Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC (Respondent) and National Treasury Employees Union (Complainant) 



[ v04 p488 ]
04:0488(68)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 4 FLRA No. 68
 
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
 WASHINGTON, D.C.
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 Complainant
 
                                            Case No. 5-CA-150
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
 ENGAGED IN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND
 RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.  THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENT
 FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION
 AND ORDER.
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SEC. 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2423.29) AND SEC. 7118 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101-7135), 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 THE
 SUBJECT CASE, INCLUDING THE RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS, THE AUTHORITY
 HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, INDIANAPOLIS
 DISTRICT SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) DEALING DIRECTLY WITH UNIT EMPLOYEES AT THE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
 OFFICE REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION WITH RESPECT
 TO PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE
 WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THAT OFFICE.
 
    (B) INSTITUTING CHANGES IN THE USE OF ON-SITE LIVE CASE REVIEWS AND
 TEST CHECKS BETWEEN TRAVEL VOUCHERS, SIGN OUT SHEETS AND TIME SHEETS OF
 UNIT EMPLOYEES WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION,
 THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AND AFFORDING
 IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH
 CHANGES AND THEIR IMPACT ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, MEET AND NEGOTIATE ONLY WITH THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, WITH
 REGARD TO PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING
 THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA OFFICE.
 
    (B) UPON REQUEST, MEET AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE UTILIZED IN IMPLEMENTING
 ANY CHANGES IN LIVE ON-SITE CASE REVIEWS AND TEST CHECKS BETWEEN TRAVEL
 VOUCHERS AND SIGN OUT SHEETS AND TIME SHEETS AND THEIR IMPACT ON
 ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    (C) POST AT ITS SOUTH BEND, INDIANA FACILITY, 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 DISTRICT DIRECTOR FOR THE INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA DISTRICT, AND SHALL
 BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE
 NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR
 SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
 DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) 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.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 17, 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 DEAL DIRECTLY WITH UNIT EMPLOYEES OF THE SOUTH BEND,
 INDIANA OFFICE REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION, WITH RESPECT TO PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, OR
 OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE SOUTH
 BEND, INDIANA OFFICE.
 
    WE WILL NOT INSTITUTE CHANGES CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE
 UTILIZED IN IMPLEMENTING ANY CHANGES IN LIVE ON-SITE CASE REVIEWS AND
 TEST CHECKS BETWEEN TRAVEL VOUCHERS AND SIGN OUT AND TIME SHEETS WITHOUT
 FIRST NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND AFFORDING IT
 THE OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CHANGES
 AND THEIR IMPACT ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR
 COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, MEET AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH ONLY WITH THE
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, WITH RESPECT TO PERSONNEL POLICIES
 AND PRACTICES, OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS
 OF EMPLOYEES IN THE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA OFFICE.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THIS NOTICE, OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 5, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  SUITE A-1359, 175 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
 60604, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (312) 353-6306.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    JAMES E. ROGERS, JR., ESQUIRE
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    SHEILA REILLY, ESQUIRE
                          FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    MR. RONALD R. HICKS
                          FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
 
    BEFORE:  ELI NASH, JR.
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE U.S. CODE, 5 U.S.C.
 SECTION 7101, ET SEQ., AND THE INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED
 THEREUNDER, FED.REG.VOL. 44, NO. 147, JULY 30, 1979, 5 C.F.R.  CHAPTER
 XIV, PART 2411, ET SEQ.
 
    PURSUANT TO A CHARGE FILED ON JUNE 27, 1979, BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE UNION), A COMPLAINT AND NOTICE
 OF HEARING WAS ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 6, 1979.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT
 THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. (HEREINAFTER CALLED
 RESPONDENT) VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE STATUTE) BY
 VIRTUE OF ITS ACTIONS IN UNILATERALLY INSTITUTING ON-SITE CASE REVIEWS
 BY THE BRANCH 2 CHIEF WITH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE
 TRAVEL RECORDS TOGETHER WITH OTHER RECORDS REFLECTING TIME USAGE OF ITS
 EMPLOYEES WITHOUT FURNISHING THE UNION WITH ADVANCE NOTICE AND AFFORDING
 IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING SUCH CHANGES AND/OR THE
 IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CHANGES.  IN ADDITION, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT
 RESPONDENT BY-PASSED THE UNION IN MEETING WITH AND/OR BARGAINING
 DIRECTLY WITH UNIT EMPLOYEES IN THE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA OFFICE
 CONCERNING CHANGES IN THE ON-SITE CASE REVIEW AND OTHER MATTERS REFERRED
 TO ABOVE, WITHOUT INFORMING THE UNION AND PROVIDING IT WITH AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT THE MEETING.
 
    RESPONDENT'S ANSWER ADMITS JURISDICTION BUT DENIED ALL OTHER
 ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN THE CAPTIONED MATTER ON JANUARY 15, 1980 IN
 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.  ALL PARTIES WERE AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
 BEARING ON THE ISSUES HEREIN.  ALL PARTIES SUBMITTED BRIEFS WHICH HAVE
 BEEN DULY CONSIDERED HEREIN.  /1/
 
    UPON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, /2/ INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF
 THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT
 AND CONCLUSIONS.
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    RESPONDENT AND THE UNION, WHICH IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED HEREIN, ARE PARTIES TO A
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT COVERING ALL MATERIAL PERIODS.  THE
 CONTRACT IS A MULTI-DISTRICT AGREEMENT WHICH INCLUDES RESPONDENT'S
 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA DISTRICT.  THE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA OFFICE FALLS
 WITHIN THE INDIANAPOLIS DISTRICT.  CHAPTER 49 OF THE UNION REPRESENTS
 EMPLOYEES IN THE INDIANAPOLIS DISTRICT, WHICH INCLUDES THE ENTIRE STATE
 OF INDIANA.
 
    AS PART OF THE IN-DEPTH VISITS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY RESPONDENT'S
 BRANCH CHIEFS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES, CHIEF, EXAMINATION BRANCH 2,
 STANLEY NOVACK, VISITED THE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA OFFICE DURING MAY 1979
 TO EVALUATE THE GROUP MANAGER LOUIS GERECZ, TO MONITOR THE OFFICE AND
 PREPARE REPORTS INVOLVING THE OPERATIONS OF THE OFFICE.  DURING THIS
 VISIT, ON MAY 24, 1979, REVENUE AGENT WILLIAM LILE WAS SELECTED FOR A
 "LIVE ON-SITE REVIEW" OF TWO CASES ON WHICH HE WAS WORKING.  LILE WAS
 CALLED INTO THE OFFICE OF GROUP MANAGER GERECZ WHERE HE MET WITH GERECZ
 AND NOVACK AND ANSWERED QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TWO SPECIFIC CASES.
 ACCORDING TO LILE, HE WAS TOLD TO BRING IN FOR INSPECTION TWO SPECIFIC
 FILES, ONE INVOLVING A SALE OF A FARM AND THE OTHER CONCERNING TWO
 RELATED CORPORATIONS AND THEIR COMMON 100% SHAREHOLDER.  THE FARM CASE
 ACCORDING TO LILE SHOWED MORE HOURS THAN USUAL FOR A CASE WITH ITS AUDIT
 CODE AND INDICATED QUITE A BIT OF TRAVEL.  THE CORPORATION CASE HAD BEEN
 PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND TECHNICAL ERRORS IN HANDLING THE CASE HAD BEEN
 POINTED OUT TO LILE.  LILE RECALLED THAT NOVACK ASKED HIM HOW HE USED
 THE FORM 4318, AN AUDIT PLANNING GUIDE USED TO OUTLINE THE AREAS OF
 AUDIT CONCERN AND TO SUMMARIZE AND CONCLUDE THE ISSUES IN AUDIT.  LILE
 RESPONDED THAT HE USED WORK PAPERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE FORM 4318 AND
 DID NOT GENERALLY COMPLETE THE FORM UNTIL HE HAD FINISHED WITH THE CASE.
  ALSO LILE RECALLED OFFERING SOME EXPLANATION AS TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME
 SPENT ON THE FARM SALE CASE.  IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM NOVACK
 REGARDING TIME SPENT ON THE CORPORATION CASE, LILE STATED THAT HE HAD A
 PROBLEM ALLOCATING TIME CHARGED TO THE CASE BETWEEN THE CORPORATIONS AND
 THE INDIVIDUAL SHAREHOLDER.  NOVACK RESPONDED THAT TOO MUCH TIME HAD
 BEEN CHARGED TO THE AUDIT OF THE CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS AND LILE AGREED
 THAT PERHAPS THE CASE FILE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT ON
 THE CASE.  LILE TESTIFIED THAT AFTER THE MEETING GERECZ TOLD HIM NOT TO
 WORRY ABOUT IT.
 
    WITH REGARD TO ANY SUCH SIMILAR MEETINGS, LILE STATED THAT THE ONLY
 TIME HE HAD BEEN ASKED BY A GROUP SUPERVISOR TO COME INTO HIS OFFICE TO
 DISCUSS A PROBLEM ON A CASE WAS WHEN HE HAD REQUESTED SUCH A MEETING.
 HE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE FORM 4502, ON WHICH A REVENUE AGENT WOULD
 RECORD HIS TIME SPENT ON A CASE, WAS REVIEWED AT THE END OF THE MONTH
 AND AT CASE LOAD REVIEWS WHICH OCCURRED WHEN A CASE WAS CLOSED OR HAD
 BEEN IN PROCESS FOR OVER THREE MONTHS OR WHEN REQUESTED BY THE
 INDIVIDUAL REVENUE AGENT.  HE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NEVER BEFORE
 HAD A CASE REVIEW BY A BRANCH CHIEF AND THAT HE WAS INTIMIDATED.
 
    BOTH GERECZ AND NOVACK RECALLED THE MEETING WITH LILE IN THEIR
 TESTIMONY.  ALTHOUGH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MEETING DIFFERS IN SOME
 RESPECTS FROM THAT RECALLED BY LILE, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE
 MEETING WAS HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A "LIVE ON-SITE REVIEW."
 GERECZ AND NOVACK TESTIFIED THAT THE LILE CASES WERE SELECTED FROM THE
 AGENT'S FORM 4502 TIME REPORT AND THERE WAS A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT TIME
 REPORTS WERE USED.
 
    SOUTH BEND GROUP MEMBERS WERE INFORMED BY GERECZ, PRIOR TO NOVACK'S
 VISIT IN MAY, THAT THE VISIT WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATING THE
 PERFORMANCE OF THE GROUP MANAGER AND NOT TO EVALUATE GROUP MEMBERS.
 DURING THE VISIT, ACCORDING TO NOVACK, HE DECIDED TO LOOK AT A CASE
 BEING HANDLED BY A REVENUE AGENT.  NOVACK TESTIFIED THAT THE PURPOSE OF
 LOOKING AT THE LIVE CASE WAS TO REVIEW THE IMPACT AND INFLUENCE THE
 GROUP MANAGER HAD IN DIRECTING AND GUIDING INDIVIDUAL REVENUE AGENTS.
 IN REVIEWING THE GROUP'S 4502S HE DECIDED TO LOOK AT A CASE BEING
 HANDLED BY A REVENUE AGENT.  UPON REVIEWING THE CASE, SEVERAL QUESTIONS
 AROSE WHICH GERECZ WAS NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER AND AGENT LILE WAS CALLED
 IN.  THE MEETING, ACCORDING TO NOVACK, LASTED FIFTEEN TO TWENTY MINUTES,
 THERE WAS OPEN DISCUSSION AND ONCE THE QUESTIONS HE HAD WERE RESOLVED,
 LILE WAS THANKED FOR COMING IN AND EXCUSED.
 
    GROUP MANAGERS AS SUPERVISORS ARE REQUIRED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF
 THEIR DUTIES TO INSURE THAT EMPLOYEES' SIGN OUT SHEETS, TRAVEL VOUCHERS,
 MONTHLY REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS RELATING TO AN INDIVIDUAL AGENT'S
 INVESTIGATION AGREE WITH THEIR TIME USAGE.  GROUP MANAGERS ALSO SIGN
 TRAVEL VOUCHERS AS AUTHORIZING AGENTS AND HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO
 CERTIFY THE ACCURACY OF THE VOUCHER.
 
    SOMETIME AROUND JUNE 17, 1979, UNION PRESIDENT GENE FRIEDMAN WAS
 CONTACTED BY A STEWARD FROM THE SOUTH BEND OFFICE, WILLIAM LONIEWSKI,
 AND ASKED WHETHER RESPONDENT COULD MAKE CHANGES WITHOUT NOTIFICATION.
 ACCORDING TO FRIEDMAN, THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE IN CHAPTER 49
 BY WHICH THE UNION WOULD BE NOTIFIED OF ANY CHANGES IN PERSONNEL
 POLICIES OR WORKING CONDITIONS.  FRIEDMAN'S UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY IS
 THAT RESPONDENT IS REQUIRED TO ADVISE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNION OF ANY
 CHANGES, OR IN HIS ABSENCE, ADVISE SOMEONE APPOINTED BY HIM.  IN ANY
 EVENT, LONIEWSKI TOLD FRIEDMAN THAT THE SOUTH BEND OFFICE EMPLOYEES HAD
 BEEN TOLD AT THEIR REGULARLY SCHEDULED JUNE 15, 1979 GROUP MEETING THAT
 THERE WAS TO BE "A NEW ON-SITE CASE REVIEW" STARTED IMMEDIATELY.
 FRIEDMAN STATED THAT LONIEWSKI ALSO TOLD HIM THAT RESPONDENT "WAS GOING
 TO HAVE THE BRANCH CHIEF COME IN AND REVIEW THE CASES AND COMPARE THEM
 WITH THE SIGN OUT SHEET AND THE TIME SHEETS AND EVERY WAY THAT POSSIBLY
 WAS IMAGINABLE IN THE ENTIRE FOLDER, AND THAT THE BRANCH CHIEF WOULD BE
 DOING THIS ON-SITE REVIEW."
 
    AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING REFERRED TO ABOVE, MR. LONIEWSKI WAS A
 UNION STEWARD AND REVENUE AGENT IN THE SOUTH BEND OFFICE.  ACCORDING TO
 LONIEWSKI, AT THE GROUP MEETING HELD ON JUNE 15, MR. GERECZ STATED THAT
 WHAT HE WAS "ABOUT TO DO" YOU COULD TAKE WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.  HE
 EXPLAINED THAT EACH NEW BRANCH MANAGER HAD HIS OWN WAY OF DOING THINGS
 AND THAT IN THE FUTURE THERE WOULD "BE LIVE CASE REVIEWS CONDUCTED BY
 MR. NOVACK IN ORDER TO GET TO KNOW THE AGENTS BETTER." GERECZ ALSO
 EXPLAINED THE PROCEDURE REGARDING THESE LIVE CASE REVIEWS.  THE
 PROCEDURE, ACCORDING TO LONIEWSKI, "WAS THAT MR. NOVACK WOULD COME TO
 THE OFFICE AND CALL AN AGENT BACK TO THE GROUP MANAGER'S OFFICE.  HE
 WOULD SELECT AT RANDOM A CASE FROM THE TIME REPORT OF A REVENUE AGENT.
 THE REVENUE AGENT WOULD COME BACK WITH THE REPORT, THE WORK PAPERS, THE
 TOTAL FILE, AND MR. NOVACK WOULD CHECK THE TIME REPORT, THE SIGN OUT
 SHEET, THE TRAVEL VOUCHER AND THE CASE FILE AS FAR AS WORK PAPERS GO."
 GERECZ ADDED THAT HE WOULD BE DOING A PORTION OF THIS LATER BY CHECKING
 AGENTS' TIME REPORTS, SIGN OUT SHEETS AND TRAVEL VOUCHERS.
 
    RESPONDENT DOES NOT DENY THAT THE UNION WAS NOT GIVEN NOTIFICATION OF
 THIS CHANGE IN PROCEDURES, BUT MAINTAINS THAT UNION STEWARD LONIEWSKI
 WAS PRESENT AT THE JUNE 15 MEETING.  MR. GERECZ'S MINUTES FROM THE JUNE
 15 REGULARLY SCHEDULED GROUP MEETING SHOW, IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    TRAVEL VOUCHER AND TIME SHEET COMPARISON EFFECTIVE WITH JUNE, 1979,
 TEST CHECKS WILL BE
 
    MADE BETWEEN THE TRAVEL VOUCHERS, SIGN OUT SHEETS, AND TIME SHEETS.
 THE EXTENT OF THESE
 
    CHECKS WILL DEPEND ON THE FINDINGS.  IF NO DISCREPANCIES ARE NOTED,
 THE CHECKS WILL BE
 
    CURTAILED.
 
    LIVE CASE REVIEW
 
    ADVISED THAT THERE WILL BE LIVE CASE REVIEWS MADE IN THE FUTURE TO
 MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE
 
    AUDIT PROGRAM IS FUNCTIONING ACCORDING TO MANUAL PROCEDURES.  A CHECK
 WILL BE MADE OF THE
 
    DIRECTION OF THE AUDIT, THE WORKPAPERS PREPARED AND THE ACTION TO BE
 TAKEN ON THE ISSUES
 
    RAISED.
 
    IN A JUNE 27, 1979 LETTER FROM GERECZ TO NOVACK, GERECZ MADE THE
 FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE JUNE 15 MEETING AND THE SUBJECT OF
 LIVE CASE REVIEWS:
 
    THE SUBJECT OF LIVE CASE REVIEWS WAS RAISED BY ME AT THE GROUP
 MEETING STATING THAT I WOULD
 
    BE MAKING LIVE CASE REVIEWS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHECKING THE PROGRESS
 AND DIRECTION OF THE
 
    AUDIT AND TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS IF NEEDED.  TOLD THEM THAT WHEN YOU
 WERE HERE YOU MADE A LIVE
 
    CASE REVIEW TO SHOW ME WHAT TO LOOK FOR AND AS A RESULT OF THAT LIVE
 CASE REVIEW, YOU FOUND
 
    AREAS ON WHICH TO COMMENT.  THE AGENT'S NAME OR THE AREAS OF COMMENT
 WERE NOT DISCUSSED.  THE MEMORANDUM ADDED THAT COMMENTS WERE MADE BY
 ONE
 AGENT REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF THE LIVE CASE REVIEWS.  THE AGENT,
 APPARENTLY LONIEWSKI, QUESTIONED THE RIGHT OF RESPONDENT TO MAKE THIS
 SORT OF CHECK.
 
    ADMITTEDLY, GROUP SUPERVISOR GERECZ HAD NOT CONDUCTED LIVE CASE
 REVIEWS PRIOR TO HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO DO SO BY CHIEF, EXAMINATION BRANCH
 2, NOVACK, SOMETIME IN MAY 1979.  WITH REGARD TO THE MEETING GERECZ
 TESTIFIED THAT HE STATED HE WAS GOING TO BE MAKING LIVE CASE REVIEWS IN
 THE FUTURE, AT THE INSTRUCTION OF BRANCH CHIEF NOVACK.  HOWEVER,
 LONIEWSKI'S CREDITED TESTIMONY IS THAT NOVACK, THE BRANCH CHIEF, WOULD
 PERFORM THE REVIEW AND IT APPEARS THAT SUCH REVIEW WOULD BE CONDUCTED IN
 MUCH THE SAME MANNER AS THE LILE REVIEW.  IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS NO
 QUESTION THAT THE LIVE CASE REVIEWS WOULD BE A NEW SUPERVISORY REVIEW IN
 THE SOUTH BEND OFFICE.  ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT PRESENTED TESTIMONY THAT
 REVENUE AGENTS HAD INDEED MET WITH BRANCH CHIEFS ON CASES OVER A
 PROTRACTED PERIOD OF TIME, IT PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT
 ANY OF THESE MEETINGS COULD OR SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS LIVE CASE
 REVIEWS.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT SUCH MEETINGS WERE A
 RESULT OF A PARTICULAR AGENT REQUESTING HELP ON A DIFFICULT CASE.  A
 FURTHER FACTOR ACCORDING TO GERECZ WAS THAT THE LIVE CASE REVIEW WAS
 UNSCHEDULED AND WOULD BE KNOWN BY THE AGENT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE
 REVIEW WAS CONDUCTED.
 
    BOTH GERECZ AND NOVACK TESTIFIED THAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST AN
 AGENT COULD RESULT FROM THE QUALITY OF EXAMINATION REVEALED THROUGH THE
 LIVE CASE REVIEW.  GERECZ STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT DEROGATORY OR
 COMPLIMENTARY COMMENTS ON DEFICIENCIES FOUND DURING THE LIVE CASE REVIEW
 WOULD BE PUT IN THE REVENUE AGENT'S DROP FILE, WHICH IS KEPT AS A PART
 OF HIS RECORD.
 
    GROUP MANAGER GERECZ STATED THAT PRIOR TO JUNE 15, 1980 HE REVIEWED
 CLOSED CASES AS SUBMITTED AND CASES IN PROCESS OVER THREE MONTHS AT HIS
 QUARTERLY WORK LOAD REVIEW.  HE ALSO ASKED AGENTS MONTHLY ABOUT THEIR
 DIRECTION ON CASES FOR WHICH SUCH TIME HAD BEEN CHARGED ON THE FORM
 4502.  HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NOT REVIEWED A LIVE CASE OTHER
 THAN THOSE THREE MONTHS OLD OR OLDER AND "QUICKIE" CASES, WHERE THERE
 WAS A PRIORITY TO HAVE THE CASE CLOSED WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD OF
 LESS THAN THREE MONTHS.
 
    RONALD BEYERS, GERECZ'S PREDECESSOR AS GROUP MANAGER AT SOUTH BEND,
 TESTIFIED THAT THE ONLY OPEN CASES HE REVIEWED WERE THOSE IN PROCESS TOO
 LONG OR THOSE WITH CERTAIN TECHNICAL ISSUES WHICH REQUIRED DISCUSSION
 WITH THE AGENT INVOLVED ON HOW TO CLOSE THE CASE OR SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
 THIS REVIEW WAS DONE ON BOTH A DAY-TO-DAY AND ON WORK REVIEW QUARTERLY
 WITH AGENTS.  WHILE BEYERS TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD PASSED ON INSTRUCTIONS
 FROM HIGHER LEVEL MANAGEMENT THAT TRAVEL VOUCHERS, MONTHLY REPORTS, AND
 SIGN OUT SHEETS SHOULD AGREE, HE NEVER CROSS-CHECKED OR COMPARED THESE
 ITEMS WITH ONE ANOTHER.
 
    AGENT LONIEWSKI TESTIFIED THAT GROUP MANAGER GERECZ HAD, PRIOR TO
 JUNE 15, COMPARED THE TIME REPORT WITH THE SIGN OUT SHEETS, BUT NOT WITH
 THE TRAVEL VOUCHERS.  ACCORDING TO LONIEWSKI, HE WAS AWARE OF WHAT
 PAPERS WERE COMPARED AT VARIOUS TIMES BECAUSE THE COMPARISONS WERE MADE
 KNOWS TO HIM AT CASE AND WORK LOAD REVIEWS.
 
                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR THAT AN EMPLOYER
 MAY NOT CHANGE PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS
 WITHOUT FIRST PROVIDING THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE WITH
 ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND ALLOWING THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE
 PROPOSED CHANGES AND/OR THE IMPACT AND MANNER OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH
 CHANGES.  VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA,
 A/SLMR NO. 87;  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, A/SLMR NO.  246;  78TH
 DIVISION (TRAINING), KILMER USAR CENTER, EDISON, NEW JERSEY, 1 FLRA 97.
 
    IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT DISREGARD OF AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 AND ATTEMPTS TO DEAL WITH EMPLOYEES INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNING GRIEVANCES,
 PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES IS AN ACT IN DEROGATION OF THE
 EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE'S RIGHTS TO REPRESENT EMPLOYEES.
 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, MUSKOGEE,
 OKLAHOMA, 3 A/SLMR 492;  A/SLMR NO. 301;  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 OGDEN SERVICE CENTER, 7 A/SLMR 569;  A/SLMR NO. 864;  DEPARTMENT OF THE
 TREASURY, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, MIDWEST REGION, 8
 A/SLMR 724, A/SLMR NO. 1070.
 
    CONTRARY TO RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE INSTITUTION OF LIVE CASE
 REVIEWS AT THE SOUTH BEND OFFICE WAS ONLY A REAFFIRMATION OF EXISTING
 DISTRICT POLICY, THE RECORD DISCLOSED THAT PRIOR TO MAY 24, 1979, AGENTS
 IN THE SOUTH BEND OFFICE HAD NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO LIVE CASE REVIEWS BY
 EITHER THE BRANCH 2 CHIEF OR THE GROUP MANAGER. WHILE THESE AGENTS WERE,
 OF COURSE, SUBJECT TO SUPERVISION FROM THE GROUP MANAGER SUCH CASE
 REVIEWS WERE LIMITED TO REVIEWS ON A "QUICKIE" BASIS, ON CASES WHICH
 WERE IN PROCESS FOR OVER THREE MONTHS AT THE SUPERVISOR'S QUARTERLY WORK
 LOAD OR ON PRIORITY CASES REQUIRED TO BE CLOSED WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD
 OF TIME.  OTHERWISE, REVIEWS BY THE GROUP MANAGER OR BRANCH 2 CHIEF WERE
 CONDUCTED ONLY WHEN THE AGENT ASKED FOR HELP.  IN ADDITION, PRIOR TO
 THAT TIME REVIEWS WERE NOT "UNSCHEDULED".
 
    SIMILARLY, WHILE AGENTS WERE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE GROUP MANAGER
 OF THE FORM 4502 TIME REPORT, SIGN OUT SHEETS AND TRAVEL VOUCHERS, THERE
 IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THESE WERE EVER COMPARED IN OTHER THAN QUARTERLY
 WORK LOAD REVIEWS OR AS PART OF THE GROUP MANAGER'S OVERALL
 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHECKING SUCH REPORTS IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER
 THE REPORTS CONFORMED WITH TRAVEL REGULATIONS.  IN ADDITION, PRIOR TO
 JUNE 1979 NO CHECKS BETWEEN TRAVEL VOUCHERS, SIGN OUT SHEETS AND TIME
 SHEETS HAD BEEN DONE BY EITHER GERECZ OR BEYERS.  ACCORDING TO BEYERS HE
 HAD NEVER CROSS-CHECKED OR COMPARED THE TRAVEL ITEMS WITH ONE ANOTHER
 AND GERECZ TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD REVIEWED THE FORM 4502 ONLY MONTHLY.
 /3/
 
    THE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1979 ESTABLISHES THAT RESPONDENT INTENDED TO
 INITIATE BOTH THE LIVE CASE REVIEWS AND COMPARISON OF TRAVEL ON
 OCCASIONS OTHER THAN THE SINGLE REVIEW OF THE TWO LIVE CASES OF AGENT
 LILE.  GROUP MANAGER GERECZ'S STATEMENT THAT "THERE WILL BE LIVE CASE
 REVIEWS MADE IN THE FUTURE" AT THAT TIME COULD REASONABLY HAVE BEEN
 CONSTRUED BY GROUP EMPLOYEES TO MEAN THAT THE REVIEWS WOULD BE
 CONDUCTED
 BY THE BRANCH CHIEF SINCE THE INITIAL REVIEW OF THE LILE CASES WAS DONE
 IN THAT MANNER.  IN ANY EVENT, RESPONDENT DOES NOT CONTEST THE FACT THAT
 ON-SITE LIVE CASE REVIEWS WERE TO BE CONDUCTED.  IT IS IMMATERIAL
 WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE BRANCH CHIEF OR GROUP
 SUPERVISOR BECAUSE NEITHER HAD DONE SO IN THE PAST.  FINALLY,
 RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT THAT SUCH REVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED IN OTHER OFFICES
 OF THE INDIANAPOLIS DISTRICT IS NOT CONVINCING.  FIRST, THE EVIDENCE OF
 THESE REVIEWS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONVINCE THE UNDERSIGNED THAT SUCH A
 PRACTICE EXISTED.  FURTHERMORE, THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SUCH
 REVIEWS HAD NOT BEEN CONDUCTED IN THE SOUTH BEND OFFICE.
 
    BASED UPON THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, I FIND THAT THE JUNE 15,
 1979 ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING THE INSTITUTION OF LIVE CASE REVIEWS AND
 TEST CHECKS BETWEEN TRAVEL VOUCHERS, SIGN OUT SHEETS AND TIME SHEETS AND
 THE MAY 24, 1979 ON-SITE LIVE CASE REVIEW CONSTITUTED CHANGES IN THE
 METHOD OF REVIEW OF REVENUE AGENTS' WORK IN THE SOUTH BEND, OFFICE.
 
    WHILE THESE REVIEWS ARE CLEARLY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SUPERVISORY
 DISCRETION THEY HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY UNDERTAKEN.  FURTHERMORE, THE
 ABSENCE OF REVIEWS SINCE THE FILING OF THE CHARGE HEREIN BEARS ONLY ON
 THE REMEDY AND NOT ON THE ANNOUNCED CHANGES.  IT IS THE CHANGE WITHOUT
 NOTICE TO THE UNION AND WITHOUT GIVING IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN OVER
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION WHICH IS IN DEROGATION OF THE UNION'S
 REPRESENTATIONAL STATUS IN THIS MATTER.  MOREOVER, THE DISREGARD OF THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE WHEN ANNOUNCING THE CHANGES IS ALSO IN
 DEROGATION OF ITS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATUTE.
 
    THE RECORD HEREIN SUPPORTS A FINDING THAT THE ANNOUNCED CHANGES AND
 THE ACTUAL ON-SITE LIVE CASE REVIEW DID HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON THE
 EMPLOYEES' WORKING CONDITIONS.  FURTHERMORE, THE ABSENCE OF REVIEWS
 SINCE THE ANNOUNCEMENT WITHOUT A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT THAT SUCH REVIEWS
 WOULD NOT BE UNDERTAKEN BY SUPERVISION LEAVES THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES
 WITH NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS WITH RESPECT TO ADHERENCE
 TO THE JUNE 15 ANNOUNCEMENT.
 
    UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, IT IS
 FOUND THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS IN ANNOUNCING ON-SITE LIVE CASE REVIEWS,
 TEST CHECKS BETWEEN TRAVEL VOUCHERS, SIGN OUT SHEETS, AND TIME SHEETS
 AND THE LIVE ON-SITE CASE REVIEW OF MAY 24, 1979 WITHOUT GIVING THE
 UNION PRIOR NOTIFICATION THEREOF AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST
 BARGAINING WITH RESPECT TO IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION AND ITS BY-PASSING
 THE EMPLOYEES EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE IN ANNOUNCING THE JUNE 15 CHANGE
 CONSTITUTED VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7) AND SECTION 2423.26 OF THE FINAL
 RULES AND REGULATIONS, 45 FED. REG. 3482, 3510(1980), IT IS HEREBY
 ORDERED THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, INDIANAPOLIS DISTRICT SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) DEALING DIRECTLY WITH UNIT EMPLOYEES AT THE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
 OFFICE REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION WITH RESPECT
 TO PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE
 WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THAT OFFICE.
 
    (B) INSTITUTING CHANGES IN THE USE OF ON-SITE LIVE CASE REVIEWS AND
 TEST CHECKS BETWEEN TRAVEL VOUCHERS, SIGN OUT SHEETS AND TIME SHEETS OF
 UNIT EMPLOYEES WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION,
 THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AND AFFORDING
 IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH
 CHANGES AND THEIR IMPACT ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, MEET AND NEGOTIATE ONLY WITH THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, WITH
 REGARD TO PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING
 THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA OFFICE.
 
    (B) UPON REQUEST, MEET AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE UTILIZED IN IMPLEMENTING
 ANY CHANGES IN LIVE ON-SITE CASE REVIEWS AND TEST CHECKS BETWEEN TRAVEL
 VOUCHERS AND SIGN OUT SHEETS AND TIME SHEETS AND THEIR IMPACT ON
 ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    (C) POST AT ITS SOUTH BEND, INDIANA FACILITY, 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 DISTRICT DIRECTOR FOR THE INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA DISTRICT, AND SHALL
 BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE
 NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR
 SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
 DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) 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.
 
                          ELI NASH, JR.
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  JUNE 30, 1980
    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 THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 
                    LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT DEAL DIRECTLY WITH UNIT EMPLOYEES OF THE SOUTH BEND,
 INDIANA OFFICE REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION, WITH RESPECT TO PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, OR
 OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE SOUTH
 BEND, INDIANA OFFICE.
 
    WE WILL NOT INSTITUTE CHANGES CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE
 UTILIZED IN IMPLEMENTING ANY CHANGES IN LIVE ON-SITE CASE REVIEWS AND
 TEST CHECKS BETWEEN TRAVEL VOUCHERS AND SIGN OUT AND TIME SHEETS WITHOUT
 FIRST NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND AFFORDING IT
 THE OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CHANGES
 AND THEIR IMPACT ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR
 COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, MEET AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH ONLY WITH THE
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, WITH RESPECT TO PERSONNEL POLICIES
 AND PRACTICES, OR OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS
 OF EMPLOYEES IN THE SOUTH BEND, INDIANA OFFICE.
 
                                  . . .
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM 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, REGION 5, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  ROOM 1638, DIRKSEN FEDERAL BUILDING, 219 SOUTH DEARBORN
 STREET, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ ALTHOUGH GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS BRIEF, THE
 CHARGING PARTY'S BRIEF WAS UNTIMELY FILED AND HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY
 THE UNDERSIGNED.
 
    /2/ AT THE HEARING, RESPONDENT MOVED TO COMPEL THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
 TO RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES SERVED ON HIM JANUARY 3, 1980, WHICH HAD
 NOT BEEN ANSWERED. AT THAT TIME THE MOTION WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
 TO RENEW IT IN BRIEF.  IN HIS BRIEF, RESPONDENT RENEWED ITS CONTENTION
 THAT THE RESPONSES SHOULD BE ORDERED WHENEVER THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD
 BE BEST SERVED.  THE RESPONSE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ON JANUARY 7,
 1980 DENIED THE REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES SINCE HE CONSIDERED IT A
 MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2423.21 OF
 THE AUTHORITY'S INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS AND THAT THE REGULATIONS
 DO NOT PROVIDE FOR PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY.  RESPONDENT'S MOTION BEFORE THE
 UNDERSIGNED MERELY APPEALS THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S DENIAL.  HOWEVER,
 THERE WAS, IN MY VIEW, NO SHOWING BY RESPONDENT THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
 WOULD NOT BE SERVED BY DENYING ITS RENEWAL OF THE REQUEST AT THE
 HEARING.  FURTHERMORE, RESPONDENT MADE NO SHOWING THAT THE
 INTERROGATORIES WERE, AS IT CONTENDED, NECESSARY FOR IT TO ESTABLISH A
 COMPLETE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE.  ON THE CONTRARY, RESPONDENT ABLY
 DEFENDED ITS