Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social Security Administration, BRSI, Northeastern Program Service Center (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760, AFL-CIO (Complainant) 



[ v01 p780 ]
01:0780(88)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 1 FLRA No. 88
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION
 AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, NORTHEASTERN
 PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760, AFL-CIO
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 30-08551(CA)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    ON MARCH 12, 1979, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WILLIAM NAIMARK ISSUED
 HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING,
 FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, BY NOT PROPERLY NOTIFYING AND
 AFFORDING THE COMPLAINANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT A FORMAL
 DISCUSSION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10(E) OF THE ORDER.  THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RECOMMENDED THAT THE RESPONDENT CEASE AND
 DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS SET FORTH IN THE
 ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.
 THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENT FILED EXCEPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THIS PORTION
 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER FINDING
 A VIOLATION.  /1/
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, WERE
 TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION PLAN
 NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
 IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (44 F.R. 7).
 
    THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF
 THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7135(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION
 RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 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 THIS
 CASE, INCLUDING THE RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS
 THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS.  /2/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS OF
 THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7135 OF THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS
 THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) CONDUCTING FORMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND UNIT
 EMPLOYEES, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, CONCERNING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND
 PRACTICES, OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT, WITHOUT NOTIFYING AND AFFORDING AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 OF ITS EMPLOYEES, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT SUCH DISCUSSIONS.
 
    (B) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE ORDER BY FAILING TO NOTIFY AND
 AFFORD AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760, AFL-CIO,
 OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, THE OPPORTUNITY
 TO BE REPRESENTED AT FORMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND
 EMPLOYEES, OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER:
 
    (A) NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 1760, AFL-CIO, OF AND AFFORD IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT
 FORMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND UNIT EMPLOYEES, AS THEIR
 REPRESENTATIVES, CONCERNING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, OR OTHER
 MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT.
 
    (B) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AT THE NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER
 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 THE DIRECTOR OF THE NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE
 CENTER AND SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM
 SERVICE CENTER AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES
 WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE NORTHEASTERN
 PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, BRSI, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT
 OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE
 THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE 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.
 
    IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT IN
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE NO. 30-08551(CA) FOUND NOT TO BE VIOLATIVE OF
 THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BE, AND IT HEREBY IS DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 31, 1979
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
           PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 
             RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN TURN 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 CONDUCT FORMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND UNIT
 EMPLOYEES, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, CONCERNING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND
 PRACTICES OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT, WITHOUT NOTIFYING AND AFFORDING THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 OF OUR EMPLOYEES, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT SUCH DISCUSSIONS.
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE UNIT EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE ORDER BY FAILING TO NOTIFY AND
 AFFORD THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760,
 AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT FORMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT
 AND EMPLOYEES, OR EMPLOYEES REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING PERSONNEL
 POLICIES AND PRACTICES, OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 1760, AFL-CIO, OF AND AFFORD IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT,
 FORMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND UNIT EMPLOYEES OF THEIR
 REPRESENTATIVES, CONCERNING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, OR OTHER
 MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT.
 
                           (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 THE EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
 COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY
 WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,
 WHOSE ADDRESS IS ROOM 1751, 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007,
 AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (212) 399-5508.
 
    JULIAN BERGMAN
 
    LABOR RELATIONS SPECIALIST
 
    HEW, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 
    BRSI, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE
 
    CENTER
 
    9605 HORACE HARDING EXPRESSWAY
 
    FLUSHING, NEW YORK 11368
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    HERBERT COLLENDER
 
    PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 
    LOCAL 1760
 
    233-31 139TH DRIVE
 
    ROSEDALE, NEW YORK 11422
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM NAIMARK
 
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    PURSUANT TO A NOTICE OF HEARING ON COMPLAINT ISSUED ON OCTOBER 12,
 1978 BY THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT SERVICES
 ADMINISTRATION, U.S.  DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, NEW YORK REGION, A HEARING
 WAS HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON DECEMBER 19, 1978 AT NEW YORK, NEW
 YORK.
 
    THIS PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED
 (HEREIN CALLED THE ORDER).  IT WAS BASED ON A COMPLAINT FILED ON JUNE
 27, 1978 BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL
 1760 (HEREIN CALLED COMPLAINANT) AGAINST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
 EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BRSI,
 NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, (HEREIN CALLED RESPONDENT).  THE
 SAID COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6)
 OF THE ORDER AS A RESULT OF (A) CONDUCTING A FORMAL DISCUSSION ON MAY 1,
 1978 UNILATERALLY WITH ITS BENEFIT AUTHORIZERS TO SET UP A SELECTION
 METHOD FOR A 30 DAY ASSIGNMENT OF SAID EMPLOYEES ALL WITHOUT NOTIFYING
 COMPLAINANT OR REQUESTING IT TO ATTEND SUCH DISCUSSION;  (B) REFUSED AND
 FAILED TO BARGAIN WITH COMPLAINANT RE THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED ON
 SUCH ASSIGNMENTS AS WELL AS THE IMPACT ON UNIT EMPLOYEES.  RESPONDENT
 FILED A RESPONSE THERETO WHICH WAS DATED JULY 27, 1979 DENYING THAT IT
 HAD VIOLATED THE ORDER AND MOVING TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  /3/
 
    BOTH 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 WITH THE
 UNDERSIGNED WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN, FROM MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES
 AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM ALL OF THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE ADDUCED
 AT THE HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    1.  AT ALL TIMES HEREIN COMPLAINANT HAS BEEN, AND STILL IS, THE
 EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF RESPONDENT'S NON-SUPERVISORY
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    2.  INCLUDED IN THE UNIT OF SUCH EMPLOYEES WERE THOSE CLASSIFIED AS
 CLAIMS AUTHORIZERS, BENEFIT AUTHORIZERS, TA, AND SUPPORT PERSONNEL.  A
 CLAIMS AUTHORIZER'S (CA) FUNCTION IS TO ADJUDICATE CLAIMS-RETIREMENT AND
 SUVIVOR'S ENTITLEMENTS.  A BENEFIT AUTHORIZER (BA) PROCESSES POST
 ADJUDICATIVE ACTIONS RE SOCIAL SECURITY CLAIMS.
 
    3.  FOR SEVERAL YEARS EMPLOYEES WERE DETAILED OR ASSIGNED TO THE
 INQUIRY & EXPEDITE (KNOWN AS I&E) STAFF ON A TEMPORARY BASIS-- USUALLY
 30 DAYS-- TO KEEP PROCESS CRITICAL CASES.  I&E HANDLED CASES DEEMED
 "SENSITIVE" ON THOSE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PROCESSED FOR A LONG TIME AND
 MAY HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY.  IN THE PAST THERE
 HAD NOT BEEN A UNIFORM METHOD OF SELECTING BA'S TO THE AFORESAID DETAIL.
  EACH SECTION MANAGER ESTABLISHED A ROSTER, AND SEVERAL MANAGERS
 SELECTED THE DETAILEES BASED ON ALPHABETICAL ORDER.
 
    4.  IN SEPTEMBER, 1977 EDNA JONES WAS A MANAGER OF MODULE /4/ 3 AT
 THE PROGRAM CENTER.  SEVERAL BAS APPROACHED HER AND STATED THEY WANTED A
 CHANCE TO BE DETAILED TO I&E.  JONES SPOKE TO IRWIN BERGER, UNION VICE
 PRESIDENT FOR CLAIMS, REGARDING THE MATTER.  BERGER INFORMED HER THAT
 THE UNION PREFERRED TO ALLOW EMPLOYEES TO VOLUNTEER FOR SUCH
 ASSIGNMENTS, BUT SINCE THEY WERE SATISFIED TO BE DETAILED
 ALPHABETICALLY, HE WOULD GO ALONG WITH WHAT THE EMPLOYEES WANTED AND NOT
 OBJECT TO THAT PROCEDURE.  IT WAS ALSO AGREED THAT A TRAINEE OR A NEW
 EMPLOYEE WOULD NOT BE DETAILED TO I&E.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER BERGER
 APPROACHED LOU PALLADINO, WHO ACTED AS SECTION MANAGER FROM APRIL, 1977
 UNTIL FEBRUARY, 1978, AND TOLD HIM THAT JONES WAS GOING TO SEND
 EMPLOYEES ON DETAIL TO I&E ON AN ALPHABETICAL BASIS.  THE UNION OFFICIAL
 REMARKED THAT THE UNION USUALLY PREFERRED SENDING VOLUNTEERS BASED ON
 INVERSE SENIORITY, BUT THE ALPHABETICAL ORDER WAS ACCEPTABLE SINCE THE
 EMPLOYEES WANTED TO FOLLOW THAT PROCEDURE.  IN A SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION
 BETWEEN JONES AND BERGER, THE LATTER ADVISED THE MANAGER THAT HE HAD
 SPOKEN TO PALLADINO AND ASSENTED TO SELECTING THE DETAILEES
 ALPHABETICALLY.
 
    5.  ON OCTOBER 21, 1977, PURSUANT TO A MEMO FROM COMPLAINANT TO
 RESPONDENT, GEORGE SEKZER WAS DESIGNATED AS THE UNION VICE-PRESIDENT OF
 SECTION 1 (WHICH ENCOMPASSED MODULE 4) WITH WHOM RESPONDENT SHOULD
 NEGOTIATE AND BARGAIN.  SEKZER CONTINUED AS THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE
 UNTIL HIS RETIREMENT ON MAY 18, 1978.
 
    6.  THE ALPHABETICAL ROTATION SYSTEM IN DETAILING THE BA'S TO I&E
 CONTINUED UNTIL FEBRUARY 21, 1978.  AT THAT TIME THE QUASI-MODULAR SET
 UP WAS CHANGED TO A FULLY MODULIZED ONE, AND SINCE THE CONSOLIDATION
 DREW PEOPLE FROM ALL DIFFERENT AREAS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE DETAILS
 WERE NOT POSSIBLE ANY LONGER.  ACCORDINGLY, THEY WERE SUSPENDED.  IN
 APRIL, 1978, THE SECTION MANAGER ISSUED A MEMORANDUM TO RESUME THE I&E
 DETAILS.  PLANS WERE MADE TO START AGAIN ON MAY 1, AND JONES DECIDED TO
 USE THE SAME PROCEDURE, I.E., ALPHABETICAL ORDER, AS HAD BEEN USED IN
 THE PAST.
 
    7.  ON MAY 1, 1978, JONES, WHO WAS MANAGER OF MODULE 4, CALLED THE
 BAS TOGETHER (ABOUT 9-10) TO INFORM THEM THAT THE I&E DETAIL HAD BEEN
 RESUMED.  /5/ IT WAS INTENDED THAT MODULARS 2, 3, 4 IN SECTION 1 WOULD
 EACH SEND ONE INDIVIDUAL ON A 30 DAY DETAIL TO I&E.  DURING THE MEETING,
 WHICH LASTED 5-10 MINUTES, AND AFTER JONES INFORMED THE BA'S OF THE
 RESUMPTION OF THE DETAILS, SEVERAL REMARKS WERE MADE BY THE EMPLOYEES.
 ONE INDIVIDUAL, A NEW EMPLOYEE, ASKED HOW THE SELECTION WOULD BE MADE.
 JONES STATED THEY WOULD GO ACCORDING TO ROTATION IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER,
 AS HAD BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.  ANOTHER EMPLOYEE SUGGESTED STARTING A NEW
 ROSTER AND A THIRD INDIVIDUAL SUGGESTED A VOTE BE TAKEN.  AT THAT POINT
 JONES STOPPED THE MEETING AND ASKED BRUCE FRIEDMAN, A CLAIMS AUTHORIZER
 AND THE TREASURER OF COMPLAINANT, WHO WAS SEATED ABOUT 50 FEET AWAY, TO
 JOIN THE MEETING.  SHE INVITED THE UNION OFFICER TO PARTICIPATE SINCE
 THE SESSION "DEVELOPED INTO WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN UNION RELATIONS ON THE
 SPOT." FRIEDMAN REFUSED TO JOIN THE MEETING.  WHEREUPON JONES TOLD THE
 BA THAT, IN RESPECT TO THE DETAILS TO I&E, THEY WOULD PICK UP WHERE THEY
 LEFT OFF AND USE THE SAME ROSTER AS PREVIOUSLY.  /6/ NO VOTE WAS TAKEN
 AS URGED BY ONE EMPLOYEE.
 
    8.  DETAILING THE BA TO I&E WHICH RESUMED ON MAY 1, 1978, CONTINUED
 FOR ABOUT ONE MONTH THEREAFTER.  THE SECTION MANAGER DECIDED THE WORK
 LOAD WAS SO LARGE THAT CASES WOULD HAVE TO BE SENT INTO THE MODULE, AND
 NO ASSIGNMENTS OR DETAILS HAVE BEEN MADE TO I&E SINCE THAT TIME.
 
                                CONCLUSIONS
 
    COMPLAINANT INSISTED THAT THE MEETING HELD ON MAY 1, 1978 BY EDNA
 JONES CONSTITUTED A FORMAL DISCUSSION.  FURTHER, IT CONTENDS THAT BY
 FAILING TO INVITE THE UNION TO ATTEND SAID MEETING, AS WELL AS
 INSTITUTING A CHANGE IN THE PRACTICE OF SELECTING BA'S TO BE DETAILED TO
 THE I&E STAFF, RESPONDENT REFUSED TO BARGAIN IN VIOLATION OF 19(A)(1)(6)
 OF THE ORDER.  /7/ ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT ACKNOWLEDGES THE EMPLOYER HAD
 THE RIGHT UNDER SECTION 12(B) OF THE ORDER TO MAKE THE DECISION TO
 DETAIL EMPLOYEES, IT MAINTAINS RESPONDENT IS OBLIGED TO BARGAIN RE THE
 PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED AND THE IMPACT UPON UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    RESPONDENT, IN MAINTAINING THAT IT HAS NOT VIOLATED THE ORDER, MAKES
 FOUR PRINCIPAL CONTENTIONS:  (1) THE MEETING ON MAY 1, 1978 WAS NOT A
 FORMAL DISCUSSION UNDER 10(E) OF THE ORDER, BUT WAS CALLED TO INSTRUCT
 EMPLOYEES RE THE RESUMPTION OF THE DETAILS OR ASSIGNMENTS TO I&E STAFF;
 (2) IN RESUMING THE DETAILS, RESPONDENT WAS NOT CHANGING ANY EMPLOYMENT
 CONDITIONS, AND THUS IT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO DISCUSS THE MATTER
 UNDER 10(E) OR BARGAIN UNDER 19(A)(6);  (3) AN INVITATION WAS EXTENDED
 TO THE UNION ON MAY 1, 1978 TO ATTEND THE MEETING WHEN JONES ASKED
 FRIEDMAN TO "COME CLOSER," AND THUS RESPONDENT FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATION
 TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLAINANT TO BE PRESENT THEREAT;  (4) THE
 UNION HAD, IN FACT , CONSENTED IN SEPTEMBER, 1977 TO THE PROCEDURE RE
 SELECTING EMPLOYEES FOR THE DETAILS TO I&E, AND THUS THE EMPLOYER DID
 MEET AND CONFER WITH IT AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ORDER.
 
    (1) UNDER SECTION 10(E) OF THE ORDER IT IS MANDATED THAT A UNION,
 WHICH IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, BE AFFORDED THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT FORMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT
 AND EMPLOYEES CONCERNING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, OR OTHER
 MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    IN DETERMINING WHETHER A MEETING IS PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS A
 "FORMAL DISCUSSION," THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY HAS DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN
 MEETINGS HELD FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES AND THOSE DEALING WITH
 PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, AND MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING
 CONDITIONS.  AS TO THE FORMER, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SUCH GATHERINGS ARE
 NOT FORMAL DISCUSSIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN CONVENED SOLELY TO DISSEMINATE
 INFORMATION NOT CONCERNED WITH CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  DEPARTMENT OF
 THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, CHICAGO DISTRICT, CHICAGO,
 ILLINOIS, A/SLMR NO. 1120.  WHERE, HOWEVER, THE DISCUSSION WITH
 EMPLOYEES DEAL WITH SUCH ITEMS AS REORGANIZATION OR PERSONNEL
 REASSIGNMENT, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SUCH MATTERS CONCERN PERSONNEL
 POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND MATTERS AFFECTING THE GENERAL WORKING
 CONDITIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.  AS SUCH, THE MEETING IS DEEMED TO BE A
 FORMAL DISCUSSION UNDER 10(E).  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION &
 WELFARE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, A/SLMR NO.
 1145.
 
    RESPONDENT MAINTAINS THAT THE MAY 1 MEETING WITH THE BA'S WAS
 INSTRUCTIONAL IN NATURE;  THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS MERELY TO ANNOUNCE THE
 RESUMPTION OF DETAILS TO I&E;  AND THAT SINCE NO "DISCUSSION" OF WORKING
 CONDITIONS WAS CONTEMPLATED, IT CANNOT BE LABELED A FORMAL DISCUSSION
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF 10(E) OF THE ORDER.  I DISAGREE.  MEETINGS HELD TO
 INFORM EMPLOYEES AS TO THE DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS OF THE TAX REFORM ACT
 OF 1977, AS OCCURRED IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CASE, SUPRA, WERE NOT AIMED
 AT DEALING WITH PERSONNEL MATTERS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  THEY
 WERE, IN FACT, CONCERNED WITH IMPARTING INFORMATION RE THE DISCLOSURE
 PROVISIONS OF THE SAID ACT.  CONTRARIWISE, SUPERVISOR JONES HEREIN
 CALLED THE BA'S TOGETHER TO DISCUSS A MATTER DIRECTLY RELATED TO THEIR
 WORKING CONDITIONS, I.E., THE DETAILING OR ASSIGNING OF INDIVIDUALS TO
 OTHER AREAS, ALBEIT TEMPORARY IN NATURE.  THIS, I PERCEIVE, TO BE QUITE
 DISTINGUISHABLE FROM MERE INFORMATION ISSUED CONCERNING A STATUTE, AS
 DISCUSSED IN THE CITED CASE.  ANY DISCUSSIONS, AS HERE, REGARDING
 PROCEDURES TO BE INVOLVED BY THE EMPLOYER WHEN IMPLEMENTING THE
 ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES FOR A WORKING DETAILS SEEMS CLEARLY WITHIN THE
 LANGUAGE AND SPIRIT OF 10(E).  SEE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL, DENVER,
 COLORADO, A/SLMR NO. 933 INCLUDING A REASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES.
 
    (2) RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, ARGUES THAT THE MEETING ON MAY 1, 1978 WAS
 NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNOUNCING ANY CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS, BUT
 MERELY TO ADVISE THE BA'S THAT THE ASSIGNMENT, WHICH HAD BEEN SUSPENDED,
 WOULD BE RESUMED.  IN THIS CONTENT, IT IS URGED THE MEETING WAS MERELY
 TO ISSUE "INSTRUCTION" TO EMPLOYEES.  IN INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 ATLANTA DISTRICT OFFICE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, A/SLMR NO. 1014, THE EMPLOYER
 THEREIN ARGUED SIMILARLY THAT A DISCUSSION RE "RESTORATION OF ANNUAL
 LEAVE," "OPEN SEASON FOR HEALTH BENEFITS," AND "EMPLOYEE'S
 RESPONSIBILITIES IN TIMEKEEPING" DID NOT INVOLVE A CHANGE ON PERSONNEL
 POLICIES OR WORKING CONDITIONS.  THIS ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED BY THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY, WHO HELD THAT 10(E) WAS NOT BE VIEWED SO NARROWLY
 AS TO ENCOMPASS ONLY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING CHANGES OR PROPOSED
 CHANGES
 IN SUCH MATTERS.  RATHER DID HE VIEW 10(E) AS REQUIRING THAT AN
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT
 DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND UNIT EMPLOYEES WHERE THE SUBJECT
 MATTER DISCUSSED CONCERNS PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND WORKING
 CONDITIONS OF SUCH EMPLOYEES.  EXCLUDING THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH
 DISCUSSIONS WOULD RESULT IN BYPASSING IT IN REGARD TO MATTERS FOR WHICH
 THE EMPLOYEES CHOSE THE REPRESENTATIVE AS THEIR SPOKESMAN.  HEREIN,
 UNLESS RESPONDENT DID, IN FACT, AFFORD SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLAINANT
 TO BE REPRESENTED AT THE MAY 1 MEETING, AS IT CONTENDS, I WOULD CONCLUDE
 THAT IT HAS NOT FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATION UNDER 10(A) OF THE ORDER.
 
    (3) RESPONDENT CLAIMS THAT SINCE BRUCE FRIEDMAN WAS AN OFFICIAL OF
 THE UNION HEREIN ON MAY 1, 1978, AND WAS WORKING IN THE MODULE AT THE
 TIME OF THE GATHERING, AN INVITATION BY JONES TO HIM TO PARTICIPATE WAS
 EQUATABLE WITH AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLAINANT TO BE PRESENT.  I
 DO NOT AGREE.  RESPONDENTS KNEW THAT GEORGE SEKZER WAS THE DESIGNATED
 UNION REPRESENTATIVE FOR MODULE 4 AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.  THIS WAS
 KNOWN TO RESPONDENT.  IN THIS POSTURE, I BELIEVE THAT ANY NOTIFICATION
 TO THE COMPLAINANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED BEFORE HAND TO THE UNION
 OFFICIAL (SEKZER) WHO CUSTOMARILY ATTENDED FORMAL DISCUSSIONS AND WAS
 AUTHORIZED BY THE UNION TO REPRESENT THESE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES. SEE
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ATLANTA DISTRICT OFFICE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA,
 SUPRA.  THE INVITATION TO FRIEDMAN TO "COME CLOSER" WAS NOT, IN MY
 OPINION, AN ADEQUATE NOTIFICATION TO COMPLAINANT TO REPRESENT THE BA'S
 DURING THE DISCUSSIONS RE THE DETAILING OF THE EMPLOYEES.  IT WAS MORE
 OF AN AFTERTHOUGHT WHICH ENSUED AFTER QUESTIONS WERE POSED BY
 INDIVIDUALS;  IT WAS NOT MADE TO THE UNION OFFICIAL CUSTOMARILY PRESENT,
 OR AUTHORIZED TO BE SO, AT FORMAL DISCUSSIONS;  AND IT SCARCELY AFFORDED
 THE COMPLAINANT THE OPPORTUNITY REQUIRED UNDER 10(E).
 
    ACCORDINGLY, AND ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING, I FIND AND CONCLUDE
 THAT COMPLAINANT WAS NOT AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT
 THE MEETING ON MAY 1, 1978;  THAT THIS MEETING WAS A FORMAL DISCUSSION
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF 10(E) OF THE ORDER;  AND THAT THE FAILURE BY
 RESPONDENT TO NOTIFY AND AFFORD COMPLAINANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 REPRESENTED THEREAT CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1)NAND (6)
 OF THE ORDER.
 
    (4) IN RESPECT TO THE RESUMPTION OF THE DETAILS TO I&E ON MAY 1,
 1978, COMPLAINANT MAINTAINS THAT RESPONDENT WAS OBLIGED TO BARGAIN WITH
 IN RE THE IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF AND THE IMPACT OF SUCH ASSIGNMENTS ON
 THE UNIT EMPLOYEES.  /8/ IT CONTENDS MANAGEMENT NEVER BARGAINED OVER
 THESE ASSIGNMENTS, AND THAT THE LATTER MUST NEGOTIATE WITH COMPLAINANT
 OVER THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED SO AS TO PERMIT THE UNION TO PROPERLY
 REPRESENT WITH EMPLOYEES.
 
    CASES ARE LEGION IN WHICH THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY HAS HELD THAT AN
 EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE, IN REGARD TO IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, WHERE IT MAKES
 UNILATERAL CHANGES IN OR INSTITUTE NEW CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.
 HOWEVER, AN EXCEPTION TO THIS OBLIGATION IS DECLARED WHEN MANAGEMENT
 MAKES NO CHANGE IN A PAST PRACTICE OR PERSONNEL POLICY.  THUS, IN
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ROBERT C. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
 LABORATORY, ADA, OKLAHOMA, A/SLMR NO. 1114, THE RESPONDENT THEREIN HAD,
 IN THE PAST, UTILIZED CHEMISTS TO PERFORM CERTAIN TESTS AND ANALYSES.
 WHEN, ON A PARTICULAR TOXIC PROJECT, IT ASSIGNED THESE CHEMISTS TO
 PERFORM THE SAME TESTS, IT WAS HELD THAT THE EMPLOYER MERELY CONTINUED
 THE PAST PRACTICE OF ASSIGNMENTS.  SINCE THERE WAS NOT CHANGE IN SUCH
 PRACTICES, NO OBLIGATION EXISTED TO BARGAIN ON THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF.  SEE ALSO DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK NAVAL
 SHIPYARD, A/SLMR NO. 805
 
    IN THE CASE AT BAR RESPONDENT, WHEN IT RESUMED THE DETAILS OF BA'S TO
 I&E ON MAY 1, 1978, LIKEWISE CONTINUED ITS PAST PRACTICE OF SELECTING
 THESE EMPLOYEES BY ALPHABETICAL ORDER.  TO THIS EXTENT, NO CHANGE /9/
 OCCURRED IN THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED BETWEEN SEPTEMBER, 1977 AND
 FEBRUARY, 1978.  THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SYSTEM IN
 DETAILING BA'S WAS UTILIZED AS IN THE PAST.  IN ORDER TO IMPOSE THIS
 PARTICULAR OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN UPON RESPONDENT, IT IS NECESSARY IT BE
 ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROCEDURE INVOKED DID DIFFER FROM THE PREVIOUS ONE.
  WHERE A COMPLAINANT FAILS TO SUSTAIN ITS BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS
 RESPECT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT, IN UTILIZING
 SUCH PROCEDURE, WAS IN DEROGATION OF ITS BARGAINING RESPONSIBILITIES.
 U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, REGION VII, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, A/SLMR NO.
 1066.  I AM PERSUADED THAT THE UNION HEREIN HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE
 THAT THE PROCEDURES UTILIZED ON MAY 1, 1978, AND THEREAFTER, IN
 DETAILING INDIVIDUALS IN MODULE 4 CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN THE PAST
 PRACTICE IN THIS REGARD.  ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS NO
 OBLIGATION ON MAY 1, 1978 TO BARGAIN OVER THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT
 OF DETAILING BA'S TO I&E STAFF.  THUS, I FIND RESPONDENT HAS NOT
 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) BY RESUMING THE DETAIL IN MODULE 4 AS
 ALLEGED HEREIN.  HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT VIOLATE SECTIONS
 19(A) (1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY FAILING AND REFUSING TO BARGAIN OVER
 THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF ITS DECISION TO DETAIL CERTAIN
 EMPLOYEES IN MODULE 4 TO THE I&E STAFF, ON AND AFTER MAY 1, 1978.  I
 SHALL DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO SUCH ALLEGATIONS.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN OTHER CONDUCT WHICH IS
 VIOLATIVE OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER, I SHALL MAKE THE
 FOLLOWING ORDER DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AND
 SECTION 203.26(B) OF THE REGULATIONS, THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDER THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION &
 WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, NORTH EASTERN PROGRAM
 SERVICE CENTER, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) CONDUCTING FORMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND UNIT
 EMPLOYEES, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, CONCERNING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND
 PRACTICES, ON THE MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT, WITHOUT NOTIFYING AND AFFORDING AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760, THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 OF ITS EMPLOYEES, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT SUCH DISCUSSIONS.
 
    (B) INTERFERRING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE ORDER BY FAILING TO NOTIFY AND
 AFFORD AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760, OR ANY
 OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 REPRESENTED AT FORMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES, OR
 EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, OR
 OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE
 UNIT.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERRING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER:
 
    (A) NOTIFY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760 OF
 AND AFFORD IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT FORMAL DISCUSSIONS
 BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND UNIT EMPLOYEES, AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVES,
 CONCERNING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING
 GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT.
 
    (B) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AT THE NORTH EASTERN PROGRAM CENTER
 ASPECTS 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 THE DIRECTOR OF THE NORTHEASTERN
 PROGRAM CENTER AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 BULLETIN BOARD AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.
 THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE
 NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) PURSUANT TO SECTION 283.27 OF THE REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE 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.
 
                              WILLIAM NAIMARK
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  MARCH 12, 1979
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
           PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 
            RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 
               POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT CONDUCT FORMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND UNIT
 EMPLOYEES, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, CONCERNING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND
 PRACTICES OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT, WITHOUT NOTIFYING AND AFFORDING THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760, THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 OF OUR EMPLOYEES, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT SUCH DISCUSSIONS.
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE UNIT EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE ORDER BY FAILING TO NOTIFY AND
 AFFORD THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760 OR
 ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, THE OPPORTUNITY TO
 BE REPRESENTED AT FORMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES,
 OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES,
 OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN
 THE UNIT.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 1760 OF AND AFFORD IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT, FORMAL
 DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND UNIT EMPLOYEES OR THEIR
 REPRESENTATIVES, CONCERNING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, OR OTHER
 MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT.
 
                            (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 THE EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
 COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY
 WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NEW YORK REGIONAL OFFICE, FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS ROOM 1751, 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW
 YORK, NEW YORK 10007.
 
    /1/ NO EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED BY EITHER PARTY REGARDING THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S DISMISSAL OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS IN THE
 COMPLAINT PERTAINING TO THE RESPONDENT'S RESUMPTION OF UNIT EMPLOYEE
 DETAILS TO THE INQUIRY AND EXPEDITE STAFF.
 
    /2/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 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.
 
    /3/ RESPONDENT ALSO MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON PROCEDURAL
 GROUNDS.  NO DISPOSITION THEREON APPEARS IN THE FORMAL PAPERS.  IN LIGHT
 OF THE SUBSEQUENT ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF HEARING, THE MOTION IS DEEMED
 DENIED.
 
    /4/ A MODULE IS A MINI-SERVICE CENTER WHICH PERFORMS A WHOLE
 FUNCTION. IT INCLUDES CA'S, BA'S, CLERKS AND SPECIALISTS.  ABOUT 40
 EMPLOYEES COMPRISE A MODULE AND ABOUT 42 MODULES COMPRISE THIS PROGRAM
 CENTER.
 
    /5/ AT THAT TIME GEORGE SEKZER, A VICE-PRESIDENT OF EMPLOYMENT, WAS
 THE DESIGNATED UNION REPRESENTATIVE FOR THAT MODULAR.
 
    /6/ THE RECITED FACTS RE THIS MEETING, AS WELL AS THOSE DEALING WITH
 THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN JONES AND BERGER ON SEPTEMBER, 1977, REPRESENT
 THE CREDITED VERSIONS OF WHAT OCCURRED IN EACH INSTANCE.  THE
 UNDERSIGNED ACCEPTS THE TESTIMONY OF JONES, PALLADINO AND EMPLOYEE OLIVE
 PARHAM, AS MORE RELIABLE IN REGARD THERETO.
 
    /7/ RESPONDENT CONTENDS THE COMPLAINT, WHILE ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 19(A)(6) BY REFUSING TO BARGAINS RE PROCEDURES AND IMPACT OF THE
 DECISION TO DETAIL EMPLOYEES, DOES NOT OBLIGE ALLEGE 10(E) VIOLATION.
 IT THEREFORE RESISTS ANY CONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE.  I DEEM THE
 COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO ENCOMPASS AN ALLEGED
 FAILURE BY RESPONDENT TO AFFORD UNION REPRESENTATION AT THE MEET