---

 3 FLRA No. 10
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 DISTRICT OFFICES IN DENVER, PUEBLO
 AND GREELEY, COLORADO, ET. AL.
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1802, ET. AL.
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 61-4237(CA)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    ON OCTOBER 4, 1979, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
 ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
 PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN THE UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE
 COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.  THEREAFTER, THE COMPLAINANT
 FILED EXCEPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SEC.  304 OF REORGANIZATION PLAN
 NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
 IMPLEMENTED BY SEC. 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45
 F.R. 3482, JANUARY 17, 1980).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE
 FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SEC.  7135(B) OF
 THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SEC. 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS AND SEC. 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED
 THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING AND
 FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY
 AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE SUBJECT
 CASE, INCLUDING THE COMPLAINANT'S EXCEPTIONS, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY
 ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATION.  /0/
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE
 NO. 61-4237(CA) BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 14, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    WILSON G. SCHUERHOLZ
 
    LABOR RELATIONS STAFF
 
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 
    2218 WEST HIGH RISE BUILDING
 
    6401 SECURITY BOULEVARD
 
    BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21045
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 
    KENNETH BULL
 
    NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
 
    5001 SOUTH WASHINGTON
 
    ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80110
 
                           FOR THE COMPLAINANTS
 
    BEFORE:  SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                      RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    PURSUANT TO A NOTICE OF HEARING ON COMPLAINT ISSUED ON MAY 11, 1979
 BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,
 KANSAS CITY REGION, A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED IN DENVER,
 COLORADO.
 
    THIS PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED
 (HEREIN CALLED THE ORDER).  IT IS BASED ON A COMPLAINT FILED ON NOVEMBER
 6, 1978 BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL
 1802, 3600 AND 2540 (HEREIN CALLED COLLECTIVELY COMPLAINANTS AND
 SEVERALLY CALLED, RESPECTIVELY, LOCAL 1802 AFGE, LOCAL 3600 AFGE, AND
 LOCAL 2540 AFGE) AGAINST REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES,
 DENVER GREELEY, PUEBLO AND HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE REGION (HEREIN
 AFTER CALLED COLLECTIVELY RESPONDENTS AND SEVERALLY CALLED RESPECTIVELY
 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, SSA, SSA DENVER DISTRICT, SSA GREELEY DISTRICT,
 SSA PUEBLO DISTRICT AND HEW DENVER REGIONAL OFFICE OR HEW REGION VIII)
 WHICH ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENTS VIOLATED SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE
 ORDER BY UNILATERALLY CHANGING THE CONTENTS OF A VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT
 FOR CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE TRAINEE THUS ALTERING AN EXISTING WORKING
 CONDITION AND VIOLATING VARIOUS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.
 
    ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED AT THE HEARING, WERE AFFORDED FULL
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AND TO EXAMINE AS WELL AS
 CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.  THEREAFTER BRIEFS WERE FILED WHICH HAVE BEEN
 DULY CONSIDERED BY THE UNDERSIGNED.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN, FROM MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES
 AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM ALL THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT
 THE HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT,
 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER.
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    1.  HEW, REGION VIII, IS HEADQUARTERED IN DENVER, COLORADO.  THE
 REGION COVERS SIX STATES (COLORADO, UTAH, WYOMING, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH
 DAKOTA, MONTANA) AND NUMEROUS ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS OF WHICH THE
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA) IS ONE.  SSA IS THEN BROKEN DOWN
 INTO VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONAL PARTS, ONE OF WHICH IS FIELD OPERATIONS, THE
 OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS.
 
    2.  THE PUEBLO, DENVER, AND GREELEY DISTRICTS ARE 3 OF 27 DISTRICTS
 UNDER FIELD OPERATIONS IN THE DENVER REGION.  EACH DISTRICT IS COMPOSED
 OF AN OFFICE IN THAT CITY, AS WELL AS NUMEROUS SMALLER SATELLITE OFFICES
 IN DIFFERENT CITIES OR TOWNS AROUND THE DISTRICT OFFICE CITY.  THESE
 THREE PARTICULAR DISTRICTS REPORT TO AREA DIRECTOR, JOE MCHENRY, WHO IN
 TURN, REPORTS TO THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR FIELD
 OPERATIONS, R. THOMAS WILLIAMS.  WILLIAMS THEN REPORTS TO THE REGIONAL
 COMMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE DENVER REGION (SANDY CRANK).
 THE DENVER REGIONAL COMMISSIONER REPORTS TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SSA IN
 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.
 
    VARIOUS OTHER ASSISTANT REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS WITH OTHER FUNCTIONS
 ALSO REPORT TO CRANK.
 
    3.  THE HEW, REGION VIII, OFFICE IS HEADED BY THE PRINCIPAL REGIONAL
 OFFICIAL, MR. WELLINGTON WEBB.  THE REGIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICE IS PART OF
 THE HEW REGIONAL OFFICE UNDER MR. WEBB AND PROVIDES PERSONNEL SERVICE TO
 THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF HEW IN THE REGION.  THE REGIONAL PERSONNEL
 OFFICE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING AND ADMINISTERING A REGIONAL MERIT
 PROMOTION PLAN.  THE CURRENT PLAN IS DATED SEPTEMBER 29, 1975.
 
    4.  AFGE LOCALS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE
 BARGAINING UNITS IN THE DISTRICTS OF PUEBLO, GREELEY, AND DENVER,
 COLORADO.  IN PUEBLO, THE EXCLUSIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
 IS LOCAL 2540 AFGE, WHICH HAS A CONTRACT DATED JANUARY 3, 1978.  IN
 DENVER, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE IS AFGE LOCAL 1802 WHICH HAS A
 CONTRACT DATED NOVEMBER 10, 1976.  IN GREELEY, THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE IS AFGE LOCAL 3600, WHICH HAD A CONTRACT DATE APRIL 5,
 1976.  THIS GREELEY CONTRACT WAS RENEGOTIATED DURING THE PERIOD OF
 AUGUST THROUGH DECEMBER 1978 AND BECAME EFFECTIVE IN FEBRUARY 1979.
 
    5.  IN EACH BARGAINING UNIT THE UNION REPRESENTS A UNIT COMPOSED OF
 ALL NONSUPERVISORY AND NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES IN THE DISTRICT.
 
    6.  THE PUEBLO CONTRACT IN ARTICLE 17 ADOPTS THE APPLICABLE REGIONAL
 MERIT PROMOTION PLAN AND MAKES IT A PART OF THE AGREEMENT.  THE DENVER
 CONTRACT IN ARTICLE 17 MAKES THE APPLICABLE PROMOTION PLAN A PART OF THE
 AGREEMENT.  IT ALSO PHYSICALLY ATTACHES THE SEPTEMBER 29, 1975, REGION
 VIII MERIT PROMOTION PLAN TO THE AGREEMENT.  ARTICLE 15 OF THE GREELEY
 CONTRACT ADOPTS THE REGION VIII MERIT PROMOTION PLAN AND MAKES IT A PART
 OF THE AGREEMENT.
 
    7.  SECTION 7A(2) OF THE MERIT PROMOTION PLAN PROVIDES THAT EACH
 VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT WILL INCLUDE, AS A MINIMUM, INTER ALIA, THE
 ORGANIZATION LOCATION OF THE VACANCY.  /1/
 
    8.  ON JUNE 18, 1976 A DEPT. OF HEW REGION VIII VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT
 WAS ISSUED FOR TEN CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE TRAINEE POSITIONS.  THE
 ANNOUNCEMENT, UNDER LOCATION, INDICATED:  "DHEW, SSA, BFO, FT. COLLINS,
 CO;  BILLINGS & HAVRE, MT:  BISMARCK, DEVILS LAKE, & JAMESTOWN, ND;
 SIOUX FALLS & WATERTOWN, SD;  RIVERTON, WY;  AND SALT LAKE CITY, UT."
 
    9.  ON JULY 20, 1976 A DEPT. OF HEW REGION VIII VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT
 WAS ISSUED FOR TWO CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE TRAINEE POSITIONS.  THE
 ANNOUNCEMENT UNDER LOCATION INDICATED:  "DHEW, SSA, BFO, OGDEN, UTAH AND
 WILLISTON, NO. DAK."
 
    10.  ON DECEMBER 15, 1976, A VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT WAS ISSUED FOR THE
 CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE TRAINEE POSITION.  THE ANNOUNCEMENT, UNDER
 LOCATION, INDICATED:  "HEW, SSA, FIELD OPERATIONS, COLORADO-- 3,
 MONTANA-- 2, NORTH DAKOTA-- 2, SOUTH DAKOTA-- 2, UTAH-- 2, WYOMING-- 1."
 IT WAS POSTED IN THE PUEBLO, DENVER, AND GREELEY DISTRICTS AND IN OTHER
 DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE REGION.
 
    11.  IN THE DENVER DISTRICT, LOCAL 1802 AFGE FILED AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE CHARGE ON JANUARY 13, 1977, ALLEGING THAT THE MERIT PROMOTION
 PLAN, AND THEREFORE THE CONTRACT, HAD BEEN UNILATERALLY CHANGED WITHOUT
 NEGOTIATION BY THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.  SPECIFICALLY, IT CLAIMED SECTION
 7(A)2 OF THE MERIT PROMOTION PLAN DEALING WITH "ORGANIZATION LOCATION"
 WAS ALTERED BY NOT SHOWING AN INDIVIDUAL OFFICE LOCATION.  AN UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON MARCH 15, 1977.  NO CHARGES OR
 COMPLAINTS WERE FILED IN EITHER THE PUEBLO OR THE GREELEY DISTRICTS.
 
    12.  ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1977, THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR APPROVED THE LOCAL
 1802 AFGE WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT FILED IN
 MARCH 1977.
 
    13.  ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1978, ANOTHER VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT WAS ISSUED
 FOR THE CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE TRAINEE POSITION.  THIS ANNOUNCEMENT,
 UNDER LOCATION, INDICATED:  "HEW, SSA, FIELD OPERATIONS, COLORADO (5 OR
 MORE POSITIONS);  NORTH DAKOTA (2 OR MORE POSITIONS);  UTAH (2 OR MORE
 POSITIONS);  WYOMING (1 OR MORE POSITIONS);  SOUTH DAKOTA (1 OR MORE
 POSITIONS);  MONTANA (1 OR MORE POSITIONS)." THIS ANNOUNCEMENT WAS
 POSTED IN THE PUEBLO, DENVER, AND GREELEY DISTRICTS AS WELL AS OTHER
 DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE REGION.
 
    14.  THIS ISSUANCE OF THE VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1978
 IS THE SUBJECT OF INSTANT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASE.
 
    15.  THE VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT POSITION IN QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS
 THAT OF THE CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE.  THIS IS THE TOP NONMANAGEMENT JOB IN
 THE FIELD OPERATIONS STRUCTURE.  INDIVIDUALS IN THIS POSITION ARE
 RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING AND ADJUDICATING SOCIAL SECURITY CLAIMS.  THE
 JOURNEYMAN GRADE FOR THIS JOB IS THE GS-10 LEVEL.  THE CLAIMS
 REPRESENTATIVE VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT IS NOT PREPARED BY A DISTRICT
 MANAGER, BUT IS DONE BY HIGHER LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT (AREA DIRECTOR AND
 ASSISTANT REGIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR FIELD OPERATIONS).  NEARLY ALL OTHER
 VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR DISTRICT POSITIONS ARE PREPARED BY THE
 DISTRICT MANAGER.
 
    16.  THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENTS ISSUED
 IN THE DENVER REGION, SOME OF WHICH PROVIDE A SPECIFIC OFFICE LOCATION
 AND SOME OF WHICH DON'T.  /2/
 
    17.  CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE POSITIONS ARE FILLED FROM A VARIETY OF
 SOURCES.  THE INTERNAL PROMOTION PROCEDURES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS
 ONLY ONE SUCH SOURCE.  OTHER SOURCES INCLUDE HIRING OFF A CIVIL SERVICE
 REGISTER, TRANSFER, AND REASSIGNMENT.  SELECTEES FROM A REGISTER ARE
 HIRED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY MAY BE PLACED ANYWHERE WITHIN THE
 REGION AFTER THEIR GENERAL TRAINING IS COMPLETE.
 
    18.  CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT FOR INTERNAL
 PROMOTION ARE USUALLY DONE ONLY ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR.  USE OF THE
 DIFFERENT SOURCES VARIES WITH SUCH THINGS AS PERSONNEL CEILINGS AND
 PROGRAM EXPENSION.
 
    19.  THE RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT, UNIFORMLY, VACANCY
 ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE POSITIONS ALWAYS INCLUDED THE
 LOCATION OF THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT OR OFFICE LOCATION.  ON THE CONTRARY
 THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT IN THE PAST CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE VACANCY
 ANNOUNCEMENTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT LISTING A SPECIFIC DISTRICT OR
 OFFICE LOCATION.
 
                            CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
 
    THE COMPLAINANTS CONTEND, BASICALLY, THAT RESPONDENTS VIOLATED
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY UNILATERALLY CHANGING WORKING
 CONDITIONS AND THE EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS IN THE
 DENVER, GREELEY, AND PUEBLO DISTRICTS WITHOUT BARGAINING WITH THE
 RESPECTIVE LOCAL AFGE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVES.  THIS VIOLATION
 ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED WHEN THE VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT FOR CLAIMS
 REPRESENTATIVE TRAINEES, DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 1978, WAS ISSUED WITHOUT
 LISTING SPECIFIC DISTRICT OFFICE LOCATIONS.
 
    THE COMPLAINANTS POINT OUT THAT THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT IN EACH OF
 THE UNITS REFERS TO AND INCORPORATES THE REGIONAL MERIT PROMOTION PLAN
 INTO THE CONTRACT.  THEY THEN CONTEND THAT SECTION 7A(2) OF THE PLAN,
 WHICH STATES THAT EACH VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT WILL INCLUDE AS A MINIMUM
 THE ORGANIZATIONAL LOCATION OF THE VACANCY, MEANS THAT A SPECIFIC
 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION MUST BE LISTED.  THUS, THEY CONTEND, NO ANNOUNCEMENT
 CAN BE MADE UNLESS AND UNTIL A SPECIFIC VACANCY LOCATION IS ACTUALLY
 KNOWN.  THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO DISCUSSION DURING
 ANY OF THE NEGOTIATIONS AS TO WHAT THE SECTION IN QUESTION MEANT.  IN
 FACT, THERE WAS LITTLE, IF ANY, DISCUSSION OF THE MERIT PROMOTION PLAN,
 OTHER THAN TO REFER TO AND INCORPORATE THE REGIONAL PLAN INTO THE
 AGREEMENT.  THE PLAN ITSELF PROVIDES NO FURTHER INSIGHT OR EXPLANATION
 AS TO THE MEANING OF THE TERM.  IT IS THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION THAT
 "ORGANIZATIONAL LOCATION" REFERS TO THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AS THE
 COMPLAINANT ARGUES.
 
    IN ESSENCE THE MATTER AT HAND REVOLVES AROUND AN INTERPRETATION OF
 THE MEANING OF ORGANIZATIONAL LOCATION.  THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 COUNCIL HAS HELD THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF AGENCY POLICIES AND
 REGULATIONS ARE SPECIFICALLY INCORPORATED IN A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, IS
 A MATTER TO BE LEFT TO THE JUDGMENT OF AN ARBITRATOR.  CF. FAA,
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FORT WORTH AND PATCO, FLRC NO. 75A-31.
 
    THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT
 WHICH CONCERN DIFFERING AND ARGUABLE INTERPRETATIONS OF SUCH AGREEMENT,
 AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ALLEGED ACTIONS WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE FUNDAMENTAL
 CLEAR, AND UNILATERAL BREACHES OF THE AGREEMENT, ARE NOT VIOLATIVE OF
 THE ORDER AND THAT, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AGGRIEVED PARTY'S
 REMEDY FOR SUCH MATTERS LIES WITHIN THE GRIEVANCE MACHINERY OF THE
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, RATHER THAN THROUGH THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 PROCEDURE.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE CASE AT BAR SHOULD
 HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BY THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES /3/ AND NOT BY THE UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE PROCEDURES OF THE ORDER.
 
    FINALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPLAINANTS CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS A
 UNILATERAL CHANGE IN AN EXISTING WORKING CONDITION, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT
 THE RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT IT WAS A PAST PRACTICE FOR ALL
 NOTICES OF VACANCIES, OR EVEN FOR ALL NOTICES OF VACANCIES FOR CLAIMS
 REPRESENTATIVE TRAINEES, TO INCLUDE THE PRECISE DISTRICT OR OFFICE
 LOCATION OF EACH POSITION.  THUS, IT IS FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT THE
 ISSUANCE OF THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1978 VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT FOR CLAIMS
 REPRESENTATIVE TRAINEES, DID NOT CONSTITUTE A UNILATERAL CHANGE OF A
 WORKING CONDITION AND DID NOT VIOLATE SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE
 ORDER.
 
    HAVING CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENTS DID NOT ENGAGE IN CONDUCT WHICH
 VIOLATED SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT
 THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 64-4237(CA) BE,
 AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
                           SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED OCTOBER 4, 1979
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
    /0/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SEC. 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF
 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF
 E.O.11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
  THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
 MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE
 RESULT WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN
 UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
 
    /1/ DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS OF THE THREE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENTS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF
 THE MEANING OR INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 7A(2) OF THE MERIT PROMOTION
 PLAN OR THE MEANING OF "ORGANIZATION LOCATION".
 
    /2/ OFTEN VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR OTHER JOBS IN THE DISTRICT LIST
 NO SPECIFIC JOB LOCATION OTHER THAN THE DISTRICT.  THIS IS SO WHEN THE
 PARTICULAR OFFICE WITHIN THE DISTRICT IS NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE
 ANNOUNCEMENT.
 
    /3/ THE COMPLAINANTS SEEM TO FEEL THAT BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF VACANCY
 IN QUESTION WAS ISSUED AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL, A LEVEL ABOVE THE DISTRICT
 LEVEL COVERED BY THE CONTRACTS, THE GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURE
 WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH SUCH A BREACH OF THE AGREEMENTS.
 HOWEVER, WHERE THERE IS, AS THERE IS HERE, A CLEAR DISPUTE AS TO THE
 INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT, AND WHERE IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR
 THAT AN ARBITRATOR COULD NOT OR WOULD NOT RESOLVE THE DISPUTE, IT IS
 CONCLUDED THAT WE MUST DEFER TO THE GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURES
 AVAILABLE.  IT MUST BE PRESUMED, ABSENT CLEAR EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY,
 THAT THE GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN A COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT CAN ADEQUATELY RESOLVE ALL DISPUTES CONCERNING
 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THAT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
 
 
 

---