American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Union) and Air Force Logistics, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio (Activity) 

 



[ v02 p604 ]
02:0604(77)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 2 FLRA No. 77
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 (Union)
 
 and
 
 AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND,
 WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR
 FORCE BASE, OHIO
 (Activity)
 
                                          Case No. 0-NG-40
 
                     DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
 
    THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE
 AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) (5 U.S.C. 7101 ET
 SEQ.).
 
                           UNION PROPOSAL I /1/
 
    ARTICLE 36 DAY CARE FACILITIES
 
    THE EMPLOYER WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE AND FACILITIES FOR A DAY
 CARE CENTER AT EACH
 
    ALC.  THE UNION AGREES TO OPERATE THE DAY CARE CENTER IN A FAIR AND
 EQUITABLE MANNER.  THE USE
 
    OF THE FACILITIES TO BE AVAILABLE TO ALL BASE EMPLOYEES UNDER THE
 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
 
    CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF SUCH FACILITY.  THE DAY CARE CENTER WILL
 BE SELF SUPPORTING,
 
    EXCLUSIVE OF THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOYER.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, CONTRARY TO THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION, UNION
 PROPOSAL I CONCERNS "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" AND, THEREFORE, IS WITHIN
 THE GENERAL SCOPE OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.  /2/ IF SO, THE
 FURTHER QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHT
 OF THE AGENCY TO DETERMINE ITS BUDGET UNDER SECTION 7106(A) OF THE
 STATUTE, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.  /3/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  UNION PROPOSAL I CONCERNS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AND
 DOES NOT VIOLATE THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS BUDGET UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A) OF THE STATUTE.  THEREFORE, IT IS WITHIN THE AGENCY'S
 DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY,
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45
 FED.REG.  3482 ET SEQ.(1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DISPUTED
 PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE.  /4/
 
    REASONS:  THE AGENCY TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE
 PROPOSAL THAT THE AGENCY PROVIDE SPACE AND FACILITIES FOR A DAY CARE
 CENTER TO BE RUN BY THE UNION IS NOT A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AFFECTING
 UNIT EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE THE USE OF
 AGENCY SPACE FOR DAY CARE FACILITIES HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE
 EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP.
 
    ON THE CONTRARY, THE AVAILABILITY OF DAY CARE FACILITIES AFFECTS THE
 WORK SITUATION AND EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP IN A VARIETY OF SIGNIFICANT
 WAYS.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE EXISTENCE AND AVAILABILITY OF SUCH FACILITIES
 CAN BE DETERMINATIVE OF WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL WILL BE ABLE TO ACCEPT A
 JOB WITH AN EMPLOYER AND OF WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE
 EMPLOYMENT WITH AN EMPLOYER.  THUS, IN ADDITION TO BEING AN ASSET TO
 MANAGEMENT IN RECRUITING AND KEEPING A STABLE WORKFORCE, /5/ SUCH
 FACILITIES CAN BE A DECISIVE FACTOR IN THE MAINTENANCE BY UNIT EMPLOYEES
 OF AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP.  FURTHERMORE, PROBLEMS WITH CHILD CARE
 ARRANGEMENTS CAN RESULT IN EMPLOYEE TARDINESS AND ABSENTEEISM.  /6/
 THUS, THEY HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON EMPLOYEE USE OF LEAVE AND ON
 EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY, RESULTING IN LOWERED MORALE AND LESSENED ABILITY
 TO PERFORM SATISFACTORILY IN RELATION TO ESTABLISHED EXPECTATIONS.  IT
 IS ALSO NOTED THAT, BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED NUMBER OF FAMILIES IN WHICH
 BOTH PARENTS WORK, AS WELL AS THE NECESSITY FOR SINGLE PARENTS TO WORK,
 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DAY CARE FACILITIES TO THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
 HAS INCREASED OVER RECENT YEARS.  /7/
 
    FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT USE OF AGENCY SPACE
 FOR DAY CARE FACILITIES IS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.  IT IS DIRECTLY
 RELATED TO THE PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES AND MATTERS AFFECTING
 WORKING CONDITIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES AND IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
 BARGAINING UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE.
 
    THE AGENCY NEXT ALLEGES THAT UNION PROPOSAL I VIOLATES ITS RIGHT TO
 DETERMINE ITS BUDGET UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE IT
 WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO BEAR THE COST OF THE SPACE AND FACILITIES
 PROVIDED FOR THE DAY CARE CENTER.  THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION OF THIS
 POSITION APPEARS TO BE THAT A PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 AUTHORITY OF THE AGENCY TO DETERMINE ITS BUDGET WITHIN THE MEANING OF
 SECTION 7106(A)(1) IF IT IMPOSES A COST UPON THE AGENCY WHICH REQUIRES
 THE EXPENDITURE OF APPROPRIATED AGENCY FUNDS.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF
 THE STATUTE, HOWEVER, COULD PRECLUDE NEGOTIATION ON VIRTUALLY ALL
 OTHERWISE NEGOTIABLE PROPOSALS, SINCE, TO ONE EXTENT OR ANOTHER, MOST
 PROPOSALS WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF IMPOSING COSTS UPON THE AGENCY WHICH
 WOULD REQUIRE THE EXPENDITURE OF APPROPRIATED AGENCY FUNDS.  NOTHING IN
 THE RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE
 RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT TO DETERMINE ITS BUDGET TO BE SO INCLUSIVE AS TO
 NEGATE IN THIS MANNER THE OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN.
 
    THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT ANY PROPOSAL
 WHICH WOULD DIRECTLY INFRINGE ON THE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS UNDER
 SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE WOULD BE BARRED FROM NEGOTIATION.  /8/
 WHETHER A PROPOSAL DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE AGENCY'S DETERMINATION OF ITS
 BUDGET DEPENDS UPON THE DEFINITION OF "BUDGET" AS USED IN THE STATUTE.
 THE STATUTE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DO NOT CONTAIN SUCH A DEFINITION.
 IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEARLY STATED LEGISLATIVE INTENT, IT IS APPROPRIATE
 TO GIVE THE TERM ITS COMMON OR DICTIONARY DEFINITION.  /9/ AS DEFINED BY
 THE DICTIONARY, "BUDGET" MEANS A STATEMENT OF THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF
 A BODY FOR A DEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME BASED ON DETAILED ESTIMATES OF
 PLANNED OR EXPECTED EXPENDITURES DURING THE PERIOD AND PROPOSALS FOR
 FINANCING THEM.  /10/ IN THIS SENSE, THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE
 ITS BUDGET EXTENDS TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS
 WHICH WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE ESTIMATE OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURES AND THE
 DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNTS REQUIRED TO FUND THEM.  UNDER THE STATUTE,
 THEREFORE, AN AGENCY CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE THOSE PARTICULAR
 BUDGETARY DETERMINATIONS.  THAT IS, A UNION PROPOSAL ATTEMPTING TO
 PRESCRIBE THE PARTICULAR PROGRAMS OR OPERATIONS THE AGENCY WOULD INCLUDE
 IN ITS BUDGET OR TO PRESCRIBE THE AMOUNT TO BE ALLOCATED IN THE BUDGET
 FOR THEM WOULD INFRINGE UPON THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS BUDGET
 UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    MOREOVER, WHERE A PROPOSAL WHICH DOES NOT BY ITS TERMS PRESCRIBE THE
 PARTICULAR PROGRAMS OR AMOUNTS TO BE INCLUDED IN AN AGENCY'S BUDGET,
 NEVERTHELESS IS ALLEGED TO VIOLATE THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS
 BUDGET BECAUSE OF INCREASED COST, CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO ALL THE
 FACTORS INVOLVED.  THAT IS, RATHER THAN BASING A DETERMINATION AS TO THE
 NEGOTIABILITY OF THE PROPOSAL ON INCREASED COST ALONE, THAT ONE FACTOR
 MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST SUCH FACTORS AS THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVED
 EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE, INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY, REDUCED TURNOVER, FEWER
 GRIEVANCES, AND THE LIKE.  ONLY WHERE AN AGENCY MAKES A SUBSTANTIAL
 DEMONSTRATION THAT AN INCREASE IN COSTS IS SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
 AND IS NOT OFFSET BY COMPENSATING BENEFITS CAN AN OTHERWISE NEGOTIABLE
 PROPOSAL BE FOUND TO VIOLATE THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS BUDGET
 UNDER SECTION 7106(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    UNION PROPOSAL I DOES NOT ON ITS FACE PRESCRIBE THAT THE AGENCY'S
 BUDGET WILL INCLUDE A SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR SPACE AND FACILITIES FOR A
 DAY CARE CENTER OR A SPECIFIC MONETARY AMOUNT TO FUND THEM.
 FURTHERMORE, THE AGENCY HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT UNION PROPOSAL I WILL
 IN FACT RESULT IN INCREASED COSTS.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE RECORD IS THAT
 THE MATTER OF THE COST TO THE UNION FOR SPACE AND FACILITIES IS SUBJECT
 TO FURTHER NEGOTIATION.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY, THEREFORE, TO REACH THE
 ISSUE OF WHETHER THE ALLEGED COSTS ARE OUTWEIGHED BY COMPENSATING
 BENEFITS.  CONSEQUENTLY, UNION PROPOSAL I DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT OF
 THE AGENCY TO DETERMINE ITS BUDGET UNDER SECTION 7106(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    FINALLY, IT IS NOTED THAT THE AGENCY HAS NOT ADVERTED TO PROBLEMS
 WHICH MIGHT ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
 OF AN AGREEMENT, SHOULD IT INCLUDE UNION PROPOSAL I, VIS A VIS
 PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE LAW AND GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR REGULATION /11/
 GOVERNING, E.G., THE USE OR ALLOCATION OF SPACE.  THEREFORE, THE
 AUTHORITY MAKES NO RULING AS TO WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL I IS CONSISTENT
 WITH SUCH LAW OR REGULATION.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL II
 
    ARTICLE 28 USE OF OFFICIAL FACILITIES
 
    SECTION 2.  AF TELEPHONE SYSTEM
 
    FOR PURPOSES OF ADMINISTERING THIS NATIONWIDE AGREEMENT AND OTHER
 APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL
 
    BUSINESS, THE LOCAL PRESIDENT, CHIEF STEWARD OR THEIR DESIGNEES WILL
 HAVE THE USE OF
 
    NATIONWIDE AIR FORCE TELEPHONE SYSTEMS AT THE UNION OFFICE.  IT IS
 UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS
 
    TELEPHONE WILL BE USED FOR CONDUCTING PROPER LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS ACTIVITIES.  IT WILL
 
    NOT BE USED FOR SOLICITATION OF MEMBERSHIP OR DUES OR OTHER INTERNAL
 BUSINESS OF AFGE.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL II IS OUTSIDE THE AGENCY'S
 DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE /12/ BECAUSE IT DOES
 NOT RELATE TO THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF UNIT EMPLOYEES AND, IF
 NOT, WHETHER IT CONCERNS A MATTER RELATED TO THE TECHNOLOGY OF
 PERFORMING THE WORK OF THE AGENCY, WHICH UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1), IS
 NEGOTIABLE SOLELY AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY.  /13/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  UNION PROPOSAL II IS WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN
 UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND DOES NOT VIOLATE THE AGENCY'S
 RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE TECHNOLOGY OF PERFORMING ITS WORK UNDER SECTION
 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF
 THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ.(1980)),
 THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE.  /14/
 
    REASONS:  THE AGENCY CONTENDS, FIRST OF ALL, THAT UNION USE OF THE
 AGENCY'S INTERNAL PHONE SYSTEM FOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION PURPOSES AND
 OTHER APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL BUSINESS AS PROVIDED IN UNION PROPOSAL II IS
 OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE IT
 DOES NOT RELATE TO THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.  THE
 CONTENTION IS WITHOUT MERIT.
 
    IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL THAT THE BASIC PURPOSE
 FOR WHICH THE PHONE SYSTEM WOULD BE USED BY THE UNION RELATES TO THE
 ADMINISTRATION OF THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. AS SUCH,
 THE PHONE SYSTEM WOULD BE A TOOL TO ASSIST IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ESTABLISHED IN THAT AGREEMENT.  THUS, SINCE THE
 AGENCY PHONE SYSTEM IS TO BE USED FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 PURPOSES, PARTICULARLY, CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, WHICH ARE MATTERS
 DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF UNIT EMPLOYEES,
 UNION PROPOSAL II IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER
 SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE.
 
    THE AGENCY ALSO CONTENDS THAT UNION PROPOSAL II INTERFERES WITH ITS
 RIGHT UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE TO ELECT WHETHER IT WILL
 NEGOTIATE OVER THE TECHNOLOGY BY WHICH WORK IS PERFORMED.  THIS
 CONTENTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  THE PROPOSAL WOULD NOT DETERMINE
 WHETHER THE AGENCY WILL ADOPT A PARTICULAR TECHNOLOGY OF PERFORMING
 WORK, E.G., UTILIZE TELEPHONE AS OPPOSED TO SOME OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
 TECHNOLOGY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS WORK.  IT MERELY PROVIDES THAT THE
 UNION WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM WHICH THE AGENCY SELECTED, AND
 WHICH IS IN EXISTENCE, FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH CONTRACT
 ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS MATTERS.  THUS,
 UNION PROPOSAL II DOES NOT CONCERN A MATTER WHICH IS NEGOTIABLE ONLY AT
 THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1).  IT IS WITHIN THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN.
 
                         UNION PROPOSALS III-- VI
 
    ARTICLES 20 & 21 DETAILS & LOANS
 
                            UNION PROPOSAL III
 
    SECTION 2.  DETAILS TO HIGHER OR SAME GRADED POSITIONS
 
    B.  UNLESS THE EMPLOYER DECIDES TO USE COMPETITIVE PROCEDURES AS
 OUTLINED IN ARTICLE
 
    . . . (PROMOTIONS), TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT TO HIGHER OR SAME
 GRADE/DIFFERENT DUTY POSITIONS
 
    SHALL BE OFFERED TO QUALIFIED AND AVAILABLE EMPLOYEES WITH REQUISITE
 SKILLS ON THE BASIS OF
 
    SENIORITY WITHIN THE LOWEST ORGANIZATIONAL SEGMENT.  IF SENIOR
 EMPLOYEES DECLINE AND IT IS
 
    NECESSARY TO DETAIL AN EMPLOYEE, THE LEAST SENIOR EMPLOYEE SHALL BE
 ASSIGNED.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL IV
 
    SECTION 3.  DETAILS TO LOWER GRADED POSITIONS
 
    DETAILS TO LOWER GRADE POSITIONS WILL BE ROTATED AMONG QUALIFIED AND
 AVAILABLE EMPLOYEES IN
 
    INVERSE ORDER OF SENIORITY.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL V
 
    SECTION 4.  LOANS
 
    B.  SELECTION OF EMPLOYEES FOR LOANS WILL BE EQUITABLY ROTATED AMONG
 QUALIFIED AND
 
    AVAILABLE EMPLOYEES WITH REQUISITE SKILLS IN INVERSE ORDER OF
 SENIORITY.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL VI
 
    SECTION 5.  TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENTS OUTSIDE THE BARGAINING UNIT
 
    B.  WHERE CONDITIONS ARE LESS AT THE RECEIVING LOCATION THAN IS
 PROVIDED FOR BY THIS
 
    CONTRACT, THE EMPLOYEE'S WISHES TO DECLINE SUCH ASSIGNMENT WILL BE
 CONSIDERED.  SELECTION FOR
 
    SUCH ASSIGNMENTS WILL BE EQUITABLY ROTATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
 (3) OF THIS ARTICLE.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNION'S PROPOSALS VIOLATE THE RIGHT OF
 THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE
 STATUTE AND, WITH RESPECT TO FILLING POSITIONS, TO MAKE SELECTIONS FOR
 APPOINTMENTS UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE.  /15/ WITH
 RESPECT TO UNION PROPOSAL III, IN PARTICULAR, THE QUESTION IS ALSO
 WHETHER IT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF BARGAINING UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE
 STATUTE /16/ TO THE EXTENT THAT IT APPLIES TO SUPERVISORY POSITIONS
 OUTSIDE THE UNIT.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  UNION PROPOSAL III IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF BARGAINING
 UNDER SECTION 7117 AND DOES NOT VIOLATE EITHER THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY
 TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OR ITS RIGHT TO MAKE
 SELECTIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE.
 UNION PROPOSALS IV-- VI VIOLATE THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN
 EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY,
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45
 FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ.(1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT UNION
 PROPOSAL III IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE AND ITS
 ALLEGATIONS THAT UNION PROPOSALS IV-- VI ARE NOT WITHIN ITS DUTY TO
 BARGAIN ARE SUSTAINED.  /17/
 
    REASONS:  THE AGENCY ALLEGES THAT UNION PROPOSAL III IS OUTSIDE THE
 SCOPE OF BARGAINING UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE THE PHRASE
 "HIGHER GRADE POSITIONS" AS USED IN THE PROPOSAL WOULD INCLUDE
 SUPERVISORY POSITIONS OUTSIDE THE BARGAINING UNIT.  THE AGENCY HAS
 MISUNDERSTOOD THE PROPOSAL.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, UNION PROPOSAL III DOES
 NOT ON ITS FACE APPLY TO SUPERVISORY POSITIONS.  MOREOVER, THE RECORD
 DOES NOT SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION THAT IT DOES.  SPECIFICALLY, THE UNION
 STATES THAT ITS PROPOSAL IS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO HIGHER GRADED
 POSITIONS WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT.  THUS, WITHOUT DECIDING WHETHER A
 PROPOSAL RELATING TO DETAILS TO SUPERVISORY POSITIONS WOULD BE OUTSIDE
 THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE, THE AGENCY IN THIS CASE HAS NOT
 SHOWN THAT UNION PROPOSAL III APPLIES TO SUCH POSITIONS.
 
    NEXT, THE AGENCY ALLEGES WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE ABOVE-QUOTED
 PROPOSALS THAT IT VIOLATES THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES
 UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE EACH PROPOSAL COMPELS
 THE SELECTION ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE FOR
 THE PARTICULAR TYPE OF ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIED IN THE PROPOSAL.  THIS
 ALLEGATION HAS MERIT IN CONNECTION WITH UNION PROPOSALS IV, V, AND VI.
 
    UNION PROPOSALS IV, V, AND VI EACH ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR THE
 SELECTION OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES FOR ASSIGNMENT BY THE AGENCY.  IN
 PARTICULAR, UNDER EACH OF THE PROPOSALS, ONCE THE AGENCY HAS DETERMINED
 THE PARTICULAR QUALIFICATIONS /18/ AND SKILLS NEEDED TO PERFORM THE WORK
 OF THE POSITION TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WILL BE ASSIGNED, AND IDENTIFIED
 THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT WHO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND WOULD BE
 AVAILABLE FOR ASSIGNMENT, SELECTION FROM AMONG THE EMPLOYEES SO
 IDENTIFIED OF THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE WHO WILL BE ASSIGNED MUST BE ON
 THE BASIS OF SENIORITY.  THAT IS, DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
 MOST SENIOR OR THE LEAST SENIOR EMPLOYEE FROM AMONG THE GROUP OF
 QUALIFIED, SKILLED, AND AVAILABLE EMPLOYEES MUST BE SELECTED FOR THE
 ASSIGNMENT.  IN THUS COMPELLING THE SELECTION OF A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL
 FOR TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT TO ANOTHER POSITION, UNION PROPOSALS IV, V, AND
 VI EACH DIRECTLY INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN
 EMPLOYEES.  THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES IN THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE IS MORE THAN MERELY THE RIGHT TO DECIDE TO
 ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION.  AN AGENCY CHOOSES TO ASSIGN AN
 EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION SO THAT THE WORK OF THAT POSITION WILL BE DONE.
 UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE, THE AGENCY RETAINS
 DISCRETION AS TO THE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS OF THE WORK OF THE POSITION,
 I.E., THE QUALIFICATIONS AND SKILLS NEEDED TO DO THE WORK, AS WELL AS
 SUCH JOB-RELATED INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS AS JUDGMENT AND RELIABILITY.
  THEREFORE, THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION INCLUDES THE
 DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHICH EMPLOYEE WILL BE ASSIGNED.  (CLEARLY, THE
 ASSIGNMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE
 ASSIGNMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE TO A SHIFT.) A PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING AN
 EMPLOYEE FOR ASSIGNMENT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY REMOVES FROM
 THE AGENCY THAT DISCRETION WHICH, AS INDICATED ABOVE, IS AN ESSENTIAL
 PART OF THE DECISION TO ASSIGN.  UNION PROPOSALS IV, V, AND VI COMPEL
 THE CHOICE OF THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE TO RECEIVE AN ASSIGNMENT SOLELY ON
 THE BASIS OF SENIORITY AND THEREBY DIRECTLY INTERFERE WITH THE
 DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHICH EMPLOYEE TO ASSIGN, IN VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    UNION PROPOSAL III IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM UNION PROPOSALS IV, V, AND
 VI.  IT SPECIFICALLY WOULD ALLOW THE AGENCY THE OPTION OF UTILIZING
 COMPETITIVE PROCEDURES TO MAKE THE SELECTION.  SUCH COMPETITIVE
 PROCEDURES RESERVE THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO SELECT THE EMPLOYEE FOR
 PROMOTION OR ASSIGNMENT FROM AMONG THOSE AVAILABLE THROUGH ANY
 APPROPRIATE SOURCE.  /19/ THUS, UNDER UNION PROPOSAL III, THE AGENCY
 RETAINS THE OPTION OF EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION TO SELECT A PARTICULAR
 EMPLOYEE FOR ASSIGNMENT.  ONLY IF THE AGENCY CHOOSES NOT TO USE
 COMPETITIVE PROCEDURES MUST IT SELECT THE INDIVIDUAL ON THE BASIS OF
 SENIORITY.  BECAUSE UNION PROPOSAL III PRESERVES IN THIS MANNER THE
 AGENCY'S DISCRETION TO SELECT, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT DIRECTLY INTERFERE
 WITH THE AGENCY'S BASIC RIGHT TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    SIMILARLY, UNION PROPOSAL III WOULD NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 RIGHT OF THE AGENCY, IN FILLING POSITIONS, TO MAKE SELECTIONS FOR
 APPOINTMENTS UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C).  THAT IS, ASSUMING, WITHOUT
 DECIDING THAT THE SECTION APPLIES TO TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENTS SUCH AS ARE
 INVOLVED IN THIS PROPOSAL, UNION PROPOSAL III, AS ALREADY STATED,
 RESERVES TO THE AGENCY THE OPTION OF EXERCISING ITS RIGHT TO SELECT AN
 EMPLOYEE FOR ASSIGNMENT, FROM AMONG THOSE AVAILABLE, THROUGH ANY
 APPROPRIATE SOURCE.
 
    IN SUMMARY, UNION PROPOSAL III DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE RIGHT OF
 THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OR WITH THE
 AGENCY'S RIGHT TO SELECT UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE AND,
 THUS, IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.  UNION PROPOSALS
 IV-- VI CONFLICT WITH THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE AND, THUS, ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN.
 
                            UNION PROPOSAL VII
 
    ARTICLE 37 MISCELLANEOUS
 
    SECTION MOBILITY
 
    PRIOR TO INVOKING THE EMPLOYMENT MOBILITY REQUIREMENT, THE EMPLOYER
 WILL SEEK VOLUNTEERS
 
    FROM AMONG EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME TITLE, SERIES AND GRADE.  IF THERE
 ARE NO VOLUNTEERS, AND THE
 
    EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO UNILATERALLY TRANSFER EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE
 UNIT, THE EMPLOYEE WITH THE
 
    LEAST AMOUNT OF SENIORITY SHALL BE SELECTED FIRST.  THE REMAINING
 EMPLOYEES SHALL BE
 
    TRANSFERRED IN ASCENDING SENIORITY ORDER.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL VII VIOLATES THE RIGHT OF THE
 AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 /20/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  UNION PROPOSAL VII VIOLATES THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN
 EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY,
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45
 FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ. 1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE PROPOSAL
 IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.
 
    REASONS:  THE EMPLOYMENT MOBILITY REQUIREMENT AS STATED IN THE
 PROPOSAL REFERS TO THE AGENCY PROGRAM UNDER WHICH EMPLOYEES MAY BE
 PERMANENTLY REASSIGNED FROM ONE DUTY STATION TO ANOTHER.  THE PROPOSAL
 REQUIRES THE AGENCY, IN THE ABSENCE OF A VOLUNTEER FOR SUCH
 REASSIGNMENT, TO SELECT THE EMPLOYEE TO BE REASSIGNED ON THE BASIS OF
 INVERSE SENIORITY.  THAT IS, THE AGENCY IS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROPOSAL,
 WITHOUT THE OPTION TO DO OTHERWISE, AS IN THE CASE OF UNION PROPOSAL
 III, TO SELECT FOR REASSIGNMENT THE LEAST SENIOR EMPLOYEE OF THE TITLE,
 SERIES, AND GRADE OF THE POSITION TO BE FILLED.  FOR THE REASONS STATED
 IN THE DISCUSSION OF UNION PROPOSALS III-VI, BY THUS REQUIRING THE
 AGENCY TO SELECT AN EMPLOYEE FOR ASSIGNMENT ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY
 THE PROPOSAL OBVIATES THE DISCRETION AS TO SELECTION WHICH IS AN
 ESSENTIAL PART OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE
 STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, UNION PROPOSAL VII CONFLICTS WITH THE RIGHT OF
 THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) AND, THUS, IS
 EXCLUDED FROM THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.
 
                        UNION PROPOSALS VIII AND IX
 
    ARTICLE 19 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
 
                            UNION PROPOSAL VIII
 
    SECTION 2.  AIR FORCE POLICY AND PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
 
    . . . (T)HE EMPLOYER WILL ESTABLISH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS,
 BOTH AT COMMAND AND
 
    INSTALLATION LEVELS, TO ATTAIN THE AIR FORCE OBJECTIVES.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL IX
 
    SECTION 3.  EEO PLANS OF ACTION
 
    SECTION 3 OF ARTICLE 19 IS A MULTIPART PROPOSAL WHICH ESTABLISHES
 GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLANS AT THE
 COMMAND AND INSTALLATION LEVELS.  (THE PROPOSAL IS SET FORTH IN ITS
 ENTIRETY IN APPENDIX A.  THE DISPUTED PORTIONS ARE UNDERSCORED.)
 
                    QUESTIONS HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTIONS ARE, FIRST OF ALL, WHETHER MATTERS RELATING TO
 DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF UNION PROPOSALS
 VIII AND IX, ARE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND, HENCE, ARE WITHIN THE
 SCOPE OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7117 OF OF THE STATUTE;  /21/
 IF SO, WHETHER SUCH MATTERS PERTAIN TO THE METHODS AND MEANS OF
 PERFORMING THE WORK OF THE AGENCY, WHICH, UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF
 THE STATUTE, ARE NEGOTIABLE SOLELY AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY;  AND,
 FINALLY, WHETHER PARTICULAR PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSALS VIOLATE THE RIGHT
 OF THE AGENCY TO DETERMINE ITS ORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF
 THE STATUTE.  /22/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  UNION PROPOSALS VIII AND IX RELATE TO THE CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT OF UNIT EMPLOYEES AND ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE AGENCY'S
 DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE.  MOREOVER, THE
 PROPOSALS DO NOT CONCERN MATTERS RELATED TO THE METHODS AND MEANS OF
 PERFORMING THE WORK OF THE AGENCY AND, THEREFORE, DO NOT VIOLATE SECTION
 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE.  FINALLY, THE PROPOSALS DO NOT VIOLATE THE
 RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO DETERMINE ITS ORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(1).  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ. (1980)), THE AGENCY'S
 ALLEGATIONS THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSALS ARE NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE.  /23/
 
    REASONS:  THE AGENCY ALLEGES, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER
 OF UNION PROPOSALS VIII AND IX, I.E., DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, IS
 NOT A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AND THEREFORE IS OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE.  THE AGENCY'S POSITION IS
 WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE.
 
    TITLE VII OF THE BILL REPORTED OUT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE (H.R.
 11280) CONTAINED A DEFINITION OF THE TERM "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT"
 WHICH SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED "POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND MATTERS RELATING
 TO DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT . . . " /24/ THE BILL PASSED BY THE
 HOUSE (THE "UDALL SUBSTITUTE") DID NOT CHANGE THIS PORTION OF TITLE VII
 OF THE COMMITTEE BILL INSOFAR AS RELEVENT TO THE ISSUE HEREIN.  /25/
 TITLE VII OF THE BILL INTRODUCED IN AND PASSED BY THE SENATE (S. 2640)
 DID NOT CONTAIN THIS PROVISION OR ANY PROVISION HAVING A SIMILAR EFFECT.
  /26/ THE BILL WHICH WAS REPORTED OUT OF THE HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE
 COMMITTEE, AND WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO
 LAW BY THE PRESIDENT, DELETED THE PORTION OF THE HOUSE BILL WHICH
 EXCLUDED MATTERS RELATED TO DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT FROM THE
 DEFINITION OF "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT." /27/ THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
 REPORT CONTAINS NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THIS PROVISION OF THE HOUSE
 BILL WAS DELETED.  NEVERTHELESS, IT IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
 DELETION OF THIS EXCLUSION IN THE BILL WHICH WAS ENACTED INTO LAW
 INDICATES THAT CONGRESS INTENDED SUCH MATTERS TO BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
 THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.  IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED TO EXCLUDE MATTERS
 RELATED TO DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT FROM THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IT
 SIMPLY COULD HAVE ENACTED THE HOUSE PROVISION UNCHANGED.
 
    THUS, CONTRARY TO THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION, MATTERS RELATED TO
 DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, SUCH AS ARE INVOLVED IN UNION PROPOSALS
 VIII AND IX AT ISSUE HEREIN, ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN
 UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE.
 
    THE AGENCY NEXT ALLEGES THAT UNION PROPOSALS VIII AND IX, BY
 REQUIRING THE AGENCY TO ESTABLISH EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PLANS AND
 SPECIFYING THE CONTENTS OF THOSE PLANS, VIOLATE MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT,
 UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1) TO ELECT WHETHER IT WILL NEGOTIATE ON THE
 METHODS AND MEANS BY WHICH IT PERFORMS ITS WORK.  IN PARTICULAR, THE
 AGENCY ARGUES THAT THESE PROPOSALS INTERFERE WITH ITS RIGHT UNDER
 SECTION 7106(B)(1) TO ELECT WHETHER IT WILL BARGAIN OVER THE WAYS IN
 WHICH IT WILL FULFILL ITS OBLIGATION UNDER LAW /28/ AND REGULATION /29/
 TO IMPLEMENT AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM.  HOWEVER, ASSUMING
 WITHOUT DECIDING THAT AN AGENCY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
 CONSTITUTES A "METHOD" OR "MEANS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, IT
 IS CLEAR THAT AN AGENCY'S DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH A PROGRAM IS NOT WHAT IS
 MEANT IN SECTION 7106(B)(1) BY THE PHRASE "PERFORMING WORK." THE
 HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT DISCUSSED AT LENGTH THE
 LANGUAGE REGARDING METHODS AND MEANS OF PERFORMING WORK IN SECTION
 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE.  THAT DISCUSSION IS OF INTEREST INSOFAR AS IT
 ILLUSTRATES SOME AGENCY ACTIVITIES-- E.G., AUDITING, AWARDING GRANTS,
 AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT-- WHICH THE CONFEREES CONSIDERED TO
 CONSTITUTE AGENCY WORK;" /30/
 
    . . . BY INCLUSION OF THIS LANGUAGE, HOWEVER, IT IS NOT INTENDED THAT
 AGENCIES WILL DISCUSS
 
    GENERAL POLICY QUESTIONS DETERMINING HOW AN AGENCY DOES ITS WORK.  IT
 MUST BE CONSTRUED IN
 
    LIGHT OF THE PARAMOUNT RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO AS EFFECTIVE AND
 EFFICIENT A GOVERNMENT AS
 
    POSSIBLE.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE PHRASE "METHODS AND MEANS" IS NOT
 INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE IRS TO
 
    NEGOTIATE WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION OVER HOW RETURNS SHOULD BE
 SELECTED FOR AUDIT, OR HOW
 
    THOROUGH THE AUDIT OF THE RETURNS SHOULD BE.  IT DOES NOT SUBJECT TO
 THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 
    AGREEMENT THE JUDGMENT OF EPA ABOUT HOW TO SELECT RECIPIENTS FOR THE
 AWARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL
 
    GRANTS.  IT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT TO NEGOTIATE
 WITH UNIONS ON WHICH OF THE
 
    RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BEING CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT
 SHOULD RECEIVE TOP
 
    PRIORITY AS PART OF THE DEPARTMENT'S EFFORTS TO FIND NEW SOURCES OF
 ENERGY.
 
    THE EXAMPLES USED HAVE A COMMON CHARACTERISTIC:  THEY ARE EACH
 DIRECTLY AND INTEGRALLY RELATED TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE MISSION OF
 THE AGENCY, I.E., THOSE PARTICULAR OBJECTIVES WHICH THE AGENCY WAS
 ESTABLISHED TO ACCOMPLISH.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE MISSION OF THE
 ORGANIZATIONAL SEGMENT OF THE AGENCY INVOLVED IS LOGISTICAL SUPPORT.
 THE UNION PROPOSALS DO NOT GO TO DETERMINING THE WAY IN WHICH THE AGENCY
 WILL PERFORM THE PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES BY WHICH IT ACCOMPLISHES THAT
 MISSION.  THAT IS, SINCE THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS WHICH
 ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE PROPOSALS ARE NOT DIRECTLY OR INTEGRALLY
 RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF LOGISTICAL SUPPORT TO THE AIR FORCE, THERE
 IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE PROPOSALS AND THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY UNDER
 SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE TO DETERMINE THE METHODS AND MEANS OF
 PERFORMING ITS WORK.  THUS, THE AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ELECT
 WHETHER TO BARGAIN ON THE PROPOSALS.
 
    THE REMAINING AGENCY ALLEGATION IS THAT THESE PROPOSALS CONFLICT WITH
 ITS RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS "ORGANIZATION" UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF
 THE STATUTE.  IN PARTICULAR, THE AGENCY CONTENDS THAT THE PROPOSALS
 PURPORT TO ASSIGN SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE AREA OF EQUAL
 EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS TO SPECIFIC AGENCY ORGANIZATIONAL
 LEVELS.  AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE AGENCY ARGUES, THE PROPOSALS ARE
 DETERMINATIVE OF THE FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE AGENCY.
 
    ON THE CONTRARY, AS INDICATED ABOVE, MATTERS RELATED TO
 DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ARE WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN
 UNDER THE STATUTE.  THAT IS, AN AGENCY IS OBLIGATED TO NEGOTIATE WITH AN
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE ON THOSE MATTERS, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED
 BY LAW AND REGULATION, AT THE LEVEL OF THE EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION.  /31/
 MOREOVER, IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH INVOLVE A COMPREHENSIVE UNIT, SUCH AS
 THE PRESENT CASE, /32/ THE AGENCY IS ALSO UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO
 NEGOTIATE AT THE LEVEL OF THE EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION WITH RESPECT TO THE
 PARTICULAR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WHICH WILL APPLY AT SUBORDINATE
 ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE UNIT.  THAT IS, THE PARTIES MAY PROVIDE IN A
 MASTER AGREEMENT AT THE LEVEL OF RECOGNITION FOR THE NEGOTIATION OF
 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL REGARDING MATTERS PERTAINING
 TO THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF UNIT EMPLOYEES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
 FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE PARTICULAR AGENCY ACTIONS AT ISSUE IN A PROPOSAL
 COULD BE NEGOTIATED, AS RELEVANT HEREIN, AT THE COMMAND LEVEL, TO BE
 PERFORMED BY THE AGENCY AT THE COMMAND LEVEL, THE STATUTE DOES NOT
 PRECLUDE THE PARTIES FROM PROVIDING IN A MASTER AGREEMENT AT THE COMMAND
 LEVEL FOR THESE ACTIONS TO BE PERFORMED AT THE LEVEL OF SUBORDINATE
 ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE UNIT.
 
    THUS, THE PROPOSALS AT ISSUE HEREIN RATHER THAN DETERMINING THE
 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE AGENCY MERELY REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO
 NEGOTIATE THE PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES IT WILL PERFORM AT THE COMMAND
 LEVEL, WHICH IS THE LEVEL OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION, IN THE AREA OF EQUAL
 EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND AT SUBORDINATE LEVELS OF THE COMMAND WITHIN
 THE UNIT.  THEREFORE, THESE PROPOSALS DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE RIGHT OF
 THE AGENCY TO DETERMINE ITS "ORGANIZATION" UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF
 THE STATUTE AND ARE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL X
 
    ARTICLE 19 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
 
    SECTION 5.  UTILIZATION OF WORKFORCE SKILLS
 
    THE EMPLOYER WILL STRIVE TO UTILIZE, UNDER CURRENT REGULATIONS AND
 CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
 
    PRESENT SKILL OF EACH MEMBER OF THE WORKFORCE.
 
    A.  PROCEDURES FOR SKILLS UTILIZATION WILL INCLUDE THE REDESIGNING OF
 JOBS WHERE FEASIBLE.
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    C.  WHERE AUTHORIZED, INSTALLATION COMMANDERS WILL PROVIDE AN
 ADEQUATE NUMBER OF OVERHIRES,
 
    WHICH WILL PERMIT INDIVIDUALS WITH PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HANDICAPS,
 CHRONIC AILMENTS, ILLNESSES
 
    OR INJURIES, AND SINGLE HEADS OF FAMILIES WHO HAVE DEPENDENTS, TO
 UTILIZE SICK OR ANNUAL
 
    LEAVE, OR LWOP, TO HANDLE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO THEMSELVES AND/OR
 DEPENDENTS WITHOUT UNDUE
 
    IMPACT UPON THE ORGANIZATIONAL MISSION.  SUPERVISORS WILL GRANT LEAVE
 IN ALL CASES WHERE THE
 
    NEED IS CLEARLY DOCUMENTED ON THE REQUEST FOR LEAVE;  AND USE OF
 LEAVE FOR THESE PURPOSES WILL
 
    NOT CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR LEAVE ABUSE CHARGES.
 
                    QUESTIONS HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY, SUBSECTION A OF
 UNION PROPOSAL X VIOLATES THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE AND WHETHER, AS FURTHER ALLEGED BY
 THE AGENCY, SUBSECTION C OF THE PROPOSAL CONCERNS A MATTER PERTAINING TO
 THE NUMBERS, TYPES, AND GRADES OF EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO A TOUR OF DUTY,
 WHICH, UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE, IS NEGOTIABLE SOLELY AT
 THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY.  /33/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  SUBSECTION A OF UNION PROPOSAL X WHICH RELATES TO THE
 REDESIGN OF JOBS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK
 UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B), AND IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN;  /34/
 BUT SUBSECTION C OF THE PROPOSAL WHICH RELATES TO AN ADEQUATE NUMBER OF
 OVERHIRES VIOLATES THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE NUMBERS, TYPES,
 AND GRADES OF EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO A TOUR OF DUTY UNDER SECTION
 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE AND, THUS, IS OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.
 ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ.(1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION
 THAT UNION PROPOSAL X IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE IN
 PART AND SUSTAINED IN PART.
 
    REASONS:  THE ASSIGNMENT OF WORK TO EMPLOYEES OR POSITIONS IS A RIGHT
 RESERVED TO MANAGEMENT UNDER SECTION 7106(A) OF THE STATUTE.  THE
 REDESIGN OF A POSITION OR A JOB REQUIRES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, A
 DETERMINATION OF THE WORK WHICH WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THE POSITION OR
 EMPLOYEE INVOLVED.  THUS, A PROPOSAL TO REDESIGN A POSITION OR JOB IN A
 PARTICULAR MANNER WOULD CONFLICT WITH MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK
 BY PRESCRIBING THE WORK TO BE ASSIGNED.  SUBSECTION A OF UNION PROPOSAL
 X, HOWEVER, DOES NOT REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN OR REFRAIN FROM
 ASSIGNING ANY PARTICULAR WORK.  RATHER, SUBSECTION A MERELY PROVIDES
 THAT JOB REDESIGN WOULD BE USED AS ONE OF THE PROCEDURES FOR BEST
 UTILIZING THE PRESENT SKILLS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES, WHERE THIS WOULD BE
 FEASIBLE.  THIS GENERAL OPERATING PRINCIPLE, IDENTIFYING JOB REDESIGN AS
 ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES WHICH MAY BE FOLLOWED WHERE IT IS
 FEASIBLE TO DO SO, CLEARLY DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY
 TO ASSIGN WORK AND, THUS, IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN. /35/
 
    TURNING NOW TO SUBSECTION C OF UNION PROPOSAL X RELATING TO AN
 ADEQUATE NUMBER OF OVERHIRES, THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF THIS PORTION OF
 THE PROPOSAL WOULD DETERMINE THAT EACH INSTALLATION MUST HAVE SUCH
 OVERHIRES AND, THEREFORE, DIRECTLY CONCERNS THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
 ASSIGNED TO ORGANIZATIONAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE AGENCY.  IN THIS REGARD,
 SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
 MAY BE NEGOTIATED ONLY AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY.  IN THIS CASE, THE
 AGENCY HAS ELECTED NOT TO NEGOTIATE ON SUCH MATTERS AND, THUS, THE
 AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THIS PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.  /36/
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL XI
 
    ARTICLE 19 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
 
    SECTION 6.  EEO COUNSELORS
 
    THE EMPLOYER AGREES TO PROVIDE AT EACH INSTALLATION TRAINED EEO
 COUNSELORS, WHO WILL BE
 
    AVAILABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES, WHEREVER THEIR WORK
 STATION.  HALF OF THE
 
    COUNSELORS WILL BE SELECTED FROM A LIST PROVIDED BY THE UNION.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DISPUTED PORTION OF UNION PROPOSAL XI
 VIOLATES MANAGEMENT RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE
 AND IS, THEREFORE, AS THE AGENCY ALLEGES, NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  UNION PROPOSAL XI VIOLATES THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO
 ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE.  /37/
 ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ. 1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION
 THAT THE PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.
 
    REASONS:  AGENCY EMPLOYEES SELECTED AS EEO COUNSELORS PERFORM THE
 DUTIES ASSOCIATED WITH EEO COUNSELING EITHER AS THEIR TOTAL WORK
 ASSIGNMENT OR IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER DUTIES WHICH ARE REGULARLY
 ASSIGNED TO THEM AND WHICH COMPRISE THEIR APPOINTED POSITIONS.  THUS,
 THE DETERMINATION TO SELECT A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE AS AN EEO COUNSELOR IS
 IN REALITY A DECISION TO ASSIGN CERTAIN DUTIES, IN THIS SITUATION EEO
 COUNSELOR DUTIES, TO THAT EMPLOYEE.
 
    IN THIS REGARD, THE AGENCY RETAINS THE RIGHT UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE TO ASSIGN WORK TO POSITIONS OR EMPLOYEES.
 THE DISPUTED PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL, HOWEVER, MANDATES THAT THE AGENCY
 ASSIGN EEO COUNSELOR DUTIES TO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES
 SELECTED BY THE UNION, TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER AGENCY EMPLOYEES.
 THUS, SINCE THE DISPUTED PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY PRESCRIBES THE
 ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN DUTIES TO PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES, AND, IN EFFECT,
 PRECLUDES THE ASSIGNMENT OF THOSE DUTIES TO OTHER EMPLOYEES, IT
 CONFLICTS WITH SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE.  HENCE, THE
 AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DISPUTED PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS NOT
 WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.
 
                          UNION PROPOSAL XII /38/
 
    ARTICLE 33 NEGOTIATIONS DURING THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT
 
    SECTION 3.  MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    A.  MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS AT COMMAND AFLC LEVEL
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    7.  SHOULD THE UNION CHOOSE TO SUBMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FSIP THE
 EMPLOYER WILL NOT, EXCEPT
 
    FOR OVERRIDING EXIGENCIES OR UNREASONABLE DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF
 MANAGEMENT RIGHTS,
 
    IMPLEMENT THE CHANGE BEFORE THE PANEL HAS COMPLETED ITS WORK.
 
    8.  SHOULD THE EMPLOYER UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENT THE CHANGE IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7
 
    ABOVE BEFORE THE PANEL HAS COMPLETED ITS WORK THE DECISION OF THE
 PANEL WILL BE APPLIED
 
    RETROACTIVELY TO THE DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION.
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    B.  MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS AT LOCAL LEVEL
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    6.  SHOULD THE PARTIES FAIL TO REACH AGREEMENT AFTER MEDIATION, THE
 EMPLOYER MAY
 
    UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENT CHANGE, PROVIDED A MINIMUM OF 15 DAYS ADVANCE
 NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO
 
    THE UNION.  IF THE UNION CHOOSES TO SUBMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL
 
    DURING THIS PERIOD, EXCEPT FOR OVERRIDING EXIGENCIES OR UNREASONABLE
 DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION
 
    OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS, THE EMPLOYER WILL NOT IMPLEMENT THE CHANGE AND
 WILL MAINTAIN THE STATUS
 
    QUO UNTIL THE PANEL HAS COMPLETED ITS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS.
 
    7.  SHOULD THE EMPLOYER UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENT THE CHANGE IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6
 
    ABOVE, THE DECISION OF THE PANEL WILL BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO THE
 DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROCEDURES FOR
 MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS SET FORTH ABOVE WOULD VIOLATE MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 UNDER SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  THE DISPUTED PORTIONS OF UNION PROPOSAL XII HEREIN
 ESTABLISH A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE
 STATUTE.  /39/ ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ.(1980)), THE
 AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THOSE PORTIONS OF UNION PROPOSAL XII ARE NOT
 WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE.  /40/
 
    REASONS:  THE AGENCY OBJECTS, FIRST OF ALL, TO THAT ASPECT OF UNION
 PROPOSAL XII WHICH WOULD REQUIRE, IN EFFECT, THAT THE AGENCY HOLD IN
 ABEYANCE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY PROPOSED CHANGE IN CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT DURING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT PENDING THE DECISION OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL ON MATTERS REFERRED TO IT BY THE PARTIES,
 EXCEPT IN CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING AN "OVERRIDING EXIGENCY" OR
 "UNREASONABLE DELAY" OF IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.  THE AGENCY
 ARGUES THAT THIS REQUIREMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNREASONABLE DELAYS IN THE
 EXERCISE OF ANY MANAGEMENT RIGHT WHICH MIGHT BE INVOLVED AND THAT, FOR
 THIS REASON, THESE PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROCEDURES ARE CONTRARY TO
 THE STATUTE.  THE AGENCY POSITION IS WITHOUT MERIT.
 
    FIRST, THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL WOULD PERMIT THE AGENCY TO
 IMPLEMENT ANY CHANGE IN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
 HOLDING THE ACTION IN ABEYANCE AS REQUIRED BY THE PROPOSAL WOULD RESULT
 IN UNREASONABLE DELAYS IN THE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.  MOREOVER,
 CONTRARY TO THE AGENCY'S ARGUMENT THAT THE STATUTE IMPOSES A MORE
 STRINGENT STANDARD OF DELAY THAN THAT IN THE PROPOSALS, THE AUTHORITY,
 IN THE DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE CASE, /41/ REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE
 STATUTORY STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROPOSED PROCEDURE IS
 WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS WHETHER IT WOULD RESULT IN AN UNREASONABLE
 DELAY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.  IN ITS DECISION, THE
 AUTHORITY STATED AS FOLLOWS:  /42/
 
    . . . THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE, AS IT PERTAINS TO
 SUBSECTION (B)(2), REVEALS,
 
    FIRST OF ALL, THAT THE COMMITTEE ON CONFERENCE, IN ADOPTING THE BILL
 WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY WAS
 
    ENACTED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE PRESIDENT,
 SPECIFICALLY REJECTED A PROVISION OF
 
    THE SENATE BILL (S. 2640) WHICH PROVIDED THAT NEGOTIATION ON
 PROCEDURES SHOULD NOT
 
    "UNREASONABLY DELAY" SO AS TO "NEGATE" THE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT'S
 RESERVED RIGHTS.  THE
 
    CONCLUSION IS JUSTIFIED, THEREFORE, THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND
 SUBSECTION (B)(2) TO PRECLUDE
 
    NEGOTIATION ON A PROPOSAL MERELY BECAUSE IT MAY IMPOSE ON MANAGEMENT
 A REQUIREMENT WHICH WOULD
 
    DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF A PARTICULAR ACTION INVOLVING THE EXERCISE OF
 A SPECIFIED MANAGEMENT
 
    RIGHT.  RATHER, AS THE CONFERENCE REPORT INDICATES, SUBSECTION (B)(2)
 IS INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE
 
    AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE TO NEGOTIATE FULLY ON PROCEDURES, EXCEPT
 TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH
 
    NEGOTIATION WOULD PREVENT AGENCY MANAGEMENT FROM ACTING AT ALL.  THAT
 IS, INSOFAR AS IT IS
 
    CONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT ULTIMATELY TO ACT, CONGRESS
 INTENDED THE PARTIES TO
 
    WORK OUT THEIR DIFFERENCES WITH REGARD TO PROCEDURES IN NEGOTIATIONS.
  (FOOTNOTES OMITTED.)
 
    THUS, THE STATUTORY STANDARD IS WHETHER ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED
 PROCEDURE, THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS, WILL PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM ACTING AT
 ALL.  THE PROPOSAL IN THE DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE CASE REQUIRED THE AGENCY
 TO STAY THE SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL OF AN EMPLOYEE PENDING COMPLETION OF
 THE CONTRACTUAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, INCLUDING ARBITRATION.  THE
 AUTHORITY DETERMINED THAT WHILE THE PROPOSAL WOULD DELAY AGENCY ACTION,
 IT WOULD NOT PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM ACTING AT ALL AND FOUND THIS
 PROPOSAL TO BE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.  THE PROPOSAL IN THIS CASE,
 LIKE THAT IN DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE, WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO HOLD IN
 ABEYANCE ITS PROPOSED ACTION-- IN THIS INSTANCE, PENDING COMPLETION OF
 THE PROCEDURES OF THE PANEL.  HOWEVER, THE PROPOSAL HEREIN, AS
 DISTINGUISHED FROM DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE, WOULD PERMIT THE AGENCY TO
 IMPLEMENT THAT PROPOSED ACTION BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE PANEL
 PROCEDURES IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH INVOLVE AN "OVERRIDING EXIGENCY" OR AN
 "UNREASONABLE DELAY" IN THE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.  AS SUCH, THE
 PROPOSAL AT ISSUE HEREIN IS LESS RESTRICTIVE OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS THAN
 THAT IN DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE AND, A FORTIORI, WOULD NOT PREVENT THE
 AGENCY FROM ACTING AT ALL PURSUANT TO THOSE RIGHTS.  /43/ IN THIS
 RESPECT, THEN, IT IS A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF
 THE STATUTE.
 
    THE AGENCY OBJECTS, FURTHER, TO THAT PORTION OF THE UNION'S PROPOSAL
 WHICH (IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THE AGENCY, CONSISTENT WITH THE
 "OVERRIDING EXIGENCY" AND "UNREASONABLE DELAY" PROVISIONS, IMPLEMENTS
 ITS PROPOSED ACTION PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE PANEL PROCEDURES)
 REQUIRES THAT THE DECISION OF THE PANEL BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO THE
 DATE OF THE AGENCY ACTION.  SPECIFICALLY, THE AGENCY ARGUES THAT THE
 RETROACTIVITY REQUIREMENT WOULD CANCEL THE ACTIONS TAKEN IN THE EXERCISE
 OF ANY MANAGEMENT RIGHT INVOLVED.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS AN
 ARGUMENT THAT THE RETROACTIVITY REQUIREMENT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT,
 CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE, OF PREVENTING THE AGENCY FROM ACTING AT ALL, IT
 MISCONTRUES THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSAL.  THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THIS PART
 OF THE PROPOSAL AND THE RECORD HEREIN INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSAL IS NOT
 INTENDED TO NULLIFY THE ACTION ITSELF, I.E., THE EXERCISE OF THE
 MANAGEMENT RIGHT, BUT TO RETROACTIVELY APPLY THE PANEL DECISION AS TO
 THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTION AND
 AND THE APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS TO BE MADE FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED BY THE ACTION.  IN THIS RESPECT, THE EFFECT OF THE
 RETROACTIVITY REQUIREMENT WOULD BE ANALOGOUS TO THE EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT
 THAT AN AGENCY MUST RE-RUN, E.G., A REDUCTION IN FORCE OR A PROMOTION
 ACTION IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH LEGAL OR REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.  THAT
 IS, THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO TAKE THE ACTION IS NOT IN QUESTION, ONLY
 THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ACTION WAS IMPLEMENTED.  THUS, THE REQUIREMENT
 THAT THE DECISION OF THE PANEL BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY AS OF THE DATE
 OF THE AGENCY ACTION WOULD NOT IN AND OF ITSELF PREVENT THE AGENCY FROM
 ACTING AT ALL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN THE PROPOSALS.
 
    MOREOVER, NEITHER THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL NOR THE RECORD IN THE
 CASE INDICATES AN INTENT FOR THE PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE THAT RETROACTIVE
 APPLICATION OF THE DECISION OF THE PANEL MUST OCCUR IF SUCH APPLICATION
 WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATION.
 
    THUS, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, UNION PROPOSAL XII ESTABLISHES A
 NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE WHICH
 MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS WILL OBSERVE IN THE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 DURING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT.
 
                            UNION PROPOSAL XIII
 
    ARTICLE 16 REDUCTION IN FORCE
 
    SECTION 6.
 
    B.  PRIOR TO ANY PLACEMENT ACTIONS, THE EMPLOYER WILL ESTABLISH LISTS
 OF POSITIONS BY
 
    GRADE, TITLE, SERIES, CAREER POTENTIAL AND LOCATION INTO WHICH
 PERSONNEL MAY BE ENTITLED TO
 
    BUMP OR RETREAT.  LISTS WILL CONTAIN ALL VACANT POSITIONS AND WILL BE
 UPDATED WEEKLY.  THESE
 
    LISTS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL INDIVIDUALS DETERMINED TO BE
 AFFECTED BY THE RIF.  ALL
 
    AFFECTED EMPLOYEES WILL BE OFFERED AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIST THE
 PREFERRED POSITIONS DESIRED IN
 
    EACH GRADE, IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE.  THE EMPLOYER WILL ASSIGN
 EMPLOYEES, IN RETENTION ORDER,
 
    TO POSITIONS OF PREFERENCE FOR WHICH QUALIFIED, IN THE ORDER OF
 PREFERENCE, UNLESS THERE ARE
 
    PERSUASIVE MISSION RELATED REASONS FOR NOT DOING SO, IN WHICH CASE
 THE EMPLOYER WILL PROVIDE
 
    THE REASONS IN WRITING TO THE UNION AND TO THE EMPLOYEE.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL XIII VIOLATES THE RIGHT OF THE
 AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES IN THE AGENCY UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF
 THE STATUTE.  /44/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  UNION PROPOSAL XIII VIOLATES THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO
 ASSIGN EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ.(1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION
 THAT THE PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN IS
 SUSTAINED.
 
    REASONS:  UNION PROPOSAL XIII REQUIRES THE AGENCY, WHERE THERE ARE
 EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO A REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF) WHO ARE ENTITLED UNDER
 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS /45/ TO AN OFFER OF ASSIGNMENT TO ANOTHER
 POSITION, TO ASSIGN THOSE EMPLOYEES TO THE POSITIONS TO WHICH THEY ARE
 ENTITLED ON THE BASIS OF EMPLOYEE PREFERENCE.  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER,
 THE PROPOSAL WOULD APPLY PRIMARILY IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE ARE
 VACANT POSITIONS FOR WHICH AN EMPLOYEE IS QUALIFIED /46/ AND WHERE THERE
 IS MORE THAN ONE POSITION TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE HAS ASSIGNMENT RIGHTS,
 /47/ SINCE THESE ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN
 WHICH THE AGENCY HAS DISCRETION AS TO THE REASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES IN A
 REDUCTION IN FORCE.  /48/ HOWEVER, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PROPOSAL
 WOULD COMPEL THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN AN EMPLOYEE TO A POSITION ON THE BASIS
 OF THAT EMPLOYEE'S PREFERENCE.  THAT IS, THE AGENCY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
 FOREGO ITS DISCRETION AS TO THE SELECTION OF THE EMPLOYEE TO BE ASSIGNED
 TO THAT POSITION.  THE AUTHORITY HELD, IN CONNECTION WITH ITS
 CONSIDERATION OF UNION PROPOSALS III-VII ABOVE, THAT THE RIGHT OF THE
 AGENCY TO ASSIGN EMPLOYEES INCLUDES DISCRETION AS TO THE SELECTION OF
 THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE TO BE ASSIGNED.  THUS, AS DISCUSSED MORE FULLY
 IN CONNECTION WITH UNION PROPOSALS III-VII, HEREIN, SINCE UNION PROPOSAL
 XIII, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED, WOULD COMPEL THE SELECTION OF A
 PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE FOR ASSIGNMENT, IT INTERFERES WITH THE DISCRETION
 WHICH IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.  THEREFORE, IT IS OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN.
 
                        UNION PROPOSALS XIV AND XV
 
    ARTICLE 13 TEMPORARY PROMOTIONS
 
                            UNION PROPOSAL XIV
 
    SECTION 2.  TEMPORARY PROMOTION TO ENCUMBERED POSITIONS
 
    WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED TO AN ENCUMBERED, BUT
 TEMPORARILY VACANT
 
    BARGAINING UNIT POSITION OF A HIGHER GRADE FOR 30 DAYS, THE EMPLOYEE
 WILL RECEIVE THE RATE OF
 
    PAY FOR THE HIGHER POSITION TO WHICH ASSIGNED, COMMENCING ON THE 31ST
 DAY.
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL XV
 
    SECTION 3.  ASSIGNMENT OF DUTIES OF A HIGHER GRADED POSITION
 
    WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED THE DUTIES OF A HIGHER
 GRADED POSITION FOR 30
 
    CONSECUTIVE DAYS, THE EMPLOYEE WILL RECEIVE THE RATE OF PAY FOR THE
 HIGHER POSITION TO WHICH
 
    ASSIGNED, COMMENCING ON THE 31ST DAY.
 
                    QUESTIONS HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER UNION PROPOSAL XV IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF
 BARGAINING UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE /49/ TO THE EXTENT THAT IT
 APPLIES TO SUPERVISORY POSITIONS AND WHETHER UNION PROPOSALS XIV AND XV,
 AS THEY APPLY TO UNIT POSITIONS, ARE CONTRARY TO THE LAW GOVERNING
 COMPENSATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  /50/
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  UNION PROPOSAL XV IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF BARGAINING
 UNDER SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND UNION PROPOSAL XIV AND UNION
 PROPOSAL XV DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE LAW GOVERNING COMPENSATION OF
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG. 3482 ET SEQ.(1980)), THE
 AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DISPUTED PROPOSALS ARE NOT WITHIN THE DUTY
 TO BARGAIN IS SET ASIDE.  /51/
 
    REASONS:  THESE TWO PROPOSALS REQUIRE, RESPECTIVELY, THAT UNIT
 EMPLOYEES TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED TO AN ENCUMBERED BUT TEMPORARILY VACANT
 HIGHER GRADED POSITION AND TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF
 A HIGHER GRADED POSITION BE COMPENSATED AT THE RATE APPROPRIATE TO SUCH
 HIGHER GRADED POSITIONS AFTER CERTAIN SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS.  THE
 AGENCY ALLEGES WITH RESPECT TO UNION PROPOSAL XV THAT IT IS OUTSIDE THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN TO THE EXTENT THAT THE HIGHER GRADED POSITIONS REFERRED
 TO THEREIN ARE INTENDED TO INCLUDE SUPERVISORY POSITIONS OUTSIDE THE
 BARGAINING UNIT.  THE ALLEGATION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.
 
    FIRST OF ALL, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT ON ITS FACE APPLY TO SUPERVISORY
 POSITIONS.  HOWEVER, EVEN ASSUMING THAT IT DID, THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE
 WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION IN THE NAVAL
 AIR REWORK FACILITY CASE /52/ REGARDING A SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL
 PROPOSAL:  /53/
 
    IN THIS REGARD, THE ACT CALLED FOR BY THE PROPOSAL, OF PROVIDING
 COMPENSATION TO THE
 
    EMPLOYEE AT THE LEVEL COMMENSURATE WITH THE JOB HE OR SHE IS
 PERFORMING (I.E., TEMPORARILY
 
    PROMOTING THE EMPLOYEE), SIMPLY IS A MINISTERIAL ACT IMPLEMENTING
 MANAGEMENT'S DECISION TO
 
    SELECT AND ASSIGN THE EMPLOYEE INVOLVED TO THE HIGHER GRADED
 POSITION.  AS PREVIOUSLY
 
    INDICATED, NOTHING IN THE PROPOSAL WOULD INTERFERE WITH MANAGEMENT'S
 RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH
 
    DECISION TO SELECT AND ASSIGN.  THUS, NOTHING IN THE PROPOSAL WOULD
 IMPAIR MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT
 
    TO DETERMINE WHETHER AND WHOM TEMPORARILY TO PROMOTE.
 
    SIMILARLY, THE AGENCY ARGUMENT THAT THESE PROPOSALS, CONTRARY TO LAW,
 WOULD REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO COMPENSATE EMPLOYEES, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
 SPECIFIED IN THE PROPOSALS, AT THE RATE OF PAY OF THE HIGHER GRADED
 POSITIONS WITHOUT HAVING TEMPORARILY PROMOTED THEM TO THESE POSITIONS,
 IS WITHOUT MERIT.
 
    THE AGENCY IS CORRECT IN ITS STATEMENT OF THE LAW AS REQUIRING
 PROMOTION AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE HIGHER COMPENSATION.  /54/ HOWEVER,
 THE AGENCY HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE PROPOSALS WOULD REQUIRE IT TO PAY
 EMPLOYEES THE HIGHER RATE WITHOUT HAVING TEMPORARILY PROMOTED THOSE
 EMPLOYEES OR THAT TEMPORARY PROMOTIONS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
 SPECIFIED
 IN THE PROPOSALS WOULD BE CONTRARY TO LAW OR REGULATION.  ON THE
 CONTRARY, ABSENT AN INDICATION IN THE PROPOSAL ITSELF OR IN THE RECORD
 IN THE CASE THAT THE UNION INTENDED OTHERWISE, GIVEN THE LAW AS STATED
 ABOVE, THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE EMPLOYEE RECEIVE THE HIGHER RATE OF PAY
 IS TANTAMOUNT TO A REQUIREMENT THAT THE EMPLOYEE WHO HAS BEEN SELECTED
 BY MANAGEMENT BE TEMPORARILY PROMOTED TO THE HIGHER GRADED POSITION.
 
    IN THIS REGARD, AS IS IMPLICIT IN THE NAVAL AIR REWORK FACILITY CASE,
 CITED ABOVE, UNLESS THE PROPOSAL SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES OR THE RECORD
 INDICATES OTHERWISE, THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN EMPLOYEE TEMPORARILY
 SERVING IN OR PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF A HIGHER GRADED POSITION BE PAID
 THE RATE OF PAY OF THE HIGHER GRADED POSITION MUST BE INTERPRETED AS
 CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAW, THAT IS, AS REQUIRING THAT THE EMPLOYEE
 BE TEMPORARILY PROMOTED TO THAT POSITION.
 
    MOREOVER, THE AGENCY HAS NOT SHOWN THAT A TEMPORARY PROMOTION IN THE
 CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED IN THE PROPOSALS IN ANY OTHER MANNER WOULD BE
 CONTRARY TO LAW AND REGULATION.  IN PARTICULAR, THE AGENCY HAS PROVIDED
 NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM THAT UNION PROPOSAL XIV COULD BE
 INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANOTHER POSITION.
 CERTAINLY, THE PROPOSAL ITSELF DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH ACTION FOR
 IMPLEMENTATION AND THE AGENCY PRODUCES NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A
 CONCLUSION THAT IT WOULD BE PRECLUDED BY LAW OR REGULATION FROM
 TEMPORARILY PROMOTING AN EMPLOYEE TO AN ENCUMBERED BUT TEMPORARILY
 VACANT POSITION.  IN SHORT, THE AGENCY HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE
 PROPOSALS, BY REQUIRING THE AGENCY TO COMPENSATE EMPLOYEES AT THE RATE
 OF A HIGHER GRADED POSITION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED, ARE
 CONTRARY TO LAW AND REGULATION.  THEREFORE, THE PROPOSALS ARE WITHIN THE
 AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.
 
                            UNION PROPOSAL XVI
 
    ARTICLE 13 TEMPORARY PROMOTIONS
 
    SECTION 5.  ALTERNATE FOREMAN SELECTION
 
    AN ALTERNATE FOREMAN/SUPERVISOR IS A PRODUCTION EMPLOYEE OF
 JOURNEYMAN GRADE LEVEL SELECTED
 
    BY THE FOREMAN/SUPERVISOR TO ENSURE CONTINUITY OF FUNCTIONS WHILE THE
 FOREMAN/SUPERVISOR IS
 
    ABSENT.
 
    (A) SELECTION OF ALTERNATE FOREMAN/SUPERVISORS SHALL BE ROTATED AMONG
 JOURNEYMEN AND
 
    WORKLEADER EMPLOYEES VOLUNTEERING TO ACT IN THIS CAPACITY.
 DESIGNATIONS WILL BE EQUITABLE
 
    ROTATED ON A SENIORITY BASIS (SERVICE COMPUTATION DATE).  THE INITIAL
 SELECTION WILL BE THE
 
    EMPLOYEE WITH THE MOST SENIORITY, UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE DECLINES.  THE
 REMAINING EMPLOYEES WILL
 
    BE UTILIZED IN DESCENDING ORDER ACCORDING TO THEIR SENIORITY.
 
    (B) EACH EMPLOYEE SO DESIGNATED WILL SERVE UNTIL THEY HAVE
 ACCUMULATED 30 DAYS OF
 
    EXPERIENCE OF ACTING FOREMAN/SUPERVISOR.  EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
 DESIGNATED AS AN ALTERNATE
 
    FOREMAN/SUPERVISOR WILL HAVE THIS ASSIGNMENT RECORDED BY THE EMPLOYER
 ON THE EMPLOYEE'S AF 971
 
    FILE.  EVERY ACCUMULATIVE 30 WORKDAYS IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE HAS
 SERVED AS ACTING
 
    FOREMAN/SUPERVISOR WILL BE CERTIFIED ON AN SF 52 FORM AND RECORDED ON
 THE EMPLOYEE'S OFFICIAL
 
    PERSONNEL FILE.
 
    (C) TEMPORARY PROMOTIONS WILL BE MADE WHEN EMPLOYEES PERFORM THE
 DUTIES OF THESE POSITIONS
 
    FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE.
 
                    QUESTIONS HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTIONS ARE, FIRST OF ALL, WHETHER SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF
 UNION PROPOSAL XVI VIOLATE MANAGEMENT RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2) OF
 THE STATUTE, AND, SECONDLY, WHETHER SUBSECTION (C) VIOLATES THE LAW
 GOVERNING COMPENSATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF UNION PROPOSAL XVI VIOLATE
 THE RIGHT OF THE AGENCY TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF
 THE STATUTE, /55/ AND SUBSECTION (C) OF THE PROPOSAL VIOLATES THE LAW
 GOVERNING COMPENSATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  /56/ ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT
 TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 FED.REG.
  3482 ET SEQ.(1980)), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATIONS THAT THE UNION PROPOSAL
 XVI IS NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.
 
    REASONS:  ACCORDING TO THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO
 ESTABLISHED POSITION OF "ALTERNATE FOREMAN/SUPERVISOR." RATHER, IT
 APPEARS THAT THE TERM REFERS TO CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH CERTAIN OF THE
 DUTIES INCIDENT TO AN ESTABLISHED SUPERVISORY POSITION ARE ASSIGNED TO
 UNIT EMPLOYEES ON AN AD HOC BASIS DURING THE TEMPORARY ABSENCE OF THE
 SUPERVISOR.  SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF UNION PROPOSAL XVI CONCERN THE
 SELECTION OF UNIT EMPLOYEES TO PERFORM THE SUBJECT SUPERVISORY DUTIES.
 IN PARTICULAR, THEY WOULD COMPEL THE ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN SUPERVISORY
 DUTIES TO EMPLOYEES ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY OR, ONCE SUCH DUTIES WERE
 ASSIGNED, PREVENT THE ASSIGNMENT OF THOSE DUTIES TO OTHER EMPLOYEES
 BEFORE A SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD HAD ELAPSED.  IN OTHER WORDS THEY WOULD
 ELIMINATE THE DISCRETION INHERENT IN THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE.  THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK INCLUDES
 DISCRETION AS TO THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE TO WHOM IT WILL BE ASSIGNED.
 THUS, SINCE SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF THE PROPOSAL WOULD DIRECTLY
 INTERFERE WITH THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK TO PARTICULAR
 EMPLOYEES, THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THESE SECTIONS ARE NOT WITHIN
 THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IS SUSTAINED.
 
    MOREOVER, AS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED, THE TERM "ALTERNATE
 FOREMAN/SUPERVISOR" DOES NOT REFER TO AN ESTABLISHED POSITION BUT TO THE
 PERFORMANCE OF SOME OF THE DUTIES INCIDENT TO A SUPERVISORY POSITION BY
 UNIT EMPLOYEES ON AN AD HOC BASIS.  IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ONLY THE SALARY OF THE POSITION TO WHICH
 HE OR SHE WAS APPOINTED EVEN THOUGH HE OR SHE MAY HAVE PERFORMED DUTIES
 OF ANOTHER POSITION.  /57/ IN THE INSTANT CASE, HOWEVER, UNIT EMPLOYEES
 ARE MERELY PERFORMING SOME OF THE DUTIES INCIDENT TO A SUPERVISORY
 POSITION ON AN AD HOC BASIS RATHER THAN BEING ASSIGNED TO AN ESTABLISHED
 SUPERVISORY POSITION.  NO BASIS EXISTS UNDER FEDERAL PERSONNEL LAW TO
 SUPPORT A TEMPORARY PROMOTION IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THEREFORE,
 SUBSECTION (C) OF UNION PROPOSAL XVI, BY REQUIRING SUCH TEMPORARY
 PROMOTION IS INCONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAW. CONSEQUENTLY, THE
 AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT SUBSECTION (C) OF THE PROPOSAL IS NOT WITHIN
 THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IT SUSTAINED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 31, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    ATTACHMENTS:
 
    APPENDICES
 
                                APPENDIX A
 
                             UNION PROPOSAL IX
 
    ARTICLE 19 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
 
    SECTION 3.  EEO PLANS OF ACTION
 
    EACH AFLC SUBORDINATE ACTIVITY WILL DEVELOP APPROPRIATE PLANS OF
 ACTION WHICH WILL SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS:  (1) ALL PERSONNEL FUNCTIONS
 WHICH IMPACT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY EMPLOYEES;  (2)
 EXISTING PROBLEMS;  AND (3) FORSEEN FUTURE PROBLEM AREAS.  UNION INPUT
 TO THESE PLANS WILL BE REQUESTED AT APPROPRIATE TIMES IN THEIR
 DEVELOPMENT, AND IDEAS FROM UNION REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE SOLICITED
 CONCERNING VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE PLANS AS THEY ARE DEVELOPED.
 NEGOTIATIONS OF THESE PLANS WILL BE SCHEDULED PROMPTLY WHEN REQUESTED BY
 THE UNION.
 
    A.  THE AFLC PLAN.  THE AFLC EEO PLAN WILL CONTAIN PROVISIONS TO
 INSURE THAT COMMANDERS AT ALL ACTIVITIES WILL DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE
 PLANS WHICH WILL REFLECT A FULL COMMITMENT TOWARD THE REALIZATION OF
 FULL EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL THEIR EMPLOYEES.  THE AFLC
 PLAN WILL STATE COMMAND POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES AND ESTABLISH COMMAND
 GOALS.  (1) IT IS AGREED THAT THE COMMAND WILL, AT LEAST QUARTERLY,
 REVIEW REPORTS ON INSTALLATION AND COMMAND PROGRESS TOWARD REALIZATION
 OF ALL OBJECTIVES AND GOALS, AND WILL PROVIDE ASSESSMENTS OF PROGRESS,
 AND APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE TO SUBORDINATE COMMANDERS ON A TIMELY BASIS.
 SUCH REPORTS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT WITHIN 10 DAYS
 OF SERVICE ON LOCAL COMMANDER.
 
    (2) ANNUALLY, THE COMMAND WILL CONSOLIDATE DATA OF THE YEAR'S
 PROGRESS, AND ISSUE
 
    ASSESSMENTS OF PROGRESS TOWARD THE COMMAND'S OBJECTIVES AND GOALS,
 AND THOSE OF EACH
 
    SUBORDINATE COMMANDER, WITH APPROPRIATE FURTHER GUIDANCE.  A COPY OF
 THE REPORT WILL BE
 
    FURNISHED TO THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
 
    (3) THE AFLC PLAN WILL DIRECT ACTIVITY COMMANDERS TO DEVELOP PLANS
 WHICH WILL REFLECT THE
 
    COMMITMENT OF THEIR MANAGEMENT TO ALL AIR FORCE POLICIES AND
 OBJECTIVES IN SUPPORT OF FULL
 
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY.  THESE POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES WILL
 DIRECT THE INCLUSION OF
 
    PROVISIONS TO:
 
    A.  MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO ELIMINATE EVERY VESTIGE OF LOCAL PREJUDICE
 AND DISCRIMINATION.
 
    B.  ISSUE A STATEMENT TO EMPLOYEES INDICATING MANAGEMENT'S COMMITMENT
 TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL.
 
    C.  TAKE ACTIONS TO ASSURE THAT ALL SOURCES OF QUALIFIED MINORITY
 GROUP APPLICANTS
 
    UNDERSTAND THE EEO PROGRAM.
 
    D.  DEVELOP PLANS TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN CONTACTS WITH THE
 MINORITY WORK FORCE AND
 
    COMMUNITY GROUPS AND TO PARTICIPATE IN COOPERATIVE ACTION WITH
 SCHOOLS, UNIVERSITIES, AND
 
    OTHER PUBLIC AND PRIVATE GROUPS TO IMPROVE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
 AND CONDITIONS AFFECTING
 
    EMPLOYABILITY.
 
    E.  INSURE VIGOROUS PERFORMANCE IN THE POSITIVE APPLICATION OF THE
 POLICY OF EQUAL
 
    OPPORTUNITY BY SUPERVISORY AND MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL WHO DIRECT THE
 ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES
 
    COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT.
 
    F.  MAKE MAXIMUM EFFORT TO ASSURE ALL EMPLOYEES AND RECOGNIZED
 EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS
 
    UNDERSTAND THE POLICIES AND PROGRAM.
 
    G.  CONSIDER AND ADJUDICATE COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION CAREFULLY,
 JUSTLY, AND
 
    EXPEDITIOUSLY.
 
    H.  BRIEF NEW KEY STAFF PERSONNEL AND EMPHASIZE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY
 FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
 
    EEO PROGRAM.
 
    I.  INCLUDE THE SUBJECT OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY IN ALL
 SUPERVISORY DEVELOPMENT
 
    PROGRAMS.
 
    J.  DURING ORIENTATION PROGRAMS, INSURE ALL PERSONS UNDERSTAND ALL
 PERSONNEL ACTIONS ARE ON
 
    A MERIT BASIS WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR
 NATIONAL ORIGIN.
 
    K.  SEEK THE SUPPORT AND COOPERATION OF MANAGEMENT WITH EEO
 COUNSELORS AND OTHER OFFICIALS
 
    IN BRINGING ABOUT INFORMAL RESOLUTIONS OF COMPLAINTS.
 
    B.  ACTIVITY EEO PLANS OF ACTION.  DEVELOPMENT OF EACH ACTIVITY'S EEO
 ANNUAL PLAN OF ACTION WILL BE DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER, WILL BE COMPLETE,
 COMPREHENSIVE, AND ADEQUATE IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSMENTS OF EEO
 PROBLEMS.  PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION, IT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE UNION
 FOR REVIEW.  THE UNION MAY SUBMIT PROPOSALS ON THE PLAN AND SHALL
 NEGOTIATE THE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS.
 THE PARTIES AGREE THAT EACH ACTIVITY EEO PLAN WILL CONTAIN INFORMATION
 WHICH WILL FOCUS ON SPECIFIC PERSONNEL FUNCTIONS AND EXISTING PROBLEMS,
 AND FORESEEN POTENTIAL PROBLEMS.  IT WILL SPECIFICALLY EXAMINE THE
 FOLLOWING AREAS:
 
    1.  ADEQUATE ORGANIZATION AND RESOURCES TO ADMINISTER THE COMMAND EEO
 PROGRAM IN A POSITIVE
 
    AND EFFECTIVE MANNER, WITH CRITERIA FOR STAFFING THAT WILL ASSURE
 EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE IN ALL
 
    PROGRAM ASPECTS, INCLUDING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND PROCESSING OF
 DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS.
 
    2.  AN ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT STATISTICAL DATA ON THE AGENCY WORKFORCE
 TO SHOW COMPOSITION OF
 
    THE AGENCY'S AND SUBORDINATE ORGANIZATION'S WORKFORCE BY RACIAL,
 ETHNIC AND SEX GROUPINGS AT
 
    THE VARIOUS GRADE LEVELS.
 
    3.  DATA TO SHOW THE COMPOSITION OF EACH MAJOR OCCUPATION JOB SERIES)
 BY RACIAL, ETHNIC AND
 
    SEX GROUPINGS AT THE VARIOUS GRADE LEVELS.
 
    4.  A SURVEY OF CURRENT SKILLS AND TRAINING OF THE COMMAND'S
 WORKFORCE, AND THE LABOR
 
    MARKET WHICH THE INSTALLATION USES AS ITS RECRUITING SOURCE, TO
 DETERMINE THE AVAILABILITY OF
 
    EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING MINORITIES AND WOMEN, HAVING SKILLS REQUIRED TO
 MEET STAFFING
 
    NEEDS.  THIS DATA WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR USE IN IDENTIFYING
 UNDER-UTILIZED EMPLOYEES SO
 
    THEY MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR POSITIONS WHICH WILL MAKE FULL USE OF
 THEIR SKILLS, TRAINING AND
 
    EXPERIENCE.
 
    5.  TURNOVER INFORMATION ANALYZING VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY ACTIONS,
 TO DETERMINE THE
 
    CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE EMPLOYEES LEAVING AIR FORCE EMPLOYMENT AND
 THOSE HIRED AS
 
    REPLACEMENTS.
 
    6.  THE NUMBER AND KINDS OF JOBS EXPECTED TO BE FILLED IN THE COMING
 YEAR, BASED ON A
 
    REVIEW OF PAST TURNOVER RATES IN EACH OF THE MAJOR OCCUPATIONS, AND
 ANTICIPATED EXPANSION OR
 
    CONTRACTION OF PROGRAMS.
 
    7.  CAREER PROGRESSION BY ORGANIZATION AND GRADE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER
 THE PERCENTAGES OF
 
    MINORITY AND NON-MINORITY ELIGIBLES FOR PROMOTION ARE APPEARING ON
 PROMOTION CERTIFICATES AND
 
    WHETHER AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER ARE BEING SELECTED.
 
    8.  TRAINING OPPORTUNITY ALLOCATIONS TO INSURE THEY ARE BEING
 ALLOTTED ON AN EQUITABLE
 
    BASIS AND THE RESULTS OF SUCH TRAINING EXPERIENCES ARE CONSIDERED
 EQUITABLY FOR MINORITY AND
 
    NON-MINORITY CAREER PROGRESSION.
 
    9.  SELECTION FOR JOBS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IRRELEVANT
 CHARACTERISTICS MAY DISCRIMINATE
 
    AGAINST A PARTICULAR GROUP OF EMPLOYEES.
 
    10.  UTILIZATION OF INFORMATION BY OCCUPATIONAL AREA AND GRADES TO
 DETERMINE WHETHER
 
    DIFFERENT GROUPS ARE NOT BEING FULLY USED BY VIRTUE OF PAST WORK OR
 TRAINING EXPERIENCE,
 
    EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT, OR OTHER CAPABILITIES.  THIS AREA SHOULD
 ALSO INCLUDE STUDIES OF TIME
 
    IN GRADE BEFORE PROMOTION, INPUT GRADE AS RELATED TO TRAINING,
 SKILLS, AND EDUCATION.
 
    11.  STUDIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL MAKEUP TO DETERMINE WHETHER EXISTING
 GRADES AND OCCUPATIONS
 
    INDICATE PAST OR CONTINUING INEQUALITY OF EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS.
 
    12.  CONINTUING REVIEW OF AWARDS AND DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS BY GRADE,
 OCCUPATION AND BY
 
    ORGANIZATION.
 
    13.  THE DESIGNATION OF GROUPS OF POSITIONS TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES
 FOR EMPLOYEES TO
 
    ENHANCE THEIR SKILLS, PERFORM AT THEIR HIGHEST POTENTIAL AND ADVANCE
 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR
 
    ABILITIES THROUGH A FORMAL UPWARD MOBILITY PROGRAM.  SPECIFICS OF
 INSTALLATION UPWARD MOBILITY
 
    PROGRAMS WILL BE NEGOTIATED LOCALLY.
 
    14.  ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT OF THE WORKFORCE AND TOWARD THE ACTIVITY
 EEO PROGRAM.  IT WILL
 
    INCORPORATE ATTEMPTED SOLUTIONS TO SPECIFIC, IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS AND
 DESCRIBE THEM IN TERMS OF
 
    SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND TARGET DATES.  FOLLOW-UP
 STUDIES WILL BE PERFORMED
 
    TO DETERMINE THE RESULTS OF THE IMPLEMENTED SOLUTIONS.
 
    15.  A CONTINUING REVIEW AND ANALYSIS BY ORGANIZATION OF THE SOURCES
 OF AND THE KINDS OF
 
    DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AND HOW THEY REFLECT ON PRACTICES
 AND POLICIES THAT MIGHT
 
    RESULT IN UNEQUAL OR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.
 
    16.  TWO SPECIAL EMPHASIS AREAS WILL BE COVERED IN EACH PLAN, AS
 APPROPRIATE.  THEY
 
    ARE:  (1) AIR FORCE FEDERAL WOMEN'S PROGRAM 1 AND (2)
 SPANISH-SPEAKING PROGRAM.  THE FIRST
 
    WILL RECOGNIZE AND LEND VISIBILITY TO MATTERS AFFECTING THE
 EMPLOYMENT AND UTILIZATION OF
 
    WOMEN IN THE AIR FORCE.  THE SECOND IS TO ASSURE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
 IN AIR FORCE EMPLOYMENT
 
    OF THE SPANISH-SPEAKING POPULATION, AND TO ELIMINATE BARRIERS AGAINST
 FULL EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
 
    FOR THIS GROUP.
 
                                APPENDIX B
 
                            UNION PROPOSAL XII
 
    ARTICLE 33 NEGOTIATIONS DURING THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT
 
    SECTION 3.  MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS
 
    ANY PROPOSED CHANGE IMPLEMENTING NEW OR CHANGES TO EXISTING DOD OR
 AIR FORCE REGULATIONS OR
 
    PROPOSED CHANGES TO AFLC OR ALC REGULATIONS RESULTING IN CHANGES IN
 PERSONNEL POLICIES,
 
    PRACTICES, OR MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY
 COVERED IN THIS AGREEMENT
 
    WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION AND
 NEGOTIATION WITH THE UNION AS
 
    PRESCRIBED BELOW OR IN ARTICLE . . . , (NEGOTIATIONS OF SUPPLEMENTAL
 AGREEMENT.) NOTIFICATIONS
 
    WILL INCLUDE A COPY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE AND A DETAILED EXPLANATION
 OF WHAT IS PROPOSED.
 
    A.  MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS AT COMMAND AFLC LEVEL.  NEGOTIATIONS OF
 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT,
 
    OR IF THE EMPLOYER DESIRES TO MAKE CHANGES IN PERSONNEL POLICIES,
 PRACTICES, OR WORKING
 
    CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE ANNUAL CONTRACT REOPENER AUTHORIZED BY
 ARTICLE . . . (DURATION OF
 
    AGREEMENT.) THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES APPLY:
 
    1.  THE EMPLOYER SHALL SERVE BY CERTIFIED MAIL ON THE COUNCIL
 PRESIDENT AND EACH LOCAL PRESIDENT A COPY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE AND A
 BRIEF RATIONALE ON THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGE.
 
    2.  THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT OR HIS DESIGNEE SHALL NOTIFY THE AFLC
 COMMANDER WHEN THE UNION CHOOSES TO NEGOTIATE ON THE CHANGE.  NOTICE
 MUST BE SERVED ON THE AFLC COMMANDER 20 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF
 THE PROPOSED CHANGE.
 
    3.  NEGOTIATIONS SHALL BEGIN WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM NOTICE OF THE
 UNION'S DEMAND TO BARGAIN.  MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS NOT CONDUCTED AT THE
 ANNUAL REOPENER SHALL BE HELD AT HEADQUARTERS AFLC, DAYTON, OHIO OR
 OTHER ALC UPON MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.  TRAVEL AND PER DIEM FOR
 UNION REPRESENTATIVES, WHO ARE AIR FORCE EMPLOYEES, SHALL BE PAID BY THE
 EMPLOYER.  THE NUMBER OF UNION REPRESENTATIVES FOR WHOM TRAVEL AND PER
 DIEM WILL BE PAID SHALL NOT EXCEED THE NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT
 REPRESENTATIVES.
 
    4.  THE PARTIES WILL NEGOTIATE FIVE DAYS A WEEK FOR EIGHT HOURS A
 DAY.
 
    5.  SHOULD THE PARTIES FAIL TO REACH AGREEMENT AFTER TWO WEEKS OF
 NEGOTIATIONS, INCLUDING MEDIATION, THE AFLC SHALL NOTIFY THE UNION IN
 WRITING OF ITS INTENTION TO IMPLEMENT ITS PROPOSAL(S).
 
    6.  THE UNION MAY SUBMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FSIP FOR RESOLUTION WITHIN
 15 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE TO IMPLEMENT.
 
    7. SHOULD THE UNION CHOOSE TO SUBMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FSIP THE
 EMPLOYER WILL NOT, EXCEPT FOR OVERRIDING EXIGENCIES OR UNREASONABLE
 DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS, IMPLEMENT THE CHANGE
 BEFORE THE PANEL HAS COMPLETED ITS WORK.
 
    8.  SHOULD THE EMPLOYER UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENT THE CHANGE IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7 ABOVE BEFORE THE PANEL HAS COMPLETED ITS WORK
 THE DECISION OF THE PANEL WILL BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO THE DATE OF
 IMPLEMENTATION.
 
    9.  THE IMPASSE PROCEDURE OF 5, 6, 7, 8, AND ABOVE WILL APPLY WHEN
 THE EMPLOYER CHOOSES TO NEGOTIATE ON MID-TERM CHANGES AT THE ANNUAL
 REOPENER.
 
    10.  ALL CHANGES TO PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES OR MATTERS
 AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS NEGOTIATED AT THE COMMAND LEVEL SHALL
 BECOME SUPPLEMENTS TO THIS AGREEMENT AND REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR ITS
 DURATION AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE . . . , DURATION.
 
    B.  MID-TERM NEGOTIATIONS AT LOCAL LEVEL.  FOR DIRECTORATE LEVEL
 MATTERS AND ABOVE, THE
 
    UNION WILL HAVE 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE
 RECEIVED TO RESPOND TO SUCH
 
    PROPOSALS.  FOR OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES, IF THE UNION DOES NOT RESPOND
 WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD
 
    STATED ABOVE, THE EMPLOYER MAY IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED CHANGES.  THE
 UNION MAY REQUEST A
 
    MEETING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE EMPLOYER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
 FOLLOWING PROCEDURES:
 
    1.  THE DESIGNATED UNION REPRESENTATIVE SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN
 REQUEST FOR A MEETING TO THE RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL IN RESPONSE
 TO THE EMPLOYER'S NOTIFICATION OF A PROPOSED CHANGE.
 
    A.  THE DESIGNATED UNION REPRESENTATIVE FOR MATTERS BELOW DIVISION
 LEVEL WILL BE THE
 
    DIVISION STEWARD.
 
    B.  THE DESIGNATED UNION REPRESENTATIVE FOR MATTERS AT THE DIVISION
 LEVEL SHALL BE THE
 
    DIRECTORATE STEWARD.
 
    C.  ON MATTERS AT THE DIRECTORATE LEVEL, THE DESIGNATED UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE IS THE CHIEF
 
    STEWARD.
 
    D.  MATTERS WHICH HAVE ACTIVITY-WIDE IMPACT WILL BE NEGOTIATED BY THE
 PRESIDENT OF THE
 
    UNION.
 
    E.  IN THE ABSENCE OF AN APPROPRIATE DESIGNATED UNION REPRESENTATIVE,
 THE UNION WILL NAME A
 
    REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE MEETING WHO WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
 BIND THE UNION.
 
    F.  THE DESIGNATED STEWARD AT THE NEXT LOWER ORGANIZATION LEVEL WHERE
 THE CHANGE IS
 
    PROPOSED MAY ATTEND THE MEETING IF DESIRED BY THE UNION.
 
    2.  ACTIVITY-WIDE MID-TERM CONTRACT CHANGES NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNION AND THE COMMANDING OFFICER OR THEIR DESIGNEES
 SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO LOCAL SUPPLEMENTS AND REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR
 THE DURATION OF LOCAL SUPPLEMENT UNLESS THE PARTIES AGREE TO A DIFFERENT
 DURATION TERM ON A SPECIFIC ACTIVITY-WIDE MID-TERM CHANGE.
 
    3.  ATTENDANCE AT SUCH MEETINGS SHALL BE ON OFFICIAL TIME FOR
 EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE IN A DUTY STATUS.  SUCH OFFICIAL TIME
 WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE VII.
 
    4.  ONLY THE DESIGNATED UNION REPRESENTATIVE SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY
 TO BIND THE UNION ON SUCH ACCORDS THAT MAY BE REACHED AT THESE MEETINGS.
  THESE ACCORDS MAY NOT CONFLICT WITH EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THIS
 AGREEMENT.
 
    5.  THE MEETING WILL NORMALLY TAKE PLACE WITHIN THREE DAYS AFTER THE
 UNION'S REQUEST FOR A MEETING IS RECEIVED.
 
    6.  SHOULD THE PARTIES FAIL TO REACH AGREEMENT AFTER MEDIATION, THE
 EMPLOYER MAY UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENT CHANGE, PROVIDED A MINIMUM OF 15
 DAYS ADVANCE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE UNION.  IF THE UNION CHOOSES
 TO SUBMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL DURING THIS
 PERIOD, EXCEPT FOR OVERRIDING EXIGENCIES OR UNREASONABLE DELAY OF
 IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS, THE EMPLOYER WILL NOT IMPLEMENT THE
 CHANGE AND WILL MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO UNTIL THE PANEL HAS COMPLETED
 ITS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS.
 
    7.  SHOULD THE EMPLOYER UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENT THE CHANGE IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6 ABOVE, THE DECISION OF THE PANEL WILL BE
 APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO THE DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION.
 
    /1/ THE BARGAINING UNIT IN THIS CASE IS A COMMAND-WIDE UNIT.
 
    /2/ SECTION 7117(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7117.  DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH;  COMPELLING NEED;  DUTY TO
 CONSULT
 
    (A)(1) SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH
 
    SHALL, TO THE EXTENT NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ANY FEDERAL LAW OR ANY
 GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR
 
    REGULATION, EXTEND TO MATTERS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF ANY RULE OR
 REGULATION ONLY IF THE RULE
 
    OR REGULATION IS NOT A GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR REGULATION.
 
    THE TERM "MATTERS" AS USED IN SECTION 7117(A)(1) IS EXPLAINED BY
 REFERENCE TO THE DEFINITION OF "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING" IN SECTION
 7103(A)(12) AND "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" IN SECTION 7103(A)(14) OF THE
 STATUTE:
 
    SEC. 7103.  DEFINITIONS;  APPLICATION
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (12) "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING" MEANS THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL
 OBLIGATION OF THE
 
    REPRESENTATIVE OF AN AGENCY AND THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 EMPLOYEES IN AN APPROPRIATE
 
    UNIT IN THE AGENCY TO MEET AT REASONABLE TIMES AND TO CONSULT AND
 BARGAIN IN A GOOD-FAITH
 
    EFFORT TO REACH AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT AFFECTING SUCH
 
    EMPLOYEES . . . .
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (14) "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" MEANS PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES,
 AND MATTERS, WHETHER
 
    ESTABLISHED BY RULE, REGULATION, OR OTHERWISE, AFFECTING WORKING
 CONDITIONS . . .
 
    /3/ SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
    (A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
 CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE
 
    AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--
 
    (1) TO DETERMINE THE . . . BUDGET . . . OF THE AGENCY . . .
 
    /4/ IN SO DECIDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN,
 THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSAL.
 
    /5/ PERSONNEL POLICIES FORUM:  TURNOVER AND JOB SATISFACTION, SURVEY
 NO. 91, BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C., 1970.
 
    /6/ PERSONNEL POLICIES FORUM:  ABSENTEEISM AND ITS CONTROL, SURVEY
 NO. 90, BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C., 1970.
 
    /7/ SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, HAYGHE, "MARITAL AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF
 WORKS, MARCH 1977," 101 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 51 (FEB. 1978);  BEDNARZIK
 AND KLEIN, "LABOR FORCE TRENDS:  A SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS," 100 MONTHLY
 LABOR REVIEW 3 (OCT. 1977);  JOHNSON AND HAYGHE, "LABOR FORCE
 PARTICIPATION OF MARRIED WOMEN, MARCH 1976," 100 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 32
 (JUNE 1977);  GROSSMAN, " . . . MOTHERS IN THE LABOR FORCE," 100 MONTHLY
 LABOR REVIEW 41 (JUNE 1977);  HAYGHE, "FAMILIES AND THE RISE OF WORKING
 WIVES-- AN OVERVIEW," 99 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 12 (MAY 1976);  HAYGHE,
 "MARITAL AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF WORKERS," 98 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
 60 (JAN. 1975).
 
    /8/ SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN CLAY, ONE OF THE
 PROPONENTS OF THE "UDALL SUBSTITUTE," DURING THE HOUSE DEBATE ON TITLE
 VII OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978:
 
    CONGRESSMAN CLAY:
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    THE UDALL SUBSTITUTE CONTAINS A MANAGEMENT RIGHTS CLAUSE
 SUBSTANTIALLY ENLARGED BEYOND THAT
 
    IN THE COMMITTEE PRINT.  AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN OUR AGREEING TO
 ENTRUST SUCH AN EXPANDED
 
    MANAGEMENT RIGHTS CLAUSE TO THE HANDS OF THE NEW AUTHORITY IS THE
 EXAMPLE OF THE PROTECTION
 
    AFFORDED THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS BY CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUTINY
 OF MANAGEMENT CLAIMS OF
 
    INFRINGEMENTS ON MANAGEMENT RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY AS FOUND IN THE TWO
 1978 DECISIONS ABOVE.  IF
 
    THE NEW AUTHORITY IS FAITHFUL TO THESE INTERPRETATIVE GUIDELINES, THE
 ULTIMATE EXERCISE OF THE
 
    SPECIFIED MANAGERIAL RESPONSIBILITY, THE ONLY SUBJECT EXEMPTED FROM
 THE BARGAINING OBLIGATION,
 
    WILL BE PROTECTED AND THE GENERAL OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN OVER
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WILL BE
 
    UNIMPAIRED.  HOWEVER, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT ONLY THOSE PROPOSALS THAT
 DIRECTLY AND INTEGRALLY
 
    GO TO THE SPECIFIED MANAGEMENT RIGHTS BE BARRED FROM THE
 NEGOTIATIONS.
 
    124 CONG.REC. H9638(DAILY ED. SEPT. 13, 1978).
 
    SEE ALSO THE STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FORD OF MICHIGAN, 124 CONG.REC.
 H9649(DAILY ED. SEPT. 13, 1978).
 
    /9/ SEE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE,
 REGION VIII, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. O-NG-3, 2 FLRA NO.
 30,(DEC. 13, 1979), REPORT NO.  . . . AT 4 OF THE DECISION.
 
    /10/ WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (UNABRIDGED),
 (1966).
 
    /11/ CF. FEDERAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, 41 C.F.R.
 101-17.2.
 
    /12/ SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA.
 
    /13/ SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR
 ORGANIZATION FROM
 
    NEGOTIATING--
 
    (1) AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY, . . . ON THE TECHNOLOGY .  . . OF
 PERFORMING WORK . . .
 
    /14/ IN SO DECIDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN,
 THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSAL.
 
    /15/ SECTION 7106(A)(2) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
    (A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
 CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE
 
    AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS--
 
    (A) TO . . . ASSIGN . . . EMPLOYEES IN THE AGENCY . . . ;
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (C) WITH RESPECT TO FILLING POSITIONS, TO MAKE SELECTIONS FOR
 APPOINTMENTS FROM--
 
    (I) AMONG PROPERLY RANKED AND CERTIFIED CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION;  OR
 
    (II) ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE . . .  .
 
    /16/ SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA.
 
    /17/ IN SO DECIDING THAT UNION PROPOSAL III IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THAT
 PROPOSAL.
 
    /18/ THE UNION INDICATES THAT IT DOES NOT INTEND THE TERMS
 "QUALIFIED" AND "WITH REQUISITE SKILLS" TO MEAN THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BE
 FULLY QUALIFIED TO FILL THE POSITION ON A PERMANENT BASIS IN ORDER TO BE
 TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED UNDER THE PROPOSALS AT ISSUE HEREIN.  THE PROPOSALS
 ARE INTERPRETED AS CONSISTENT WITH THIS INTENT.
 
    /19/ FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL, CHAP. 335, SUBCHAP. 1-4, REQUIREMENT 4
 PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SECTION PROCEDURES WILL PROVIDE FOR MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO SELECT OR
 NOT SELECT FROM AMONG A
 
    GROUP OF BEST QUALIFIED CANDIDATES.  THEY WILL ALSO PROVIDE FOR
 MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO SELECT
 
    FROM OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCES, SUCH AS REEMPLOYMENT PRIORITY LISTS,
 REINSTATEMENT, TRANSFER,
 
    HANDICAPPED, OR VETERANS READJUSTMENT ELIGIBLES OR THOSE WITHIN REACH
 ON AN APPROPRIATE OPM
 
    CERTIFICATE.  IN DECIDING WHICH SOURCE OR SOURCES TO USE, AGENCIES
 HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO
 
    DETERMINE WHICH IS MOST LIKELY TO BEST MEET THE AGENCY MISSION
 OBJECTIVES, CONTRIBUTE FRESH
 
    IDEAS AND NEW VIEWPOINTS, AND MEET THE AGENCY'S AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
 GOALS.
 
    /20/ SEE, NOTE 15, SUPRA.
 
    /21/ SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA.
 
    /22/ SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
    (A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
 CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE
 
    AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--
 
    (1) TO DETERMINE THE . . . ORGANIZATION . . . OF THE AGENCY
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR
 ORGANIZATION FROM
 
    NEGOTIATING--
 
    (1) AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY, . . . ON THE . . .  METHODS, AND
 MEANS OF PERFORMING WORK
 
    . . .
 
    /23/ IN SO DECIDING THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSALS ARE WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE
 PROPOSALS.
 
    /24/ SECTION 7103 OF H.R. 11280 AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
 POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE PROVIDED, IN RELEVANT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7103.  DEFINITIONS;  APPLICATION
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (14) 'CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT' MEANS PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES,
 AND MATTERS, WHETHER
 
    ESTABLISHED BY RULE, REGULATION, OR OTHERWISE, AFFECTING WORKING
 CONDITIONS, EXCEPT THAT SUCH
 
    TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND MATTERS--
 
    (A) RELATING TO DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ON THE BASIS OF RACE,
 COLOR, RELIGION, SEX,
 
    AGE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, OR HANDICAPPING CONDITION . . . .
 
    /25/ SECTION 7103 OF THE BILL (H.R. 11280) AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE
 PROVIDED, IN RELEVANT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7103.  DEFINITIONS;  APPLICATION
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (14) 'CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT' MEANS PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES,
 AND MATTERS, WHETHER
 
    ESTABLISHED BY RULE, REGULATION, OR OTHERWISE, AFFECTING WORKING
 CONDITIONS, EXCEPT THAT SUCH
 
    TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND MATTERS--
 
    (A) RELATING TO DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ON THE BASIS OF RACE,
 COLOR, RELIGION, SEX,
 
    AGE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, OR HANDICAPPING CONDITION, WITHIN AN AGENCY
 SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION
 
    OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION . . . .
 
    /26/ CF., IN PARTICULAR, SECTION 7202, DEFINITIONS, OF THE BILL (S.
 2640) AS PASSED BY THE SENATE.  SEE ALSO SECTION 7215, REPRESENTATION
 RIGHTS AND DUTIES, OF THE SENATE BILL.
 
    /27/ SECTION 7103 OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7103. DEFINITIONS;  APPLICATION
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (14) 'CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT' MEANS PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES,
 AND MATTERS, WHETHER
 
    ESTABLISHED BY RULE, REGULATION, OR OTHERWISE, AFFECTING WORKING
 CONDITIONS, EXCEPT THAT SUCH
 
    TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND MATTERS--
 
    (A) RELATING TO POLITICAL ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED UNDER SUBCHAPTER III
 OF CHAPTER 73 OF THIS
 
    TITLE;
 
    (B) RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF ANY POSITION;  OR
 
    (C) TO THE EXTENT SUCH MATTERS ARE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY
 FEDERAL STATUTE.
 
    /28/ SEE 42 U.S.C. 2000E-- 16.
 
    /29/ SEE, E.G., 5 C.F.R. 713.201FF. AND FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL,
 CHAP. 713.
 
    /30/ S. REP. NO. 95-1272, 95TH CONG., 2ND SESS. 154(1978).
 
    /31/ SECTION 7114 OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7114.  REPRESENTATION RIGHTS AND DUTIES
 
    (A)(1) A LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH HAS BEEN ACCORDED EXCLUSIVE
 RECOGNITION IS THE EXCLUSIVE
 
    REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT IT REPRESENTS AND IS
 ENTITLED TO ACT FOR, AND
 
    NEGOTIATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS COVERING ALL EMPLOYEES IN
 THE UNIT.  . . .
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (4) ANY AGENCY AND ANY EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE IN ANY APPROPRIATE
 UNIT, THROUGH
 
    APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATIVES, SHALL MEET AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH
 FOR PURPOSES OF ARRIVING
 
    AT A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  . . .
 
    /32/ SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA.
 
    /33/ SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
    (A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
 CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE
 
    AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OF ANY AGENCY--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS--
 
    (B) TO ASSIGN WORK . . .
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR
 ORGANIZATION FROM
 
    NEGOTIATING--
 
    (1) AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGENCY, ON THE NUMBERS, TYPES, AND GRADES
 OF EMPLOYEES OR
 
    POSITIONS ASSIGNED TO ANY ORGANIZATIONAL SUBDIVISION, WORK PROJECT,
 OR TOUR OF DUTY.  . . .
 
    /34/ IN SO DECIDING THAT SUBSECTION A OF THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL IS
 WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE
 MERITS OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL.
 
    /35/ IT IS NOTED THAT THIS PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS ENTIRELY
 CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY, AS
 EXPRESSED IN THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL (FPM) CONCERNING THE MAXIMUM
 UTILIZATION OF SKILLS.  IN THIS REGARD, FPM, CHAP. 713, SUBCHAP. 2-4(C)
 PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    C.  MAXIMUM UTILIZATION OF SKILLS.  THE AGENCY SHALL UTILIZE TO THE
 FULLEST EXTENT THE
 
    PRESENT SKILLS OF ITS EMPLOYEES.  WHERE FEASIBLE, THE AGENCY SHALL
 REDESIGN JOBS SO THAT TASKS
 
    NOT REQUIRING THE FULL UTILIZATION OF THE INCUMBENTS' SKILLS BE
 ASSIGNED TO JOBS WITH LOWER
 
    SKILL REQUIREMENTS.  THIS WILL AFFORD GREATER OPPORTUNITY TO
 EMPLOYEES TO PERFECT THEIR
 
    SKILLS, WHILE OPENING UP JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH LOWER
 SKILLS.  . . .
 
    /36/ CF. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 66 AND INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, KANSAS CITY SERVICE CENTER, CASE NO. O-NG-19, 1 FLRA
 NO. 106,(SEPT. 13, 1979), REPORT NO. 16.
 
    /37/ SEE NOTE 33, SUPRA.
 
    /38/ THE PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSAL SET FORTH HEREIN ARE THOSE WHICH
 ARE IN DISPUTE.  THE WHOLE PROPOSAL IS SET FORTH IN APPENDIX B.
 
    /39/ SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SEC. 7106.  MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR
 ORGANIZATION FROM
 
    NEGOTIATING--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING
 ANY AUTHORITY UNDER
 
    THIS SECTION . . .
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    /40/ IN SO DECIDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN,
 THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSAL.
 
    /41/ AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1999
 AND ARMY-AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, DIX-MCGUIRE EXCHANGE, FORT DIX, NEW
 JERSEY, CASE NO.  O-NG-20, 2 FLRA NO. 16,(NOV. 29, 1979), REPORT NO.  .
 . . .
 
    /42/ IBID AT 2-4 OF THE DECISION.
 
    /43/ CF. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTERS 103 AND 111 AND
 U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, REGION VII, CASE NO. O-NG-16, 2 FLRA NO. 15,(NOV.
 29, 1979), REPORT NO.  . . .  .
 
    /44/ SEE NOTE 15, SUPRA.
 
    /45/ SEE 5 C.F.R. 351.701 - 351.705.  SEE ALSO FEDERAL PERSONNEL
 MANUAL, CHAP. 351, SUBCHAP. 7.
 
    /46/ 5 C.F.R. 351.201(B).  SEE ALSO FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL, CHAP.
 351, SUBCHAP. 7-1.B.
 
    /47/ SEE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL, CHAP. 351, SUBCHAP. 7-3.C.(3).
 
    /48/ SEE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL, CHAP. 351, SUBCHAP. 7-3.C.(1) -
 (2).
 
    /49/ SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA.
 
    /50/ THE AGENCY CITES UNITED STATES V. TESTAN, ET AL., 424 U.S.  392,
 406(1976) AND DIANISH, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 183 CT.CL. 702(1968).
 
    /51/ IN SO DECIDING THAT THE PROPOSALS ARE WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS