The Adjutant General's Office, Puerto Rico Air National Guard (Respondent) and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1665 (INDEPENDENT) (Complainant)

 



[ v03 p343 ]
03:0343(55)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 3 FLRA No. 55
 
 THE ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE
 PUERTO RICO AIR NATIONAL GUARD
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1665 (INDEPENDENT)
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 37-01985(CA)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER, IN THE SUBJECT CASE, FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD VIOLATED
 SECS. 19(A)(1) AND 19 (A)(6) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, BY
 ITS ACTIONS IN UTILIZING NEW PROCEDURES TO EFFECTUATE A REDUCTION IN
 FORCE WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE COMPLAINANT, THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF AFFECTED EMPLOYEES, AND AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY
 TO BARGAIN OVER THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF THE REDUCTION ON THE
 AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RECOMMENDED THAT THE
 RESPONDENT BE ORDERED TO (1) CEASE AND DESIST FROM IMPLEMENTING A
 REDUCTION IN FORCE INVOLVING EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE COMPLAINANT
 WITHOUT AFFORDING IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING
 THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH A REDUCTION, AND (2) TO TAKE
 CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS.  THE RESPONDENT FILED EXCEPTIONS AND
 SUPPORTING BRIEF TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, WERE
 TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SEC.  304 OF REORGANIZATION PLAN NO.
 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS IMPLEMENTED BY
 SEC. 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (45 F.R. 3482,
 JANUARY 17, 1980).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
 PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SEC.  7135(B) OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SEC. 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS AND SEC. 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED
 THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING AND
 FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY
 AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE
 RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTING BRIEF, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY
 ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATION, AS MODIFIED BELOW.
 
    IN A MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 21, 1977, THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, THE
 NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD, DIRECTED THE RESPONDENT TO
 CONDUCT A REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF) ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURES SPECIFIED
 IN THE RECENTLY PREPARED TECHNICIAN PERSONNEL MANUEL 351 (TPM 351).  THE
 RESPONDENT RECEIVED THE MEMORANDUM ON MARCH 31, THE SAME DATE ON WHICH
 TPM 351 BECAME EFFECTIVE.  THE COMPLAINANT, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT AND
 OTHER UNION OFFICIALS, WAS INFORMED OF THE RIF ORDER AND PROVIDED A COPY
 OF TPM 351 ON APRIL 12, AT A MEETING WITH THE RESPONDENT'S TECHNICIAN
 PERSONNEL OFFICER.  THE PROCEDURES TO BE USED TO IMPLEMENT THE RIF WERE
 NOT DISCUSSED AT THAT TIME BECAUSE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH PARTIES
 WERE UNFAMILIAR WITH TPM 351.
 
    TECHNICIAN PERSONNEL PAMPHLET 910 ("TPP 910") CONTAINED THE
 PROCEDURES THAT THE RESPONDENT FOLLOWED IN IMPLEMENTING RIF'S BETWEEN
 MARCH 1973 AND MARCH 1977.  SEVERAL PROCEDURES SPECIFIED IN TPM 351
 DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN TPP 910.
 
    THE RESPONDENT MET WITH ITS TECHNICIANS ON APRIL 13 AND 14 TO NOTIFY
 THEM OF THE RIF ORDER AND TO GIVE A GENERAL EXPLANATION OF THE RIF
 PROCEDURES.  THE COMPLAINANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THESE MEETINGS.  THE
 COMPLAINANT'S FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, ANGEL PARRA, ATTENDED ONE OF THE
 MEETINGS IN HIS ROLE AS A TECHNICIAN, NOT AS A UNION REPRESENTATIVE.  HE
 AND SEVERAL OTHER EMPLOYEES ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RIF, BUT MOST OF
 THE QUESTIONS WERE NOT ANSWERED BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT'S
 REPRESENTATIVES
 WERE NOT FAMILIAR WITH TPM 351.
 
    THE PARTIES MET WITH FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) OFFICIALS
 ON APRIL 22 TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF THE FAA HIRING EMPLOYEES WHO
 WOULD BE SEPARATED BY THE RIF.  WHEN THE DISCUSSION ENDED, THE
 COMPLAINANT DIRECTED TWO REQUESTS TO GENERAL LLENSA, THE ADJUTANT
 GENERAL.  THE COMPLAINANT BELIEVED THAT MILITARY APPRAISALS WOULD NOT BE
 FAIR AND, THEREFORE, ASKED THAT THEY NOT BE USED.  THE COMPLAINANT ALSO
 REQUESTED THAT EMPLOYEES RECEIVE IDENTICAL APPRAISAL SCORES, MAKING
 SENIORITY A PRIMARY FACTOR IN RANKING EMPLOYEES.  IN RESPONSE, GENERAL
 LLENSA STATED THAT THE REQUESTS WOULD BE CONSIDERED AND THAT HE WOULD
 GIVE MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE LATER.  EIGHTEEN EMPLOYEES RECEIVED RIF
 NOTICES ON MAY 25 AND WERE SEPARATED ON JULY 31.  NEITHER LLENSA NOR ANY
 OTHER MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL HAS GIVEN THE COMPLAINANT THE RESPONSE TO ITS
 REQUESTS OF APRIL 22, 1977.
 
    IN REACHING HIS CONCLUSION, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND THAT
 THE RESPONDENT UTILIZED NEW PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT A RIF WITHOUT FIRST
 NOTIFYING AND AFFORDING THE COMPLAINANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN ABOUT
 THE IMPLEMENTATION OR IMPACT OF THE RIF.  ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 LAW JUDGE FOUND THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAD NOT MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO
 BARGAIN, HE FURTHER FOUND THAT SUCH REQUEST WAS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE
 COMPLAINANT WAS CONFRONTED WITH A FAIT ACCOMPLI ON APRIL 12 WHEN
 INFORMED THAT THE NEW RIF PROCEDURES ALREADY HAD BECOME EFFECTIVE.  IN
 ADDITION, HE FOUND THAT NEGOTIATIONS HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE AT THE APRIL
 MEETINGS;  THAT THE MEETINGS OF APRIL 12, 13, AND 14 WERE EXCLUSIVELY
 INFORMATIONAL IN CHARACTER, AND THE MEETING OF APRIL 22 WAS MERELY A
 CONFERENCE WITH FAA OFFICIALS.
 
    IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, THE AUTHORITY
 CONCLUDES THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SEC. 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE
 ORDER;  HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITY REACHES THIS CONCLUSION FOR DIFFERENT
 REASONS.  CONTRARY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS
 THAT THE REQUEST MADE BY THE COMPLAINANT AT THE MEETING OF APRIL 22 WAS,
 IN EFFECT, A GENERAL REQUEST TO BARGAIN.  ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC
 PROPOSALS CLEARLY WERE NOT NEGOTIABLE BECAUSE THEY CONFLICTED WITH TPM
 351, A REGULATION FOR WHICH A COMPELLING NEED EXISTED (SEE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2953 AFL-CIO, AND NEBRASKA
 NATIONAL GUARD, FLRC NO.  77A-106, 6 FLRC 182(1978)), THE NATURE OF THE
 REQUESTS DID NOT ALTER THE RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATION TO RESPOND AND
 BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH.  IN THE AUTHORITY'S VIEW, THE ACTIVITY'S
 STATEMENT THAT A RESPONSE TO THE REQUESTS WOULD BE GIVEN LATER CREATED
 THE IMPRESSION THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS WILLING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSALS
 CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF THE RIF.  THE ACTIVITY'S
 FAILURE TO RESPOND, AS PROMISED, PRECLUDED THE COMPLAINANT FROM
 CONSIDERING THE OPTION OF PRESENTING ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS.  UNDER THESE
 CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT
 FULFILL ITS DUTY TO BARGAIN AS TO THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS
 DECISION ON UNIT EMPLOYEES AFTER THE COMPLAINANT REQUESTED BARGAINING,
 AND THUS, VIOLATED SEC. 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
 AMENDED.
 
    AS THE RESPONDENT DID NOT HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MEET AND CONFER WITH
 THE COMPLAINANT CONCERNING THE PROVISIONS OF TPM 351, THE AUTHORITY DOES
 NOT FIND THAT A REMEDIAL ORDER IS WARRANTED WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE
 RESPONDENT'S ACTION IN CONDUCTING A RIF PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
 TPM 351 BE RESCINDED.  RATHER, THE AUTHORITY WILL REQUIRE THAT THE
 RESPONDENT CEASE AND DESIST FROM ENGAGING IN THE FUTURE IN THE CONDUCT
 FOUND VIOLATIVE OF THE ORDER AND REQUIRE THAT, UPON REQUEST, IT AFFORD
 THE COMPLAINANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RIF ACTION AS IT AFFECTED THOSE EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE COMPLAINANT.  /1/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO 2400.2 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SEC. 7135 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY ORDERS THAT THE
 ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE OF THE PUERTO RICO AIR NATIONAL GUARD SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INSTITUTING A REDUCTION IN FORCE PROCEDURE UNDER TPM 351, OR ANY
 OTHER REGULATION, INVOLVING EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1665 (INDEPENDENT),
 WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT
 THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATION, CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH PROCEDURE AND ITS
 IMPACT ON AFFECTED 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 NOW AVAILABLE TO THEM UNDER THE
 CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT.
 
    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 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1665 (INDEPENDENT), TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT
 WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
 THE 1977 REDUCTION IN FORCE ON EMPLOYEES AT THE 140TH AIRCRAFT AND
 WARNING SQUADRON.
 
    (B) POST AT THE ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICES, PUERTO RICO AIR NATIONAL
 GUARD, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE
 FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  THE FORMS SHALL BE
 SIGNED BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER UPON RECEIPT AND POSTED FOR 60 DAYS
 THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO
 EMPLOYEES CUSTOMARILY ARE POSTED.  THE COMMANDING OFFICER SHALL TAKE
 REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT THE NOTICES ARE NOT REMOVED, ALTERED,
 DEFACED, OR COVERED BY 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 WITH THE ORDER.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 3, 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 THE TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED
 
          STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT IMPLEMENT A REDUCTION IN FORCE PROCEDURE INVOLVING
 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 1665 (INDEPENDENT), WITHOUT FIRST AFFORDING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE
 THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND
 IMPACT OF SUCH PROCEDURE.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST BY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1665 (INDEPENDENT), MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF THE 1977
 REDUCTION IN FORCE ON EMPLOYEES AT THE 140TH AIRCRAFT CONTROL AND
 WARNING SQUADRON.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:
 ROOM 241, 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10007, AND WHOSE PHONE
 NUMBER IS (212) 264-4934.
 
    JAIME A. RODRIGUEZ LECOEUR, ESQ.
 
    PUERTO RICO AIR NATIONAL GUARD
 
    P. O. BOX 3786
 
    SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 00904
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    JANET COOPER, ESQ.
 
    GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 
    EMPLOYEES
 
    1016 16TH STREET, N.W.
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.  20036
 
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM NAIMARK
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                      RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    PURSUANT TO A NOTICE OF HEARING ON COMPLAINT ISSUED ON MAY 15, 1979
 BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, NEW
 YORK REGION, A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON JUNE 20 AND
 21, 1979 AT SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO.
 
    THIS PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED
 (HEREIN CALLED THE ORDER).  A COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON JANUARY 16, 1978 BY
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, INDEPENDENT LOCAL 1665 (HEREIN
 CALLED COMPLAINANT) AGAINST THE ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, PUERTO RICO
 AIR NATIONAL GUARD (HEREIN CALLED RESPONDENT).  IT ALLEGED THAT
 RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY (A)
 CHANGING ITS PROCEDURES FOR A REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF) IN APRIL, 1977
 WITHOUT CONSULTING OR NEGOTIATING WITH COMPLAINANT, (B) FAILING AND
 REFUSING TO BARGAIN OVER THE IMPACT OF THE ONGOING REDUCTION IN FORCE.
 
    RESPONDENT SUBMITTED A RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT, DATED JANUARY 30,
 1978, DENYING THE COMMISSION OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  IT AVERRED
 THAT THE REDUCTION IN FORCE WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE
 PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN A DIRECTIVE (TPM 351) FROM THE NATIONAL GUARD
 BUREAU, AND THAT IT MET AND DISCUSSED THE RIF PROCEDURES WITH
 COMPLAINANT UNION.
 
    BOTH PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED AT THE HEARING, AND WERE AFFORDED FULL
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AND TO EXAMINE AS WELL AS
 CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.  THEREAFTER, THE PARTIES FILED BRIEFS WHICH
 HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, FROM MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM ALL OF THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
 ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    1.  AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN COMPLAINANT UNION HAS BEEN, AND
 STILL IS, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL TECHNICIANS OF
 THE PUERTO RICO AIR NATIONAL GUARD.
 
    2.  SINCE 1970 BOTH COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT HAVE BEEN PARTIES TO A
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT COVERING SAID TECHNICIANS.  THE SAID
 AGREEMENT PROVIDES, INTER ALIA, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    ARTICLE 11.4 REDUCTION IN FORCE:  MANAGEMENT SHALL INFORM THE
 TECHNICIANS ORGANIZATION
 
    BEFORE IT INSTITUTES ANY REDUCTION-IN-FORCE ACTION AFFECTING UNIT
 TECHNICIANS.  IT IS AGREED
 
    THAT IN REHIRING FROM THE RE-EMPLOYMENT PRIORITY LIST, TECHNICIANS
 WILL BE REHIRED IN THE
 
    INVERSE ORDER FORM WHICH LAID OFF.
 
    ARTICLE 15-- SUBJECTS FOR CONSULTATION AND NEGOTIATION:  A.  MATTERS
 APPROPRIATE FOR
 
    NEGOTIATION UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL CONSIST OF, BUT ARE NOT
 CONFINED TO THE FOLLOWING:
 
    . . . (8) APPLICATION OF PROCEDURES RELATING TO PROMOTION,
 DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS, APPEALS,
 
    REDUCTION IN FORCE AND TECHNICIAN APPRAISAL.
 
    3.  BY A MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 21, 1977 /2/ THE NATIONAL GUARD
 BUREAU, WASHINGTON, D.C. ORDERED THE RESPONDENT TO INSTITUTE A REDUCTION
 IN FORCE.  THE RIF INVOLVED THE 140TH AIRCRAFT CONTROL AND WARNING
 SQUADRON (140TH ACW SQ.) WHOSE EMPLOYEES WERE STATIONED AT PUNTA SALINAS
 AND PUNTA BORINQUEN.
 
    4.  THE AFORESAID MEMORANDUM ADVISED THE PUERTO RICO AIR NATIONAL
 GUARD (PRANG) THAT THE RIF PROCEDURES WILL BE GOVERNED BY TPM 351 WHICH
 BECAME EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 31.
 
    5.  PRIOR TO MARCH 31 THE RIF PROCEDURES WERE CONTROLLED OR REGULATED
 BY TPP 910. THE SYSTEM FOR ESTABLISHING A RETENTION REGISTER WAS BASED
 ON A 100 POINT SCALE IN THE EVALUATION, AND A MILITARY APPRAISAL FORM
 WAS UTILIZED IN RATING THE EMPLOYEES.  UNDER TPP 910 ALL VACANCIES IN
 PRANG WERE FROZEN DURING A REDUCTION IN FORCE.
 
    6.  SEVERAL CHANGES WERE AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF TPM 351 WHICH
 REPLACED THE OLD PROCEDURE.  UNDER THE NEW DIRECTIVE (A) THE MILITARY
 APPRAISAL FORM WAS CHANGED, (B) THE POINT SYSTEM WAS ALTERED SO AS TO BE
 BASED ON A 20 POINT SCALE IN THE EVALUATION, AND (C) ONLY THE VACANCIES
 IN THE AREA INVOLVED IN THE RIF, THE 140TH ACW SQ. IN THIS INSTANCE,
 WERE FROZEN.  UNDER THIS SYSTEM LONGEVITY WOULD NOT BE A FACTOR IN
 SELECTING THOSE TO BE SEPARATED.  FURTHER, THOSE EMPLOYEES INCLUDED IN
 THE RIF WOULD NOT HAVE, UNDER THE TPM 351 PROCEDURE, THE SAME
 OPPORTUNITIES TO FILL VACANCIES AS PREVAILED UNDER TPP 910.
 
    7.  ON APRIL 12 COLONEL FARIA, CHIEF OF TPO FOR RESPONDENT MET WITH
 DIEGO NIEVES, AND ANGEL PARRA, PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT RESPECTIVELY
 OF THE COMPLAINANT UNION, AS WELL AS WITH SEVERAL OTHER UNION OFFICIALS.
  FARIA INFORMED THEM THAT A REDUCTION IN FORCE WOULD TAKE PLACE, AND
 THAT IT WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN TPM 351.  HE
 STATED HE WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE PROVISIONS BUT GAVE THE UNION
 OFFICIALS A COPY OF THE NEW PROCEDURE.  NEITHER THE EMPLOYER NOR THE
 UNION OFFICERS REVIEWED THE CONTENTS OF TPM 351 AT THE MEETING.
 
    8.  ON APRIL 13 AND 14 MANAGEMENT MET WITH THE TECHNICIANS OF THE
 140TH ACW SQ. AT THE TWO LOCATIONS.  IT DISTRIBUTED A NOTICE OF THE RIF
 TO THE EMPLOYEES AND EXPLAINED THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED.  QUESTIONS
 WERE POSED BY SOME OF THOSE IN ATTENDANCE, BUT RESPONDENT'S OFFICIALS
 WERE UNABLE TO ANSWER MANY OF THEM.  ALTHOUGH PARRA WAS IN ATTENDANCE,
 THE UNION WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE MEETING IN ADVANCE THEREOF.
 
    9.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE COMPLAINANT LEARNED THAT A REPRESENTATIVE OF FAA
 WAS VISITING PUERTO RICO, AND IT REQUESTED A MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT TO
 DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF FAA HIRING SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD BE
 SEPARATED BY THE REDUCTION IN FORCE.  IN ADDITION TO DISCUSSING THIS
 MATTER, THE UNION OFFICIALS ALSO REQUESTED OF GENERAL LLENSA THAT THE
 MILITARY APPRAISALS NOT BE UTILIZED.  COMPLAINANT WAS CONCERNED THAT THE
 APPRAISAL, WHICH WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNDER THE POINT SYSTEM,
 WOULD BE UNFAIR AND LIKELY TO BE BASED ON BIAS.  IT DESIRED THAT THE
 APPRAISAL BE MADE WHEN NO RIF WAS IN THE OFFING.  THE UNION PROPOSED
 THAT ALL THE EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE SAME APPRAISAL POINTS SO AS TO PUT A
 PREMIUM ON LENGTH OF SERVICE.
 
    GENERAL LLENSA STATED AT THE MEETING THAT HE WOULD "GET BACK" TO THE
 UNION REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING MANAGEMENT'S REACTIONS TO THE PROPOSAL.
 HOWEVER, RESPONDENT DID NOT REPLY TO THE UNION;  THE MILITARY APPRAISALS
 WERE MADE AND A RETENTION REGISTER WAS PREPARED.
 
    10.  IN EARLY MAY COMPLAINANT REQUESTED IT BE GIVEN COPIES OF THE
 APPRAISALS AND THE RETENTION REGISTER.  THIS REQUEST WAS DENIED
 INITIALLY.  ON MAY 25 SPECIFIC NOTICES WERE GIVEN OF THE RIF TO 18
 EMPLOYEES WHO WERE APPRISED THAT THEY WOULD BE SEPARATED ON JULY 31.
 /3/ SEVERAL WEEKS LATER MANAGEMENT FURNISHED COMPLAINANT WITH COPIES OF
 THE APPRAISALS AND RETENTION REGISTER.
 
    11.  THE RIF, WHICH INVOLVED 18 OR 47 INDIVIDUALS IN THE 140TH ACW
 SQUADRON, RESULTED IN A SEPARATION OF THREE UNION STEWARDS.  A FIRST
 VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNION WAS NOT TERMINATED.  EACH STEWARD WHO WAS
 TERMINATED FROM HIS JOB HAD MORE THAN 10 YEARS OF SERVICE AND WAS SENIOR
 IN SERVICE TO NON-STEWARDS WHO WERE RETAINED.  OF THE 18 INDIVIDUALS
 SEPARATED BY THE RIF, FIVE PERSONS WERE NOT EMPLOYED AT THE DATE OF THE
 HEARING HEREIN.
 
                                CONCLUSIONS
 
    IN ALLEGING THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE
 ORDER, THE COMPLAINANT MAKES SEVERAL CONTENTIONS IN THIS REGARD.  IT IS
 CONTENDED THAT MANAGEMENT (1) UNILATERALLY CHANGED ITS PROCEDURES IN
 EFFECTING THE RIF AT PRANG, AND FAILED TO BARGAIN WITH COMPLAINANT RE
 THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF;  (2) FAILED TO PROVIDE
 INFORMATION (MILITARY APPRAISALS AND RETENTION REGISTER) TO THE UNION
 WHICH WAS NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE'S
 RESPONSIBILITIES;  (3) CONDUCTED FORMAL DISCUSSIONS ON APRIL 13 AND 14,
 1977 WITH GROUPS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES RE THE FORTHCOMING RIF, BUT FAILED TO
 NOTIFY THE COMPLAINANT AND GIVE IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT THEREAT;
  (4) MANIPULATED THE RIF SO AS TO SEPARATE THE UNION STEWARDS OF THE
 140TH ACW SQUADRON.
 
    WHILE THE COMPLAINANT MAKES SEVERAL ALLEGATIONS IN ITS BRIEF AS TO
 CONDUCT BY THE EMPLOYER WHICH IT DEEMED ILLEGAL, NOTE IS TAKEN BY THE
 UNDERSIGNED THAT THE COMPLAINT HEREIN IS LIMITED IN SCOPE.  THE AVERMENT
 IN THE COMPLAINT CONCERNS ITSELF WITH THE UNILATERAL CHANGES MADE BY
 RESPONDENT IN THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED TO ACCOMPLISH THE REDUCTION IN
 FORCE AT PRANG.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT MANAGEMENT FAILED TO BARGAIN RE THE
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH PROCEDURES.  HOWEVER, NO ALLEGATION IS
 FOUND IN THE COMPLAINT IN RESPECT TO RESPONDENT'S (A) FAILURE TO FURNISH
 INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE UNION;  (B) MEETING WITH EMPLOYEES IN A
 FORMAL DISCUSSION BUT FAILING TO NOTIFYING COMPLAINANT OR GIVE IT AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT;  (C) EFFECTING THE RIF IN ORDER TO TERMINATE
 THE UNION STEWARDS.
 
    PAST DECISIONS UNDER THE ORDER REFLECT THAT UNLESS A COMPLAINT
 CONTAINS A PARTICULAR ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT, NO FINDING WILL BE MADE
 IN REGARD THERETO.  AS SET FORTH IN PART 203 OF THE REGULATIONS
 GOVERNING THIS PROCEEDING, THE MATTERS TO BE LITIGATED MUST BE ALLEGED
 IN THE COMPLAINT.  IF THEY ARE NOT SO RAISED, THE MERITS THEREOF WILL
 NOT BE CONSIDERED DURING A HEARING OR PASSED UPON THEREAFTER.  FAA,
 WILLIAM R. HOBBY AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER, ET. AL. A/SLMR NO. 1039;
  NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA, A/SLMR NO. 1020.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE COMPLAINT HEREIN IS
 CONFINED TO ALLEGATION REGARDING THE UNILATERAL CHANGE IN PROCEDURES
 ADOPTED BY RESPONDENT IN EFFECTUATING ITS RIF, THE UNDERSIGNED WILL
 RESTRICT HIS DECISION TO A DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE.  AS TO THE OTHER
 CONTENTIONS RAISED BY COMPLAINANT, AS AFORESAID, THE MERITS THEREOF WILL
 NOT BE PASSED UPON BY THE UNDERSIGNED NOR WILL A RECOMMENDATION BE MADE
 IN REGARD THERETO.
 
            REFUSAL TO BARGAIN RE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
 
                            REDUCTION IN FORCE
 
    IT IS NOW WELL ESTABLISHED IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR THAT AN EMPLOYER,
 WHILE IT MAY PROPERLY REDUCE ITS FORCE, MUST MEET AND CONFER WITH THE
 BARGAINING AGENT CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RIF AND ITS IMPACT
 UPON AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IV,
 A/SLMR NO. 999. FURTHER, ANY CHANGES BY MANAGEMENT IN WORKING
 CONDITIONS, SUCH AS REASSIGNMENTS OR A REVIEW SYSTEM, REQUIRE THAT THE
 UNION AGENT BE NOTIFIED THEREOF AND AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN
 OVER THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF SUCH CHANGE.  DEPARTMENT OF THE
 TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER, AUSTIN,
 TEXAS, A/SLMR NO. 1142, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, FRESNO SERVICE CENTER, A/SLMR NO. 983.
 
    IN THE CASE OF BAR RESPONDENT INSISTS IT FULLY COMPLIED WITH ITS
 OBLIGATIONS IN THIS REGARD.  THUS IT ARGUES THAT MANAGEMENT DULY
 INFORMED THE UNION OF THE RIF AND MET WITH COMPLAINANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
 TO DISCUSS THE MATTER IMMEDIATELY.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS IT FURNISHED THE
 BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE A COPY OF THE TPM 351 WHICH GOVERNED THE
 REDUCTION IN FORCE;  THAT IT LATER MET WITH THE UNION OFFICIALS TO
 CONSIDER POSSIBLE RELOCATION OF PERSONNEL WITHIN THE FAA;  AND THAT THE
 RIF PROCEDURES, AS WELL AS BENEFITS, WERE EXPLAINED BY MANAGEMENT AT
 SEVERAL MEETINGS.  DESPITE THE FOREGOING, I AM PERSUADED THAT
 RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS BELIED ANY EFFORTS TO BARGAIN OVER THE PROCEDURES
 FOR IMPLEMENTING THE RIF AS WELL AS THE IMPACT UPON ADVERSELY AFFECTED
 EMPLOYEES.  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, I RELY UPON THE FOLLOWING:
 
    (A) THE NEW REGULATION (TPM 351) WHICH GOVERNED THE REDUCTION IN
 FORCE BECAME EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 31.  THUS, THE PROCEDURES WERE OPERATIVE
 PRIOR TO APRIL 12, THE DATE WHEN MANAGEMENT INFORMED COMPLAINANT OF THE
 IMPENDING RIF AND TPM 351.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE UNION WAS
 AFFORDED LITTLE, IF ANY, OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN RE THE NEW PROCEDURE.
 ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES MET ON APRIL 12 AND RESPONDENT FURNISHED
 COMPLAINANT WITH A COPY OF THE REGULATION, NO INPUT BY THE UNION COULD
 HAVE BEEN MEANINGFUL SINCE THE ADOPTION OF TPM 351 WAS ALREADY A FAIT
 ACCOMPLI.  AS JUDGE HALPERN STATED IN DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, FRESNO SERVICE CENTER, A/SLMR NO. 983:
 
    " . . . IN ORDER THAT THE UNION BE GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO
 CONSULT AND CONFER ON
 
    IMPACT ISSUES, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE INFORMED OF THE ACTION
 SUFFICIENTLY IN ADVANCE OF
 
    IMPLEMENTATION TO ALLOW FOR THE PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL AND THE GOOD
 FAITH EXCHANGE OF VIEWS
 
    CONTEMPLATED BY THE ORDER."
 
    AS INDICATED IN THE CITED CASE, THE RIGHT TO BARGAIN WOULD BE
 MEANINGLESS UNLESS THE UNION WAS ADVISED OF THE PROCEDURES FOR
 IMPLEMENTATION IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO CONSIDER THEM AND BARGAIN THEREON.
 IN THE INSTANT CASE MANAGEMENT INFORMED COMPLAINANT THAT TPM 351 WOULD
 CONTROL THE RIF-- AND THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO ELICIT THE UNION'S VIEWS
 CONCERNING THIS NEW PROCEDURE, NOR TO EXCHANGE VIEWS WITH RESPECT
 THERETO.  AS SUCH, I CONCLUDE NO MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED
 COMPLAINANT TO BARGAIN AS TO EITHER ITS IMPLEMENTATION OR IMPACT UPON
 EMPLOYEES.  /4/ SEE COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, A/SLMR NO. 913.
 
    (2) THE RIF PROCEDURES WERE, PRIOR TO APRIL 1977, GOVERNED BY TPP 910
 AND PRANG.  SIGNIFICANT CHANGES REGARDING A REDUCTION IN FORCE WERE
 IMPOSED BY TPM 351.  THESE INVOLVED THE EVALUATION POINT SYSTEM, THE
 FORMS TO BE UTILIZED, AND THE AREAS FROZEN AT PRANG DURING A RIF FOR
 FILLING VACANCIES.  THE INSTITUTIONS OF CHANGES RE PERSONNEL PRACTICES
 BY MANAGEMENT REQUIRE, UNDER THE ORDER, THAT SUCH CHANGES BE NEGOTIATED
 WITH THE BARGAINING AGENT AS TO THIS IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT UPON
 EMPLOYEES.  SEE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 FRESNO SERVICE CENTER, SUPRA.  AT NONE OF THE MEETINGS CONDUCTED BY
 RESPONDENT WAS ANY ATTEMPT MADE TO BARGAIN IN SUCH RESPECTS.  MANAGEMENT
 SIMPLY INFORMED THE UNION AND THE EMPLOYEES THAT NEW PROCEDURES WERE
 OPERATIVE AS TO THE RIF.  AS THE RECORD REFLECTS, THE CHANGES IN
 PROCEDURES AS TO THE REDUCTION IN FORCE WERE MADE UNILATERALLY, AND NO
 INPUT FROM THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE WAS SOUGHT OR ENCOURAGED.
 
    (3) WHILE RESPONDENT MET WITH THE UNION AND ITS EMPLOYEES TO EXPLAIN
 THAT THE RIF WOULD OCCUR TO BE GOVERNED BY TPM 351, THOSE MEETINGS FELL
 SHORT OF BARGAINING RE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT AS MANDATED UNDER THE
 ORDER.  THE MEETINGS ON APRIL 13 AND 14 WERE DESIGNED SOLELY TO EXPLAIN
 TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT THE RIF WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE NEW REGULATION.
 ALTHOUGH QUESTIONS WERE POSED BY THOSE IN ATTENDANCE, NO EFFORT WAS MADE
 BY THE EMPLOYER TO DISCUSS WITH UNION REPRESENTATIVE PARRA THE
 PROCEDURAL CHANGES.  MOREOVER, AT THE MEETING ON APRIL 22 THE UNION
 RAISED SEVERAL CONCERNS RE THE APPRAISAL.  MANAGEMENT AGREED TO CONSIDER
 THEM AND REPLY THERETO.  IT NEVER DID SO, NOR DID IT COMMUNICATE WITH
 COMPLAINANT RE THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE UNION.  AT THAT MEETING
 DISCUSSIONS CENTERED UPON HAVING THE FAA ABSORB SOME OF THOSE AFFECTED
 BY THE SEPARATION.  THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED WERE NOT DISCUSSED,
 NOR DID MANAGEMENT ITSELF BARGAIN OVER THE IMPACT UPON THOSE EMPLOYEES
 ADVERSELY AFFECTED.  THOSE MEETINGS, AS I VIEW THE RECORD, WERE NOT
 DESIGNED TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE UNION RE THE PROCEDURES OR IMPACT
 OF THE RIF.  THE MEETING ON APRIL 22 WAS HELD AT THE INSTANCE OF
 COMPLAINANT AND WAS, IN TRUTH, A CONFERENCE WITH FAA OFFICIALS.  NO
 BARGAINING OCCURRED AT ANY OF THE SESSIONS RE THE METHOD OF SELECTION OF
 THE IMPACT OF THE RIF UPON THE TECHNICIANS.
 
    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, I CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT MEET AND
 CONFER WITH COMPLAINANT HEREIN RE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TPM 351, WHICH
 GOVERNED THE RIF OF EMPLOYEES AT THE 140TH ACW SQUADRON AT PRANG, AS
 WELL AS THE IMPACT OF THE RIF UPON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 ACCORDINGLY, I FIND THAT RESPONDENT THEREBY VIOLATED SECTIONS 19(A)(1)
 AND (6) OF THE ORDER.
 
                              RECOMMENDATION
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT PROHIBITED BY
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER, I RECOMMEND THAT THE FEDERAL
 LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY ADOPT THE FOLLOWING ORDER WHICH IS DESIGNED TO
 EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ORDER.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AND
 SECTION 203.26(B) OF THE REGULATIONS, THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY ORDERS THAT THE ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, PUERTO RICO AIR
 NATIONAL GUARD, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    A) INSTITUTING A REDUCTION IN FORCE PROCEDURE UNDER TPM 351, OR ANY
 OTHER REGULATION,
 
    INVOLVING EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE NATIONAL
 FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,
 
    INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 1665,WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL
 FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,
 
    INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 1665, AND AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND
 CONFER, TO THE EXTENT
 
    CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
 SUCH PROCEDURE AND ITS
 
    IMPACT ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED 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.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    A) RESCIND REGULATION TPM 351 WHICH PROCEDURE MANAGEMENT FOLLOWED IN
 THE 1977 REDUCTION IN FORCE OF THE EMPLOYEES AT 140TH AIRCRAFT CONTROL
 AND WARNING SQUADRON, AND REINSTATE TPP 910 AS THE PROCEDURE TO GOVERN
 REDUCTION IN FORCE AT PRANG.
 
    (B) REAPPRAISE AND REEVALUATE, UNDER TPP 910, ALL EMPLOYEES AT THE
 140TH AIRCRAFT CONTROL AND WARNING SQUADRON, WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE
 1977 REDUCTION IN FORCE, TO DETERMINE WHICH EMPLOYEES WOULD BE PROPERLY
 SEPARATED IN THE SAID REDUCTION IN FORCE.
 
    C) UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 1665, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT
 FOLLOWED
 UNDER TPM 351 IN REACHING ITS DECISION AS TO WHO SHOULD BE SEPARATED IN
 THE 1977 REDUCTION IN FORCE OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THE 140TH AIRCRAFT
 CONTROL AND WARNING SQUADRON, AND AS TO THE IMPACT THE SAID REDUCTION IN
 FORCE HAD ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    D) IF, FOLLOWING NEGOTIATION WITH THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 1665, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 2(C)
 ABOVE, IT IS DETERMINED THAT ANY EMPLOYEES WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE
 PROCEDURES FOLLOWED BY MANAGEMENT UNDER TPM 351 IN THE 1977 REDUCTION IN
 FORCE OF EMPLOYEES AT THE 140TH AIRCRAFT CONTROL AND WARNING SQUADRON,
 SUCH EMPLOYEE SHALL BE MADE WHOLE, INCLUDING REIMBURSEMENT OF ANY LOSS
 OF MONIES OCCASIONED THEREBY, CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS,
 REGULATIONS, AND DECISIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL.
 
    E) NOTIFY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, INDEPENDENT,
 LOCAL 1665 OF ANY INTENDED REDUCTION IN FORCE PROCEDURE AND AFFORD SUCH
 REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
 SUCH PROCEDURE AND ITS IMPACT ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    F) POST AT THE ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICES, PUERTO RICO NATIONAL
 GUARD, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE
 FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF
 SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER 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 COMMANDING OFFICER
 SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
 DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    G) PURSUANT TO SECTION 203.27 OF THE REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE FEDERAL
 LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
 THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                              WILLIAM NAIMARK
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  5 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
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT UNILATERALLY INSTITUTE A NEW REDUCTION IN FORCE PROCEDURE
 INVOLVING EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION
 OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 1665, WITHOUT FIRST AFFORDING
 SUCH REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER CONCERNING THE
 IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF SUCH PROCEDURE.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND REGULATION TPM 351 GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE FOR
 REDUCTION IN FORCE OF EMPLOYEES AT PRANG, AND REINSTATE TPP 910 AS THE
 PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING AND APPRAISING OUR EMPLOYEES TO DETERMINE THOSE
 INDIVIDUALS ATTACHED TO THE 140TH AIRCRAFT CONTROL AND WARNING SQUADRON
 WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE 1977 REDUCTION IN FORCE.
 
    WE WILL RE-EVALUATE AND REAPPRAISE UNDER TPP 910 OUR EMPLOYEES WHO
 WERE ATTACHED TO THE 140TH AIRCRAFT CONTROL AND WARNING SQUADRON AND
 WERE INVOLVED IN THE 1977 REDUCTION IN FORCE TO DETERMINE, IN ACCORDANCE
 WITH THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN TPP 910, WHICH EMPLOYEES SHOULD HAVE
 BEEN SEPARATED IN THE 1977 REDUCTION IN FORCE.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST BY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 1665, MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURE WHICH
 MANAGEMENT FOLLOWED UNDER TPM 351 IN REACHING ITS DECISION AS TO WHO
 SHOULD BE SEPARATED IN THE 1977 REDUCTION IN FORCE OF EMPLOYEES AT THE
 140TH AIRCRAFT CONTROL AND WARNING SQUADRON, AND AS TO THE IMPACT SUCH
 REDUCTION IN FORCE HAD UPON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    WE WILL, FOLLOWING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, INDEPENDENT, LOCAL 1665, MAKE WHOLE ANY EMPLOYEE WHO
 IS DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
 BY MANAGEMENT UNDER TPM 351 IN THE 1977 REDUCTION IN FORCE OF EMPLOYEES
 AT THE 140TH AIRCRAFT CONTROL AND WARNING SQUADRON, INCLUDING
 REIMBURSEMENT FOR ANY LOSS OF MONIES OCCASIONED THEREBY, CONSISTENT WITH
 APPLICABLE LAW, REGULATIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL.
 
   .          .          .