[ v23 p738 ]
23:0738(96)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
23 FLRA No. 96
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case No. 4-CA-40007
DECISION AND ORDER
I. Statement of the Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions
to the attached Administrative Law Judge's Decision filed by the
Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration
(the Respondent). The issue concerns whether the Respondent violated
section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to bargain with the American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (the Union) concerning a
particular proposal. For the reasons stated below, we find no merit to
this allegation.
II. Facts
On May 23, 1983, the Respondent and the Union, pursuant to an unfair
labor practice settlement agreement, signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) which provided, in part, that:
This memorandum will serve as an agreement by Management and
Local 2206 to enter into negotiations regarding Management's
decision to rotate the Benefit Authorizer Technical Assistants on
a 6-month basis. Negotiations will be in accordance with the
(S)tatute and Article 4 of the National Agreement.
As a result of the MOU, the parties negotiated for over one month on
13 proposals submitted by the Union. Of the original proposals, the
Union withdrew four because they infringed upon management's section
7106 rights; six were agreed to; and three, including the proposal
involved in this case, Union Proposal No. 5, because subjects of unfair
labor practice charges. /1/ The General Counsel concedes that while the
Union's initial Proposal No. 5 concerning a system of errors to be
applied uniformly to the Benefit Authorizer Technical Assistants (BATAs)
may have infringed upon management's rights, it was offered as part and
parcel of the posturing process during negotiations. Thereafter, during
the month-long negotiations, the Uniion submitted several different
versions of Proposal No. 5 concerning the same subject. The last offer
was declared nonnegotiable by the Respondent. /2/
III. Administrative Law Judge's Decision
The Judge found that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and
(5) of the Statute by declaring Union Proposal No. 5 nonnegotiable. He
found that by such action the Respondent repudiated the parties' MOU.
In making this finding, the Judge noted that the Respondent had
previously agreed to negotiate over the impact of a change in conditions
of employment pursuant to the MOU executed as a part of the settlement
agreement. Accordingly, the Judge found that the Respondent failed to
meet its bargaining obligations by its declaration. He further
concluded that the Respondent was obligated to negotiate with the Union
over the proposal.
IV. Positions of the Parties
In its exceptions, the Respondent argues that it negotiated
extensively and in good faith with the Union for one month. It contends
that after a month of negotiations the parties reached an impasse.
Further, it argues that the Judge's Decision finding the Union's
proposal negotiable is erroneous because the proposal interferes with
the Respondent's right to determine which duties and functions will be
included in performance appraisals and thereby interferes with its right
to assign work. Finally, it argues that the Judge's remedy ordering a
national posting is excessive under the circumstances.
V. Analysis
In our view, the agency merely exercised its right under section
7117(c) of the Statute to allege that a proposal is nonnegotiable. The
Authority has long held that an agency's declaration of nonnegotiability
does not constitute bad faith bargaining where at the time of the
declaration, no established precedent existed which was dispositive of
the negotiability issue. /3/ Since no established precedent exists with
respect to the specific language of proposal No. 5, Respondent's mere
declaration of nonnegotiability does not constitute a violation of the
Statute. In addition, where a unilateral change in conditions of
employment coupled with a refusal to bargain is alleged, the Authority
will make a negotiability ruling in the context of an unfair labor
practice proceeding. /4/ In this case, the complaint does not allege a
unilateral change. We will not, therefore, decide the negotiability of
Proposal No. 5 in this proceeding.
As for the Judge's reliance on the MOU, in our view it obligated the
Respondent to negotiate over the rotation of the BATAs, not to negotiate
on any and all proposals that the Union might make. The MOU provided:
"Negotiations will be in accordance with the Statute." The Union
acknowledges making certain proposals which might have infringed upon
management's section 7106 rights, including earlier versions of Proposal
No. 5. The Respondent had a statutory right to raise the same concern
about the proposal at issue.
We do not agree with the Judge's finding that the Respondent's
nonnegotiability declaration with regard to one proposal was a
repudiation of the MOU. The MOU constituted an agreement to negotiate,
which the Respondent did for one month, agreeing to six of the Union's
proposals. /5/ There is no evidence that Respondent refused to
negotiate in good faith.
Accordingly, we do not view the Respondent's conduct as violative of
the Statute.
VI. Conclusion
Pursuant to section 2423 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and
section 7118 of the Statute, the Authority has reviewed the rulings of
the Judge made at the hearing, finds that no prejudicial error was
committed, and thus affirms those rulings. The Authority has considered
the Judge's Decision and the entire record, including the parties'
contentions, and adopts the Judge's findinigs and conclusions only to
the extent consistent with our decision. Therefore, we shall dismiss
the complaint.
ORDER
The complaint in Case No. 4-CA-40007 is dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C. October 31, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Case No.: 4-CA-40007
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Regina Kane, Esq.
For the General Counsel
L. J. Clary, Esq.
For the General Counsel
Before: ELI NASH, JR.
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
This is a proceeding 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. (herein referred to as the Statute).
Upon unfair labor practice charges filed by the American Federation
of Government Employees (herein referred to as the Union) on October 5,
1983 against the Department of Health and Human Services, Social
Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland (herein referred to as
Respondent or SSA), the General Counsel of the Authority, by the
Regional Director for Region 4, issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing
on February 15, 1984. The Complaint alleged that Respondent violated
section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by failing and refusing to
bargain in good faith by declaring a union proposal non-negotiable and
refusing to bargain in good faith concerning the policy described in the
Union proposal.
Respondent's Answer denied the commission of any unfair labor
practice.
A hearing was conducted in Birmingham, Alabama, at which time
Respondent and the General Counsel were represented by Counsel and
afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, call, examine and
cross-examine witnesses and argue orally. Counsel for the General
Counsel gave oral argument and Respondent filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in this matter, my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor, and from my evaluation of the evidence, I
make the following:
Findings of Fact
Since on or about June 11, 1982, the Respondent and Union have been
parties to a collective bargaining agreement covering a nationwide
consolidated unit which includes employees of Respondent at its
Southeastern Program Service Center located in Birmingham, Alabama.
In October, 1982, Respondent implemented a change in policy
concerning its Benefit Authorizer Technical Assistants (BATAs), who are
responsible for reviewing the work of other employees, Benefit
Authorizers (BAs). The BAs are responsible for post-adjudicative
actions on Social Security cases. Prior to the above change implemented
in October, 1982, a BATA was assigned on a permanent basis to one of
thirty-six modules at Respondent's Southeastern Program Service Center.
The module is a self-contained unit consisting of approximately fifty
employees who collectively are responsible for processing and
maintaining all Social Security claims and benefits. Each BATA is
responsible for providing technical leadership, guidance and counsel to
the ten to fifteen BAs assigned to each module, and for reviewing the
work of the BAs, including the identification of "errors" made by the
BAs.
Commencing with the change implemented in October, 1982 Respondent
began rotation of BATAs from module to module every six months. The
reason for the rotation was, as Respondent had perceived, that the BAs
in each particular module had become familiar with their BATAs methods
and preferences, and thus could predict what would or would not be an
"error" to that specific BATA. Because Respondent unilaterally
implemented this new rotation system without bargaining with the Union,
the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge on October 15, 1982.
The case, 4-CA-30042 was subsequently settled after issuance of a
Complaint by the Regional Director, Region 4 and after Respondent
entered into an agreement with the Union entitled Memorandum of
Understanding, Ground Rules, on May 23, 1983. The signatories to this
agreement were Respondent's Labor Relations Specialist George Sedberry
and Local Union President Frank White. The Memorandum of Understanding
provides, inter alia, that:
This memorandum will serve as an agreement by Management and
Local 2206 to enter into negotiations regarding Management's
decision to rotate the Benefit Authorizer Technical Assistants on
a 6-month basis. Negotiations will be in accordance with the
(S)tatute and Article 4 of the National Agreement.
This memorandum will serve as an agreement by Local 2206 to
request withdrawal, concurrent with the initiation of
negotiations, of the Unfair Labor Practice Charge filed on
10/15/82, Case No. 4-CA-30042, . . . "
Consistent with the above-stated objective of the Memorandum of
Understanding and Ground Rules, Respondent and the Union, entered into
negotiations on the impact and implementation of the rotation of BATAs
in July, 1984. The principals for the negotiations were the agreements
signatures White and Sedberry. The Union's intention apparently was to
bargain over the adverse impact on the BAs and BATAs resulting from
Respondent's decision to rotate BATAs. Consistent with this intention
the Union identified areas it felt impacted on the employees involved.
According to Thomas M. Bruce, Director of Operations of the Program
Service Center involved herein, all BATAs followed the same
instructional guidance in reviewing BAs and there was unquestionably
room for the BATAs to exercise judgment in the decision making process.
Mr. Bruce further stated each BATAs definition of an "error" made by a
BA was somewhat subjective and could differ from BATA and BATA.
According to him a method existed for the resolution of an error because
such differences of opinion indeed exist.
The Union was concerned that the implementation of the decision to
rotate BATAs on a periodic basis would adversely impact BA's inasmuch as
the BAs would no longer be familiar with the particular judgmental
preferences of the BATAs assigned to them, especially with regard to
what constituted an error. According to Mr. White, the rotation
destroyed the advantage of knowing the preferences and actions of the
BATA to which the BA was regularly assigned. The rotational process,
particularly the assignment of errors, according to Mr. White, goes to
the root of the evaluation process under the Civil Service Reform Act.
Mr. White also vigorously denied that the Union desired during
negotiations to participate in devising errors. In short, it appears
that the Union was looking for consistency in definition of errors.
When the parties commenced negotiations pursuant to the May 23, 1983,
Memorandum of Understanding, the Union initially submitted thirteen (13)
proposals r for management's consideration. Of the thirteen (13)
original proposals the Union withdrew four (4) because they infringed
upon management's section 7106 rights; six (6) were agreed to; and,
three (3) which remained became subjects of unfair labor practice
charges.
The proposal with which we are here concerned is item number five (5)
of the thirteen (13) and concerns a system of errors to be applied
uniformly to BATAs. While the Union's initial proposal on this matter
admittedly infringed on management's rights under section 7106, the
Union submitted several different proposals concerning the same subject
during negotiations and it is its last offer which was declared
non-negotiable on August 24, 1983, by Labor Relations Specialist
Sedberry is at issue here. Mr. Sedberry, declared proposal item 5
non-negotiable "because there is no change in working conditions . . .
no change in our personnel policy, practice, or working (sic), or
conditions of employment."
In its last offer, the Union proposal on item 5 was as follows:
Technicians subject to quality assessment by the BATA will be
given an appropriate list of errors by management, each defined in
such a manner that all affected parties to this agreement have a
common understanding of what they are and how they will be
applied.
. . .
Any error definition will be applied consistently to all
affected employees throughout the SEPSC.
This proposal allegedly establishes a procedural requirement that
after an error had been defined by management, the employee must be told
what the definition is in a reasonably comprehensive manner in order to
insure consistent application.
Mr. White testified, that when the Union submitted the above
proposal, it desired Respondent to give the affected employees a list of
what the errors were so that both BATAs and BAs possessed a mutual
understanding of what constituted an error and so that the error
definitions would be applied consistently to all employees throughout
the Program Center.
Thereafter, a Mediator assisted the parties' at their request in
August, however, actual negotiations on item 5 have not occurred at any
time subsequent to August 24, 1983, when Respondent declared Item 5
non-negotiable.
On January 30, 1984, Mr.Bruce, issued a memorandum to all Program
Center Operations Managers, entitled Exercise of Professional Judgment
in Casework. The memorandum provided, as follows:
Basically, this memorandum does not extend the authority
technicians already possess since they already have the discretion
to deviate from established procedures where individual case
circumstances dictate a different course of action. The objective
of the memorandum was to reinforce this authority and expectation
and encourage the authorizers to fully exercise it . . . Some
authorizers evidently feel a strong reluctance to deviate from
procedures for fear of getting an error.
Discussion and Conclusions
The Authority has made it abundantly clear that where an agency in
exercising a management right under section 7106 of the Statute, the
statutory duty to negotiate comes into play if the change results in an
impact upon unit employees or such impact was reasonably foreseeable.
Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration,
Baltimore, Maryland, 16 FLRA No. 32 (1984); U.S. Government Printing
Office, 13 FLRA No. 39 (1983); Internal Revenue Service, Washington,
D.C. and Fresno Service Center, Fresno, California, 16 FLRA No. 23
(1984); Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration, 16 FLRA No. 103 (1984).
The Union's proffer of item 5 was prompted by its desire to have
Respondent give affected employees a list of defined errors thereby
insuring that both BATAs and BAs would know and have a common
understanding of what constituted an "error". The impact in its view
being that the individual BAs performance evaluation would ultimately be
affected by the assignment of errors therefore, the Union desired
advance knowledge of what constituted an error.
Respondent simply denies that the rotation of BATAs is a change in
conditions of employment and sees no impact on BAs as a result of its
rotating BATAs. The record is contrary to that assertion. The record
disclosed more than a question of negotiability or impact and shows that
Respondent had already agreed to negotiate the impact of that change in
rotation of BATAs. /6/ Case No. 4-CA-30042 was informally resolved on
the basis that Respondent would negotiate concerning its decision to
rotate BATAs and that such negotiations would be done in conformity with
the Statute and Article 4 of the parties collective bargaining
agreement. If Respondent did not view the rotation as a change in
conditions of employment, why then did it agree to engage in
negotiations concerning the rotation. That issue was resolved by its
capitulation in entering into the settlement agreement in the initial
case. I agree with the General Counsel that Respondent's position is
dissembling. First, Respondent admits an obligation to bargain
concerning the impact and implementation of a subject, enters into an
agreement memorializing that position, an agreement by the way, which
was made possible only by the Union's settlement of a charge found
meritorious by the Regional Office, engages in negotiations concerning
some previously contested items but decides that it does not want to
honor the agreement where item 5 is concerned. Inasmuch as Respondent
refused to negotiate concerning item 5 it is found that Respondent's
action constitutes a repudiation of that agreement and violates section
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. See Great Lakes Program Service
Center, Social Security Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services, 9 FLRA 499 (1982); Veterans Administration Hospital,
Danville, Illinois, 4 FLRA 432 (1980).
Respondent, asserts that it met its obligation to bargain in this
matter since it met in a good-faith effort to reach agreement. It
contends, that under Bureau of Prisons, Lewisburg Penitentiary,
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, 11 FLRA 639 (1983) the fact it was not
persuaded to change its position during negotiations does not constitute
a showing of bad faith.
The Lewisburg case is inapplicable since no Memorandum of
Understanding was involved in that case. Here it is clearly established
by Respondent's position in settling Case No. 4-CA-30042 that it would
engage in impact and implementation bargaining and that at least
implicitly, it had an obligation to engage in impact bargaining
concerning the rotation of BATAs. Anything less than complete bargaining
on the impact and implementation apparently would not be in accord with
the agreement it entered into in May 1983. This is not a situation
under section 7106 where Respondent elects to negotiate, since its
election to negotiate was exercised when it entered the Memorandum of
Understanding. In this same vein, Respondent entered in negotiations
over other aspects of the rotation of BATAs thereby buttressing the
opinion that a change in conditions of employment had occurred.
Finally, meeting but affirmatively refusing to negotiate does not
satisfy the obligation to bargain as Respondent seems to suggest. Cf.,
Library of Congress, 9 FLRA 427 (1982).
In rejecting the May 1983 Memorandum of Understanding and assuming
that it had no obligation to bargain consistent with that memorandum
Respondent now maintains that no adverse impact occurred when it
exercised management rights herein. I disagree. A foreseeable impact
clearly exists since the record indicates errors are incorporated into
the employees rating process. Clearly the Union saw potential adverse
impact and presented its proposals pertinent to such impact.
The General Counsel argues that the proposal offered by the Union was
negotiable and that this matter falls within the class of cases where
agencies must bargain over the dissemination or communications of
determinations to employees because such dissemination or communication
in no way interferes with managements abilities to make the
determinations, and as such are matters which are fully negotiable.
Citing Department of the Army, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, 13 FLRA 426
(1983); Bureau of Public Debt, 3 FLRA 768 (1980); Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, Chicago Region, 7 FLRA 217 (1981); Office of
Personnel Management, Washington, D.C., 3 FLRA 783 (1980); Department
of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, 9 FLRA 983 (1982).
Turning to the General Counsel's argument that the record
demonstrates that the Union's final proposal did not attempt to give it
the right to determine what constitutes an error nor did it seek any
input into that determination. The Union proposal here appeared to be
no more than a procedural requirement seeking to establish that once an
error has been defined by the agency, the employee would be told the
definition of the error in a reasonably intelligible manner. The
proposal certainly goes to the impact of Respondent's decision to rotate
BATAs, particularly because the major concern of the Union here was to
prevent the lack of uniformity of application of the system of errors.
Thus, Respondent was obligated to bargain with the Union on this
proposal unless the Union's proposal (if adopted) would substantially,
or excessively, interfere with management's right to determine the
errors. See U.S. Customs Service, Region II, 11 FLRA 209 (1983);
Office of Personnel Management, Washington, D.C., 8 FLRA 460 (1982)
(D.C. Cir. March 13, 1984), or unless a government-wide regulation or
Statute left no discretion to the agency in the "choice" of the
procedure. See U.S. Customs, Region II, 11 FLRA 209 (1983); Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 8 FLRA 547 (1982); March AFB,
Riverside, California, 13 FLRA No. 44, 13 FLRA 255 (1983).
A review of the Union's proposal indicates that it did not interfere
with the Respondent's right to determine errors, and that the proposal
concerning the definition of "errors" which would affect employee
evaluations fell within the duty to bargain. Furthermore, Respondent
raised no government-wide regulation with which the proposal is
incompatible or irreconcilable. As the General Counsel notes, the
Union's proposal, if accepted, does not require Respondent to adopt any
input from the Union or employees on the definition of error. To the
contrary, the proposal simply provides a means for the employee or Union
to know what the errors are and how they are to be applied. Knowledge
of what an error is and its application in a consistent manner indeed
might reduce adverse impact of rotating BATAs, while leaving
management's decision-making unaffected.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and the conclusion that
Respondent has violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute, by
declaring a union proposal non-negotiable and refusing to negotiate
thereon although a reasonably foreseeable impact existed, /7/ I
recommend the Authority issue the following:
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is hereby
ordered that the Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing or refusing to negotiate in good faith with the
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the
employees' exclusive collective bargaining representative by
declaring to the following proposal concerning the rotation of
BATAs non-negotiable:
Technicians subject to quality assessment by the BATA will be
given an appropriate list of errors by management, each defined in
such a manner that all affected parties have a common
understanding of what they are and how they will be applied . . .
. Any error will be applied to all affected employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of 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) Upon request of the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, the employees' exclusive collective bargaining
representative, negotiate in good faith, to the extent consonant
with law and regulations, concerning the impact and implementation
of the proposal concerning the rotation of BATAs.
(b) Post at all of its facilities where employees represented
by the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the
employees' exclusive representative, 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 an appropriate official and shall be
posted and maintained by him for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including bulletin boards and all other
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The
Commissioner shall take reasonable steps to insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations, notify the Regional Director of
Region 4, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 1776 Peachtree
Street, NW., Suite 501 -- North Wing, Atlanta, GA 30309, in
writing within 30 days from the date of the Order as to what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
/s/ ELI NASH, JR.
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: December 24, 1984
Washington, DC
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(1) The record does not show what happened to the other two proposals
subject to unfair labor practice charges.
(2) The proposal at issue is:
Technicians subject to quality assessment by the BATA will be
given an appropriate list of errors by management, each defined in
such a manner that all affected parties to this agreement have a
common understanding of what they are and how they will be
applied.
Any error definition will be applied consistently to all
affected employees throughout the SEPSC.
(3) See 182nd Tactical Air Support Grouup, Illinois Air National
Guard, The Adjutant General of Illinois, Springfield, Illinois, 10 FLRA
381 (1982).
(4) Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 22 FLRA No. 10 (1986).
(5) Based on our decision in this case, we find it unnecessary to
consider the Respondent's contentions that the parfties were at a
bargaining impasse.
(6) Based on the May 23, 1983 Memorandum of Understanding, I find
that Respondent's waiver argument lacks merit.
(7) In light of the above findings, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is
denied.
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 bargain in good faith with the
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO by declaring the
following proposal concerning the rotation of BATAs non-negotiable:
Technicians subject to quality assessment by the BATA will be
given an appropriate list of errors by management, each defined in
such a manner that all affected parties to this Agreement have a
common understanding of what they are and how they will be
applied. Any error will be applied consistently to all affected
employees throughout the SEPSC.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Statute.
WE WILL bargain collectively with the American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO on all proposals concerning the
implementation of the rotation of BATAs and the impact thereof upon
employees adversely affected, including the proposal set forth above.
(Agency or Activity)
Dated: . . . By: (Signature)
This Notice must remaiin 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 4, whose
address is: 1776 Peachtree Street, NW., Suite 501 -- North Wing,
Atlanta, GA 30309 and whose telephone number is: (404) 881-2324.