United States Customs Service, Region V, New Orleans, Louisiana (Respondent) and National Treasury Employees Union and NTEU Chapter 168 (Complainant) 

 



[ v04 p302 ]
04:0302(42)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 4 FLRA No. 42
 
 UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE,
 REGION V,
 NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
 UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 168
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case Nos. 64-4248(CA)
                                                      64-4250(CA)
                                                      64-4251(CA)
                                                      64-4252(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 CERTAIN OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINTS BE
 DISMISSED.  THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENT FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN CASE NO.
 64-4252(CA) AND THE COMPLAINANT FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN CASE NOS.  64-4250(CA),
 64-4251(CA) AND 64-4252(CA).  NO EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED TO THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN CASE NO.
 64-4248(CA).
 
    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(0) 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, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS
 MODIFIED BELOW.  /1/
 
    IN CASE NO. 64-4252(CA), THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CONCLUDED THE
 COMPLAINT ENCOMPASSED AN ALLEGATION THAT THE RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM OF
 JULY 7, 1978, CONSTITUTED A BYPASS OF THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE IN
 VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AS IT
 DIRECTLY SOLICITED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM UNIT EMPLOYEES.  NEITHER THE
 PRE-COMPLAINT CHARGE NOR THE COMPLAINT CONTAINS SUCH AN ALLEGATION.
 MOREOVER, THE RESPONDENT OBJECTED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS
 ALLEGATION WHEN FIRST RAISED AT THE HEARING.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
 ALLEGATION SHALL BE DISMISSED AS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE UNDER SECTIONS
 203.2 AND 203.3 OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S REGULATIONS WHICH REQUIRE
 THAT AN ALLEGATION BE CONTAINED IN THE PRE-COMPLAINT CHARGE AND IN THE
 COMPLAINT.  CF. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND
 PRINTING, 4 FLRA NO. 6, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, HEADQUARTERS, MILITARY
 TRAFFIC COMMAND, 2 FLRA NO. 72.
 
                                   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 UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE, REGION V, NEW ORLEANS,
 LOUISIANA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) UNILATERALLY ALTERING OR CHANGING THE ESTABLISHED PAST PRACTICE,
 AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO MAY 31, 1978, OF REPORTING AIRCRAFT
 DISCREPANCIES, INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF SUCH DISCREPANCIES WITH AIRCRAFT
 MECHANICS, WITHOUT FIRST BARGAINING IN GOOD FAITH WITH NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 168, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, TO THE FULL EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES
 AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:
 
    (A) WITHDRAW THE MEMORANDUM, ISSUED BY MR. RAYMOND E. HALFACRE,
 CHIEF, AIR SUPPORT BRANCH, AND DATED MAY 31, 1978, ENTITLED "POLICY ON
 REPORTING MAINTENANCE DISCREPANCIES AND DUTIES OF SUPPLYMEN."
 
    (B) POST AT ALL FACILITIES AND INSTALLATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
 CUSTOMS SERVICE, REGION V, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 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 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS
 SERVICE, REGION V, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR SIXTY
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SUCH BULLETIN BOARDS
 AND OTHER PLACES IN THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH.  THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
 SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID 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 COMPLAINTS IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE
 NOS. 64-4250(CA), 64-4251(CA), AND 64-4252(CA) BE, AND THEY HEREBY ARE,
 DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 29, 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 UNILATERALLY ALTER OR CHANGE THE ESTABLISHED PAST
 PRACTICE, AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO MAY 31, 1978, OF REPORTING AIRCRAFT
 DISCREPANCIES, INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF SUCH DISCREPANCIES WITH AIRCRAFT
 MECHANICS, WITHOUT FIRST BARGAINING IN GOOD FAITH WITH NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 168, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 OUR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, TO THE FULL EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW.
 
    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 WITHDRAW THE MEMORANDUM, ISSUED BY MR. RAYMOND E. HALFACRE,
 CHIEF, AIR SUPPORT BRANCH, AND DATED MAY 31, 1978, ENTITLED "POLICY ON
 REPORTING MAINTENANCE DISCREPANCIES AND DUTIES OF SUPPLYMEN."
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .  REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
 
    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, REGION VI,
 WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  ROOM 450, OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING, BRYAN & ERVAY
 STREETS, DALLAS, TEXAS 75221, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (212)
 767-4996.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    HENRY M. ROBINSON, ESQUIRE
    ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL
    NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
    SUITE 104
    300 EAST HUNTLAND DRIVE
    AUSTIN, TEXAS 78752
 
    ON BRIEF:  ROB N. ROBERTSON, ESQUIRE
                             ASSOCIATE COUNSEL
 
                          B. CRAIG DEATS, ESQUIRE
                             ASSOCIATE COUNSEL
                             AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                       FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    ELIZABETH BRIGMAN, ESQUIRE
    ASSOCIATE REGIONAL COUNSEL
    UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE
    SUITE 2420
    CANAL LASALLE BUILDING
    1440 CANAL STREET
    NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70112
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
                            ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                      RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS PROCEEDING, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED (HEREINAFTER
 ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE "ORDER"), INVOLVES FOUR SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
 CASES BETWEEN COMMON PARTIES.  ALTHOUGH INSTITUTED BEFORE THE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
 LABOR, PURSUANT TO TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS, FEDERAL REGISTER,
 VOL. 44, NO. 1, JANUARY 2, 1979 (5 C.F.R. SECTION 2400.21, ALL
 PROCEEDINGS AFTER JANUARY 1, 1979, HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BEFORE THE
 AUTHORITY, THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED BY A REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF
 THE AUTHORITY, AND THIS DECISION IS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE AUTHORITY
 PURSUANT TO THE TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN
 REPUBLISHED AS SUBCHAPTER A OF CHAPTER XIV, FED. REG.  VOL. 44, NO. 147,
 JULY 30, 1979.
 
    THE CHARGE IN CASE NO. 64-4248 (CA) WAS FILED ON, OR ABOUT, JULY 10,
 1978, AND THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1978 (ALJ EX. 1).
 THE CHARGE IN CASE NO.  64-4250 (CA) WAS ALSO FILED ON, OR ABOUT, JULY
 10, 1978, AND THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1978 (ALJ EXH.
 2).  THE CHARGE IN CASE NO. 64-4251 (CA) WAS FILED ON, OR ABOUT, JUNE
 23, 1978, AND THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1978 (ALJ EXH.
 3).  THE CHARGE IN CASE NO. 64-4252 (CA) WAS FILED ON, OR ABOUT, JULY
 10, 1978, AND THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1978 (ALJ EXH.
 4).  ON MAY 7, 1979, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ISSUED AN ORDER CONSOLIDATING
 CASES (ALJ EXH. 5) AND ON THE SAME DATE THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ISSUED A
 NOTICE OF HEARING ON COMPLAINT (ALJ EXH. 6) FOR A HEARING ON JUNE 26,
 1979.  ON MAY 8, 1979, THIS OFFICE RECEIVED A MOTION, DATED MAY 2, 1979,
 BY COMPLAINANT, CONCURRED IN BY RESPONDENT, THAT CONSOLIDATED UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE CASES BE HEARD CONSECUTIVELY AND ON MAY 23, 1978, THE
 UNDERSIGNED ISSUED AN ORDER CLARIFYING ORDER OF PROOF UNDER ORDER
 CONSOLIDATING CASES (ALJ EXH.7) WHICH PROVIDED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE
 CASES WOULD BE HEARD SERIATIM, THAT, UNLESS BOTH PARTIES AGREED TO THE
 CONTRARY, THE FIRST CASE TO BE HEARD WOULD BE CASE NO.  64-4248 (CA),
 COMMENCING ON JUNE 26, 1979, IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, AND THAT EACH
 OTHER CASE WOULD BEGIN AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRECEEDING CASE.  /2/
 THE CASES WERE HEARD SERIATIM BEGINNING WITH CASE NO. 64-4248 (CA) AND,
 AT THE REQUEST OF THE PARTIES, FOLLOWED BY CASE NO. 64-4252 (CA),
 64-4250 (CA), AND CONCLUDING WITH 64-4251 (CA), ON JUNE 26, 27, 28 AND
 29, 1979, IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA.
 
    ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED AT THE HEARING BY ABLE COUNSEL, WERE
 AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE
 WITNESSES, AND TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED
 HEREIN AND WERE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT.  AT
 THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, AT THE REQUEST OF THE PARTIES AND FOR
 GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, SEPTEMBER 28, 1979, WAS FIXED AS THE DATE FOR THE
 MAILING OF BRIEFS, WHICH TIME WAS SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED, AT THE JOINT
 REQUEST OF THE PARTIES AND FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, TO OCTOBER 5, 1979.
 EACH PARTY HAS SUBMITTED A VERY HELPFUL BRIEF, TIMELY MAILED, RECEIVED
 BY THE OFFICE ON OCTOBER 10, 1979, 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 RECOMMENDED ORDER.
 
                         I.  CASE NO. 64-4248 (CA)
 
    THIS CASE INVOLVES THE MANNER OF REPORTING AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT
 MALFUNCTIONS TO AIRCRAFT MECHANICS.  RESPONDENT HAS A CONTRACT WITH
 SERV. AIR., INC., A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR, FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF
 ITS AIRCRAFT.  EACH PILOT IS REQUIRED TO RECORD ON THE AIRCRAFT LOG ANY
 MALFUNCTION OF EQUIPMENT.  THERE IS NO DISPUTE WHATEVER THAT THE
 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE PRIOR TO MAY 31, 1978, HAD BEEN THAT THE PILOT
 WOULD DISCUSS THE MALFUNCTIONS WITH THE MECHANIC, AN EMPLOYEE OF
 SERV-AIR.  THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT DIRECT DISCUSSION OF SUCH
 MALFUNCTIONS WAS CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL TO A PROPER DIAGNOSIS OF THE
 PROBLEM AND FOR PROPER CORRECTIVE ACTION.  FOR EXAMPLE, CERTAIN PROBLEMS
 WOULD OCCUR DURING FLIGHT THAT WOULD NOT BE EVIDENT WHEN THE AIRCRAFT
 WAS ON THE GROUND;  OR BY UNDERSTANDING WHAT OCCURRED AND UNDER WHAT
 CIRCUMSTANCES, A PROBLEM WHICH, ON THE SURFACE, APPEARED TO INVOLVE ONE
 ITEM OF EQUIPMENT MIGHT, IN FACT, BE CAUSED BY SOME OTHER ITEM OF
 EQUIPMENT.
 
    NEVERTHELESS, MR. RAYMOND E. HALFACRE, CHIEF, AIR SUPPORT BRANCH, ON
 MAY 31, 1978, ISSUED A MEMORANDUM, ADDRESSED TO "ALL AIR SUPPORT BRANCH
 PERSONNEL", ENTITLED "POLICY ON REPORTING MECHANICAL DISCREPANCIES AND
 DUTIES OF SUPPLYMEN" WHICH PROVIDED, IN RELEVANT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "WHEN A DISCREPANCY IS ENCOUNTERED CONCERNING A MAINTENANCE PROBLEM,
 THE PROPER PROCEDURE
 
    TO FOLLOW IS TO REPORT THE DISCREPANCY TO YOUR SUPERVISOR.  THE
 SUPERVISOR WILL THEN DISCUSS
 
    THE DISCREPANCY WITH THE MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR.  AT NO TIME IS A
 PILOT OR AIR OFFICER TO GO
 
    DIRECTLY TO A MECHANIC, ELECTRICIAN, SUPPLYMAN OR MAINTENANCE
 SUPERVISOR AND COMPLAIN TO HIM
 
    ABOUT THE PROBLEM." (JT. EXH. 6) "DISCREPANCY" IS DEFINED AS "1.
 STATE OR QUALITY OF BEING DISCREPANT;  ALSO, AN INSTANCE OF THIS;
 DISAGREEMENT;  VARIANCE . . . ";  "DISCREPANT" IS DEFINED AS "1.
 DISCORDANT;  AT VARIANCE;  DISAGREEING;  CONTRARY;  DIFFERENT."
 (WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 2D/ED. 1958).  MR. JAMES W.
 THORNTON, NATIONAL FIELD REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
 UNION, WHO WAS AN AIRCRAFT MECHANIC, AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MECHANIC,
 INSTRUCTOR FOR AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE, AND A SUPERVISOR OF AIRCRAFT
 MAINTENANCE FOR MORE THAN 16 YEARS IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE,
 TESTIFIED THAT MAINTENANCE DISCREPANCY, IN HIS EXPERIENCE, MEANT "ANY
 DEVIATION FROM THE NORM OF AN AIRCRAFT, FROM THE POSITION SUPPOSEDLY 100
 PERCENT PERFECT." MR.  THORNTON FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT, IN HIS
 EXPERIENCE, ANYONE INVOLVED WITH AIRCRAFT-- PILOTS, MECHANICS, ETC.,
 USED THE TERM "MAINTENANCE DISCREPANCY", THAT A PILOT USES THE TERM TO
 DESCRIBE A DEFECT THAT HE HAS DISCOVERED IN THE AIRCRAFT DURING THE TIME
 THAT HE WAS OPERATING IT;  THAT A MECHANIC WOULD USE HIS OWN JUDGMENT OR
 HIS OWN TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE TO TAKE WHATEVER CORRECTIVE ACTION TO
 CLEAR THAT MAINTENANCE DISCREPANCY AND WOULD "CLEAR" THE MAINTENANCE
 DISCREPANCY "BY SIGNING IT OFF AND STATING WHAT CORRECTIVE ACTION HAS
 BEEN TAKEN." INDEED, RESPONDENT'S MAINTENANCE LOG IS ENTITLED "AIRCRAFT
 DISCREPANCIES REPORT" AND TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE FORM STATES:  "PILOTS
 INSTRUCTION:  CHECK DELAYED DISCREPANCY FORM DISCREPANCY.  STATE
 EQUIPMENT AND MALFUNCTION.  IF APPLICABLE, RECORD ALL GAUGE READINGS
 THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM.  CIRCLE
 GROUNDING DISCREPANCIES." THEN FOLLOW LINES FOR ENTRY OF DISCREPANCIES
 WITH A COLUMN ENTITLED "NO." THE RIGHT HALF OF THE FORM IS ENTITLED
 "ACTION TAKEN";  HAS A CORRESPONDING COLUMN FOR "NO." OF THE DEFICIENCY,
 ACTION TAKEN, AND NAME OF MECHANIC.  (JT. EXH. 9).
 
    THE TESTIMONY OF ALL WITNESSES AS TO THE MEANING OF MAINTENANCE
 DISCREPANCY AND/OR DISCREPANCY IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY OF
 MR. THORNTON AND THE USE OF DISCREPANCY ON RESPONDENT'S LOG FORM.
 ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE THAT MR. HALFACRE'S MEMORANDUM OF MAY 31, 1978
 (JT. EXH. 6) MEANT, TO ALL PILOTS AND AIR OFFICERS, PRECISELY WHAT IT
 SAID, NAMELY, THAT "AT NO TIME IS A PILOT OR AIR OFFICER TO GO DIRECTLY
 TO A MECHANIC, ELECTRICIAN, SUPPLYMAN OR MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR AND
 COMPLAIN TO HIM ABOUT THE PROBLEM";  THAT, TO THE CONTRARY, "WHEN A
 DISCREPANCY IS ENCOUNTERED CONCERNING A MAINTENANCE PROBLEM, THE PROPER
 PROCEDURE . . . IS TO REPORT THE DISCREPANCY TO YOUR SUPERVISOR.  THE
 SUPERVISOR WILL THEN DISCUSS THE DISCREPANCY WITH THE MAINTENANCE
 SUPERVISOR." (JT. EXH. 6).
 
    THE MEMORANDUM OF MAY 31, 1978 (JT. EXH. 6) WAS POSTED BY RESPONDENT
 WITHOUT PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO COMPLAINANT, WAS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY,
 AND WAS ALSO POSTED AT THE FACILITIES OF SERV-AIR, INC.  COMPLAINANT DID
 NOT DEMAND TO NEGOTIATE AS TO IMPACT OR IMPLEMENTATION BECAUSE, AS MR.
 OSCAR J. VERA, ASSOCIATE CHIEF STEWARD FOR CHAPTER 168, TESTIFIED, " . .
 .  THE MEMORANDUM HAD BEEN POSTED FOR ALL EMPLOYEES IN THE AIR SUPPORT
 BRANCH TO SEE, AND IT HAD ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED."
 
    IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT RESPONDENT ACTED UNILATERALLY SINCE IT PLAINLY
 APPEARS FROM MR. HALFACRE'S TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO CHANGE
 THE ESTABLISHED POLICY AND PROCEDURE AS HIS MEMORANDUM HAD DONE.  THUS,
 MR. HALFACRE TESTIFIED,
 
    "THE POLICY AT THE AIR BRANCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN, AND AS LONG AS I AM
 THE CHIEF OF THE AIR
 
    BRANCH, ALWAYS WILL BE, THAT A PILOT AND A MECHANIC MUST TALK TO EACH
 OTHER, MUST DISCUSS
 
    MAINTENANCE DISCREPANCIES IN AIRCRAFT.  IT IS VERY NECESSARY THAT
 THIS BE DONE.  THIS FACT HAS
 
    BEEN BROUGHT OUT TODAY BY MANY PEOPLE, AND I AGREE WITH THEM 100
 PERCENT . . . " (TR. 95).  TO BE SURE, MR. HALFACRE TESTIFIED THAT
 SOMETIME AFTER THE MEMORANDUM HAD BEEN POSTED, THE DATE WAS NOT FIXED,
 HE TOLD MR. MEEK KIKER, A PILOT, THAT THE MEMORANDUM DID NOT MEAN THAT
 PILOTS WERE NOT TO TALK TO MECHANICS DIRECTLY.  MR. KIKER SUPPORTED MR.
 HALFACRE'S TESTIMONY AND SAID THAT MR. CHAMBERS, ALSO A SUPERVISOR, HAD
 TOLD HIM THE SAME THING.  MR.  CHAMBERS TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS ASKED
 ABOUT THE MEMORANDUM A WEEK OR TWO WEEKS AFTER IT HAD BEEN POSTED.
 NEVERTHELESS, RESPONDENT DID NOT WITHDRAW THE MEMORANDUM;  DISCUSSIONS
 BETWEEN PILOTS AND AIR OFFICERS AND MECHANICS, EXCEPT POSSIBLY BY MR.
 KIKER, CEASED AND DISCREPANCIES WERE REPORTED TO SUPERVISORS
 (RESPONDENT'S) WHO, IN TURN REPORTED THE DISCREPANCIES TO THE
 MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR.  AFTER THREE OR FOUR MONTHS, THE PILOTS AND AIR
 OFFICERS, AS WELL AS MECHANICS, FOUND THE SYSTEM UNWORKABLE;  MECHANICS
 BEGAN MEETING THE PLANES AGAIN;  AND A DISCUSSION OF DISCREPANCIES WITH
 THE MECHANICS RESUMED, BUT WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN WRITTEN POLICY.
 
    THE CHANGE OF POLICY, UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTED, BY RESPONDENT ON MAY
 31, 1978, DIRECTLY AFFECTED WORKING CONDITIONS AND, ASSUMING THAT SUCH
 CHANGE WAS A RESERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
 11(B) AND/OR 12(B) OF THE ORDER, RESPONDENT WAS, NEVERTHELESS, OBLIGATED
 TO AFFORD COMPLAINANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION
 OF THE CHANGE TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
 THE CHANGE OF POLICY.  RESPONDENT, BY ITS UNILATERAL IMPLEMENTATION OF
 THE CHANGE OF POLICY VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(6) AND, DERIVATIVELY,
 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER.  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 CONSOLIDATED CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OFFICE, 1 FLRA NO. 80(1979), SEE, ALSO,
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 47TH FLYING TRAINING WING, LAUGHLIN AIR
 FORCE BASE, TEXAS, 1 FLRA NO. 81(1979), ORDER RESCINDING DECISION AND
 ORDER IN 1 FLRA NO. 81, ISSUED AUGUST 23, 1979, BECAUSE OF NON-RECEIPT
 OF COMPLAINANT'S EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTING BRIEF;  AFGE LOCAL 1940 AND
 PLUM ISLAND ANIMAL DISEASE LABORATORY, DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, GREENPORT,
 N.Y., FLRC NO. 71A-11, 1 FLRC 100(1971);  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
 NAVY, BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY, GREAT LAKES NAVAL HOSPITAL,
 ILLINOIS, A/SLMR NO. 289, 3 A/SLMR 375(1973);  DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 SUPERVISOR OF SHIPBUILDING, CONVERSION AND REPAIR, PASCAGOLIA,
 MISSISSIPPI, A/SLMR NO. 390, 4 A/SLMR 324(1974);  DEPARTMENT OF THE
 ARMY, HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES ARMAMENT COMMAND, ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL,
 ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS, A/SLMR NO. 527, 5 A/SLMR 412(1975);  SOUTHEAST
 EXCHANGE REGION OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, ROSEWOOD
 WAREHOUSE, COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, A/SLMR NO. 656, 6 A/SLMR 237(1976).
 
                           II.  CASE NO. 64-4252
 
    THIS CASE INVOLVES THE REVISION OF THE WEEKLY ACTIVITY REPORTS OF AIR
 SUPPORT PILOTS AND AIR OFFICERS.  WRITTEN ACTIVITY REPORTS IN THE AIR
 SUPPORT BRANCH HAVE BEEN REQUIRED SINCE 1975 (RES. EXH. 2) EXCEPT FOR A
 SHORT PERIOD IN 1977 WHEN THE WEEKLY ACTIVITY REPORT WAS CANCELLED (RES.
 EXH. 3);  BUT ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1977, THE REQUIRED WEEKLY ACTIVITY REPORT
 WAS REINSTATED (RES. EXH. 4).  FROM 1975, THE REPORT, FILED WEEKLY, HAD
 CONSISTED OF A NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF DAILY ACTIVITY. RESPONDENT'S
 EXHIBIT 2 WAS ISSUED IN 1975 AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DESIRED FORMAT, WHICH
 WAS THEREAFTER FOLLOWED AS TO FORM IF NOT CONTENT (COMPARE, COMP. EXH.
 2), UNTIL SOMETIME IN 1978 WHEN CUSTOMS HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
 REQUIRED THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BE SUPPLIED FOR STATISTICAL
 PURPOSES.  CUSTOMS FORM 16 (COMP. EXH. 1) (ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE "16 M
 & N") WAS SUPPLIED BY HEADQUARTERS AS A GUIDE AND, FOR SOME TIME IN
 1978, EACH PILOT AND EACH AIR OFFICER FILLED OUT A FORM 16 FOR EACH DAY
 PLUS THE NARRATIVE STATEMENT.  AS A RESULT, THERE WAS A GREAT
 PROLIFERATION OF PAPER AS EACH PILOT AND AIR OFFICER THEN SUBMITTED, FOR
 EACH FULL WORKWEEK, SIX DOCUMENTS (I.E. ONE FORM 16 FOR EACH DAY PLUS
 THE NARRATIVE STATEMENT) RATHER THAN THE SINGLE NARRATIVE STATEMENT.
 INSTITUTION OF THE USE OF CUSTOMS FORM 16, TOGETHER WITH THE NARRATIVE
 WEEKLY ACTIVITY REPORT, IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  INDEED, IT IS THE
 MODIFICATION OF THIS ACCEPTED PROCEDURE THAT CONSTITUTES THE BASIS FOR
 THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.
 
    THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE PARTIES MET AND JOINTLY WORKED OUT A
 SIMPLIFIED, ONE PAGE FORM WHICH COMPLAINANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, ASSOCIATE
 CHIEF STEWARD VERA, STATED THAT HE, PERSONALLY, THOUGHT WAS GOOD, BUT
 THAT, HE WANTED TO POLL THE OTHER UNIT EMPLOYEES BEFORE "SIGNING OFF."
 THERE ARE TWO SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT ISSUES INVOLVED.  FIRST, DID RESPONDENT
 VIOLATE SECTION 19(A)(6), AND DERIVATIVELY,19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER BY
 IMPLEMENTING USE OF THE FORM ON JULY 7, 1978?  SECOND, DID RESPONDENT
 BYPASS COMPLAINANT, IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE
 ORDER, BY DIRECTLY SOLICITING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM UNIT EMPLOYEES FOR
 IMPROVEMENT OF THE FORM?
 
                     A) IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW FORM
 
    THE CHIEF OF THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH, MR. HALFACRE, WAS DISSATISFIED
 WITH CUSTOMS FORM 16 AND IN EARLY JULY, 1978, MR. HALFACRE ASSIGNED MR.
 GARY SCHOELERMAN, AN AIR SUPPORT BRANCH SUPERVISOR, THE JOB OF DEVISING
 A NEW FORM WHICH WOULD BE SIMPLER AND SHORTER. ON JULY 5, 1978, MR.
 SCHOELERMAN CONTACTED ASSOCIATE CHIEF STEWARD VERA AND REQUESTED HIS
 ASSISTANCE IN REVISING THE FORM.  MR. VERA, WHO FULLY SHARED MR.
 HALFACRE'S DISSATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMS FORM 16, READILY GAVE HIS
 ASSISTANCE IN DEVISING A NEW FORM (ATTACHMENT TO JOINT EXH. 10).
 INDEED, MR. VERA TESTIFIED THAT ON JULY 5, HE MADE THE FOLLOWING
 STATEMENT TO MR. SCHOELERMAN:
 
    "A.  I ADVISED HIM THAT I WAS CONCERNED THAT-- AT THE NUMBER OF
 PIECES OF PAPER THAT WERE
 
    HAVING TO BE GENERATED BY THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICER.  FOR EXAMPLE, WE
 HAVE BASICALLY AT THAT
 
    TIME, I THINK, TEN BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS.  EACH BARGAINING UNIT
 MEMBER WAS GENERATING AT
 
    LEAST FIVE CF-16'S PLUS THE NARRATIVE MEMORANDUM.  THAT IS SIXTY
 PIECES OF PAPER BEING
 
    GENERATED BY THE EMPLOYEES.  AND I SUGGESTED TO HIM THAT MAYBE WE
 COULD FIND A WAY TO
 
    CONSOLIDATE THIS STATISTICS GATHERING WHERE WE COULD ONLY USE MAYBE
 ONE OR TWO FORMS ON A
 
    WEEKLY BASIS, RATHER THAN A DAILY BASIS.
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    "A.  I ADVISED HIM THAT I WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH HIM AND GET INPUT
 AND POLL ALL THE
 
    EMPLOYEES CONCERNED IN THE UNIT SINCE I SAW THAT THIS-- ANY CHANGE
 THAT WE MADE ON THIS THING
 
    WOULD HAVE A VERY DEFINITE IMPACT AS TO THE MEASUREMENT OF WORK
 PRODUCTIVITY OR WHATEVER USE
 
    THAT MIGHT BE MADE OF THE STATISTICS.  SO I DEFINITELY WANTED TO GET
 ALL THE EMPLOYEES' INPUT
 
    ON THE THING." (TR. 207-208).
 
    MR. VERA DISCUSSED REVISION OF THE FORM WITH EMPLOYEES ON JULY 5,
 INCLUDING MESSRS. KIKER AND JOACHIM;  MR. KIKER SUGGESTED THAT MOBILE
 USED A ONE PAGE FORM AND A COPY OF THE MOBILE FORM WAS FURNISHED MR.
 VERA AND MR. SCHOELERMAN;  AND, ALSO ON JULY 5, MR. VERA DISCUSSED THE
 MATTER WITH MR. ARGENT ACOSTA, PRESIDENT OF NTEU CHAPTER 168.  ON JULY
 6, MR.  SCHOELERMAN HAD THE FORM, AS DEVISED BY THE PARTIES ON JULY 5
 AND 6, TYPED AND A COPY OF THE FINAL VERSION WAS GIVEN TO MR. VERA.
 THIS FORM CONSISTED OF A SINGLE PAGE.  ON ONE SIDE, FOR THE NARRATIVE
 STATEMENT OF DAILY ACTIVITY, EACH DAY OF THE WEEK (SUNDAY THROUGH
 SATURDAY) WAS LISTED WITH A BLANK SPACE FOR INSERTION OF THE NARRATIVE
 STATEMENT OF DAILY ACTIVITY FOR THAT DAY.  /3/ ON THE OTHER SIDE, LISTED
 ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PAGE, WAS A LIST OF SOME 41 ACTIVITIES AND, TO
 THE RIGHT, A BLANK FOR EACH DAY OF THE WEEK FOR INSERTION, OF THE NUMBER
 OF TIMES THAT PARTICULAR ACTIVITY, IF APPLICABLE, HAD BEEN PERFORMED
 EACH DAY (E.G. UNDER "ALERT RESPONSE" WERE:  "AIRCRAFT", "VEHICLE", AND
 "OTHER" AND IN EACH BLOCK-- SUNDAY THROUGH SATURDAY-- THE NUMBER OF EACH
 TYPE OF RESPONSE, IF ANY, WOULD BE ENTERED FOR EACH DAY.) WHEREAS THE
 NEW FORM LISTED 41 ACTIVITIES, CUSTOMS FORM 16 HAD LISTED 60;  BUT,
 ALTHOUGH THE NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES HAD BEEN REDUCED, ALL ACTIVITIES
 LISTED ON THE NEW FORM ALSO APPEARED ON CUSTOMS FORM 16.  ONE NEW
 REQUIREMENT WAS ADDED, HOWEVER, NAMELY THE NUMBER OF EACH ACTIVITY WAS
 TOTALLED FOR THE WEEK.  THE NEW FORM, IN ADDITION, HAD AT THE TOP THE
 FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:  "VEHICLE IN N.O.-- MI.", EACH DAY;
 VEHICLE HIGHWAY-- NO.-- MI.", EACH DAY;  "AIRCRAFT SURVEIL.-- NO.--
 HR.", EACH DAY;  "AIRCRAFT PATROL-- NO.-- HR.", EACH DAY;  AND "CALL #
 OF EX. OFFICER ON PATROL", EACH DAY.  EACH DAILY CUSTOMS FORM 16 HAD
 PROVIDED FOR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME INFORMATION ("REPORTING UNIT",
 "OFFICER(S)", "HOURS", "VEHICLE", "LOCATION-- ACTIVITY-- FROM TO
 DESTINATION" (COMP. EXH. 1) ALTHOUGH, AS REVISED, THE NEW FORM WAS
 SPECIFICALLY TAILORED FOR THE NEW ORLEANS AIR SUPPORT BRANCH.
 
    MR. VERA TESTIFIED THAT HE INFORMED MR. SCHOELERMAN ON JULY 6, 1978,
 AFTER HE REVIEWED THE FINAL VERSION OF THE FORM, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "A.  I TOLD MR. SCHOELERMAN SPECIFICALLY THAT I, AS A CUSTOMS
 OFFICER, PERSONALLY DID NOT
 
    HAVE ANY COMPLAINT ABOUT THE FORMAT OF THE FORM, AND I WAS SPEAKING
 AS A-- I EMPHASIZED TO
 
    HIM, PERSONALLY, I HAVE NO COMPLAINT WITH THE FORMAT;  I FEEL THAT
 THE FORMAT IS GOOD.  BUT I
 
    ADVISED HIM THAT I WOULD HAVE TO POLL THE REST OF THE BARGAINING UNIT
 EMPLOYEES.  AND
 
    ADDITIONALLY THAT I WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS THE OUTCOME IN MY NEXT STEP
 WITH THE NTEU FIELD
 
    OFFICE IN AUSTIN AND THE OTHER CHAPTER OFFICIALS IN CHAPTER 168."
 (TR. 212).
 
    ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, MR. VERA STATED,
 
    "A.  I DID, IN THE CONTEXT THAT I PERSONALLY APPROVED OF THE FORM,
 NOT SPEAKING AS A UNION
 
    REPRESENTATIVE, AND I MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT I WOULD HAVE TO POLL
 THE REST OF THE EMPLOYEES
 
    BEFORE I AS AN NTEU OFFICIAL COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, FINE, THE
 NEGOTIATION PROCESS IS COMPLETE,
 
    WE WILL SIGN OFF ON AGREEMENT HERE AS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS
 FORM." (TR. 240).  MR. SCHOELERMAN TESTIFIED THAT MR. VERA WANTED THE
 RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE OR BARGAIN FOR ANY CHANGES IN THE FORM,
 WHICH I FIND WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH MR. VERA'S DESIRE TO POLL THE
 EMPLOYEES.  THE CLEAR IMPORT OF MR. VERA'S STATEMENT TO MR.  SCHOELERMAN
 WAS THAT HE WAS SATISFIED WITH THE FORM BUT THAT HE WANTED TO "KEEP THE
 DOOR OPEN" AS TO ANY CHANGES UNTIL HE POLLED THE OTHER EMPLOYEES. MR.
 VERA, ON JULY 6, EMBARKED ON HIS POLL OF EMPLOYEES AND MR. SCHOELERMAN
 OBSERVED HIM DOING SO.  THUS, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MR. VERA SHOWED THE
 FORM TO MESSRS. JOACHIM, LUM AND KIKER AND IT WAS STIPULATED THAT HE " .
 . . ALSO POLLED DANNY WADE . . . " (TR. 279).
 
    MR. SCHOELERMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE THOUGHT THEY HAD FINALIZED THE
 FORM, SUBJECT ONLY TO MR. VERA'S RESERVATION OF THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE
 FOR ANY CHANGES, STATING,
 
    "A.  I THOUGHT WE DID.  IN THE HANGER, MR. VERA STATED THAT HE LIKED
 THE FORM, THOUGHT IT
 
    WAS GOOD, AND THAT-- BUT THAT HE WANTED TO REQUIRE THE RIGHT FOR NTEU
 TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE
 
    OR BARGAIN FOR ANY CHANGES IN THE FORM." (TR. 287).  MR. VERA DID NOT
 CONTACT MR. SCHOELERMAN FURTHER, AFTER THE CONVERSATION MR. SCHOELERMAN
 REFERRED TO ABOVE, ON JULY 6, NOR DID HE MAKE ANY EFFORT TO CONTACT MR.
 SCHOELERMAN ON JULY 7, /4/ AND MR. SCHOELERMAN MADE NO EFFORT TO CONTACT
 MR. VERA, EITHER ON JULY 6, AFTER THE CONVERSATION REFERRED TO ABOVE, OR
 ON JULY 7, 1978.
 
    ON JULY 7, 1978, MR. SCHOELERMAN REPORTED TO MR. HALFACRE THAT, WITH
 THE ACTIVE ASSISTANCE OF MR. VERA, A NEW, SIMPLIFIED FORM HAD BEEN
 DEVISED, AND THAT MR. VERA WAS VERY SATISFIED WITH THE NEW FORM.  AT
 ABOUT 3:45 ON FRIDAY, JULY 7, MR. HALFACRE HAD WRITTEN WHICH STATED AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    "ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE NEW ACTIVITY REPORT FORM WHICH WILL
 REPLACE THE DAILY FORM 16
 
    REPORT AND THE WEEKLY NARRATIVE.  THE NEW FORM WILL BE COMPLETED ON A
 DAILY BASIS AND WILL
 
    INCLUDE A CONCISE NARRATIVE OF THE DAYS ACTIVITIES.  . . .
 
    "THIS NEW FORM WILL BE USED ON A TRIAL BASIS EFFECTIVE JULY 9, 1978
 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2, 1978
 
    . . . . " (JT. EXH. 10).
 
    DID RESPONDENT, BY IMPLEMENTING USE OF THE FORM BY ITS MEMORANDUM OF
 JULY 7, 1978, VIOLATE SECTION 19(A)(6) AND (1) OF THE ORDER?  UNDER THE
 PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, I CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT DID
 NOT, THAT IS, THAT THE PARTIES HAD REACHED AGREEMENT ON THE NEW FORM
 SUBJECT ONLY TO MR. VERA'S POLLING THE EMPLOYEES;  THAT UNDER THE
 CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT LESS THAN A FULL 24 HOURS WAS A REASONABLE PERIOD FOR
 COMPLAINANT TO COMPLETE ITS POLL OF NINE EMPLOYEES;  AND THAT, AS
 COMPLAINANT HAD MADE NO REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE ANY CHANGE BY 3:45 P.M.  ON
 JULY 7, 1978, RESPONDENT REASONABLY, AND IN GOOD FAITH, BELIEVED THAT
 NEGOTIATION OF THE FORM HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT IT WAS IMPLEMENTING
 AN AGREED UPON FORM.
 
    COMPLAINANT'S ASSERTION THAT NEGOTIATIONS HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED
 BECAUSE NOT ALL MATTERS HAD BEEN DISCUSSED IS WHOLLY UNCONVINCING.
 FIRST, WHILE THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE PARTIES DISCUSSED THE
 SIDE OF THE FORM FOR THE NARRATIVE STATEMENT, THIS HAD BEEN THE
 ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE SINCE 1975 AND NEITHER THE PROVISIONS FOR THE
 NARRATIVE STATEMENT ON A REPORT FORM NOR THE PLACEMENT THEREON OF THE
 DAYS OF THE WEEK EVIDENCED ANY CHANGE IN SUBSTANCE, BUT, MORE IMPORTANT,
 WHETHER DISCUSSED OR NOT, COMPLAINANT WAS FULLY ADVISED THAT THE
 NARRATIVE STATEMENT WOULD BE SO TREATED;  HAD FULL OPPORTUNITY TO
 DISCUSS THIS PART OF THE FORM;  AND MR. VERA STATED THAT HE, PERSONALLY,
 FOUND THE FINAL VERSION OF THE FORM, IN ITS ENTIRETY, GOOD.  SECOND, AS
 TO THE TRIAL PERIOD, RESPONDENT FROM THE OUTSET HAD PROPOSED A TRIAL
 PERIOD.  COMPLAINANT, ALSO, WANTED A TRIAL PERIOD, AND MAY HAVE
 SUGGESTED 90 TO 180 DAYS;  BUT, AS BOTH PARTIES AGREED THAT THERE SHOULD
 BE A TRIAL PERIOD, THE RECORD SHOWS NO DISCUSSION OF ITS LENGTH AND
 RESPONDENT, WHEN IT IMPLEMENTED USE OF THE FORM, FIXED THE TRIAL PERIOD
 AS EIGHT WEEKS.  THIRD, IMPLEMENTATION WAS NOT DISCUSSED.  WHILE THIS IS
 CORRECT, THE RECORD REFLECTED GENERAL DISSATISFACTION WITH THE
 MULTIPLICITY OF FORMS THEN REQUIRED AND A MUTUAL DESIRE BY RESPONDENT
 AND COMPLAINANT TO SIMPLIFY REPORTING.  HAVING AGREED UPON A NEW FORM
 WHICH DID, INDEED, CONSOLIDATE THE EXISTING REPORTS INTO A SINGLE ONE
 PAGE FORM, THE RECORD IMPLIES THAT BOTH PARTIES CONTEMPLATED, AND
 DESIRED, THAT THE COMPLETED FORM, BE PLACED INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY,
 SUBJECT ONLY TO MR. VERA'S RESERVATION THAT HE HAVE THE RIGHT TO
 NEGOTIATE CHANGES UNTIL HE POLLED THE EMPLOYEES.  ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED
 TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW FORM, WAS TO SAY, AS MR. HALFACRE'S MEMORANDUM DID,
 THAT, IN EFFECT, HERE IS A NEW ACTIVITY REPORT FORM WHICH WILL BE USED
 FROM THE DATE DESIGNATED.  I FIND NEITHER CONVINCING NOR CREDIBLE MR.
 VERA'S TESTIMONY ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION;  BUT EVEN ACCEPTING HIS TESTIMONY
 IN THIS REGARD, HIS CONCERN ON JULY 6, 1978, WAS THAT,
 
    ". . . WHEN THE THING WAS IMPLEMENTED IT WOULD BE VERY CLEAR--
 INSTRUCTIONS WOULD BE VERY
 
    CLEAR TO THE EMPLOYEE, THAT THIS WOULD BE THE WAY IT WOULD BE DONE
 FROM NOW ON RATHER THAN
 
    THERE WOULD BE ANY CONFUSED STATE AS TO, WELL, ARE WE STILL DOING
 THIS CF-16, OR ARE WE GOING
 
    TO DO THIS, OR WHAT EXACTLY WOULD TAKE PLACE." (TR. 210-211).  NO
 MORE WAS REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH THIS THAN, AS MR. HALFACRE'S MEMORANDUM
 STATED,
 
    "ATTACHED IS A COPY OF THE NEW ACTIVITY REPORT FORM WHICH WILL
 REPLACE THE DAILY FORM 16
 
    REPORT AND THE WEEKLY NARRATIVE.  . . .
 
    "THIS NEW FORM WILL BE USED ON A TRIAL BASIS EFFECTIVE JULY 9,
 
    1978. . . . " (JT. EXH. 10).  NO NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENT WAS
 INVOLVED.  TO THE CONTRARY, THE NEGOTIATED FORM REFLECTED A
 SIMPLIFICATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF EXISTING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
 
    IT MAY WELL BE TRUE THAT COMPLAINANT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT USE OF
 STATISTICS REPORTED, BUT THE REPORTING OF SUCH STATISTICS HAD 0EEN
 INTRODUCED BY CUSTOMS FORM 16 AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD WHICH
 INDICATES THAT ANYONE VIEWED THE MATTER AS MORE THAN SIMPLIFICATION OF
 THE EXISTING ACTIVITIES REPORT FORMS.  THIS WAS THE TASK ASSIGNED BY MR.
 HALFACRE, WAS THE ASSIGNMENT UNDERTAKEN BY MR. SCHOELERMAN, AND WAS THE
 OBJECT OF MR. VERA'S ACTIVE PARTICIPATION.  NOR DO I FIND ANY CREDIBLE
 EVIDENCE THAT COMPLAINANT MADE ANY REQUEST TO BARGAIN ABOUT THE USE OF
 THE STATISTICS REPORTED.  TO THE CONTRARY, THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT
 RESPONDENT INVITED COMPLAINANT'S ASSISTANCE IN SIMPLIFYING THE REPORTING
 FORMS, COMPLAINANT PARTICIPATED IN DOING SO AND AGREED UPON A FORM,
 SUBJECT TO THE POLL OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES I MIGHT WELL AGREE WITH COMPLAINANT'S
 CONTENTION THAT RESPONDENT UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTED THE NEW FORM 0EFORE
 COMPLETING NEGOTIATIONS;  BUT UNDER THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THIS CASE I
 DO NOT FIND THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED ANY OBLIGATION UNDER THE ORDER.  IN
 SHORT, MR. SCHOELERMAN FIRST CONTACTED MR. VERA ON JULY 5 WITH REGARD TO
 REVISION OF THE FORM AND THE FINAL VERSION HAD BEEN COMPLETED ON JULY 6;
  DISCUSSION HAD BEEN MOST INFORMAL;  MR. VERA STATED ON JULY 6 THAT HE
 WAS, PERSONALLY, SATISFIED WITH THE NEGOTIATED FORM AND THOUGHT IT WAS
 GOOD, BUT WANTED TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE FURTHER UNTIL HE
 POLLED THE EMPLOYEES;  MR. VERA PROCEEDED TO POLL EMPLOYEES ON JULY 6
 AND MR. SCHOELERMAN WAS AWARE THAT HE WAS DOING SO;  THERE WERE ONLY TEN
 EMPLOYEES INVOLVED, INCLUDING MR. VERA, AND MR. VERA DID NOT COMMUNICATE
 FURTHER WITH MR. SCHOELERMAN ON EITHER JULY 6 OR 7;  WHEN COMPLAINANT
 HAD MADE NO REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE ANY CHANGE BY 3:45 P.M. ON FRIDAY, JULY
 7, 1978, RESPONDENT POSTED THE MEMORANDUM IMPLEMENTING USE OF THE NEW
 FORM FOR THE FOLLOWING WORK WEEK WHICH BEGAN SUNDAY, JULY 9, 1978.
 UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THERE WERE
 ONLY NINE EMPLOYEES, EXCLUSIVE OF MR. VERA, INVOLVED, AND THE FURTHER
 FACT, KNOWN TO RESPONDENT, THAT MR. VERA HAD UNDERTAKEN HIS POLL OF
 EMPLOYEES ON JULY 6, I CONCLUDE THAT NOT LESS THAN 24 HOURS WAS A
 REASONABLE PERIOD FOR COMPLETION OF THE POLL AND THAT COMPLAINANT, BY
 MR. VERA'S STATEMENT OF APPROVAL OF THE NEGOTIATED FORM, SUBJECT ONLY TO
 HIS POLLING THE EMPLOYEES, AND BY THE FAILURE ON, OR BEFORE, 3:45 P.M.
 ON JULY 7, 1978, TO EXERCISE ITS RESERVED RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE CHANGES,
 CREATED THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH REASONABLY IMPLIED ITS FINAL APPROVAL OF
 THE NEGOTIATED FORM.  CONSEQUENTLY, RESPONDENT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
 NEGOTIATED FORM ON JULY 7, EFFECTIVE JULY 9, 1978, WAS IN GOOD FAITH, IN
 THE REASONABLE BELIEF THAT NEGOTIATIONS HAD BEEN COMPLETED, AND THAT IT
 WAS IMPLEMENTING AN AGREED FORM.
 
    WHILE I AM AWARE THAT CHANGE OF A FORM MAY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT
 ON WORKING CONDITIONS AND UNILATERAL IMPLEMENTATION WOULD VIOLATE
 SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, MANHATTAN DISTRICT, A/SLMR NO.  841, 7 A/SLMR
 418(1977), OR MAY HAVE NO EFFECT WHATEVER ON PERSONNEL POLICIES,
 PRACTICES OR WORKING CONDITIONS AND UNILATERAL IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT
 CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6), SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, BUREAU OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS, A/SLMR NO. 979(1978);
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES ARMY, FORT SAM, HOUSTON, TEXAS, 1
 FLRA NO. 68(1979), FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REPORT NO. 10,
 JULY 11, 1979.  SEE, ALSO, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD,
 TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD, CAMP MABRY, AUSTIN, TEXAS, A/SLMR NO. 738, 6
 A/SLMR 591(1976), AND THAT RESPONDENT, ALSO, ASSERTS THAT, AS
 SIMPLIFICATION OF THE REPORTING FORMS IN THIS CASE HAD NO IMPACT
 WHATEVER ON PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES OR WORKING CONDITIONS SINCE IT
 MADE NO CHANGE IN EXISTING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.  I DO NOT DEEM THE
 AUTHORITIES CITED ABOVE APPLICABLE INASMUCH AS THE PARTIES VOLUNTARILY
 ENGAGED IN BARGAINING ON THE REVISION OF THE REPORTING FORMS AND
 RESPONDENT, HAVING EMBARKED UPON NEGOTIATIONS MAY NOT UNILATERALLY
 IMPLEMENT A MATTER UNDER NEGOTIATION UNTIL NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN
 COMPLETED.  NEVERTHELESS, FOR REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE, I HAVE FOUND
 THAT, IN THIS CASE, NEGOTIATIONS WERE COMPLETED AND THAT RESPONDENT
 IMPLEMENTED THE FORM IN GOOD FAITH IN THE REASONABLE BELIEF THAT
 COMPLAINANT APPROVED THE NEGOTIATED FORM.
 
           B) RESPONDENT'S DIRECT SOLICITATION OF UNIT EMPLOYEES
 
    IN HIS MEMORANDUM OF JULY 7, 1978, BY WHICH THE NEW FORM WAS
 IMPLEMENTED, MR. HALFACRE STATED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "THIS NEW FORM WILL BE USED ON A TRIAL BASIS EFFECTIVE JULY 9, 1978
 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2,
 
    1978, A PERIOD OF EIGHT (8) WEEKS.  DURING THIS TRIAL PERIOD ALL
 EMPLOYEES ARE REQUESTED TO
 
    SUBMIT ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FORM, EITHER ORALLY, IN WRITING OR
 THROUGH THEIR
 
    N.T.E.U. REPRESENTATIVE, TO THEIR SUPERVISOR." (JT. EXH. 10).  WERE
 THIS A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, I WOULD BE STRONGLY INCLINED TO FIND
 THAT RESPONDENT HAD NOT BYPASSED COMPLAINANT IN VIOLATION OF SECTION
 19(A)(6) AND (1);  BUT IN LIGHT OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S DECISION IN
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, OGDEN SERVICE CENTER, A/SLMR NO. 944, 7 A/SLMR
 1032(1977), I CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT IN THIS REGARD WAS IN
 VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 19(A)(6) AND (1) OF THE ORDER.  THE INTERNAL
 REVENUE CASE INVOLVED RESPONDENT'S (IRS'S) CRITIQUE BY UNIT EMPLOYEES OF
 ITS 1975 TAX FILING SEASON TO IMPROVE OPERATIONS FOR THE 1976 TAX
 SEASON.  IRS UNILATERALLY SELECTED A CROSS-SECTION OF EMPLOYEES FOR A
 CRITIQUE COMMITTEE.  IRS INFORMED THE UNION OF ITS PLANS, INVITED THE
 UNION TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE COMMITTEE PRESENTED ITS RECOMMENDATION, BUT
 DID NOT ALLOW THE UNION TO PARTICIPATE IN SELECTING MEMBERS OF THE
 CRITIQUE COMMITTEE OR TO PARTICIPATE IN ITS DELIBERATIONS.  IRS INFORMED
 THE UNION THAT THERE WOULD BE NO IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY RECOMMENDATION
 AFFECTING GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS WITHOUT DISCUSSION WITH THE UNION.
 A COPY OF THE CRITIQUE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS WAS FURNISHED TO THE
 UNION.  THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, IN FINDING THAT IRS THEREBY VIOLATED
 SECTION 19(A)(6) AND (1) OF THE ORDER, STATED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "UNDER SECTION 10(E) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, AGENCY MANAGEMENT IS
 OBLIGATED TO DEAL SOLELY
 
    WITH ITS EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE IN MATTERS CONCERNING
 THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
 
    THEIR EMPLOYMENT.  . . .  IN EFFECT, AND CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS
 OF THE ORDER, THE
 
    RESPONDENT BYPASSED THE COMPLAINANT AND DEALT DIRECTLY WITH UNIT
 EMPLOYEES, SOLICITING THEIR
 
    RECOMMENDATIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO PERSONNEL POLICIES AND
 PRACTICES AND GENERAL WORKING
 
    CONDITIONS, FOR WHICH THE COMPLAINANT WAS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE.  IN MY
 
    VIEW, THIS BYPASSING OF THE COMPLAINANT CHAPTER 67 WAS IN DEROGATION
 OF ITS RIGHTS AS THE
 
    EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIT EMPLOYEES, AND TENDED TO
 UNDERMINE ITS STATUS AS THEIR
 
    EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.  ACCORDINGLY, I FIND THAT THE RESPONDENT'S
 CONDUCT WAS VIOLATIVE OF
 
    SECTION 19(A)(6) AND (1) OF THE ORDER." (7 A/SLMR AT 1034).
 
    IN MANY RESPECTS THE INTERNAL REVENUE CASE IS, OBVIOUSLY,
 DISTINGUISHABLE;  BUT, IN ITS ESSENTIAL ASPECT, IN DEALING WITH UNIT
 EMPLOYEES BY SOLICITING THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE
 FORM, A MATTER RELATING TO PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND GENERAL
 WORKING CONDITIONS ON WHICH THE PARTIES HAD NEGOTIATED, INTERNAL
 REVENUE, SUPRA, IS INDISTINGUISHABLE IN PRINCIPLE.  RESPONDENT
 UNILATERALLY REQUESTED UNIT EMPLOYEES TO SUBMIT RECOMMENDATIONS
 (IMPROVEMENTS) TO THEIR SUPERVISOR, AND THE REFERENCE TO COMPLAINANT WAS
 WHOLLY AN ALTERNATE CONDUIT OF SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SUPERVISOR.
 INDEED, UNLIKE THE ASSURANCE GIVEN BY INTERNAL REVENUE, THERE WAS NO
 ASSURANCE GIVEN TO COMPLAINANT THAT RESPONDENT WOULD DISCUSS ANY
 RECOMMENDATION PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION.  ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS
 STATED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CASE, SUPRA, I
 CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT'S BYPASSING OF THE COMPLAINANT WAS IN
 DEROGATION OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 THE UNIT EMPLOYEES AND TENDED TO UNDERMINE COMPLAINANT'S STATUS AS THEIR
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AND THAT SUCH CONDUCT WAS VIOLATIVE OF SECTION
 19(A)(6) AND (1) OF THE ORDER.
 
                        III.  CASE NO. 64-4250 (CA)
 
    THIS CASE INVOLVES UNIFORMS.  THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGES THAT,
 
    "SPECIFICALLY, ON OR ABOUT MAY 16, 1978 UNIT EMPLOYEES AT THE AIR
 SUPPORT BRANCH IN NEW
 
    ORLEANS, LOUISIANA LEARNED THAT A MEMBER OF MANAGEMENT, MR.  RAYMOND
 HALFACRE, HAD MADE A
 
    CHANGE IN POLICY REQUIRING EMPLOYEES WHO WERE WEARING CIVILIAN
 CLOTHES FOR DUTY TO OBTAIN
 
    PRIOR APPROVAL.  THIS CHANGE IN POLICY WAS IMPLEMENTED UNILATERALLY
 BY MANAGEMENT AND AT NO
 
    TIME WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AFFORDED ANY PRIOR
 NOTIFICATION, HENCE NTEU WAS NOT
 
    GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER/NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE
 SUBSTANCE AND/OR IMPACT AND
 
    IMPLEMENTATION OF A CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS." (ALJ EXH.  2).
 
        A) IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY STATEMENT 3400-02 AND REGIONAL
 
                          CIRCULAR FAC-10-V:O:P.
 
    THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES OF THE CUSTOMS
 SERVICE, AND IN PARTICULAR OF THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH, WHICH REQUIRE THAT
 OFFICERS WORK IN PLAIN CLOTHES.  IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT THERE WAS AN
 INCREASING TENDENCY IN THE SERVICE FOR OFFICERS TO WORK IN PLAIN CLOTHES
 AND THAT THIS TENDENCY WAS ESPECIALLY STRONG IN THE AIR BRANCH SERVICE.
 BY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1977, MS. DELYNNE WHITE, CHIEF, LABOR
 RELATIONS, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, NEW
 ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, TRANSMITTED TO MR. JAMES W. THORNTON, NATIONAL FIELD
 REPRESENTATIVE, NTEU, AUSTIN, TEXAS, AN ADVANCE COPY OF HEADQUARTERS
 MANUAL TRANSMITTAL #3400 ENTITLED "WEARING OF PATROL UNIFORM DURING
 TOURS OF DUTY" (JT. EXH. 13, ATTACHMENT 2).  BY MEMORANDUM DATED
 SEPTEMBER 30, 1977 (JT. EXH. 14) COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ISSUED POLICY
 STATEMENT 3400-02 (JT. EXH.15 /5/ ) WHICH, EXCEPT FOR ADDITION OF THE
 NUMBER, 3400-02, AND DATE, SEPTEMBER 30, 1977, WAS IDENTICAL TO THE
 ADVANCE COPY TRANSMITTED TO MR. THORNTON ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1977.  AS THE
 COMMISSIONER'S TRANSMITTAL (JT. EXH. 14) STATED UNDER, "EFFECTIVE DATE".
  "UPON RECEIPT", WHEN THE COMMISSIONER'S TRANSMITTAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE
 AIR BRANCH SERVICE, MR. HALFACRE POSTED POLICY STATEMENT 3400-02 AND IN
 OCTOBER, 1977, IMPLEMENTED ITS PROVISION BY REQUIRING WRITTEN REQUESTS
 FOR AUTHORIZATION TO WEAR CIVILIAN CLOTHES (SEE JT. EXH. 16-A, OCTOBER
 26, 1977, THROUGH 16-S, FEBRUARY 22, 1978).  HOWEVER, BY LETTER DATED
 NOVEMBER 9, 1977, MS. WHITE ADVISED MR. THORNTON THAT RESPONDENT
 INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT THE REGIONAL CIRCULAR FAC-10-V:O:P ON, OR ABOUT,
 NOVEMBER 25, 1977 (JT.  EXH. 17).  BY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 17, 1977,
 MR. THORNTON ADVISED MS. WHITE THAT NTEU "DOES WISH TO MEET AND CONFER
 CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF THE PROPOSED CIRCULAR." (JT. EXH. 18).  ON,
 OR ABOUT, NOVEMBER 30, 1977, MR. THORNTON MET INFORMALLY WITH MR. DOUG
 ANGLE, THEN DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT, AND CHIEF
 SPOKESMAN FOR RESPONDENT IN REGIONAL NEGOTIATIONS, IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, AT
 WHICH TIME THE UNILATERAL IMPLEMENTATION OF CIRCULAR 3400-02 BY THE AIR
 SUPPORT BRANCH WAS DISCUSSED;  AND ON DECEMBER 13, 1977, COMPLAINANT AND
 RESPONDENT HAD FORMAL NEGOTIATIONS ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
 CIRCULAR FAC-10-V:O:P.  PRESENT AT THE DECEMBER 13, 1977, NEGOTIATIONS
 FOR COMPLAINANT WERE, AMONG OTHERS, MR. THORNTON, MR. ACOSTA, PRESIDENT
 OF CHAPTER 168, AND MR. VERA, ASSOCIATE CHIEF STEWARD.  MR. THORNTON
 TESTIFIED THAT ON NOVEMBER 30 HE HAD TOLD MR. ANGLE THAT HE WOULD LIKE
 TO MEET AND NEGOTIATE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION IN THE CUSTOMS PATROL
 BUT NOT IN THE AIR BRANCH BECAUSE IT HAD ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN THE
 AIR BRANCH.  MR.  ANGLE WAS RESPONDENT'S CHIEF NEGOTIATOR ON DECEMBER
 13.  MR. THORNTON TESTIFIED THAT ON DECEMBER 13 HIS CONCERN, WAS THAT
 "MANY EMPLOYEES HADN'T WORN UNIFORMS IN AGES" AND HE WANTED A DELAY
 UNTIL THE ANNUAL CLOTHING ALLOWANCE FOR UNIFORMS HAD BEEN PAID.
 RESPONDENT AND COMPLAINANT REACHED AN ORAL AGREEMENT ON COMPLAINANT'S
 REQUEST.  BY MEMORANDUM DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1978, THE REGIONAL
 COMMISSIONER IMPLEMENTED CIRCULAR FAC-10-V:O:P (JT. EXH. 19) WHICH, IN
 TURN, IMPLEMENTED HEADQUARTERS POLICY STATEMENT 3400-02, DATED SEPTEMBER
 30, 1977.
 
    THE MEMORANDUM TRANSMITTING POLICY STATEMENT 3400 HAD RECEITED, IN
 PART, THAT
 
    "THAT CUSTOMS PATROL WAS ESTABLISHED AS A UNIFORMED FORCE. .  . .
 HOWEVER, ITS
 
    EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY IMPACTED RECENTLY BECAUSE OF A
 GROWING TREND TO OPERATE IN
 
    CIVILIAN CLOTHES." (JT. EXH. 13, ATTACHMENT 1).  THE MEMORANDUM
 FURTHER STATED IN PART, THAT,
 
    "POLICY STATEMENT 3400 ESTABLISHES POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE WEARING
 OF THE UNIFORM BY
 
    CPO'S, AIR OFFICERS, BOAT HANDLERS, SUPERVISORY PATROL OFFICERS AND
 PILOTS DURING SCHEDULED
 
    TOURS OF DUTY." (JT. EXH. 13, ATTACHMENT 1).
 
    THE POLICY STATEMENT (NOT NUM0ERED ON THE ADVANCE COPY FURNISHED MR.
 THORNTON, BUT REFERRED TO IN THE TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM AS "3400-" AND,
 AS ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1977, WAS THEN, AND THEREAFTER, NUMBERED
 "3400-02") WAS A GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY CONCERNING THE WEARING OF
 UNIFORMS AND PROVIDED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "1.  ALL CUSTOMS PATROL OFFICERS, AIR OFFICERS, PILOTS, BOAT
 HANDLERS, AND SUPERVISORY
 
    PATROL OFFICERS WILL WEAR THE APPROVED PATROL UNIFORM . . .  WHILE ON
 DUTY;  EXCEPT (EMPHASIS I,
 
    ORIGINAL) WHEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO WEAR CIVILIAN CLOTHES BY AN
 APPROPRIATELY DESIGNATED
 
    SUPERVISOR.  REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS WILL DESIGNATE, IN WRITING, THOSE
 TYPES OF ASSIGNMENTS
 
    WHERE THE WEARING OF THE UNIFORM WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE WITH THE
 NATURE OF THE ASSIGNMENT.
 
    "2.  REGIONAL PATROL DIRECTORS MUST APPROVE THE WEARING OF CIVILIAN
 CLOTHES BY ALL PATROL
 
    OFFICERS, PILOTS AND AIR OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS.
 DISTRICT PATROL
 
    DIRECTORS MUST APPROVE THE WEARING OF CIVILIAN CLOTHES BY ALL PATROL
 OFFICERS, PILOTS AND AIR
 
    OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO CUSTOMS DISTRICTS.
 
    "3.  APPROVALS (UNDER 2, ABOVE) TO WEAR CIVILIAN, CLOTHES WILL BE
 GIVEN ON A CASE BY CASE
 
    BASIS, AND ONLY WHEN THERE IS A DEMONSTRABLE NEED, SUCH AS WHERE THE
 WEARING OF THE UNIFORM
 
    WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME OF A SPECIFIC CASE.  ALL
 APPROVALS WILL BE IN
 
    WRITING.
 
                     . . . (JT. EXH. 13, ATTACHMENT 2)
 
    RESPONDENT'S LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1977 (JT. EXH. 13) TO MR.
 THORNTON HAD STATED,
 
    "PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION, WE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH A COPY OF A
 REGIONAL CIRCULAR
 
    SUPPLEMENTING THE ABOVE REFERENCED TRANSMITTAL." (POLICY STATEMENT
 #3400) (JT. EXH. 13).  HOWEVER, THE TRANSMITTAL OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1977,
 TO, INTER ALIA, THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH, CONTAINED NO SIMILAR STATEMENT,
 INSOFAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS, BUT TO THE CONTRARY, STATED THAT IT WAS
 EFFECTIVE UPON RECEIPT (JT. EXH. 14).  IT IS QUITE TRUE, OF COURSE, THAT
 THE POLICY STATEMENT, AS SET FORTH A0OVE, WITH EMPHASIS, STATED THAT,
 "REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS WILL DESIGNATE, IN WRITING, THOSE TYPES OF
 ASSIGNMENTS WHERE THE WEARING OF THE UNIFORM WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE WITH
 THE NATURE OF THE ASSIGNMENT".  RESPONDENT'S LETTER OF NOVEMBER 9, 1977,
 TO MR. THORNTON STATED,
 
    "AS STATED IN THE ABOVE REFERENCED LETTER, (SEPTEMBER 20, 1977) WE
 ARE HEREBY ENCLOSING AN
 
    ADVANCE COPY OF REGIONAL CIRCULAR, SUBJECT:  WEARING OF PATROL
 UNIFORM DURING TOURS OF
 
    DUTY.  WE PLAN TO IMPLEMENT SAME ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 25,1977." (JT.
 EXH. 17).
 
    THE REGIONAL CIRCULAR, AS TRANSMITTED TO MR. THORNTON ON NOVEMBER 9,
 1977, ATTACHMENT TO JOINT EXHIBIT 17, AND AS IMPLEMENTED ON FEBRUARY 8,
 1978, JOINT EXHIBIT 19, PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "1.  PURPOSE
 
    "TO IMPLEMENT HEADQUARTERS' POLICY ON THE WEARING OF UNIFORMS BY ALL
 CPO'S AND SCPO'S
 
    DURING SCHEDULED TOURS OF DUTY.
 
    "2.  BACKGROUND
 
    "HEADQUARTERS CIRCULAR FAC-10-A:L:P, DATED AUGUST 20, 1974,
 ESTABLISHED THE OFFICIAL PATROL
 
    OFFICER'S UNIFORM AND OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT.  HEADQUARTERS POLICY
 STATEMENT MT #3400-02, DATED
 
    SEPTEMBER 30, 1977, OUTLINED THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL CPO'S, AIR
 OFFICERS, PILOTS, BOAT
 
    HANDLERS, AND SUPERVISORY CPO'S TO WEAR THE PATROL UNIFORM DURING THE
 REGULARLY SCHEDULED DUTY
 
    ASSIGNMENT UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED OTHERWISE.
 
    "3.  ACTION
 
    "A.  CPO'S, AIR OFFICERS, PILOTS, BOAT HANDLERS, AND SUPERVISOR CPO'S
 ARE REQUIRED TO WEAR
 
    THE OFFICIAL PATROL UNIFORM DURING REGULARLY SCHEDULED DUTY
 ASSIGNMENTS, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
 
    AUTHORIZED OTHERWISE AS OUTLINED HEREIN.
 
    "B.  THE AUTHORITY TO PERFORM IN PLAIN CLOTHES DURING A NORMALLY
 SCHEDULED DUTY ASSIGNMENT
 
    WILL BE LIMITED TO THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE WEARING OF A UNIFORM
 WILL COMPROMISE THE
 
    SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF A CASE.  A DEMONSTRABLE NEED TO PERFORM IN
 PLAIN CLOTHES MUST BE
 
    CLEARLY PRESENT.  EACH REQUEST WILL BE EVALUATED ON A CASE-BY-CASE
 BASIS.  THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES
 
    WHICH MAY WARRANT A PLAIN CLOTHES ASSIGNMENT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "1.  CONTACTING A SOURCE OF INFORMATION WHERE THE VISIBLE PRESENCE OF
 UNIFORMED OFFICER
 
    MIGHT COMPROMISE THAT SOURCE.
 
    "2.  SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY THAT IS A, APPROVED PATROL FUNCTION AND
 DUE TO SPECIAL
 
    CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED IN UNIFORM, SUCH AS SURVEILLANCE
 OF A SUSPECT IN A HIGH
 
    RISK AREA, PASSENGER ARRIVALS AREA, PRIVATE AIR FIELD, OR MARINA.
 
    "3.  SPECIAL OPERATION OR ASSIGNMENT WHERE IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
 DISTRICT OR REGIONAL
 
    DIRECTOR OF PATROL, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE
 PARTICIPATING OFFICERS BE
 
    CONCEALED FROM THE SUSPECT OR GENERAL PUBLIC.
 
    "C.  EACH SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT REQUIRES NON-UNIFORM ACTIVITY
 WILL BE APPROVED IN
 
    WRITING BY THE DISTRICT OR REGIONAL DIRECTOR OR PATROL AS
 APPROPRIATE.  THIS AUTHORITY MAY BE
 
    REDELEGATED TO A SENIOR SCPO.
 
    "1.  A REGIONAL FORM HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO FACILITATE COMPLIANCE WITH
 THIS REQUIREMENT AND
 
    SHALL BE PREPARED IN DUPLICATE TO DIRECTOR OF PATROL AT THE REGIONAL
 LEVEL.  AN INITIAL SUPPLY
 
    OF THESE FORMS WILL BE PROVIDED TO EACH DIRECTOR OF PATROL.
 ADDITIONAL FORMS SHOULD BE
 
    REQUESTED THROUGH THE LOCAL FORMS CONTROL OFFICER.
 
    "D.  ANY REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION TO THE POLICY STATED HEREIN MUST BE
 WELL DOCUMENTED IN
 
    WRITING AND FORWARDED TO REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS FOR CONSIDERATION."
 (JT. EXH. 19).
 
    MR. THORNTON TESTIFIED THAT JOINT EXHIBIT 19 WAS THE RESULT OF THE
 DECEMBER 13, 1977, BARGAINING SESSION.  WHEN MR. HALFACRE RECEIVED A
 COPY OF THE FEBRUARY 8, 1978, REGIONAL CIRCULAR, ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY
 20, 1978, THE REGIONAL CIRCULAR WAS POSTED IN THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH AND
 HE REQUESTED COPIES OF THE REGIONAL FORM REFERRED TO THEREIN AND WAS
 INFORMED BY THE REGIONAL PATROL DIRECTOR THAT THE FORMS WERE BEING
 PRINTED AND WOULD BE ISSUED AT A LATER DATE;  THAT, IN THE MEANTIME, IT
 WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO DOCUMENT THE WEARING OF CIVILIAN CLOTHES IN A
 GREEN-BACKED LOG BOOK WHICH IS USED FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES, INCLUDING
 VEHICLE AUTHORIZATIONS, ETC., AND THAT SUCH LOG BOOK WAS USED FOR THE
 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENTING THE WEARING OF CIVILIAN CLOTHES BEGINNING
 FEBRUARY 21, 1978 (JT. EXH. 20).  THE REGIONAL FORM (COMP. EXH. 7) BEARS
 A NOTATION AT THE TOP OF "V-RC-425 (OCT. 1978)" AND MR. HALFACRE
 TESTIFIED THAT THE REGIONAL FORMS WERE USED FROM THE DATE THEY WERE
 RECEIVED IN THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH.
 
        B) AUTHORIZATIONS FOR CIVILIAN CLOTHING IN THE AIR SUPPORT
 
                                  BRANCH
 
    THE RECORD SHOWS THAT FROM OCTOBER 26, 1977, REQUESTS FOR
 AUTHORIZATION TO WEAR CIVILIAN CLOTHES WERE MADE BY WRITTEN MEMORANDUM
 ADDRESSED TO THE SUPERVISORY CUSTOMS AIR OFFICER, AND OF THE EXAMPLES
 SUBMITTED AS EXHIBITS (JT. EXH. 16-A-16-S) ALL 0UT FIVE (JT.  EXH.
 16-A,16-D, 16-E, 16-F, AND 16-S) WERE SIGNED, OR INITIALED, BY ONE OR
 MORE OF THE EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE REQUEST AND ALL BUT ONE (JT. EXH.
 16-R) BEAR A NOTATION OF APPROVAL (JT. EXH. 16-A IS DATED OCTOBER 26,
 1977, AND THE DATE OF APPROVAL IS 11/26/77 WHICH, IN ALL PROBABILITY,
 REFLECTS AN ERROR IN DESIGNATING THE MONTH).  BEGINNING FEBRUARY 21,
 1978, AUTHORIZATIONS WERE ENTERED IN THE LOG (JT. EXH. 20).  THE LOG,
 OBVIOUSLY, WAS USED FOR VARIOUS REASONS OTHER THAN AUTHORIZATION TO WEAR
 CIVILIAN CLOTHES.  FOR EXAMPLE, VEHICLE AUTHORIZATIONS WERE, IN SOME
 INSTANCES, ENTERED UNDER A SEPARATE HEADING, SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, JOINT
 EXHIBIT 20, P. 3, WHEREAS THE PLAIN CLOTHES AUTHORIZATIONS FOR THE SAME
 DATES FOR WHITE AND NEILSON APPEAR AT P. 7;  HOWEVER, THE ENTRY BY MR.
 VERA FOR 3/22/78 "CONTACTS AT LKF", P. 3, IF INTENDED AS A PLAIN CLOTHES
 DESIGNATION, APPEARS ONLY UNDER THE VEHICLE AUTHORIZATION HEADING AND NO
 ENTRY FOR MR. VERA IS SHOWN FOR THIS DATE UNDER THE PLAIN CLOTHES
 AUTHORIZATIONS.
 
    IN THE BEGINNING, PLAIN CLOTHES AUTHORIZATIONS WERE WRITTEN IN THE
 FORM OF AN AUTHORIZATION AND INITIALED BY A SUPERVISOR (SEE JT. EXH. 20,
 P. 2) BUT BEGINNING WITH THE APRIL 10 ENTRY "CHANDLER-- MISS
 SURVEILLANCE" (JT. EXH. 20, P. 7) MOST ENTRIES BECAME CRYPTIC AND
 WITHOUT THE INITIAL OF A SUPERVISOR, SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, JOINT EXHIBIT 20,
 P. 8, 4-26-27-28 "VERA-- SURVEILLANCE W/01".  INDEED, AFTER APRIL 11,
 1978, THE ONLY AUTHORIZATIONS TO WEAR PLAIN CLOTHES CLEARLY WRITTEN AS
 AN AUTHORIZATION AND INITIALED BY A SUPERVISOR, THAT I HAVE NOTED, ARE
 THOSE MADE BY MR. HALFACRE ON SEPTEMBER 20 AND 25 (JT. EXH. 20, P. 15).
 THE LAST ENTRIES IN THE LOG, PRESUMABLY UNDER PLAIN CLOTHES
 AUTHORIZATIONS, ARE FOR OCTOBER 24, "OSCAR TO ARK, MEET WITH STATE",
 "LUM AND LONG LOCAL INFORMANTS", "10/23, 23, 25, 26 MEETING WITH C1'S IN
 THE TENN, AREA" AND "10/27 MEETING C1." (JT. EXH. 20, P. 17);  HOWEVER,
 UNDER "VEHICLE" THERE IS AN ENTRY ON NOVEMBER 22, FOR EXAMPLE, "VERA TO
 CONTACT C.I.", WHICH MAY, OR MAY NOT, HAVE BEEN INTENDED AS A PLAIN
 CLOTHES AUTHORIZATION AND OTHER ENTRIES MAY, OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN
 INTENDED AS PLAIN CLOTHES AUTHORIZATION, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE 11/21 "WHITE
 MET C.I."
 
    IT IS CLEAR THAT MANY ENTRIES WERE MADE BY EMPLOYEES, FOR EXAMPLE,
 4-26-27-78 "VERA-- SURVEILLANCE W/01" (JT. EXH. 20, P. 8), 8/24
 "VERA-HOPE, ARK WORK ON CASES AND SURVEILLANCE" (JT. EXH. 20, P. 13),
 9/17 VERA AND WADE AND JOACLIN TO LA. AND ARK ON DC 7" (JT. EXH. 20, P.
 14) THE LATTER, APPARENTLY, NOT BEING A PLAIN CLOTHES AUTHORIZATION;
 AND THAT INTERMINGLED ON THE LOG WERE VARIOUS ENTRIES MANY OF WHICH DID
 NOT CONSTITUTE PLAIN CLOTHES AUTHORIZATIONS.  THE SIGNIFICANT POINT IS
 THAT WHATEVER THE PRACTICES IN THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH VIS-A-VIS USE OF
 THE LOG BOOK FOR PLAIN CLOTHES AUTHORIZATIONS IT WAS UNCHANGED FROM
 APRIL 10 OR 11, 1978, UNTIL THE USE OF THE LOG BOOK FOR PLAIN CLOTHES
 AUTHORIZATIONS CEASED, ABOUT NOVEMBER, 1978, WHEN THE REGIONAL FORM WAS
 RECEIVED AND WAS, THEREAFTER USED.
 
    WAS THERE ANY CHANGE IN POLICY WITH REGARD TO ACCESS TO THE LOG BOOK?
  THE THRESHOLD QUESTION IS WHAT WAS THE POLICY PRIOR TO MAY 16, 1978?
 MR. HALFACRE TESTIFIED THAT, AT LEAST FROM RECEIPT OF THE REGIONAL
 CIRCULAR ON, OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 20, 1978, THE POLICY IN THE AIR SUPPORT
 BRANCH WAS AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "A.  THE POLICY WAS THAT ANY TIME AN EMPLOYEE FELT IT WAS NECESSARY
 FOR HIM TO WORK IN
 
    CIVILIAN CLOTHES, THAT HE HAD TO ADVISE HIS SUPERVISOR OF WHAT HE
 INTENDED TO DO THAT DAY AND
 
    AND GET HIS SUPERVISOR'S APPROVAL TO WEAR CIVILIAN CLOTHES.
 
    "Q.  WAS THIS PERMISSION TO BE RECEIVED IN ADVANCE OF WEARING
 CIVILIAN CLOTHES?
 
    "A.  IF THE OFFICER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT WITH HIS
 SUPERVISOR IN ADVANCE
 
    . . .  IF HE DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADVISE HIS SUPERVISOR IN
 ADVANCE, THEN HE WAS
 
    ALLOWED TO COME IN THE NEXT MORNING, ALREADY IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES, AND
 THEN ADVISE HIS
 
    SUPERVISOR OF THE REASON THAT HE WAS IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES.  IF THE
 SUPERVISOR WAS SATISFIED
 
    WITH HIS REASON, THEN HE COULD APPROVE IT AT THAT TIME.
 
    "Q.  WHAT IF HE COULDN'T LOCATE HIS SUPERVISOR EITHER THE DAY BEFORE
 OR THAT MORNING?  WHAT
 
    WAS THE EMPLOYEE TO DO?
 
    "A.  HE COULD GO AHEAD AND GO ON HIS MISSION, SIGN OUT IN THE LOG
 BOOK ON HIS OWN, AND GO
 
    AHEAD AND GO ON THE MISSION, AND ADVISE THE SUPERVISOR LATER WHAT HE
 HAD DONE." (TR. 497).  MR. HALFACRE'S TESTIMONY WAS FULLY SUPPORTED BY
 THE TESTIMONY OF MR.  CHAMBERS.
 
    WITH FULL RECOGNITION THAT MR. VERA ASSERTED THAT, BASICALLY, THE
 WORK OF THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH IS A COVERT TYPE OPERATION AND THAT 95 TO
 99 PERCENT OF THE TIME THEY WORK IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES WHICH CONTINUES TO
 THE PRESENT TIME, HIS TESTIMONY AS TO THE POLICY OF THE AIR SUPPORT
 BRANCH IS CONSISTENT WITH MR. HALFACRE'S TESTIMONY, WITH FURTHER
 RECOGNITION, HOWEVER, THAT MR. VERA EMPHASIZED SITUATIONS WHERE THE
 OFFICER DID NOT KNOW THE PRECEEDING DAY OF SOME DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD
 REQUIRE THE WEARING OF CIVILIAN CLOTHES.  THUS, MR. VERA TESTIFIED:
 
    "A.  OKAY, NOW WE ARE GETTING DOWN INTO THE AREA THAT-- AS WE ARE
 APPROACHING THIS TIME,
 
    THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT (WHEN THE LOG BEGAN ON 2/21/78) FOR THE
 OFFICER TO COME INTO THE
 
    OFFICE, INTO A SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE ON THE DAY BEFORE AND SAY, .  . .
 TOMORROW, I PLAN TO BE IN
 
    CIVILIAN CLOTHES, BECAUSE YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW.  YOU MIGHT GET A
 PHONE CALL THAT NIGHT AND
 
    YOU MIGHT GET SOME INFORMATION PASSED IN THE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
 THAT MIGHT PROMPT YOU TO GO
 
    OUT THE NEXT MORNING TO DO A SURVEILLANCE.
 
    "SO THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT . . . THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE PRIOR
 APPROVAL ON THE DAY BEFORE.
 
    "Q.  NOW, DID SOME EMPLOYEES SEEK AND OBTAIN APPROVAL?
 
    "A.  UNDOUBTEDLY, SOME EMPLOYEES, IF THEY KNEW IN ADVANCE, THEY WOULD
 GO IN THERE AND SAY,
 
    WELL, YOU KNOW, TOMORROW, I AM PLANNING ON LEAVING TO GO OUT OF TOWN
 MAYBE TO NASHVILLE,
 
    TENNESSEE OR WHATEVER, AND THEY WOULD NOTIFY A SUPERVISOR WHEN THEY
 KNEW THAT THEY WERE GOING
 
    OUT OF TOWN AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO GO, YOU KNOW, IN
 CIVILIAN CLOTHES.
 
    "CERTAINLY, I CAN NOT THINK OF ANY INSTANCE OR ANY COMPLAINT WHEN THE
 PERMISSION WAS DENIED
 
    BECAUSE CERTAINLY THE BRANCH CHIEF AND THE SUPERVISOR RECOGNIZE THAT
 WE NEED TO DO THESE KIND
 
    OF ACTIVITIES IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES AND NOT IN UNIFORM."
 
    (TR. 403-404).
 
    ACCEPTING MR. VERA'S TESTIMONY AS TO THE OCCURRENCE OF MAY 16, 1978,
 THE MOST THAT CAN BE SAID IS THAT MESSRS. NEILSON AND VERA REPORTED IN
 CIVILIAN CLOTHES, SUPERVISOR CHAMBERS ASKED MR. NEILSON WHY HE WAS IN
 CIVILIAN CLOTHES AND WHEN MR. NEILSON TOLD HIM HE WAS GOING DOWNTOWN FOR
 A MEETING WITH THE DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL, WITH MR. VERA, MR. CHAMBERS
 DENIED PERMISSION FOR MR. NEILSON TO "WORK IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES" FOR SUCH
 REASON AND TOLD HIM TO GET HIMSELF IN UNIFORM.  THEREAFTER, HE TOLD MR.
 VERA, IN SUBSTANCE, THE SAME, AND, OBVIOUSLY, DID NOT BELIEVE MR. VERA'S
 ASSERTION THAT, AFTER THE MEETING, THEY WERE GOING TO "ATTEMPT TO
 CONTACT A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE OF INFORMATION" BUT SUGGESTED, IN ANY
 EVENT, THAT MR. VERA TAKE ALONG A CIVILIAN SHIRT AND HE COULD CHANGE AT
 THE REGIONAL OFFICE AND THEN TRY TO MAKE HIS CONTACT WITH THE INFORMANT.
 
    NEVERTHELESS, THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT MR. CHAMBERS DENIED
 PERMISSION FOR MESSRS. NEILSON AND VERA TO "WORK IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES" ON
 MAY 16, 1978, BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT OBTAINED PRIOR AUTHORIZATION;  BUT,
 RATHER, THAT PERMISSION WAS DENIED BECAUSE MR.  CHAMBERS WAS NOT
 SATISFIED WITH THE REASON GIVEN.  IT CLEARLY APPEARS, BOTH FROM MR.
 HALFACRE'S TESTIMONY AND FROM MR. VERA'S TESTIMONY, THAT ADVANCE
 APPROVAL WAS DESIRED IF THE OFFICER(S) KNEW IN ADVANCE AND HAD AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT WITH HIS SUPERVISOR IN ADVANCE;  BUT THE RISK
 OF NOT DOING SO WAS THAT THE SUPERVISOR WOULD DENY APPROVAL IF HE WERE
 NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REASON GIVEN.  MR. CHAMBERS DID NOT ORDER MR.
 NEILSON TO GET INTO UNIFORM BECAUSE HE HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN PRIOR
 AUTHORITY TO WEAR CIVILIAN CLOTHES, BUT INQUIRED WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO
 THAT DAY AND WHEN MR.  NEILSON TOLD HIM HE WAS GOING TO A MEETING AT
 PERSONNEL, TOLD HIM TO GET HIMSELF IN UNIFORM.  THIS ACTION SIMPLY FAILS
 TO ESTABLISH ANY CHANGE IN POLICY.  TO THE CONTRARY, THE RECORD SHOWS,
 AS SET FORTH ABOVE, THAT ACCESS TO, AND UTILIZATION OF, THE LOG REMAINED
 CONSTANT AND REFLECTS NO CHANGE IN PRACTICE SINCE WELL BEFORE MAY 16,
 1978, OR THEREAFTER UNTIL ITS USE FOR PLAIN CLOTHES AUTHORIZATION CEASED
 IN OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER, 1978.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY THAT
 THE POLICY, AS STATED BY MR. HALFACRE, WAS EVER CHANGED;  THAT OFFICERS
 WERE PROHIBITED FROM REPORTING TO WORK IN CIVILIAN CLOTHES BECAUSE THEY
 HAD NOT OBTAINED PRIOR APPROVAL, OR THAT APPROVAL TO WORK IN CIVILIAN
 CLOTHES WAS EVER DENIED, INCLUDING THE INCIDENT OF MAY 16, 1978, BECAUSE
 PRIOR APPROVAL HAD NOT BEEN OBTAINED.
 
    COMPLAINANT'S CONVOLUTED REASONING REFLECTS, IN REALITY, AN EFFORT TO
 AVOID APPLICATION OF THE REGIONAL CIRCULAR, WHICH SET FORTH THOSE
 CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY WARRANT A PLAIN CLOTHES ASSIGNMENT, TO THE AIR
 SUPPORT BRANCH.  COMPLAINANT MISCONCEIVES THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF
 RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS.  AT THE OUTSET, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RESPONDENT'S
 POLICY STATEMENT 3400-02, ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 1, 1977, BY THE AIR
 SUPPORT BRANCH MAY HAVE BEEN, AND VERY PROBABLY WAS, IN DEROGATION OF
 THE EXECUTIVE ORDER;  BUT COMPLAINANT, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION
 TAKEN BY THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH, ELECTED NOT TO FILE AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE CHARGE.  POLICY STATEMENT 3400-02 ITSELF SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
 THAT, "REGION AND COMMISSIONERS WILL DESIGNATE, IN WRITING, THOSE TYPES
 OF ASSIGNMENTS WHERE THE WEARING OF THE UNIFORM WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE
 WITH THE NATURE OF THE ASSIGNMENT." ASSUMING THAT THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH
 UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTED THE POLICY STATEMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDER,
 RESPONDENT WAS NOT THEREBY PRECLUDED FROM DESIGNATION OF THOSE TYPES OF
 ASSIGNMENTS FOR WHICH THE WARING OF PLAIN CLOTHES COULD BE AUTHORIZED,
 WHICH, OF COURSE, WAS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE POLICY STATEMENT.
  RESPONDENT GAVE COMPLAINANT NOTICE OF ITS PROPOSED REGIONAL CIRCULAR ON
 NOVEMBER 9, 1977, AND THE PARTIES NEGOTIATED IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION
 OF THE CIRCULAR ON DECEMBER 13, 1977.  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT THE
 CIRCULAR, AS PROPOSED, 0Y ITS TERMS, APPLIED TO THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH;
 OR THAT THE CIRCULAR, AS ISSUED FOLLOWING THE NEGOTIATIONS OF DECEMBER
 13, 1977, BY ITS TERMS, APPLIED TO THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH.  WITH NOTICE
 OF THE REGIONAL CIRCULAR AND OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, WHETHER
 COMPLAINANT ELECTED NOT TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING ITS APPLICATION TO THE
 AIR SUPPORT BRANCH WAS A CHOICE COMPLAINANT WAS FREE TO MAKE;  BUT
 WHETHER COMPLAINANT EXERCISED ITS RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE AS TO THE AIR
 SUPPORT BRANCH, JOINT EXHIBIT 19, THE PRODUCT OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS, BY
 ITS TERMS, APPLIED TO THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH PRECISELY AS PROPOSED BY
 RESPONDENT ON NOVEMBER 9, 1977, AND IMPLEMENTATION BY RESPONDENT ON
 FEBRUARY 8, 1978, PURSUANT TO THE ORAL AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES OF
 DECEMBER 13, 1977, WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF 19(A)(6) OR (1) OF THE ORDER.
  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF NAVY, BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY, GREAT
 LAKES NAVAL HOSPITAL, ILLINOIS, A/SLMR NO. 289, 3 A/SLMR 375(1973);
 NAVY EXCHANGE, U.S. NAVAL AIR STATION, QUONSET POINT, RHODE ISLAND,
 A/SLMR NO. 180, 2 A/SLMR 376(1972);  UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ELECTRONICS
 SYSTEMS DIVISION (AFSC), HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, A/SLMR NO. 571, 5
 A/SLMR 651(1975);  SOUTHEAST EXCHANGE REGION OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE
 EXCHANGE SERVICE, ROSEWOOD WAREHOUSE, COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, A/SLMR
 NO. 656, 6 A/SLMR 237(1976);  ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD, A/SLMR NO. 660, 6
 A/SLMR 267(1976;  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE,
 REGION I, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, A/SLMR NO. 951, 7 A/SLMR, 1070(1977);
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, A/SLMR NO.
 984(1978).  INDEED, THE OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE ON PROCEDURES AND IMPACT
 RUNS ONLY TO THE EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, HERE, CHAPTER 168,
 NOT CHAPTER 168, EXCLUSIVE OF THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH, INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT OFFICE,
 A/SLMR NO. 1027(1978);  BUT INASMUCH AS RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED REGIONAL
 CIRCULAR APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE BARGAINING UNIT AND THE REGIONAL CIRCULAR
 AS NEGOTIATED APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE BARGAINING UNIT, IT IS UNNECESSARY
 TO DECIDE AND, ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT DECIDE WHAT RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATION
 TO BARGAIN MAY HAVE BEEN HAD COMPLAINANT SOUGHT TO BARGAIN SEPARATELY AS
 TO THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH.  IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT A CHANGE
 IN ENFORCEMENT OF WRITTEN STANDARDS MAY CONSTITUTE A BARGAINABLE ISSUE,
 SEE FOR EXAMPLE, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, A/SLMR NO.  244, 3
 A/SLMR 88(1973);  BUT DECISIONS, SUCH AS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
 SUPRA, ARE SIMPLY NOT IN POINT.  TO THE CONTRARY, THE GRAVAMAN OF
 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA, WAS THAT FOR SOME TEN YEARS "TIME
 TARGETS" GOVERNING THE PROCESSING OF CASES HAD BEEN APPLIED AS EACH
 BOARD MEMBER SAW FIT AND THAT IN 1970 THE BOARD INSTITUTED CHANGES IN
 TIME SCHEDULES WITHOUT "CONSULTING, CONFERRING OR NEGOTIATING" WITH THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS UNIT EMPLOYEES.  HERE, WHOLLY UNLIKE THE
 SITUATION IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA, RESPONDENT GAVE
 NOTICE OF ITS PROPOSED REGIONAL CIRCULAR, THE PARTIES DID MEET AND
 NEGOTIATE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, AND THE REGIONAL CIRCULAR, AS
 IMPLEMENTED ON FEBRUARY 8, 1978, WAS THE PRODUCT OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY STATEMENT BY THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH IN
 OCTOBER, 1977, MAY HAVE ESTABLISHED A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AND
 UNILATERAL CHANGE MIGHT HAVE VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6), U.S.
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, NEW ORLEANS
 DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, A/SLMR NO. 1034(1978);  INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, SOUTHWEST REGION, APPELLANT BRANCH OFFICE, NEW ORLEANS,
 LOUISIANA, A/SLMR NO. 1153(1978);  BUT RESPONDENT WAS NOT PRECLUDED FROM
 GIVING NOTICE OF ITS REGIONAL CIRCULAR, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE
 POLICY STATEMENT, AND IMPLEMENTING THAT CIRCULAR AFTER NEGOTIATIONS.
 
    OF COURSE, AFTER IMPLEMENTATION ON FEBRUARY 8, 1978, MR. HALFACRE
 TESTIFIED THAT, TO HIS KNOWLEDGE, NO PLAIN CLOTHES REQUEST HAD BEEN
 APPROVED EXCEPT FOR A CIRCUMSTANCE SET FORTH IN THE REGIONAL CIRCULAR;
 AND MR. CHAMBERS TESTIFIED THAT MESSRS. NEILSEN'S AND VERA'S REQUEST TO
 WEAR CIVILIAN CLOTHES FOR A MEETING AT PERSONNEL DID NOT MEET ANY
 CRITERIA OF THE REGIONAL CIRCULAR, I.E., COMPROMISE AN ENFORCEMENT
 MISSION, WHICH CIRCULAR HE FOLLOWED AND APPLIED.  ACCORDINGLY, WHILE I
 HAVE FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN POLICY ON MAY 16, 1978, WITH
 RESPECT TO PRIOR APPROVAL, SINCE IT HAD BEEN THE POLICY SINCE OCTOBER,
 1977, TO OBTAIN PRIOR APPROVAL WHERE FEASIBLE, TO THE EXTENT THAT PRIOR
 POLICY HAD BEEN CHANGED BY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL CIRCULAR, SUCH
 CHANGE OF POLICY WAS PROPER INASMUCH AS THE REGIONAL CIRCULAR HAD BEEN
 IMPLEMENTED AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPLAINANT TO BARGAIN,
 INDEED, COMPLAINANT CONCEDES THAT THE REGIONAL CIRCULAR, JOINT EXHIBIT
 19, WAS THE PRODUCT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS OF DECEMBER 13, 1977.
 
    FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, I FIND THAT COMPLAINANT HAS NOT
 SHOWN A VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 19(A)(6) AND (1) OF THE ORDER IN CASE NO.
 64-4250(CA) AND THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 64-4250(CA) IS HEREBY
 DISMISSED.
 
                         IV.  CASE NO. 64-4251(CA)
 
    THIS CASE INVOLVES ALLEGED DIRECT DEALING BY MANAGEMENT WITH UNIT
 EMPLOYEES, AND THE BY-PASSING OF THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, WITH
 RESPECT TO STAFFING OF A PROJECTED DUTY STATION IN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.
  THE COMPLAINT ASSERTS, IN ESSENCE, THAT RESPONDENT CONDUCTED A POLL
 AND/OR A SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES AND THAT RESPONDENT HAD NAMED TWO
 VOLUNTEERS TO FILL THE TWO POSITIONS PROJECTED FOR NASHVILLE;  THAT
 RESPONDENT ACTED UNILATERALLY WITHOUT NOTICE TO COMPLAINANT;  AND THAT
 COMPLAINANT WAS GIVEN NO OPPORTUNITY, PRIOR TO SELECTION OF THE
 EMPLOYEES, TO MEET AND CONFER/NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE SUBSTANCE AND/OR
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OPENING AND FILLING OF ANY POSITIONS IN
 NASHVILLE.
 
    THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT THAT THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH HAD ACTIVELY
 URGED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SATELLITE OFFICE OR OFFICES OVER A PERIOD
 OF YEARS.  INITIALLY, IN 1975, MEMPHIS WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND MR.
 TERRY L. WHITE, AN AIR SUPPORT BRANCH PILOT, TESTIFIED THAT, AS HE WAS
 ASSIGNED TO WORK THE TENNESSEE AREA, HE HAD PERSONALLY RECOMMENDED THE
 SELECTION OF NASHVILLE BECAUSE THE STATE'S LAW ENFORCEMENT HEADQUARTERS
 WERE LOCATED THERE.  IN ADDITION, MR. WHITE STATED THAT HE HAD SUGGESTED
 THAT PERHAPS LATER THEY COULD ALSO GET AN OFFICE IN LITTLE ROCK,
 ARKANSAS.  MR. HALFACRE TESTIFIED THAT IN 1976 HE HAD REQUESTED
 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH TO OPEN AN OFFICE IN NASHVILLE
 BUT THAT THERE WAS NEVER ANY ACTION TAKEN ON HIS REQUEST.  IN 1977, HE
 MADE A FURTHER RECOMMENDATION TO THE SAME EFFECT AND NOTHING REALLY EVER
 HAPPENED ON THAT RECOMMENDATION (SEE JOINT EXH. 23).  HE STATED THAT
 EITHER IN 1976 OR 1977 HE HAD ALSO REQUESTED AUTHORIZATION FOR AN OFFICE
 IN LITTLE ROCK.  JOINT EXHIBIT 22 SHOWS THAT THE REQUEST FOR LITTLE
 ROCK, AS WELL AS FOR NASHVILLE, WAS MADE ON NOVEMBER 16, 1976.  ON
 JANUARY 30, 1978 (JOINT EXHIBIT 25), MR. HALFACRE AGAIN REQUESTED THAT
 CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO OPENING A SATELLITE OFFICE IN NASHVILLE AND HE
 RECOMMENDED A COMPLIMENT OF TWO AIR OFFICERS, ONE PILOT AND ONE
 AIRCRAFT.  ON FEBRUARY 3, 1978, MR. CHARLES J. COLOMES, JR., REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, ENDORSED MR. HALFACRE'S REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AN
 OFFICE AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE (JOINT EXHIBIT 26).  ON FEBRUARY 8, 1978,
 MR. HALFACRE SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL DATA TO SUPPORT HIS RECOMMENDATION
 (JOINT EXHIBIT 27);  ON FEBRUARY 17, 1978, MR. CHAMBERS REQUESTED
 AUTHORIZATION TO SEND PILOTS NEILSON AND WHITE ON TEMPORARY DUTY TO
 NASHVILLE TO CONTACT STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS (JOINT
 EXHIBIT 28);  ON FEBRUARY 21, 1978, MR. HALFACRE SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL
 INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF HIS RECOMMENDATION (JOINT EXH. 29);  AND ON
 MAY 18, 1978, AT A MEETING OF MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, INCLUDING REGIONAL
 COMMISSIONER CHARLES W. FISHER, REGION V MANAGEMENT, CONTINGENT UPON
 SECURING FREE SPACE, APPROVED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PATROL SUBOFFICE IN
 NASHVILLE, WITH AN INITIAL COMPLEMENT OF TWO AIR OFFICERS, BY
 APPROXIMATELY JULY 1, 1978 (JOINT EXHIBIT 30).
 
    BY LETTER DATED JUNE 16, 1978, MR. JAMES W. THORNTON, NATIONAL FIELD
 REPRESENTATIVE, NTEU, ADVISED RESPONDENT THAT COMPLAINANT HAD LEARNED
 THAT A NEW AIR OFFICE WAS POSSIBLY SCHEDULED TO BE OPENED IN NASHVILLE
 IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THAT COMPLAINANT HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OFFICIALLY OF
 THIS ACTION;  BUT THAT COMPLAINANT DESIRED "TO MEET AND CONFER/NEGOTIATE
 CONCERNING THE SUBSTANCE AND/OR IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION THAT AFFECTS
 ANY ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY NEW STATION(S) AND THE MANNING OF ANY SUCH
 STATION(S).  . . . " (JOINT EXHIBIT 31).  ON JUNE 20, 1978 MRS. LORRAINE
 VARBEL, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SPECIALIST REGION V, CONTACTED MR. HALFACRE
 AND ASKED HIM IF HE HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT A DUTY STATION BEING
 ESTABLISHED IN NASHVILLE AND IF HE HAD, HAD HE CONTACTED COMPLAINANT IN
 REGARD TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AND THE METHOD BY WHICH STAFFING WOULD BE
 DONE.  MRS. VARBEL TESTIFIED THAT MR. HALFACRE TOLD HER THAT HE WASN'T
 SURE ABOUT ANY OF IT AT THAT POINT, THAT HE WASN'T SURE THAT THERE WOULD
 BE AN AIR BRANCH IN NASHVILLE NOR WAS HE SURE HOW THEY WOULD ARRIVE AT
 THE STAFFING EXCEPT THAT, IF THERE WERE, IN FACT, GOING TO BE A STATION
 THEY MIGHT SELECT PEOPLE TO MOVE ON A VOLUNTEER BASIS;  THAT SHE TOLD
 MR. HALFACRE THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH THE STEWARD HOW HE WOULD
 GO ABOUT SELECTING PEOPLE.
 
    MR. HALFACRE MET WITH MR. OSCAR VERA, STEWARD, ON JUNE 20, 1978, AT
 APPROXIMATELY 3:45 P.M., AND TESTIFIED THAT, PURSUANT TO MRS. VARBEL'S
 ADVICE, HE TOLD MR. VERA THAT "THE METHOD THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE USED
 WOULD BE TO ASK FOR VOLUNTEERS . . . THAT THERE WOULD BE TWO AIR
 OFFICERS GOING.  I ADVISED HIM THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY ASK FOR VOLUNTEERS
 FROM THE FOUR AIR OFFICERS WHO WERE ASSIGNED TO THE NEW ORLEANS AIR
 BRANCH AND THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY PICK TWO AIR OFFICERS FROM HOW EVER
 MANY VOLUNTEERS WE HAD.  AND AT THAT TIME, I HAD RECEIVED VOLUNTARY
 REQUESTS, SO TO SPEAK, FROM THREE AIR OFFICERS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO
 GO IF THERE WAS AN OFFICE INDEED OPENED IN NASHVILLE." (TR. 647-648)
 (SEE, ALSO, JOINT EXHIBIT 34).  MR. VERA STATED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO
 DISCUSS THE MATTER AT THAT TIME BUT WOULD GET BACK WITH MR. HALFACRE AT
 A LATER DATE.  ON JUNE 21, 1978, MR. VERA DELIVERED A LETTER TO MR.
 HALFACRE, DATED JUNE 20, 1978, (JOINT EXHIBIT 32) IN WHICH HE STATES
 THAT HE HAD BEEN INFORMED THAT MR. THORNTON HAD ALREADY (JOINT EXHIBIT
 31) REQUESTED FORMAL NEGOTIATIONS AND, ACCORDINGLY, INFORMAL
 NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN HIMSELF AND MR. HALFACRE COULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED
 AT THAT TIME.
 
    ON JUNE 23, 1978, MR. VINCENT L. CONNERY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF NTEU,
 FILED THE CHARGE HEREIN (COMP. EXH. 10);  RESPONDENT, BY LETTER DATED
 JUNE 28 OR 30 (BOTH DATES ARE SHOWN) SUGGESTED A MEETING ON JULY 10,
 1978 (JOINT EXHIBIT 36) TO NEGOTIATE STAFFING PURSUANT TO MR. THORNTON'S
 REQUEST DATED JUNE 16, MR. THORNTON, BY LETTER DATED JULY 14, 1978
 (JOINT EXHIBIT 37) CONFIRMED AN AGREED DATE OF AUGUST 8, 1978, TO
 DISCUSS THE CHARGE.
 
    ON JULY 17, 1978, VERNON V. HANN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OPERATIONS,
 WASHINGTON, D.C., ADVISED MR. FISHER, THAT AUTHORIZATION FOR FUNDS TO
 ESTABLISH AN OFFICE IN NASHVILLE WAS REJECTED FOR THE REASON THAT
 "HEADQUARTERS DOES NOT BELIEVE A NEW ASB OFFICE SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN
 THE INTERIOR" (JOINT EXHIBIT 38) AND BY MEMORANDUM DATED AUGUST 28, 1978
 (JOINT EXHIBIT 40), MR. HANN AGAIN STATED THAT THE REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO
 OPEN A SATELLITE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, HAD BEEN
 DEFERRED INDEFINITELY AND EMPHASIZED THAT, WITH PARTICIPATION IN THE
 U.S. AIR FORCE AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM, IT "WILL BE MORE
 IMPORTANT TO HAVE OUR PATROL OFFICERS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OUR LAND AND
 SEA BORDERS WHERE THEY CAN RESPOND TO THE SMUGGLING THREAT." (JOINT
 EXHIBIT 30, PAR. 3).
 
    IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT, PRIOR TO JUNE 20, 1978, RESPONDENT HAD
 NOT OFFICIALLY ADVISED COMPLAINANT THAT IT CONTEMPLATED THE OPENING OF
 AN AIR BRANCH DUTY STATION IN NASHVILLE ALTHOUGH IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR
 THAT EVERYONE IN THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH, INCLUDING MR. VERA, WAS FULLY
 AWARE OF THE PROJECTED NASHVILLE DUTY STATION AND THE INTENDED INITIAL
 STAFFING OF THE STATION WITH TWO AIR OFFICERS.  COMPLAINANT DOES NOT
 DISPUTE RESPONDENT'S UNILATERAL RIGHT TO DECIDE THE OPENING OF A
 SATELLITE OFFICE AND/OR THE NATURE OF THE STAFFING OF SUCH PROJECTED
 OFFICE.  IN ANY EVENT, THE DECISION TO CREATE A NEW DUTY STATION WAS A
 RESERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT UNDER SECTION 11(B) OF THE ORDER, UNITED
 STATES AIR FORCE ELECTRONICS SYSTEM DIVISION (AFSC), HANSCOM AIR FORCE
 BASE, A/SLMR NO. 571, 5 A/SLMR 651(1975), AND UNDER SECTION 12(B) OF THE
 ORDER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY
 ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROJECTS, VANCOUVER,
 WASHINGTON, A/SLMR NO. 612, 6 A/SLMR 87(1976).
 
    ALTHOUGH, AS RESPONDENT STATES IN ITS BRIEF AT PAGES 43-45, WHERE, AS
 HERE, A TENTATIVE DECISION, OR PROPOSAL, IS NEVER FINALIZED, THE DUTY TO
 MEET AND CONFER ON IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION NEVER MATURES, SEE, FOR
 EXAMPLE, HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, SUPRA;  U.S. ARMY ELECTRONICS COMMAND,
 FORT MANMOUTH, NEW JERSEY.  A/SLMR NO. 732, 6 A/SLMR 565(1976).  THE
 RECORD SHOWS THAT THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER TO OPEN A
 NASHVILLE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH OFFICE AND TO STAFF IT WITH TWO AIR
 OFFICERS WAS A FIRM DECISION AT THAT LEVEL, WITH A TARGET DATE OF JULY
 1, 1978, FOR COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATIONS, BUT THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S
 DECISION WAS, NEVERTHELESS, NO MORE THAN A RECOMMENDATION TO HIGHER
 HEADQUARTERS AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS REJECTED BY WASHINGTON
 (CUSTOMS
 HEADQUARTERS) FOR THE STATED REASON THAT HEADQUARTERS "DOES NOT BELIEVE
 A NEW ASB OFFICE SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN THE INTERIOR." (JT. EXH.38;
 SEE ALSO, JT. EXH. 40, PAR. 3).  AS OF JULY 17, 1978, THE DATE THAT
 HEADQUARTERS REJECTED THE PROPOSED NASHVILLE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH OFFICE,
 THE PROPOSED OFFICE HAD NOT BEEN OPENED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE JULY 1,
 1978, TARGET DATE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATIONS.  I ALSO AGREE WITH
 RESPONDENT THAT NEITHER THE MEETING BETWEEN MR. HALFACRE AND MR. VERA
 NOR THE REQUEST FOR NEGOTIATIONS BY MR. THORNTON, TO WHICH RESPONDENT
 REPLIED AND AGREED TO MEET, CREATED AN OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN WHERE NONE
 EXISTED;  BUT THE ISSUE HERE, AS ASSERTED IN THE COMPLAINT, IS WHETHER
 RESPONDENT CONDUCTED A POLL OR PARTICIPATED IN A SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES AND
 THEREBY UNILATERALLY DEALT WITH EMPLOYEES AND BYPASSED COMPLAINANT IN
 VIOLATION OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ORDER.  FOR REASONS SET FORTH
 HEREINAFTER, I CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT:  (A) CONDUCT A POLL, OR
 SURVEY, OF EMPLOYEES;  OR (B) SELECT, OR DESIGNATE, ANY EMPLOYEE FOR
 TRANSFER TO NASHVILLE AND, ACCORDINGLY, THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT VIOLATE
 EITHER SECTION 19(A)(1) OR (6) OF THE ORDER AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.
  /6/
 
    IT IS BEYOND QUESTION THAT EACH OF THE FOUR AIR OFFICERS WENT TO ONE,
 OR MORE, SUPERVISORS AND MADE KNOWN HIS INTEREST IN GOING TO NASHVILLE
 IF AN AIR BRANCH OFFICE WERE ESTABLISHED THERE.  /7/ THE TESTIMONY OF
 EACH OF THE FOUR AIR OFFICERS, NAMELY MESSRS. WADE, LONG, JOACHIM AND
 LUM, AND OF SUPERVISORS HALFACRE AND CHAMBERS, HAS BEEN CAREFULLY
 EXAMINED, AND RE-EXAMINED, TOGETHER WITH THE TESTIMONY OF COMPLAINANT'S
 WITNESSES.  EACH AIR OFFICER DENIED THAT HE HAD EVER BEEN APPROACHED, IN
 ANY MANNER BY MANAGEMENT CONCERNING THE NASHVILLE OFFICE, I.E., THAT NO
 SUPERVISOR HAS EVER ASKED IF HE WANTED TO VOLUNTEER FOR NASHVILLE OR HAD
 TAKEN ANY POLL;  AND MR. HALFACRE AND MR. CHAMBERS TESTIFIED THAT THEY
 HAD NEVER APPROACHED ANY EMPLOYEE CONCERNING POSSIBLE INTEREST IN
 NASHVILLE.  MR. JOACHIM'S DECISION IN MID-MAY, 1978, THAT HE WAS NO
 LONGER INTERESTED IN GOING TO NASHVILLE, WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE AMONG THE
 EMPLOYEES;  IT WAS ALSO COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
 HAD DECIDED TO STAFF THE PROJECTED OFFICE WITH TWO AIR OFFICERS;  AND,
 OBVIOUSLY, THE AIR OFFICERS HAD MADE THEIR OWN ANALYSIS AND CONCLUDED
 THAT AIR OFFICERS WADE AND LONG WOULD BE THE TWO TO GO SINCE AIR OFFICER
 LUM, WHO HAD COME TO THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH IN NEW ORLEANS IN APRIL,
 1978, HAD THE LEAST SENIORITY AND THE LEAST EXPERIENCE, AND AIR OFFICER
 JOACHIM HAD MADE KNOWN THAT HE WAS NO LONGER INTERESTED.
 
    MR. VERA TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD ASKED MR. JOACHIM AND MR. LUM IF THEY
 HAD BEEN POLLED OR HAD BEEN ASKED BY MANAGEMENT IF THEY WERE INTERESTED
 IN GOING TO NASHVILLE AND THAT EACH TOLD HIM HE HAD BEEN APPROACHED BY
 MANAGEMENT.  MR. NEILSON TESTIFIED THAT MR. LUM TOLD HIM THAT MR.
 HALFACRE HAS APPROACHED HIM AND ASKED IF HE WANTED TO APPLY FOR THE
 NASHVILLE OFFICE.  MR. LUM CATEGORICALLY DENIED THAT HE WAS EVER ASKED
 BY ANY MEMBER OF MANAGEMENT IF HE WERE INTERESTED IN BEING ASSIGNED TO
 NASHVILLE.  MR. LUM TESTIFIED THAT WHEN HE ARRIVED IN NEW ORLEANS IN
 APRIL, 1978, THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT A NASHVILLE STATION;  THAT HE
 WENT TO MR. CHAMBERS TO MAKE KNOWN HIS INTEREST;  THAT MR. CHAMBERS WAS
 IN MR. HALFACRE'S OFFICE;  AND THAT HE HAD GONE INTO THE OFFICE AND TOLD
 THEM:
 
    " . . . I HAD HEARD RUMORS ABOUT THERE BEING A NASHVILLE OFFICE AND
 ALSO THERE WAS A
 
    POSSIBILITY OF IT AND WHEN THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF IT AND WHEN
 THERE WAS A NASHVILLE OFFICE
 
    OPEN, THERE WAS GOING TO BE ONE IN ARKANSAS POSSIBLY.
 
    "I TOLD THEM THAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN EITHER THAT MIGHT BE
 OPENED PARTICULARLY
 
    NASHVILLE . . . . " (TR. 894).  AS TO THE DISCUSSION WITH MR. VERA,
 MR. LUM TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "Q.  DID YOU TELL HIM (MR. VERA) AT THAT TIME THAT YOU HAD BEEN ASKED
 BY A SUPERVISOR OR A
 
    MEMBER OF MANAGEMENT IF YOU WANTED TO GO TO NASHVILLE?
 
    "A.  MR. VERA APPROACHED ME ASKING IF I HAD HAD ANY DISCUSSION WITH
 ANY SUPERVISOR
 
    CONCERNING THE NASHVILLE OFFICE.
 
    "I TOLD HIM THAT INDEED I HAD HAD A DISCUSSION WITH MR.  HALFACRE AND
 MR. RON CHAMBERS
 
    DISCUSSING THE NASHVILLE OFFICE.
 
    "I TOLD MR. VERA WHAT I JUST FINISHED TELLING THE COURT;  THAT I DID
 GO TO MR. HALFACRE
 
    STATING THAT INDEED I WOULD LIKE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR NASHVILLE OR
 ARKANSAS.
 
    "Q.  BUT DID YOU TELL HIM AT ANY TIME THAT MR. HALFACRE OR MR.
 CHAMBERS OR
 
    MR. S. SCHOELERMAN (SIC) HAD ASKED YOU IF YOU WANTED TO GO?
 
    "A.  CERTAINLY NOT.
 
    "Q.  DID YOU TELL MR. VERA AT ANY TIME THAT A MANAGEMENT OFFICER HAD
 TOLD YOU THAT ANOTHER
 
    EMPLOYEE HAD BEEN SELECTED?
 
    "A.  ABSOLUTELY NOT.
 
    "Q.  DID YOU TELL MR. NEILSON THAT MR. HALFACRE HAD ASKED YOU IF YOU
 WANTED TO GO TO
 
    NASHVILLE?
 
    "A.  I POSSIBLY TALKED TO MR. NEILSON.  I HEARD HIS TESTIMONY
 EARLIER.  THERE IS A
 
    PROBABILITY THAT I DID TALK TO MR. NEILSON AND OTHER EMPLOYEES.
 
    "I DID NOT TELL THEM THAT MR. HALFACRE CAME TO ME BECAUSE THAT DID
 NOT HAPPEN.
 
    "I DID PROBABLY TELL THEM THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN MYSELF,
 MR. HALFACRE AND
 
    MR. CHAMBERS.
 
    "Q.  DID YOU DISCUSS WITH MR. NEILSON THE PROBABILITY OF YOUR BEING
 SELECTED?
 
    "A.  THAT IS QUITE POSSIBLE.  I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT
 CONVERSATION.  I REMEMBER TALKING
 
    TO MR. NEILSON.  I REMEMBER TALKING TO OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
 
    "I STATED TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT INDEED I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO
 NASHVILLE OR ARKANSAS, BUT
 
    IT WAS QUITE OBVIOUS SINCE I WAS THE NEW GUY-- THE NEW KID ON THE
 BLOCK THAT THERE WAS VERY
 
    LITTLE CHANCE OF ME STANDING IN FRONT OF THE OTHER TWO PEOPLE-- THE
 OTHER TWO VOLUNTEERS THAT
 
    WANTED TO GO AND MOST PROBABLY WOULD GO LOGICALLY.
 
    "Q.  WAS THIS ASSUMPTION ON YOUR PART THAT YOU HAD LITTLE CHANCE
 BASED SOLELY ON YOUR OWN
 
    LOGIC AND YOUR OWN OPINIONS?
 
    "A.  THAT WAS MY OWN OPINION AND THE RUMORS THROUGH THE OFFICE, YES
 MA'AM." (TR. 896-986).
 
    MR. JOACHIM TESTIFIED THAT NEITHER MR. CHAMBERS, HIS SUPERVISOR, NOR
 MR.HALFACRE HAD EVER COME TO HIM TO ASK THAT HE VOLUNTEER FOR NASHVILLE;
  THAT HE HAD GONE TO MR.  CHAMBERS, WHEN HE FIRST HEARD TALK ABOUT A
 NASHVILLE OFFICE, SOMETIME BETWEEN DECEMBER, 1977, AND FEBRUARY, 1978,
 AND TOLD MR. CHAMBERS THAT HE WAS INTERESTED IN GOING TO NASHVILLE;
 THAT MR.  CHAMBERS STATED,
 
    " . . . THAT THEY WERE PROBABLY AWAY (SIC) FROM HAVING THE OFFICE
 CREATED OR APPROVED OF
 
    ANYTHING, BUT THAT HE WOULD KEEP MY-- THE FACT THAT I HAD OFFERED TO
 RELOCATE THERE IN MIND IF
 
    AND WHEN THE SELECTION PROCESS STARTED." (TR. 868) WITH RESPECT TO
 HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. VERA, MR. JOACHIM TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "A. YES, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, OSCAR (VERA) ASKED ME IF I HAD EVER
 BEEN ASKED BY ANYBODY IN
 
    MANAGEMENT AND SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME IF MR. HALFACRE HAD EVER ASKED
 ME IF I WANTED TO GO TO
 
    NASHVILLE.
 
    "THE ONLY TIME I REMEMBER MR. HALFACRE EVER VIOLATING THE TERMS OF
 THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IS
 
    ONCE HE ASKED ME IF I WANTED TO GO TO OKLAHOMA CITY.  HE WASN'T
 OFFERING ME A JOB THERE.  HE
 
    JUST ASKED ME IF I WAS INTERESTED IN OKLAHOMA CITY.
 
    "HE SAID IF YOU ARE, I SUGGEST YOU SUBMIT A CUSTOMS FORM 67 TO
 HEADQUARTERS BECAUSE THEY
 
    ARE ABOUT TO OPEN AN AIR BRANCH THERE, AND THIS WAS EARLIER ON BEFORE
 THE LAST EFFORT TO GET
 
    NASHVILLE ON THE ROAD TO GET IT STARTED.
 
    "Q.  THIS ASKING ABOUT OKLAHOMA CITY DIDN'T INVOLVE NASHVILLE IN ANY
 WAY?
 
    "A.  NO, NO.  I SAID THAT HE HAD ASKED ME IF MR. HALFACRE HAD EVER
 POLLED ME, AND THE ONLY
 
    TIME THAT MR. HALFACRE HAD EVER POLLED ME WAS ABOUT OKLAHOMA CITY.
 
    "AS A MATTER OF FACT, I DON'T BELIEVE I TOLD MR. VERA THAT HE HAD
 POLLED ME AT THAT TIME, I
 
    DON'T RECALL FOR SURE.
 
    "Q.  DID YOU TELL MR. VERA DURING YOUR CONVERSATION THAT MR.
 HALFACRE HAD POLLED YOU?
 
    "A.  THAT'S WHAT I SAY.  I DON'T REMEMBER IF I TOLD HIM ABOUT THE
 OKLAHOMA CITY THING.
 
    "OTHER THAN THAT, HE HAD NEVER POLLED ME.  HE HAD NEVER ASKED ME.
 
    "Q.  DID YOU TELL MR. VERA THAT MR. HALFACRE HAD ASKED YOU IF YOU
 WERE INTERESTED IN GOING
 
    TO NASHVILLE?
 
    "A.  I TOLD MR. VERA THAT MR. HALFACRE HAD NEVER ASKED ME IF I WAS
 INTERESTED IN GOING TO
 
    NASHVILLE." (TR. 872-873).
 
    THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MESSRS. LUM AND JOACHIM WAS FULLY SUPPORTED
 BY THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MESSRS. HALFACRE AND CHAMBERS.  I FOUND THE
 TESTIMONY OF EACH OF THESE WITNESSES CREDIBLE;  BUT EQUALLY IMPORTANT
 THEIR TESTIMONY WAS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH:  (A) THE ABSENCE OF ANY
 TESTIMONY BY ANY PILOT OR AIR OFFICER THAT HE WAS SOLICITED, ASKED, OR
 POLLED BY ANY MEMBER OF, OR REPRESENTATIVE OF, MANAGEMENT CONCERNING THE
 PROJECTED NASHVILLE DUTY STATION (MR.  HALFACRE'S PROPOSAL HAD
 CONTEMPLATED A PILOT AND TWO AIR OFFICERS);  BY THE ADMITTED KNOWLEDGE
 OF ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE PROJECTED NASHVILLE DUTY STATION, INCLUDING AIR
 OFFICER WADE'S ADVISING AIR OFFICER LONG IN EL PASO, PRIOR TO HIS
 TRANSFER TO NEW ORLEANS;  (C) THE FACT THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
 REGION'S DECISION TO PROCEED WITH ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NASHVILLE DUTY
 STATION, THE REGION'S DECISION WAS NO MORE THAN A STRONG RECOMMENDATION
 TO WASHINGTON;  AND (D) AT THE TIME MR. HALFACRE MET WITH MR. VERA TO
 DISCUSS STAFFING /8/ OF THE PROJECTED NASHVILLE STATION, RESPONDENT HAD
 TAKEN NO ACTION TO MAN THE STATION.  INDEED, HEADQUARTERS HAD NOT
 APPROVED THE PROJECTED STATION AND, IN FACT, SUBSEQUENTLY DISAPPROVED
 THE REGION'S RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH THE STATION SO THAT STAFFING
 NEVER BECAME A REALITY.
 
    COMPLAINANT ASSERTS THAT MR. HALFACRE'S PRE-SELECTION OF MR. LONG WAS
 SHOWN BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING MR. LONG'S FAMILY'S MOVE FROM EL
 PASO TO NEW ORLEANS.  MR.  LONG TRANSFERRED FROM EL PASO TO NEW ORLEANS
 IN MARCH, 1978, BUT DID NOT BRING HIS FAMILY TO NEW ORLEANS UNTIL JUNE
 22, 1978, WHEN HE AND HIS FAMILY STAYED AT A MOTEL.  FROM THIS,
 COMPLAINANT CONCLUDED THAT MR. LONG HAD BROUGHT HIS FAMILY TO NEW
 ORLEANS ONLY FOR A TEMPORARY STOPOVER PENDING HIS PRE-ARRANGED TRANSFER
 TO NASHVILLE.  FURTHER SUPPORT WAS GIVEN TO COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS BY
 MR. LONG'S PROTEST, ON JUNE 23, 1978, OF THE DELAY OF ACTION ON THE
 NASHVILLE OFFICE.  HOWEVER, MR. LONG'S TESTIMONY, WHICH I FOUND WHOLLY
 CREDIBLE, REMOVED ENTIRELY THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY COMPLAINANT.  THUS,
 MR. LONG TESTIFIED THAT HIS FAMILY HAD REMAINED IN EL PASO IN ORDER THAT
 HIS CHILDREN COMPLETE THE SCHOOL YEAR THERE, WHICH DID NOT END UNTIL THE
 END OF MAY;  THAT IN APRIL, 1978, HIS WIFE HAD COME TO NEW ORLEANS ON A
 HOUSE HUNTING TRIP AND THEY HAD BEEN PLACED ON A WAITING LIST FOR A
 HOUSE NEAR BELLE CHASSE;  THAT FROM MAY 22 TO JUNE 16, 1978, HE ATTENDED
 ADVANCED C.P.O SCHOOL IN WASHINGTON, D.C.; THAT UPON COMPLETION OF THE
 TRAINING COURSE HE RETURNED TO NEW ORLEANS ON JUNE 16 AND ON JUNE 17 HE
 HAD FLOWN TO EL PASO AND HAD DRIVEN HIS FAMILY TO NEW ORLEANS, ARRIVING
 EARLY IN THE MORNING ON JUNE 22;  THAT HE WAS AWARE THAT THERE WAS A
 TARGET DATE OF JULY 1 FOR THE NASHVILLE OFFICE;  THAT HE BELIEVED HE HAD
 A GOOD CHANCE OF GOING TO NASHVILLE;  THAT HE DECIDED TO STAY AT A MOTEL
 TEMPORARILY UNTIL IT WAS DETERMINED WHETHER HE WOULD BE SELECTED TO GO
 TO NASHVILLE, A DECISION DICTATED IN LARGE PART BY THE FACT THAT IT
 WOULD SAVE HIM A GOOD DEAL OF MONEY SINCE RENTAL OF AN APARTMENT WOULD
 HAVE REQUIRED SOME LEASE COMMITTMENT;  THAT HE ANTICIPATED A DECISION
 SHORTLY AS IS WHETHER HE WOULD BE SELECTED TO GO TO NASHVILLE, IN WHICH
 CASE, IF SELECTED, HE WOULD MOVE TO NASHVILLE AND IF HE WERE NOT
 SELECTED HE WOULD LOCATE HIS FAMILY IN NEW ORLEANS;  THAT WHEN HE READ
 MR. VERA'S LETTER (COMPLAINT'S EXH. 8), POSTED BY MR. VERA ON THE
 BULLETIN BOARD ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 23, HE WAS UPSET BECAUSE " . . .
 THERE HAD BEEN DISCUSSIONS-- OPEN DISCUSSIONS AND TALK AROUND THE OFFICE
 FOR SEVERAL MONTHS THAT THE UNION OR THE MANAGEMENT OR A COMBINATION OF
 BOTH COULD HAVE GOTTEN TOGETHER AND TAKEN CARE OF WHATEVER BUSINESS THEY
 HAD TO NEGOTIATE." (TR. 813);  THAT HE TALKED TO MR. VERA AND ASKED HIM
 WHAT WAS GOING ON AND MR. VERA TOLD HIM IT WAS MANAGEMENT'S FAULT FOR
 NOT HAVING TAKEN CARE OF THIS PROBLEM EARLIER AND HE HAD TOLD MR.  VERA
 HE HAD HIS FAMILY IN A MOTEL AND DIDN'T LIKE BEING IN A STATE OF
 INDECISION WHETHER TO SETTLE THEM IN NEW ORLEANS PERMANENTLY OR IN THE
 EVENT THAT HE DID GO TO NASHVILLE, GO UP THERE;  THAT HE WAS GIVEN THE
 UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NASHVILLE MATTER WOULD DRAG ON FORM SOME LONGER
 PERIOD OF TIME;  AND THAT, THE FOLLOWING DAY, JUNE 24, HE HAD SOUGHT AN
 APARTMENT AND MOVED HIS FAMILY AND HIS FURNITURE INTO AN APARTMENT A DAY
 OR SO LATER, HAVING STAYED IN THE MOTEL ABOUT FOUR DAYS.  WHEN THE
 HOUSE, FOR WHICH THEY HAD BEEN PLACED ON THE WAITING LIST IN APRIL,
 BECAME AVAILABLE THE LONGS MOVED INTO THE HOUSE AT 3836 ACCACIA LANE,
 HARVEY, LOUISIANA.
 
    THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT MR. LONG APPROACHED MANAGEMENT AND
 VOLUNTEERED FOR NASHVILLE.  MR. LONG HAD BEEN AN AIR OFFICER SINCE 1975
 AND, BASED ON HIS QUALIFICATIONS, BELIEVED THAT HE HAD A GOOD CHANCE OF
 BEING SELECTED TO GO TO NASHVILLE.  WHEN MR. LONG FIRST SPOKE TO
 MR.HALFACRE AND EXPRESSED INTEREST IN GOING TO NASHVILLE, MR. HALFACRE
 TOLD HIM "I'LL KEEP IT IN MIND" (TR. 809).  IN MAY, BEFORE LEAVING FOR
 THE TRAINING COURSE, MR. LONG AGAIN SPOKE TO MR.  HALFACRE AND TOLD HIM
 OF HIS STRONG DESIRE TO GO TO NASHVILLE AND MR. LONG STATED THAT MR.
 HALFACRE,
 
    " . . . ADVISED ME HE FELT I HAD A GOOD CHANGE OF GOING, AND
 PERSONALLY, I DID
 
    TOO." (TR. 810)
 
   *          *          *          *
 
 
    "Q.  DID MR. HALFACRE TELL YOU YOU HAD BEEN SELECTED?
 
    "A.  NO, HE DID NOT.
 
    "Q.  DID MR. HALFACRE PROMISE YOU THAT YOU WOULD BE SELECTED?
 
    "A.  NO.  ALL HE TOLD ME WAS HE THOUGHT I HAD A GOOD CHANCE OF GOING,
 AND HAD I BEEN
 
    SELECTED, I WOULD HAVE LEFT MY FAMILY IN EL PASO UNTIL MAKING
 ARRANGEMENTS TO GO TO
 
    NASHVILLE.  I WOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT THEM DOWN WITH ME WHEN I DID."
 (TR. 811) MR. HALFACRE'S STATEMENT, WHEN PRESSED BY MR. LONG, THAT MR.
 LONG HAD A GOOD CHANCE OF GOING TO NASHVILLE DID NOT CONSTITUTE
 SELECTION OF MR. LONG AND MR. LONG, CLEARLY, DID NOT CONSTRUE THE
 STATEMENT AS IMPLYING EITHER THAT HE HAD BEEN SELECTED OR AS A PROMISE
 THAT HE WOULD BE SELECTED.  WHERE, AS HERE, AT THE TIME OF THE
 CONVERSATION THERE WERE ONLY THREE AIR OFFICERS IN THE ASSUMED SELECTION
 BASE THEN INTERESTED IN GOING TO NASHVILLE, ANY COMMENT AS TO ANY ONE OF
 THE THREE WOULD NOT HAVE IMPLIED PRE-SELECTION AND ESPECIALLY IN THIS
 TRUE OF MR. LONG, THE MOST EXPERIENCED OF THE THREE, SINCE TWO SLOTS
 WERE ENVISIONED AS BEING FILLED FROM AMONG THREE ELIGIBLE AIR OFFICERS.
 
    THE RECORD IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT MR. WADE ALSO VOLUNTEERED FOR
 NASHVILLE AND HE TESTIFIED THAT NO MEMBER OF MANAGEMENT HAD EVER TOLD
 HIM THAT HE HAD BEEN SELECTED FOR THE NASHVILLE DUTY STATION.  WHEN
 ASKED IF IT WAS HIS OPINION AT ANY TIME THAT HE HAD BEEN SELECTED FOR
 NASHVILLE, MR. WADE RESPONDED:
 
    "A.  WELL, I HAD BEEN TOLD BY SEVERAL EMPLOYEES IN THE OFFICE THAT
 KEPT SAYING I WAS GOING
 
    TO NASHVILLE.  I JUST TOLD THEM WHEN I SAW THE PAPERWORK, I'D BELIEVE
 IT, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN
 
    ANY PAPERWORK AND NEVER BEEN TOLD BY MANAGEMENT.
 
    "Q.  WERE ANY OF THESE EMPLOYEES MEMBERS OF MANAGEMENT?
 
    "A.  NO." (TR. 882).
 
    I AM AWARE OF, AND HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO, THE TESTIMONY
 OF MR. NEILSON THAT MESSRS. LONG AND WADE TOLD HIM THAT MR. HALFACRE HAD
 SELECTED THEM TO GO TO NASHVILLE, AND THE TESTIMONY OF MR. WHITE THAT
 MR. CHAMBERS, A SUPERVISOR, TOLD HIM THAT LONG AND WADE HAD BEEN
 SELECTED TO GO TO NASHVILLE.  HAVING EXAMINED THIS TESTIMONY, TOGETHER
 WITH ALL OTHER TESTIMONY, I DO NOT FIND EITHER MR. NIELSEN'S TESTIMONY,
 THAT LONG AND WADE TOLD HIM THAT MR. HALFACRE HAD SELECTED THEM TO GO TO
 NASHVILLE, OR MR. WHITE'S TESTIMONY, THAT CHAMBERS TOLD HIM LONG AND
 WADE HAD BEEN SELECTED TO GO TO NASHVILLE, PERSUASIVE AND, ACCORDINGLY,
 DO NOT CREDIT THEIR TESTIMONY IN THIS REGARD.  I DO NOT DOUBT THAT MR.
 LONG, FOR EXAMPLE, MAY HAVE TOLD MR.  NEILSON THAT HE WAS CONFIDENT THAT
 HE AND WADE WOULD BE SELECTED AND/OR THAT MR. HALFACRE HAD TOLD HIM THAT
 HIS, LONG'S, CHANCES OF BEING SELECTED WERE GOOD;  BUT, VIEWING THE
 TESTIMONY OF JOACHIM, LUM, WADE, LONG, AND HALFACRE I DO NOT BELIEVE
 THAT LONG OR WADE TOLD MR. NEILSON THAT MR. HALFACRE HAD SELECTED THEM
 TO GO TO NASHVILLE.  IN ANY EVENT, WHETHER MR. HALFACRE HAD SELECTED
 LONG AND WADE IS GOVERNED BY WHAT MR. HALFACRE DID, OR SAID, AND, ON THE
 BASIS OF THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF MESSRS. LONG, WADE AND HALFACRE, MORE
 FULLY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE, TOGETHER WITH ALL OTHER EVIDENCE AND
 TESTIMONY, I CONCLUDE THAT MR. HALFACRE DID NOT TELL EITHER MR. LONG OR
 MR. WADE THAT THEY HAD BEEN SELECTED, NOR DID HE PROMISE EITHER THAT HE
 WOULD BE SELECTED, TO GO TO NASHVILLE.  AS TO MR. WHITE'S TESTIMONY;  I
 DO NOT QUESTION THAT HE, " . . . HAD NO DOUBT IN MY MIND WHAT EMPLOYEES
 WOULD BE SENT UP THERE" (TR. 579) OR THAT HE BELIEVED WADE AND LONG
 WOULD BE THE TWO AIR OFFICERS GOING TO NASHVILLE;  BUT I DO NOT FIND
 CONVINCING HIS TESTIMONY THAT MR.  CHAMBERS TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT
 KNOW WHO WAS GOING;  THAT HE HAD TOLD THE VARIOUS AIR OFFICERS WHO HAD
 ADVISED HIM THAT THEY WERE INTERESTED IN GOING TO NASHVILLE THAT HE DID
 NOT KNOW HOW THE SELECTION WOULD BE MADE, " . . . WHETHER IT WOULD BE A
 VOLUNTARY METHOD OR WHETHER THEY'D HAVE TO CUT AN ANNOUNCEMENT" (TR.
 854-855);  AND THIRD, THAT, AS STATED HEREINABOVE, NO SELECTION OF WADE
 AND LONG HAD BEEN MADE.
 
    FINALLY, COMPLAINANT RELIES ON MR. THORNTON'S TESTIMONY THAT A MR.
 WALTER HILL, IDENTIFIED BY MR. THORNTON AS A LABOR MANAGEMENT
 REPRESENTATIVE IN CUSTOMS HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. HAD TOLD HIM IN
 A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON JUNE 30, 1978 THAT,
 
    " . . . MR. CHARLIE FISHER HAD DECIDED TO CANCEL THE OPENING OF THE
 NASHVILLE OFFICE, BASED
 
    UPON THE FACT THAT MR. HALFACRE HAD ACTED PREMATURELY IN PRESELECTING
 TWO INDIVIDUALS TO GO,
 
    AND THAT BASED UPON THAT, THE FACT THAT CMR HAD NOT HAD INPUT INTO IT
 THAT HE WAS GOING TO
 
    CANCEL THE MOVE." (TR. 639-640) MR. HILL DID NOT TESTIFY.  REGIONAL
 COMMISSIONER FISHER DID TESTIFY AND STATED, INTER ALIA, THAT HE DID NOT
 RECALL THE NAME WALTER HILL;  THAT HE HAD NEVER RECEDED FROM HIS
 RECOMMENDATION THAT THE NASHVILLE DUTY STATION BE OPENED, " . . . I
 NEVER INTENDED TO CANCEL THE PROPOSAL, AND I STILL HAVE, IN MY OWN,
 MIND, NOT DECIDED THAT I DIDN'T WANT IT" (TR. 780), THAT THE PROJECTED
 NASHVILLE DUTY STATION WAS CANCELLED BY WASHINGTON.  JOINT EXHIBITS 38
 AND 40 SHOW THAT THE PROPOSED NASHVILLE DUTY STATION WAS DISAPPROVED BY
 VERNON V. HANN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OPERATIONS, ON JULY 17, 1978, AS
 A MATTER OF POLICY.  THERE IS NOTHING THAT SUGGESTS THAT MR. HANN'S
 DECISION WAS MOTIVATED IN ANY MANNER BY ANYTHING THAT MAY, OR MAY NOT,
 HAVE OCCURRED WITH REGARD TO STAFFING ACTION.  IN VIEW OF MR. FISHER'S
 TESTIMONY AND THE UNCONTROVERTED POLICY DETERMINATION BY MR. HANN, I
 ACCORD NO PROBATIVE WEIGHT TO THE STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MR. HILL.  FOR
 REASONS STATED ABOVE, I CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT CONDUCT A POLL,
 OR SURVEY, OF EMPLOYEES;  OR SELECT, OR DESIGNATE, ANY EMPLOYEE FOR
 TRANSFER TO NASHVILLE.
 
    FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, I FIND THAT COMPLAINANT HAS NOT
 SHOWN, BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED
 SECTIONS 19(A)(6) AND (1) OF THE ORDER IN CASE NO. 64-4251(CA), BY
 POLLING EMPLOYEES CONCERNING A PROPOSED DUTY STATION IN NASHVILLE,
 TENNESSEE, OR BY SELECTING, OR PROMISING TO SELECT, ANY EMPLOYEE FOR
 ASSIGNMENT TO THE PROPOSED DUTY STATION IN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, AND,
 ACCORDINGLY, THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO.  64-4251 (CA) IS HEREBY
 DISMISSED.
 
                             RECOMMENDED ORDER
 
    A.  HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6)
 OF THE ORDER IN CASE NO. 64-4248(CA) AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AN
 APPROPRIATE ORDER DESIGNED TO REMEDY THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOUND
 THEREIN IS SET FORTH HEREINAFTER.
 
    B.  HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6)
 OF THE ORDER IN CASE NO. 64-5252 (CA), BUT ONLY IN RESPECT TO ITS
 UNILATERAL SOLICITATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM UNIT EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED BY AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AN APPROPRIATE ORDER
 DESIGNED TO REMEDY THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOUND THEREIN IS SET FORTH
 HEREINAFTER;  AND, HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT OTHERWISE
 VIOLATE SECTIONS 19(A)(1) OR (6) OF THE ORDER, ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE
 COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 64-4252(CA), AND SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING THE
 ALLEGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSERTED IMPROPER IMPLEMENTATION OF A
 REVISED WEEKLY ACTIVITY REPORT FORM ON JULY 7, 1978, ARE HEREBY
 DISMISSED.
 
    C.  HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT VIOLATE SECTIONS 19(A)(1) OR
 (6) OF THE ORDER AS ALLEGED IN CASE NO. 64-4250(CA), THE COMPLAINT IN
 CASE NO. 64-4250(CA) IS HEREBY DISMISSED.
 
    D.  HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT VIOLATE SECTIONS 19(A)(1) OR
 (6) OF THE ORDER AS ALLEGED IN CASE NO. 64-4251(CA), THE COMPLAINT IN
 CASE NO. 64-4251(CA) IS HEREBY DISMISSED.
 
    E.  PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPHS A AND B, THE FOLLOWING ORDER IS
 RECOMMENDED TO REMEDY THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES FOUND IN CASE NOS.
 64-4248(CA) AND 64-4252(CA):
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AND
 SECTION 203.26(B) OF THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER, 29 C.F.R. SECTION
 203.26(B);  AND SECTION 2400.2 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS,
 5 C.F.R. CHAPTER XIV, SUBCHAPTER A, FED. REG. VOL. 44, NO. 147, JULY 30,
 1979, P. 44741, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT UNITED STATES CUSTOMS,
 REGION V, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) UNILATERALLY ALTERING OR CHANGING THE ESTABLISHED PAST PRACTICE,
 AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO MAY 31, 1978, OF REPORTING AIRCRAFT
 DISCREPANCIES, INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF SUCH DISCREPANCIES WITH AIRCRAFT
 MECHANICS, WITHOUT FIRST BARGAINING IN GOOD FAITH WITH NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 168, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, TO THE FULL EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW.
 
    (B) UNILATERALLY SOLICITING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM EMPLOYEES OF ITS AIR
 SUPPORT BRANCH FOR CHANGES OF THE WEEKLY ACTIVITY REPORTS OR WITH
 RESPECT TO PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING
 GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH WHEN
 SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 168, OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:
 
    (A) WITHDRAW THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY MR. RAYMOND E. HALFACRE, CHIEF,
 AIR SUPPORT BRANCH, AND DATED MAY 31, 1978, ENTITLED POLICY ON REPORTING
 MAINTENANCE DISCREPANCIES AND DUTIES OF SUPPLYMEN".
 
    (B) POST AT ITS FACILITY AT NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 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
 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS, REGION V, 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, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
 TO, SUCH BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES IN THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH.
 THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT
 SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) PURSUANT TO SECTION 203.27 OF THE REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE
 AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO
 WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                         WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  DECEMBER 4, 1979
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
 
 
 
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
        NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF
 
           THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO
 
           EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
 
                                  AMENDED
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT UNILATERALLY ALTER OR CHANGE THE ESTABLISHED PAST
 PRACTICE, AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO MAY 31, 1978, OF REPORTING AIRCRAFT
 DISCREPANCIES, INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF SUCH DISCREPANCIES WITH AIRCRAFT
 MECHANICS, WITHOUT FIRST BARGAINING IN GOOD FAITH WITH NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 168, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 OUR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, TO THE FULL EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW.
 
    WE WILL WITHDRAW THE MEMORANDUM, ISSUED BY MR. RAYMOND E. HALFACRE,
 CHIEF, AIR SUPPORT BRANCH, AND DATED MAY 31, 1978, ENTITLED "POLICY ON
 REPORTING MAINTENANCE DISCREPANCIES AND DUTIES OF SUPPLYMEN."
 
    WE WILL NOT UNILATERALLY SOLICIT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM EMPLOYEES OF
 THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH FOR CHANGES OF THE WEEKLY ACTIVITY REPORT OR WITH
 RESPECT TO PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING
 GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE AIR SUPPORT BRANCH WHEN
 SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 168, OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .  REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
 
    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 QUESTION CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, DALLAS REGION,
 WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  ROOM 450, OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING, BRYAN & ERVAY
 STREETS, DALLAS, TEXAS 75221
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ 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.
 
    /2/ CONSOLIDATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 42(A) OF THE RULES OF
 CIVIL PROCEDURE IS AUTHORIZED ONLY "WHEN ACTIONS INVOLVING A COMMON
 QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT ARE PENDING BEFORE THE COURT . . . . "
 CONSOLIDATION UNDER THE ORDER HAS MORE FREQUENTLY MEANT SIMPLY THAT TWO
 OR MORE CASES INVOLVING THE SAME, OR EVEN RELATED, PARTIES ARE
 CONSOLIDATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING ALL OF THE DESIGNATED CASES BY A
 SINGLE JUDGE BEGINNING ON A SCHEDULED DATE.  NEVERTHELESS, THE ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY, IN OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, REGION V, CHICAGO,
 ILLINOIS, A/SLMR NO. 334, 3 A/SLMR 668(1973), HELD THAT BECAUSE SECTION
 203.15 OF THE REGULATION (LATER SECTION 203.16) IN SPECIFYING THE DUTIES
 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DID NOT INCLUDE THE AUTHORITY TO SEVER
 CASES WHICH HAD BEEN CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING BY THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IMPROPERLY SEVERED A CASE BY
 ISSUING A SEPARATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.  ALTHOUGH THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR IN THIS CASE DID NO MORE THAN CONSOLIDATE THE CASE FOR THE
 PURPOSE OF HEARING, WITH FULL AWARENESS OF THE DECISION IN A/SLMR NO.
 334, SUPRA, A SINGLE RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IS ISSUED COVERING
 THE FOUR QUITE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CASES IN WHICH THE ONLY COMMON
 FACTORS ARE THAT THE SAME PARTIES ARE INVOLVED IN EACH CASE AND THAT
 EACH COMPLAINT ALLEGES A VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE
 ORDER.
 
    THE INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS BY SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING IN
 SECTION 2423.18(K) THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MAY " . . . ORDER
 PROCEEDING CONSOLIDATED OR SEVERED . . . . " (FED. REG. VOL. 44, NO.
 147, JULY 30, 1979) WILL OBVIATE THIS UNCERTAINTY IN THE FUTURE.
 
    /3/ ALTHOUGH NEITHER PARTY HAS MADE REFERENCE TO IT, THE SIDE FOR THE
 NARRATIVE STATEMENT CONTAINS A LINE FOR "SUPERVISOR", WHICH WOULD
 APPEAR, ON THE SURFACE, TO CONTEMPLATE THAT THE SUPERVISOR WOULD SIGN
 THE REPORT.  PREVIOUSLY, THE NARRATIVE STATEMENT HAD, SIMPLY, CONSISTED
 OF A MEMORANDUM ADDRESSED TO THE SUPERVISORY AIR OFFICER (COMP. EXH. 2,
 RES. EXH. 2).
 
    /4/ MR. VERA TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS IN THE OFFICE ON THE MORNING OF
 JULY 7 BUT THEN WAS OUT MOST OF THE DAY, UNTIL NEAR QUITTING TIME, AND
 THAT WHEN HE RETURNED TO THE OFFICE HE FOUND MR. HALFACRE'S MEMORANDUM
 POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD.
 
    /5/ MR. THORNTON TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE JOINT EXHIBIT 15;
 HOWEVER, HE TESTIFIED THAT HE RECEIVED ATTACHMENT 2 TO JOINT EXHIBIT 13,
 WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO JOINT EXHIBIT 15 EXCEPT THAT IT DID NOT SHOW THE
 NUMBER "3400-02", AND HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT ON DECEMBER 13, 1977, HE
 NEGOTIATED CONCERNING POLICY STATEMENT 3400-02.
 
    /6/ COMPLAINTANT'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, MADE FOR THE FIRST
 TIME IN ITS BRIEF (PAGES 118-119), TO ASSERT AN ADDITIONAL VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER, WITH RESPECT TO SOLICITATION OF AN
 EMPLOYEE FOR A POSITION IN OKLAHOMA CITY, IS DENIED FOR THE FOLLOWING
 REASONS:  FIRST, NO SUCH ALLEGATION WAS CONTAINED IN THE CHARGE OR IN
 THE COMPLAINT AND TO PERMIT AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT NOTICE OR
 OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND, AND AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING, WOULD VIOLATE
 PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, PROFESSIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
 ORGANIZATION, MEBA, AFL-CIO, A/SLMR NO. 878, 7 A/SLMR 639(1977), AND NOT
 HAVING BEEN ALLEGED IN THE CHARGE OR COMPLAINT, IS NOT PROPERLY RAISED
 IN THIS PROCEEDING.  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE,
 REGION IV, MIAMI, FLORIDA,