U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Respondent)and Patent Office Professional Association (Complainant) 



[ v03 p824 ]
03:0824(123)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 3 FLRA No. 123
 
 U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 22-09584(CA)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
 ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNILATERAL CONDUCT, PERTAINING TO A REDUCTION IN
 TURNAROUND TIME FOR THE PROCESSING OF AMENDED CASES BY PATENT EXAMINERS
 AND TO A CHANGE IN THE EXISTING POLICY OF NOTIFICATION TO SUPERVISORS
 REGARDING UNIT EMPLOYEE ABSENCES FROM THEIR WORKPLACE, WHICH WAS
 VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
 AMENDED, AND RECOMMENDING IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 FURTHER FOUND OTHER CONDUCT, PERTAINING TO THE RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT
 THAT EMPLOYEES WERE EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE 100% OF THEIR ASSIGNED
 PRODUCTION GOAL AND THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ANYTHING LESS WOULD BE CONSIDERED
 DEFICIENT, WAS NOT VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER
 AND RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL OF THAT PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT.  BOTH
 PARTIES FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED
 DECISION AND ORDER.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER 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
 (5 CFR 2400.2).  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 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 EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE PARTIES, THE AUTHORITY
 HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS.  IN ADOPTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDING
 THAT TURNAROUND TIME OR "TIME TARGETS" IN THIS CASE IS A NEGOTIABLE
 MATTER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 11(A) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE
 AUTHORITY DOES NOT CONSTRUE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDING TO
 MEAN THAT ANY PROPOSAL CONCERNED WITH THE SUBJECT OF TURNAROUND TIME OR
 TIME TARGETS WOULD BE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN, I.E., CONSISTENT WITH
 APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS.  RATHER, NOTING THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 LAW JUDGE WAS NOT PRESENTED WITH NOR WAS HIS DETERMINATION BASED UPON A
 SPECIFIC PROPOSAL WITH REGARD THERETO, IN OUR VIEW, THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 LAW JUDGE MERELY RULED THAT SPECIFIC PROPOSALS PERTAINING TO THE MATTER
 OF TURNAROUND TIME OR TIME TARGETS COULD BE DRAFTED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
 THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  ACCORDINGLY, IN THE
 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS, IN AGREEMENT
 WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION
 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BY UNILATERALLY REDUCING THE
 TURNAROUND TIME FOR THE PROCESSING OF AMENDED CASES BY PATENT EXAMINERS.
  HOWEVER, IN SO FINDING, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER
 PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE MATTER OF TIME TARGETS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF
 VARIOUS DUTIES WOULD BE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.
 SUCH A DETERMINATION WOULD REQUIRE THE PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS
 SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT BY WHICH THE
 AUTHORITY COULD ASCERTAIN WHETHER NEGOTIATIONS OVER SUCH PROPOSALS
 WOULD
 BE CONSISTENT WITH LAW, REGULATIONS AND THE STATUTE.  /1A/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    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 U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INSTITUTING CHANGES IN THE LENGTH OF TURNAROUND TIME FOR THE
 PROCESSING OF AMENDED CASES BY UNIT EMPLOYEES IN GROUP 310 WITHOUT FIRST
 NOTIFYING THE PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIT EMPLOYEES, AND AFFORDING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE
 THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATIONS, WITH REGARD TO ANY PROPOSED CHANGES IN TURNAROUND TIME.
 
    (B) INSTITUTING CHANGES IN THE EXISTING POLICY OF NOTIFICATION TO
 SUPERVISORS REGARDING UNIT EMPLOYEE ABSENCES FROM THEIR WORKPLACE
 WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIT EMPLOYEES, AND AFFORDING SUCH
 REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER TO THE EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON SUCH CHANGES.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS:
 
    (A) RESCIND THE CHANGE IN TURNAROUND TIME FOR THE PROCESSING OF
 AMENDED CASES IN GROUP 310 AS ANNOUNCED BY GROUP DIRECTOR NEWMAN ON
 OCTOBER 5, 1978.
 
    (B) RESCIND THE CHANGE IN POLICY OF NOTIFYING SUPERVISORS REGARDING
 UNIT EMPLOYEE ABSENCES FROM THEIR WORKPLACE AS ANNOUNCED BY GROUP
 DIRECTOR NEWMAN ON OCTOBER 5, 1978.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ANY INTENDED
 CHANGE IN THE TURNAROUND TIME FOR THE PROCESSING OF AMENDED CASES AND OF
 ANY INTENDED CHANGE IN THE POLICY OF NOTIFYING SUPERVISORS REGARDING
 UNIT EMPLOYEE ABSENCES FROM THEIR WORKPLACE AND, UPON REQUEST, MEET AND
 CONFER IN GOOD FAITH, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW, REGULATIONS AND
 THE STATUTE, ON SUCH INTENDED CHANGES.
 
    (D) POST AT ITS FACILITIES IN CRYSTAL CITY, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA,
 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 DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS,
 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 CUSTOMARILY ARE POSTED.  THE
 DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT
 SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (E) NOFITY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN
 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO
 COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT FOUND NOT TO
 BE VIOLATIVE OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 31, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    /1A/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM
 ACT OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE
 BASIS OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
  THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
 MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE
 RESULT WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN
 UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
 
                                 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 CHANGES IN THE LENGTH OF TURNAROUND TIME FOR
 THE PROCESSING OF AMENDED CASES BY UNIT EMPLOYEES IN GROUP 310 WITHOUT
 FIRST NOTIFYING THE PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIT EMPLOYEES, AND AFFORDING SUCH
 REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, WITH REGARD TO ANY PROPOSED CHANGES
 IN TURNAROUND TIME.
 
    WE WILL NOT INSTITUTE CHANGES IN THE EXISTING POLICY OF NOTIFICATION
 TO SUPERVISORS REGARDING UNIT EMPLOYEE ABSENCES FROM THEIR WORKPLACE
 WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIT EMPLOYEES, AND AFFORDING SUCH
 REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON SUCH CHANGES.
 
    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 THE CHANGE IN TURNAROUND TIME FOR THE PROCESSING OF
 AMENDED CASES IN GROUP 310 AS ANNOUNCED BY GROUP DIRECTOR NEWMAN ON
 OCTOBER 5, 1978.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND THE CHANGE IN POLICY OF NOTIFYING SUPERVISORS
 REGARDING UNIT EMPLOYEE ABSENCES FROM THEIR WORKPLACE AS ANNOUNCED BY
 GROUP DIRECTOR NEWMAN ON OCTOBER 5, 1978.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ANY
 INTENDED CHANGE IN THE TURNAROUND TIME FOR THE PROCESSING OF AMENDED
 CASES AND OF ANY INTENDED CHANGE IN THE POLICY OF NOTIFYING SUPERVISORS
 REGARDING UNIT EMPLOYEE ABSENCES FROM THEIR WORKPLACE AND, UPON REQUEST,
 MEET AND CONFER IN GOOD FAITH, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW,
 REGULATIONS AND THE STATUTE, ON SUCH INTENDED CHANGES.
 
                           (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 300, 1133 15TH STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005, AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (202) 653-8452.
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    COPIES OF THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY IN THE SUBJECT PROCEEDING HAVE THIS DAY BEEN MAILED TO THE
 PARTIES LISTED BELOW:
 
    ROBERT S. SHERMAN, CHIEF
 
    EMPLOYEE RELATIONS DIVISION
 
    PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
 
    CP2 - 9C06
 
    2011 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY
 
    ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202
 
    RONALD J. STERN
 
    PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
 
    P. O. BOX 2745
 
    ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202
 
    MR. ALEXANDER T. GRAHAM
 
    REGIONAL DIRECTOR
 
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    1133 15TH STREET, N.W., ROOM 300
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.  20005
 
    RONALD J. STERN, ESQUIRE
 
    PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
 
    P.O. BOX 2745
 
    ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202
 
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    ROBERT S. SHERMAN, ESQUIRE
 
    CHIEF, EMPLOYEES RELATIONS DIVISION
 
    PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
 
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.  20231
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                      RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED
 (HEREINAFTER ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE "ORDER").  PURSUANT TO TRANSITION
 RULES AND REGULATIONS, FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 1, JANUARY 2, 1979,
 P. 7-8 AND FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO . . . , JULY . . .
 
    SECTION 2400.2 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R.
 SECTION 2400.2)
 
    THIS MATTER WAS INITIATED BY A CHARGE FILED ON, OR ABOUT, OCTOBER 13,
 1978;  A COMPLAINT FILED ON DECEMBER 29, 1978, WHICH ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
 OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1), (5) AND (6) OF THE ORDER (ALJ EXH. 1);  AND AN
 AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON JUNE 11, 1979, WHICH ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER (ALJ EXH. 2).  NOTICE OF HEARING
 ISSUED ON JUNE 26, 1979, FOR A HEARING ON JULY 25, 1979 (ALJ EXH. 3);
 AND ON JULY 23, 1979, AT THE REQUEST OF RESPONDENT, WITH CONSENT OF
 COMPLAINANT, AND FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, NOTICE RESCHEDULING THE HEARING
 FOR AUGUST 27, 1979, WAS ISSUED BY THE UNDERSIGNED (ALJ EXH. 5),
 PURSUANT TO WHICH A HEARING WAS DULY HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ON AUGUST
 27 AND 29, 1979.  ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, WERE AFFORDED
 FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES,
 AND TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED HEREIN.  AT THE
 CLOSE OF THE HEARING, OCTOBER 15, 1979, WAS FIXED AS THE DATE FOR THE
 FILING OF BRIEFS AND EACH PARTY HAS TIMELY FILED AN EXCELLENT BRIEF
 WHICH HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.  UPON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE
 RECORD, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, I
 MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
 
                         FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    A.  BACKGROUND.  THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (PTO), A PRIMARY
 OPERATING UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, IS HEADED BY THE
 COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS.  THERE ARE THREE MAJOR
 SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE PTO, ONLY ONE OF WHICH IS INVOLVED HEREIN,
 NAMELY, THE SUBDIVISION UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSISTANT
 COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS, WHICH INCLUDES THE PATENT EXAMINING CORPS OF
 ABOUT 1,000 PATENT EXAMINERS WHO ARE INDIVIDUALS TECHNICALLY TRAINED TO
 EXAMINE PATENT APPLICATIONS RELATING TO INVENTIONS IN VARIOUS FIELDS.
 THE PTO RECEIVES IN EXCESS OF 100,000 PATENT APPLICATIONS EACH YEAR.
 EACH APPLICATION IS EXAMINED BY A PATENT EXAMINER FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
 THE STATUTE, WITH CASE LAW AND WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.
 
    THE PATENT EXAMINING CORPS IS DIVIDED INTO 15 FUNCTIONAL GROUPS.
 EACH GROUP IS HEADED BY A GROUP DIRECTOR.  EACH GROUP IS FURTHER DIVIDED
 INTO TECHNOLOGICAL SPECIALITY UNITS, KNOWN AS ART UNITS.  ART UNITS ARE
 SUPERVISED BY SUPERVISORY PRIMARY EXAMINERS.  WITHIN EACH ART UNIT ARE
 PATENT EXAMINERS RANGING IN GRADE FROM GS-5 TO GS-15.
 
    THE INITIAL EXAMINATION OF A PATENT APPLICATION MAY, AND FREQUENTLY
 DOES, REVEAL DEFICIENCIES IN WHICH CASE THE APPLICATION IS RETURNED TO
 THE INVENTOR, OR REPRESENTATIVE, FOR CLARIFICATION OR CORRECTION.  WHEN
 RESUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED AN AMENDED CASE AND THE TIME
 IT TAKES AN EXAMINER TO ACT FURTHER ON AN AMENDED CASE IS KNOWN AS
 TURNAROUND TIME.
 
    MR. MARK NEWMAN HAS BEEN A GROUP DIRECTOR SINCE SEPTEMBER, 1971,
 FIRST OF GROUP 340, THEN, FROM MAY, 1974, OF GROUP 350, AND FROM OCTOBER
 1, 1978, OF GROUP 310.  THE INCIDENTS INVOLVED IN THIS PROCEEDING RELATE
 TO GROUP 310 FOLLOWING MR. NEWMAN'S ASSUMPTION OF DUTIES AS DIRECTOR OF
 GROUP 310.
 
    B.  FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS PROCEEDING.  THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO
 THE FACTS WHICH GAVE RISE TO THIS PROCEEDING.  ON OCTOBER 5, 1978, MR.
 NEWMAN MET WITH ALL PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF GROUP 310.  MR. NEWMAN HAD
 ASSUMED HIS NEW POSITION AS DIRECTOR OF GROUP 310 A FEW DAYS EARLIER AND
 THE MEETING WAS HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCING HIM TO THE
 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF GROUP 310 AND TO INSTRUCT THEM AS TO HOW HE
 INTENDED TO OPERATE GROUP 310.  MR.  NEWMAN STATED THAT:  A) THERE WOULD
 BE A CHANGE FROM 60 TO 30 DAYS TURNAROUND TIME FOR AMENDED CASES.
 RESPONDENT CONCEDES, IN ITS BRIEF AT PAGE 3, THAT THIS WAS A CHANGE IN
 OPERATING PROCEDURES;  B) THAT EMPLOYEES SHOULD KEEP THEIR SUPERVISORS
 APPRISED OF THEIR WHEREABOUTS FOR ABSENCES IN EXCESS OF 10 MINUTES;  AND
 C) THAT, AS PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EXAMINERS WOULD BE EXPECTED TO
 ACHIEVE 100 PER CENT OF THEIR INDIVIDUALLY ASSIGNED PRODUCTION GOALS;
 THAT "ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% OF EXPECTANCY WAS CONSIDERED DEFICIENT"
 (JT. EXH. 7, P. 3;  TR. 101).  COMPLAINANT CONTENDS THAT EACH OF THE
 ABOVE ANNOUNCEMENTS BY MR. NEWMAN CONSTITUTED A CHANGE OF AN ESTABLISHED
 CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS TO WHICH COMPLAINANT WAS ENTITLED TO NOTICE
 AND OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN PRIOR TO SUCH CHANGE BEING IMPLEMENTED;  THAT
 RESPONDENT WAS GIVEN NO ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE OCTOBER 5, 1978,
 ANNOUNCEMENT, AND, OF COURSE, NO OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN PRIOR TO
 ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CHANGES IN PERSONNEL POLICIES AND WORKING
 CONDITIONS.  RESPONDENT, IN ITS BRIEF AT PAGES 13-14, "ADMITS A
 VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER IN ITS FAILURE TO
 PROVIDE TO POPA (RESPONDENT) ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE OCTOBER 5, 1978,
 MEETING";  BUT DENIES THAT IT HAS OTHERWISE VIOLATED THE ORDER AND/OR
 ASSERTS THAT COMPLAINANT "HAS FAILED TO SUSTAIN ITS BURDEN OF PROOF BY
 EITHER A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE OR EVEN BY A LESSER STANDARD OF
 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE." (RESPONDENT'S BRIEF, P.  14).
 
    C.  THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.
 
    1.  TURNAROUND TIME.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT ITS CONCEDED
 UNILATERAL CHANGE IN OPERATING PROCEDURE, WHEREBY TURNAROUND TIME WAS
 CHANGED FROM 60 DAYS TO 30 DAYS, WAS, NEVERTHELESS, A RESERVED RIGHT OF
 MANAGEMENT PROTECTED BY SECTION 12(B)(5) OF THE ORDER /1/ OR, AT MOST,
 WAS A PERMISSIBLE AREA OF BARGAINING PURSUANT TO SECTION 11(B) OF THE
 ORDER, BUT NOT, IN ANY EVENT, A REQUIRED MATTER FOR BARGAINING;  AND,
 MOREOVER, THAT, WHILE RESPONDENT DID NOT GIVE ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE
 IMPENDING CHANGE IN TURNAROUND TIME, THE CHANGE WAS NOT TO BE EFFECTIVE
 UNTIL THREE MONTHS AFTER MR. NEWMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENT ON OCTOBER 5, 1978,
 AND COMPLAINANT, WITH AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST NEGOTIATIONS ON
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, FAILED TO DO SO.
 
    SECTION 12(B)(5) PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SECTION 12(B) MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY RETAIN THE RIGHT, IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH
 
    APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS--
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    "(5) TO DETERMINE THE METHODS, MEANS, AND PERSONNEL BY WHICH SUCH
 OPERATIONS ARE TO BE
 
    CONDUCTED;  . . . "
 
    SECTION 11(B) OF THE ORDER PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "(B) IN PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS RELATING TO PERSONNEL POLICIES AND
 PRACTICES AND WORKING
 
    CONDITIONS, AN AGENCY SHALL HAVE DUE REGARD FOR THE OBLIGATIONS
 IMPOSED BY PARAGRAPH (A) OF
 
    THIS SECTION, HOWEVER, THE OBLIGATION TO MEET AND CONFER DOES NOT
 INCLUDE MATTERS WITH RESPECT
 
    TO THE MISSION OF AN AGENCY;  ITS BUDGET;  ITS ORGANIZATION;  THE
 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES;  AND THE
 
    NUMBERS, TYPES, AND GRADES OF POSITIONS OF EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO AN
 ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT, WORK
 
    PROJECT OR TOUR OF DUTY;  THE TECHNOLOGY OF PERFORMING ITS WORK;  OR
 ITS INTERNAL SECURITY
 
    PRACTICES.  THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE PARTIES FROM NEGOTIATING
 AGREEMENTS PROVIDING
 
    APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE
 IMPACT OF REALIGNMENT OF WORK
 
    FORCES OR TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE."
 
    THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE TURNAROUND TIME FOR AMENDED CASES IN GROUP
 310 HAD BEEN 60 DAYS PRIOR TO MR. NEWMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENT ON OCTOBER 5,
 1978, THAT, EFFECTIVE JANUARY, 1979, IT WOULD BE 30 DAYS;  NOR, THAT,
 BEGINNING IMMEDIATELY, EXAMINERS WERE EXPECTED TO DISPOSE OF PENDING
 AMENDED CASES SO THAT BEGINNING IN JANUARY 1979, THE 30 DAY TURNAROUND
 TIME LIMIT WOULD BE ADHERED TO.  INDEED, EXCEPT FOR GROUPS 340 AND 350,
 WHEN SUPERVISED BY MR. NEWMAN, THE STANDARD FOR ALL GROUPS, AS SET FORTH
 IN THE MEMORANDUM OF DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS, MR.
 WILLIAM FELDMAN, TO DIRECTORS, PATENT EXAMINING GROUPS, DATED MARCH 5,
 1973 (JT. EXH. 10) WAS, AND IS, " . . . TWO MONTHS OF RECEIPT OF THE
 AMENDMENTS", WHICH MR. FELDMAN FURTHER EMPHASIZED IN HIS MEMORANDUM, TO
 DIRECTORS, PATENT EXAMINING GROUPS, DATED JUNE 22, 1973 (JT. EXH. 11).
 IT IS FURTHER NOTED, THAT MR. FELDMAN IN HIS MEMORANDUM OF JUNE 22,
 1973, STATED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    " . . . ONE OF THE PRIMARY ELEMENTS CONSTITUTING THE GOALS OF THE
 PATENT EXAMINING GROUPS
 
    IS TO ACT ON ALL AMENDED PATENT APPLICATIONS WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF
 RECEIPT OF THE AMENDMENTS.
 
    "TO OBVIATE ANY FURTHER MISUNDERSTANDING OF THIS MATTER, UNTIL
 FURTHER NOTICE FROM THIS
 
    OFFICE NO PATENT EXAMINER SHALL ACT ON ANY NEW CASE NOT ENJOYING
 SPECIAL STATUS AS LONG AS HE
 
    HAS AN AMENDED CASE OVER TWO MONTHS OLD . . . " (JR. EXH. 11).
 
    WHILE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE PATENT OFFICE HAS LONG BEEN CONCERNED
 WITH THE ORDERLY DISPOSITION OF AMENDED CASES, BOTH THE WRITTEN POLICY
 AS TO THE TWO MONTH (60 DAY) TURNAROUND TIME FOR AMENDED CASES, AS SET
 FORTH BY THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS, MR. FELDMAN, AND
 THE PRACTICE WITHIN GROUP 310 ESTABLISH FIRMLY THAT, PRIOR TO OCTOBER 5,
 1978, THE TURNAROUND TIME IN GROUP 310 HAD BEEN 60 DAYS AND THAT MR.
 NEWMAN UNILATERALLY, ON OCTOBER 5, 1978, ANNOUNCED THAT TURNAROUND TIME
 FOR GROUP 310 WOULD BE 30 DAYS.  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE 30 DAY
 TURNAROUND TIME WAS NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL JANUARY, 1979, THE RECORD SHOWS
 THAT MR. NEWMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENT HAD AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT INASMUCH AS EACH
 EXAMINER WAS EXPECTED TO DISPOSE OF ANY BACKLOG OF AMENDED CASES SO THAT
 BEGINNING JANUARY, 1979, THE NEW TURNAROUND TIME STANDARD WOULD BE FULLY
 EFFECTIVE, AND EACH SUPERVISOR WAS EXPECTED TO INSURE ACHIEVEMENT OF
 THIS OBJECTIVE BY REASSIGNING, IF NECESSARY, AMENDED CASES.  THE 60 DAY
 TURNAROUND TIME FOR AMENDED CASES WAS AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF
 EMPLOYMENT WHICH RESPONDENT WAS NOT FREE TO CHANGE WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE
 TO COMPLAINANT AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION
 UNLESS IT WAS A RESERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT.
 
    IS TURNAROUND TIME A "METHOD" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 12(B)(5)
 OF THE ORDER?  I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO:  TIDEWATER
 VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL AND NAVAL PUBLIC WORKS
 CENTER, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, FLRC NO. 71A-56, 1 FLRC 431(1973), CITED AND
 RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENT, AS WELL AS TO:  78TH DIVISION (TRAINING),
 KILMER USAR CENTER, EDISON NEW JERSEY AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2807, AFL-CIO, 1 FLRA NO. 97 (AUGUST 15,
 1979) (FLRA REPORT NO. 14, SEPTEMBER 21, 1979), AND CONCLUDE THAT SUCH
 ESTABLISHED "TIME TARGET" OR "GOAL" IS NOT A "METHOD" WITHIN THE MEANING
 OF SECTION 12(B)(5) OF THE ORDER.  THE AUTHORITY, IN ITS 78TH DIVISION,
 DECISION, STATED, IN RELEVANT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THE 'PERFORMANCE
 STANDARDS' AS THEY ARE REFERRED
 
    TO BY THE PARTIES AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, ARE, IN
 ACTUALITY, GUIDELINES FOR USE BY
 
    UNIT EMPLOYEES IN PERFORMING THEIR ASSIGNED DUTIES.  MORE
 SPECIFICALLY, THE PERFORMANCE
 
    STANDARDS' OUTLINED THE METHODS BY WHICH THE PARTICULAR JOB WAS TO BE
 PERFORMED.
 
    "IN THE AUTHORITY'S VIEW THESE STANDARDS' IN ISSUE HEREIN, CONSTITUTE
 A 'METHOD' WITHIN THE
 
    MEANING OF SECTION 12(B((5) OF THE ORDER RATHER THAN A MEASURE OF
 INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTIVITY
 
    ENCOMPASSED BY SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER.  /4/ TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL, SUPRA, HAD INVOLVED A UNION
 PROPOSAL CONCERNING "WORK ASSIGNMENT" AND "CONTRACTING OUT OF BARGAINING
 UNIT WORK";  AND, WHILE NEITHER THAT CASE NOR THE 78TH DIVISION DECISION
 OF THE AUTHORITY, SUPRA, INVOLVED A "TIME TARGET" OR "GOAL", THE
 AUTHORITY'S SPECIFIC RESERVATION THAT "A MEASURE OF INDIVIDUAL
 PRODUCTIVITY" IS "ENCOMPASSED BY SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER", AND
 THEREFORE NOT GOVERNED BY SECTION 12(B)(5) OF THE ORDER, AND THE
 AUTHORITY'S REFERENCE TO THE COUNCIL'S PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
 ASSOCIATION, DECISION, SUPRA, IN WHICH "PRODUCTIONS GOALS" WAS HELD
 NEGOTIABLE UNDER SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER, TOGETHER WITH THE DECISION
 OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, A/SLMR
 NO. 246, 3 A/SLMR 88(1973), PERSUASIVELY DEMONSTRATE THAT TURNAROUND
 TIME FOR PATENT EXAMINERS WAS A NEGOTIABLE MATTER WITHIN THE MEANING OF
 SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER.  IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA,
 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY STATED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    " . . . I FIND THAT . . . RESPONDENT'S INSTITUTION OF CHANGES IN TIME
 SCHEDULES FOR THE
 
    PROCESSING OF CASES . . . IS A MATTER AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF
 
    SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER AND A PROPER SUBJECT FOR COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING.  . . . IN MY VIEW,
 
    THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN A DIALOGUE WITH RESPECT TO A CHANGE IN
 EMPLOYEE WORKING CONDITIONS
 
    BECOMES MEANINGFUL ONLY WHEN AGENCY MANAGEMENT HAS AFFORDED THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 
    REASONABLE NOTIFICATION AND AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE FULLY THE
 MATTER PRIOR TO THE
 
    IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CHANGE.  IF, AS HERE, A PARTY TO AN EXCLUSIVE
 BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP
 
    WERE FREE TO MAKE UNILATERAL CHANGES IN ESTABLISHED WORKING
 CONDITIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES, THE
 
    OBLIGATION ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 11(A) TO MEET AND CONFER ON SUCH
 WORKING CONDITIONS WITH
 
    AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE WOULD BECOME MEANINGLESS.  IN ADDITION,
 SUCH UNILATERAL CONTACT BY
 
    AN AGENCY HAS THE EFFECT OF UNDERCUTTING THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE, THEREBY
 
    DESTROYING ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN THE EYES OF THOSE WHOM IT
 REPRESENTS." (3 A/SLMR AT 90)
 
    TURNAROUND TIME, OR A "TIME TARGET" FOR DISPOSITION OF AMENDED CASES,
 IS A VERY DIRECT MEASURE OF INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTIVITY.  IN ADDITION, THE
 RECORD SHOWS THAT CHANGE IN TURNAROUND TIME MAY IMPACT ON PRODUCTION
 GOALS IN VARIOUS WAYS.
 
    FOR EXAMPLE, AN EXAMINER IN THE INITIAL EXAMINATION OF THE PATENT
 APPLICATION GAINS A DEGREE OF FAMILIARIZATION WITH THE APPLICATION.
 PRESUMABLY, THIS WOULD VARY DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE DEFICIENCIES
 ENCOUNTERED;  BUT WOULD INVOLVE PERFORMANCE OF SOME PORTION OF THE WORK
 REQUIRED FOR A FINAL DECISION ON THE APPLICATION.  REASSIGNMENT OF AN
 AMENDED CASE RESULTS IN THE LOSS OF THIS EXPERTISE, WHICH, I ASSUME,
 WOULD RANGE FROM MODEST TO VERY SUBSTANTIAL, AND IMPOSE A GREATER BURDEN
 ON THE EXAMINER TO WHOM THE AMENDED CASE IS ASSIGNED SINCE, TO HIM, THE
 MATTER IS, ESSENTIALLY, A "NEW" CASE BUT WITH THE TIME LIMITATION OF AN
 AMENDED CASE.  OVERALL PRODUCTIVITY OF THE OFFICE IS AFFECTED WHEN
 AMENDED CASES ARE REASSIGNED, INTER ALIA, TO THE EXTENT OF DUPLICATION
 OF WORK.  ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE THAT TURNAROUND TIME FOR THE
 DISPOSITION OF AMENDED CASES IN THE PATENT OFFICE IS A TIME SCHEDULE TO
 THE SAME EXTENT AS THE TIME SCHEDULES INVOLVED IN NATIONAL LABOR
 RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA;  THAT, FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA, RESPONDENT'S
 TURNAROUND TIME FOR AMENDED CASES IS A MATTER AFFECTING WORKING
 CONDITIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER;  THAT
 RESPONDENT'S UNILATERAL CHANGE, IMPLEMENTED ON OCTOBER 5, 1978, OF THE
 ESTABLISHED TURNAROUND TIME, OF 60 DAYS TO 30 DAYS, VIOLATED SECTIONS
 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER;  AND THAT, IN ADDITION, RESPONDENT'S
 UNILATERAL CONDUCT HAD THE EFFECT OF UNDERCUTTING THE EXCLUSIVE
 BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, THEREBY IMPAIRING ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN THE
 EYES OF THOSE WHOM IT REPRESENTS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA.
 
    IN REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT TURNAROUND TIME IS A MATTER AFFECTING
 WORKING CONDITIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER I
 HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED RESPONDENT'S FURTHER CONTENTION THAT, IF NOT
 GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12(B)(5) OF THE ORDER, TURNAROUND
 TIME IS MERELY A PERMISSIBLE SUBJECT FOR BARGAINING, WITHIN THE MEANING
 OF SECTION 11(B) OF THE ORDER, AS TO WHICH RESPONDENT HAD DETERMINED NOT
 TO BARGAIN BY MR. NEWMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF OCTOBER 5, 1978, INCLUDING
 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, FLRC NO. 71A-13, 3 FLRC 380(1975);  AND AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3488 AND FEDERAL DEPOSIT
 INSURANCE CORPORATION, NEW YORK REGION, FLRC NO.  77A-76 (REPORT NO.
 147, MARCH 13, 1978), CITED AND RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENT, AND FIND
 RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS WITHOUT MERIT.  FIRST, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
 REJECTED ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR CONTENTIONS IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
 BOARD, SUPRA, AND CONCLUDED THAT TIME SCHEDULES FOR THE PROCESSING OF
 CASES IS GOVERNED BY SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER AND WERE NOT RENDERED
 PRIVILEGED BY SECTION 11(B) OF THE ORDER.  SECOND, THE CONSIDERATIONS
 SET FORTH ABOVE, INCLUDING THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION IN 78TH DIVISION,
 SUPRA, ARE PERSUASIVE THAT TIME SCHEDULES ARE NEGOTIABLE UNDER SECTION
 11(A) OF THE ORDER AND, NECESSARILY, NOT RENDERED PRIVILEGED BY SECTION
 11(B) OF THE ORDER.  THIRD ANALYSIS OF THE ITEMS FOUND NEGOTIABLE UNDER
 SECTION 11(A) IN BOTH IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, AND SUPRA,
 AND FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, SUPRA, IN COMPARISON WITH THE
 ITEMS FOUND SUBJECT TO SECTION 11(B) DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT A TIME
 STANDARD FOR THE PROCESSING OF CASES IS SUBJECT TO SECTION 11(B);  NOR
 DOES SUCH TIME STANDARD INVOLVE "THE MISSION OF AN AGENCY";  "ITS
 BUDGET";  "ITS ORGANIZATION";  "THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES";  OR "THE
 NUMBERS, TYPES, AND GRADES OF POSITIONS OR EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO AN
 ORGANIZATION UNIT, WORK PROJECT OR TOUR OF DUTY";  "THE TECHNOLOGY OF
 PERFORMING ITS WORK";  OR "ITS INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES" WHICH IS, OF
 COURSE, THE COVERAGE OF SECTION 11(B) OF THE ORDER.  FOURTH, EVEN IF
 RESPONDENT WERE RIGHT AND TURNAROUND TIME WERE ONLY A PERMISSIBLE
 SUBJECT OF BARGAINING, THE 60 DAY TURNAROUND TIME FOR AMENDED CASES IN
 GROUP 310 WAS AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT WHICH RESPONDENT
 COULD NOT UNILATERALLY CHANGE.  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA,
 A/SLMR NO.  1034, 8 A/SLMR 497(1978);  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 SOUTHWEST REGION, APPELLATE BRANCH OFFICE, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA,
 A/SLMR NO. 1153, 8 A/SLMR 1254(1978).
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT TURNAROUND TIME WAS A MATTER AFFECTING WORKING
 CONDITIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER AND/OR WAS
 AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS
 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY ITS ANNOUNCEMENT ON OCTOBER 5, 1978,
 WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT AND WITHOUT AFFORDING
 COMPLAINANT ANY OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH
 CHANGE.  IN ADDITION, RESPONDENT'S UNILATERAL ACTION HAD THE EFFECT OF
 UNDERCUTTING COMPLAINANT, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AND IMPAIRING
 ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN THE EYES OF THOSE WHOM IT REPRESENTS IN FURTHER
 VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.  RESPONDENT'S
 ANNOUNCEMENT, BY GROUP DIRECTOR NEWMAN, OF THE CHANGE IN TURNAROUND TIME
 WAS NOTIFICATION OF A FAIT ACCOMPLI AND PROVIDED COMPLAINANT WITH NO
 NOTICE AND NO OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
 CHANGE.  AS THE VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OCCURRED ON THE
 DATE, OCTOBER 5, 1978, OF RESPONDENT'S UNILATERAL CHANGE OF TURNAROUND
 TIME, I DO NOT FIND:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE, NORTON AIR FORCE
 BASE,A/SLMR NO. 261, 3 A/SLMR 176(1973).  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
 NAVY, BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY, GREAT LAKES NAVAL HOSPITAL,
 ILLINOIS, A/SLMR NO. 289, 3 A/SLMR 375(1973);  OR SOUTHEAST EXCHANGE
 REGION OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, ROSEWOOD WAREHOUSE,
 COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, A/SLMR NO. 656, 6 A/SLMR 237(1976), CITED AND
 RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENT, AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT
 RESPONDENT'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE MAY NOT BE REMEDIED BECAUSE
 COMPLAINANT, FOLLOWING MR. NEWMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CHANGE IN
 TURNAROUND TIME ON OCTOBER 5, 1978, DID NOT THEREAFTER REQUEST
 BARGAINING AND, IN RESPONDENT'S VIEW, THE CHANGE WAS NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL
 JANUARY, 1979.  FIRST, THE PROPOSITION RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENT IS
 APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE AN AGENCY TAKES UNILATERAL ACTION PURSUANT TO A
 SERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 11(B) OR 12(B) BY THE
 ORDER;  THE BARGAINING OBLIGATION RELATES ONLY TO IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION;  AND THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE HAS REASONABLE
 OPPORTUNITY AFTER NOTICE TO REQUEST BARGAINING ON IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION AND FAILS TO DO SO.  HERE, OF COURSE, THE MATTER WAS A
 SUBJECT FOR NEGOTIATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER, AND/OR
 ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, AS TO WHICH RESPONDENT WAS REQUIRED
 TO GIVE PRIOR NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT AND AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN
 PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE.  SECOND, RESPONDENT'S UNILATERAL
 ACTION IN ANNOUNCING THE CHANGE IN TURNAROUND TIME, NECESSARILY HAD THE
 EFFECT OF UNDERCUTTING THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, THEREBY
 DESTROYING ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN THE EYES OF THOSE WHOM IT REPRESENTS.
 THIRD, THE RECORD PLAINLY SHOWS, AND I HAVE SO FOUND, THAT THE ANNOUNCED
 CHANGE IN TURNAROUND TIME HAD IMMEDIATE EFFECT INASMUCH AS THE EXAMINERS
 WERE INFORMED THAT THEY MUST, DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 5, 1978, TO
 JANUARY, 1979 DISPOSE OF THEIR BACKLOG OF AMENDED CASES AND THAT,
 BEGINNING JANUARY, 1979, THE 30 DAY TURNAROUND TIME WOULD BE FULLY
 EFFECTIVE.  FOURTH, IF A REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE WERE DEEMED NECESSARY, I
 AGREE WITH COMPLAINANT THAT INCLUSION OF PRECISELY SUCH A REQUEST IN THE
 PRE-COMPLAINT CHARGE, FILED ON OCTOBER 13, 1978, CONSTITUTED A FULLY
 SUFFICIENT REQUEST FOR BARGAINING.  IN ADDITION, MR. ALAN P. DOUGLAS,
 PRESIDENT OF COMPLAINANT, TESTIFIED THAT HE MET WITH MR. NEWMAN ON
 NOVEMBER 16, 1978, /2/ AND THAT MR. NEWMAN REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE, I.E.,
 MR. NEWMAN TOLD MR. DOUGLAS, " . . . HIS POLICIES WERE NOT SUBJECT TO
 NEGOTIATIONS" OR, "OH, BY THE WAY, MY POLICIES ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE IN
 THESE MATTERS . . . " /3/ NOR DID THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND
 TRADEMARKS, MR. DONALD W. BANNER, TO WHOM THE CHARGE (JT. EXH. 1) WAS
 ADDRESSED, DIRECTLY, OR THROUGH ANY REPRESENTATIVE, AGREE TO NEGOTIATE
 IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST MADE IN THE PRE-COMPLAINT CHARGE (TR. 85,
 86).  /4/
 
    2.  APPRISING OFFICE OF WHEREABOUTS.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT "MR.
 NEWMAN REQUIRED UNIT MEMBERS TO GIVE A WRITTEN INDICATION OF THEIR
 LOCATION WHEN THEY WERE ABSENT FROM THEIR DESKS MORE THAN TEN MINUTES;
 THERE WAS NO SUCH POLICY OR PRACTICE PREVIOUSLY." (BASIS OF THE
 COMPLAINT, ALJ EXH. 1.)
 
    THE RECORD SHOWS THAT, ON OCTOBER 5, 1978, MR. NEWMAN TOLD EMPLOYEES
 THAT THERE WERE OCCASIONS WHEN THEY HAD TO BE LOCATED PROMPTLY AND THAT
 IN ORDER TO DO SO IT WAS NECESSARY TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE WHEN THEY ARE
 AWAY FROM THEIR DESKS.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, HE SAID THAT THEY SHOULD, OR THAT HE WANTED THEM TO
 LEAVE A NOTE ON THEIR DESK, OR TO TELL THEIR SUPERVISOR ANY TIME THEY
 WERE GOING TO BE AWAY FOR MORE THAN 10 MINUTES.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT
 THAT THE POLICY IN GROUP 310, LONG PRIOR TO OCTOBER, 1978, HAD BEEN THAT
 SUPERVISORS WERE TO KNOW WHERE THE EMPLOYEES WERE. MR. STOCKING, THE
 PRIOR DIRECTOR OF GROUP 310, SO TESTIFIED AND STATED:
 
    "A.  THERE WAS A POLICY THAT THE SUPERVISORS WERE TO KNOW WHERE THE
 EMPLOYEES WERE.  HOW
 
    THAT POLICY WAS IMPLEMENTED WAS LEFT IN THE SUPERVISOR'S HANDS, AND
 IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING
 
    THAT IT WAS DONE BY WAY OF NOTES, CARDS, OR ORAL COMMUNICATION.
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    "A.  TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IT WAS COMPLIED WITH." (TR. 281)
 
    SUPERVISORS SPAR AND BLIX LIKEWISE TESTIFIED TO THE EXISTENCE OF THIS
 POLICY AND THAT EXAMINERS WERE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLY, LONG BEFORE MR.
 NEWMAN BECAME DIRECTOR OF GROUP 310.  INDEED, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT, IN
 GROUP 310, COMPLIANCE WITH THIS POLICY WAS SPECIFICALLY GIVEN
 CONSIDERATION IN AWARD RECOMMENDATION (SEE RESP. EXHS. 8, 9, 10 AND 11).
 
    THE STATEMENTS ON RESPONDENT EXHIBITS 9, 10, AND 11, ARE THAT THE
 EXAMINER "ALWAYS LEAVES AN INDICATION ON HIS DESK AS TO HIS WHEREABOUTS
 WHEN DUTY REQUIRES HIM TO BE ELSEWHERE" (RESP. EXH. 9, 10 AND 11).
 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 8 STATES THAT THE EXAMINER "INDICATES BY NOTE WHERE
 HE WILL BE IF HE HAS TO BE AWAY FROM HIS DESK FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF
 TIME." THESE STATEMENTS, EACH BY SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER TRYGVE M.
 BLIX, SHED LIGHT ON THE POLICY AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO OCTOBER, 1978,
 WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TESTIMONY OF MR.  STOCKING AND
 MR. ROBERT J. SPAR, ALSO A SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER UNDER BOTH GROUP
 DIRECTOR STOCKING AND GROUP DIRECTOR NEWMAN IN GROUP 310.  MR. SPAR
 TESTIFIED THAT, ALTHOUGH HE ADVISED THE EXAMINERS IN HIS UNIT IN
 WRITING, THEY MUST LEAVE A NOTE FOR ABSENCES OF TEN MINUTES OR MORE,
 SUCH NOTIFICATION DID NOT APPLY AT ALL TO ABSENCES TO SEARCH THE PRIOR
 ART OR ANY OTHER ACTIVITY FOR WHICH EXAMINING TIME WAS CHARGEABLE.
 (SEE, TR. 244).  FROM MR. STOCKING'S TESTIMONY THERE IS A STRONG
 INFERENCE THAT MR. STOCKING'S POLICY WAS, IN FACT, ALSO DIRECTED TO
 "OTHER-TIME" ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED BY MR.  SPAR, AND NOT TO EXAMINING
 DUTIES.  THUS, MR. STOCKING TESTIFIED,
 
    "A.  WELL, IF THEY ARE OFF THE FLOOR FOR A SIGNIFICANT LENGTH OF
 TIME-- TEN MINUTES, TO ME,
 
    IS ENOUGH TIME TO GO GET A CUP OF COFFEE AND COME BACK.  I DON'T WANT
 TO HEAR ABOUT THOSE
 
    VISITS, BUT IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE GONE TO A MEETING FOR A HALF HOUR
 OR AN HOUR, I WANT TO
 
    KNOW, AND THAT'S NORMALLY THE TIME THAT THEY LET ME KNOW." (TR.
 278).
 
    MR. RAYMON B. JOHNSON, A PATENT EXAMINER IN GROUP 310 (ART UNIT 314),
 TESTIFIED THAT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 5, 1978, HE WAS NEVER REQUIRED TO LEAVE
 A NOTE WHEN ABSENT FROM THE ROOM ON EXAMINING DUTIES BUT THAT THEY WERE
 REQUIRED TO DO SO FOR UNION ACTIVITIES AND EEO ACTIVITIES (TR. 136-137).
 
    FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, I CONCLUDE THAT, PRIOR TO
 OCTOBER 5, 1978, THERE HAD BEEN A POLICY IN GROUP 310 THAT EXAMINERS
 SHOULD ADVISE THEIR SUPERVISORS WHEN ABSENT FOR ACTIVITIES, OTHER THAN
 REASONABLE COFFEE BREAKS, ETC., FOR WHICH EXAMINING TIME WAS NOT
 CHARGEABLE, SUCH AS ANY UNION ACTIVITY, ANY EEO ACTIVITIES, ANY PATENT
 OFFICE SOCIETY ACTIVITIES;  AND THAT THIS POLICY MAY EVEN HAVE BEEN
 INTENDED BY MR. STOCKING TO EXTEND TO OTHER ABSENCES "OFF THE FLOOR FOR
 A SIGNIFICANT LENGTH OF TIME", WHICH, SUBSTANTIALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH
 COMPLAINANT, I FIND MEANT LEAVING THE UNIT (SEE, ALSO, THE COMMENTS
 NOTED ABOVE IS RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 9, 10 AND 11 AND MR. BLIX' TESTIMONY
 AT PAGE 284 THAT "THEY ARE ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE NOTES AS TO THEIR
 WHEREABOUTS WHEN THEY ARE ELSEWHERE.") FOR A SIGNIFICANT LENGTH OF TIME
 WHICH, FROM MR.  STOCKING'S TESTIMONY, I INFER, IN TURN, MEANT
 APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES;  AND THAT MR. SPAR HAD FURTHER REQUIRED
 NOTIFICATION FOR ABSENCES FROM THE ART UNIT, FOR WHICH EXAMINING TIME
 WAS CHARGEABLE.
 
    MR. NEWMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENT ON OCTOBER 5, 1978, THAT EXAMINERS SHOULD
 LEAVE A NOTE OR ADVISE THEIR SUPERVISORS DID, INDEED, CHANGE POLICY IN
 AT LEAST TWO REGARDS.  FIRST, SUCH NOTIFICATION WAS THEREAFTER TO BE
 GIVEN FOR ANY ABSENCE OF MORE THAN 10 MINUTES;  AND SECOND, SUCH
 NOTIFICAITON WAS TO BE GIVEN FOR ABSENCE FROM THEIR DESKS, RATHER THAN
 "OFF THE FLOOR".  MOREOVER, THIS WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE DIRECTOR OF
 GROUP 310 OF HIS POLICY, WHEREAS, PRIOR IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY HAD
 BEEN LEFT BY MR. STOCKING TO EACH SUPERVISOR.  THAT MR. NEWMAN INTENDED
 TO IMPRESS THE EXAMINERS THAT HIS "WISHES" WERE TO BE COMPLIED WITH MAY
 REASONABLY BE INFERRED FROM THE TONE OF THE MEETING AND HIS EXPRESS
 REFERENCE TO HIS SIZE 12 SHOE.  NOT ONLY WAS THERE TESTIMONY BY VARIOUS
 EXAMINERS THAT MR. NEWMAN "REQUIRED" SUCH NOTIFICATION BUT MR. SPAR
 TESTIFIED,
 
    "A.  MR. NEWMAN ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD REQUIRE-- THAT HE WANTED ALL
 EXAMINERS-- HE WOULD
 
    REQUIRE ALL EXAMINERS TO LEAVE NOTES . . . HE IMPLIED THAT IT WAS
 MANDATORY FOR ALL EXAMINERS
 
    . . . " (TR. 232)
 
    WHILE I AM AWARE THAT MR. NEWMAN STATED, "IT'S AN ENCOURAGED POLICY.
 THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT FOR ANYTHING" (TR. 129), I CONCLUDE, AS
 MR. SPAR TESTIFIED, "HE IMPLIED THAT IT WAS A MANDATORY POLICY FOR ALL
 EXAMINERS".  FINALLY, ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT THAT MR. NEWMAN INTENDED TO
 INSTITUTE A NEW POLICY WITH REGARD TO REPORTING ABSENCES IS FIRMLY LAID
 TO REST BY MR. NEWMAN'S OWN REPORT TO THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
 FOR PATENTS, MR. FELDMAN, IN WHICH HE STATED,
 
    " . . . WE INSTITUTED A PROGRAM OF INFORMING SUPERVISORS (IN PERSON
 OR BY A NOTE LEFT ON
 
    THE DESK) WHEN ABSENCE OF MORE THAN 10 MINUTES OCCUR . . . " (COMP.
 EXH. 6, P. 8;  TR. 100).
 
    MR. NEWMAN'S UNILATERAL INSTITUTION OF HIS PROGRAM OF INFORMING
 SUPERVISORS WHEN ABSENCES OF MORE THAN 10 MINUTES OCCUR ON OCTOBER 5,
 1978, CHANGED AN EXISTING CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT;  INVOLVED PERSONNEL
 POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS, WITHIN
 THE MEANING OF SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER;  WAS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY;
 AND COMPLAINANT WAS AFFORDED NO PRIOR NOTICE OR OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN
 PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE "PROGRAM".  RESPONDENT THEREBY VIOLATED
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER IN THE MANNER AND FOR THE REASONS
 MORE FULLY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE IN SUB-SECTION 1 OF THIS PARAGRAPH WITH
 REGARD TO ITS UNILATERAL CHANGE, ON THE SAME DATE, OF TURNAROUND TIME.
 
    3.  PRODUCTIVITY STANDARD.  AS NOTED HEREINABOVE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE
 THAT ON OCTOBER 5, 1978, MR. NEWMAN ADVISED ALL EXAMINERS OF GROUP 310
 THAT, AS PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, EXAMINERS WOULD BE EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE
 100 PER CENT OF THEIR INDIVIDUALLY ASSIGNED PRODUCTION GOALS;  THAT
 "ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% OF EXPECTANCY WAS CONSIDERED DEFICIENT" (JT.
 EXH. 7, P.  3;  TR. 101, 107-108).  /5/ IN ITS COMPLAINT, COMPLAINANT
 ASSERTS THAT THIS " . .  . REPRESENTS A TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT INCREASE
 OVER THE PREVIOUS QUANTITATIVE PERFORMANCE STANDARD." MORE SPECIFICALLY,
 COMPLAINANT ASSERTS THAT AS THE AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT OF DECEMBER
 13, 1972 (JT. EXH. 2A), AS EXTENDED BY THE EXTENSION AGREEMENT OF
 OCTOBER 24, 1975 (JT. EXH. 2B) PROVIDES, IN PART, THAT:
 
    ". . .
 
    "4.  AN ACHIEVEMENT OF AT LEAST 75% OF AN ASSIGNED GOAL SHALL BE
 DEEMED PRIMA FACIE
 
    EVIDENCE OF AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF COMPETENCE ON THE FACTOR OF
 PRODUCTION FOR PURPOSES OF
 
    GRANTING A WITHIN-GRADE INCREASE UNLESS ADEQUATE WRITTEN
 JUSTIFICATION IS GIVEN TO THE
 
    EMPLOYEE THAT THE ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL ON THE FACTOR OF PRODUCTION IS
 INSUFFICIENT.  AN
 
    ACHIEVEMENT BELOW 75% OF AN ASSIGNED GOAL SHALL BE DEEMED PRIMA FACIE
 EVIDENCE THAT THE LEVEL
 
    OF COMPETENCE ON THE FACTOR OF PRODUCTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR
 PURPOSES OF GRANTING A
 
    WITHIN-GRADE INCREASE UNLESS THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES
 WHICH JUSTIFY THE ACHIEVED
 
    PRODUCTION LEVEL . . ." (JT. EXH. 2C, DATED JULY 7, 1976),
 
    MR. NEWMAN'S STATEMENT THAT "ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% OF EXPECTANCY
 WAS CONSIDERED DEFICIENT" EFFECTIVELY MODIFIED THE NEGOTIATED PROVISION,
 SET FORTH ABOVE.  IN EFFECT, COMPLAINANT ASSERTS THAT AN EXAMINER WHO
 ACHIEVES 75% OF AN ASSIGNED GOAL IS NOT DEFICIENT BY VIRTUE OF THE
 NEGOTIATED PROVISION;  AND, IN PARTICULAR THAT, IN VIEW OF THE
 NEGOTIATED PROVISION, DENOMINATION OF ACHIEVEMENT OF ANY LEVEL BELOW
 100% AS A "BARE MINIMUM", MODIFIES THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT.
 RESPONDENT, OF COURSE, DENIES THAT MR. NEWMAN'S STATEMENT WAS IMPROPER.
 INDEED, RESPONDENT ASSERTS, INTER ALIA, THAT THE STATEMENT WAS NOT
 DIRECTED TO INGRADE INCREASES, BUT, IN ANY EVENT, CONSTITUTED NO CHANGE
 IN PARAGRAPH 4, SET FORTH ABOVE, SINCE THE AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY
 PROVIDED THAT ACHIEVEMENT OF 75% OF AN ASSIGNED GOAL WAS ONLY PRIMA
 FACIE EVIDENCE OF AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF COMPETENCE ON THE FACTOR OF
 PRODUCTION FOR GRANTING A WITHIN-GRADE INCREASE AND THAT THE AGREEMENT
 RECOGNIZED THAT 75%, WHILE CONSTITUTING PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF AN
 ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF PRODUCTION FOR AN INGRADE INCREASE, WAS,
 NEVERTHELESS, A DEFICIENCY IN ATTAINING THE ASSIGNED GOAL AND THAT EVEN
 THE PRESUMPTION FOR GRANTING OF A WITHIN-GRADE INCREASE WAS REBUTTABLE
 BY "ADEQUATE WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION".  MOREOVER, RESPONDENT FURTHER
 ASSERTS THAT FAILURE TO ACHIEVE AN ASSIGNED GOAL, WHOLLY APART FROM
 WITHIN-GRADE INCREASES, IS A DEFICIENCY NECESSARILY CONSIDERED IN OTHER
 DETERMINATIONS, INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, EVALUATIONS OF PERFORMANCE AND
 THAT THIS IS DEMONSTRATED BY ITS CONSISTENT PRACTICE, AND IN PARTICULAR
 ITS PRACTICE SINCE THE DATE OF THE ABOVE AMENDMENT, JULY 7, 1976.
 
    A THRESHOLD QUESTION IS WHETHER DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE IS, IN
 ESSENCE, A DISAGREEMENT OVER THE INTERPRETATION OF AN EXISTING
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, WHICH PROVIDES A PROCEDURE FOR
 RESOLUTION OF SUCH DISAGREEMENT, WHICH SHOULD BE LEFT FOR RESOLUTION
 UNDER REMEDIES PROVIDED UNDER THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, REPORT ON A RULING OF THE ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY PURSUANT TO SECTION 6 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, REPORT NO.
 49, 2 A/SLMR 639(1972);  DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, WATERVLIET ARSENAL,
 WATERVLIET, N.Y., A/SLMR NO. 624, 6 A/SLMR 127(1976);  AEROSPACE
 GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY CENTER, NEWARK AIR FORCE STATION, NEWARK, OHIO,
 A/SLMR NO. 677, 6 A/SLMR 361(1976). THE TOUCHSTONE, AS STATED BY THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY IS WHETHER THERE ARE:
 
    " . . . ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WHICH CONCERN
 DIFFERING AND ARGUABLE
 
    INTERPRETATION OF SUCH AGREEMENT, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ALLEGED
 ACTIONS WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE
 
    CLEAR, UNILATERAL BREACHES OF THE AGREEMENT. . . " (6 A/SLMR AT 129;
 6/ALMR AT 362-363).
 
    IF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT CONCERN DIFFERING
 AND ARGUABLE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, SUCH ALLEGED VIOLATION IS
 NOT DEEMED TO BE VIOLATIVE OF THE ORDER.  DEPARTMENT OF ARMY,
 WATERVILIET ARSENAL, SUPRA;  AEROSPACE GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY CENTER,
 SUPRA;  WARNER ROBBINS AIR LOGISTICS CENTER, ROBBINS AIR FORCE BASE,
 GEORGIA, A/SLMR NO. 912, 7 A/SLMR 859(1977);  GENERAL SERVICES
 ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE, A/SLMR NO. 1055,
 8 A/SLMR 629(1978);  GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, REGION 5, PUBLIC
 BUILDINGS SERVICE, CHICAGO FIELD OFFICE, A/SLMR NO. 528;  5 A/SLMR
 424(1975);  FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, MUSKEGON AIR TRAFFIC
 CONTROL TOWER, A/SLMR NO. 543, 5 A/SLMR 457(1975).  FOR REASONS SET
 FORTH HEREINAFTER, I CONCLUDE THAT THE ALLEGED VIOLATION HEREIN CONCERNS
 DIFFERING AND ARGUABLE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PARTIES COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND THAT MR. NEWMAN'S STATEMENT ON OCTOBER 5, 1978,
 DID NOT CONSTITUTE A CLEAR, UNILATERAL BREACH OF THAT AGREEMENT.
 
    IN THEORY, CERTAINLY, ONCE A PRODUCTION GOAL IS ESTABLISHED FOR AN
 INDIVIDUAL, ANY FAILURE TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL IS A DEFICIENCY VIS-A-VIS
 THAT GOAL.  HERE, THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES MAKES SPECIFIC PROVISION
 FOR VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.  THUS, PARAGRAPH 1, PROVIDES, SUBJECT TO
 CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, THAT ACHIEVEMENT OF 110% OF A GOAL, OVER A STATED
 PERIOD, IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF SUFFICIENTLY OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE
 ON THE FACTOR OF PRODUCTION TO WARRANT GRANT OF A QUALITY STEP INCREASE;
  PARAGRAPH 2, RELATES TO GRANT OF A SPECIAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD FOR
 ACHIEVEMENT OF 110% OF A GOAL OVER A PERIOD OF SIX CONSECUTIVE MONTHS,
 SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS;  PARAGRAPH 3, RELATES TO QUALIFICATION FOR
 A PROMOTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8 OF THE AGREEMENT;
 AND, OF COURSE, PARAGRAPH 4 RELATES TO THE GRANTING OF A WITHIN-GRADE
 INCREASE.
 
    THE INTRODUCTORY SENTENCE, WHICH APPLIES EQUALLY TO PARAGRAPHS 1-4,
 STATES:
 
    "INSOFAR AS PURELY QUANTITIVE CRITERIA ARE CONCERNED, AN INDIVIDUAL'S
 GOAL SHALL HAVE THE
 
    FOLLOWING MEANING AND EFFECT:
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    "4.  AN ACHIEVEMENT OF AT LEAST 75% OF AN ASSIGNED GOAL SHALL BE
 DEEMED PRIMA FACIE
 
    EVIDENCE OF AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF COMPETENCE ON THE FACTOR OF
 PRODUCTION FOR PURPOSES OF
 
    GRANTING A WITHIN GRADE INCREASE UNLESS ADEQUATE WRITTEN
 JUSTIFICATION IS GIVEN TO THE
 
    EMPLOYEE THAT THE ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL ON THE FACTOR OF PRODUCTION IS
 INSUFFICIENT
 
    . . . " (JT. EXH. 2C)
 
    THE ABOVE PROVISION DOES RELATE TO THE ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF COMPETENCE
 BUT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THIS LEVEL AS ACHIEVEMENT AS, SIMPLY, 75% OF AN
 ASSIGNED GOAL.  TO THE CONTRARY, THE AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT, " . . . AS
 PURELY QUANTITIVE CRITERIA ARE CONCERNED . . .  ACHIEVEMENT OF AT LEAST
 75% OF AN ASSIGNED GOAL SHALL BE DEEMED PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF AN
 ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF COMPETENCE FOR PURPOSES OF GRANTING A WITHIN-GRADE
 INCREASE UNLESS ADEQUATE WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION IS GIVEN . . . THE
 ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL ON THE FACTOR OF PRODUCTION IS INSUFFICIENT . . . "
 COMPLAINANT'S INTERPRETATION OF ITS AGREEMENT IS AN ARGUABLE
 CONSTRUCTION;  BUT RESPONDENT'S INTERPRETATION, WHILE DIFFERING, IS NO
 LESS AN ARGUABLE INTERPRETATION, IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF
 RESPONDENT'S OWN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, AO 202-531 (JT. EXH. 8( WHICH
 PROVIDES, IN PART, THAT:
 
    " . . . AN EMPLOYEE'S PERFORMANCE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MEET THIS
 STANDARD (AN ACCEPTABLE
 
    LEVEL OF COMPETENCE) UNLESS . . . (2) IT . . . MEETS . . . ALL .  . .
 STANDARDS . . . FOR A
 
    SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE RATING." (SECTION 7.02 B.1.(B)
 
    COMPLAINANT'S ASSERTION IN ITS BRIEF THAT,
 
    "RESPONDENT HAS TAKEN THE OUTRAGEOUS POSITION THAT WHILE 75% MAY BE
 SUFFICIENT FOR A
 
    WITHIN-GRADE, 100% IS THE BARE MINIMUM LEVEL FOR SATISFACTORY
 PERFORMANCE . . . "(P. 7),
 
    IS, IN ANY EVENT, LAID TO REST BY THE ABOVE PROVISION OF
 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AO 202-531.  THAT IS, WITH FULL RECOGNITION THAT A
 PERFORMANCE RATING AND AN INGRADE INCREASE ARE ENTIRELY SEPARATE (SEE,
 TR. 224, 225) AND MAY COVER VERY DIFFERENT PERIODS (TR. 254), IT NOT
 ONLY WOULD SEEM INCONSISTENT, AS MR. SPAR TESTIFIED (TR. 254) TO GRANT
 AN INGRADE INCREASE FOR EXCEEDING 75% AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ISSUE A 90-DAY
 LETTER FOR UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE;  BUT IT WOULD BE IMPROPER UNDER
 AO 202-531 TO GRANT AN INGRADE INCREASE UNLESS THE EMPLOYEES'
 PERFORMANCE HAS MET ALL STANDARDS FOR A SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE RATING.
  ACCORDINGLY, MR. NEWMAN'S TESTIMONY THAT:
 
    "Q.  THE QUESTION WAS, ARE YOU GOING TO GRANT A WITHIN-GRADE TO
 SOMEONE WHOSE PERFORMANCE
 
    YOU CONSIDER TO BE UNSATISFACTORY.
 
    "A.  DEFICIENT, NOT FULLY SATISFACTORY, I WOULD HAVE TO.  YOU CAN
 DENY A WITHIN-GRADE IF A
 
    PERSON'S PERFORMANCE IS BELOW MARGINAL." (TR. 107), IF INTENDED TO
 MEAN THAT ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE HAS A DIFFERENT MEANING FOR
 THE PURPOSE OF AN EXAMINER'S RATING THAN FOR GRANT OF AN INGRADE
 INCREASE WOULD NOT COMPORT WITH ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AO 202-531.
 NEVERTHELESS, RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS 2-7 SHOW A CONSISTENT POLICY OF
 EXHORTING ACHIEVEMENT OF EACH EXAMINER'S GOAL.  FOR EXAMPLE, "PRODUCTION
 ACHIEVEMENT IS WAY TOO LOW AND AT AN UNSATISFACTORY LEVEL. BRING IT UP
 TO YOUR EXPECTANCY OF 100%" (RESP.  EXH. 2);  "MORE WORK EFFORT IS
 NEEDED TO BRING PRODUCTION UP TO MEET 100% OF YOUR GOALS" (RESP. EXH.
 4);  "TRY TO ACHIEVE YOUR PRODUCTION EXPECTANCY EACH PAY PERIOD . . . "
 (RESP. EXH. 5);  "NEW CASE EFFORTS SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED TO
 BRING PERFORMANCE UP TO AT LEAST 100%" (RESP. EXH. 6).  MR. STOCKING
 TESTIFIED,
 
    "A.  I EXPECTED THEM TO PRODUCE AT 100 PERCENT OF THEIR EXPECTANCY.
 (TR. 273)
 
    "Q.  WHEN EXAMINERS PERFORMED BETWEEN 75 TO 100 PERCENT OF THEIR
 EXPECTANCY WERE THEY
 
    CONSIDERED DEFICIENT IN ANY WAY?
 
    "A.  THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED DEFICIENT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF
 ACHIEVING THEIR EXPECTANCY,
 
    BUT WE WOULD LOOK BEHIND TO SEE WHICH REASONS THERE MIGHT BE.
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    "A.  IN MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S AN OFFICE POLICY THAT EVERYBODY IS TO
 DO 100 PERCENT OF
 
    THEIR EXPECTANCY.
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    "A.  EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN, AT LEAST UNDER MY
 DIRECTION, A CONTINUING
 
    THING.  THE EMPLOYEES ARE INFORMED OF THEIR FAILURE TO ACHIEVE WHAT
 IS EXPECTED OF THEM ON A
 
    REGULAR BASIS;  IT MIGHT BE A MONTHLY BASIS, OR IT MIGHT BE A
 QUARTERLY BASIS. . . " (TR. 273).
 
    SUPERVISORS SPAR AND BLIX FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT EXAMINERS WERE
 REGULARLY COUNSELED CONCERNING ANY FAILURE TO MEET THEIR GOALS.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, I CAN NOT CONCLUDE THAT MR. NEWMAN'S STATEMENT THAT
 "ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% OF EXPECTANCY WAS CONSIDERED DEFICIENT"
 CONSTITUTED A CLEAR, UNILATERAL BREACH OF THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT.  THE
 AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WHILE MAKING ACHIEVEMENT OF AT LEAST 75% OF AN
 ASSIGNED GOAL PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE,
 SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT "ADEQUATE WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION . . . THAT
 THE ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL ON THE FACTOR OF PRODUCTION IS INSUFFICIENT" MAY
 BE GIVEN.  WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE IN ANY
 GIVEN INSTANCE, WHAT CONSTITUTES ADEQUATE WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION IN ANY
 INSTANCE, OR WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR RATING IS PROPER IN ANY GIVEN
 INSTANCE ARE NOT ISSUES BEFORE ME.  I DO NOT HOLD THAT RESPONDENT MAY
 APPLY A DIFFERENT STANDARD, UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 OF ITS AGREEMENT AND
 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 202-531, FOR AN IN-GRADE INCREASE THAN IT APPLIES
 IN AN EXAMINER'S RATING, BASED SOLELY ON THE FACTOR OF PRODUCTION.  I
 HAVE DECIDED ONLY THAT MR. NEWMAN'S STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 5, 1978, DID
 NOT CONSTITUTE A CLEAR, UNILATERAL BREACH OF THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT.
 INDEED, THE RECORD AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWS THAT MR. NEWMAN'S STATEMENT
 REFLECTED A REAFFIRMATION OF RESPONDENT'S CONSISTENT PRIOR POLICY.  ALL
 OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT CONCERN DIFFERING
 AND ARGUABLE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE AGREEMENT AND SAID ALLEGED
 VIOLATIONS ARE NOT DEEMED VIOLATIVE OF THE ORDER.  THEREFORE, THIS
 PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT IS HEREBY DISMISSED.  DEPARTMENT OF ARMY,
 WATERVLIET ARSENAL, SUPRA;  AEROSPACE GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY CENTER,
 SUPRA.
 
                             RECOMMENDED ORDER
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF
 THE ORDER BY VIRTUE OF CERTAIN UNILATERAL CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO
 TURNAROUND TIME AND WITH RESPECT TO REPORTING ABSENCES, AN APPROPRIATE
 ORDER, DESIGNED TO REMEDY THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES FOUND, IS SET FORTH
 HEREINAFTER.  HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT OTHERWISE VIOLATE
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER, AND SPECIFICALLY THAT MR.
 NEWMAN'S STATEMENT THAT "ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% OF EXPECTANCY WAS
 CONSIDERED DEFICIENT" DID NOT CONSTITUTE A CLEAR, UNILATERAL BREACH OF
 THE PARTIES' NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, THE REMAINING ALLEGATIONS OF THE
 COMPLAINT ARE HEREBY DISMISSED.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AND
 SECTION 203.26(B) OF THE REGULATION THEREUNDER, 29 C.F.R. SECTION
 203.26(B);  AND SECTION 2400.2 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS,
 5 C.F.R. CHAPTER XIV, SUBCHAPTER A, FED. REG. VOL. 44, NO. 147, JULY 30,
 1979, P. 44741, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE U.S. PATENT AND
 TRADEMARK OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    A) INSTITUTING CHANGES IN THE 60 DAY TURNAROUND TIME FOR THE
 PROCESSING OF AMENDED CASES BY UNIT EMPLOYEES IN GROUP 310, AS IT
 EXISTED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 5, 1978, WITHOUT REASONABLE PRIOR NOTICE TO
 PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 THE UNIT EMPLOYEES;
 
    B) INSTITUTING CHANGES IN THE REPORTING OF ABSENCES OFF THE FLOOR FOR
 A SIGNIFICANT LENGTH OF TIME, AS SUCH POLICY EXISTED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 5,
 1978, IN GROUP 310, WITHOUT REASONABLE PRIOR NOTICE TO PATENT OFFICE
 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS UNIT
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERRING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYES IN THE EXERCISES OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    A) RESCIND THE CHANGE IN TURNAROUND TIME FOR THE PROCESSING OF
 AMENDED CASES IN GROUP 310, ANNOUNCED BY GROUP DIRECTOR NEWMAN ON
 OCTOBER 5, 1978, AND FORTHWITH REINSTATE A 60 DAY TURNAROUND TIME FOR
 THE PROCESSING OF AMENDED CASES IN GROUP 310,WHICH WAS THE POLICY IN
 GROUP 310 PRIOR TO OCTOBER 5, 1978.
 
    B) RESCIND THE CHANGE IN REPORTING ABSENCES IN GROUP 310, AS
 ANNOUNCED BY GROUP DIRECTOR NEWMAN ON OCTOBER 5, 1978, AND FORTHWITH
 REINSTATE IN GROUP 310 THE POLICY OF REPORTING ABSENCES OFF THE FLOOR
 FOR A SIGNIFICANT LENGTH OF TIME IN THE MANNER AND TO THE EXTENT THAT
 SUCH ABSENCES WERE REPORTED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 5, 1978.
 
    C) UPON REQUEST, NEGOTIATE WITH THE PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
 ASSOCIATION WITH RESPECT TO CHANGES IN TURNAROUND TIME FOR THE
 PROCESSING OF AMENDED CASES BY UNIT EMPLOYEES AND/OR CHANGES IN
 REPORTING ABSENCES BY UNIT EMPLOYEES OFF THE FLOOR.
 
    D) POST AT ITS FACILITIES IN CRYSTAL CITY, ARLINGTON, 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 DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND
 MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS
 PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICE TO
 EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SUCH
 BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES IN GROUP 310.  THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT
 COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID
 NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    E) PURSUANT TO SECTION 203.27 OF THE REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE
 AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO
 WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                            WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  DECEMBER 18, 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
 
                FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT CHANGE THE 60 DAY TURNAROUND TIME FOR THE PROCESSING OF
 AMENDED CASES BY UNIT EMPLOYEES IN GROUP 310, AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO
 OCTOBER 5, 1978, WITHOUT FIRST GIVING REASONABLE PRIOR NOTICE TO THE
 PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 OUR EMPLOYEES, AND, UPON REQUEST, BARGAINING IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE
 PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    WE WILL NOT CHANGE THE REPORTING OF ABSENCES OFF THE FLOOR FOR A
 SIGNIFICANT LENGTH OF TIME IN GROUP 310, AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO OCTOBER
 5, 1978, WITHOUT FIRST GIVING REASONABLE PRIOR NOTICE TO THE PATENT
 OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR
 EMPLOYEES, AND, UPON REQUEST, BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE PATENT
 OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, OR OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    WE WILL FORTHWITH RESCIND IN GROUP 310 THE CHANGE IN TURNAROUND TIME
 FOR AMENDED CASES, ANNOUNCED BY GROUP DIRECTOR NEWMAN ON OCTOBER 5,
 1978, AND, FORTHWITH REINSTATE IN GROUP 310 THE 60 DAY TURNAROUND TIME
 FOR THE PROCESSING OF AMENDED CASES.
 
    WE WILL FORTHWITH, RESCIND THE CHANGE IN REPORTING ABSENCES, AS
 ANNOUNCED BY GROUP DIRECTOR NEWMAN ON OCTOBER 5, 1978, AND;  FORTHWITH
 REINSTATE IN GROUP 310 THE POLICY OF REPORTING ABSENCES OFF THE FLOOR
 FOR A SIGNIFICANT LENGTH OF TIME IN THE MANNER, AND TO THE EXTENT, THAT
 SUCH ABSENCES WERE REPORTED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 5, 1978.
 
    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.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  BY:
 
    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, REGION 3, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  1730 K STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
 
    /1/ AT THE HEARING, RESPONDENT STATED THAT THIS ACTION WAS ALSO A
 RESERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT UNDER 12(B)(1) AND (2) OF THE ORDER.  AS
 RESPONDENT DOES NOT MAKE SUCH ASSERTION IN ITS BRIEF, NO FURTHER
 CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO APPLICABILITY OF SECTIONS 12(B)(1) OR (2)
 TO THE CHANGE IN TURNAROUND TIME.
 
    /4/ THE TERM 'METHODS' AS IT APPEARS IN SECTION 12(B)(5) OF THE ORDER
 HAS BEEN DEFINED BY THE COUNCIL TO MEAN 'THE PROCEDURES, PROCESSES,
 WAYS, TECHNIQUES, MODES, MANNERS AND SYSTEMS BY WHICH OPERATIONS ARE TO
 BE CONDUCTED-- IN SHORT, HOW OPERATIONS ARE TO BE CONDUCTED.' SEE
 TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEE METAL TRADES COUNCIL AND NAVAL
 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, 1 FLRC 431, AT PAGE 436, FLRC
 NO. 71-A-56 (JUNE 29, 1973).  CF. PATENT OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
 AND U.S. PATENT OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., 3 FLRC 635, FLRC NO. 75A-13
 (OCTOBER 3, 1975), IN WHICH THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS COUNCIL FOUND
 NEGOTIABLE UNDER SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER A PROPOSAL RELATING TO
 'PRODUCTION GOALS,' WHICH WERE USED TO MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTIVITY
 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE."
 
    /2/ TR. 81;  HOWEVER THE "SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW AND
 ATTEMPTED RESOLUTION", ATTACHMENT TO COMPLAINT, ALJ EXH. 1, SHOWS THE
 DATE AS OCTOBER 16, 1978;  SEE, ALSO, MR. NEWMAN'S TESTIMONY, TR. 121,
 WHICH PLACES THE MEETING IN OCTOBER, 1978.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES,
 WHETHER THE MEETING TOOK PLACE ON OCTOBER 16 OR NOVEMBER 16, 1978, IS
 NOT SIGNIFICANT.
 
    /3/ I AM AWARE THAT MR. NEWMAN TESTIFIED:
 
    "I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED A REQUEST;  I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY ENQUIRY IN
 THAT REGARD;  NEVER EVEN
 
    HAD IT DISCUSSED WHETHER IT WAS NEGOTIABLE UNTIL 10 OR 15 MINUTES
 AGO." (TR. 128)
 
    HOWEVER, MR. NEWMAN ADMITTED THAT HE MET WIT