[ v19 p304 ]
19:0304(43)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
19 FLRA No. 43
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, REGION IV
MIAMI, FLORIDA
Respondent
and
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Charging Party
Case No. 4-CA-40108
DECISION AND ORDER
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending
that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action. The Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's
Decision.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (the Statute), the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the
Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon consideration of the
Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts the
Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommended Order as modified.
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
that the Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, Region IV,
Miami, Florida shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Instituting any change in holiday work schedules without
first notifying the National Treasury Employees Union, the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, and
affording such representative the opportunity to bargain with
respect to procedures and appropriate arrangements for employees
adversely affected by such change.
(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 Statute:
(a) Notify the National Treasury Employees Union, the exclusive
representative of its employees, of any decision to change holiday work
schedules and, upon request, bargain with respect to procedures and
appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by such
change.
(b) Post at its facilities, including the Jacksonville Tactical
Enforcement Division, 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 an appropriate 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
insure 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 IV, 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., July 25, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS
AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
OF TITLE
5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT institute any change in holiday work schedules without first
notifying the National Treasury Employees Union, the exclusive
bargaining representative of our employees, and affording such
representative the opportunity to bargain with respect to procedures and
appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by such
change. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights
assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. WE
WILL notify the National Treasury Employees Union, the exclusive
representative of our employees, of any decision to change holiday work
schedules and, upon request, bargain with respect to procedures and
appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by such
change.
(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 IV,
Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is: 1776 Peachtree
Street, NW., Suite 501, North Wing, Atlanta, GA 30309, and whose
telephone number is: (404) 881-2324.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
CASE No. 4-CA-40108
For the General Counsel
Pamela Jackson, Esq.
For the Respondent
Jeanne M. Mullenhoff, Esq.
Linda Hanthorn
Kerry Brooks Thomas, Esq. (on brief)
For the Charging Party
Timothy Welsh, Esq.
Before: FRANCIS E. DOWD
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Cast
This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, herein referred to as the Statute, 92 Stat. 1191, 5
U.S.C. 7101 et seq. It was instituted by the Acting Regional Director
of the Fourth Region of the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
The charge in Case No. 4-CA-40108 was filed on November 29, 1983, by
National Treasury Employees Union, hereinafter referred to as the Union,
Charging Party or NTEU. On January 31, 1984, the Acting Regional
Director issued a complaint alleging that Department of Treasury, U.S.
Customs Service, Region IV, Miami, Florida, herein the Respondent,
violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) by its unilateral change in
conditions of employment without notice to the Union and without
providing the Union with a meaningful opportunity to bargain.
Specifically the complaint alleges that on or about October 10, 1983,
Respondent, changed an existing policy whereby two teams of two
employees each would work on all scheduled holidays at Respondent's
Jacksonville, Florida station, and implemented a new policy whereby all
available employees would be required to work on the Thanksgiving,
Christmas and New Years, 1983 holidays. This allegation was changed at
the hearing and on brief to all available employees "except two."
Respondent's answer denies any violations of the Statute.
A hearing was held in Jacksonville, Florida at which time the parties
were represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to adduce
evidence and call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses and argue
orally. Briefs filed by the Respondent and General Counsel have been
duly considered.
Upon consideration of the entire record /2/ in this case, including
my evaluation of the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing,
and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended order.
Findings of Fact
1. The Union has been and is now a labor organization within the
meaning of section 7103(a)(4) of the Statute. The Union has been and
remains the exclusive representative of certain employees of Respondent
in an appropriate unit as set forth in a nationwide collective
bargaining agreement, herein called the agreement, which was effective
by its terms from June 30, 1980, until at least December 8, 1983.
2. The Department of the Treasury has been and is now an agency
within the meaning of section 7103(a)(3) of the Statute. The U.S.
Customs Service, Region IV, Miami, Florida, has been and is now an
activity of the Department of Treasury within the meaning of section
2421.4 of the Rules and Regulations of the Authority. The individuals
listed below occupied the positions appearing opposite their names, and
have been and are now supervisors and/or management officials within the
meaning of section 7103(a)(10) and (11) of the Statute and are agents of
Respondent:
Thomas Mitchell Supervisory Customs Patrol Officer
E. M. Cross Supervisory Customs Patrol Officer
J. M. Schnorbus Supervisory Customs Patrol Officer
3. The credited testimony of Robert Durst and Dione Holland
establishes that prior to June 1983, Respondent at its Jacksonville
office routinely scheduled two or less Customs Patrol Officers to work
on holidays. /3/ The foregoing testimony is also corroborated by
documentary evidence and testimony referred to in Appendix B, a chart
prepared by Counsel for the General Counsel, adopted by the undersigned
(as modified) and incorporated herein. The holiday schedules would
occasionally change due to unforeseen circumstances or emergencies, and
fewer or more officers would work than originally scheduled. At one
time or another, the number of nonsupervisory personnel involved in this
proceeding ranged from nine to ten.
4. On June 10, Respondent announced to its supervisors and employees
that two teams would be assigned to work "each holiday" effective
immediately (G.C. Exh. No. 4). On June 20, Respondent announced a
"holiday schedule" (G.C. Exh. No. 5) for the next six holidays (Columbus
Day through New Years Day) requiring the assignment of two teams of two
employees each (one team for shift B and one team for shift C). Neither
G.C. Exh. Nos. 4 nor G.C. Exh. No. 5 provided any explanation for
Respondent's action. This change in past practice whereby the number of
officers assigned to holiday work was increased from two to four is not
an issue in this proceeding. (Why it is not an issue was not
explained).
5. By memorandum dated October 12, 1983, (issued two days after
Columbus Day), Respondent again changed its holiday leave policy, and
implemented a policy whereby all officers, except two, would be required
to work the Veterans, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's holidays
(G.C. Exh. No. 6). Therefore, October 1983, was the first time that
Respondent routinely scheduled all Patrol Officers, except two, to work
the Veterans, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's holidays. Again,
the memorandum by Respondent provided no explanation for the change in
holiday schedule. It is this change which is being litigated herein.
6. The Union was not provided with any notice of the change set
forth in paragraph 5, supra. The testimony of Union President Dan
Sherlock is not in dispute.
7. As a result of the change in holiday schedule, Robert Durst's
previously approved annual leave request for the holiday period
including Christmas and New Years was cancelled. (Each year in February
leave requests are submitted for the next 12 months). As a result Durst
had to work both holidays and alter his vacation plans. Durst has been
an employee of Respondent for 13 years. He could not recall any
previous occasion when holiday leave was approved and later rescinded.
Holland, an employee for 2 1/2 years, also could not recall any holiday
leave cancellation prior to the period which is the subject of this
proceeding.
8. As a result of the change holiday schedules, Vincent Dolan's
previously approved (in February) request for annual leave was
rescinded. His wife and children went to Massachusetts on a ski trip
and he stayed behind to work both holidays (Christmas and New Years).
There was no special "operation" in progress at that time. He merely
performed his regular duties. Clearly, his leave was cancelled-- like
Durst's-- because of the new schedules and not because of any emergency
and special operation. There is no dispute that changes in assigned
holiday schedules may occur at the 11th hour due to emergencies of one
kind or another.
9. Respondent's witnesses were Ernest Cross and James Schnorbus,
both supervisory officials. They explained the nature of the work and
the duties of Customs Patrol Officers. Although Schnorbus testified
that the increase in staff over the holidays was due to operational
needs, I find and conclude that there were no specific needs
demonstrated by Respondent which were any different from previous years.
Rather, it appears that this is simply a case where Respondent knew it
was going to have sufficient funds in their fiscal year 1984 budget to
cover the additional cost involved in holiday pay, and for this reason
decided in advance to increase the number of patrol officers required to
work on these holidays.
10. G.C. Exhibit No. 2 is the collective bargaining agreement
between Respondent and the Union. G.C. Exh. 3 in the Supplemental
Agreement involving the Miami Region. Specific provisions may be
referred to later in this decision.
Discussion and Conclusions of Law
A. Change in Conditions of Employment
Respondent, in its Answer, denied that its October 12 holiday
schedule constituted a change in conditions of employment. The
evidence, however, is to the contrary. Thus, the record clearly
reflects that for more than two years only one to two officers were
routinely scheduled to work on holidays. It was not until October 1983
that Respondent, for the first time, implemented a policy requiring a
majority or all but two officers to work the Thanksgiving, Christmas and
New Year's holidays. Respondent argues that no change in its holiday
leave policy occurred because the number of officers working holidays
has always varied. While it is true that Respondent may have required
more officers to work on some holidays than it originally scheduled, due
to unforeseen circumstances, it never routinely required most of its
officers to work on holidays. Prior to June 1983, unless acting on
specific information, or unless some special project was underway, not
more than two officers were scheduled to work holidays. In fact, even
when acting on specific information or when a special project was
underway, rarely were more than three officers scheduled to work on
holidays. From January of 1981 to June of 1983, out of 27 recognized
holidays there were only two holidays, the July 4th holiday 1981 /4/ and
the Christmas 1982 holiday, /5/ when more than two officers were
scheduled to work.
Respondent further argues that its holiday leave policy has not
changed because the number of officers required to work on holidays has
always been determined by enforcement needs, and enforcement needs are
higher during the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's holiday
season. Respondent admits, however, that the 1983
Thanksgiving/Christmas/New Year holiday enforcement needs were no
greater than previous Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year Holiday needs
when Respondent only required two employees to work. Thus, Respondent
can hardly argue that its scheduling of all officers except two to work
the Thanksgiving/Christmas/New Year Holidays was due to enforcement
needs, as usual. Respondent's position that no change has occurred in
its holiday leave policy is wholly unsupported by the record.
Finally, it should be noted that the October 12 memo (G.C. Exh. No.
5) changed the schedule for four holidays substantially in advance of
the holiday dates. Thus, it cannot be seriously argued that this change
was due to any last-minute emergency or some unforeseen circumstances.
It was a change of policy, pure and simple, about the number of
employees to be assigned to holiday work. It is undisputed that
Respondent did not notify the Union of this change. B. Impact of the
Change
There is no dispute that two employees, who submitted leave requests
the previous February and received approval for same, had their leave
cancelled and had to thereby change their plans. Not only did the
change result in an actual impact which, in my opinion, was more than de
minimus, but such impact was reasonably foreseeable since the Respondent
was already aware of the approved leave requests.
Moreover, it's a well-established fact and custom that certain
holidays-- like Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years-- are special
occasions when employees normally spend time with their families. It
should be obvious to anyone, therefore, that such a change could have a
disruptive impact on the employees and their families, and that such
adverse impact was reasonably foreseeable. C. Respondent's Position
Respondent argues that its bargaining obligation has been fulfilled
by virtue of Article 13, Sec. 7(a) /6/ of the parties' collective
bargaining agreement, and by virtue of Article II of a supplemental
agreement (G.C. Exh. No. 3) entered into by the parties in April of
1981. Respondent's argument fails for several reasons. First, neither
of the above-mentioned sections addresses the impact directly resulting
from Respondent's implementation of a new holiday leave policy. Article
13 Sec. 7(a) addresses the manner in which individual employees will be
notified if leave is cancelled, presumably due to unforeseen
circumstances. It does not address a situation, where as here,
Respondent implemented a new policy regarding how many employees it
would require to work on holidays, regardless of special circumstances.
Similarly, Article II of the Supplemental Agreement is equally
inapplicable as it merely addresses the issue of which employee will be
granted leave after a decision has been made to grant leave. It does
not address a situation, as here, where the number of employees who will
be granted leave has changed. I specifically reject, therefore,
Respondent's contention (brief at p. 9) that implementation and impact
negotiations (of cancelled leave) have already taken place as evidenced
by the Agreement.
Respondent, by arguing that it has fulfilled its bargaining
obligation by negotiating Article 13 Section 7(a) of the parties'
collective bargaining agreement and Article II of the parties'
supplemental agreement, is in effect asserting that the union waived its
right to bargain on changes in holiday leave policy. It is
well-settled, however, that a waiver can be found only if it can be
shown that the exclusive representative clearly and unmistakably waived
its statutory right to negotiate. Department of the Air Force, U.S. Air
Force Academy, 6 FLRA No. 100, 6 FLRA 548 (1981), Internal Revenue
Service (District Region, National Office Unit), 13 FLRA No. 61 (1983).
Clearly in the instant case, the Union has not expressly waived its
right to bargain on the impact and implementation of Respondent's
changes in holiday leave policy.
Respondent also contends that because the National Agreement
contemplates the cancellation of leave and permits employees to file
grievances in respect thereto, that the instant controversy is one of
contract interpretation over which the Authority should not assert
jurisdiction. This contention is completely lacking in merit. First of
all, there is no dispute as to interpretation of any provision
specifically dealing with holiday schedules. Secondly, the mere fact
that individual employees may file grievances concerning their cancelled
leave does not preclude the Union from filing an unfair labor practice
alleging that the underlying cause of the leave cancellation was a
unilateral change of conditions of employment without adequate notice to
the exclusive representative of the individual employees. D. Summary
of Conclusions
It is undisputed that Respondent has the right under section 7106 to
assign employees work and determine the personnel by which agency
operations shall be conducted. /7/ The issue in this case essentially
is whether or not changes in holiday work schedules constitute the kind
of changes about which there is an obligation to bargain as to impact
and implementation.
The Authority has addressed the issue of changing holiday work
schedules in two fairly recent cases, /8/ herein referred to as the FAA
case and the BATF case, respectively. The FAA case involved a decrease
in the number of hours to be worked by the employees assigned to holiday
work. The case before me involves an increase in the number of
employees routinely assigned to holiday work, as distinguished from a
staffing increase based upon an emergency of some sort.
In the BATF case, the Authority held that the Agency violated section
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by (1) its failure to give the union
adequate prior notice of its decision to change the scheduling of
holiday work so as to afford the union the opportunity to request
bargaining concerning the impact and implementation of the change; and
(2) by its subsequent refusal, after implementation of its decision, to
honor the union's request to bargain over the impact of the change. /9/
In so finding, the Authority noted that where an Agency in exercising a
management right under section 7106 of the Statute decides to change a
condition of employment of unit employees, there exists a statutory duty
to negotiate if such change results in more than a de minimis impact
upon unit employees or such impact is reasonably foreseeable. See U.S.
Government Printing Office, 13 FLRA No. 39 (1983) and Department of
Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Chicago
Region, 15 FLRA No. 174 (1984).
In my opinion, the Authority's decisions in the FAA and BATF cases
are applicable to the case before me. Accordingly, I find that
Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) by its unilateral change
in holiday work schedules on October 10, 1983, without notifying the
union and providing it with a meaningful opportunity to bargain.
REMEDY
Both parties were requested-- in written guidelines furnished them at
the hearing-- to brief the questions of remedy in the event I found a
violation of the Statute. Counsel for Respondent did not brief the
issue. Counsel for General Counsel requested a status quo remedy but
did not cite any applicable precedent. Respondent's position as to a
status quo remedy is not known and no evidence was adduced by Respondent
/10/ to show that rescission of the new holiday work schedule would
seriously disrupt the efficiency and effectiveness of Respondent's
operations.
Recently, the Authority took the opportunity to point out that the
criteria set forth in Federal Correctional Institution /11/ for
determining whether to grant a status quo remedy-- are applicable only
to cases where a Respondent agency has failed to negotiate impact and
implementation of a decision which was itself not negotiable. /12/
Since Respondent's decision to change the holiday schedules is not at
issue herein, I shall consider that appropriateness of a status quo
remedy in the light of the criteria set forth in Federal Correctional
Institution. On the one hand, Respondent clearly did not provide the
Union with any notice of the change and, in this regard, its conduct was
willful since it asserted no obligation to give notice. No contention
is made that the failure to provide notice was inadvertent or an
oversight. Also, there's no evidence that Respondent's operation would
be seriously disrupted by an order to rescind the October 12, 1983,
change in the holiday schedule. On the other hand, the nature and
extent of the impact experienced by two adversely affected employees,
namely, cancellation of leave back in 1983, is not significant enough by
itself to weigh in favor of a status quo remedy even it is sufficient to
give rise to an obligation to provide adequate notice. More
significant, but not by itself a determining factor, is that the Union
did not request to bargain about Respondent's October 12 change in the
holiday schedule. Clearly, there was ample opportunity, after learning
of the change, to request bargaining about impact and implementation.
Such failure to request bargaining is hard to understand and was not
explained during the hearing. In my judgment, however, the most
significant factor is that the change in holiday policy, as far as this
record shows, appears to be limited to four holidays in 1983 and the
record does not show that the change of policy was a continuing one
affecting all holidays from that date on, as was the situation in the
FAA case, supra. For this latter reason, it seems to me it would be a
meaningless gesture to order Respondent to rescind any policy which only
dealt with four holidays which have come and gone.
The General Counsel's concept of status quo in this case is to order
Respondent to return to its former policy of requiring only two officers
to work on the four holidays mentioned above, absent emergency
circumstances. My first problem with this request is that the two-man
policy was changed on June 10, 1983, was apparently acquiesced in by the
Union, and was deliberately not made an issue in this case.
Accordingly, if any policy is to be restored it must be the two-team
policy lasting from June 10 to October 12. My second problem with this
request is that it appears to restrict management's right to decide on
the number of employees who will work on holidays, when the unlawful
conduct to be remedied is not the specific number of employees so much
as it is the procedure to be used in implementing any policy change, as
well as the impact on any employees adversely affected by such change.
In these circumstances, I conclude that a status quo remedy is
inappropriate. /13/
Having concluded that Respondent violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (5)
of the Statute, I recommend that the Authority issue the following:
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the
Authority hereby orders that the Department of the Treasury, U.S.
Customs Service, Region IV, Miami, Florida:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Instituting a change in holiday work schedules /14/ without
first notifying the exclusive bargaining representative, the
National Treasury Employees Union, and affording it the
opportunity to negotiate concerning the impact and implementation
of such change.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the rights assured by
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative actions in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute:
(a) Notify the National Treasury Employees Union of any
decision to change holiday work schedules and, upon request,
negotiate concerning the impact and implementation of such change.
/15/
(b) Post at its facilities, including the Jacksonville Tactical
Enforcement Division, 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 an appropriate 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 insure 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 IV, 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.
FRANCIS E. DOWD
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: December 31, 1984
Washington, D.C.
APPENDIX A
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 institute a change in holiday work schedules without first
notifying the exclusive bargaining representative, the National Treasury
Employees Union, and affording such representative the opportunity to
negotiate concerning the impact and implementation of such change. WE
WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the rights assured by the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute. WE WILL notify the National
Treasury Employees Union of any change in holiday work schedules and,
upon request, negotiate concerning the impact and implementation of such
change.
(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 IV, whose address is:
1776 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 501, North Wing, Atlanta, GA. 30309
and whose telephone number is: (404) 881-2324.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ The caption reflects the name of Respondent as set forth in the
complaint and answers.
/2/ General Counsel's motion to correct the transcript was unopposed
by Respondent. It has been reviewed by the undersigned and is hereby
granted.
/3/ On three holidays none were scheduled. On only two holidays were
more than two scheduled.
/4/ Four officers were scheduled to work on the July 4th 1981
holiday, and only one officer actually worked.
/5/ Three officers were scheduled to work on the Christmas 1982
holiday, and only two officers actually worked.
/6/ Article 13 Sec. 7(a) provides:
A. Should the employer find it necessary to cancel previously
approved leave, it will inform the employee as soon as the reason
is known to the employer. The reasons for cancelling leave will
be provided in writing for all leave which was requested in
writing.
B. Employee requests for rescheduling approved leave which has
been cancelled shall be processed in accordance with Section 2 and
3 above.
/7/ Respondent's "decision" to change holiday work schedules is not
at issue.
/8/ Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region,
Seattle, Washington, 14 FLRA No. 89, 14 FLRA 644 (May 17, 1984); United
States Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms, Washington, D.C., and its Central Region, 16 FLRA No. 74
(November 15, 1984).
/9/ The complaint herein does not allege that the Union requested to
bargain and Respondent refused such request.
/10/ But see: Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service,
Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, 15 FLRA No. 187 (August
31, 1984).
/11/ 8 FLRA No. 111, 8 FLRA 604 (1982).
/12/ Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 16 FLRA No. 99 (November 30, 1984).
/13/ Department of the Treasury, supra, fn. 8; U.S. Customs Service,
Region IV, New Orleans, Louisiana, 9 FLRA No. 15, 9 FLRA 116 (1982).
/14/ At the risk of redundancy, I would like to make clear that this
order contemplates the kind of routine change demonstrated by this
record and not last-minute changes caused by emergencies, changes due to
specified operations, or changes made to accommodate employee requests.
/15/ Inasmuch as the Union did not request to bargain about the
holiday schedules, it is not alleged that Respondent refused to bargain
"upon request." Accordingly, what is being remedied here is a failure to
provide adequate notice, rather than a refusal to bargain upon request.