national
negotiating team was given to Respondent by letter dated December 17,
1984.
(9) One of the four employees was no longer employed at the Center.
The documents requested for the three employees (Kent Mills, Paul
Haskins and Ron Richardson) totaled 30 pages.
(10) Face to face negotiations were tentatively scheduled in April
1984 to commence in late November 1984 or January 1985.
(11) In January 1984 Respondent notified the Union that since the
parties were engaged in negotiations for a nationwide agreement,
Respondent did not intend to negotiate for an interim agreement relating
to the Center.
(12) Silvestri testified he did not particularly need the plans to be
identifiable to an individual employee.
(13) Cf. Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Fort Carson,
Colorado, 17 FLRA No. 92 (1985) at 628.
(14) Clearly the performance plans were normally maintained by
Respondent and were reasonably available and production of the data
would not be burdensome to Respondent.
(15) What might well have occurred on May 26 was an agreement on the
range of weights to be applied to performance elements and objectives
but no discussion or yielding on how the weights would be specifically
distributed among the activities comprising that performance element.
For example, Silvestri's performance plan, placed in evidence at the
hearing, indicates "classroom Instructions" is a performance element
with a total weight of 30. However, no distribution of this weight has
been assigned to the "Major Activities" under this element such as
"Lectures," "Discussions," "Technical Proficiency," etc.
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
STATUTE
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish to National Weather Service
Employees Organization, MEBA, AFL-CIO, the employees exclusive
representative, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent Mills, Paul
Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented April 1, 1984.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
WE WILL furnish National Weather Employees Organization, MEBA,
AFL-CIO, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent Mills, Paul
Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented April 1, 1984.
(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 of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region VII,
whose address is: 1531 Stout Street, Suite 301, Denver Colorado 80202
and whose telephone number is: (303) 837-5224 or FTS 8-564-5442.