Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky (Respondent) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 830, AFL-CIO (Charging Party)




[ v04 p760 ]
04:0760(100)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 4 FLRA No. 100
 
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION
 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 LOCAL LODGE 830, INTERNATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND
 AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case Nos. 4-CA-28(2) 
                                                      4-CA-28(7)
 
                           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 THE 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 RESPONDENT FILED EXCEPTIONS
 TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, AND A
 SUPPORTING BRIEF.
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATION (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 THESE
 CASES, INCLUDING THE RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTING BRIEF, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS,
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
    IN PARTICULAR, THE AUTHORITY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 CONCLUSION THAT UPON THE EXPIRATION OF A CONTRACT THE EXISTING PERSONNEL
 POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS CONTINUE
 AS ESTABLISHED UNLESS MODIFIED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE.
 /1/ ADDITIONALLY, THE AUTHORITY TAKES NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT THE
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP ENVISAGED BY THE STATUTE REQUIRES
 EACH PARTY HAVE THE ABILITY TO FUNCTION AS AN EQUAL PARTNER WITHIN THE
 RELATIONSHIP.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE ALSO STRESSES THE
 GOAL OF BALANCED, MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PART OF THE PARTIES.  /2/
 
                                   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 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF
 THE NAVY, NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNION REPRESENTATIVES ON THE
 UNION-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE
 
    WITHOUT NOTIFYING LOCAL LODGE 830, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
 MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
 
    WORKERS, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AND
 FAILING TO AFFORD SUCH
 
    REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT
 WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 
    ON THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH A CHANGE.
 
    (B) CHANGING THE ESTABLISHED SELECTION PROCESS BY SEEKING CANDIDATES
 FOR VACANCIES WITHOUT
 
    FIRST EXHAUSTING THE GROUP OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES FROM NOSL AND
 OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE
 
    PROMOTION PRACTICES PREVIOUSLY ENUNCIATED IN SECTIONS 2(A), 3(A),
 4(B), 5(C), (WITH THE
 
    EXCEPTION OF THE TRAINEES CLAUSE), 6(A) AND 6(B) (WITH THE EXCEPTION
 OF THE LAST SENTENCE OF
 
    6(B)) OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, DATED SEPTEMBER 20,
 1974, WITHOUT FIRST
 
    NOTIFYING LOCAL LODGE 830, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
 AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,
 
    AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AND AFFORDING
 IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO
 
    NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE
 DECISION TO EFFECTUATE
 
    SUCH CHANGES.
 
    (C) UNILATERALLY CHANGING THE PROCEDURES REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT
 OF TRAINEE POSITIONS
 
    AND THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES AS PREVIOUSLY ENUNCIATED IN SECTION
 5(C) AND THE LAST SENTENCE
 
    OF SECTION 6(B), RESPECTIVELY, OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED
 AGREEMENT WITHOUT
 
    NOTIFYING THE ABOVE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AND AFFORDING IT THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE,
 
    TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
 
    DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH CHANGES.
 
    (D) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR 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) RESCIND THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS 1(A) AND 1(B), ABOVE,
 AND RESTORE ALL
 
    CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT REGARDING THESE MATTERS WHICH WERE IN EFFECT
 PRIOR TO SUCH CHANGES.
 
    (B) NOTIFY LOCAL LODGE 830, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
 AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,
 
    AFL-CIO, OF ANY INTENDED DECISION TO IMPLEMENT THE CHANGES SET FORTH
 IN 1(C) ABOVE AND, UPON
 
    REQUEST, NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 ON THE IMPACT AND
 
    IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH DECISION.
 
    (C) NOTIFY SAID EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY INTENDED CHANGES IN
 THE PROMOTION PRACTICES
 
    AND PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 1(B), ABOVE, AND, UPON REQUEST,
 NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH,
 
    TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE DECISION TO
 EFFECTUATE SUCH CHANGES.
 
    (D) POST ALL JOB VACANCIES WHICH OCCURRED AT NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION,
 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY,
 
    AFTER FEBRUARY 8, 1979, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED TERMS AND
 CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN
 
    THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1974, AND EVALUATE ALL
 CANDIDATES FOR SUCH
 
    VACANCIES UNDER THE ESTABLISHED TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AND THE
 
    PUBLISHED AGENCY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE
 CHANGES MADE ON OR ABOUT
 
    FEBRUARY 8, 1979.
 
    (E) IF, FOLLOWING THE ACTION TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 2(D)
 ABOVE IT SHOULD
 
    DEVELOP THAT THERE WAS AN IMPROPER FAILURE TO PROMOTE AN EMPLOYEE,
 THE POSITION TO WHICH SUCH
 
    EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED SHALL BE VACATED, AND THE EMPLOYEE
 SHALL BE PROMOTED AND
 
    REIMBURSED FOR ANY LOSS OF MONIES OCCASIONED BY THE IMPROPER FAILURE
 TO PROMOTE.
 
    (F) POST AT THE NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, 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 COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE NAVAL ORDNANCE
 STATION AND SHALL BE POSTED
 
    AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 
    BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE
 
    COMMANDING OFFICER SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH
 NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
 
    DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (G) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE
 
    REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION 4, SUITE 501, 1776 PEACHTREE STREET,
 N.W., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309,
 
    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., DECEMBER 19, 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 REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNION REPRESENTATIVES ON THE
 UNION-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE WITHOUT NOTIFYING LOCAL LODGE 830,
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
 THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, NOR FAIL TO AFFORD SUCH
 REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS ON THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH A CHANGE.
 
    WE WILL NOT CHANGE THE ESTABLISHED SELECTION PROCESS BY SEEKING
 CANDIDATES FOR VACANCIES WITHOUT FIRST EXHAUSTING THE GROUP OF ELIGIBLE
 CANDIDATES FROM NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, AND
 OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROMOTION PRACTICES PREVIOUSLY ENUNCIATED
 IN SECTIONS 2(A), 3(A), 3(D), 4(B), 5(C) (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE
 TRAINEES CLAUSE), 6(A) AND 6(B) (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LAST SENTENCE
 OF 6(B)) OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1974,
 WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE ABOVE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING
 IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATIONS, ON THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH CHANGES.
 
    WE WILL NOT UNILATERALLY CHANGE THE PROCEDURES REGARDING THE
 ESTABLISHMENT OF TRAINEE POSITIONS AND THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES AS
 PREVIOUSLY ENUNCIATED IN SECTION 5(C) AND THE LAST SENTENCE OF SECTION
 6(B), RESPECTIVELY, OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED AGREEMENT,
 WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE ABOVE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AND AFFORDING IT
 THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION TO
 EFFECTUATE SUCH CHANGES.
 
    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.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND THE DECISIONS (A) TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNION
 REPRESENTATIVES ON THE UNION-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE, AND (B) TO
 CHANGE THE ESTABLISHED SELECTION PRACTICES SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 2(A),
 3(A),3(D), 4(B), 5(C) (EXCLUDING THE TRAINEE PROVISION), 6(A) AND 6(B)
 (EXCLUDING THE LAST SENTENCE) OF ARTICLE 15, OF THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT
 DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1974, AND WE WILL RESTORE ALL CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT REGARDING THESE MATTERS WHICH WERE IN EFFECT PRIOR TO SUCH
 CHANGES.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY LOCAL LODGE 830, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
 MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, OF ANY INTENDED DECISION TO
 IMPLEMENT THE PROCEDURAL CHANGES TO THE TERMS SET FORTH IN SECTION 5(C)
 REGARDING TRAINEE POSITIONS, AND THE LAST SENTENCE OF SECTION 6(B) OF
 ARTICLE 15 OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED AGREEMENT, AND UPON REQUEST NEGOTIATE
 TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS ON THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH DECISION.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY SAID EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY INTENDED CHANGES
 IN THE ESTABLISHED SELECTION PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES SET FORTH ABOVE,
 AND UPON REQUEST, NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH CHANGES.
 
    WE WILL POST ALL JOB VACANCIES WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT WHICH
 OCCURRED AT NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, AFTER FEBRUARY
 8, 1979, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
 ABOVE-MENTION NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, AND EVALUATE ALL CANDIDATES FOR SUCH
 VACANCIES UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY SAID NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT, AND THE PUBLISHED AGENCY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS IN
 EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE CHANGES MADE IN THE SELECTION PROCESS ON OR ABOUT
 FEBRUARY 8, 1979.
 
    WE WILL VACATE POSITIONS WHICH WERE IMPROPERLY FILLED AFTER FEBRUARY
 8, 1979, PROMOTE ANY EMPLOYEE IMPROPERLY DENIED PROMOTION AND REIMBURSE
 SUCH EMPLOYEE ANY LOSS OF MONIES OCCASIONED BY THE IMPROPER FAILURE TO
 PROMOTE.
 
                                (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 ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION IV, WHOSE ADDRESS
 IS:  SUITE 501, NORTH WING, 1776 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W., ATLANTA,
 GEORGIA 30309, AND WHOSE PHONE NUMBER IS (404) 881-2324.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    MITCHELL ARKIN, ESQUIRE
    DOROTHY O'BRIEN, ESQUIRE
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    JAMES R. PUHGER, ESQUIRE
    WILLIAM N. CATES, ESQUIRE
                          FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    LOUIS P. POULTON, ESQUIRE
                          FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
 
    BEFORE:  RANDOLPH D. MASON,
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THESE CASES AROSE PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, 92 STAT. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101, ET SEQ., AS A RESULT OF
 A CONSOLIDATED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT FILED ON SEPTEMBER 25,
 1979, BY THE ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION IV, FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA, AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF
 DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF NAVY, NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION, LOUISVILLE,
 KENTUCKY.  THE COMPLAINT ARISES OUT OF CHARGES FILED BY LOCAL LODGE 830,
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO
 ("UNION").
 
    THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SEC. 7116(A)(5) AND
 (1) BY UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTING CHANGES TO THE COMPOSITION OF A
 UNION-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE AND UNILATERALLY CANCELLING CERTAIN
 ESTABLISHED PROMOTION PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES WITHOUT FURNISHING THE
 UNION WITH NOTICE AND/OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN.  RESPONDENT DENIES
 THESE ALLEGATIONS AND ALSO MOVES TO DISMISS IN EACH OF THE CONSOLIDATED
 CASES ON THE GROUND THAT THE UNDERSIGNED LACKS JURISDICTION.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN THIS MATTER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AT
 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, ON DECEMBER 18, 1979.  ALL PARTIES WERE
 REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, ADDUCE
 RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.  ALL PARTIES
 FILED BRIEFS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.  BASED ON THE ENTIRE
 RECORD THEREIN, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR
 DEMEANOR, THE EXHIBITS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE
 HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND
 RECOMMENDED ORDER:
 
                         FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    I.  JURISDICTION
 
    THE FIRST ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THESE ACTIONS WERE
 APPROPRIATELY BROUGHT BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED IN THE CONTEXT OF AN UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS, INTER ALIA, THAT THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING HAS NO
 AUTHORITY TO RESOLVE NEGOTIABILITY QUESTIONS, AND THAT SUCH
 DETERMINATIONS MUST FIRST BE MADE UNDER THE NEGOTIABILITY PROCEDURES SET
 FORTH IN SECTION 7117 OF THE STATUTE AND PART 2424 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 RULES AND REGULATIONS.  HOWEVER, THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
 PROMULGATED BY THE AUTHORITY (45 FED.REG. 3482, ET SEQ.), WHICH BECAME
 EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 28, 1980, CLEARLY PROVIDE THAT NEGOTIABILITY
 DETERMINATIONS MAY BE MADE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS UNDER PART 2423.  SECTION 2423.5 OF THOSE
 REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT WHERE A UNION HAS FILED BOTH AN
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE INVOLVING A NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE AND HAS
 ALSO PETITIONED NOR REVIEW OF THE SAME NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE UNDER PART
 2424, THE UNION MUST "SELECT UNDER WHICH PROCEDURE TO PROCEED." THE
 AUTHORITY AND GENERAL COUNSEL ORDINARILY WILL NOT PROCESS THE UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE AND THE PETITION FOR REVIEW SIMULTANEOUSLY.  ID.
 SECTION 2423.5 ALSO PROVIDES:
 
    . . . CASES WHICH SOLELY INVOLVE AN AGENCY'S ALLEGATION THAT THE DUTY
 TO BARGAIN IN GOOD
 
    FAITH DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE MATTER PROPOSED TO BE BARGAINED AND
 WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE ACTUAL
 
    OR CONTEMPLATED CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT MAY ONLY BE FILED
 UNDER PART 2424 OF THIS
 
    SUBCHAPTER.
 
    THE CLEAR IMPLICATION OF THE ABOVE-QUOTED SENTENCE IS THAT
 NEGOTIABILITY DETERMINATIONS MAY BE MADE IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING "ACTUAL OR CONTEMPLATED CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT." IN BOTH OF THE INSTANT CONSOLIDATED CASES, SUCH CHANGES
 WERE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.  FURTHERMORE, I HAVE CONCLUDED, INFRA,
 THAT SUCH CHANGES WERE UNILATERALLY MADE BY THE RESPONDENT.  WHERE AN
 AGENCY COMMITS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BY MAKING UNILATERAL CHANGES IN
 WORKING CONDITIONS, THE UNION SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PURSUE THE
 NEGOTIABILITY PROCEDURES UNDER PART 2424 OF THE REGULATIONS BEFORE
 SEEKING ITS REMEDY UNDER THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING.
 THEREFORE, I CONCLUDE THAT THE INSTANT ACTION WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT
 BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AND THAT THE RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS MUST
 BE DENIED.  /3/
 
    II.  CHANGE IN SAFETY COMMITTEE
 
    A.  ISSUE
 
    THE NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER RESPONDENT VIOLATED
 SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE WHEN IT UNILATERALLY CHANGED
 THE NUMBER OF UNION REPRESENTATIVES ON THE UNION-MANAGEMENT SAFETY
 COMMITTEE WITHOUT AFFORDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN
 CONCERNING THE BASIC CHANGE AND/OR THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS
 CHANGE.
 
    B.  FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1974, THE ACTIVITY ENTERED INTO A COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION;  /4/ ARTICLE 19 PROVIDED IN PART AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    SECTION 2.  SAFETY COMMITTEE
 
    A.  THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION AGREE TO ESTABLISH A SAFETY COMMITTEE
 CONSISTING OF AN EQUAL
 
    NUMBER OF UNION AND EMPLOYER REPRESENTATIVES.  SAID COMMITTEE WILL
 FUNCTION WITHOUT LOSS OF
 
    PAY OR LEAVE DURING WORKING HOURS.
 
    B.  THE COMMITTEE SHALL MEET AT LEAST ONCE EACH MONTH TO CONSIDER
 SAFETY PROBLEMS AND TO
 
    MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SAFETY TO THE COMMANDING
 OFFICER . . .
 
    SECTION 3 PROVIDED THAT WHEN SAFETY QUESTIONS COULD NOT BE SETTLED
 BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE ACTIVITY, AND IF THE UNION BELIEVED THAT A
 SAFETY HAZARD STILL EXISTED, THE QUESTION COULD BE SUBMITTED TO
 ARBITRATION FOR RESOLUTION.
 
    THIS AGREEMENT WAS AMENDED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1976, BUT NO CHANGE WAS
 MADE IN THE LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE 19.  THE AMENDED AGREEMENT EXPIRED ON
 SEPTEMBER 20, 1977.
 
    SOON AFTER THE 1974 AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED, THE SAFETY COMMITTEE WAS
 ESTABLISHED.  THE UNION APPOINTED 15 REPRESENTATIVES, EACH REPRESENTING
 A DIFFERENT BUILDING OR COST CENTER AT THE ACTIVITY;  RESPONDENT
 APPOINTED AN EQUAL NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES FOR EACH OF THE
 ABOVE LOCATIONS, PLUS A CHAIRMAN AND A SAFETY DIRECTOR, BRINGING THE
 TOTAL MEMBERSHIP OF THE SAFETY COMMITTEE TO 32 MEMBERS.  THE COMMITTEE
 MET ONCE A MONTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING SAFETY PROBLEMS,
 RECOMMENDING THE PURCHASE OF SAFETY EQUIPMENT, SHOWING SAFETY FILMS, AND
 USING OTHER TRAINING METHODS.  THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF THE MEETINGS WAS 45
 MINUTES.  THE ABOVE PRACTICE CONTINUED THROUGH DECEMBER OF 1973
 NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXPIRATION OF THE AGREEMENT IN SEPTEMBER OF 1977.
 
    ON NOVEMBER 27, 1978, COMMANDING OFFICER H.M. DEJARNETTE ISSUED A
 MEMORANDUM TO VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS AT THE ACTIVITY SETTING A "GOAL" OF A
 20 PERCENT REDUCTION IN THE COST OF ALL MEETINGS THEN BEING HELD AT THE
 ACTIVITY.  THE MEMORANDUM WAS DIRECTED AT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO CONTROL
 THE MEETINGS.  /3/ THE SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING WAS ON THE LIST TARGETED
 FOR COST REDUCTION.  THE MEMORANDUM REQUESTED THE INDIVIDUALS
 CONTROLLING THE MEETINGS TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF ACTION TO ATTAIN THE 20
 PERCENT REDUCTION.  THE MEMORANDUM ALSO SUGGESTED VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH
 THE GOAL MIGHT BE MET, FOR ALL MEETINGS AT THE ACTIVITY, INCLUDING THE
 REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN EACH MEETING.  HOWEVER, IT
 WAS CLEAR THAT NO FINAL DECISION HAD BEEN MADE AT THIS POINT TO REDUCE
 THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS OF ANY COMMITTEE MEETING.
 
    ON JANUARY 3, 1979, THE COMMANDING OFFICER SENT A MEMORANDUM TO THE
 UNION PRESIDENT STATING THAT, EFFECTIVE WITH THE JANUARY 19, 1979,
 MEETING, THE SAFETY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP WOULD BE REDUCED FROM 15
 MEMBERS TO FOUR MEMBERS TO REPRESENT EACH SIDE, I.E., UNION AND
 MANAGEMENT.  IT WAS STATED THAT EACH MEMBER WOULD NOW BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
 REPRESENTING A LARGER NUMBER OF BUILDINGS AND EMPLOYEES AT THE ACTIVITY.
  THE MEMORANDUM LISTED FOUR "COMBINED AREAS" OF REPRESENTATION AND
 REQUESTED THE UNION TO SUBMIT THE NAMES OF ITS FOUR NOMINEES BY JANUARY
 8, 1979.
 
    BY MEMORANDUM DATED JANUARY 8, 1979, THE UNION PRESIDENT FORMALLY
 REQUESTED TO NEGOTIATE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE
 MEMBERSHIP OF THE SAFETY COMMITTEE.  HE STATED THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT
 HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE THIS CHANGE UNILATERALLY.  THE COMMANDING OFFICER
 RESPONDED BY MEMORANDUM DATED JANUARY 17, 1979, THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT
 OBLIGATED TO BARGAIN OVER THIS CHANGE BECAUSE "THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
 APPOINTED TO A PROJECT IS WITHIN MY PURVIEW AND AUTHORITY" AND BECAUSE
 IT WOULD IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RESPONDENT
 ACTIVITY.  HE FURTHER STATED THAT UNLESS THE UNION PROVIDED ITS FOUR
 NOMINEES TO MATCH RESPONDENT'S FOUR NOMINEES PRIOR TO JANUARY 19, THE
 SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING WOULD BE HELD WITHOUT UNION PARTICIPATION.  BY
 MEMORANDUM DATED JANUARY 18, THE UNION PRESIDENT AGAIN TOLD THE
 COMMANDING OFFICER THAT THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT UNILATERALLY CHANGE THE
 COMPOSITION OF THE SAFETY COMMITTEE.
 
    NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROTESTATIONS OF THE UNION, RESPONDENT REFUSED TO
 BARGAIN AND HELD THE JANUARY 19, 1979 SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING WITH A
 REDUCED NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES AND WITHOUT ANY UNION
 REPRESENTATION.
 
    C.  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
 
    THE BASIC QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE UNILATERAL REDUCTION
 IN UNION MEMBERSHIP ON THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF SECTIONS
 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.  IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT AGENCY
 MANAGEMENT IS GENERALLY EXPECTED TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE UNION
 WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AFFECTING BARGAINING UNIT
 EMPLOYEES, AND CANNOT MAKE CHANGES IN THESE CONDITIONS WITHOUT DOING SO.
  SEE 5 U.S.C. 7103 (12).  THESE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT INCLUDE
 "MATTERS . . . AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS." 5 U.S.C. 7103 (14).  IT IS
 CLEAR THAT THE ACTIVITY'S LARGE REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF UNION
 REPRESENTATIVES ON THE SAFETY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED A DRAMATIC CHANGE IN
 THE COMPOSITION OF A COMMITTEE DESIGNED TO PROTECT UNIT EMPLOYEES FROM
 HAZARDOUS WORKING CONDITIONS.  THE ORIGINAL COMPOSITION OF THE SAFETY
 COMMITTEE, WHICH INCLUDED 15 UNION REPRESENTATIVES, WAS A
 WELL-ESTABLISHED AND LONG-STANDING CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.  THERE IS NO
 ARGUMENT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS CONDITION HAD EXISTED FOR MANY YEARS.
 LIKEWISE, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE WAS, IN
 FACT, A "CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.
 THIS POSITION FINDS SUPPORT IN A CASE UNDER E.O.  11491 HOLDING THAT AN
 AGENCY MUST BARGAIN ABOUT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBERSHIP OF A SAFETY
 COMMITTEE.  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION III, A/SLMR NO.
 997, 8 A/SLMR 258 (1978).  IF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SAFETY COMMITTEE IS
 A NEGOTIABLE MATTER, IT FOLLOWS THAT A DRAMATIC ALTERATION OF THE
 COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE WOULD ALSO BE NEGOTIABLE.  THIS IS
 PARTICULARLY TRUE IN THE INSTANT CASE WHERE THE UNIT EMPLOYEES ON THE
 COMMITTEE WERE APPOINTED BY THE UNION AND WERE PERFORMING PROTECTED,
 REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES.  BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNION
 REPRESENTATIVES FROM 15 TO FOUR, THE STRENGTH OF EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION
 WAS DILUTED.
 
    ON THE OTHER HAND, RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT IT WAS MERELY CHANGING THE
 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO AN ORGANIZATIONAL SUBDIVISION OR "WORK
 PROJECT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7106(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE, AND
 THAT IT WAS, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ELECT TO MAKE A UNILATERAL CHANGE.
 I DISAGREE.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIS COMMITTEE WAS INDEPENDENT AND
 FREE-STANDING, AND WAS IN NO WAY A "SUBDIVISION" WITHIN THE
 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.  THE COMMITTEE WAS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE
 PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT;  THUS IT HAD ITS GENESIS IN
 THE UNION-MANAGEMENT BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP RATHER THAN A MANAGEMENT
 DIRECTIVE.
 
    IN ADDITION, I AM CONSTRAINED TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO
 INCLUDE THIS TYPE OF UNION-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE WITHIN THE
 MEANING OF A "WORK PROJECT" UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(1).  THAT SECTION
 MAKES THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO A WORK PROJECT A MATTER ABOUT
 WHICH MANAGEMENT MAY OR MAY NOT ELECT TO BARGAIN.  BUT CONGRESS WAS
 OBVIOUSLY SPEAKING ONLY ABOUT THE AGENCY'S "WORK," I.E. WORK THAT IS
 DIRECTLY AND INTEGRALLY RELATED TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE MISSION OF
 THE AGENCY.  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, AND
 AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO, CASE
 NO.  0-NG-40, 2 FLRA NO. 77 AT 15 (JANUARY 31, 1980), REPORT NO. . . .
 THE FUNCTION OF THE SAFETY COMMITTEE IN THIS CASE LACKS THE REQUISITE
 RELATIONSHIP TO NAVAL ORDNANCE;  FURTHERMORE, THE COMMITTEE WAS CREATED
 BY BOTH THE UNION AND THE AGENCY.  THE PARTIES' NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT
 ALSO PRESCRIBED THE FUNCTION AND DUTIES OF THE COMMITTEE.  THERE IS NO
 EVIDENCE THAT ANY AGENCY DIRECTIVE WAS INVOLVED.  AFTER THE NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT EXPIRED IN SEPTEMBER OF 1977, THE COMMITTEE CONTINUED TO MEET
 IN THE SAME MANNER AND FORM AS IT HAD IN THE PAST UNTIL RESPONDENT
 UNILATERALLY CHANGED IT IN JANUARY OF 1979.  IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT,
 WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT RELEVANT HERETO, UPON THE EXPIRATION OF A
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, EXISTING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND
 MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS CONTINUE AS ESTABLISHED AND CANNOT
 BE CHANGED UNILATERALLY UNLESS A "PERMISSIVE" SUBJECT OF BARGAINING /6/
 IS INVOLVED.  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, OGDEN SERVICE CENTER, ET AL.,
 FLRC NOS. 77A-40, 77A-92, 6 FLRC 310 (1978).
 
    SINCE RESPONDENT HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE UNILATERAL CHANGE
 IN THE ESTABLISHED NUMBER OF UNION REPRESENTATIVES ON THE SAFETY
 COMMITTEE WAS MADE PURSUANT TO ANY RESERVED MANAGEMENT RIGHT OR
 PREROGATIVE, I MUST CONCLUDE THAT ITS ACTION CONSTITUTED A REFUSAL TO
 NEGOTIATE IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(5) AND (1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    III.  PROMOTION PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES
 
    A.  ISSUES
 
    THE NEXT QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR DECISION ARISE OUT OF RESPONDENT'S
 CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN ESTABLISHED HIRING AND PROMOTION PRACTICES,
 POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES.  THE ISSUES ARE (1) WHICH POLICIES AND/OR
 PROCEDURES WERE CANCELED, (2) WHETHER THE DECISIONS TO CANCEL CONCERNED
 NEGOTIABLE MATTERS, AND (3) WHETHER THE RESPONDENT GAVE THE UNION
 REASONABLE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE ABOUT EITHER THE BASIC
 DECISIONS OR THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH DECISIONS.
 
    B.  FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE WAS JANUARY 11, 1979.  SECTION 7106
 PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    (A) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION, NOTHING IN THIS
 CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE
 
    AUTHORITY OF ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OR ANY AGENCY--
 
    . . . (2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS--
 
    . . . (C) WITH RESPECT TO FILLING POSITIONS TO MAKE SELECTIONS FOR
 APPOINTMENTS FROM--
 
    (I) AMONG PROPERLY RANKED AND CERTIFIED CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION;  OR
 
    (II) ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE . . .
 
    AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNION AND
 RESPONDENT EXPIRED IN SEPTEMBER OF 1977.  ARTICLE 15 WAS A
 COMPREHENSIVE, TEN-PAGE PORTION OF THAT AGREEMENT RELATING TO
 "PROMOTIONS." AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE AGREEMENT RESPONDENT CONTINUED
 TO FOLLOW, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT RELEVANT HEREIN, THE PRACTICES,
 PROCEDURES AND POLICIES SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 15.  HOWEVER, AFTER THE
 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE NEW FSLMR STATUTE, AND ON OR SHORTLY BEFORE
 FEBRUARY 8, 1979, RESPONDENT MADE A FINAL DECISION TO UNILATERALLY
 CANCEL CERTAIN OF THESE PRACTICES AND POLICIES WHICH IT CONSIDERED
 NEGATED BY SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE.  NO NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO
 THE UNION PRIOR TO MAKING THIS DECISION.  THE CANCELLED PRACTICES,
 PROCEDURES, AND POLICIES ARE SET FORTH IN THE EXPIRED AGREEMENT AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    SECTION 2.  AREA OF CONSIDERATION
 
    A.  THE INITIAL AREA OF CONSIDERATION FOR ALL VACANCIES FOR WHICH
 EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT ARE
 
    ELIGIBLE WILL BE NOSL AND THE VOLUNTARY APPLICATION FILE.
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    SECTION 3.  POSTING AND FILING FOR VACANCIES
 
    A.  ANNOUNCEMENTS OF VACANT POSITIONS WITHIN THE UNIT SHALL BE POSTED
 ON ALL BULLETIN
 
    BOARDS FOR AT LEAST FIVE WORKING DAYS UNLESS:
 
    (1) THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED REGISTER, OR
 
    (2) THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED REGISTER AND THE VACANCY IS FILLED BY
 REASSIGNMENT.
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    D.  ALL EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE
 APPLICATION OR A NOTICE OF
 
    INTENT FOR ANY VACANCY.
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    SECTION 4.  PROCEDURE FOR RATING AND RANKING
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    B.  THE EMPLOYER AGREES THAT ALL ELIGIBLE PERSONNEL INCLUDING THOSE
 ON THE VOLUNTARY
 
    APPLICATION FILE (VAF) WHO WISH TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A VACANCY, BY
 VIRTUE OF RE-INSTATEMENT,
 
    RE-ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER OR PROMOTION UNDER THIS MERIT PROMOTION AND
 INTERNAL PLACEMENT PLAN
 
    SHALL MEET THE SAME STANDARDS AND BE SUBJECTED TO THE SAME CRITERIA
 AS SHALL MEET THE SAME
 
    STANDARDS AND BE SUBJECTED TO THE SAME CRITERIA AS ALL OTHER
 CANDIDATES, INCLUDING BEING
 
    PLACED ON THE SAME REGISTER AND TANKED IN THE SAME MANNER . . .
 
    SECTION 5.  REGISTERS
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    C.  REGISTERS SHALL NOT BE ESTABLISHED AT A HIGHER OR LOWER GRADE TO
 EVADE AN ESTABLISHED
 
    REGISTER;  NOR SHALL A TRAINEE POSITION BE ESTABLISHED FOR A POSITION
 WHEN A REGISTER IS
 
    ALREADY ESTABLISHED TO FILL THE VACANCY AND/OR THERE ARE WELL
 QUALIFIED CANDIDATES TO FILL THE
 
    POSITION.
 
   .          .               .          .
 
 
    SECTION 6.  SELECTION PROCEDURES AND RULES
 
    A.  SELECTIONS FOR FILLING POSITIONS WITHIN THE UNIT WILL BE MADE
 AFTER INTERVIEWING ALL
 
    CERTIFIED CANDIDATES FROM AMONG THE TOP THREE ELIGIBLES ON THE
 REGISTER WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION
 
    IN SELECTION FOR ANY REASON NOT RELATED TO QUALIFICATIONS TO PERFORM
 THE DUTIES ENTAILED IN
 
    THE POSITION.
 
    B.  THE SELECTING OFFICIAL WILL BE PROVIDED A CERTIFICATE OF THE TOP
 THREE RATED
 
    CANDIDATES.  HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE ONLY ONE OR TWO WELL QUALIFIED
 CANDIDATES, THE SELECTING
 
    OFFICIAL MAY CHOOSE ONE OF THESE WITHOUT EXTENDING THE AREA OF
 CONSIDERATION.  IF THIS
 
    PROCEDURE IS NOT FOLLOWED, AND THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION IS EXPANDED
 BEYOND THE STATION, THE
 
    SELECTION SHALL RESULT IN A CLEARLY BETTER QUALIFIED CANDIDATE.
 
    RESPONDENT ALSO THOUGHT CERTAIN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE EXPIRED
 AGREEMENT "MAY" ALSO HAVE BEEN NEGATED BY THE NEW STATUTE, BUT NO FINAL
 DECISION WAS MADE REGARDING THE CANCELLATION OF THOSE SECTIONS.
 
    AFTER CANCELING THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, ON FEBRUARY 8, 1979, R.E.
 LONG, THE RESPONDENT'S CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OFFICER, SENT THE FOLLOWING
 MEMORANDUM TO THE UNION PRESIDENT:
 
    AFTER REVIEW OF (THE STATUTE) THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROVISIONS,
 CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 15,
 
    WHICH INFRINGE ON MANAGEMENT RIGHTS (PARA. 7106(A)(2)(C)).  YOU ARE
 HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
 
    PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 15, WHICH INFRINGES (SIC) ON
 MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO SELECT FROM
 
    PROPERLY RANKED AND CERTIFIED REGISTERS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
 SOURCE
 
    (I.E. REASSIGNMENT;  RECRUITMENT FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES, WHEN DEEMED
 NECESSARY;  UPWARD MOBILITY,
 
    ETC.) ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN NEGATED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
 (THE STATUTE) ON 11 JANUARY
 
    1979.
 
    BY MEMORANDUM TO THE RESPONDENT'S COMMANDING OFFICER DATED FEBRUARY
 9, 1979, THE UNION PRESIDENT RESPONDED TO LONG'S FEBRUARY 8 MEMORANDUM.
 HE STATED THAT HE EXPECTED RESPONDENT TO HONOR ALL COMMITMENTS MADE IN
 THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AND "FAILING THIS, TO NEGOTIATE ANY CHANGES."
 HE STATED THAT HE WAS AVAILABLE TO CONDUCT APPROPRIATE NEGOTIATIONS AS
 REQUIRED.  RESPONDENT FAILED TO REPLY TO THE UNION'S FEBRUARY 9
 MEMORANDUM.
 
    TWO WEEKS LATER THE UNION PRESIDENT CALLED LONG AND ASKED WHEN THEY
 WOULD MEET SO THAT HE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT LONG MEANT IN THE FEBRUARY 8
 MEMORANDUM.  HE LATER SAW LONG IN THE HALLWAY AND ASKED THE SAME
 QUESTION.  ON BOTH OCCASIONS LONG SAID HE WOULD GET TOGETHER WITH HIM
 LATER.  DURING THE CONVERSATION IN THE HALLWAY, THE UNION PRESIDENT
 SPECIFICALLY ASKED LONG WHAT RESPONDENT'S POSITION WAS, BUT LONG FAILED
 TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.  DURING THESE CONVERSATIONS THE PRESIDENT NEVER
 SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED NEGOTIATIONS OVER IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION
 BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD HAVE BEEN PREMATURE-- HE DID NOT YET KNOW WHAT
 CHANGES HAD BEEN MADE.
 
    WHEN NO FURTHER RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED FROM RESPONDENT, ON MARCH 5,
 1979, THE UNION FILED ITS ORIGINAL CHARGE INITIATING THE INSTANT ACTION.
 
    SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RESPONDENT IMPLEMENTED SOME OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED
 CHANGES WHEN EMPLOYEES WERE INTERVIEWED BEFORE RATING NOTICES WERE SENT
 OUT AND RESPONDENT HIRED PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE ACTIVITY WITHOUT FIRST
 ESTABLISHING INTERNAL REGISTERS.  SUBSEQUENTLY, IN OCTOBER OF 1979,
 RESPONDENT ISSUED SIX VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENTS WITH "NATIONWIDE" AREAS OF
 CONSIDERATION.  THESE ACTIONS WERE ALL TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE DECISIONS
 MADE ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 8, 1979.
 
    C.  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
 
    IT IS FIRST NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHAT PRECISE CHANGES WERE MADE BY
 RESPONDENT REGARDING ITS PROMOTION/HIRING PRACTICES, PROCEDURES, AND
 POLICIES.  I HAVE CONCLUDED, BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF MR. LONG,
 RESPONDENT'S CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OFFICER, THAT RESPONDENT MADE A FINAL
 DECISION ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 8, 1979, TO UNILATERALLY CANCEL CERTAIN
 ESTABLISHED PRACTICES.  THESE HAVE BEEN SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN MY
 FINDINGS OF FACT.  /7/ ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT CERTAIN OTHER
 CHANGES WERE ALSO MADE BY RESPONDENT, THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE BASED UPON
 AN AFFIDAVIT /8/ EXECUTED BY MR. LONG (RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 1).
 HOWEVER, AT THE HEARING LONG CLARIFIED THE STATEMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT
 AND TESTIFIED WITH CANDOR THAT CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE OLD NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT WERE CONSIDERED "ABSOLUTELY NEGATED" BY THE NEW STATUTE,
 WHEREAS NO DECISION HAD BEEN MADE REGARDING OTHER PROVISIONS WHICH HE
 CONCLUDED MIGHT "POSSIBLY" HAVE BEEN NEGATED.  I MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL HAS FAILED TO SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT A FINAL
 DECISION WAS MADE TO CANCEL THE LATTER, "QUESTIONABLE" PROVISIONS.  /9/
 
    IT IS CLEAR THAT MANAGEMENT DID NOT NOTIFY THE UNION PRIOR TO MAKING
 THE FINAL DECISION TO CANCEL THE ABOVE PROMOTION PRACTICES AND
 PROCEDURES.  IF ANY OF THESE CHANGES CONCERNED NEGOTIABLE MATTERS, THEN
 THE FAILURE TO GIVE THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN ABOUT THE
 DECISION WOULD BE A CLEAR VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(5) AND (1) OF THE
 STATUTE.  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, OGDEN SERVICE CENTER, ET AL. SUPRA.
 
    THUS EACH OF THE UNILATERAL CHANGES MADE MUST BE EXAMINED TO
 DETERMINE WHETHER THEY CONCERNED NEGOTIABLE MATTERS.  RESPONDENT
 APPARENTLY ASSUMES THAT ALL OF THESE CHANGES WERE NONNEGOTIABLE AND
 WERE
 MADE PURSUANT TO MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) WITH
 RESPECT TO FILLING POSITIONS, TO MAKE SELECTIONS FROM AMONG PROPERLY
 RANKED AND CERTIFIED CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION OR FROM ANY OTHER
 APPROPRIATE SOURCE.  I AGREE WITH RESPONDENT ON ONLY TWO OF THE CHANGES
 THAT WERE MADE;  THE REMAINING CHANGES CONCERNED NEGOTIABLE "PROCEDURES"
 UNDER SECTION 7106(B) (2).  THE CANCELLED PRACTICES, PROCEDURES, AND
 POLICIES ARE REFERRED TO BELOW, FOR CONVENIENCE, BY THEIR PREVIOUSLY
 DESIGNATED SECTION NUMBERS IN ARTICLE 15 OF THE EXPIRED NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT:
 
    1.  SECTION 2(A).  IT HAD BEEN AN ESTABLISHED PRACTICE THAT THE
 "INITIAL" AREA OF CONSIDERATION FOR ALL VACANCIES FOR WHICH EMPLOYEES IN
 THE UNIT WERE ELIGIBLE WAS THE RESPONDENT ACTIVITY AND THE "VOLUNTARY
 APPLICATION FILE" (THE LATTER CONSISTING OF CERTAIN DOD EMPLOYEES FROM
 OTHER ACTIVITIES.) RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THIS PROVISION CONFLICTS WITH
 ITS RIGHT UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) TO MAKE SELECTIONS FROM ANY
 APPROPRIATE SOURCE.  I DISAGREE AND HELD THAT THE INSTANT PROVISION
 CONSTITUTED A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2).  IN A
 RECENT CASE, THE AUTHORITY HELD THAT A UNION PROPOSAL CONTAINING SIMILAR
 LANGUAGE WAS NEGOTIABLE UNDER THAT SECTION.  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO LOCAL 331 AND VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
 HOSPITAL, PERRY POINT, MARYLAND, CASE NO. 0-NG-17, 2 FLRA NO. 59,
 (JANUARY 17, 1980), REPORT NO. . . .  THERE IT WAS HELD THAT CONGRESS
 INTENDED TO PRESERVE MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO SELECT IN FILLING A POSITION,
 BUT ALSO INTENDED TO AFFORD THE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE
 CONCERNING STANDARDS, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES TO THE EXTENT THAT
 BARGAINING ON SUCH MATTERS WOULD NOT PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM EXERCISING
 ITS RIGHT TO MAKE THE ACTUAL SELECTION.  SEE ALSO, NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 6 AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, NEW ORLEANS
 DISTRICT OFFICE, CASE NO. 0-NG-9, 1 FLRA NO. 102 (AUGUST 23, 1979),
 REPORT NO. 15.
 
    IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ACTIVITY AND VOLUNTARY APPLICATION FILE HAD
 FOR YEARS BEEN THE INITIAL AREA OF CONSIDERATION.  THUS RESPONDENT WAS
 NOT LIMITED TO CONSIDERATION OF THOSE APPLICANTS AND WAS NOT PREVENTED
 FROM EXPANDING THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION ONCE THE INITIAL AREA WAS
 CONSIDERED AND EXHAUSTED.  THUS IT WAS NOT PREVENTED FROM ULTIMATELY
 SELECTING FROM "ANY . . . APPROPRIATE SOURCE" UNDER SECTION 7106(A).
 
    2.  SECTION 3(A).  THIS SECTION PROVIDED THAT WITH CERTAIN
 EXCEPTIONS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OF VACANT POSITIONS WITHIN THE UNIT SHALL BE
 POSTED ON ALL BULLETIN BOARDS FOR AT LEAST FIVE WORKING DAYS.  THIS ALSO
 REPRESENTED A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2).  THIS
 PROCEDURE CLEARLY DID NOT PREVENT RESPONDENT FROM EXERCISING ITS RIGHT
 TO MAKE A SELECTION IN FILLING VACANCIES;  I.E. POSTING DID NOT PREVENT
 THE AGENCY FROM "ACTING AT ALL" IN EXERCISING THIS RIGHT.  NATIONAL
 TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, CASE NO.
 0-NG-109, 2 FLRA NO. 33, (DEC. 21, 1979), REPORT NO. 24.
 
    3.  SECTION 3(D).  HERE THE PRIOR PRACTICE OF GIVING ALL EMPLOYEES IN
 THE UNIT THE RIGHT TO FILE APPLICATION OR A NOTICE OF INTENT FOR ANY
 VACANCY WAS CANCELLED.  SINCE THE UNIT EMPLOYEES' ESTABLISHED RIGHT TO
 APPLY DID NOT PREVENT RESPONDENT FROM EXERCISING ITS RIGHT TO MAKE
 SELECTIONS, THE PRACTICE CONSTITUTED A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE AS IN THE
 CHANGES DISCUSSED IN PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2), ABOVE.  VETERANS
 ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, SUPRA.
 
    4.  SECTION 4(B).  THIS WAS LABELED AS A "PROCEDURE FOR RATING AND
 RANKING." PRIOR TO ITS CANCELLATION AND OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 8, 1979,
 RESPONDENT HAD FOLLOWED THIS PROVISION:
 
    . . . ALL ELIGIBLE PERSONNEL INCLUDING THOSE ON THE VOLUNTARY
 APPLICATION FILE (VAF) WHO
 
    WISH TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A VACANCY, BY VIRTUE OF RE-INSTATEMENT,
 RE-ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER OR
 
    PROMOTION UNDER THIS MERIT PROMOTION AND INTERNAL PLACEMENT PLAN
 SHALL MEET THE SAME STANDARDS
 
    AND BE SUBJECTED TO THE SAME CRITERIA AS ALL OTHER CANDIDATES,
 INCLUDING BEING PLACED ON THE
 
    SAME REGISTER AND RANKED IN THE SAME MANNER . . .
 
    AS PREVIOUSLY STATED IN THE DISCUSSION OF SECTION 2(A), THE AUTHORITY
 HELD IN VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, SUPRA, THAT PROMOTION
 STANDARDS AND CRITERIA WERE NEGOTIABLE UNLESS MANAGEMENT WAS PRECLUDED
 FROM MAKING THE ACTUAL SELECTION.  THEREFORE, SECTION 4(B) IS A
 NEGOTIABLE MATTER.
 
    5.  SECTION 5(C).  THE FIRST PART OF THIS SECTION PROVIDED THAT
 REGISTERS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED AT A HIGHER OR LOWER GRADE LEVEL TO
 EVADE AN ESTABLISHED REGISTER.  I INTERPRET THIS AS REQUIRING MANAGEMENT
 TO CONSIDER AND EXHAUST THE ESTABLISHED REGISTER FIRST, AND THAT IT
 WOULD THEREAFTER BE FREE TO ESTABLISH THEIR REGISTERS.  SINCE THIS WOULD
 NOT PREVENT RESPONDENT FROM MAKING THE ULTIMATE SELECTION, THIS CLAUSE
 REPRESENTED A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE.  VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL,
 SUPRA.
 
    HOWEVER, THE SECOND PART OF SECTION 5(C) DID PREVENT RESPONDENT FROM
 EXERCISING ITS RIGHT IN FILLING POSITIONS TO MAKE A SELECTION.  IT
 PROVIDED THAT A TRAINEE POSITION COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED FOR A POSITION
 WHEN A REGISTER WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED TO FILL THE VACANCY AND/OR THERE
 WERE WELL QUALIFIED CANDIDATES TO FILL THE POSITION.  THUS THE EXISTENCE
 OF EITHER A) AN ESTABLISHED REGISTER OR B) WELL QUALIFIED CANDIDATES
 WOULD PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM EXERCISING THE OPTION OF FILLING A
 POSITION WITH A TRAINEE WHEN IT WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXISTING
 CANDIDATES.  I CONCLUDE THAT THE BASIC DECISION TO CANCEL THIS PRACTICE
 DOES NOT FALL WITHIN RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN AND THAT IT WAS
 ONLY NECESSARY FOR IT TO FIVE THE UNION NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 BARGAIN OVER THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION.
 
    6.  SECTION 6(A).  THIS PROVISION REQUIRED RESPONDENT TO INTERVIEW
 ALL CERTIFIED CANDIDATES FROM AMONG THE TOP THREE ELIGIBLES ON THE
 REGISTER BEFORE MAKING SELECTIONS FOR FILLING POSITIONS.  AS IN THE CASE
 OF SECTION 2(A), I HOLD THAT THIS WAS A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE SINCE THIS
 INTERVIEWING PROCESS DID NOT PREVENT MANAGEMENT FROM MAKING ITS ULTIMATE
 SELECTION FROM SOME OTHER APPROPRIATE SOURCE.
 
    7.  SECTION 6(B).  THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THIS PROVISION MERELY
 REQUIRES THAT THE SELECTING OFFICIAL BE PROVIDED WITH A CERTIFICATE OF
 THE TOP THREE RATED CANDIDATES.  AS IN THE CASE OF SECTION 6(A), THIS IS
 CLEARLY A NEGOTIABLE PROCEDURE.
 
    THE SECTION THEN PROVIDES:
 
    . . . HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE ONLY ONE OR TWO WELL QUALIFIED
 CANDIDATES, THE SELECTING
 
    OFFICIAL MAY CHOOSE ONE OF THESE WITHOUT EXTENDING THE AREA OF
 CONSIDERATION.  IF THIS
 
    PROCEDURE IS NOT FOLLOWED, AND THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION IS EXPANDED
 BEYOND THE STATION
 
    (ACTIVITY), THE SELECTION SHALL RESULT IN A CLEARLY BETTER QUALIFIED
 CANDIDATE.
 
    OBVIOUSLY, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE QUOTED MATERIAL GIVES RESPONDENT
 FREEDOM TO EXPAND THE AREA OF CONSIDERATION AND DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH
 ANY MANAGEMENT RIGHT.  HOWEVER, THE REMAINDER OF THE PROVISION DOES.
 UNDER THIS PRACTICE, IF MANAGEMENT FOUND TWO CANDIDATES WITH ROUGHLY
 EQUAL QUALIFICATIONS, ONE FROM THE ACTIVITY AND ONE FROM OUTSIDE THE
 ACTIVITY, MANAGEMENT WOULD BE FORCED TO SELECT THE CANDIDATE FROM WITHIN
 THE ACTIVITY.  THIS WOULD BE SO BECAUSE IT COULD NOT BE SAID IN THIS
 EXAMPLE, THAT THE "OUTSIDE" APPLICANT WAS "CLEARLY BETTER QUALIFIED."
 THEREFORE I MUST CONCLUDE THAT THIS PORTION OF SECTION 6(A) IS NOT
 NEGOTIABLE BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO SELECT UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C) OF THE STATUTE.  RESPONDENT IS ONLY REQUIRED TO
 GIVE THE UNION NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN WITH RESPECT TO THE
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS DECISION TO CHANGE THIS PRACTICE.
 
    UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  SINCE IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT RESPONDENT
 FAILED TO GIVE THE UNION ANY NOTICE OR OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST BARGAINING
 BEFORE MAKING THE BASIC DECISION TO CANCEL THE PRACTICES FOUND TO BE
 NEGOTIABLE HEREINABOVE, I HOLD THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION
 7116(A)(5) AND (1) BY ACTING UNILATERALLY AND EFFECTIVELY REFUSING TO
 NEGOTIATE.  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, OGDEN SERVICE CENTER, AND INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, ET AL., FLRC NOS. 77A-40, 77A-92, 6 FLRC 310 (1976).
 ON BRIEF THE CHARGING PARTY HAS REQUESTED THAT THE REMEDIAL ORDER
 INCLUDE A RETURN TO THE STATUS QUO ANTE, WHICH PRESUMABLY WOULD INCLUDE
 THE REVOCATIONS OF ANY PROMOTIONS IMPROPERLY MADE.  ALTHOUGH I AGREE
 THAT THE CHANGES CONCERNING NEGOTIABLE MATTERS SHOULD BE REVOKED, AN
 APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN THIS MATTER SHOULD INCLUDE THE REVOCATION OF ANY
 PROMOTIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THE NEW PROCEDURES ONLY IF, UPON AN
 EVALUATION OF ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS UNDER APPROPRIATE CRITERIA, IF IS
 ESTABLISHED THAT THE ORIGINAL PROMOTION INVOLVED WAS IMPROPER.  IN THE
 LATTER EVENT, I SHALL RECOMMEND THAT THE POSITION WHICH WAS IMPROPERLY
 FILLED BE VACATED AND THAT, CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN
 THE EXPIRED NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AND AGENCY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS IN
 EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE CHANGES, THE EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO SUCH POSITION
 BE PROMOTED WITH REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE LOSS OF MONIES SUCH EMPLOYEE MAY
 HAVE SUFFERED BUT FOR RESPONDENT'S IMPROPER CONDUCT.  SMALL BUSINESS
 ADMINISTRATION, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, A/SLMR NO. 674, 6
 A/SLMR 350 (1976).  FURTHERMORE, WHERE UNIT VACANCIES HAVE NOT YET BEEN
 FILLED, THE SELECTION PROCESS SHOULD BE HALTED AND REINSTITUTED IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED PRIOR PRACTICES SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 15
 OF THE EXPIRED AGREEMENT.
 
    THE NEXT ISSUE IS WHETHER RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(5) AND
 (1) WITH REGARD TO THE CHANGES WHICH ARE HELD ABOVE TO HAVE BEEN MADE
 PURSUANT TO ITS RESERVED MANAGEMENT RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 7106(A).  A
 VIOLATION WILL BE FOUND UNLESS AGENCY MANAGEMENT AFFORDED THE UNION
 PROPER NOTIFICATION AND OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN OVER THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGENCY'S DECISION.  /10/ UNITED STATES CUSTOMS
 SERVICE, REGION VI, HOUSTON, TEXAS, A/SLMR NO. 1161, 8 A/SLMR 1305
 (1978).
 
    I MUST CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT NEVER PROPERLY NOTIFIED THE UNION OF
 THE CHANGES THAT IT HAD MADE ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 8, 1979.  CERTAINLY
 MR. LONG'S MEMORANDUM OF THAT DATE TO THE UNION PRESIDENT FAILED TO
 SPECIFY WHAT PROMOTION PRACTICES HAD BEEN CANCELLED.  IT MERELY STATED
 THAT "A NUMBER OF PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE 15" OF THE EXPIRED NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT INFRINGED ON MANAGEMENT'S RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(C)
 AND WERE CONSIDERED NEGATED.  SINCE ARTICLE 15 HAD A MULTITUDE OF
 PROVISIONS WHICH ARGUABLY RELATED TO FILLING POSITIONS, IT WAS
 IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE UNION TO KNOW WHICH SECTIONS, OR PORTIONS THEREOF,
 HAD BEEN CANCELLED BY RESPONDENT.  ON FEBRUARY 9, THE UNION REQUESTED
 NEGOTIATIONS ON "ANY CHANGES." RESPONDENT FAILED TO REPLY TO THIS
 REQUEST.  SOON THEREAFTER THE UNION PRESIDENT ASKED LONG WHAT RESPONDENT
 HAD MEANT IN THE FEBRUARY 8 MEMORANDUM.  AGAIN, NO ANSWER WAS
 FORTHCOMING.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I MUST CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT
 VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A) (5)) AND (1) BECAUSE IT FAILED AND REFUSED TO
 AFFORD THE UNION NOTICE AND/OR OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN AS TO THE IMPACT
 AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISIONS.  SINCE THE UNION WAS NEVER NOTIFIED
 ABOUT THE CANCELLATION OF ANY SPECIFIC PRACTICES, IT WAS NEVER GIVEN ANY
 MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT WHETHER TO
 REQUEST NEGOTIATIONS ON IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  THE RESPONDENT'S
 ARGUMENT THAT THE UNION SHOULD HAVE MADE SUCH A SPECIFIC REQUEST UNDER
 THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS REJECTED.
 
    FINALLY, RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO RAISE THE
 ABOVE ISSUE RELATING TO IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION BARGAINING.  PARAGRAPH
 8 OF THE COMPLAINT STATES THAT RESPONDENT CHANGED CERTAIN EXISTING
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT "WITHOUT FURNISHING THE UNION WITH NOTICE
 AND/OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING SUCH CHANGES." IN MY VIEW IT
 WOULD HAVE BEEN PREFERABLE FOR THE AUTHOR OF THE COMPLAINT TO HAVE ADDED
 THE WORDS "AND/OR THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CHANGES" TO THE
 END OF THIS SENTENCE.  HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENT MUST HAVE BROADLY
 CONSTRUED THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION QUESTION
 WAS FULLY LITIGATED AT THE HEARING.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
 RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION MUST BE REJECTED.
 
    HAVING CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(5) AND (1)
 IN BOTH OF THE CONSOLIDATED CASES, I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE AUTHORITY
 ADOPT THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
 
                                   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 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF NAVY, NAVAL
 ORDNANCE STATION, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNION REPRESENTATIVES ON THE
 UNION-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE
 
    WITHOUT NOTIFYING LOCAL LODGE 830, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
 MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
 
    WORKERS, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AND
 AFFORDING SUCH
 
    REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT
 WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 
    ON THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH A CHANGE.
 
    (B) CHANGING THE ESTABLISHED SELECTION PROCESS BY SEEKING CANDIDATES
 FOR VACANCIES WITHOUT
 
    FIRST EXHAUSTING THE GROUP OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES FROM NOSL AND
 OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE
 
    PROMOTION PRACTICES PREVIOUSLY ENUNCIATED IN SECTIONS 2(A), 3(A),
 3(D), 4(B), 5(C) (WITH THE
 
    EXCEPTION OF THE TRAINEE CLAUSE), AND 6(A) OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT DATED
 
    SEPTEMBER 20, 1974, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING LOCAL LODGE 830,
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
 
    MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AND
 
    AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT
 WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 
    ON THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH CHANGES.
 
    (C) UNILATERALLY CHANGING THE PROCEDURES REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT
 OF TRAINEE POSITIONS
 
    AND THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES AS PREVIOUSLY ENUNCIATED IN SECTIONS
 5(C) AND THE LAST
 
    SENTENCE OF SECTION 6(B), RESPECTIVELY, OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE
 ABOVE-MENTIONED AGREEMENT WITHOUT
 
    NOTIFYING THE ABOVE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AND AFFORDING IT THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE,
 
    TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
 
    DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH CHANGES.
 
    (D) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
 
    THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
    STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES
 
    OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) RESCIND THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS 1(A) AND 1(B), ABOVE,
 AND RESTORE ALL
 
    CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT REGARDING THESE MATTERS WHICH WERE IN EFFECT
 PRIOR TO SUCH CHANGES.
 
    (B) NOTIFY LOCAL LODGE 830, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
 AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,
 
    AFL-CIO, OF ANY INTENDED DECISION TO IMPLEMENT THE CHANGES SET FORTH
 IN 1(C) ABOVE AND, UPON
 
    REQUEST, NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 ON THE IMPACT AND
 
    IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH DECISION.
 
    (C) NOTIFY SAID EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY INTENDED CHANGES IN
 THE PROMOTION PRACTICES
 
    AND PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 1(B), ABOVE, AND, UPON REQUEST,
 NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH,
 
    TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE DECISION TO
 EFFECTUATE SUCH CHANGES.
 
    (D) POST ALL JOB VACANCIES WHICH OCCURRED AT NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION,
 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY,
 
    AFTER FEBRUARY 8, 1979, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED TERMS AND
 CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN
 
    THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1974, AND EVALUATE ALL
 CANDIDATES FOR SUCH
 
    VACANCIES UNDER THE ESTABLISHED TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AND THE
 
    PUBLISHED AGENCY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE
 CHANGES MADE ON OR ABOUT
 
    FEBRUARY 8, 1979.
 
    (E) IF, FOLLOWING THE ACTION TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 2(D)
 ABOVE, IT SHOULD
 
    DEVELOP THAT THERE WAS AN IMPROPER FAILURE TO PROMOTE AN EMPLOYEE,
 THE POSITION TO WHICH SUCH
 
    EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED SHALL BE VACATED, AND THE EMPLOYEE
 SHALL BE PROMOTED AND
 
    REIMBURSED FOR ANY LOSS OF MONIES OCCASIONED BY THE IMPROPER FAILURE
 TO PROMOTE.
 
    (F) POST AT THE NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, 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 COMMANDING OFFICER AT SAID ACTIVITY AND SHALL
 BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED
 
    BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES
 INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS
 
    AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.
 THE COMMANDING OFFICER
 
    SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT
 ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED
 
    BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (G) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS,
 45 FED.REG. AT 3511,
 
    NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION IV, SUITE 501, 1776 PEACHTREE
 STREET, N.W., ATLANTA,
 
    GEORGIA, 30309, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS
 ORDER, AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE
 
    BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                         RANDOLPH D. MASON
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATE:  MAY 9, 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 CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES
 
              CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNION REPRESENTATIVES ON THE
 UNION-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE WITHOUT NOTIFYING LOCAL LODGE 830,
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
 THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, AND AFFORDING SUCH
 REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS ON THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH A CHANGE.
 
    WE WILL NOT CHANGE THE ESTABLISHED SELECTION PROCESS BY SEEKING
 CANDIDATES FOR VACANCIES WITHOUT FIRST EXHAUSTING THE GROUP OF ELIGIBLE
 CANDIDATES FROM NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, AND
 OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROMOTION PRACTICES PREVIOUSLY ENUNCIATED
 IN SECTION 2(A), 3(A), 3(D), 4(B), 5(C) (EXCLUDING THE TRAINEE
 PROVISION), AND 6(A) OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 20,
 1974, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE ABOVE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AND
 AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH CHANGES.
 
    WE WILL NOT UNILATERALLY CHANGE THE PROCEDURES REGARDING THE
 ESTABLISHMENT OF TRAINEE POSITIONS AND THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES AS
 PREVIOUSLY ENUNCIATED IN SECTION 5(C) AND THE LAST SENTENCE OF SECTION
 6(B), RESPECTIVELY, OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED AGREEMENT,
 WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE ABOVE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AND AFFORDING IT
 THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION TO
 EFFECTUATE SUCH CHANGES.
 
    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.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND THE DECISIONS (A) TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNION
 REPRESENTATIVES ON THE UNION-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE, AND (B) TO
 CHANGE THE ESTABLISHED SELECTION PRACTICES SET FORTH IN SECTION 2(A),
 3(A), 3(D), 4(B), 5(C) (EXCLUDING THE TRAINEE PROVISION), AND 6(A) OF
 ARTICLE 15, OF THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1974, AND WE
 WILL RESTORE ALL CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT REGARDING THESE MATTERS WHICH
 WERE IN EFFECT PRIOR TO SUCH CHANGES.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY LOCAL LODGE 830, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
 MACHINISTS, AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, OF ANY INTENDED DECISION TO
 IMPLEMENT THE PROCEDURAL CHANGES TO THE TERMS SET FORTH IN SECTION 5(C)
 REGARDING TRAINEE POSITIONS, AND THE LAST SENTENCE OF SECTION 6(B) OF
 ARTICLE 15 OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED AGREEMENT, AND UPON REQUEST NEGOTIATE
 TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS ON THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH DECISION.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY SAID EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY INTENDED CHANGES
 IN THE PROMOTION PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN SECTION 2(A),
 3(A), 3(D), 4(B), 5(C) (EXCLUDING THE TRAINEE PROVISION), AND 6(A) OF
 ARTICLE 15 OF THE ABOVE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, AND UPON REQUEST,
 NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATIONS, ON THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH CHANGES.
 
    WE WILL POST ALL JOB VACANCIES WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT WHICH
 OCCURRED AT NAVAL ORDNANCE STATION, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, AFTER FEBRUARY
 8, 1979, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
 ABOVE-MENTIONED NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, AND EVALUATE ALL CANDIDATES FOR
 SUCH VACANCIES UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY SAID
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, AND THE PUBLISHED AGENCY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
 IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE CHANGES MADE IN THE SELECTION PROCESS ON OR
 ABOUT FEBRUARY 8, 1979.
 
    WE WILL VACATE POSITIONS WHICH WERE IMPROPERLY FILLED AFTER FEBRUARY
 8, 1979, PROMOTE ANY EMPLOYEE IMPROPERLY DENIED PROMOTION AND REIMBURSE
 SUCH EMPLOYEE ANY LOSS OF MONIES OCCASIONED BY THE IMPROPER FAILURE TO
 PROMOTE.
 
                           (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 EMPLOYEE HAS ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE, OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION IV, WHOSE ADDRESS
 IS:  SUITE 501, NORTH WING 1776 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W., ATLANTA, GEORGIA
 30309.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 35TH COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (TAC),
 GEORGE AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, 4 FLRA NO. 5 (1980).
 
    /2/ SEE GENERALLY, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE LOGISTICS
 COMMAND, AEROSPACE GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY CENTER, NEWARK, OHIO, 4 FLRA
 NO. 70 (1980) AT 2 OF THE DECISION.
 
    /3/ I NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE AUTHORITY WOULD HAVE HELD EITHER OF
 THE INSTANT CASES TO BE INAPPROPRIATE VEHICLES FOR A NEGOTIABILITY
 APPEAL.  SEE, E.G., AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617, AND DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, HEADQUARTERS, AIR
 FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, CASE , NO.
 0-NG-39, 2 FLRA NO.  55 (1980).
 
    /4/ AT ALL TIMES RELEVANT HERETO, THE UNION HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS
 THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF A BARGAINING UNIT COMPOSED OF CERTAIN
 EMPLOYEES AT THE ACTIVITY AS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE I, SEC. 1 OF THIS
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT.
 
    /5/ ALTHOUGH THE UNION PRESIDENT WAS ON THE DISTRIBUTION LIST, HE WAS
 NOT SENT A COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM.
 
    /6/ THE ONLY "PERMISSIVE" SUBJECTS OF BARGAINING SERIOUSLY ARGUED BY
 RESPONDENT ARE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO A SUBDIVISION OR WORK
 PROJECT;  I HAVE ALREADY CONCLUDED THAT THESE EXCEPTIONS DO NOT APPLY IN
 THE INSTANT CASE.  RESPONDENT ALSO ARGUED THAT IT HAD MERELY REDUCED THE
 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES;  HOWEVER, THIS ALLEGATION IS
 DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER'S JANUARY 3, 1979,
 LETTER WHICH CLEARLY INTENDED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNION
 REPRESENTATIVES BY AN EQUAL NUMBER.  THUS, THE INSTANT CASE IS
 DISTINGUISHABLE FROM NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 1451 AND NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, ORLANDO, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 0-NG-75, 3
 FLRA NO. 14, (APRIL 28, 1980) WHERE THE UNION'S PROPOSAL REQUIRING
 MANAGEMENT TO DESIGNATE A PARTICULAR NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT
 REPRESENTATIVES WAS HELD TO BE NONNEGOTIABLE.  IN THE INSTANT CASE
 RESPONDENT'S ACTION DIRECTLY AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    /7/ THESE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SET FORTH BY THE PARTIES IN SECTIONS
 2(A), 3(A), 3(D), 4(B), 5(C), 6(A), AND 6(B) OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE
 EXPIRED NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT.
 
    /8/ THE AFFIDAVIT STATED, IN PART, THAT THE STATUTE HAD NEGATED
 CERTAIN SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE OLD NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AND THAT
 "THESE SECTIONS ARE DARKENED ON THE ATTACHED COPY OF ARTICLE 15."
 HOWEVER, SOME OF THE DARKENED SECTIONS HAD QUESTION MARKS IN THE MARGIN.
 
    /9/ SECTIONS 2(B), 3(B), 6(C), AND PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 1(B),.3(E),
 4(A), 8(E), AND 9(A) OF ARTICLE 15 WERE CONSIDERED "QUESTIONABLE" BY
 RESPONDENT.
 
    /10/ SECTIONS 7106(B)(2) AND (3) PROVIDE:
 
    MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY OR ANY LABOR
 ORGANIZATION FROM
 
    NEGOTIATING--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE
 IN EXERCISING ANY
 
    AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION;  OR
 
    (3) APPROPRIATE A