American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3004, AFL-CIO (Union) and Massachusetts National Guard, Office of the Adjutant General (Activity); American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2986, AFL-CIO (Union) and Office of the Adjutant General, Oregon Military Department, Salem, Oregon (Activity); National Association of Government Employees (Union) and Office of the Adjutant General, State of New Jersey (Activity) 

 



[ v03 p894 ]
03:0894(130)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:


 3 FLRA No. 130
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3004
 Union
 
 and
 
 MASSACHUSETTS NATIONAL GUARD,
 OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL
 Activity
                                            Case No. 0-NG-111
 
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2986
 Union
 
 and
 
 OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL,
 OREGON MILITARY DEPARTMENT,
 SALEM, OREGON
 Activity
                                            Case No. 0-NG-123
 
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES
 UNION
 
 and
 
 OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL,
 STATE OF NEW JERSEY
 Activity
                                            Case No. O-NG-129
 
               CONSOLIDATED DECISION ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
 
    THESE CASES COME BEFORE THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (THE
 AUTHORITY) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(A)(2)(E) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) (5 U.S.C. SECS. 7101 ET
 SEQ.).
 
    IN EACH OF THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASES, A SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE
 CONCERNING LIMITATIONS ON THE SCOPE OF THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE
 PROCEDURE, NAMELY WHETHER APPEALS OF ADVERSE ACTIONS INVOLVING NATIONAL
 GUARD (NG) TECHNICIANS MUST, AS A MATTER OF LAW, BE SPECIFICALLY
 EXCLUDED FROM THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.  THIS ISSUE AROSE IN
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3004 AND
 MASSACHUSETTS NATIONAL GUARD, OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, CASE NO.
 O-NG-111, WHEN THE UNION, DURING THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS, SOUGHT TO
 NEGOTIATE AN ARBITRATION PROCEDURE WHICH DID NOT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE
 APPEALS OF ADVERSE ACTIONS OF NG TECHNICIANS;  IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2986 AND OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT
 GENERAL, OREGON MILITARY DEPARTMENT, SALEM, OREGON, CASE NO. O-NG-123,
 DURING THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS, WHEN THE UNION SOUGHT TO NEGOTIATE
 THE SCOPE OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE WHICH SIMILARLY DID NOT
 SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE APPEALS OF ADVERSE ACTIONS OF NG TECHNICIANS;  AND
 IN NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND OFFICE OF THE
 ADJUTANT GENERAL, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, CASE NO. O-NG-129, WHEN, DURING
 THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS, THE UNION PROPOSED TO DELETE AN EXISTING
 CONTRACT PROVISION THAT EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED ARBITRATION OF ADVERSE
 ACTIONS OF NG TECHNICIANS.  /1/ IN EACH OF THE THREE CASES, THE AGENCY
 HEAD DETERMINED THAT APPEALS OF ADVERSE ACTIONS INVOLVING NG TECHNICIANS
 MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PARTIES' NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION
 PROCEDURES SINCE SUCH APPEALS ARE, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 709(E) OF THE
 NATIONAL GUARD TECHNICIANS ACT OF 1968, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE AND COVERAGE
 OF THE PARTIES' NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURES.  IN
 THIS REGARD, SECTION 709(E) OF THE NATIONAL GUARD TECHNICIANS ACT OF
 1968 (32 U.S.C. SEC.  709(E)) PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
 
    (E) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW AND UNDER REGULATIONS
 PRESCRIBED BY THE
 
    SECRETARY CONCERNED--
 
    (1) A TECHNICIAN WHO IS EMPLOYED IN A POSITION IN WHICH NATIONAL
 GUARD MEMBERSHIP IS
 
    REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WHO IS SEPARATED FROM THE
 NATIONAL GUARD OR CEASES
 
    TO HOLD THE MILITARY GRADE SPECIFIED FOR HIS POSITION BY THE
 SECRETARY CONCERNED SHALL BE
 
    PROMPTLY SEPARATED FROM HIS TECHNICIAN EMPLOYMENT BY THE ADJUTANT
 GENERAL OF THE JURISDICTION
 
    CONCERNED;
 
    (2) A TECHNICIAN WHO IS EMPLOYES IN A POSITION IN WHICH NATIONAL
 GUARD MEMBERSHIP IS
 
    REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AND WHO FAILS TO MEET THE
 MILITARY SECURITY STANDARDS
 
    ESTABLISHED BY THE SECRETARY CONCERNED FOR A MEMBER OF A RESERVE
 COMPONENT OF THE ARMED FORCE
 
    UNDER HIS JURISDICTION MAY BE SEPARATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT AS A
 TECHNICIAN AND CONCURRENTLY
 
    DISCHARGED FROM THE NATIONAL GUARD BY THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE
 JURISDICTION CONCERNED;
 
    (3) A TECHNICIAN MAY, AT ANY TIME, BE SEPARATED FROM HIS TECHNICIANS
 EMPLOYMENT FOR CAUSE
 
    BY THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE JURISDICTION CONCERNED;
 
    (4) A REDUCTION IN FORCE, REMOVAL, OR AN ADVERSE ACTION INVOLVING
 DISCHARGE FROM TECHNICIAN
 
    EMPLOYMENT, SUSPENSION, FURLOUGH WITHOUT PAY, OR REDUCTION IN RANK OR
 COMPENSATION SHALL BE
 
    ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE JURISDICTION CONCERNED;
 
    (5) A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHICH MAY EXIST WITH RESPECT TO CLAUSE (1),
 (2), (3) OR (4) SHALL NOT
 
    EXTEND BEYOND THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE JURISDICTION CONCERNED;
 AND
 
    (6) A TECHNICIAN SHALL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF THE TERMINATION OF
 HIS EMPLOYMENT AS A
 
    TECHNICIAN AND SUCH NOTIFICATION SHALL BE GIVEN AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS
 PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION
 
    DATE OF SUCH EMPLOYMENT.
 
    INASMUCH AS A RESOLUTION OF EACH OF THE THREE APPEALS DEPENDS UPON A
 DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME ISSUE WHICH THEY ALL SHARE, THE
 AUTHORITY'S ACTION WITH RESPECT TO EACH SUCH APPEAL IS EXPRESSED IN THE
 INSTANT CONSOLIDATED DECISION WHICH APPLIES INDIVIDUALLY TO EACH OF
 THEM.
 
                    QUESTION HERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY
 
    THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, AS ALLEGED BY THE AGENCY, THE PROPOSALS
 WHICH PERTAIN TO THE SCOPE OF THE GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURES
 HERE IN DISPUTE ARE OUTSIDE THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7121 OF
 THE STATUTE BECAUSE SUCH PROCEDURES AS IN CASE NOS.  O-NG-111 AND
 O-NG-123 FAIL TO EXPRESSLY EXCLUDE APPEALS OF ADVERSE ACTIONS INVOLVING
 NG TECHNICIANS OR, AS IN CASE NO. O-NG-129 WOULD DELETE CERTAIN
 CONTRACTUAL LANGUAGE WHICH EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES SUCH APPEALS. SECTION 7121
 OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    SECTION 7121.  GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
 
    (A)(1) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (2) OF THIS SUBSECTION, ANY
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 
    AGREEMENT SHALL PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES,
 INCLUDING QUESTIONS OF
 
    ARBITRABILITY.  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (D) AND (E) OF THIS
 SECTION, THE PROCEDURES
 
    SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURES FOR RESOLVING GRIEVANCES WHICH FALL
 WITHIN ITS COVERAGE.
 
    (2) ANY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT MAY EXCLUDE ANY MATTER FROM
 THE APPLICATION OF THE
 
    GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES WHICH ARE PROVIDED FOR IN THE AGREEMENT.
 
   *          *          * *
 
 
    (C) THE PRECEDING SUBSECTIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY WITH
 RESPECT TO ANY GRIEVANCE
 
    CONCERNING--
 
    (1) ANY CLAIMED VIOLATION OF SUBCHAPTER III OF CHAPTER 73 OF THIS
 TITLE (RELATING TO
 
    PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES);
 
    (2) RETIREMENT, LIFE INSURANCE, OR HEALTH INSURANCE;
 
    (3) A SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL UNDER SECTION 7532 OF THIS TITLE;
 
    (4) ANY EXAMINATION, CERTIFICATION, OR APPOINTMENT;  OR
 
    (5) THE CLASSIFICATION OF ANY POSITION WHICH DOES NOT RESULT IN THE
 REDUCTION IN GRADE OR
 
    PAY OF AN EMPLOYEE.
 
                                  OPINION
 
    CONCLUSION:  THE PROPOSED GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURES HERE
 IN DISPUTE ARE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 7121 OF THE
 STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2424.10 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 RULES AND REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2424.10), THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATIONS THAT THE
 DISPUTED PROCEDURES ARE NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN ARE SET ASIDE.
 IN SO DECIDING THAT THE DISPUTED PROCEDURES ARE WITHIN THE DUTY TO
 BARGAIN, NO JUDGMENT IS MADE AS TO THE MERITS OF SUCH PROCEDURES.
 
    REASONS:  THE PROPOSALS HERE IN DISPUTE BEAR NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE
 FROM PROPOSALS WHICH WERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY IN ITS CONSOLIDATED
 DECISION IN NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R14-87
 AND STATE OF KANSAS ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, CASE NO.  O-NG-12;  NATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCALS R12-130 AND R12-145 AND
 STATE OF NEVADA NATIONAL GUARD, CASE NO. O-NG-15;  AND ASSOCIATION OF
 CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, NORTH AND SOUTH ALABAMA CHAPTERS AND STATE OF
 ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD, CASE NO. O-NG-84, 3 FLRA NO. 124, WHEREIN THE
 AUTHORITY HELD SUCH PROPOSALS TO BE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE
 STATUTE.
 
    IN ITS CONSOLIDATED DECISION IN THOSE CASES, THE AUTHORITY FOUND,
 RELYING ON AN EARLIER DECISION IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO. LOCAL 3669 AND VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
 CENTER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, 3 FLRA NO. 48, THAT PROPOSALS PERTAINING
 TO THE SCOPE OF GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURES WHICH DO NOT
 EXPRESSLY EXCLUDE APPEALS OF ADVERSE ACTIONS INVOLVING NATIONAL GUARD
 TECHNICIANS ARE MATTERS WITHIN THE AGENCY'S DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER
 SECTION 7121 OF THE STATUTE.
 
    THEREFORE, BASED ON THE REASONS SET FORTH IN GREATER DETAIL IN THE
 NATIONAL GUARD AND VETERANS ADMINISTRATION CASES, THE AUTHORITY HOLDS
 THAT THE DISPUTED GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURES IN THE INSTANT
 CASES LIKEWISE ARE MATTERS WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.
  ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY'S ALLEGATIONS THAT SUCH GRIEVANCE AND
 ARBITRATION PROCEDURES ARE NOT WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN BECAUSE OF THE
 FAILURE TO EXPRESSLY EXCLUDE CERTAIN MATTERS FROM SUCH PROCEDURES, ARE
 SET ASIDE.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 31, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
    PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3004 AND MASSACHUSETTS NATIONAL GUARD, OFFICE OF THE
 ADJUTANT GENERAL, CASE NO.  O-NG-111
 
                                ARBITRATION
 
    SECTION 1.  IF THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION FAIL TO SETTLE ANY
 GRIEVANCE PROCESSED UNDER THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, SUCH
 GRIEVANCE, UPON WRITTEN REQUEST BY EITHER THE EMPLOYER OR THE UNION
 WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE FINAL DECISION SHALL BE
 SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION.
 
    SECTION 2.  WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE REQUEST FOR
 ARBITRATION, EITHER PARTY SHALL REQUEST THE FEDERAL MEDIATION AND
 CONCILIATION SERVICE TO PROVIDE A LIST OF 7 IMPARTIAL PERSONS QUALIFIED
 TO ACT AS ARBITRATORS.  THE PARTIES SHALL MEET WITHIN 3 WORKING DAYS
 AFTER RECEIPT OF SUCH LIST.  IF THEY CAN'T MUTUALLY AGREE UPON ONE OF
 THE LISTED ARBITRATORS, THEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION WILL EACH STRIKE
 ONE ARBITRATOR'S NAME FROM THE LIST OF 7 AND WILL THEN REPEAT THIS
 PROCEDURE UNTIL ONE PERSON REMAINS WHO SHALL BE THE DULY SELECTED
 ARBITRATOR.
 
    SECTION 3.  THE FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE SHALL BE
 EMPOWERED TO MAKE A DIRECT DESIGNATION OF AN ARBITRATOR TO HEAR THE CASE
 IN THE EVENT:
 
    (1) EITHER PARTY REFUSES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SELECTION OF AN
 ARBITRATOR OR;  (2) UPON
 
    INACTION OR UNDUE DELAY ON THE PART OF EITHER PARTY.
 
    SECTION 4. IF THE PARTIES FAIL TO AGREE ON A JOINT SUBMISSION OF THE
 ISSUE FOR ARBITRATION, EACH SHALL SUBMIT A SEPARATE SUBMISSION AND THE
 ARBITRATOR SHALL DETERMINE THE ISSUE OR ISSUES TO BE HEARD.
 
    SECTION 5. THE ARBITRATOR'S FEE AND THE EXPENSES OF THE ARBITRATION,
 IF ANY, SHALL BE BORNE EQUALLY BY THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION.  THE
 ARBITRATION HEARING WILL BE HELD, IF POSSIBLE, ON THE EMPLOYERS'
 PREMISES DURING THE REGULAR DAY SHIFT HOURS OF THE BASIC WORKWEEK.  ALL
 PARTICIPANTS IN THE HEARING SHALL BE IN A DUTY STATUS.
 
    SECTION 6.  THE ARBITRATOR WILL BE REQUESTED TO RENDER HIS DECISION
 AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT IN ANY EVENT NOT LATER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER
 THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING UNLESS THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE TO
 EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT.
 
    SECTION 7.  THE ARBITRATOR'S AWARD SHALL BE BINDING ON THE PARTIES.
 
    SECTION 8.  ANY DISPUTE OVER THE APPLICATION OF AN ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
 SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE ARBITRATOR FOR SETTLEMENT, INCLUDING REMANDED
 AWARDS.
 
    SECTION 9.  EXCEPT AS MUTUALLY AGREED BY THE PARTIES, ARBITRATION
 UNDER THIS ARTICLE WILL BE CONDUCTED AS ORAL PROCEEDINGS WITH NO
 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT AND NO FILING OF BRIEFS.
 
    SECTION 10.  ABSENT A NEGATIVE ARBITRATOR'S DECISION UPON THE
 ARBITRABILITY OF A GRIEVANCE, THE ARBITRATOR SHALL HEAR ARGUMENTS
 REGARDING BOTH THE ARBITRABILITY AND THE MERITS OF THE CASE AT THE SAME
 HEARINGS.  HOWEVER, THE PARTIES MAY MUTUALLY AGREE OTHERWISE IN
 INSTANCES SUCH AS HIGHLY COMPLEX CASES WHICH WOULD INVOLVE SEVERAL DAYS
 OF HEARINGS.
 
    SECTION 11.  ANY PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT WHO:
 
    (A) REFUSES TO PRESENT A QUESTION OF ARBITRABILITY TO THE ARBITRATOR,
 OR OTHERWISE PROCEED
 
    TO ARBITRATE A GRIEVANCE;  OR
 
    (B) DOES NOT PROCEED WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY TO IMPLEMENT THE
 ARBITRATOR'S AWARD SHALL PAY THE
 
    TOTAL COST OF ARBITRATION.
 
    UPON A FINDING BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY THAT THE REFUSING PARTY DID
 NOT HAVE A DUTY TO ARBITRATE THE ISSUE OR IMPLEMENT THE ARBITRATOR'S
 AWARD, THE GRIEVING PARTY SHALL PAY THEIR HALF OF THE ARBITRATION COSTS.
 
    SECTION 12.  THE ARBITRATOR HAS FULL AUTHORITY TO AWARD
 REPRESENTATIVE FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE CIVIL
 SERVICE REFORM ACT.
 
    PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2986 AND OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, OREGON MILITARY
 DEPARTMENT, SALEM OREGON, CASE NO. O-NG-123.
 
                      ARTICLE XIV GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
 
    SECTION B-- SCOPE
 
    A.  GRIEVANCE MEANS ANY COMPLAINT
 
    (1) BY ANY EMPLOYEE CONCERNING ANY MATTER RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENT
 OF THE EMPLOYEE.
 
    PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
 AND OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, CASE NO.
 O-NG-129
 
    DELETE:  ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 16.  THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 32, USC
 SECTION 709E, ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED FROM BINDING ARBITRATION.
 
                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 
    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:
 
    CHARLES E. HICKEY, JR.
 
    NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT
 
    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES
 
    285 DORCHESTER AVENUE
 
    BOSTON, MASS.  02127
 
    WAYNE A. ROBERTSON
 
    CHIEF, OFFICE OF TECHNICIAN PERSONNEL
 
    NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.  20310
 
    CHIEF OF STAFF, NEW JERSEY
 
    P. O. BOX 979
 
    TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08625
 
    OSD (MRA & L)
 
    ATTN:  MR. GREEN, ROOM 3D 264
 
    THE PENTAGON
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.  20310
 
    RONALD D. KING, DIRECTOR
 
    CONTRACT AND APPEALS DIVISION
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES
 
    1325 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W.
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.  20005
 
    ADJUTANT GENERAL
 
    MILITARY DEPARTMENT
 
    2150 FAIRGROUNDS RD., N.E.
 
    SALEM, OREGON 97303
 
    BENARD HURLOCK
 
    DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF TECHNICIAN
 
    PERSONNEL
 
    NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.  20310
 
    GUY COLLETTI
 
    NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES
 
    54 CUMMINGS PARK, SUITE 312
 
    WOBURN, MASS.  01801
 
    ANTHONY L. CAMUSO
 
    LTC, GS, MASS ARNG
 
    PERSONNEL OFFICER
 
    143 SPEEN STREET
 
    NATICK, MA. 01760
 
    /1/ THE TEXT OF EACH PROPOSAL IS SET FORTH IN AN APPENDIX TO THIS
 DECISION.