United States Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center, Newark, Ohio (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2221, AFL-CIO (Charging Party) 

 



[ v04 p512 ]
04:0512(70)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 4 FLRA No. 70
 
 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE,
 AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND,
 AEROSPACE GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY
 CENTER, NEWARK, OHIO
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 LOCAL 2221, AMERICAN FEDERATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 5-CA-157
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING ISSUED
 HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT
 ENGAGED IN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND
 RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
 THEREAFTER, BOTH THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND THE UNION FILED EXCEPTIONS TO
 THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, AND
 SUPPORTING BRIEFS, AND THE RESPONDENT FILED AN OPPOSITION TO THE
 EXCEPTIONS OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND THE UNION.
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2423.29) AND SECTION 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 THIS
 CASE, INCLUDING THE EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTING BRIEFS OF THE GENERAL
 COUNSEL AND THE UNION AND THE RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION THERETO, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS,
 CONCLUSIONS /1/ AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE EXTENT CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
 
    THE THRUST OF THE COMPLAINT HEREIN IS THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED
 SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE BY UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTING A
 REORGANIZATION INVOLVING THE RESPONDENT'S DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY.  THE
 RESPONDENT ARGUES AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 HAD TIMELY PRIOR NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION DUE TO THE
 PRESENCE OF UNION STEWARD PRICE AT AN EMPLOYEE MEETING ANNOUNCING THE
 REORGANIZATION A WEEK BEFORE IT WAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED, AND THAT IT COULD
 HAVE REQUESTED BARGAINING ON THAT BASIS.  THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND THE
 CHARGING PARTY ARGUED THAT PROPER NOTICE WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE UNION AS
 PRICE WAS PRESENT ONLY AS AN EMPLOYEE AND NOT AS A UNION OFFICIAL.
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DETERMINED THAT UNION STEWARD PRICE WAS
 AN APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUAL TO RECEIVE NOTICE ON BEHALF OF THE UNION.  HE
 FURTHER DETERMINED THAT PRICE'S PRESENCE AT THE STAFF MEETING, ALBEIT AS
 AN EMPLOYEE, AND HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE DECIDED NOT TO SEEK BARGAINING
 BECAUSE HE CONSIDERED THE REORGANIZATION TO THIS TIME TO HAVE NO IMPACT,
 CONSTITUTED A REASONABLE BASIS UPON WHICH TO CONCLUDE THE UNION HAD
 SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE REORGANIZATION.  ACCORDINGLY, HE RECOMMENDED
 THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUNDS THE UNION HAD SUFFICIENT
 NOTICE AND FAILED TO REQUEST BARGAINING.
 
    SECTION 7103(12) OF THE STATUTE DEFINES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN
 TERMS OF THE "MUTUAL OBLIGATION" OF THE PARTIES TO CONSULT AND BARGAIN
 IN GOOD FAITH.  /2/ THE GOAL OF BALANCED, MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY ON THE
 PART OF THE PARTIES IS ALSO STRESSED IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
 STATUTE.  /3/ THUS, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP ENVISAGED BY
 THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT EACH PARTY HAVE THE ABILITY TO FUNCTION AS AN
 EQUAL PARTNER WITHIN THE RELATIONSHIP.  IT FOLLOWS THAT EACH PARTY
 SHOULD THEREFORE DEAL WITH THE OTHER WITH THE DIRECTNESS AND DIGNITY
 APPROPRIATE TO PARTNERS ON AN EQUAL FOOTING.
 
    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT THE RESPONDENT IN ANY WAY
 SOUGHT TO GIVE APPROPRIATE NOTICE OF THE REORGANIZATION TO THE UNION.
 WHILE THE UNION MIGHT HAVE REQUESTED NEGOTIATIONS BASED UPON THE CHANCE
 KNOWLEDGE OF ITS AGENT, THE FAILURE OF THE ACTIVITY TO GIVE APPROPRIATE
 NOTICE TO THAT AGENT OR OTHER UNION OFFICIAL AS A UNION REPRESENTATIVE
 IMPEDED THE ABILITY OF THE UNION TO PERFORM AS AN EQUAL PARTNER WITH
 ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT.  THUS, RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE
 ADVANCE NOTICE TO THE UNION DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE OBLIGATION TO
 CONSULT IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE, IN VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 7116(A)(5) AND (1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    HAVING FOUND THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(5) AND (1) OF
 THE STATUTE BY ITS FAILURE TO GIVE APPROPRIATE ADVANCE NOTICE OF A
 REORGANIZATION TO THE UNION, THE RESPONDENT WILL BE REQUIRED TO CEASE
 AND DESIST FROM SUCH CONDUCT, AND TO POST AN APPROPRIATE NOTICE.
 
    HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT SUGGEST THAT A DEMAND TO BARGAIN
 BASED ON ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHANGE WOULD HAVE BEEN FUTILE, NOR WAS
 IT SHOWN THAT THE FAILURE OF APPROPRIATE ADVANCE NOTICE WOULD HAVE MADE
 EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS IMPOSSIBLE.  INDEED, STEWARD PRICE DECIDED THAT
 NEGOTIATIONS WERE UNNECESSARY AT THE TIME.  THEREFORE, AS THE UNION
 DECLINED TO ACT ON ITS ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, IT IS NOT DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO
 ORDER BARGAINING HEREIN.
 
                                   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 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE
 LOGISTICS COMMAND, AEROSPACE GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY CENTER, NEWARK,
 OHIO, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) FAILING TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE ADVANCE NOTICE OF PLANNED CHANGES
 IN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AFFECTING UNIT EMPLOYEES TO LOCAL 2221 OF
 THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO THE EMPLOYEES'
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION HAVING
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION RIGHTS.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS FACILITIES 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
 COMMANDING OFFICER, AEROSPACE GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY CENTER, NEWARK,
 OHIO, AND THEY SHALL BE POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE COMMANDING OFFICER SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS
 TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (B) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION V, 175 WEST JACKSON
 BLVD., SUITE 1359A, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604, 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 24, 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 FAIL TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE ADVANCE NOTICE OF PLANNED
 CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AFFECTING UNIT EMPLOYEES TO LOCAL
 2221 OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, THE
 EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, 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 THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
                                  . . .
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:
 175 WEST JACKSON BLVD., SUITE 1359A, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604, AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (312) 353-6306.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    GREGORY A. MIKSA, ESQUIRE
    OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
    REGION V, 219 SO. DEARBORN STREET
    ROOM 1638
    CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
                          FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    JOHN WILLIAM MULHOLLAND, ESQUIRE
    DIRECTOR, LABOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES
    DEPARTMENT
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
    1325 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W.
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
                          FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
 
    CAPT. JAMES J. GONZALES, USAF
    LABOR RELATIONS COUNSEL
    OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE
    HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
    WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO 45433
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    BEFORE:  LOUIS SCALZO
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS CASE AROSE AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING UNDER THE
 PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, 92
 STAT. 1191, 5 U.S.C.  7101 ET SEQ., (HEREINAFTER CALLED "THE STATUTE")
 AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER.
 
    ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1979, A COMPLAINT WAS FILED BY THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR, REGION V, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, CHICAGO,
 ILLINOIS, AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE LOGISTICS
 COMMAND, NEWARK, OHIO (HEREINAFTER CALLED "RESPONDENT" OR "MANAGEMENT"),
 ON BEHALF OF LOCAL 2221, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
 (AFGE), AFL-CIO (HEREINAFTER CALLED "THE UNION" OR "LOCAL 2221").  AN
 AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS THEREAFTER FILED ON OCTOBER 24, 1979.
 
    THE COMPLAINT AND AMENDED COMPLAINT REFLECT ALLEGATIONS THAT
 RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE, 5 U.S.C.
 7116(A)(1) AND (5), IN THAT ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 2, 1979, AND THEREAFTER,
 THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE UNION;  AND THAT
 ON OR ABOUT APRIL 23, 1979, THE RESPONDENT UNILATERALLY CHANGED EXISTING
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE AEROSPACE GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY CENTER
 (AGMC), NEWARK, OHIO.  THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES RELATED TO THE
 IMPLEMENTATION OF A REORGANIZATION OF THE DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY AT
 THE AGMC, "WITHOUT FURNISHING THE (UNION) WITH NOTICE AND/OR OPPORTUNITY
 TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CHANGES."
 /4/
 
    THE RESPONDENT ALLEGES THAT ALTHOUGH THE UNION HAD ADEQUATE PRIOR
 NOTICE AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION PLAN, THE UNION
 FAILED TO REQUEST BARGAINING;  THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT REFUSE TO
 BARGAIN WITH THE UNION AS ALLEGED, AND LASTLY THAT THE UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE COMPLAINT IS BARRED BY SECTION 7116(D) OF THE STATUTE, 5 U.S.C.
 7116(D), BECAUSE IT INVOLVES ISSUES WHICH WERE RAISED OR COULD HAVE BEEN
 RAISED IN A GRIEVANCE FILED BY A BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEE UNDER A
 NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.
 
    AT THE HEARING COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENT OBJECTED TO THE
 CAPTION OF THE CASE AS SET OUT IN THE COMPLAINT AND AMENDED COMPLAINT
 /5/ ON THE GROUND THAT THE AGMC SHOULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE SOLE
 RESPONDENT, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE LOGISTICS
 COMMAND, A NEXT HIGHER ECHELON.  BOTH ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT AND ANSWER
 TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT, SPECIFICALLY ADMIT
 LANGUAGE IDENTIFYING THE RESPONDENT AS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND
 THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS MAINTAINED, AND CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN A
 FACILITY AT NEWARK, OHIO KNOWN AS THE AGMC.  MOREOVER, IT IS NOTED THAT
 THE DESIGNATION OF THE RESPONDENT IN THE PLEADINGS FILED BY THE
 RESPONDENT REFLECTS REFERENCES TO THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE LOGISTICS
 COMMAND.
 
    SINCE MAY 4, 1979, THE LABOR RELATIONS OF THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN
 GOVERNED BY A MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT COVERING ALL NON-SUPERVISORY, AND
 NON-PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES AT NUMEROUS AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
 FACILITIES (GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 2).  THIS AGREEMENT WAS THE RESULT
 OF NEGOTIATIONS WHICH COMMENCED AFTER THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
 LABOR CERTIFIED A CONSOLIDATED AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND-WIDE
 BARGAINING UNIT COMPRISED OF AFGE APPROPRIATED FUND BARGAINING UNITS ON
 JANUARY 12, 1978.  /6/ THIS CONSOLIDATED UNIT INCLUDES THE AGMC
 BARGAINING UNIT AT NEWARK, OHIO.  FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION THE NATIONAL
 OFFICE OF AFGE BECAME THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF AFGE BARGAINING
 UNIT EMPLOYEES.  DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, SACRAMENTO AIR LOGISTICS
 CENTER, MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE
 NO.  70-6220 (CU), 1 FLRA 113, (SEPT. 20, 1979), REPORT NO. 17.
 
    AS OF JUNE 5, 1975, THE LABOR RELATIONS OF LOCAL 2221 AND AGMC WERE
 GOVERNED BY A LOCAL AGREEMENT (GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 3).  ON AUGUST 4,
 1977,THE PARTIES EXTENDED THE LOCAL AGREEMENT, "UNTIL THE ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS CERTIFIES THE CONSOLIDATION OF
 UNITS WITHIN AFLC AT WHICH TIME THE RULES OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
 SHALL PREVAIL." (GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 3).  SINCE THE CERTIFICATION
 OCCURRED ON JANUARY 12, 1978, THE MENTIONED LOCAL AGREEMENT TERMINATED
 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL AGREEMENT.  /7/
 
    AFTER CERTIFICATION OF THE COMMAND-WIDE BARGAINING UNIT THE
 PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL AGREEMENT WERE UTILIZED BY THE PARTIES TO GOVERN
 LABOR RELATIONS.  WITNESSES REPRESENTING BOTH PARTIES ESTABLISHED THAT
 THE PARTIES CONTINUED TO ENFORCE THE LOCAL AGREEMENT AS A VIABLE
 INSTRUMENT AND COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ESTABLISHED THROUGH A
 MANAGEMENT WITNESS THAT ARTICLE 8 OF THE LOCAL AGREEMENT IMPOSED "AN
 OBLIGATION TO CONSULT UNDER (THE) CONTRACT WITH THE UNION ON THE EFFECT
 AND IMPLEMENTATION OF . . . CHANGES;  THAT WE MAY HAVE TO CONSIDER THEIR
 VIEWS, AND TO TRY TO COME TO SOME AGREEMENT . . ." (TR. 240).
 
    THE RECORD ALSO DISCLOSED THAT DURING 1978 NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN AFGE
 AND AFLC, NEGOTIATORS REPRESENTING AFGE MADE IT CLEAR TO AFLC
 NEGOTIATORS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL THAT THE VARIOUS LOCAL UNIONS COVERED
 BY THE MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT HAD BEEN DESIGNATED AS THE APPROPRIATE
 LEVEL FOR BARGAINING CONCERNING MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN, AND THAT THERE
 WOULD BE NO WAIVER OF ANY LOCAL UNION'S RIGHT TO BARGAIN CONCERNING
 LOCAL ISSUES (TR. 19, 50-52, 73-74, 95).  DURING THESE NEGOTIATIONS
 LEADING TO THE MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT, THE AFGE NEGOTIATORS NOTIFIED
 AFLC NEGOTIATORS THAT LOCAL UNION PRESIDENTS OR OFFICERS HAD AUTHORITY
 TO NEGOTIATE ON LOCAL MATTERS AS AGENTS OF THE NATIONAL OFFICE OF AFGE
 (TR. 95).  THIS EVIDENCE WAS NOT OTHERWISE CONTRADICTED IN THE RECORD.
 
    SINCE THE COMPLAINT IS LIMITED TO ALLEGATIONS THAT THERE WAS A
 FAILURE TO PROVIDE LOCAL 2221 WITH NOTICE AND/OR OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REORGANIZATION PLAN, AND
 SINCE RESPONDENT ASSERTS THAT THE LOCAL AGREEMENT WAS IN EFFECT DURING
 THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, THERE IS, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE, NO
 ISSUE CONCERNING THE RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN WITH LOCAL 2221
 TO THE EXTENT REFERRED TO IN THE COMPLAINT.  FURTHERMORE, IN LIGHT OF
 POSITIONS TAKEN BY RESPONDENT AND THE UNION HEREIN IT IS IMMATERIAL
 WHETHER THE OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN STEMS FROM THE LOCAL AGREEMENT OR THE
 STATUTE.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AT THE AGMC, NEWARK, OHIO.
 ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO
 BE HEARD, ADDUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE
 WITNESSES.  POST-HEARING BRIEFS WERE RECEIVED FROM COUNSEL FOR THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, AND THE RESPONDENT.
 THESE HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.  /8/ BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD
 HEREIN, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR,
 THE EXHIBITS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, AND THE
 BRIEFS, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER.
 
                REORGANIZATION OF DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY
 
    ON FEBRUARY 15, 1978, FRANK A. FLYNN, CHIEF OF METROLOGY, OPERATIONS
 BRANCH, DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY, ASSIGNED PETER ROSS, AN OPERATIONS
 BRANCH EMPLOYEE, AS THE PRIMARY PERSON TO PREPARE A REORGANIZATION PLAN
 FOR THE DIRECTORATE (TR. 321-322).  THE PLANNING PHASE EXTENDED OVER A
 PERIOD OF MONTHS AND WAS COMPLETED BY THE OPERATIONS BRANCH IN SEPTEMBER
 OF 1978 (TR. 360-362).  THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION, NOT THEN APPROVED
 OR IMPLEMENTED, INCLUDED A NEW LABORATORY SUPPORT OFFICE IN THE
 MEASUREMENT STANDARDS LABORATORY OF THE DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY AND
 REDEFINED AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN THE DIRECTORATE (GENERAL
 COUNSEL EXHIBIT 4, AND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 13 AT P. 5).
 
    ON OCTOBER 27, 1978, COLONEL DAVID W. HUFF, COMMANDER, AGMC,
 FORWARDED THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION PLAN TO HEADQUARTERS, AIR FORCE
 LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, FOR APPROVAL.
 IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY OF 1979, AGMC RECEIVED THE INFORMAL APPROVAL OF
 HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND (TR. 288-290).  /9/ THE PLAN
 WAS IMPLEMENTED AT AGMC ON APRIL 23, 1979 (TR. 324).
 
    INSOFAR AS IS PERTINENT HERE THE REORGANIZATION HAD THE EFFECT OF
 CREATING THREE NEW POSITIONS IN THE NEW LABORATORY SUPPORT OFFICE.  THE
 PLAN INCLUDED THE TRANSFER OF PETER ROSS AND TWO OTHER OPERATIONS BRANCH
 EMPLOYEES (TR. 127-128).  ONE OF THE THREE POSITIONS CREATED WAS THE
 DIRECT RESULT OF CONVERSION OF A PROGRAM ANALYST JOB AUTHORIZATION IN
 THE OPERATIONS BRANCH TO THAT OF AN INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN
 POSITION IN THE LABORATORY SUPPORT OFFICE (TR. 330-331).  INDUSTRIAL
 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN WORK FUNCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGRAM
 ANALYST POSITION WERE ALSO TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW UNIT (TR. 130-131).
 WILLIAM ROBERTS, A BARGAINING UNIT MEMBER HAD OCCUPIED THE PROGRAM
 ANALYST POSITION, AND HAD EARLIER INDICATED OBJECTION TO A TRANSFER TO
 THE NEW UNIT BECAUSE OF A DESIRE TO REMAIN IN THE PROGRAM ANALYST
 POSITION (TR. 339).  IT WAS DISCLOSED THAT ROBERTS HELD A GS-11 RATING,
 AND THAT THE PROGRAM ANALYST POSITION WHICH HE HELD HAD THE POTENTIAL
 FOR PROMOTION TO THE GS-12 LEVEL.  THE INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN
 POSITION WAS CONSIDERED LESS DESIRABLE BECAUSE IT WAS STABILIZED AT THE
 GS-11 LEVEL (TR. 170-171).  THE CONVERSION OF THE JOB AUTHORIZATION
 RELATING TO THE POSITION HELD BY ROBERTS IN THE OPERATIONS BRANCH
 EFFECTIVELY ABOLISHED THE POSITION.
 
                       NOTICE OF THE REORGANIZATION
 
    THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT ABOUT ONE WEEK BEFORE THE REORGANIZATION WAS
 IMPLEMENTED, FRANK A. FLYNN, CHIEF, OPERATIONS BRANCH CONDUCTED AN
 OPERATIONS BRANCH STAFF MEETING AND ANNOUNCED TO OPERATIONS BRANCH
 PERSONNEL THAT THE REORGANIZATION WOULD OCCUR ON APRIL 23, 1979, THAT A
 NEW LABORATORY SUPPORT OFFICE WOULD BE CREATED AND THAT CERTAIN NAMED
 INDIVIDUALS IN THE OPERATIONS BRANCH WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO POSITIONS
 CREATED IN THE NEW OFFICE (TR. 125, 173, 184-185, 188-191, 193).  CLEM
 PRICE THE UNION'S STEWARD FOR THE DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY ATTENDED THE
 MEETING.  PRICE WAS ALSO EMPLOYED IN THE OPERATIONS BRANCH AS A PROGRAM
 ANALYST.  THE MEETING WAS ATTENDED BY ABOUT TWELVE TO FIFTEEN PEOPLE AND
 LASTED ABOUT FORTY-FIVE MINUTES.  THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF CHANGES
 WHICH WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED ON APRIL 23, 1979 (TR. 190-191).
 
    THE RECORD DISCLOSED THAT PRICE COMMENCED SERVICE AS A STEWARD IN THE
 DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY ON DECEMBER 2, 1977 (TR. 157).  A PICTURE OF
 HIS STEWARD ROLE APPEARS IN THE RECORD FROM NUMEROUS FACTS.  THE
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNION TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS A REGULAR PRACTICE FOR THE
 PRESIDENT TO DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO OFFICERS AND STEWARDS AS IT WAS
 IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO HANDLE EVERYTHING (TR. 120-121).  HIS
 DUTIES INVOLVED REPRESENTING ALL BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS IN THE
 DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH THE DIRECTOR AND THE
 VARIOUS BRANCH CHIEFS IN THE DIRECTORATE (TR. 157-158).  HE HANDLED
 GRIEVANCES TO THE FOURTH STEP WHICH INVOLVED THE AGMC COMMAND LEVEL (TR.
 158).  IT WAS DISCLOSED THAT PRICE WAS THE ONLY STEWARD IN THE
 DIRECTORATE, AN ELEMENT OF AGMC CONSISTING OF A TOTAL OF 218 TO 220
 EMPLOYEES (TR. 191-192).  PRICE TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY
 FOR RECEIVING NOTICE OF CHANGES IN PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES AND
 WORKING CONDITIONS IN THE DIRECTORATE, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THAT IT
 WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO RELAY PERTINENT INFORMATION "TO
 THE UNION OFFICE AND DISCUSS IT WITH THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS . . ." (TR.
 212).
 
    IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE MENTIONED STAFF MEETING, PRICE CONTACTED PETER
 ROSS AS PRICE HAD LEARNED THAT HE WAS THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD DEVELOPED
 THE REORGANIZATION PLAN.  /10/ PRICE REQUESTED PERMISSION TO SEE THE
 DETAILED PLAN AND WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE A COPY OF THE
 ENTIRE PLAN (TR. 126, 176-177, RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 9).  /11/ PRICE NOTED
 THAT THE PLAN INDICATED POSITIONS WHICH WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO EACH
 ELEMENT OF THE DIRECTORATE BEFORE AND AFTER THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION,
 AND THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF THESE POSITIONS.  HE ALSO NOTED THAT IT
 IDENTIFIED THE THREE POSITIONS WHICH WOULD BE CREATED IN THE NEW
 LABORATORY SUPPORT OFFICE (TR. 205).  /12/ THE PLAN REFLECTED THAT TWO
 OF THE THREE NEWLY CREATED POSITIONS IN THE LABORATORY SUPPORT OFFICE
 WOULD BE DRAWN FROM THE OPERATIONS BRANCH, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY THAT
 THE INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN POSITION WOULD BE TAKEN FROM THE
 OPERATIONS BRANCH (TR.  332.335).  THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT THE PLAN
 IN QUESTION DID REFLECT THE POSITIONS AFFECTED BY THE REORGANIZATION,
 BUT NOT THE NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS (TR. 299).
 
    ALTHOUGH PRICE'S TESTIMONY INDICATES THAT HE DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF
 THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION UNTIL HE ATTENDED THE OPERATIONS BRANCH
 STAFF MEETING ABOUT A WEEK PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION, THERE IS A GREAT
 DEAL OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT PRICE
 POSSESSED EARLIER KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION OF THE
 DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY.  PRICE WORKED IN THE OPERATIONS BRANCH WITH
 PETER ROSS DURING THE PERIOD WHEN ROSS WAS DEVELOPING THE PLAN (TR. 174,
 353).  HE ADMITTED THAT HE KNEW ROSS WAS WORKING ON A REORGANIZATION
 PLAN OF SOME SORT (TR. 209-210).  HE STATED THAT PRIOR TO THE OPERATIONS
 BRANCH STAFF MEETING THERE WAS TALK IN THE OFFICE ABOUT THE
 REORGANIZATION OF THE DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY, AND ABOUT THE FACT THAT
 DIRECTORATE JOBS WOULD BE AFFECTED (TR. 186-188).  PRICE WAS VAGUE ABOUT
 HIS SOURCES OF INFORMATION IN THIS REGARD (TR. 186), BUT STATED THAT
 SUCH INFORMATION REACHED HIM AS EARLY AS THE END OF MARCH OR FIRST OF
 APRIL 1979 (TR. 187-190).
 
    IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING, THE RECORD DISCLOSED THAT THE
 REORGANIZATION PLAN FINALLY APPROVED FOR SUBSEQUENT IMPLEMENTATION WAS
 IN EXISTENCE IN TENTATIVE FORM AT LEAST AS EARLY AS OCTOBER OF 1978
 (RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 12), THAT IT WAS A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION IN THE
 OPERATIONS BRANCH, THAT PRICE WAS THEN EMPLOYED IN THE BRANCH, THAT THE
 BRANCH CONSISTED OF A SMALL GROUP OF ABOUT SIXTEEN EMPLOYEES, THAT THE
 PLAN WAS DISCUSSED BY ROSS WITH OTHERS, THAT IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED
 SECRET OR CONFIDENTIAL, AND THAT IT WAS MENTIONED AT EARLIER OPERATIONS
 BRANCH STAFF MEETINGS (TR. 322-323, 350-352, 355-356).  /13/
 
    ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED AT THE STAFF MEETING HELD A WEEK
 PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION, AND INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM AN EXAMINATION OF
 THE DETAILED PLAN TO REORGANIZE THE DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY, PRICE
 DETERMINED THAT IT WAS NOT THEN NECESSARY TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION ON
 BEHALF OF THE UNION (TR. 184).  IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT FRANK FLYNN WAS
 AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS, BUT THAT PRICE DID NOT THINK THAT IT
 WAS NECESSARY (TR. 177).  PRICE TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW NO PROBLEM WITH
 THE REORGANIZATION AT THAT TIME (TR. 179-180).  /14/ HIS TESTIMONY ON
 THIS POINT INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:
 
    . . . (I)F I HAD DETECTED SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT WOULD HAVE AN
 ADVERSE IMPACT ON SOME OF
 
    THE PEOPLE IN THE RANK AND FILE, YES, I WOULD HAVE WENT TO MR.
 FLYNN.  BUT AT THAT POINT IN
 
    TIME, I DIDN'T DETECT ANYTHING.
 
    AS A RESULT OF THE EVENTS OUTLINED THE PLANNED REORGANIZATION WAS
 ALLOWED TO GO INTO EFFECT ON APRIL 23, 1979, WITHOUT THE UNION
 INTERPOSING A REQUEST TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE PLAN (TR. 121, 150).
 
         RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GRIEVANCES FILED BY WILLIAM ROBERTS
 
                          AND THE REORGANIZATION
 
    THE RECORD DISCLOSED THAT WILLIAM ROBERTS FILED A GRIEVANCE AGAINST
 FRANK FLYNN ON MARCH 22, 1979 TO PROTEST A JANUARY 2, 1979 TEMPORARY
 DETAIL TO A LOWER GRADED POSITION (GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 10).  THE
 GRIEVANCE WAS THE SUBJECT OF A MARCH 27, 1979, MEETING ATTENDED BY
 ROBERTS, FRANK FLYNN, AND THOMAS WARD.  WARD WAS THEN ACTING AS ROBERTS'
 UNION REPRESENTATIVE (GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 5).  THE MEETING
 OSTENSIBLY RESULTED IN ROBERTS RECEIVING ASSURANCE THAT FLYNN WOULD
 REQUEST A RETROACTIVE CANCELLATION OF THE DETAIL.  HOWEVER, THE DETAIL
 WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY CANCELLED, AND ON MAY 2, 1979 (AFTER IMPLEMENTATION
 OF THE REORGANIZATION), ROBERTS REQUESTED PRICE TO REPRESENT HIM IN
 CONNECTION WITH THE GRIEVANCE FILED IN MARCH, BUT NOT YET RESOLVED IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT REACHED BY THE PARTIES.  ON THE SAME DAY
 (MAY 2, 1979) PRICE, FLYNN AND ROBERTS MET TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE RELATING
 TO THE DETAILING OF ROBERTS TO A LOWER GRADED POSITION (TR. 128-129).
 AT THE MEETING FLYNN ADVISED PRICE AND ROBERTS THAT THE REORGANIZATION
 HAD THE EFFECT OF ABOLISHING THE PROGRAM ANALYST POSITION ONCE HELD BY
 ROBERTS IN THE OPERATIONS BRANCH, AND FURTHER THAT INDUSTRIAL
 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN JOB FUNCTIONS ONCE PERFORMED BY ROBERTS, HAD BEEN
 TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW LABORATORY SUPPORT OFFICE (TR. 130).  THE PARTIES
 DISCUSSED THE EFFECT OF AN ANTICIPATED REDUCTION IN FORCE AT AGMC IN THE
 LIGHT OF CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY THE REORGANIZATION (GENERAL COUNSEL
 EXHIBITS 8-F AND 9).  AS A RESULT OF THE MEETING A SECOND GRIEVANCE WAS
 FILED BY ROBERTS ON MAY 17, 1979.  IN ADDITION TO OTHER GROUNDS, THIS
 GRIEVANCE WAS BASED UPON THE ALLEGATIONS UNDERLYING THE MARCH 22, 1979,
 GRIEVANCE TOGETHER WITH ALLEGATIONS QUESTIONING THE RIGHT OF THE
 RESPONDENT TO ABOLISH THE PROGRAM ANALYST POSITION ONCE HELD BY ROBERTS
 IN THE OPERATIONS BRANCH (GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 8-E).  /15/
 
             REORGANIZATION PLAN AGAIN REVIEWED ON MAY 2, 1979
 
    IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE MAY 2, 1979 MEETING ATTENDED BY FLYNN,
 PRICE AND ROBERTS, PRICE AGAIN CONTACTED PETER ROSS AND REQUESTED
 PERMISSION TO SEE THE REORGANIZATION PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING
 THE SPECIFIC EFFECT OF THE REORGANIZATION UPON THE WORK WHICH ROBERTS
 HAD PERFORMED IN THE OPERATIONS BRANCH AS A PROGRAM ANALYST (TR.
 132-133, 206).  ON THIS OCCASION PRICE AGAIN REVIEWED THE PLAN.  HE ALSO
 OBTAINED PHOTOCOPIES OF DOCUMENTS REFLECTING RESPONDENT'S TRANSMISSION
 OF THE PLAN TO THE AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND FOR APPROVAL (GENERAL
 COUNSEL EXHIBIT 7, TR. 207-208).  PRICE THEREAFTER WROTE A MEMORANDUM TO
 THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNION REQUESTING THAT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 CHARGE BE FILED BY THE UNION BECAUSE THE UNION WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE CHANGES MADE BY THE REORGANIZATION
 (TR. 138, GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 1-A).
 
                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    A THRESHOLD ISSUE POSED IN THIS CASE RELATES TO THE RESPONDENT'S
 CONTENTION THAT THE COMPLAINT IS BARRED BY SECTION 7116(D) OF THE
 STATUTE BECAUSE OF A GRIEVANCE FILED ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM ROBERTS ON MAY
 17, 1979.  THIS ARGUMENT MUST BE REJECTED AS THE GRIEVANCE RAISED ISSUES
 OTHER THAN THOSE INVOLVED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE COMPLAINT.  ALSO, THE FACT THAT THE GRIEVANCE WAS NOT FILED BY
 THE UNION IN ITS INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AS AN AGGRIEVED PARTY, PRECLUDES
 CONSIDERATION OF THE GRIEVANCE AS A BASIS FOR BARRING THE COMPLAINT.
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, FRESNO SERVICE
 CENTER, 8 A/SLMR 177, A/SLMR NO. 983 (FEB. 6, 1978).  IT IS THEREFORE
 CONCLUDED THAT THE FILING OF THE GRIEVANCE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN
 ELECTION OF REMEDIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7116(D).
 
    THE REORGANIZATION IMPLEMENTED INVOLVED CHANGES IN THE TERMS AND
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY.  THESE CHANGES
 INVOLVED THE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN SECTIONS 7106(A)
 OF THE STATUTE, 5 U.S.C 7106(A).  SECTION 7106(B)(2) AND (3) OF THE
 STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. 7106(B)(2) AND (3) OPERATE TO REQUIRE MANAGEMENT
 OFFICIALS TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING PROCEDURES TO BE USED IN EXERCISING
 MANAGEMENT RIGHTS, AND CONCERNING APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR
 EMPLOYEES
 ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.  BARGAINING IS
 MANDATORY IN THESE AREAS OF CONCERN.  /16/ MANAGEMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION
 TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE CHANGES CONTEMPLATED AS WELL AS AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE CHANGES.
 
    THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE UNION RECEIVED ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE
 REORGANIZATION MUST FIRST BE CONSIDERED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WHETHER
 PRICE'S ROLE AS UNION STEWARD IN THE DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY CONFERRED
 ON HIM THE AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION.
 THE FACTUAL PATTERN PRESENTED MAKES IT CLEAR THAT PRICE'S OPERATIONS
 BRANCH WORK ASSIGNMENT COUPLED WITH HIS AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY IN THE
 UNION, CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT HE WAS AN
 APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUAL TO RECEIVE NOTICE ON BEHALF OF THE UNION.  HE WAS
 THE UNION'S ONLY STEWARD IN THE DIRECTORATE AND HAD THE AUTHORITY TO
 RECEIVE NOTICE OF CHANGES IN PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND
 WORKING CONDITIONS IN THE DIRECTORATE.  IN FACT, IT WAS HIS
 RESPONSIBILITY TO RELAY INFORMATION TO OTHER UNION OFFICIALS.  THESE
 FACTORS, TOGETHER WITH OTHER INDICIA OF PRICE'S AUTHORITY, LEAD TO THE
 CONCLUSION THAT NOTICE TO PRICE, IF OTHERWISE ADEQUATE, WOULD BE
 SUFFICIENT.  OF INTEREST ON THIS POINT IS THE DECISION OF THE AUTHORITY
 IN INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND IRS RICHMOND DISTRICT OFFICE, ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY CASE NO.  22-09462(CA), 2 FLRA NO. 43 (DEC. 31, 1979), REPORT
 NO. . . . , WHERE NOTICE TO A UNION STEWARD RATHER THAN A UNION
 PRESIDENT, OF PROPOSED ACTIONS CONCERNING THE HIRING AND UTILIZATION OF
 "INTERMITTENT EMPLOYEES" WAS DEEMED ADEQUATE NOTICE, ALTHOUGH IT
 APPEARED THAT PROTOCOL HAD BEEN DISREGARDED BY MANAGEMENT. /17/
 
    THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT PRICE WAS THE RECIPIENT OF A FLOW OF
 INFORMATION ABOUT THE REORGANIZATION NEARLY ONE MONTH PRIOR TO
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN.  AS EARLY AS THE END OF MARCH 1979, PRICE
 WAS AWARE OF DISCUSSIONS IN THE OPERATIONS BRANCH CONCERNING
 REORGANIZATION OF THE DIRECTORATE, AND CONCERNING THE FACT THAT
 DIRECTORATE JOBS WOULD BE AFFECTED.  HIS VAGUENESS ABOUT THE SOURCES OF
 HIS INFORMATION AND THE EXACT NATURE OF THE INFORMATION POSSESSED PRIOR
 TO THE OPERATION BRANCH STAFF MEETING HELD ONE WEEK BEFORE
 IMPLEMENTATION, GAVE RISE TO DOUBT CONCERNING HIS CREDIBILITY.  IN
 ADDITION, PRICE'S TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE LEVEL OF HIS AWARENESS PRIOR
 TO THE OPERATIONS BRANCH STAFF MEETING CONTRADICTED ASSERTIONS THAT HE
 HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE REORGANIZATION PRIOR TO THAT MEETING.
 
    NEVERTHELESS, EVIDENCE OF PRICE'S POSSESSION OF KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO
 FLYNN'S ANNOUNCEMENT AT A STAFF MEETING IS SUPPLEMENTED BY EVIDENCE
 INDICATING THAT PRICE RECEIVED KEY DETAILS RELATING TO THE PLAN AND THE
 DATE OF ANTICIPATED IMPLEMENTATION, AT THE STAFF MEETING.  /18/ THERE
 WAS DISCUSSION OF THE CHANGES CONTEMPLATED BY MANAGEMENT, AND AFTER THE
 STAFF MEETING, PRICE REQUESTED AND RECEIVED A COPY OF THE PLAN. IT IS
 NOTED THAT PRICE HAD SUFFICIENT INFORMATION ABOUT THE REORGANIZATION TO
 GO DIRECTLY TO PETER ROSS, THE INDIVIDUAL IN CHARGE OF DRAFTING THE
 PLAN, ALTHOUGH HE WAS VAGUE CONCERNING HIS ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE
 RELATIVE TO THE INVOLVEMENT OF ROSS IN THE FORMULATION OF THE PLAN.  IT
 WAS ESTABLISHED THAT PRICE RECEIVED THE PLAN AND DETERMINED THAT IT WAS
 NOT A SOURCE OF CONCERN.  HIS TESTIMONY TO THE EFFECT THAT HIS DECISION
 WAS BASED LARGELY UPON THE ABSENCE OF GRIEVANCES ON THE SUBJECT,
 SUGGESTS THAT DETAILS CONCERNING THE PLAN WERE MORE WIDELY CIRCULATED
 THAN PRICE'S TESTIMONY SUGGESTS.  HOWEVER, THE BASIC FACT REMAINS THAT
 THE SPECIFICS OF THE PLAN, THEN ONLY INFORMALLY APPROVED BY HIGHER
 MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, WERE DISCLOSED TO PRICE, AND FURTHER THAT A
 DECISION WAS THEN MADE BY PRICE THAT FURTHER UNION ACTION PRIOR TO
 IMPLEMENTATION WAS NOT NECESSARY.
 
    UPON RECEIPT OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLANNED REORGANIZATION IT WAS
 INCUMBENT UPON THE UNION TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED
 AND REQUEST EITHER TO MEET AND CONFER, OR TO BE GRANTED MORE TIME TO
 CONSIDER THE PROPOSED CHANGES. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PORTSMOUTH NAVAL
 SHIPYARD, 5 A/SLMR 247, A/SLMR NO. 508 (APRIL 29, 1975);  DEPARTMENT OF
 THE ARMY, U.S.  MILITARY ACADEMY, WEST POINT, NEW YORK, 8 A/SLMR 1163,
 A/SLMR NO. 1138 (OCT. 17, 1978);  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WASHINGTON,
 D.C., ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE NO. 22-08866(CA), 1 FLRA NO. 91 (JULY 31,
 1979), REPORT NO. 13. IN THIS CASE IT APPEARED, EITHER RIGHTLY OR
 WRONGLY, THAT PRICE DETERMINED THAT SUCH A REQUEST WOULD BE UNNECESSARY,
 AND NO FURTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN UNTIL THE SECOND WILLIAM ROBERTS
 GRIEVANCE MATTER AROSE ON MAY 2, 1979.  THIS GRIEVANCE PRECIPITATED
 PRICE'S RECOMMENDATION THAT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE BE FILED.
 
    THAT RESPONDENT COULD HAVE GIVEN NOTICE TO THE UNION IN A MORE FORMAL
 MANNER, OR DIRECTLY TO HIGHER UNION OFFICIALS, DOES NOT ATTENUATE THE
 NOTICE ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY PRICE.  IF NOTICE IS OTHERWISE ADEQUATE, IT
 IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT THE NOTICE GIVEN BE FORMAL IN NATURE. SOUTHEAST
 EXCHANGE REGION OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, ROSEWOOD
 WAREHOUSE, COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, 6 A/SLMR 228, A/SLMR NO. 656, (MAY
 28, 1976).  TO HOLD OTHER WISE WOULD ELEVATE FORM OVER SUBSTANCE.  AS
 THE ONLY STEWARD IN THE DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY, PRICE WAS AN
 ESTABLISHED POINT OF CONTACT WITH THE UNION IN THE DIRECTORATE, AND THE
 REORGANIZATION PERTAINED TO THE DIRECTORATE.  STEPS TAKEN BY PRICE ONE
 WEEK BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION CLEARLY SUGGEST THE NATURE OF HIS UNION ROLL,
 THAT IS HE MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THE REORGANIZATION WOULD NOT
 PRESENT A PROBLEM FOR BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS.  IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT
 OTHER UNION OFFICIALS WOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE PLAN FROM A DIFFERENT
 STANDPOINT, OR HAD DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE REORGANIZATION.  THESE
 SPECULATIONS DO NOT UNDERMINE THE FACT THAT THE UNION, THROUGH PRICE,
 WAS APPRISED OF THE PLAN AND HAD AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST
 BARGAINING PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION.  HOWEVER, NO SUCH REQUEST WAS MADE.
 
    IT IS CONCLUDED THAT A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT
 ALLEGATIONS THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF
 THE STATUTE.
 
    UPON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, IT IS
 RECOMMENDED THAT THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING ORDER PURSUANT TO 5
 C.F.R. 2423.29(C):
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 5-CA-157, BE, AND
 HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
                         LOUIS SCALZO
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  MARCH 24, 1980
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ THE AUTHORITY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S CONCLUSION
 THAT THE COMPLAINT HEREIN IS NOT BARRED BY SECTION 7116(D) OF THE
 STATUTE.  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, 3 FLRA 75.
 
    /2/ SECTION 7103(12) DEFINES "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING" AS "THE
 PERFORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF AN AGENCY
 AND THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF EMPLOYEES IN AN APPROPRIATE UNIT IN
 THE AGENCY" TO PERFORM CERTAIN ENUMERATED FUNCTIONS.
 
    /3/ THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY REFLECTS THE GOAL OF BRINGING BALANCE TO
 THE UNION-MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIP IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR.  SEE, E.G., THE
 STATEMENTS OF CONGRESSMAN UDALL OF ARIZONA CONCERNING HIS AMENDMENT
 KNOWN AS THE "UDALL SUBSTITUTE" TO H.R.  11280, 124 CONG. REC. H9633
 (DAILY ED. SEPTEMBER 13, 1978), THE STATEMENTS OF CONGRESSMAN CLAY OF
 MISSOURI 124 CONG. REC. E4497 (DAILY ED. AUG. 10, 1978) AND 124 CONG.
 REC. E4509, (DAILY ED. AUG. 10, 1978), AND THE STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN
 FORD OF MICHIGAN 124 CONG. REC. H8467 (DAILY ED. AUG. 11, 1978).
 
    /4/ DESPITE LANGUAGE ALLEGING A FAILURE TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH
 AFTER JANUARY 2, 1979, IT IS NOTED THAT COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 ARGUED IN HIS POST-HEARING BRIEF THAT THE SOLE ISSUE POSED IS WHETHER
 THE RESPONDENT AFFORDED THE UNION TIMELY, SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE
 NOTICE OF ITS PLAN TO REORGANIZE THE DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY ON APRIL
 23, 1979.
 
    /5/ THESE DOCUMENTS ARE ALSO REFERRED TO HEREIN AS "THE COMPLAINT."
 
    /6/ RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 1 REFLECTS THAT THE CERTIFICATION WAS
 EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 12, 1978;  HOWEVER, THE PLEADINGS ESTABLISH
 JANUARY 13, 1978 AS THE CORRECT DATE.  ALTHOUGH NOT MATERIAL, IT APPEARS
 FROM AN EXAMINATION OF RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 1, THAT JANUARY 12, 1978,
 REPRESENTS THE CORRECT DATE.
 
    /7/ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT CONTENDED THROUGHOUT THAT THE LOCAL
 AGREEMENT CONTINUED UNTIL MAY 4, 1979, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE MASTER
 LABOR RELATIONS AGREEMENT.  SEE RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AT PAGES 5-6.
 HOWEVER, SECTION 202.2(H)(8) OF THE RULES OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 29 C.F.R.
 202.2(H)(8) PROVIDED:  "UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATION ON
 CONSOLIDATION OF UNITS, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EXISTING AGREEMENTS
 COVERING THOSE UNITS EMBODIED IN THE CONSOLIDATION SHALL REMAIN IN
 EFFECT, EXCEPT AS MUTUALLY AGREED BY THE PARTIES, UNTIL A NEW AGREEMENT
 COVERING THE CONSOLIDATED UNIT BECOMES EFFECTIVE."
 
    /8/ THE POST-HEARING BRIEF RECEIVED FROM COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST PROPOSING NUM.ROUS
 CORRECTIONS IN THE HEARING TRANSCRIPT.  THE BRIEF RECEIVED FROM COUNSEL
 FOR THE RESPONDENT REQUESTED A RETRANSCRIPTION OF THE HEARING RECORD
 BECAUSE OF THE "POOR QUALITY" OF THE TRANSCRIPT.  THE LATTER REQUEST WAS
 DENIED;  HOWEVER, COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENT WAS PROVIDED WITH
 AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS.  THEREAFTER, COUNSEL
 REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO FILE A TIMELY REQUEST TO CORRECT
 THE RECORD.  UNDER AUTHORITY PROVIDED IN SECTION 2423.19(R) OF THE
 REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. 2423.19(R), THE REQUEST FILED BY COUNSEL FOR THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL TO CORRECT THE RECORD IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE
 RECORD AND IS GRANTED IN ALL RESPECTS.  HOWEVER, A LARGE NUMBER OF
 ADDITIONAL ERRORS IN THE HEARING TRANSCRIPT WERE NOTED.  THESE
 ADDITIONAL ERRORS ARE REFLECTED IN AN APPENDIX MADE A PART OF THIS
 DECISION.  CORRECTIONS REFLECTED IN THE APPENDIX ARE ALSO APPROVED.
 
    FOLLOWING TIMELY RECEIPT OF RESPONDENT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF COUNSEL
 FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL MOVED TO STRIKE RESPONDENT'S POST-HEARING BRIEF
 ON THE GROUND THAT A COPY THEREOF WAS NOT SERVED ON COUNSEL FOR THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL.  IT APPEARED FROM MOTION PAPERS SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL
 FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL THAT A COPY OF RESPONDENT'S BRIEF WAS IN FACT
 TRANSMITTED TO THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, AND FURTHER THAT COUNSEL FOR THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL DID ACTUALLY HAVE A COPY OF THE BRIEF AVAILABLE TO HIM
 ON FEBRUARY 14, 1980, THE LAST DAY OF THE PERIOD PROVIDED FOR THE FILING
 OF POST-HEARING BRIEFS.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINED, THERE WOULD
 BE NO BASIS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT'S BRIEF.
 HOWEVER, PORTIONS OF THE MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONDENT'S BRIEF, MAY BE
 CONSTRUED AS A REPLY TO THE POST-HEARING BRIEF FILED BY COUNSEL FOR THE
 RESPONDENT.  THESE PORTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED, AND ARE NOT DEEMED
 PART OF THE RECORD.  SEE SECTION 2423.25 OF THE REGULATIONS, 5 U.S.C.
 2423.25.
 
    /9/ IT WAS THE PRACTICE TO COMMUNICATE APPROVAL OF REORGANIZATIONS
 INFORMALLY, AND THEREAFTER TRANSMIT FORMAL APPROVAL TO THE UNIT
 INVOLVED.  IN THIS CASE THE FORMAL APPROVAL WAS DATED APRIL 27, 1979
 (RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 13).
 
    /10/ IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY CONCERNING HOW PRICE KNEW THAT ROSS
 HAD THE PLAN, PRICE WAS VAGUE CONCERNING HIS ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE
 RELATIVE TO THE INVOLVEMENT OF ROSS IN THE FORMULATION OF THE PLAN (TR.
 210-211).
 
    /11/ ROSS WAS UNABLE TO RECALL THE SPECIFIC DATE OF THE CONVERSATION
 WITH PRICE;  HOWEVER, COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
 THE TESTIMONY OF PRICE RELATING TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING WAS ACCURATE
 (TR. 357-358).
 
    /12/ THERE IS AT LEAST SOME INDICATION IN THE RECORD THAT PRICE WAS
 ALLOWED TO MAKE COPIES OF PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THE PLAN ON THE SAME DAY
 (TR. 176).
 
    /13/ ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT PRICE RECEIVED EXACT DETAILS
 OF INFORMATION CONCERNING THE REORGANIZATION AT EARLIER STAFF MEETINGS
 OR IN OFFICE DISCUSSIONS, THE SUM TOTAL OF DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL
 EVIDENCE LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PRICE HAD SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF
 THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION OF THE DIRECTORATE OF METROLOGY AS EARLY AS
 THE END OF MARCH 1979.
 
    /14/ THE RECORD DID INDICATE THAT PRICE WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT
 RELUCTANT TO TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN THE MATTER IN THE ABSENCE OF A
 GRIEVANCE FILED BY A BARGAINING UNIT MEMBER, THAT HE DID NOT WISH TO
 QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF MANAGEMENT, AND FURTHER THAT THIS WAS PRICE'S
 FIRST EXPERIENCE WITH A REORGANIZATION.  HOWEVER, PRICE MADE IT CLEAR
 THAT IF HE HAD DISCERNED AN ADVERSE IMPACT HE WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED
 MANAGEMENT'S PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THE REORGANIZATION.
 
    /15/ AS OF THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING THIS GRIEVANCE WAS PENDING
 DISPOSITION UNDER THE ARBITRATION PROVISIONS OF THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
 
    /16/ THE RULE IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISO THAT NEGOTIATIONS ON
 "PROCEDURES" AND "IMPACT" MAY NOT OPERATE TO PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM
 EXERCISING SUCH MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1999 AND ARMY-AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, DIX-MCGUIRE
 EXCHANGE, FORT DIX, NEW JERSEY, CASE NO. 0-NG-20, 2 FLRA NO. 16, (NOV.
 29, 1979), REPORT NO.  . . . ;  NATIONAL TREASURE EMPLOYEES UNION, CASE
 NO. 0-NG-3, 2 FLRA NO. 30, (DEC. 13, 1979), REPORT NO. . . . .
 
    /17/ THE FACT THAT OTHER OFFICIALS OF LOCAL 2221 DID NOT RECEIVE
 NOTICE OF THE REORGANIZATION, OR THE FACT THAT OTHER UNION OFFICIALS
 BARGAINED WITH THE RESPONDENT CONCERNING OTHER UNRELATED SUBJECTS,
 WOULD
 NOT, AS SUGGESTED BY COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL, COMPRISE A BASIS
 FOR FINDING THAT NOTICE TO PRICE WAS LESS THAN ADEQUATE.
 
    /18/ THE FACT THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS SELECTED FOR LATER TRANSFER
 INTO THE NEW LABORATORY SUPPORT OFFICE WERE IDENTIFIED AT THE STAFF
 MEETING WOULD NOT INDICATE THAT THE PLAN WAS IMPLEMENTED ON THE DATE OF
 THE STAFF MEETING AS SUGGESTED IN THE BRIEF FILED ON BEHALF OF THE
 UNION.  THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT REFERENCE TO THE SUBJECT OF THE
 REORGANIZATION AT THE OPERATIONS BRANCH STAFF MEETING WAS NOT AN
 EFFECUATION OF THE REORGANIZATION PLAN.  IT WAS MERELY A DISCUSSION OF A
 SUBJECT OF CONCERN TO THE OPERATIONS BRANCH, THE UNIT CHARGED WITH THE
 RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGNING THE PLAN.  IT WAS NOT A FORMAL NOTICE OF A
 FINAL CHANGE.  IMPLEMENTATION, INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES IN JOB
 ASSIGNMENTS DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL APRIL 23, 1979.  MOREOVER, AS PREVIOUSLY
 NOTED, IT CLEARLY APPEARED THAT PRICE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPOSED
 REORGANIZATION AS EARLY AS THE END OF MARCH 1979.  WHETHER THE PLAN WAS
 IMPLEMENTED ON APRIL 23, 1979, OR ONE WEEK PRIOR THERETO, THE FACT
 REMAINS THAT PRICE HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION
 AND KNOWLEDGE THAT EMPLOYEE REASSIGNMENTS WOULD BE INVOLVED.  THIS WAS
 SUFFICIENT INFORMATION UPON WHICH TO BASE A BARGAINING REQUEST, A
 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, OR A REQUEST FOR TIME TO STUDY THE PLAN.
 HOWEVER, IMPLEMENTATION WAS ALLOWED TO OCCUR.  BECAUSE OF THESE
 CIRCUMSTANCES AUTHORITIES CITED BY COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR
 THE PURPOSE OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF AN EARLIER IMPLEMENTATION DATE, ARE
 INAPPOSITE.