Aircraft Fire and Rescue Division, Air Operations Department, Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Virginia (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2255, AFL-CIO (Complainant) 

 



[ v03 p118 ]
03:0118(18)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 3 FLRA No. 18
 
 AIRCRAFT FIRE AND RESCUE DIVISION,
 AIR OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT,
 NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2225, AFL-CIO
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 22-09088(CA)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING ISSUED
 HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
 ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND
 RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.  THEREAFTER, THE COMPLAINANT FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, AND A
 SUPPORTING BRIEF.
 
    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 RULES AND REGULATIONS
 (45 F.R. 3482, JANUARY 17, 1980).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE
 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN
 SECTION 7135(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S 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 THE SUBJECT
 CASE, INCLUDING THE COMPLAINANTS' EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTING BRIEF, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS,
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION.
 
                                 ORDER /0/
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE 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 AIRCRAFT FIRE AND RESCUE DIVISION, AIR OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT,
 NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INSTITUTING ANY FUTURE CHANGE IN THE PLACE OF DUTY OR WORKSITE,
 INVOLVING EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2225, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE, AND AFFORDING IT AN OPPORTUNITY
 TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON
 THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE
 OF WORKSITE, AND ON THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE OF WORKSITE WILL HAVE ON
 ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) 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, OR REFUSING TO CONSULT, CONFER, OR
 NEGOTIATE WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES AS REQUIRED
 BY THE ORDER.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2225, AFL-CIO, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT
 OBSERVED
 IN IMPLEMENTING A CHANGE OF PLACE OF DUTY OR WORKSITE INVOLVING ITS
 EMPLOYEES FROM BUILDING LP-166 TO STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2, NORFOLK
 NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AND THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE OF
 WORKSITE HAD ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) POST AT ALL FACILITIES AND INSTALLATIONS OF THE AIRCRAFT FIRE AND
 RESCUE DIVISION, AIR OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK,
 VIRGINIA, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE
 FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE
 SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE AIRCRAFT FIRE AND RESCUE DIVISION, AIR
 OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AND SHALL
 BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE
 NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DIRECTOR 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.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 28, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
           PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 
            RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 
          POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES
 
              CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT INSTITUTE ANY FUTURE CHANGE IN THE PLACE OF DUTY OR
 WORKSITE, INVOLVING EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2225, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE, AND AFFORDING IT AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATIONS, ON THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN
 IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE OF WORKSITE, AND ON THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE OF
 WORKSITE WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    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, OR REFUSE TO CONSULT, CONFER, OR
 NEGOTIATE WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES AS REQUIRED
 BY THE ORDER.
 
    WE WILL UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2225, AFL-CIO, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT
 OBSERVED
 IN IMPLEMENTING A CHANGE OF PLACE OF DUTY OR WORKSITE INVOLVING OUR
 EMPLOYEES FROM BUILDING LP-166 TO STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2, NORFOLK
 NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AND THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE OF
 WORKSITE HAD ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR SIXTY (60) CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM
 THE DATE OF POSTING, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  ROOM
 401, 1730 K STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE
 NUMBER IS (202) 653-7213.
 
    EDWARD E. RUTLEDGE
 
    NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
 
    AFGE, AFL-CIO
 
    POST OFFICE BOX 15126
 
    CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23320
 
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    WALTER BAGBY
 
    LABOR RELATIONS ADVISOR
 
    BUILDING A-67
 
    NAVAL AIR STATION
 
    NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23511
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM A. POPE, II
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                      RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THIS CASE AROSE PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AS A
 RESULT OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT FILED ON JUNE 21, 1978, AS
 AMENDED ON OCTOBER 31, 1978, BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2225, AFL-CIO (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE
 COMPLAINANT), AGAINST THE AIRCRAFT FIRE AND RESCUE DIVISION, AIR
 OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA (HEREINAFTER
 REFERRED TO AS THE RESPONDENT), ALLEGING THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BY INSTITUTING A CHANGE
 IN WORKSITE OF UNIT EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED AT THE NAVAL AIR STATION,
 NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, WITHOUT PRIOR NEGOTIATION WITH THE COMPLAINANT OVER
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  A HEARING WAS HELD IN NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AT
 WHICH BOTH PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED AND AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO
 PRESENT EVIDENCE, CROSS-EXAMINE ADVERSE WITNESSES, AND PRESENT ORAL
 ARGUMENT ON THE ISSUES.  POST-HEARING BRIEFS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE
 PARTIES AND DULY CONSIDERED.
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    COMPLAINANT IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT FOR A UNIT COMPOSED OF
 ALL NON-SUPERVISORY, GRADED, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE
 AIRCRAFT FIRE AND RESCUE DIVISION, AIR OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, NAVAL AIR
 STATION, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF WHICH IS TO PROVIDE
 AIRCRAFT FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES AT THE NAVAL AIR STATION.
 
    AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT THE NAVAL AIR STATION INVOLVE BOTH FIXED-WING
 AND ROTARY WING (HELICOPTERS) AIRCRAFT, WHICH UTILIZE AN AIRFIELD, KNOWN
 AS CHAMBERS FIELD, AND A HELIPORT.  PRIOR TO APRIL 3, 1978, AIRCRAFT
 FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES WERE PROVIDED AT BOTH LOCATIONS BY FIRE
 FIGHTERS, REPRESENTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AS EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT,
 WHO WERE STATIONED AT BUILDING LP-166, WHICH IS LOCATED IN CLOSE
 PROXIMITY TO CHAMBERS FIELD.  FIRE FIGHTING CREWS ASSIGNED TO COVER AIR
 OPERATIONS AT THE HELIPORT, WHICH IS SEVERAL MILES DISTANT, WERE
 DISPATCHED FROM BUILDING LP-166 AND REMAINED AT THE HELIPORT WHILE AIR
 OPERATIONS WERE IN PROGRESS.
 
    AS A RESULT OF AN INSPECTION CONDUCTED BETWEEN JUNE 1 AND JUNE 7,
 1976, THE AREA FIRE MARSHAL, ATLANTIC DIVISION, NAVAL FACILITIES
 ENGINEERING COMMAND, RECOMMENDED NUMEROUS CHANGES, INCLUDING THAT THE
 HELIPORT BE DESIGNATED A CATEGORY 2 AIRFIELD, AND THAT "TWO MB-5 (CRASH
 TRUCK) CREWS BE ASSIGNED TO THE HELIPORT DURING FLIGHT OPERATIONS
 UTILIZING STRUCTURAL STATION #2 AS A CFR STATION FOR STANDBY ALERT
 VEHICLE." /1/ RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 1.
 
    NO OFFICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT THE FIRE MARSHAL'S
 RECOMMENDATION THAT AIRCRAFT CRASH/FIRE AND RESCUE CREWS UTILIZE
 STRUCTURAL STATION #2 AS A BASE OF OPERATIONS WHILE ON STANDBY ALERT
 STATUS AT THE HELIPORT, UNTIL LANGLEY JAMES, THE CRASH FIRE CHIEF,
 NOTIFIED HIS PERSONNEL THAT EFFECTIVE APRIL 3, 1978, AIRCRAFT CRASH AND
 RESCUE CREWS ASSIGNED TO DUTY AT THE HELIPORT WOULD SPEND THEIR STANDBY
 TIME AT STRUCTURAL STATION #2.  /2/ HOWEVER, SINCE SLEEPING QUARTERS,
 AND EATING FACILITIES WERE NOT INITIALLY AVAILABLE AT STRUCTURAL STATION
 #2 FOR THEIR USE, THE CREWS CONTINUED TO MAINTAIN QUARTERS AT BUILDING
 LP-166 UNTIL ON OR ABOUT MAY 7, 1978, WHEN SUCH FACILITIES BECAME
 AVAILABLE FOR THEM AT STRUCTURAL STATION #2.  /3/
 
    CHIEF JAMES TESTIFIED THAT HE KNEW IN 1976, THROUGH CONVERSATIONS
 WITH HIS SUPERIORS AND THE CHIEF OF THE STRUCTURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT WHICH
 TOOK PLACE SOMETIME AFTER RECEIVING THE FIRE MARSHAL'S RECOMMENDATIONS,
 THAT EVENTUALLY AIRCRAFT CRASH AND RESCUE CREWS ASSIGNED TO THE HELIPORT
 WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO STRUCTURAL STATION #2;  HOWEVER, SUCH A TRANSFER
 COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED UNTIL MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO STRUCTURAL
 STATION #1 TO ACCOMMODATE THE STRUCTURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT WHICH
 WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM STRUCTURAL STATION #2 TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE
 AIRCRAFT CRASH AND RESCUE CREWS AND THEIR EQUIPMENT.  CHIEF JAMES STATED
 THAT HE RECEIVED THE FIRE MARSHAL'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN
 AUGUST, 1976, AND THAT HE POSTED A COPY OF IT WHERE THE MEMBERS OF HIS
 DEPARTMENT COULD READ IT, AND HELD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH THEM DURING
 WHICH THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE DISCUSSED.
 
    CHIEF JAMES ALSO RECALLED MEETINGS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS WITH VARIOUS
 UNION SHOP STEWARDS DURING WHICH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S RECOMMENDATIONS
 WERE
 DISCUSSED, INCLUDING A MEETING WITH VINCENT J. LISA, JR. WHO WAS THEN AN
 ACTING UNION SHOP STEWARD, IN FEBRUARY, 1978, DURING WHICH HE WAS "SURE
 I MENTIONED THE FACT THAT THE CHIEF, CHIEF BROADWAY WAS WORKING ON NO. 2
 STATION, BUT DIDN'T HAVE A TIMEFRAME THAT HE'D BE ABLE TO MOVE OUT
 BECAUSE THIS IS AN 85 FOOT AERIAL TRUCK THEY HAD TO MAKE ROOM TO GET
 IN." TRANSCRIPT, PAGE 102.  CHIEF JAMES ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE DID NOT
 INDICATE TO LISA THAT A DECISION HAD BEEN MADE TO USE STRUCTURAL STATION
 NO. 2, AND THAT HE SOLICITED AND DISCUSSED RECOMMENDATIONS OFFERED BY
 LISA CONCERNING OTHER LOCATIONS WHICH MIGHT BE SUITABLE.
 
    WHEN HE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION FROM CHIEF BROADWAY ON OR ABOUT MARCH
 28, 1978, THAT SPACE WAS AVAILABLE IN STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2, CHIEF
 JAMES TOOK IMMEDIATE MEASURES TO NOTIFY THE PERSONNEL UNDER HIS COMMAND
 THAT THE HELIPORT CREWS WOULD BEGIN USING THAT LOCATION WHILE ON
 STANDBY, EFFECTIVE APRIL 3, 1978.  IT WAS CHIEF JAMES' OPINION THAT
 ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYEES WAS NOT A MATTER WHICH MANAGEMENT WAS REQUIRED
 TO NEGOTIATE, AND, IN ANY EVENT, THE UNION WAS GENERALLY AWARE THAT IT
 WOULD BE NECESSARY TO RELOCATE THE STANDBY LOCATION FOR CREWS ASSIGNED
 TO AIRCRAFT CRASH AND RESCUE DUTY AT THE HELIPORT, BUT THEY HAD NEVER
 REQUESTED BARGAINING ON THE ISSUE.  /4/ ACCORDING TO CHIEF JAMES, THE
 FIRST NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING THE MATTER WHICH THE UNION REQUESTED CAME
 AFTER THE CHANGE HAD BEEN IMPLEMENTED, AND INVOLVED LIVING
 ACCOMMODATIONS AT STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2.
 
    VINCENT J. LISA, JR., THE ACTING UNION SHOP STEWARD DURING MARCH AND
 APRIL, 1978, TESTIFIED THAT HE FIRST LEARNED ON APRIL 4, 1978, THAT
 HELIPORT CREWS WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2, ALTHOUGH
 HE WAS GENERALLY AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENT TO RELOCATE THE HELIPORT CRASH
 AND RESCUE CREWS FROM READING THE FIRE MARSHAL'S REPORT IN 1976.  LISA
 TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD MET WITH CHIEF JAMES APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS
 PREVIOUSLY TO DISCUSS THE CHANGES WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE CONCERNING
 THE HELIPORT CREWS, AT WHICH TIME HE WAS ASKED FOR AND MADE SEVERAL
 RECOMMENDATIONS.  CHIEF JAMES TOLD HIM THAT "(W)ELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT
 WE'RE GOING TO DO RIGHT NOW, BUT I WILL GET BACK WITH YOU LATER,
 (TRANSCRIPT, PAGE 33);  HOWEVER, HE DID NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS
 WITH CHIEF JAMES UNTIL AFTER THE ASSIGNMENT OF HELIPORT CREWS TO
 STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2 HAD BEEN IMPLEMENTED.  LISA STATED THAT THE
 FACILITIES INITIALLY PROVIDED FOR THE USE OF AIRCRAFT CRASH AND RESCUE
 CREWS AT STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2 WERE INADEQUATE, THAT THE FACILITY,
 ITSELF, WAS IN VIOLATION OF SAFETY REGULATIONS, AND THERE WAS FRICTION
 BETWEEN THE CRASH CREWS AND THE STRUCTURAL FIREMAN ASSIGNED TO THE
 BUILDING.  THESE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS WERE THE SUBJECT OF
 SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE UNION AND MANAGEMENT, AND MANY OF THE
 PROBLEMS WERE RESOLVED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  /5/
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    1.  COMPLAINANT IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT FOR
 NON-SUPERVISORY, GRADED, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE
 AIRCRAFT FIRE AND RESCUE DIVISION, AIR OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, NAVAL AIR
 STATION, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AND WAS SO AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL TO THIS
 CASE.
 
    2.  AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL TO THIS CASE, AIRCRAFT CRASH AND RESCUE
 PERSONNEL EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT AS FIRE FIGHTERS HAVE PROVIDED
 AIRCRAFT CRASH, FIRE, AND RESCUE SERVICES AT THE NORFOLK NAVAL AIR
 STATION.
 
    3.  PRIOR TO ON OR ABOUT APRIL 3, 1978, ALL UNIT EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED
 BY THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICES WERE QUARTERED IN BUILDING
 LP-166, LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO CHAMBERS FIELD, WHICH IS USED FOR
 FIXED WING AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, AND SEVERAL MILES DISTANT FROM THE
 HELIPORT, WHICH IS USED FOR HELICOPTER AIR OPERATIONS.
 
    4.  BASED UPON AN INSPECTION CONDUCTED BETWEEN JUNE 1 AND JUNE 7,
 1976, THE AREA FIRE MARSHAL, ATLANTIC DIVISION, NAVAL FACILITIES
 ENGINEERING COMMAND, RECOMMENDED THAT THE HELIPORT BE DESIGNATED A
 CATEGORY 2 AIRFIELD, AND THAT CRASH AND RESCUE CREWS ASSIGNED TO
 HELIPORT DUTY BE QUARTERED IN STRUCTURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT STATION NO. 2.
 
    5.  OFFICIALS OF THE RESPONDENT, INCLUDING CRASH FIRE CHIEF LANGLEY
 JAMES, MADE THE DECISION SOMETIME IN THE LATTER PART OF 1976 TO RELOCATE
 HELIPORT CRASH AND RESCUE CREWS TO STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2 WHEN SPACE
 IN THAT FACILITY BECAME AVAILABLE, AFTER ALTERATIONS WERE MADE TO OTHER
 STRUCTURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE STRUCTURAL FIRE
 DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE RELOCATED
 FROM
 STRUCTURAL STATION NO.  2 TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE AIRCRAFT CRASH AND RESCUE
 CREWS.
 
    6.  COPIES OF THE FIRE MARSHAL'S 1976 REPORT WERE MADE AVAILABLE FOR
 PERSONNEL OF THE CRASH FIRE DEPARTMENT TO READ SOON AFTER THE REPORT WAS
 RECEIVED BY CRASH FIRE CHIEF LANGLEY JAMES.
 
    7.  CRASH FIRE CHIEF JAMES MET WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE CRASH FIRE
 DEPARTMENT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS DURING THE 1976 AND LATER YEARS, AND
 DISCUSSED GENERALLY THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRE MARSHAL'S 1976 REPORT AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
    8.  SOMETIME IN MARCH, 1978, FIRE CHIEF JAMES HAD A MEETING WITH
 ACTING UNION SHOP STEWARD VINCENT J. LISA, JR., DURING WHICH CHIEF JAMES
 STATED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT CHANGES WOULD BE MADE CONCERNING THE
 HELIPORT CREWS AND SOLICITED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LISA.
 
    9.  ON OR ABOUT MARCH 28, 1978, CHIEF JAMES WAS NOTIFIED BY THE
 STRUCTURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT CHIEF THAT SPACE WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE USE OF
 HELIPORT CRASH AND RESCUE CREWS AND THEIR EQUIPMENT AT STRUCTURAL
 STATION NO. 2, AND CONTEMPORANEOUSLY, CHIEF JAMES ISSUED ORDERS TO THE
 PERSONNEL OF HIS DEPARTMENT THAT EFFECTIVE APRIL 3, 1978, HELIPORT CREWS
 WOULD BEGIN USING STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2 WHILE ON STANDBY.
 
    10.  AT NO TIME PRIOR TO ISSUING THE ORDER RELOCATING HELIPORT CREWS
 TO STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2 EFFECTIVE APRIL 3, 1978, DID CHIEF JAMES OR
 ANY OFFICIALS OF THE RESPONDENT NOTIFY THE COMPLAINANT OF
 NON-SUPERVISORY UNIT PERSONNEL, THAT A DECISION HAD BEEN MADE BY
 MANAGEMENT CONCERNING EITHER THE LOCATION OF THE NEW WORKSITE TO WHICH
 HELIPORT CRASH AND RESCUE CREWS WOULD BE ASSIGNED, OR WHEN THE CHANGE
 WOULD TAKE PLACE.
 
    11.  AT NO TIME PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHANGE DID THE
 COMPLAINANT REQUEST BARGAINING ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY
 CHANGE IN WORKSITE INVOLVING UNIT PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO HELIPORT DUTY.
 
                DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
    IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE COMPLAINANT DOES NOT ARGUE THAT THE
 RESPONDENT WAS OBLIGATED TO NEGOTIATE THE DECISION TO CHANGE THE
 WORKSITE OF THE HELIPORT CREWS;  RATHER, THE COMPLAINANT CONTENDS THAT
 IT WAS ENTITLED TO NOTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE AND THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  THE FAILURE OF THE
 RESPONDENT TO NOTIFY IT OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE BEFORE THE CHANGE WAS
 IMPLEMENTED, THE COMPLAINANT CONTENDS, EFFECTIVELY DENIED IT THE RIGHT
 TO NEGOTIATE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, CONTRARY TO SECTIONS 19(A)(1)
 AND (6) OF THE ORDER.  THE RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, IN ADDITION TO
 ARGUING THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO CONSULT WITH THE COMPLAINANT
 CONCERNING THE DECISION TO ESTABLISH A PERMANENT WORKSITE IN CLOSE
 PROXIMITY TO THE HELIPORT, CONTENDS THAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS WELL AWARE
 OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN WATCH ASSIGNMENT, THAT MEETINGS WERE HELD BY
 MANAGEMENT BETWEEN 1976 AND 1978 FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING THE
 COMPLAINANT'S MEMBERS INFORMED, AND, IN ANY EVENT, THE ONLY CHANGE WAS A
 CHANGE IN THE PLACE WHERE FIRE FIGHTERS ASSIGNED TO HELIPORT DUTY WERE
 REQUIRED TO SLEEP.  THE RESPONDENT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE COMPLAINANT
 HAD THE OBLIGATION TO REQUEST NEGOTIATIONS ON THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT DECISION, IF IT DESIRED THEM, BUT DID NOT DO SO,
 AND THAT THE ISSUE OF THE QUALITY OF LIVING CONDITIONS AT STRUCTURAL
 STATION NO. 2 WAS NOT RAISED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND, THEREFORE, IS BARRED
 BY SECTION 203.2(A)(3) OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S REGULATIONS.
 
    NOTWITHSTANDING THAT A PARTICULAR MANAGEMENT DECISION IS NOT
 NEGOTIABLE UNDER SECTION 11(B) OR 12(B) OF THE ORDER, AN AGENCY MUST,
 NEVERTHELESS, AFFORD AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE REASONABLE NOTICE AND
 AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION
 OF THE DECISION, PRIOR TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION, WHEN SUCH DECISION EFFECTS
 A CHANGE IN EXISTING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES OR WORKING
 CONDITIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE BARGAINING UNIT, PROVIDED IT DOES NOT
 INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE RESERVED RIGHTS THEMSELVES.
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, A/SLMR NO.
 984(1978);  U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER, 7 A/SLMR
 255, A/SLMR NO. 814(1977).  OR, AS SUMMARIZED IN THE DECISION OF THE
 ACTING REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR ON APRIL 4, 1977, IN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
 TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, CASE NO. 22-07742(CA),
 AFFIRMED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR ON NOVEMBER 11, 1977:
 
    THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, IN NUMEROUS PRECEDENTIAL DECISIONS, HAS
 FIRMLY ESTABLISHED THE
 
    PRINCIPLE THAT AN AGENCY OR ACTIVITY, WHICH IS A PARTY TO A
 BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP WITH A
 
    LABOR ORGANIZATION AS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, IS
 OBLIGATED UNDER SECTION
 
    11(A) OF THE ORDER TO PROVIDE THAT LABOR ORGANIZATION WITH A
 REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
 
    NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW OR REGULATION, OVER THE
 IMPACT ON UNIT EMPLOYEES
 
    AND METHOD OF IMPLEMENTING ANY CHANGE WITH RESPECT TO PERSONNEL
 POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND
 
    MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS, EVEN WHEN THE DECISION ITSELF
 TO EFFECT SUCH A CHANGE IS
 
    RESERVED TO MANAGEMENT AS NON-NEGOTIABLE UNDER SECTION 11(B) OR 12(B)
 OF THE ORDER.
 
    MOREOVER, THIS OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH, WHICH IS
 IMPOSED BY SECTION 11(A) OF
 
    THE ORDER, IS NOT MET UNLESS THE LABOR ORGANIZATION IS PROVIDED WITH
 REASONABLE NOTICE OF THE
 
    PROPOSED CHANGE PRIOR TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTUATION;  AND AN
 AGENCY FAILING TO SO
 
    NOTIFY THE LABOR ORGANIZATION IN ADVANCE OF EFFECTING A CHANGE IS
 DEEMED TO BE IN DEROGATION
 
    OF ITS BARGAINING OBLIGATIONS AND IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1)
 AND (6) OF THE ORDER.
 
    HOWEVER, IT IS EQUALLY WELL ESTABLISHED IN PRECEDENT DECISIONS OF THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY
 
    AND THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS COUNCIL THAT ONCE AN AGENCY PROVIDES
 THE EXCLUSIVE
 
    REPRESENTATIVE WITH REASONABLE NOTICE OF A PLANNED CHANGE, ITS
 OBLIGATION UNDER SECTION 11(A)
 
    OF THE ORDER IS FULLY DISCHARGED AND NO FURTHER OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN
 OVER THE CHANGE ARISES
 
    UNTIL THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AFFIRMATIVELY ACTS TO MAKE A
 TIMELY REQUEST FOR
 
    NEGOTIATION.
 
    THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE CHANGE OF WORKSITE FOR HELIPORT
 CREWS EFFECTED A CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES, IN THIS
 INSTANCE THE FIRE FIGHTERS EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT.  THE CHANGE
 DIRECTLY AFFECTED THE PLACE WHERE THE HELIPORT CREWS SPENT THEIR 24 HOUR
 TOURS OF DUTY, WHEN NOT ACTUALLY AT THE HELIPORT DURING AIR OPERATIONS,
 INCLUDING THE PLACE WHERE THEY ATE, SLEPT, RELAXED WHEN ON STANDBY,
 TRAINED, AND MAINTAINED THEIR EQUIPMENT.  CLEARLY, THE CHANGE OF
 WORKSITE TO STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2 WAS ONE AS TO WHICH THE RESPONDENT
 WAS REQUIRED BY SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER TO AFFORD THE COMPLAINANT THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN WITH RESPECT TO IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  THE
 QUESTION WHICH REMAINS, THEREFORE, IS THAT OF WHETHER OR NOT THE
 COMPLAINANT HAD REASONABLE NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE, SO THAT ITS
 FAILURE TO REQUEST BARGAINING IN A TIMELY FASHION AMOUNTS TO A WAIVER OF
 THE RIGHT. /6/
 
    UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING ALL TESTIMONY AND
 EVIDENTIARY EXHIBITS, I CONCLUDE, AND FIND, THAT NO STEPS WERE TAKEN BY
 THE RESPONDENT PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION TO NOTIFY THE COMPLAINANT THAT
 MANAGEMENT PROPOSED TO CHANGE THE WORKSITE OF CRASH AND RESCUE CREWS
 ASSIGNED TO HELIPORT DUTY FROM BUILDING LP-166 TO STRUCTURAL STATION NO.
 2, EITHER UPON A DATE CERTAIN, OR UPON SOME AS YET UNSPECIFIED FUTURE
 DATE.  I FURTHER CONCLUDE, AND FIND, THAT ALTHOUGH THE MEMBERS OF LOCAL
 2225, THE COMPLAINANT, WERE GENERALLY AWARE SINCE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRE
 MARSHAL'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN 1976 THAT SOME CHANGE IN
 WORKSITE OF HELIPORT CREWS PROBABLY WOULD BE MADE, AND THAT THE FIRE
 MARSHAL HAD RECOMMENDED STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2, THEY DID NOT KNOW IN
 ADVANCE OF THE RESPONDENT'S ORDER IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE IN WORKSITE OF
 HELIPORT CREWS FROM BUILDING LP-166 TO STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2
 EFFECTIVE APRIL 3, 1978, EITHER THE LOCATION SELECTED BY THE RESPONDENT
 OR WHEN THE WORKSITE WOULD BE CHANGED.
 
    THE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE WORKSITE OF HELIPORT CREWS WAS ONE WHICH
 WAS LEFT PENDING FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS, DURING WHICH IT WAS THE SUBJECT
 OF A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN UNION AND MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES,
 BUT AS TO WHICH MANAGEMENT HAD SEEMINGLY MADE NO DECISION.  /7/ THE
 COMPLAINANT HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A DECISION HAD BEEN MADE BY
 MANAGEMENT, PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN IT WAS OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED AS PART
 OF AN IMPLEMENTATION ORDER ON OR ABOUT APRIL 3, 1978, OR THAT WHEN
 MANAGEMENT DID MAKE A DECISION, IT WOULD NECESSARILY ADOPT THE FIRE
 MARSHAL'S RECOMMENDATION.  INDEED, CHIEF JAMES' STATEMENTS TO THE ACTING
 UNION SHOP STEWARD IN MARCH, 1978, APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS BEFORE HE
 ISSUED THE IMPLEMENTATION ORDER, SERVED TO LULL THE COMPLAINANT INTO A
 FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY THAT NO DECISION HAD BEEN MADE, WHEN, IN FACT,
 CHIEF JAMES HAD KNOWN SINCE 1976 THAT, BARRING SOME UNEXPECTED AND
 UNANTICIPATED EVENT, THE HELIPORT CREWS WOULD BE RELOCATED TO STRUCTURAL
 STATION NO. 2 AS SOON AS SPACE BECAME AVAILABLE.  UNDER THESE
 CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE ADVANCE NOTICE OF
 THE PROPOSED CHANGE, SUCH AS WOULD TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT
 REQUEST BARGAINING ON IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
 KNOWLEDGE, AS OPPOSED TO MERE SPECULATION OR CONJECTURE, OF WHERE
 MANAGEMENT PLANNED TO RELOCATE THE WORKSITE OF HELIPORT CREWS, THERE
 WAS
 NOTHING OVER WHICH TO BARGAIN CONCERNING IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, AND
 NO DUTY UPON THE COMPLAINANT TO REQUEST BARGAINING.  /8/
 
    THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT OF WHETHER THE RESPONDENT DENIED TO THE
 COMPLAINANT THE RIGHT TO BARGAIN OVER IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, NOT ONE
 OF WHETHER SOME ISSUES AFFECTING IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, BUT NOT
 OTHERS, WERE PROPERLY RAISED BY THE COMPLAINANT DURING PROCEEDINGS
 BELOW.  WHERE, AS HERE, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE EFFECTIVELY WAS DENIED ITS RIGHT, PURSUANT TO SECTION
 11(A) OF THE ORDER, TO BARGAIN OVER IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A
 MANAGEMENT DECISION AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS, IT IS IRRELEVANT AND
 IMMATERIAL TO ARGUE, AS DOES THE RESPONDENT, THAT THE COMPLAINANT FAILED
 TO RAISED SPECIFIC ISSUE CONCERNING IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION IN ITS
 COMPLAINT.  CF., SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BUREAU OF HEARINGS AND
 APPEALS, A/SLMR NO. 1176,(1978), IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO
 REQUIREMENT THAT AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE'S REQUEST FOR BARGAINING ON
 IMPACT SET FORTH ITS PROPOSALS.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE, AND FIND, THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY FAILING TO GIVE SPECIFIC
 ADVANCE NOTICE TO THE COMPLAINANT OF A CHANGE AFFECTING WORKING
 CONDITIONS AND THE WORKSITE OF HELIPORT CREWS, AND AFFORDING THE
 COMPLAINANT OF A CHANGE AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS AND THE WORKSITE OF
 HELIPORT CREWS, AND AFFORDING THE COMPLAINANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY
 TO REQUEST BARGAINING OVER ISSUES INVOLVING THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE.
 
                             RECOMMENDED ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, 29
 C.F.R. 203.26(B), AND SECTION 2400.2 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. 2400.2(1979), THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE
 AIRCRAFT FIRE AND RESCUE DIVISION, AIR OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, NAVAL AIR
 STATION, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INSTITUTING ANY FUTURE CHANGE IN THE PLACE OF DUTY OR WORKSITE,
 INVOLVING EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2225, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE, AND AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY
 TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON
 THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE
 OF WORKSITE, AND ON THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE OF WORKSITE WILL HAVE ON
 ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) 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, OR REFUSING TO CONSULT, CONFER, OR
 NEGOTIATE WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES AS REQUIRED
 BY THE ORDER.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2225, AFL-CIO, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT
 OBSERVED
 IN IMPLEMENTING A CHANGE OF PLACE OF DUTY OR WORKSITE FROM BUILDING
 LP-166 TO STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2, NORFOLK NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK,
 VIRGINIA, INVOLVING ITS EMPLOYEES, AND THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE OF
 WORKSITE HAD ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) POST AT ALL AIRCRAFT FIRE AND RESCUE DIVISION, AIR OPERATONS
 DEPARTMENT, NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, FACILITIES AND
 INSTALLATIONS COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS
 TO BE FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY
 SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE AIRCRAFT FIRE AND RESCUE
 DIVISION, AIR OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK,
 VIRGINIA, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE
 DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS
 AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE
 DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT
 ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) PURSUANT TO SECTION 203.27 OF THE REGULATIONS NOTIFY THE
 AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, AS TO
 THE STEPS TAKEN IN COMPLIANCE HEREWITH.
 
                            WILLIAM A. POPE, II
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  17 SEP 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 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE FEDERAL
 
                                  SERVICE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT INSTITUTE ANY FUTURE CHANGE IN THE PLACE OF DUTY OR
 WORKSITE, INVOLVING EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2225, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE, AND AFFORDING IT THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATIONS, ON THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN
 IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE OF WORKSITE, AND ON THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE OF
 WORKSITE WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    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, OR REFUSE TO CONSULT, CONFER, OR
 NEGOTIATE WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES AS REQUIRED
 BY THE ORDER.
 
    WE WILL UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2225, AFL-CIO, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT
 OBSERVED
 IN IMPLEMENTING A CHANGE OF PLACE OF DUTY OR WORKSITE FROM BUILDING
 LP-166 TO STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2, NORFOLK NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK,
 VIRGINIA, INVOLVING OUR EMPLOYEES, AND THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE OF
 WORKSITE HAD ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR SIXTY (60) CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM
 THE DATE OF POSTING, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WHOSE ADDRESS IS
 :  ROOM 416, 1111 20TH STREET, NW., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036.
 
    /0/ 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 HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.  THE DECISION
 AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE MEANING OR
 APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE RESULT WHICH
 WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN UNDER THE
 STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
 
    /1/ RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVIDING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES AT THE
 NORFOLK NAVAL STATION AND THE NAVAL AIR STATION IS DIVIDED BETWEEN THE
 RESPONDENT AND THE NAVAL BASE STRUCTURAL FIRE DEPARTMENT, WHICH OPERATES
 UNDER A SEPARATE CHAIN OF COMMAND, AND MAINTAINS AND OPERATES ITS OWN
 EQUIPMENT AND PHYSICAL FACILITIES, INCLUDING STRUCTURAL STATION #2,
 WHICH IS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE HELIPORT.
 
    /2/ AIRCRAFT CRASH AND RESCUE CREWS ARE ON DUTY FOR 24 HOUR PERIODS,
 DIVIDED INTO EIGHT HOURS OF WORK, EIGHT HOURS ON STANDBY, OR WAITING TO
 BE ASSIGNED WORK, AND EIGHT HOURS FOR EATING AND SLEEPING.
 
    /3/ SINCE MAY 7, 1978, AIRCRAFT CRASH AND RESCUE CREWS HAVE BEEN
 ASSIGNED TO HELIPORT DUTY ON A 30 DAY ROTATING BASIS, AND WHILE ON
 HELIPORT DUTY, THEY ARE PROVIDED LIVING QUARTERS IN STRUCTURAL STATION
 #2.
 
    /4/ JOHN JOSEPH, WHO WAS CRASH FIRE CAPTAIN AT THE TIME OF THE
 HEARING, TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS A UNION SHIP STEWARD IN 1976, AND THAT IN
 THE SUMMER OF 1976, HE LEARNED FROM READING THE FIRE MARSHAL'S REPORT
 AND IN A MEETING BETWEEN THE FIRE CHIEF AND UNION PERSONNEL THAT
 HELIPORT CRASH AND RESCUE CREWS WOULD BE RELOCATED EVENTUALLY, BUT HE
 DID NOT KNOW WHEN, AND HE DID NOT REQUEST BARGAINING ON THE PROPOSED
 CHANGE.
 
    /5/ THE WITNESSES TESTIFYING DURING THE HEARING GENERALLY AGREED THAT
 LIVING CONDITIONS FOR THE CRASH CREWS ASSIGNED TO STRUCTURAL STATION NO.
 2 HAVE IMPROVED, ALTHOUGH COMPLAINTS PERSIST.
 
    /6/ WHERE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT BEEN AFFORDED
 REASONABLE NOTICE OF A PROPOSED CHANGE, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT A
 REQUEST FOR BARGAINING BE MADE AFTER THE FACT TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION.
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AUSTIN SERVICE
 CENTER, A/SLMR NO. 1142(1978).
 
    /7/ AS LATE AS TWO WEEKS BEFORE A DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED AND
 IMPLEMENTED, FIRE CHIEF JAMES SOLICITED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ACTING
 UNION SHIP STEWARD AND INDICATED HE DID NOT KNOW HOW THE MATTER WOULD BE
 RESOLVED.
 
    /8/ FIRE CHIEF JAMES LEARNED ON OR ABOUT MARCH 28, 1978, THAT SPACE
 WAS AVAILABLE FOR HIS USE IN STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2, AND HE ORDERED
 THE CHANGE OF WORKSITE OF HELIPORT CREWS, EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 3, 1978;
 HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD INDICATES THAT THE CREWS INVOLVED WERE
 NOT NOTIFIED OF THE CHANGE UNTIL THEY REPORTED FOR WORK ON APRIL 3 AND
 APRIL 4, 1978.  THUS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAD
 ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CHANGE UNTIL AT LEAST APRIL 3, 1978, MUCH LESS THAT
 IT HAD REASONABLE NOTICE SUFFICIENTLY IN ADVANCE TO REQUEST BARGAINING
 ON IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  THE CHANGE OF WORKSITE WAS EFFECTIVE
 APRIL 3, 1978, AND IT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE THAT THE CREWS DID NOT BEGIN
 SLEEPING AT STRUCTURAL STATION NO. 2 UNTIL ON OR ABOUT MAY 7, 1978,
 SINCE IT WAS CONTEMPLATED BY MANAGEMENT FROM THE START THAT HELIPORT
 CREWS WOULD SPEND THEIR ENTIRE 24 HOUR TOURS OF DUTY AT STRUCTURAL
 STATION NO. 2, AND ONLY THE ABSENCE OF BEDS UNTIL MAY 7, 1978, DELAYED
 FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN.