Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (Respondent) and Washington Plate Printers Union, Local No. 2, International Plate Printers, Die Stampers and Engravers Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Complainant) 




[ v04 p33 ]
04:0033(6)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 4 FLRA No. 6
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 WASHINGTON PLATE PRINTERS UNION,
 LOCAL NO. 2, INTERNATIONAL PLATE
 PRINTERS, DIE STAMPERS AND ENGRAVERS
 UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case Nos. 22-08989(CA)
                                                      22-08990(CA)
 
                           DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING ISSUED
 HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
 ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINTS AND
 RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 RECOMMENDED THAT THE OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINTS BE DISMISSED.
 THEREAFTER, BOTH THE RESPONDENT AND THE COMPLAINANT FILED EXCEPTIONS TO
 THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE
 COMPLAINANT FILED A RESPONSE BRIEF TO THE RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS.  /1/
 
    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 THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE
 HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THESE CASES,
 INCLUDING THE PARTIES' EXCEPTIONS AND THE COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF,
 THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS,
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ONLY TO THE EXTENT CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
 /2/
 
    BOTH OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINTS HEREIN INVOLVE THE
 SELECTION BY THE RESPONDENT OF 25 EMPLOYEES TO SERVE AS ACTING ASSISTANT
 FOREMEN IN THE RESPONDENT'S PLATE PRINTING DIVISION.  THE COMPLAINT IN
 CASE NO. 22-08989(CA) ALLEGED THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION
 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, (ORDER) AS AMENDED, BY ITS
 REFUSAL TO BARGAIN REGARDING THE SELECTION CRITERIA TO BE USED IN
 FILLING THE PERMANENT ASSISTANT FOREMAN POSITIONS FROM AMONG THE 25 UNIT
 EMPLOYEES PREVIOUSLY SELECTED TO SERVE AS ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMEN, AND
 BY THE RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE REGARDING THE WORKING
 CONDITIONS OF THE 25 SELECTEES DURING THEIR TRAINING PERIOD.  IN
 ADDITION, THE COMPLAINT ALSO CONTAINED THE GENERAL ALLEGATION THAT THE
 SELECTION OF 25 EMPLOYEES FOR ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN TRAINING FROM A
 UNIT OF 125 EMPLOYEES WAS AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE UNIT.  THE
 COMPLAINANT CONTENDED WITH REGARD TO ALL OF THE ABOVE ALLEGATIONS THE
 POSITION OF ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN WAS NOT A SUPERVISORY POSITION
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER.  /3/
 
    THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 22-08990(CA) ALLEGED A MEETING HELD BY THE
 RESPONDENT ON JANUARY 13, 1978, WITH 8 OF THE DESIGNATED ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN TRAINEES, WAS A FORMAL DISCUSSION WITHIN THE MEANING
 OF SECTION 10(E) OF THE ORDER, AND THE RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO INFORM
 AND GIVE THE COMPLAINANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT THE MEETING
 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6).
 
    AS NOTED ABOVE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF BOTH COMPLAINTS INVOLVE THE
 RESPONDENT'S DECISION TO SELECT 25 EMPLOYEES TO SERVE IN THE ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN POSITION.  THE RECORD REFLECTS THE RESPONDENT'S
 SELECTION OF THE 25 EMPLOYEES WAS THE FIRST STEP IN THE REORGANIZATION
 OF ITS PLATE PRINTING DIVISION.  THE REORGANIZATION, WHICH WAS TO OCCUR
 IN PHASES, INVOLVED REPLACING THE FOREMEN WHO SUPERVISED THE VARIOUS
 SECTIONS ON EACH SHIFT OF THE DIVISION WITH ASSISTANT FOREMEN AT A LOWER
 RATE OF PAY.  WHEN THE NEW ORGANIZATION IS FULLY IMPLEMENTED, EACH
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN WOULD REPORT TO A FOREMAN WHO WOULD ACT IN THE NEWLY
 CREATED POSITION OF SHIFTS SUPERVISOR.  AS A FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS,
 THE RESPONDENT NOTIFIED THE COMPLAINANT OF ITS PROPOSAL TO SELECT 6 OR 7
 PLATE PRINTERS TO ACT AS ASSISTANT FOREMEN.  /4/ THE RESPONDENT AVERRED
 ITS LATER SELECTION OF 25 UNIT EMPLOYEES TO BE TRAINED IN THE ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN POSITION WAS BASED ON AN UNEXPECTED NUMBER OF
 RETIREMENTS OF FOREMEN FROM THE PLATE PRINTING DIVISION.  THE RECORD
 REVEALS THE 25 SELECTEES EACH SPENT 16 HOURS IN ON-THE-JOB TRAINING, 120
 HOURS OF WHICH INVOLVED OBSERVING AND ASSISTING A FOREMAN IN DIRECTING
 HIS SECTION.  THE REMAINING 40 HOURS INVOLVED DIRECTING THE SECTION
 WHILE A FOREMAN ACTED AS OBSERVER.  ALTHOUGH EACH SELECTEE WAS TO
 RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL 40 HOURS OF CLASSROOM SUPERVISORY TRAINING, ONLY
 EIGHT RECEIVED SUCH TRAINING DUE TO WORKLOAD CONSTRAINTS.  AFTER
 COMPLETING THEIR ON-THE-JOB TRAINING, THE SELECTEES SPENT AN AVERAGE OF
 LESS THAN HALF OF THEIR WORK TIME SERVING AS ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN
 WITH THEIR REMAINING TIME SPENT WORKING IN THEIR NORMAL CAPACITY AS
 PLATE PRINTERS.
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CONCLUDED THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN POSITION
 WAS A SUPERVISORY POSITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE
 EXECUTIVE ORDER, AND THAT THE SELECTEES WERE SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE
 MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) WHILE SERVING AS ASSISTANT FOREMEN.  THE
 AUTHORITY CONCURS WITH THESE FINDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE,
 NOTING PARTICULARLY THAT AN ASSISTANT FOREMAN IN THE RESPONDENT'S PLATE
 PRINTING DIVISION IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION OF THE SECTION
 ASSIGNED, INCLUDING THE DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THAT
 SECTION, AND THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN IS DESIGNATED AS THE FIRST STEP FOR
 THE ADJUSTMENT OF GRIEVANCES UNDER THE THREE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE
 PROCEDURES COVERING THE THREE CRAFTS EMPLOYED IN MOST SECTIONS.  /5/
 FURTHER, THE SELECTEES EXERCISED THE FULL SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OF THE
 POSITION WHILE SERVING AS ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN.
 
    CONTRARY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITY,
 CONCLUDES THAT EXCLUDING THE SELECTEES FROM THE UNIT BASED SOLELY ON
 THEIR STATUS AS TRAINEES FOR SUPERVISORY POSITIONS REGARDLESS OF THEIR
 ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF SUPERVISORY DUTIES WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED.  IN
 THIS REGARD, IT IS NOTED THE SELECTEES, UPON COMPLETION OF THEIR
 TRAINING, REMAINED UNIT EMPLOYEES SPENDING LESS THAN HALF OF THEIR WORK
 TIME ACTING IN THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN POSITION.  MOREOVER, THEIR PAY AND
 FRINGE BENEFITS REMAINED THE SAME BOTH DURING AND UPON COMPLETION OF
 THEIR TRAINING EXCEPT FOR THE PERIODS WHEN THEY SERVE IN AN ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN CAPACITY.  ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THERE
 IS NO BASIS TO EXCLUDE THE SELECTEES FROM THE UNIT BASED SOLELY ON THEIR
 STATUS AS TRAINEES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT HEREIN AND THEREFORE
 HAS RECONSIDERED SEVERAL OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINTS IN LIGHT
 OF THIS FINDING.
 
    IN CASE NO. 22-08989(CA), THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CONCLUDED,
 AMONG OTHER THINGS, THERE WAS NO DUTY TO BARGAIN REGARDING THE TERMS AND
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE SELECTEES DURING THEIR TRAINING PERIOD
 BECAUSE HE HAD FOUND THEM TO BE SUPERVISORS AND THUS OUTSIDE THE UNIT.
 AS IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THE SELECTEES REMAINED IN THE BARGAINING UNIT
 WHILE IN TRAINING STATUS AND NOT PERFORMING ASSISTANT FOREMAN FUNCTIONS,
 THE AUTHORITY FINDS THE RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE REGARDING
 THEIR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WHILE IN THE BARGAINING UNIT VIOLATED
 SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.  /6/
 
    IN CASE NO. 22-08990(CA), THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CONCLUDED THE
 MEETING OF JANUARY 13 WAS NOT A FORMAL DISCUSSION WITHIN THE MEANING OF
 SECTION 10(E), AGAIN BASED HIS CONCLUSION THAT THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED
 WERE SUPERVISORY TRAINEES AND THUS PART OF MANAGEMENT.  SINCE THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND THE SELECTEES REMAINED UNIT EMPLOYEES
 EXCEPT WHEN PERFORMING SUPERVISORY DUTIES AS ASSISTANT FOREMEN, AND AS
 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THEY WERE PERFORMING SUPERVISORY DUTIES AT THE
 MEETING IN QUESTION, THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
 MEETING WAS A "FORMAL DISCUSSION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10(E).
 THE RECORD REFLECTS THE SUBJECT MATTER DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING WAS
 LIMITED TO THE ORIENTATION OF THE SELECTEES REGARDING THEIR TRAINING FOR
 THE ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN POSITIONS, AND MATTERS PERTAINING TO THEIR
 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WERE NOT DISCUSSED.  UNDER THESE
 CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 CONCLUSION THAT THE MEETING WAS NOT A "FORMAL DISCUSSION" OVER MATTERS
 ABOUT WHICH THE UNION HAD A RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED UNDER SECTION 10(E)
 OF THE ORDER.  THEREFORE, AS MANAGEMENT WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO
 AFFORD THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THE SECTION 10(A)(1)
 AND (6) ALLEGATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  HOWEVER, IN REACHING THIS
 CONCLUSION, THE AUTHORITY NOTES IT DOES NOT CONDONE AND FINDS
 INAPPROPRIATE STATEMENTS BY MANAGEMENT TO BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES SUCH
 AS THOSE QUOTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN HIS RECOMMENDED
 DECISION AND ORDER (PAGES 14 AND 15).
 
    FINALLY, ONE ALLEGATION WAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT UNRESOLVED BY THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.  THUS, IN CASE NO. 22-08989(CA) THE
 COMPLAINANT CHARGED THE RESPONDENT "HAS ATTEMPTED TO DENY THE EMPLOYEES
 UNION REPRESENTATION AND TO UNDERMINE THE STATUS OF THE UNION AS THEIR
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE" BY ITS DESIGNATION OF 25 EMPLOYEES OUT OF A
 BARGAINING UNIT OF 125 AS TRAINEES.  WHILE NO SECTION OF THE ORDER WAS
 SPECIFIED WITH RESPECT TO THIS ALLEGATION, SUCH AN ALLEGATION WOULD
 GENERALLY CONSTITUTE AN ALLEGATION OF AN INDEPENDENT VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 19(A)(1).  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE
 EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO FIND A VIOLATION OF THE ORDER IN THIS
 REGARD.  ACCORDINGLY, ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BETTER PRACTICE FOR
 THE RESPONDENT TO KEEP THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE BETTER INFORMED AS
 TO THE REASONS FOR THE INCREASED NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES SELECTED, THE
 AUTHORITY SHALL ORDER THAT ASPECT OF THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO.
 22-08989(CA) BE DISMISSED.
 
                                   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 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING,
 SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REFUSING TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE WASHINGTON PLATE PRINTERS
 UNION, LOCAL NO. 2, INTERNATIONAL PLATE PRINTERS, DIE STAMPERS AND
 ENGRAVERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, REGARDING THE PERSONNEL
 POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS
 DURING THE TRAINING PERIOD OF UNIT EMPLOYEES SELECTED FOR ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN POSITIONS.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST OF THE WASHINGTON PLATE PRINTERS UNION, LOCAL NO.
 2, INTERNATIONAL PLATE PRINTERS, DIE STAMPERS AND ENGRAVERS UNION OF
 NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS AND ANY AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED BY THE PARTIES SINCE
 THE DATE OF THE HEARING IN THE SUBJECT CASES, REGARDING THE PERSONNEL
 POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT DURING THE TRAINING OF THE UNIT EMPLOYEES SELECTED FOR ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN POSITIONS.
 
    (B) POST AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND
 PRINTING, 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 DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
 THE TREASURY, THE BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING, AND SHALL BE POSTED
 AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS
 PLACES, INCLUDING BULLETIN BOARDS AND ALL OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO
 EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE
 STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED
 BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN
 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO
 COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT IN
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE NO. 22-08989(CA) FOUND NOT TO BE VIOLATIVE OF
 THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AND THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 22-08990(CA) BE, AND
 THEY HEREBY ARE, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C. AUGUST 13, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
           PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 
            RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 
          POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES
 
              CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE WASHINGTON PLATE
 PRINTERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 2, INTERNATIONAL PLATE PRINTERS, DIE STAMPERS
 AND ENGRAVERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, REGARDING PERSONNEL
 POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS
 DURING THE TRAINING PERIOD OF UNIT EMPLOYEES SELECTED FOR ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN POSITIONS.
 
    WE WILL NOT, IS ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST OF THE WASHINGTON PLATE PRINTERS UNION, LOCAL
 NO. 2, INTERNATIONAL PLATE PRINTERS, DIE STAMPERS AND ENGRAVERS UNION OF
 NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS AND ANY AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED BY THE PARTIES SINCE
 THE HEARING HELD IN THE SUBJECT CASES, REGARDING THE PERSONNEL POLICIES
 AND PRACTICES AND OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS DURING THE
 TRAINING PERIOD OF THOSE UNIT EMPLOYEES SELECTED FOR ACTING ASSISTANT
 FOREMAN POSITIONS.
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
                           (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 FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  1133 15TH STREET, NW., ROOM 300, WASHINGTON, D.C.  20005;
 AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (202) 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    MS. SALLY KRAUS MARSHALL
    LABOR RELATIONS OFFICER
    OFFICE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
    BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING
    14TH AND C STREETS, S.W.
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20228
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    ALAN SHACHTER, ESQUIRE
    9625 SURVEYOR COURT
    SUITE 220
    MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 22110
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
                           ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491 AS AMENDED
 (HEREINAFTER ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE "ORDER").  ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF
 HEARING WAS ISSUED BY A REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND ALL
 PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, THIS DECISION IS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE
 AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS, FEDERAL
 REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 1, JANUARY 2, 1979 (5 C.F.R.SECTION 2400.2).
 
    ON FEBRUARY 2, 1978, COMPLAINANT FILED A CHARGE AND ON APRIL 24,
 1978, FILED A COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 22-08989(CA) ASSERTING VIOLATIONS OF
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER AS THE RESULT OF RESPONDENT'S
 REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ON COMPLAINANT'S DEMAND TO BARGAIN, INTER ALIA, ON
 "THE WEIGHTS, FACTORS, SELECTION CRITERIA, EVALUATION PROCESS, ETC. TO
 BE USED BY THE BUREAU IN FILLING THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN FROM
 AMONGST THE 25 EMPLOYEES SELECTED FOR TRAINING . . . THE WORKING
 CONDITIONS, PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES EFFECTING (SIC) THE 25
 SELECTEES DURING THE . . . PERIOD OF (THEIR) TRAINING." (ASS'T SEC. EXH.
 1).  IN ADDITION, COMPLAINANT ASSERTED THAT THE POSITION OF "ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN" AND/OR "ASSISTANT FOREMAN" IS A POSITION WITHIN THE
 BARGAINING UNIT.  FINALLY, COMPLAINANT ASSERTED THAT BY DESIGNATING 25
 EMPLOYEES OF A UNIT OF APPROXIMATELY 125 AS TRAINEES FOR ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN POSITIONS, RESPONDENT HAS ATTEMPTED TO DENY THE
 EMPLOYEES UNION REPRESENTATION AND TO UNDERMINE THE STATUS OF
 COMPLAINANT AS THEIR EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.  COMPLAINANT ASSERTS THAT
 THE COMPLAINT ENCOMPASSES ITS REQUESTS TO NEGOTIATE, AND RESPONDENT'S
 REFUSAL, AS TO RESPONDENT'S DECISION TO SELECT AND TRAIN 25 EMPLOYEES
 FOR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN AND THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION
 OF THAT DECISION ON THE BARGAINING UNIT.  ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT DENIES
 THAT THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES EITHER A REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE
 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE SELECTED AND TRAINED OR A REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE
 THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT DECISION AS A VIOLATION OF
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6), THE COMPLAINT, WHILE FAR FROM A MODEL FOR
 SPECIFICITY, DOES SET FORTH WITH PARTICULARITY THE FACTS AS TO EACH
 ALLEGATION, DOES ALLEGE ITS REQUEST FOR BARGAINING, AND DOES ALLEGE THAT
 RESPONDENT REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE ANY ASPECT OF THE MATTERS.  BOTH ISSUES
 WERE FULLY LITIGATED AND I FIND THAT BOTH ARE, AS COMPLAINANT ASSERTS,
 ENCOMPASSED BY THE COMPLAINT.
 
    ON THE SAME DATES, COMPLAINANT FILED A SECOND CHARGE AND COMPLAINT IN
 CASE NO. 22-08990(CA), ALLEGING VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1), (5) AND
 (6) OF THE ORDER.  (ASS'T SEC. EXH. 2).  ON JULY 26, 1978, COMPLAINANT
 FILED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN CASE NO.  22-08990(CA) WHICH DELETED THE
 19(A)(5) ALLEGATION.  (ASS'T SEC. EXH. 3).  THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
 ASSERTS THAT A MEETING WAS CONDUCTED ON JANUARY 13, 1978, BY THE ACTING
 DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU WITH 8 OF THE EMPLOYEES SELECTED FOR TRAINING FOR
 THE POSITION OF ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN;  THAT "THE PURPOSE OF THIS
 MEETING WAS TO ORIENT THESE EMPLOYEES TO THEIR TRAINING PROGRAM, TO
 DISCUSS WITH THEM THE NATURE OF THE POSITION FOR WHICH THEY HAD BEEN
 SELECTED THE EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCEDURES THAT WOULD BE USED IN
 FILLING ASSISTANT FOREMAN VACANCIES";  THAT THE POSITION OF ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN AND/OR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN IS A POSITION
 WITHIN THE UNIT;  THAT "THE MEETING WAS A FORMAL MEETING CONCERNING
 PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND OTHER MATTERS EFFECTING (SIC)
 GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT", I.E., THAT THIS
 WAS A FORMAL DISCUSSION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10(E) OF THE
 ORDER;  AND THAT COMPLAINANT WAS NEITHER INFORMED OF THE MEETING NOR
 GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT THE MEETING.
 
    ON JULY 31, 1978, THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED AN ORDER
 CONSOLIDATING THESE CASES FOR HEARING (ASS'T SEC. EXH. 4) AND ON THE
 SAME DATE ISSUED A NOTICE OF HEARING (ASS'T SEC. EXH. 5) PURSUANT TO
 WHICH A HEARING WAS DULY HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON OCTOBER 17, 18
 AND 20, 1978, IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
    EACH PARTY WAS REPRESENTED, WAS AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
 BEARING ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED HEREIN, AND TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT.  AT
 THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING, DECEMBER 1, 1978, WAS FIXED AS THE DATE FOR
 MAILING BRIEFS;  HOWEVER, RESPONDENT, ON NOVEMBER 21, 1978, REQUESTED
 THAT THE TIME FOR MAILING BRIEFS BE EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 15, 1978, WHICH
 REQUEST, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN AND WITH THE CONSENT OF COUNSEL FOR
 COMPLAINANT, WAS GRANTED ON NOVEMBER 28, 1978.  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
 ORDER.
 
                         FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
 
          I.  ARE ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMEN SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE
 
                  MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER?
 
    IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT JOURNEYMEN PLATE PRINTERS SELECTED FOR TRAINING
 AS ASSISTANT FOREMAN WERE, INITIALLY, TRAINEES AND, STRICTLY SPEAKING,
 WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY SUPERVISORS, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE PERFORMING A
 MANAGERIAL FUNCTION UNDER THE DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF A FOREMAN OR
 ACTING FOREMAN;  HOWEVER, AFTER COMPLETION OF 120 HOURS OF SUPERVISED
 TRAINING, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO "RUN" A SECTION ALONE FOR 40 HOURS TO
 COMPLETE THE REQUIRED 160 HOURS OF TRAINING.  AFTER COMPLETION OF THE
 160 HOURS, EACH EMPLOYEE WHO SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED THE TRAINING WAS,
 UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, ENTITLED TO WORK AS AN
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN AND RESPONDENT THEREAFTER ASSIGNED THEM AS ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN AS NEEDED.  AFTER COMPLETION OF 160 HOURS ON-THE-JOB
 TRAINING, EACH WAS PAID AT THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN RATE FOR THE TIME SPENT
 AS ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN.  WHEN NOT ASSIGNED AS AN ACTING ASSISTANT
 FOREMEN, EACH SUCH EMPLOYEE REVERTED TO HIS JOB AS A PLATE PRINTER.  IN
 ADDITION TO ON-THE-JOB TRAINING AS ASSISTANT FOREMEN, RESPONDENT INTENDS
 TO PROVIDE 40 HOURS OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION;  HOWEVER BECAUSE OF THE
 PRESS OF WORK ONLY 8 OF THE 25 SELECTED HAD HAD ANY CLASSROOM
 INSTRUCTION AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING;  6 HAD COMPLETED 32 HOURS OF
 CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION;  AND 2 PROBABLY HAD COMPLETED 40 HOURS OF
 CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION.  NEVERTHELESS, ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT INTENDS TO
 COMPLETE THE CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION, COMPLETION OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION
 WAS NEITHER A STATED QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENT IN THE VACANCY
 ANNOUNCEMENT (JT. EXH. 3) NOR IS IT A REQUIREMENT FOR ELIGIBILITY TO ACT
 AS ASSISTANT FOREMAN, INCLUDING PAY AT THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN RATE WHEN
 ACTING IN THAT POSITION.
 
    IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BUREAU POLICY SINCE 1960 TO ASSIGN QUALIFIED
 EMPLOYEES AS ACTING SUPERVISORS AND TO PAY FOR TIME ACTUALLY WORKED IN A
 SUPERVISORY CAPACITY AT THE HIGHER RATE.  BULLETIN NO. 60-29, SEPTEMBER
 1, 1960, PROVIDED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "3.  . . . THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF FORECASTING THE TIME, FREQUENCY, OR
 DURATION OF
 
    CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING THE SERVICES OF WORKERS IN SOME SUPERVISORY
 CAPACITIES MAKES IT
 
    UNDESIRABLE TO MAKE PERMANENT PROMOTIONS IN CERTAIN HIGHER PAID JOBS
 WITHOUT THE PROBABILITY
 
    OF OVERSTAFFING THEM A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF THE TIME IN THE
 FORESEEABLE FUTURE.  IT IS,
 
    THEREFORE, ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED THAT PAYING ADDITIONAL
 COMPENSATION TO QUALIFIED
 
    UNGRADED WORKERS FOR TIME ACTUALLY WORKED IN A SUPERVISORY CAPACITY
 WHEN THE PERIOD OF SUCH
 
    SERVICE IS 8 OR MORE CONSECUTIVE WORK HOURS IS FAIR TO THE EMPLOYEE,
 ADVANTAGEOUS TO
 
    MANAGEMENT AND, THROUGH CONTROL OF COSTS, IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST."
 (JT. EXH. 9) (SEE,
 
    ALSO, BULLETIN NO. 60-29, SUPPLEMENT NO. 1, FEBRUARY 14, 1962, JT.
 EXH. 9).
 
    BULLETIN 60-29, PARAGRAPH 4, QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, PROVIDED, IN
 PART,
 
    "(B) EMPLOYEE MUST HAVE SERVED A TRAINING PERIOD OF AT LEAST A TOTAL
 OF 160 WORKING HOURS,
 
    40 HOURS OF WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN DURING THE ABSENCE OF THE SUPERVISOR
 FOR WHOM
 
    ACTING." (JT. EXH. 9).
 
    FOR FISCAL YEAR 1978, AND PRIOR YEARS, THE BUREAU'S ORGANIZATIONAL
 CHART FOR ITS PLATE PRINTING DIVISION HAD PROVIDED FOR A SUPERINTENDENT,
 AN ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT AND FOR A FOREMAN OF PLATE PRINTERS IN EACH
 SECTION (JT. EXH. 1).  IN 1977, RESPONDENT EMBARKED ON A REORGANIZATION
 WHEREBY IN ITS PLATE PRINTING DIVISION THERE WOULD BE A SUPERINTENDENT,
 AN ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, 3 FOREMAN OF PLATE PRINTERS, WHO WOULD
 REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE SUPERINTENDENT, AND AN ASSISTANT FOREMAN OF PLATE
 PRINTERS IN EACH SECTION.  (JT. EXH. 2).  AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING THE
 REORGANIZATION HAD NOT BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.
 ONLY ONE FOREMAN TO WORK DIRECTLY UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENT HAD BEEN
 DESIGNATED (MR. GEORGE ALCES);  THE FOREMEN IN SECTIONS ALL WERE
 ELIGIBLE FOR RETIREMENT BY THE END OF 1978, BUT WHETHER THEY RETIRED
 RESPONDENT STATED THAT IT INTENDED TO RETAIN THEM IN THEIR POSITIONS
 UNTIL THEY LEFT THROUGH ATTRITION;  AND COMPLETION OF THE REORGANIZATION
 WAS DEFERRED UNTIL THE BUREAU OBTAINED ADDITIONAL PLATE PRINTERS.  AT
 THE TIME OF THE HEARING, NO PERMANENT PROMOTIONS HAD BEEN MADE TO THE
 POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN AND THE 23 EMPLOYEES TRAINED AND QUALIFIED
 (TWO HAD WITHDRAWN AND RETURNED TO THEIR JOBS AS PLATE PRINTERS) TO ACT
 AS ASSISTANT FOREMEN WERE ASSIGNED AS ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMEN AS
 NEEDED.  ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO UTILIZE EACH EMPLOYEE ELIGIBLE TO
 ACT AS ASSISTANT FOREMAN ON AN ESSENTIALLY EQUAL BASIS, BECAUSE OF
 ELECTION OF SENIORITY RIGHTS TO WORK AS PLATE PRINTERS, THE NUMBER OF
 DAYS EACH ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEE HAD WORKED AS AN ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN
 HAD VARIED FROM A HIGH OF ABOUT 106 DAYS TO A LOW OF ABOUT 22 DAYS WITH
 A MIDDLE RANGE OF 60 TO 80 DAYS.
 
    I FIND NO BASIS ON THE RECORD TO WARRANT ANY DISTINCTION IN THE
 AUTHORITY EXERCISED, OR DUTIES, OF EMPLOYEES WHEN WORKING AS AN ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN OR AN ACTING FOREMAN AS CONTRASTED TO THE AUTHORITY
 EXERCISED, OR DUTIES, OF A PERMANENT ASSISTANT FOREMAN OR FOREMAN IN A
 SECTION.  THAT IS, PURSUANT TO THE LONG ESTABLISHED PRACTICE AND POLICY
 OF THE BUREAU, ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES SERVING IN ACTING SUPERVISORY
 POSITIONS EXERCISE THE FULL RANGE OF AUTHORITY, WITH THE ACCOMPANYING
 RESPONSIBILITY, WHEN SERVING IN THE ACTING CAPACITY AS WOULD BE
 EXERCISED BY A PERMANENT SUPERVISOR.
 
    COMPLAINANT ASSERTS THAT THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN IS NOT A
 SUPERVISORY POSITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER.
 ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT CONCEDED THAT THE JOB DESCRIPTION (JT. EXH. 6) SETS
 FORTH SUFFICIENT DUTIES, IF EXERCISED AS DESCRIBED, TO CONSTITUTE THE
 POSITION A SUPERVISORY POSITION, COMPLAINANT ASSERTS THAT THE ACTUAL
 DUTIES PERFORMED ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE POSITION A SUPERVISORY
 POSITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER.  IT IS TRUE
 THAT CENTRALIZATION OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS BY THE BUREAU HAS REMOVED FROM
 BOTH THE FOREMAN AND THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN DUTIES NORMALLY LODGED IN
 SUCH POSITION.  COMPLAINANT ASSERTS:  (A) THAT ASSISTANT FOREMEN DO NOT
 HAVE AUTHORITY TO HIRE, TRANSFER, LAYOFF, RECALL, OR TO EFFECTIVELY
 RECOMMEND SUCH ACTION;  THAT ALL PROMOTIONS OF WAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES ARE
 HANDLED IN THE PERSONNEL OFFICE AND ARE BASED STRICTLY ON SENIORITY;
 THAT ASSISTANT FOREMEN CANNOT APPROVE OR EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND THE
 APPROVAL OF LEAVE SINCE ALL LEAVE IS ADMINISTERED THROUGH A CENTRAL
 LEAVE BOOK.  (B) THAT ASSISTANT FOREMEN DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
 SUSPEND, DISCHARGE OR DISCIPLINE, OR TO EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND SUCH
 ACTION;  THAT ANY RECOMMENDATION BY AN ASSISTANT FOREMAN IS ROUTINE OR
 OF A CLERICAL NATURE.  (C) THAT ASSISTANT FOREMEN DO NOT ASSIGN
 EMPLOYEES EXCEPT IN A ROUTINE OR CLERICAL MANNER;  THAT ASSISTANT
 FOREMEN DO NOT RESPONSIBLY DIRECT EMPLOYEES.  (D) THAT ASSISTANT FOREMEN
 DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REWARD EMPLOYEES OR TO EFFECTIVELY
 RECOMMEND AN AWARD.  (E) THAT ASSISTANT FOREMEN DO NOT COUNSEL
 EMPLOYEES.  (F) THAT ASSISTANT FOREMEN DO NOT ADJUST GRIEVANCES.
 FINALLY, COMPLAINANT ASSERTS THAT, "ASSUMING THAT THE ACTING ASSISTANT
 FOREMEN DO POSSESS SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES, THEY ARE NOT SUPERVISORS
 BECAUSE THEY POSSESS SUCH SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES ONLY ON AN
 INTERMITTENT AND INFREQUENT BASIS" (COMPLAINANT'S BRIEF P. 15), A
 CONTENTION I FOUND TO BE WITHOUT MERIT, AS NOTED HEREIN ABOVE, FOR THE
 REASON THAT THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WHILE SERVING IN AN
 ACTING SUPERVISORY CAPACITY POSSESS, AND EXERCISE, THE FULL RANGE OF
 AUTHORITY OF THE POSITION AND FOR FURTHER REASONS DISCUSSED HEREINAFTER.
  OF COURSE, WHETHER THE POSITION IS, OR IS NOT, A SUPERVISORY POSITION
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER IS ANOTHER MATTER.
 
    I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS AND
 CONCLUDE, CONTRARY TO COMPLAINANT'S ASSERTIONS, THAT ASSISTANT FOREMEN,
 AND, SPECIFICIALLY, EMPLOYEES WHEN WORKING AS ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMEN,
 ARE SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER.
 INDEED, THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF FOREMEN, EXCEPT MR. ALCES,
 ACTING FOREMEN AND ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMEN IN EACH SECTION ARE
 INDISTINGUISHABLE AND, ULTIMATELY, EACH SECTION WILL IN CHARGE OF AN
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN.
 
    THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN, OR FOREMAN, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRODUCTION
 AND QUALITY OF THE WORK PRODUCED BY HIS SECTION AND IS SUBJECT TO
 DISCIPLINE FOR EXCESSIVE SPOILAGE OF WORK IN HIS SECTION;  HE IS
 RESPONSIBLE FOR ORDERING NECESSARY SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS;  FOR
 EXAMINING WORK;  FOR EXPEDITING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF PRESSES;  FOR
 AUTHORIZING THE CHANGING OF PLATES;  FOR COMPLIANCE WITH BUREAU RULES
 AND REGULATIONS.  THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN, OR FOREMAN, ASSISTS THE PLATE
 PRINTERS WITH PROBLEMS AND MAKES SUGGESTIONS TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS.
 RECOGNIZING THAT THAT PLATE PRINTING IS A SPECIALIZED CRAFT AND THAT
 JOURNEYMEN PLATE PRINTERS REQUIRE LITTLE DIRECTION, NEVERTHELESS, THE
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN, OR FOREMAN, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BOTH QUALITY AND
 PRODUCTION OF HIS SECTION AND HAS, TOGETHER WITH THE JOURNEYMAN PLATE
 PRINTER, THE ACCOMPANYING RESPONSIBILITY TO EXAMINE WORK, TO RECOGNIZE
 PRINTING PROBLEMS, AND TO SEE THAT APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION IS
 TAKEN.  OF COURSE, THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN, OR FOREMAN, HAS EMPLOYEES
 OTHER THAN JOURNEYMAN PLATE PRINTERS UNDER HIS DIRECTION AND CONTROL.
 THE SPECIFIC CLASSIFICATIONS OF OTHER WORKERS VARIES SLIGHTLY IN
 DIFFERENT SECTIONS BUT INCLUDE STACKERS, DISTRIBUTORS, PRESS WORKERS,
 CLERKS, COUNTERS, ROLLER FINISHERS, AND ADHESIVE PROCESSOR-CONTROLLERS
 (JT. EXHS. 1 AND 2).  IT MAY VERY WELL BE TRUE THAT CLERKS KNOW THEIR
 JOBS;  THAT PRESS WORKERS ARE ASSIGNED TO PLATE PRINTERS;  THAT
 DISTRIBUTORS AND STACKERS PERFORM A REPETITIVE DUTY;  NEVERTHELESS, EACH
 IS SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN, OR
 FOREMAN.  INDEED, MR. DAVID M. MATVAY TESTIFIED THAT IF A PLATE PRINTER
 HAD TROUBLE WITH A PRESS WORKER HE WOULD GO TO THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN, OR
 FOREMAN, WHO WOULD DEAL WITH THE MATTER.
 
    PERSONNEL ARE ASSIGNED TO SECTIONS ACCORDING TO SENIORITY, BUT ONCE
 THEY ARE ASSIGNED TO A SECTION THEIR SENIORITY RIGHTS DO NOT ENTITLE
 THEM TO ANY PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENT.  ALTHOUGH THE NORMAL PROCEDURE IS TO
 ASSIGN SENIOR EMPLOYEES TO EASIER, OR PREFERRED JOBS, PLATE PRINTERS ARE
 ASSIGNED IN ORDER OF SENIORITY TO PRESSES MOST LIKELY TO RUN ALL DAY
 EVEN THOUGH THE PLATE PRINTER MAY PREFER A DIFFERENT ASSIGNMENT AND/OR
 IF ONLY ONE PLATE PRINTER WERE QUALIFIED TO OPERATE A PARTICULAR PRESS
 HE WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO THAT JOB.  THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN, OR FOREMAN,
 MAY ASSIGN WAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES, I.E., NON-SKILLED PLANT WORKERS SUCH AS
 DISTRIBUTORS AND STACKERS, AT THEIR DISCRETION.  ASSISTANT FOREMEN HAVE
 DISCIPLINED DISTRIBUTORS, STACKERS AND CLERKS AND, WHILE THEY DO NOT
 HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISCHARGE OR SUSPEND, THEY DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
 RECOMMEND SUCH ACTION.
 
    ASSISTANT FOREMEN HANDLE AWOL CHARGES AND RECOMMEND WHETHER AN AWOL
 CHARGE IS SUSTAINED OR WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE IS TO BE CHARGED ANNUAL
 LEAVE, SICK LEAVE, ETC., AND THE AWOL CHARGE BE DROPPED.  GENERALLY,
 THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ADOPTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT.  ASSISTANT
 FOREMEN FILE "FIVE DAY PROGRESSIVE REPORTS" ON EACH WAGE BOARD EMPLOYEE
 ASSIGNED TO HIS SECTION ON WHICH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE EMPLOYEE IS
 EVALUATED.  ASSISTANT FOREMEN, OR FOREMEN, HAVE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE
 ANNUAL LEAVE FOR CLERICAL AND NON-CRAFT EMPLOYEES AND AUTHORITY TO ALLOW
 PRINTERS TO LEAVE IN EMERGENCIES.  ASSISTANT FOREMEN, OR FOREMEN, DEAL
 WITH GRIEVANCES AT THE FIRST STEP OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (JT. EXH.
 5, ART. XXX, SEC. 6, STEP 1).  ALTHOUGH NO ASSISTANT FOREMAN HAD
 RECOMMENDED ANY EMPLOYEE FOR AN INCENTIVE AWARD BECAUSE THE INCENTIVE
 AWARD PROGRAM WAS BEING MODIFIED, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN THE AWARD
 PROGRAM IS REINSTITUTED THEY WILL MAKE SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
    WITHOUT FURTHER EXAMINING THE DUTIES OF ASSISTANT FOREMEN OF THE
 PLATE PRINTING DIVISION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY RESPONSIBLY DIRECT
 EMPLOYEES, ASSIGN EMPLOYEES WITHIN THEIR SECTION, ADJUST GRIEVANCES,
 DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES;  ETC., THAT THEY HAVE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
 OPERATION OF THEIR SECTION;  AND THAT THE EXERCISE OF THEIR AUTHORITY IS
 NOT OF A MERELY ROUTINE OR CLERICAL NATURE BUT REQUIRES THE EXERCISE OF
 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.  IN UNITED STATES NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER, CHINA
 LAKE, CALIFORNIA, FLRC NO. 72A-11, 1 FLRC 405(1973), WHICH INVOLVED FIRE
 CAPTAINS, TWO MAJOR POLICY ISSUES WERE PRESENTED, NAMELY:  (A) WHETHER
 SECTION 2(C) SHOULD BE APPLIED IN THE DISJUNCTIVE AND (B) WHETHER THE
 FACT THAT AN ALLEGED SUPERVISOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW
 BY HIGHER RANKING OFFICIALS RENDER HIS RECOMMENDATIONS INEFFECTIVE
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C).  THE COUNSEL STATED, IN PART, AS TO
 THE FIRST ISSUE, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    " . . . WE FIND THAT SECTION 2(C) MUST BE APPLIED IN THE DISJUNCTIVE.
  ACCORDINGLY, ANY
 
    INDIVIDUAL WHO POSSESSES THE AUTHORITY TO PERFORM A SINGLE FUNCTION
 DESCRIBED IN SECTION 2(C),
 
    PROVIDED HE DOES SO IN A MANNER REQUIRING THE USE OF INDEPENDENT
 JUDGMENT, IS A SUPERVISOR AND
 
    MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM THE UNIT." (1 FLRC AT 407)
 
    AND, AS TO THE SECOND ISSUE, THE COUNSEL STATED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    " . . . THE EVIDENCE MUST ESTABLISH ONLY THAT A RECOMMENDATION IS
 MADE ON BEHALF OF
 
    MANAGEMENT, THAT IT IS BASED UPON THE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF THE
 ALLEGED SUPERVISOR, AND THAT
 
    THE RECOMMENDATION-- EITHER CONSIDERED SEPARATELY OR IN CONJUNCTION
 WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS
 
    OF OTHER SUPERVISORS OR MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS-- COULD RESULT IN A
 DECISION BY MANAGEMENT TO
 
    HIRE, TRANSFER, SUSPEND, OR TAKE ANY OF THE OTHER ACTIONS SET FORTH
 IN SECTION 2(C).  TO BE
 
    EFFECTIVE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ONE RECOMMENDATION BY ONE
 INDIVIDUAL BE THE SOLE CRITERIA
 
    USED BY HIGHER MANAGEMENT IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO TAKE ONE OF THE
 ACTIONS LISTED IN SECTION
 
    2(C)."
 
    "AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM
 'EFFECTIVE' WOULD BE CLEARLY
 
    CONTRARY TO THE REALITIES OF THE EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IN THE FEDERAL
 SECTOR.  FOR EXAMPLE,
 
    WITH RESPECT TO PROMOTIONS, IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR VIRTUALLY ALL
 DECISIONS AS TO PROMOTIONS TO
 
    A HIGHER GRADE LEVEL ARE MADE PURSUANT TO ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES
 WHICH EXPLICITLY REQUIRE THAT
 
    THE RECOMMENDATION OF A LOWER LEVEL SUPERVISOR BY REVIEWED OR
 APPROVED BY HIGHER OFFICIALS
 
    BEFORE BEING PUT INTO EFFECT.  THEREFORE, THE KEY TO DETERMINING THE
 EFFECTIVENESS OF AN
 
    ALLEGED SUPERVISOR'S RECOMMENDATION IS NOT THE MERE FACT OF REVIEW,
 BUT THE IMPACT WHICH THAT
 
    RECOMMENDATION HAS UPON THE OVERALL PROMOTIONAL PROCEDURES IN FORCE
 AT AN ACTIVITY . . . "
 
    "WITH RESPECT TO THE REVIEW OF FIRST STEP GRIEVANCE ADJUSTMENTS, WE
 MUST FIRST POINT OUT
 
    THAT A DECISION AT THE FIRST OR INFORMAL STAGE OF A GRIEVANCE
 PROCEDURE IS THE FINAL AND ONLY
 
    DECISION AT THAT LEVEL.  IF THE DECISION AT THE FIRST STEP IS
 SATISFACTORY TO THE GRIEVANT, NO
 
    APPEAL IS TAKEN AND THE INDIVIDUAL WHO POSSESSED THE AUTHORITY TO
 MAKE THE DECISION AT THE
 
    FIRST STEP HAS, IN FACT, MADE THE FINAL DECISION AS TO THAT
 GRIEVANCE.  MOREOVER, EVEN IF THE
 
    DECISION AT THE FIRST STEP IS APPEALED AND REVISED, THIS DOES NOT
 ALTER THE AUTHORITY OF THE
 
    INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE FIRST STEP DECISION.  THAT INDIVIDUAL STILL
 POSSESSES THE AUTHORITY TO
 
    ADJUST GRIEVANCES AT THE FIRST STEP . . . " (1 FLRC AT 408-409).
 
    UPON REMAND, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOUND THAT EMPLOYEES CLASSIFIED
 AS FIRE CAPTAINS POSSESSED THE AUTHORITY TO ADJUST EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCES
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER AND WERE, THEREFORE,
 SUPERVISORS WHO SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE UNIT.  DEPARTMENT OF THE
 NAVY, UNITED STATES NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER, CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA, A/SLMR
 NO. 297, 3 A/SLMR 460(1973).
 
    OF COURSE, HERE, ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMEN NOT ONLY POSSESS THE
 AUTHORITY TO ADJUST GRIEVANCES AT THE FIRST STEP AND THE AUTHORITY TO
 EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND ACTION SET FORTH IN SECTION 2(C), INCLUDING
 SUSPENSION OR DISCHARGE, BUT THEY HAVE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
 OPERATION OF THEIR SECTIONS, RESPONSIBLY DIRECT EMPLOYEES, DISCIPLINE
 EMPLOYEES, ASSIGN EMPLOYEES WITHIN THEIR SECTION, AND, WHEN RESPONDENT'S
 INCENTIVE AWARD PROGRAM IS REACTIVATED, WILL HAVE AUTHORITY TO
 EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND THE GRANT OF SUCH AWARDS.  ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE
 THAT THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN IS A SUPERVISORY POSITION WITHIN
 THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER AND THAT ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES
 WHEN WORKING AS ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN ARE SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE
 MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER.
 
    IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE
 AUTHORITIES PRINCIPALLY RELIED UPON BY COMPLAINANT AND FIND SUCH
 AUTHORITIES EITHER WHOLLY CONSISTENT, AS IN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
 AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, EASTERN RESEARCH CENTER
 (ERRC) PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, A/SLMR NO. 479, 5 A/SLMR 81(1975),
 APPEAL DENIED, FLRC NO. 75A-20, 3 FLRC 446(1975) (PROJECT LEADERS
 DETERMINED TO BE SUPERVISORS PRIMARILY BECAUSE THEY PARTICIPATE IN THE
 FIRST STEP OF THE FORMAL GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND POSSESS THE AUTHORITY
 TO ADJUST GRIEVANCE AT THAT LEVEL;  NON-PROJECT LEADERS WERE DETERMINED
 NOT TO BE SUPERVISORS AND, ALTHOUGH IN THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IT WAS
 CONTENDED THAT, "NON-PROJECT LEADERS CONSTITUTE A LEVEL OF SUPERVISION
 BELOW THAT OF PROJECT LEADERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUSTING CERTAIN
 GRIEVANCES" THE COUNCIL IN DENYING REVIEW MERELY STATED, "IT DOES NOT
 APPEAR THAT THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY ACTED WITHOUT REASONABLE
 JUSTIFICATION IN DETERMINING THAT SUCH INDIVIDUALS WERE NOT SUPERVISORS
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER." (3 FLRC AT 447)), OR,
 AS IN FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, A/SLMR NO. 459, 4 A/SLMR
 813(1974), APPEAL DENIED, FLRC NO. 75A-39, 3 FLRC 519(1975), CLEARLY
 DISTINGUISHABLE.  FIRST, THE DUTIES OF "COMMISSIONED BANK EXAMINERS" IN
 THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CASE, SUPRA, WHEN THEY ACTED AS
 EXAMINERS-IN-CHARGE, WERE "ROUTINE IN NATURE, . . . WITHIN ESTABLISHED
 GUIDELINES AND . . . DICTATED BY ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES .  . . " (4
 A/SLMR AT 815), WHEREAS ASSISTANT FOREMEN HEREIN POSSESS AND EXERCISE A
 PANOPLY OF SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF
 THE ORDER.  SECOND, IN DENYING THE APPEAL, THE COUNCIL STATED, "WITH
 RESPECT TO YOUR RELATED CONTENTION THAT THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S
 DECISION APPEARS TO HOLD THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST PERFORM SUPERVISORY
 FUNCTIONS 100 PERCENT OF THE WORK YEAR TO QUALIFY AS A SUPERVISOR.  THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY DID NOT MAKE SUCH A DETERMINATION BUT, RATHER,
 MERELY FOUND THAT COMMISSIONED BANK EXAMINERS PERFORM EXAMINER-IN-CHARGE
 FUNCTIONS ON AN IRREGULAR AND NON-CONTINUING BASIS AND EXERCISE
 SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS IN THAT CAPACITY ONLY IN ISOLATED INSTANCES." (3
 FLRC AT 521-521).  THE COUNCIL NOTED ITS STATEMENT IN REPORT AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATION COUNCIL ON THE AMENDMENT
 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE, THAT,
 
    "THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY HAS HELD, IN EFFECT, THAT MERE INTERMITTENT
 AND INFREQUENT
 
    POSSESSION OR ASSIGNMENT OF A SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS IS NOT A
 SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR A
 
    SUPERVISORY DETERMINATION.  THUS, THE FREQUENCY AND REGULARITY WITH
 WHICH SUPERVISORY
 
    AUTHORITY IS EXERCISED HAS BEEN MADE AN ELEMENT IN THE APPLICATION OF
 THE
 
    DEFINITION." (PP. 12-13) (1975).
 
    FREQUENCY AND REGULARITY WITH WHICH ANY PARTICULAR PERSON SERVES AS
 ASSISTANT FOREMAN IS NOT MATERIAL AS TO THE SUPERVISORY STATUS OF THE
 ON-GOING POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN, NOR IS FREQUENCY AND REGULARITY
 OF THE EXERCISE OF SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY DETERMINATIVE OF THE AUTHORITY
 OF AN EMPLOYEE WHEN FUNCTIONING IN SUCH CAPACITY, C.F., UNITED STATES
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, A/SLMR NO. 833, 7
 A/SLMR 371(1977);  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, UNITED
 STATES FOREST SERVICE, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST, PASADENA, CALIFORNIA,
 A/SLMR NO. 339, 4 A/SLMR 58(1974).  CLEARLY, THE FREQUENCY AND
 REGULARITY WITH WHICH ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES SERVE AS ACTING ASSISTANT
 FOREMAN WOULD BE AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN A UNIT PLACEMENT CASE;  AND,
 UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF
 THE NEXUS WITH THE SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY ASSERTED, C.F., THE BOSTON
 STORE, 221 NLRB 1126, 91 LRRM 1076(1975);  THE BULLETIN COMPANY,
 PHILADELPHIA, PA., 226 NLRB NO. 53, 94 LRRM 1259(1976).  IN VIEW OF THE
 AUTHORITY POSSESSED, AND EXERCISED, BY ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN IN THIS
 CASE, IT IS QUESTIONABLE THAT THIS ELEMENT HAS ANY SIGNIFICANCE.
 NEVERTHELESS, EVEN IF FREQUENCY AND REGULARITY WERE DEEMED AN ELEMENT IN
 DETERMINING WHETHER EMPLOYEES, WHEN SERVING AS ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN,
 WERE SUPERVISORS, I CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMEN
 HAVE WORKED IN SUCH POSITIONS WITH SUFFICIENT FREQUENCY AND REGULARITY
 THAT THEY FULLY QUALIFY AS SUPERVISORS WHEN SERVING IN THE CAPACITY OF
 ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMEN.  THUS, THE RECORD SHOWS, INTER ALIA THAT THE
 POSITION WAS POSTED FOR BIDS;  THAT 25 WERE SELECTED FOR TRAINING (51
 BIDS WERE RECEIVED);  THAT THE EMPLOYEES WERE TRAINED;  THAT 23
 (POSSIBLY 25 AS THE TIME THAT 2 WITHDREW FROM THE PROGRAM WAS NOT SHOWN)
 BECAME ELIGIBLE TO ACT AS ASSISTANT FOREMAN;  THAT THE 23 ELIGIBLE
 EMPLOYEES ARE ASSIGNED ON A ROTATING BASIS AS ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMEN;
 THAT THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF DAYS WORKED AS ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN BY
 ANY ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEE AFTER COMPLETION OF TRAINING HAD BEEN 22 DAYS, THE
 MEDIAN HAD BEEN 60 TO 80 DAYS AND THE MAXIMUM WAS 106 DAYS;  THAT
 RESPONDENT ENDEAVORS TO AFFORD EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH ELIGIBLE
 EMPLOYEE TO SERVE AS ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMEN;  THAT COMPLAINANT HAS
 BEEN FULLY ADVISED OF THE PROGRAM;  AND THAT THE BUREAU, IN USING
 QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES IN AN ACTING SUPERVISORY CAPACITY, HAS FOLLOWED ITS
 LONG STANDING POLICY IN THIS REGARD, INCLUDING PAYMENT AT THE RATE FOR
 THE SUPERVISORY POSITION WHEN EMPLOYEES SERVE IN SUCH CAPACITY, AND THE
 EXERCISE BY THE ACTING SUPERVISOR OF THE FULL AUTHORITY OF THE POSITION
 WHEN SERVING IN AN ACTING SUPERVISORY POSITION.
 
    II.  DID RESPONDENT VIOLATE SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER,
 AS ASSERTED IN CASE
 
    NO. 22-08990(CA), BY CONDUCTING A MEETING WITH 8 TRAINEES ON JANUARY
 13, 1978?
 
    COMPLAINANT ASSERTS THAT THE MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 1978, WAS A
 FORMAL DISCUSSION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10(E);  THAT IT, AS THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, WAS ENTITLED TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 REPRESENTED;  THAT RESPONDENT GAVE IT NO OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED
 AT THE MEETING, INDEED, THAT IT WAS NOT OFFICIALLY INFORMED OF THE
 MEETING BY RESPONDENT.
 
    THE SELECTIONS FOR TRAINING TO THE POSITION OF ACTING ASSISTANT
 FOREMAN WERE ANNOUNCED IN EARLY JANUARY 1978 (JT. EXH. 11).  SELECTEES
 WERE DIVIDED INTO THREE GROUPS, OF 8-- 8-- AND 9, FOR TRAINING AND GROUP
 I BEGAN TRAINING ON JANUARY 9, 1978.  ON JANUARY 13, 1978, MR. SEYMOUR
 BERRY, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU, MET WITH THE TRAINEES IN GROUP I.
 THE MEETING WAS IN MR. BERRY'S OFFICE AFTER LUNCH AND THE 8 TRAINEES
 CAME AS A GROUP.  PRESENT AT THE MEETING WERE:  MR. BERRY, THE 8
 TRAINEES, MR. KIT ALLEN REGONE, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PLATE
 PRINTING DIVISION AND MR. EVERETTE J. PRESCOTT, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE
 PLATE DEPARTMENT.  THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS, AS THE COMPLAINT
 STATES, TO ORIENT THESE EMPLOYEES TO THEIR TRAINING PROGRAM AND TO
 DISCUSS WITH THEM THE NATURE OF THE POSITION FOR WHICH THEY HAD BEEN
 SELECTED.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION OF THE COMPLAINT
 THAT THE MEETING CONCERNED "THE EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCEDURES THAT
 WOULD BE USED IN FILLING ASSISTANT FOREMAN VACANCIES."
 
    THE EIGHT INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED WERE MANAGEMENT TRAINEES AND THE
 MEETING WAS TO ORIENT THEM TO THE TRAINING PROGRAM FOR WHICH THEY HAD
 BEEN SELECTED AND UPON WHICH THEY HAD EMBARKED.  THEY HAD NOT, OF
 COURSE, BECOME SUPERVISORS, NOR HAD THEY QUALIFIED TO ACT AS
 SUPERVISORS;  NEVERTHELESS, AS MANAGEMENT TRAINEES THEY WERE PERFORMING
 A MANAGERIAL FUNCTION AND THE MEETING WAS A PART OF THEIR TRAINING
 PROGRAM.  BECAUSE THE MEETING WAS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND MANAGEMENT
 TRAINEES, IT WAS NOT A FORMAL DISCUSSION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
 10(E) AT WHICH COMPLAINANT HAD ANY RIGHT TO BE PRESENT.  THAT IS, IT WAS
 NOT A FORMAL DISCUSSION
 
    "BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES . . . CONCERNING GRIEVANCES,
 PERSONNEL POLICIES AND
 
    PRACTICES, OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT."
 
    INDEED, AT THE HEARING, COMPLAINANT CONCEDED THAT HAD THE MEETING
 GONE NO FURTHER THAN TO ORIENT THE TRAINEES TO THE TRAINING PROGRAM OR
 DISCUSSION OF MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES, COMPLAINANT WOULD HAVE HAD NO RIGHT
 TO BE PRESENT;  BUT, BECAUSE OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. BERRY,
 CONCERNING A LONG STANDING AND BITTER DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN RESPONDENT
 AND COMPLAINANT ABOUT RESPONDENT'S PROPOSAL TO EMPLOY PRINTING PRESSMAN,
 THE MEETING WAS CONVERTED TO A SECTION 10(E) MEETING AND, ACCORDINGLY,
 COMPLAINANT WAS ENTITLED TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED
 AT SUCH FORMAL DISCUSSION.
 
    THE BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING WAS CREATED BY THE NATIONAL
 CURRENCY ACT OF 1862 AND, TO SAFEGUARD THE SECURITIES AND CURRENCY OF
 THE UNITED STATES AGAINST COUNTERFEITING, THE PROCESS OF INTAGLIO WAS
 ADOPTED.  THIS PROCESS COMBINES THE SKILLS OF THE ENGRAVER AND THE PLATE
 PRINTER AND PROVIDES A QUALITY OF PRINTING BEYOND DUPLICATION BY ANY
 OTHER PROCESS.  THE PLATE PRINTING CRAFT IS HIGHLY SPECIALIZED BUT VERY
 LIMITED IN NUMBERS.  HISTORICALLY, THE BUREAU HAS OBTAINED JOURNEYMEN
 PLATE PRINTERS BY HIRING JOURNEYMEN FROM OUTSIDE THE BUREAU OR THROUGH
 ITS APPRENTICE TRAINING PROGRAM (JT. EXH. 5, ART. XIX) EXCEPT THAT
 DURING THE KOREAN WAR THE UNION ALLOWED JOURNEYMEN DIE STAMPERS TO COME
 INTO THE CRAFT WITH, OF COURSE, ADDITIONAL TRAINING.  FOR SOMETIME, THE
 BUREAU HAS EXPERIENCED A CHRONIC SHORTAGE OF PLATE PRINTERS.  THIS HAS
 NECESSITATED 12 HOUR SHIFTS AND A SEVEN DAY OPERATION.  IN 1976, MR.
 BERRY HAD PROPOSED THE EMPLOYMENT OF JOURNEYMEN PRINTING PRESSMAN AND,
 IN EFFECT, ABOLITION OF APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING, ALTHOUGH THE PRINTING
 PRESSMEN WOULD UNDERGO FURTHER TRAINING BEFORE BECOMING JOURNEYMEN
 PLATE
 PRINTERS.  RESPONDENT VIOLENTLY OBJECTED TO ANY SUCH PROPOSAL.
 
    MR. MATVAY TESTIFIED THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE JANUARY 13, 1978,
 MEETING MR. BERRY STATED:
 
    " . . . HE WAS VERY HARD ON THE UNION, AS SUCH, SAYING THAT THEY WERE
 INCONSIDERATE ABOUT
 
    HIS OFFSET PRESSMAN POSITION, BECAUSE THE UNION WAS HAVING A BIG ROW
 ABOUT THE HIRING OF
 
    ADDITIONAL PLATE PRINTERS FROM DIE STAMPERS-- VERSUS OFFSET
 PRESSMAN."
 
    "HE MADE A POINT, SAYING THAT THE OFFSET PRESSMAN-- HIS IDEA OF THE
 WAY IT SHOULD GO AND
 
    THE UNION SAID, NO, AND THAT IS WHY IT HAS TAKEN SO LONG TO GET
 ANYTHING DONE."
 
    "THE UNION WAS FIGHTING THEM EVERY TOOTH AND NAIL ABOUT IT, AS SUCH .
 . . " (TR. 347)
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    THE WITNESS:  HE SAID THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, AT THE TIME, HE
 THOUGHT-- HE BELIEVED WAS
 
    NOT REPRESENTING THE WHOLE UNION, AS SUCH."
 
    IT WAS JUST AN INDIVIDUAL GROUP AND THEY WERE-- THEY DIDN'T REPRESENT
 THE UNION, THE
 
    BODY." (TR. 351).
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    "Q.  DID YOU FEEL THREATENED OR THAT MR. BERRY WAS GIVING YOU
 ANTI-UNION ATTITUDES?"
 
    "A.  NOT REALLY;  HE WAS JUST VERY HARD ON THE UNION BECAUSE OF THE
 PRESSMAN ISSUE, AS
 
    SUCH."
 
    "Q.  WAS THERE DISCUSSION, THEN, ABOUT THE DISPUTE BETWEEN UNION AND
 MANAGEMENT AT THE
 
    MOMENT, REGARDING HIRING OF PLATE PRINTERS?"
 
    "A.  YES, IT WAS."
 
    "Q.  HE TOLD YOU YOU WERE EXPECTED TO TAKE THE MANAGEMENT POSITION?"
 
    "A.  AS A SUPERVISOR, YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO TAKE THE MANAGEMENT, AS
 SUCH." (TR. 352-353).
 
    MR. ROBERT MCGRATH, ALSO A TRAINEE IN GROUP I, WAS PRESENT AT THE
 MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 1978, BUT DID NOT RECALL ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
 PRESSMAN ISSUE BY MR.  BERRY (TR. 494);  HOWEVER, MR. REGONE STATED
 THAT,
 
    " . . . WE TALKED ABOUT THE SHORTAGE OF PERSONNEL, PRINTERS AND
 FOREMEN AND THE BASIC
 
    OVERALL-- I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED-- THERE WAS SOME DISAGREEMENT
 BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES, IF YOU
 
    WILL, THE MANAGEMENT AND THE UNION."
 
    "MR. BERRY FELT THAT HIS SIDE WAS WHAT-- NOT HIS SIDE-- WHAT HE
 THOUGHT HE WAS DOING WAS
 
    CORRECT AND WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE BUREAU
 AND, CERTAINLY, THE
 
    PLATE PRINTING DIVISION."
 
    "THAT IS ABOUT ALL I CAN REALLY RECALL." (TR. 419).
 
    WHILE IT IS CLEAR THAT MR. BERRY TALKED ABOUT THEIR HAVING TO "WEAR
 TWO HATS";  THAT AS ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMAN THEY WOULD BE MANAGEMENT;
 THAT WHEN THEY WENT BACK TO THE PRESS THEY WOULD REPRESENT THE UNION;
 AND THAT MR. BERRY DISCUSSED THE PRESSMEN DISPUTE.  WHETHER MR. BERRY
 SAID, IN EFFECT, THIS IS MY POSITION ON THE PRESSMEN DISPUTE AND YOU, AS
 SUPERVISORS, WILL SUPPORT IT, IS NOT ALTOGETHER CLEAR.  CERTAINLY, IF HE
 MADE SUCH STATEMENT, IT MADE SO LITTLE IMPRESSION ON MR. MCGRATH THAT HE
 DID NOT RECALL IT, NOR DID MR. REGONE RECALL THAT MR. BERRY TOLD THE
 TRAINEES THAT THEY, AS SUPERVISORS, MUST SUPPORT HIS POSITION ON THE
 PRESSMEN ISSUE.  HOWEVER, IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT HE DID SAY, IN EFFECT,
 THAT THE TRAINEES, AS SUPERVISORS, MUST SUPPORT HIS POSITION ON THE
 PRESSMEN ISSUE, IT IS, NEVERTHELESS, PLAIN FROM MR. MATVAY'S TESTIMONY
 THAT MR. BERRY SPECIFICALLY LIMITED HIS ADMONITION TO THE PERIOD THEY
 SERVED IN A SUPERVISORY CAPACITY AND THAT WHEN THEY RETURNED TO THE
 PRESS THEY REPRESENTED THE UNION.  CONSEQUENTLY, AS ANY SUCH STATEMENT
 WAS MADE BY MANAGEMENT TO MANAGEMENT TRAINEES THEN PERFORMING A
 MANAGEMENT FUNCTION, THE MEETING WAS NOT THEREBY CONVERTED TO A SECTION
 10(E) FORMAL DISCUSSION.
 
    ADDITIONALLY, COMPLAINANT CONTENDS THAT EVEN IF THE MEETING WAS NOT A
 SECTION 10(E) MEETING, RESPONDENT, NEVERTHELESS, VIOLATED SECTION
 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER BECAUSE THE STATEMENT OF MR. BERRY INTERFERED
 WITH, RESTRAINED, OR COERCED EMPLOYEES (THE TRAINEES) IN THE EXERCISE OF
 RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE ORDER INCLUDING "THE RIGHT, FREELY AND WITHOUT
 FEAR OF PENALTY OR REPRISAL, TO FORM, JOIN, AND ASSIST A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION".  IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT:  (A) RECOMMENDATION OF A SELECTEE
 BY THE SUPERINTENDENT (JT. EXH. 3) OR (B) ULTIMATE PROMOTION TO
 PERMANENT ASSISTANT FOREMAN MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT OF AN
 EMPLOYEE TO ASSIST A LABOR ORGANIZATION, FREELY AND WITHOUT FEAR OF
 PENALTY OR REPRISAL, AS TO AN ISSUE ON WHICH MANAGEMENT AND THE UNION
 WERE IN STRONG DISAGREEMENT EVEN THOUGH SUPPORT FOR MANAGEMENT'S
 POSITION WAS REQUIRED ONLY WHEN ACTING IN A SUPERVISORY POSITION AND
 EMPLOYEES WERE TOLD THAT WHEN NOT ACTING IN A SUPERVISORY POSITION THEY
 REPRESENTED THE UNION;  HOWEVER, MR. MATVAY, THE ONLY WITNESS WHO
 TESTIFIED THAT MR.  BERRY MADE SUCH A STATEMENT, STATED THAT HE DID NOT
 FEEL THREATENED.  IN ANY EVENT, WITHOUT DECIDING WHETHER THE STATEMENT,
 IF MADE, VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1), FOR REASONS MORE FULLY SET FORTH
 HEREINAFTER, I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT BECAUSE THE STATEMENT WAS MADE TO
 MANAGEMENT TRAINEES WHILE PERFORMING A MANAGEMENT FUNCTION THE
 STATEMENT, EVEN IF MADE, DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER.
 
    THE DEFINITION OF "SUPERVISOR" UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
 ACT, IS IDENTICAL IN ALL SUBSTANTIVE RESPECTS TO THE DEFINITION OF
 "SUPERVISOR" UNDER THE ORDER.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAS
 CONSISTENTLY EXCLUDED "CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES" (EMPLOYEES WHO ASSIST AND
 ACT IN A CONFIDENTIAL CAPACITY TO PERSONS WHO FORMULATE, DETERMINE, AND
 EFFECTUATE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE FIELD OF LABOR RELATIONS), FORD
 MOTOR COMPANY, 66 NLRB 1317, 17 LRRM 394(1946);  B.F. GOODRICH CO., 115
 NLRB 722, 37 LRRM 1383(1956);  AND THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INITIALLY IN
 VIRGINIA NATIONAL GUARD, HEADQUARTERS, 4TH BATTALION, 111TH ARTILLERY,
 A/SLMR NO. 69, 1 F/LMR 332(1971), AND CONSISTENTLY THEREAFTER, HAS
 APPLIED A LIKE POLICY, ALTHOUGH NEITHER THE NLRA NOR THE ORDER
 SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO "CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE" (SECTION 10(B)(2) DOES,
 HOWEVER, STATE, AN EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK IN OTHER
 THAN A PURELY CLERICAL CAPACITY.") INDEED, IN THE VIRGINIA NATIONAL
 GUARD CASE, SUPRA, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY STATED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    " . . . ALTHOUGH CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ARE NOT MENTIONED . .  . I
 CONSIDER THAT IT WOULD
 
    BEST EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IF EMPLOYEES WHO
 ASSIST AND ACT IN A
 
    CONFIDENTIAL CAPACITY TO PERSONS WHO FORMULATE AND EFFECTUATE
 MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE FIELD
 
    OF LABOR RELATIONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM BARGAINING UNITS." (1 A/SLMR AT
 335).
 
    THE BOARD IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAS ALSO CONSISTENTLY EXCLUDED
 "MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES", AND IN NLRB V. BELL AEROSPACE COMPANY, DIVISION
 OF TEXTRON, INC., 416 U.S.  267(1974), THE SUPREME COURT STATED.
 
    " . . . THE BOARD'S EARLY DECISIONS, THE PURPOSE AND LEGISLATIVE
 HISTORY OF THE
 
    TAFT-HARTLEY ACT OF 1947, THE BOARD'S SUBSEQUENT AND CONSISTENT
 CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT FOR
 
    MORE THAN TWO DECADES, AND THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS ALL
 POINT UNMISTAKABLY TO
 
    THE CONCLUSION THAT "MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES' ARE NOT COVERED BY THE
 ACT." (416 U.S.AT 289).
 
    THE BOARD HAS LONG HELD THAT MANAGEMENT TRAINEES ARE PART OF
 MANAGEMENT AND, THEREFORE, NOT COVERED BY THE ACT.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE,
 STOUFFER'S CINCINNATI INN, 225 NLRB NO. 170, 93 LRRM 1197(1976)
 (TRAINING TO BECOME AN ASSISTANT MANAGER);  CURTIS INDUSTRIES, DIVISION
 OF CURTIS NOLL CORP., 218 NLRB 1447, 89 LRRM 1417(1975).  THE CURTIS
 INDUSTRIES CASE, SUPRA, IS ONE OF THE FEW INSTANCES WHERE THE ISSUE HAS
 ARISEN IN AN 8(A)(3) CASE.  NEVERTHELESS, THE BOARD STATED,
 
    "WE AGREE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE THAT BASED ON THE SUPREME
 COURT'S HOLDING IN
 
    N.L.R.B. V. BELL AEROSPACE COMPANY, DIVISION OF TEXTRON, INC., 416
 U.S. 267(1974), THE
 
    MANAGEMENT TRAINEES INVOLVED HEREIN ARE NOT COVERED BY THE PROTECTION
 OF THE ACT." (89 LRRM
 
    AT 1417).
 
    I AM AWARE, OF COURSE, THAT SECTION 2(F) OF THE ORDER DEFINES AGENCY
 MANAGEMENT" AND THAT SECTION 10(B) EXCLUDES:
 
    "(1) ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OR SUPERVISOR . . . "
 
    ALTHOUGH "AGENCY MANAGEMENT", AS DEFINED BY SECTION 2(F) OF THE ORDER
 MAY NOT HAVE PRECISELY THE SAME MEANING AS "MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES" UNDER
 THE NLRA, THE TERM CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES THAT THE LONG RECOGNIZED CONCEPT
 WAS, AND IS, FULLY RECOGNIZED UNDER THE ORDER.  I AM AWARE OF NO
 DECISIONS UNDER THE ORDER WHICH HAVE CONSIDERED THE STATUS OF A
 MANAGEMENT TRAINEE UNDER THE ORDER, BUT SEE, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
 OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 1859 AND MARINE CORPS
 AIR STATION AND NAVAL AIR REWORK FACILITY, CHERRY POINT, N.C., FLRC NO.
 77A-28 (FEB. 28, 1978 (REPORT NO. 145, MARCH 3, 1978), AND, WHILE
 DECISIONS UNDER THE NLRA ARE NOT BINDING, CHARLESTON NAVAL SHIPYARD,
 A/SLMR NO. 1, 1 A/SLMR 27(1970), DECISIONS UNDER THE NLRA ARE PROPERLY
 TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.  IN UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, A/SLMR NO. 833, 7 A/SLMR 371(1977), AN
 INTERVIEW OF A UNIT EMPLOYEE WAS INVOLVED WHICH CONCERNED ACTION OF THE
 EMPLOYEE WHILE SERVING AS AN ACTING ASSISTANT BRANCH CHIEF.  THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY STATED, IN PART,
 
    "THUS, THE RECORD REVEALS, AND THE PARTIES AGREE, THAT THE EVENTS
 WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF
 
    THE INTERVIEWS OCCURRED DURING A PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH FEURZIG WAS
 AN ACTING SUPERVISOR AND
 
    THEREBY EXCLUDED FROM THE EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED UNIT.  FURTHER, THE
 EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT
 
    THE RESPONDENT WAS CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS OF
 FEURZIG MADE WHILE HE WAS
 
    SERVING IN AN ACTING SUPERVISORY CAPACITY . . . IN THIS CONTEXT, I DO
 NOT VIEW THE INTERVIEWS
 
    INVOLVED TO COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 10(E) OF THE ORDER,
 AS, IN EFFECT, THEY
 
    INVOLVED AGENCY MANAGEMENT SEEKING TO GATHER INFORMATION FROM ONE OF
 ITS OWN MEMBERS."
 
    INTERMITTENT AND TEMPORARY SUPERVISORS ARE RECOGNIZED AND TREATED AS
 SUCH WHEN WORKING AS SUPERVISORS, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND
 MANAGEMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, LAKEVIEW, OREGON, A/SLMR NO. 212, 2 A/SLMR
 515(1972);  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
 SUPPORT CENTER, THIRD DISTRICT, GOVERNORS ISLAND, NEW YORK, A/SLMR NO.
 785, 7 A/SLMR 81(1977);  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, U.S. GOVERNMENT
 COMPTROLLER OF GUAM TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS, A/SLMR NO.
 1002(1978);  LAKE CENTRAL REGION, BUREAU OF OUTDOORS RECREATION,
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FEDERAL BUILDING, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN,
 A/SLMR NO. 1032(1978).  THE FOREGOING DECISIONS, WHILE NOT ADDRESSING
 THE STATUS OF MANAGEMENT TRAINEES, NEVERTHELESS, RECOGNIZE THAT
 EMPLOYEES WHEN PERFORMING A MANAGEMENT FUNCTION ARE TREATED AS
 SUPERVISORS WHILE ACTING IN SUCH CAPACITY.  THE AGREEMENT HEREIN APPLIES
 TO AND GOVERNS,
 
    " . . . EMPLOYEES . . . WHO ARE EMPLOYED AS APPRENTICE AND JOURNEYMEN
 PLATE
 
    PRINTERS" (JT. EXH. 5, ART. II).
 
    ARTICLE XXIV OF THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT PROVIDES
 
    "SECTION 1.  PROMOTIONS TO SUPERVISORY POSITIONS FOR WHICH UNIT
 EMPLOYEES MAY BE ELIGIBLE
 
    WILL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED POLICY AND PROCEDURES.  A
 COPY OF THE EMPLOYER'S
 
    SUPERVISORY PROMOTION PLAN AND ANY CHANGES THERETO WILL BE FURNISHED
 TO THE
 
    UNION." (JT. EXH. 5).
 
    RESPONDENT'S PROMOTION PLAN (JT. EXH. 4) COVERS BOTH SELECTION OF
 EMPLOYEES "TO ACT IN OR TO BE PROMOTED TO FULL SUPERVISORY POSITIONS";
 SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR ON-THE-JOB TRAINING;  AND RESPONDENT'S
 ADDITION PAY ASSIGNMENT POLICY, BULLETIN NO. 60-29, SEPTEMBER 1, 1960
 (JT. EXH. 9), PROVIDED FOR SELECTION AND TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES AS
 SUPERVISORS.  FOR ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, I CONCLUDE THAT SUPERVISORY
 (MANAGERIAL) TRAINEES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE BARGAINING UNIT AND THAT THE
 STATEMENT BY MR. BERRY TO SUPERVISORY TRAINEES DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION
 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER.  ACCORDINGLY, AS THE MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 1978,
 WAS NOT A FORMAL DISCUSSION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10(E) OF THE
 ORDER AND AS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1) OR (6) HAS BEEN
 ESTABLISHED I SHALL DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 22-08990(CA).
 
    III.  DID RESPONDENT VIOLATE SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER
 ON JANUARY 19, 1978, BY
 
    ITS REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ON SUCH MATTERS AS THE WEIGHTS, FACTORS,
 SELECTION CRITERIA, EVALUATION
 
    PROCESS TO BE USED IN FILLING THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN;  THE
 WORKING CONDITIONS,
 
    PERSONNEL PRACTICES AFFECTING THE SELECTEES DOING TRAINING;  ITS
 DECISION, ANNOUNCED ON
 
    DECEMBER 28, 1977, TO SELECT AND TRAIN 25 EMPLOYEES FOR THE POSITION
 OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN,
 
    RATHER THAN SIX OR SEVEN AS IT HAD PREVIOUSLY INFORMED COMPLAINANT ON
 AUGUST 8, 1977;  AND/OR
 
    THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RESPONDENT'S DECISION TO SELECT AND
 TRAIN 25 EMPLOYEES?
 
    ON, OR ABOUT, AUGUST 8, 1977, MR. NEIL E. MCGARRY, SUPERINTENDENT OF
 THE PLATE PRINTING DIVISION, AND MR. REGONE MET WITH COMPLAINANT'S
 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO ANNOUNCE THE
 POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN AND TO FILL THE POSITIONS THROUGH
 PROMOTION PLAN B-69-28.  AT THIS MEETING, COMPLAINANT'S EXECUTIVE
 COMMITTEE WAS ADVISED OF RESPONDENT'S INTENT TO UTILIZE THE ASSESSMENT
 CENTER.  ARTICLE XXIV OF THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT IS ENTITLED "PROMOTIONS"
 AND SECTION 1, SET FORTH HEREINABOVE, PROVIDED, INTER ALIA, THAT "A COPY
 OF THE EMPLOYER'S SUPERVISORY PROMOTION PLAN AND ANY CHANGES THERETO
 WILL BE FURNISHED TO THE UNION." SECTION 2, PROVIDES, IN PART, AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    "SECTION 2
 
    (A) IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT:
 
    1.  SUCH POLICY, PLAN AND PROCEDURE CAN BE UNILATERALLY CHANGED BY
 THE EMPLOYER AT ANYTIME.
 
    2.  NON-SELECTION FOR PROMOTION FROM A DULY CONSTITUTED REGISTER IS
 NOT GRIEVABLE.
 
    3.  GRIEVABILITY IS LIMITED ONLY TO PROCEDURAL ERRORS.
 
                     . . . " (JT. EXH. 5, ART. XXIV).
 
    THE SUPERVISORY VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT (JT. EXH. 3) ISSUED ON AUGUST
 31, 1977, AND UNDER "METHOD OF EVALUATION" SPECIFICALLY STATED,
 
    "ASSESSMENT CENTER TECHNIQUES (WITH WRITTEN TESTS) OR SUPERVISORY
 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION,
 
    AS NEEDED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX B
 (REVISED)." (JT. EXH. 3).
 
    A DECISION TO ESTABLISH A SUPERVISORY POSITION IS A RIGHT RESERVED TO
 MANAGEMENT UNDER SECTION 11(B) OF THE ORDER.  ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT WAS
 NOT PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE EVALUATION PLANS THAT WOULD BE USED
 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1977, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT COMPLAINANT WAS ADVISED ON
 AUGUST 8, 1977, AND AGAIN ON AUGUST 31, 1977, WHEN THE VACANCY
 ANNOUNCEMENT WAS ISSUED, THAT THE ASSESSMENT CENTER TECHNIQUE /7/ WOULD
 BE USED AND THAT COMPLAINANT WITH NOTICE OF THE CONTEMPLATED USE OF THE
 ASSESSMENT CENTER TECHNIQUE MADE NO REQUEST TO BARGAIN ON THE IMPACT OR
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TECHNIQUE.  AS ARTICLE XXIV PROVIDES THAT
 RESPONDENT MAY UNILATERALLY CHANGE ITS SUPERVISORY PROMOTION PLAN AT
 ANYTIME AND THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IMPOSED IS THAT RESPONDENT PROVIDE A
 COPY OF ANY CHANGE TO COMPLAINANT, RESPONDENT FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE
 TERMS OF ITS NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT BY NOTIFYING COMPLAINANT THAT IT
 INTENDED TO USE THE ASSESSMENT CENTER TECHNIQUE AND BY SUPPLYING
 COMPLAINANT WITH A COPY OF THE EVALUATION PLAN.  UNDER THE AGREEMENT,
 RESPONDENT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE EITHER IMPACT OR IMPLEMENTATION
 OF ITS DECISION TO USE THE ASSESSMENT CENTER TECHNIQUE FOR PURPOSES OF
 EVALUATION;  HOWEVER, EVEN IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE
 BEEN OBLIGATED BY THE ORDER TO BARGAIN ON IMPACT OR IMPLEMENTATION,
 COMPLAINANT, BY FAILING TO REQUEST NEGOTIATION AFTER NOTICE, ON AUGUST
 8, 1977, THAT THE ASSESSMENT CENTER TECHNIQUE WOULD BE USED, WAIVED
 WHATEVER RIGHT IT MIGHT HAVE HAD TO BARGAIN ON IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION
 AND RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL ON JANUARY 19, 1978, TO BARGAIN ON THE IMPACT
 AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ASSESSMENT CENTER TECHNIQUE WAS NOT A
 VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(6) OF THE ORDER.  ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD,
 A/SLMR NO. 660, 6 A/SLMR 267(1976);  DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE, VANDENBERG
 AIR FORCE BASE, A/SLMR NO. 350, 4 A/SLMR 119(1974);  DEPARTMENT OF AIR
 FORCE, NORTON AIR FORCE BASE, A/SLMR NO.  261, 3 A/SLMR 175(1973).
 
    FOR REASONS FULLY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE, THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT
 FOREMAN IS A SUPERVISORY POSITION OUTSIDE THE BARGAINING UNIT;
 EMPLOYEES SELECTED FOR TRAINING FOR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN
 WERE, DURING THEIR TRAINING, ACTING IN A MANAGERIAL CAPACITY OUTSIDE THE
 BARGAINING UNIT;  AND QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES WHEN SERVING AS ACTING
 ASSISTANT FOREMEN WERE SUPERVISORS OUTSIDE THE BARGAINING UNIT.  THE
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT PROMOTIONS TO SUPERVISORY
 POSITIONS FOR WHICH UNIT EMPLOYEES MAY BE ELIGIBLE WILL BE MADE IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED POLICY AND PROCEDURES;  THAT A COPY OF THE
 EMPLOYER'S SUPERVISORY PROMOTION PLAN AND ANY CHANGES WILL BE FURNISHED
 TO COMPLAINANT;  AND THAT EMPLOYER'S POLICY, PLAN AND PROCEDURE CAN BE
 UNILATERALLY CHANGED BY THE EMPLOYER AT ANY TIME (JT. EXH. 5, ART.
 XXIV).  THE VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT (JT. EXH. 3) SPECIFICALLY MADE
 APPLICABLE RESPONDENT'S PROMOTION PLAN TO SELECT EMPLOYEES FOR FULL
 SUPERVISORY POSITIONS, BULLETIN 69-28 (JT. EXH. 4) AND SPECIFICALLY
 PROVIDED THAT PAY WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH BULLETIN 60-29 (JT. EXH.
 9) WHEN REQUIRED TO ACT IN THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMEN.
 RESPONDENT ACTED FULLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF ARTICLE XXIV OF
 ITS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND ITS REFUSAL, ON JANUARY 19,
 1978, TO BARGAIN ON WEIGHTS, FACTORS, SELECTION CRITERIA, EVALUATION
 PROCESS, ETC., TO BE USED IN FILLING THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN
 AND/OR THE WORKING CONDITIONS, PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES
 AFFECTING THE SELECTEES DURING THEIR TRAINING, INASMUCH AS THESE
 MATTERS, RELATED TO POSITIONS OUTSIDE THE BARGAINING UNIT, WAS NOT A
 VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(6) OF THE ORDER, OR DERIVATIVELY, OF SECTION
 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER.  TEXAS ANG COUNCIL OF LOCALS, AFGE AND STATE OF
 TEXAS NATIONAL GUARD, FLRC NO. 74A-71, 4 FLRC 154(1976);  INTERNATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 1859 AND
 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION AND NAVAL AIR REWORK FACILITY, CHERRY POINT,
 N.C., FLRC NO. 77A-28 (FEB. 28, 1978) (REPORT NO. 145, MARCH 3, 1978).
 AS TO THESE ALLEGATIONS, THE COMPLAINT WILL BE DISMISSED.
 
    HOWEVER, FOR REASONS MORE FULLY SET FORTH HEREINAFTER, RESPONDENT
 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(6) AND, DERIVATIVELY, SECTION 19(A)(1), OF THE
 ORDER BY ITS REFUSAL TO BARGAIN, UPON COMPLAINANT'S TIMELY REQUEST, ON
 ITS DECISION TO TRAIN 25 EMPLOYEES FOR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN
 AND/OR THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT DECISION ON THE BARGAINING
 UNIT.
 
    WHEN RESPONDENT MET WITH COMPAINANT'S EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IN AUGUST
 1977, IT INFORMED THE UNION THAT IT INTENDED TO SELECT AND TRAIN SIX OR
 SEVEN EMPLOYEES FOR THE SUPERVISORY POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN.  ON,
 OR ABOUT, DECEMBER 28, 1977, RESPONDENT INFORMED COMPLAINANT THAT THE
 NUMBER WOULD BE 25, WHICH WAS NEARLY ONE-FOURTH OF THE ENTIRE BARGAINING
 UNIT (22%).  ON JANUARY 16, 1978, COMPLAINANT DEMANDED BARGAINING, INTER
 ALIA, ON THE NUMBER TO BE TRAINED AND THE IMPACT AND EFFECT IT WOULD
 HAVE ON THE BARGAINING UNIT, INCLUDING OVERTIME, SENIORITY, ETC.
 ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT ON JANUARY 16, 1978, ALSO SOUGHT TO BARGAIN ABOUT
 OTHER MATTERS, AS TO WHICH RESPONDENT HAD NO OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN,
 RESPONDENT, ON JANUARY 19, 1978, DECLINED ALL BARGAINING.  IT IS
 RECOGNIZED THAT RESPONDENT INFORMED COMPLAINANT ON JANUARY 3, 1978, THAT
 THE 25 SELECTEES WOULD BE TRAINED IN THREE GROUPS TO MINIMIZE PRODUCTION
 PROBLEMS.  NEVERTHELESS, RESPONDENT'S ANNOUNCEMENT, ON DECEMBER 28,
 1977, OF THE NUMBER TO BE SELECTED AND TRAINED HAD COME AS A SHOCK AND
 SURPRISE TO ALL CONCERNED, INCLUDING THE SELECTEES.  COMPLAINANT, IN
 RELIANCE ON PRIOR ADVICE BY RESPONDENT THAT ONLY SIX OR SEVEN
 SUPERVISORY POSITIONS WERE TO BE FILLED, QUESTIONED THE JUSTIFICATION
 FOR TRAINING 25 EMPLOYEES AND VIEWED RESPONDENT'S ACTION, AS IT ASSERTED
 IN THE COMPLAINT, AS AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE STATUS OF COMPLAINANT
 AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.  MOREOVER, IN VIEW OF THE ALREADY SHORT
 SUPPLY OF PLATE PRINTERS, WHICH HAD CAUSED 12 HOUR SHIFTS AND A 7 DAY
 OPERATION, COMPLAINANT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION
 OF THE DECISION ON THE BARGAINING UNIT.  ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT HAD NOT
 REQUESTED NEGOTIATION ON THE IMPACT OF SELECTING SIX OR SEVEN EMPLOYEES
 FOR TRAINING FOR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN IN AUGUST 1977, WHEN
 RESPONDENT NOTIFIED COMPLAINANT OF ITS INTENTION TO ANNOUNCE THE
 POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN, RESPONDENT'S ANNOUNCEMENT ON DECEMBER 28,
 1977, THAT 25 EMPLOYEES WERE TO BE SELECTED AND TRAINED WAS A VASTLY
 DIFFERENT PROPOSAL THAN RESPONDENT HAD PRESENTED ON AUGUST 8, 1977, AND
 I EXPRESSLY DO NOT FIND ANY WAIVER OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE
 AS TO THE NUMBER OF TRAINEES ANNOUNCED BY RESPONDENT ON DECEMBER 28,
 1977, OR OF ITS RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE AS TO THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION
 OF THAT DECISION BECAUSE IT HAD NOT REQUESTED NEGOTIATION IN AUGUST
 1977, AS TO A PROPOSAL VERY DIFFERENT IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS.
 
    RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ABOUT ITS DECISION TO TRAIN 25
 EMPLOYEES FOR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN AND/OR THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT DECISION VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(6) OF THE ORDER
 AND, ALSO, DERIVATIVELY, SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER AND AN
 APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL BE ISSUED.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    A.  HAVING FOUND THAT NO VIOLATION OF THE ORDER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
 IN CASE NO. 22-08990(CA) THE COMPLAINT IN THAT CASE IS DISMISSED;  AND
 HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT VIOLATE THE ORDER BY ITS REFUSAL TO
 BARGAIN ON WEIGHTS, FACTORS SELECTION CRITERIA, EVALUATION PROCESS,
 ETC., TO BE USED IN FILLING THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN AND/OR THE
 WORKING CONDITIONS, PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES AFFECTING THE
 SELECTEES DURING THEIR TRAINING, AS ALLEGED IN CASE NO. 22-08989(CA)
 SUCH PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, AS TO WHICH NO VIOLATION HAS BEEN FOUND,
 ARE DISMISSED;  HOWEVER, AS A VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF
 THE ORDER HAS BEEN FOUND AS TO A FURTHER ALLEGATION IN CASE NO.
 22-08989(CA) THE FOLLOWING ORDER AS TO SUCH VIOLATION IS ISSUED.
 
    B.  PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, 29
 C.F.R.SECTION 203.26(B), AND SECTION 2400.2 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R.SECTION 2400.2, FED. REG., VOL. 44, NO. 1, JANUARY
 2, 1979, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
 TREASURY, BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING, WASHINGTON, D.C. SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REFUSING TO CONSULT, CONFER, OR NEGOTIATE WITH THE WASHINGTON
 PLATE PRINTERS UNION LOCAL NO. 2, INTERNATIONAL PLATE PRINTERS, DIE
 STAMPERS AND ENGRAVERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, CONCERNING ITS
 DECISION TO SELECT AND TRAIN 25 EMPLOYEES FOR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT
 FOREMAN AND/OR THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT DECISION ON THE
 BARGAINING UNIT.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF 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) UPON REQUEST, NEGOTIATE WITH THE WASHINGTON PLATE PRINTERS UNION
 LOCAL NO. 2, INTERNATIONAL PLATE PRINTERS, DIE STAMPERS AND ENGRAVERS
 UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, CONCERNING ITS DECISION TO SELECT AND
 TRAIN 25 EMPLOYEES FOR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN AND/OR THE
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT DECISION ON THE BARGAINING UNIT.
 
    (B) POST AT THE BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
 COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED
 BY THE AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY
 THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND
 MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS
 PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO
 EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE
 STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED
 BY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) PURSUANT TO 29 C.F.R.SECTION 203.27 AND SECTION 2400.2 OF THE
 TRANSITION RULES AND 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:  APRIL 23, 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 REFUSE TO CONSULT, CONFER, OR NEGOTIATE WITH THE
 WASHINGTON PLATE PRINTERS UNION LOCAL NO. 2, INTERNATIONAL PLATE
 PRINTERS, DIE STAMPERS AND ENGRAVERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA AFL-CIO,
 CONCERNING OUR DECISION TO SELECT AND TRAIN 25 EMPLOYEES FOR THE
 POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN AND/OR THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
 THAT DECISION ON THE BARGAINING UNIT.
 
    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, NEGOTIATE WITH THE WASHINGTON PLATE PRINTERS
 UNION LOCAL NO. 2, INTERNATIONAL PLATE PRINTERS, DIE STAMPERS AND
 ENGRAVERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, CONCERNING OUR DECISION TO
 SELECT AND TRAIN 25 EMPLOYEES FOR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT FOREMAN
 AND/OR THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT DECISION ON THE BARGAINING
 UNIT.
 
                     BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING
 
    DATED:  . . . BY:  . . .
 
                              DIRECTOR . . .
 
    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 PROVISION, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS ROOM 509, VANGUARD BUILDING, 1111-20TH
 STREET N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ BY LETTER OF JANUARY 21, 1980, THE COMPLAINANT REQUEST THAT
 CERTAIN OF ITS EXCEPTIONS BE WITHDRAWN DUE TO AN INTERIM AGREEMENT
 REACHED BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN TREATED AS A
 MODIFICATION OF THE COMPLAINANT'S EXCEPTIONS.
 
    /2/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
 OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASES ARE 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 CASES HAD ARISEN
 UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
 
    /3/ THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CONCLUDED THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO.
 22-08989(CA) ALSO ENCOMPASSED THE ALLEGATIONS THAT RESPONDENT REFUSED TO
 NEGOTIATE REGARDING THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE SELECTED AND TRAINED
 AND ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES OF THE SELECTION ON THE
 ENTIRE UNIT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.  THE
 AUTHORITY DISAGREES.  THUS, THE SUBJECT COMPLAINT CONTAINS NO SUCH
 ALLEGATIONS AND THE RESPONDENT CLEARLY OBJECTED BOTH AT THE HEARING AND
 IN ITS EXCEPTIONS TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THESE ALLEGATIONS WHICH THE
 EVIDENCE REFLECTS WERE FIRST RAISED AT THE HEARING.  ACCORDINGLY, NOTING
 THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 22-08989(CA) WAS NOT AMENDED BY THE
 PARTIES AT THE HEARING TO INCLUDE SUCH ALLEGATIONS, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY
 CONCLUDES THE ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE
 UNDER SECTION 203.3 OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S REGULATIONS.  CF.
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, HEADQUARTERS MILITARY TRAFFIC COMMAND, 2 FLRA
 NO. 72, WHEREIN THE AUTHORITY ADOPTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 DETERMINATION THAT AN ALLEGATION BE DISMISSED FOR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME
 REASON.
 
    /4/ BASED ON PAST PRACTICE, THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYED A TWO-STAGE
 SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN POSITION.  IT FIRST
 SELECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES TO BE TRAINED AND SERVE IN AN ACTING CAPACITY.
 AT SOME LATER UNANNOUNCED DATE IT PLANNED TO SELECT FULL-TIME ASSISTANT
 FOREMEN FROM THE POOL OF ACTING ASSISTANT FOREMEN.
 
    /5/ CF. U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND, 76 MILITARY AIRLIFT
 WING, 76 AIR BASE GROUP, ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON, D.C., 2
 FLRA NO. 83.
 
    /6/ THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FURTHER CONCLUSION, THAT THE
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ALLEGATION OF CASE NO. 22-08989(CA) REGARDING THE
 RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ON THE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR FILLING
 THE PERMANENT ASSISTANT FOREMAN POSITIONS SHOULD BE DISMISSED, IS
 ADOPTED FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN.
 
    /7/ MR. MCGARRY DESCRIBED THE ASSESSMENT CENTER TECHNIQUE AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "THEY PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION GROUPS, SO EACH ONE IS GIVEN A
 DIFFERENT ROLE TO PLAY