San Antonio Air Logistics Center (AFLC), Kelly Air Force Base, Texas (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1617, AFL-CIO (Charging Party)

 



[ v05 p173 ]
05:0173(22)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 5 FLRA No. 22
 
 SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER (AFLC)
 KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No(s). 6-CA-32,
                                                        6-CA-105
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
 ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE
 AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS AS SET FORTH
 IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ALSO FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
 NOT ENGAGED IN CERTAIN OTHER ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
 RECOMMENDED THAT THOSE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED.
 THEREAFTER THE RESPONDENT AND THE CHARGING PARTY FILED EXCEPTIONS WITH
 RESPECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER, THE GENERAL COUNSEL FILED CROSS-EXCEPTIONS, AND THE RESPONDENT
 FILED AN OPPOSITION TO THE CHARGING PARTY'S EXCEPTIONS.
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 C.F.R. SEC. 2423.29) AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. 7101-7135 (THE
 STATUTE), THE AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS
 COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, AND THE
 ENTIRE RECORD IN THE SUBJECT CASES, INCLUDING THE EXCEPTIONS,
 CROSS-EXCEPTIONS AND OPPOSITION, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
    AS MORE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CONCLUDED IN CASE NO. 6-CA-32 THAT
 RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL AND FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE REGARDING THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LEVEL OF REVIEW UNDER THE 1979
 APPRAISAL/EVALUATION GUIDE CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF SECTIONS
 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.  IN CASE NO. 6-CA-105, THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND THE RESPONDENT, BY REASON OF ITS FAILURE
 TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH REGARDING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
 THE CANCELLATION AND REESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN BARGAINING UNIT
 POSITIONS, VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.  THE
 AUTHORITY NOTES PARTICULARLY THAT IN BOTH INSTANCES THE CHARGING PARTY
 REQUESTED BARGAINING OVER IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGES AT
 ISSUE BUT SUCH REQUESTS WERE DENIED BY THE RESPONDENT AS BEING
 NONNEGOTIABLE.
 
    IN ORDER TO REMEDY THE VIOLATIONS HE FOUND, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE RECOMMENDED A STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDY.  IN THIS REGARD, HE ORDERED
 THE RESPONDENT TO RESCIND AND WITHDRAW ALL EVALUATIONS OF EMPLOYEES
 WHICH WERE MADE UNDER THE 1979 APPRAISAL/EVALUATION GUIDE AND TO RESCIND
 AND REVOKE THE CANCELLATION AND THE REESTABLISHMENT OF THE JOBS IN
 QUESTION.  THE RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS ARE DIRECTED TO THE RECOMMENDED
 ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CONTENDING THAT SUCH ORDER WOULD
 CREATE HARDSHIP ON THE PART OF THE ACTIVITY AND CONSTITUTE A POTENTIAL
 DISRUPTION OF THE RESPONDENT'S OPERATION.  THE AUTHORITY DOES NOT AGREE.
  RATHER, THE AUTHORITY IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROPOSED ORDER OF THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE HEREIN WHICH WAS A STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDY WOULD
 NOT CREATE A SERIOUS DISRUPTION OF THE ACTIVITY'S OPERATION.  THE
 EVIDENCE REVEALS THAT THE ACTIVITY EVALUATES ITS EMPLOYEES AT LEAST ONCE
 A YEAR, AND THUS THE RECOMMENDED ORDER WOULD MERELY REQUIRE WITHDRAWAL
 AND RESCINDING OF EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS MADE UNDER THE GUIDE IN QUESTION,
 REEVALUATING EMPLOYEES WHERE NECESSARY AND THE REESTABLISHMENT OF THE
 JOBS WHICH HAD BEEN CANCELLED.  ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT
 THE ORDER HEREIN IS ONE WELL WITHIN THE ACTIVITY'S AUTHORITY TO
 EFFECTUATE, AND, IS APPROPRIATE PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE VIOLATIONS
 HEREIN.  /1/
 
                                   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 SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER (AFLC)
 KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INSTITUTING ANY CHANGE IN METHOD OF REVIEW OF
 APPRAISAL/EVALUATION WITH RESPECT TO
 
    EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617,
 
    WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT AND
 
    NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND
 
    IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CHANGE.
 
    (B) CANCELLING AND REESTABLISHING JOB POSITIONS OF EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN
 
    FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617, WITHOUT
 FIRST NOTIFYING SUCH
 
    REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT AND
 NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT
 
    CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH ACTION.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE 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 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE:
 
    (A) RESCIND AND WITHDRAW ALL EVALUATIONS OF EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617, WHICH WERE MADE UNDER THE
 1979 APPRAISAL/EVALUATION
 
    GUIDE, REEAVALUTING EMPLOYEES WHERE NECESSARY.
 
    (B) RESCIND AND REVOKE THE CANCELLATION OF THE GS QUALITY INSPECTION
 SPECIALIST POSITIONS
 
    AND THEIR REESTABLISHMENT AS WG AIRCRAFT WORK INSPECTORS AT THE 433RD
 TACTICAL AIR WING.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 LOCAL 1617, OF ANY
 
    INTENTION TO CANCEL AND REESTABLISH JOB POSITIONS OF EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN
 
    FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617, AND, UPON
 REQUEST, CONSULT AND
 
    NEGOTIATE WITH SUCH REPRESENTATIVE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW
 AND REGULATIONS,
 
    CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH ACTION.
 
    (D) POST AT ITS FACILITY AT THE SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS COMMAND
 (AFLC) KELLY AIR FORCE
 
    BASE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED
 "APPENDIX", ON FORMS TO BE BE
 
    FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF
 SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE
 
    SIGNED BY THE COMMANDER OF THE SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
 (AFLC) AND THEY SHALL BE
 
    POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES,
 INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE
 
    NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE COMMANDER SHALL
 TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO
 
    INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (E) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY IN WRITING, WITHIN
 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE
 
    OF THIS ORDER, WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY THEREWITH.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 17, 1981
 
                       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 INSTITUTE ANY CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF REVIEW OF
 APPRAISAL/EVALUATIONS WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617, WITHOUT FIRST
 NOTIFYING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO
 CONSULT AND NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CHANGE.
 
    WE WILL NOT CANCEL AND REESTABLISH JOB POSITIONS OF EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 LOCAL 1617, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT
 THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT AND NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH
 ACTION.
 
    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 AND WITHDRAW ALL EVALUATIONS OF EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED
 BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617,
 WHICH WERE MADE UNDER THE 1979 APPRAISAL/EVALUATION GUIDE, AND WILL
 ISSUE REEVALUATIONS WHERE NECESSARY.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617, OF ANY INTENDED CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF REVIEW OF
 APPRAISAL/EVALUATIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES, AND, UPON REQUEST, CONSULT AND
 NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CHANGE.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND AND REVOKE THE CANCELLATION OF THE GS QUALITY
 INSPECTION SPECIALIST POSITIONS AND THEIR REESTABLISHMENT AS WG AIRCRAFT
 WORK INSPECTORS AT THE 433RD TACTICAL AIR WING.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617 OF ANY INTENTION TO CANCEL AND REESTABLISH JOB
 POSITIONS OF EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617, AND UPON REQUEST, CONSULT AND NEGOTIATE,
 TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH ACTION.
 
                            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 ANY EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
 COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY
 WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,
 WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 6, DOWNTOWN
 POST OFFICE STATION, BRYAN AND ERVAY STREETS, P.O. BOX 2640, DALLAS,
 TEXAS, 75221, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (214) 767-4996.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    MAJOR LEWIS G. BREWER, ESQ.
    OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE
    SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
    KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 78211
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    STEVEN M. ANGEL, ESQ.
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
    P.O. BOX 2640, OLD POST OFFICE STATION
    DALLAS, TEXAS 75231
                          FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM NAIMARK
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    PURSUANT TO AN ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, /2/ AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND
 NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 6, ON NOVEMBER 6, 1979, A HEARING WAS HELD
 BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON NOVEMBER 27, 1979.
 
    THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, UPON WHICH THIS PROCEEDING IS BASED, STEMS
 FROM CHARGES FILED BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617 (HEREIN CALLED AFGE OR THE UNION) AGAINST SAN
 ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER (AFLC), KELLY AIR FORCE BASE (HEREIN CALLED
 RESPONDENT OR THE EMPLOYER.) IT IS ALLEGED IN SAID COMPLAINT, IN RESPECT
 TO CASE NO.  6-CA-32, THAT ON OR ABOUT MARCH 7 AND 15, 1979 RESPONDENT
 UNILATERALLY CHANGED ITS PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS BY IMPLEMENTING A 1979
 APPRAISAL/EVALUATION GUIDE WITH AFFORDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 BARGAIN RE ITS IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  THE COMPLAINT HEREIN ALSO
 ALLEGED, IN RESPECT TO CASE NO. 6-CA-105, THAT SINCE APRIL 23, 1979
 RESPONDENT REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION RE THE CANCELLATION AND
 ESTABLISHMENT OF JOB POSITIONS AT THE 433RD TACTICAL AIR WING;  AND THAT
 ON MAY 14, 1979 RESPONDENT UNILATERALLY CANCELLED AND ESTABLISHED SUCH
 JOB POSITIONS WITHOUT AFFORDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN RE
 ITS IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION-- ALL IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(5)
 AND (1) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE
 (HEREIN CALLED THE ACT).
 
    RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, DATED NOVEMBER 16,
 1979, DENIED THE ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS THEREOF AND THAT IT VIOLATED THE
 ACT HEREIN.
 
    BOTH PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED AT THE HEARING.  EACH WAS AFFORDED FULL
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AND TO EXAMINE AS WELL AS
 CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.  THEREAFTER BOTH PARTIES FILED BRIEFS WHICH
 HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN, FROM MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES
 AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM ALL OF THE TESTIMONY ADDUCED AT THE
 HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    1.  AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN THE UNION HAS BEEN THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL NONSUPERVISORY AND NONPROFESSIONAL
 EMPLOYEES WHO ARE EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT.
 
    2.  BOTH PARTIES EXECUTED A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ON
 NOVEMBER 9, 1977 COVERING APPROPRIATE UNIT EMPLOYEES, AND THE AGREEMENT
 IS EFFECTIVE, BY ITS TERMS, FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS.
 
    3.  PRIOR TO MARCH 7, 1979 ALL 14,500 UNIT EMPLOYEES WERE EVALUATED
 AND APPRAISED ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED IN AIR FORCE
 REGULATIONS 40-6 AND INSTRUCTIONS ON THE EVALUATION FORMS.  THIS
 PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR A 2 STEP RATING SYSTEM.  THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR
 APPRAISED AN EMPLOYEE UNDER HIS SUPERVISION, RATING HIM AS TO AT LEAST
 10 RELEVANT ELEMENTS;  THE NEXT LEVEL SUPERVISOR (THE REVIEWING
 OFFICIAL) THEN REVIEWS THE APPRAISAL MADE BY THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR.
 IF THERE IS DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THESE SUPERVISORS AS TO THE APPRAISAL,
 THE REVIEWING OFFICIAL'S RATING BECOMES THE OFFICIAL EVALUATION.
 FURTHER, PURSUANT TO REGULATION 40-6, THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR IS
 REQUIRED TO SHOW THE APPRAISAL TO THE EMPLOYEE AND DISCUSS ITS CONTENTS
 WITH HIM.
 
    4.  FOR SEVERAL YEARS PRIOR TO 1979 RESPONDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
 THE FACT THAT TOO MANY EMPLOYEES WERE RECEIVING VERY HIGH RATINGS.
 UNDER DATE OF FEBRUARY 6, 1978 COMMANDER LYNWOOD E. CLARK SENT A MEMO TO
 ALL SUPERVISORS OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.  CLARK ADVERTED TO THE FACT THAT
 ANNUAL RATING PERIOD FOR COMPLETION OF APPRAISALS WOULD BE MARCH 1-15;
 THAT THE SCORES FOR THE APPRAISAL OF KELLY AIR FORCE BASE CIVILIAN
 EMPLOYEES HAD BEEN EXTREMELY HIGH (THE BASE-WIDE ARRANGE SCORE FOR MARCH
 1977 WAS 97.3).  HE STATED IN THE MEMO THAT SUPERVISORS MUST BE MORE
 REALISTIC AND OBJECTIVE;  THAT APPRAISALS MUST REFLECT DIFFERENCE AMONG
 LEVELS OF PERFORMANCE.  ALTHOUGH NO SET DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES WERE TO
 BE IMPOSED, CLARK MENTIONED THAT AFTER APPRAISALS WERE COMPLETED, THEY
 WOULD BE REVIEWED BY HIGHER LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT.
 
    5.  IN A MEMO DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 1978, ADDRESSED TO THE VARIOUS
 LOGISTICS CENTERS, INCLUDING RESPONDENT, MAJOR GENERAL CARL G. SCHNEIDER
 RECITED THE FACT THAT A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF MARCH 1977 AND 1978
 CIVILIAN APPRAISALS DISCLOSED THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES RECEIVED
 NEAR PERFECT SCORES.  EACH INSTALLATION WAS DIRECTED TO DEVELOP A PLAN
 TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH APPRAISALS FOR THE MARCH 1979
 RATING PERIOD.  FURTHER, HE STATED THAT RECOGNIZED UNIONS SHOULD BE
 INFORMED OF THE PLAN PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION;  THAT EACH UNION SHOULD BE
 GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER RE THE PLAN.
 
    6.  ON MARCH 7, 1979 RESPONDENT ISSUED TO ITS MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL,
 AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNION HEREIN, ITS 1979
 APPRAISAL/EVALUATION GUIDE.  THIS DOCUMENT REITERATED THE
 DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF HIGH APPRAISAL SCORES WHICH RESULTED AFTER
 THE 1978 APPRAISALS.  IT STATED THAT THERE MUST BE A MORE REALISTIC
 ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCES TO HAVE A VALID PROMOTION PROGRAM.  ALTHOUGH
 NO CHANGE WAS INSTITUTED AS TO REGULATORY GUIDANCE ON APPRAISALS, THE
 1979 GUIDE DID INSTITUTE THE "PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REVIEW PROCESS".
 
    7.  UNDER THE NEW REVIEW PROCESS THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR WAS
 REQUIRED TO PREPARE A STATISTICAL SUMMARY WHICH DEPICTED, WITHOUT NAMES,
 THE APPRAISAL/EVALUATION AND A "WORK FORCE DATA ARRAY".  THE STATISTICAL
 DATA WOULD BE PASSED UP THROUGH SUCCESSIVE LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT FOR
 REVIEW.  EACH SUCH LEVEL IS REQUIRED TO REVIEW THE RATING OFFICIALS'
 CONSISTENCY AND "CONCISENESS IN DEPICTING WORKERS' PERFORMANCE." /3/
 THIS DATA WOULD THEN BE REVIEWED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AND THE
 LATTER'S APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE APPRAISAL/EVALUATIONS ARE
 FINALIZED AND DISCUSSED WITH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES.  ANY REVIEWING LEVEL
 MAY DIRECT THAT APPRAISALS BE RETURNED FOR REEVALUATION.
 
    8.  THE 1979 APPRAISAL/EVALUATION GUIDE ALSO ADMONISHED SUPERVISORS
 TO BASE REALISTIC ADJUSTMENTS OF APPRAISALS ON (A) ROUTINE DAY-TO-DAY
 ACTIONS AS PROMOTIONS AND REASSIGNMENTS TO DIFFERENT SERIES POSITIONS;
 (B) CORRECTIVE MEASURES AS DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS, ENROLLMENT IN THE
 PERFORMANCE EFFECTIVENESS PROGRAM AND WITHHOLDING STEP INCREASES;  (C)
 ACTIONS BRINGING LAUDABLE OR UNFAVORABLE NOTICE TO THE ORGANIZATION SUCH
 AS A WRITE-UP OR A REPORT.  EACH ACTION SHOULD, UNDER THIS DIRECTIVE, BE
 DOCUMENTED ON APPROPRIATE EMPLOYEES.  /4/
 
    9.  BY LETTER DATED MARCH 9, 1979 THE UNION NOTIFIED RESPONDENT THAT
 THE PROPOSED 1979 APPRAISAL GUIDELINES DID CHANGE PAST PRACTICES AND
 PERSONNEL POLICIES;  THAT, AS SUCH, IT HAD AN IMPACT UPON UNIT
 EMPLOYEES.  AFGE REQUESTED THAT THE EMPLOYER NEGOTIATE ON THE MATTER.
 
    10.  IN REPLY TO THE UNION'S LETTER OF MARCH 9, RESPONDENT WROTE RUDY
 QUIROGA, PRESIDENT OF THE AFGE LOCAL, ON MARCH 14 AND STATED THAT THE
 MATTER WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE.  /5/ THE UNION OFFICIAL WAS, HOWEVER, INVITED
 TO SUBMIT WRITTEN PROPOSALS RE THE 1979 APPRAISALS GUIDELINES TO
 MANAGEMENT.
 
    11.  THE 1979 APPRAISAL SYSTEM DID RESULT IN LOWERING OF SCORES.
 WHILE THE RECORD IS NOT CLEAR AS TO THE PRECISE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS
 WHOSE SCORES WERE LOWERED, IT APPEARS THAT 24 OF THOSE APPRAISED IN 1979
 RECEIVED SCORES WHICH WERE BELOW THEIR RATINGS IN 1978.
 
    12.  IN A MEMO DATED APRIL 4, 1979 THE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE RESERVE
 NOTIFIED RESPONDENT THAT CERTAIN GS 8 QUALITY INSPECTORS SPECIALIST
 POSITIONS WERE CANCELLED.  FURTHER, THESE POSITIONS WERE REPLACED BY THE
 ESTABLISHMENT OF WG 11 AIRCRAFT WORK INSPECTORS.  THE MEMO RECITED THAT
 THE DEVELOPMENT RESULTED FROM MANAGEMENT'S DESIRE TO RECONSTITUTE THE
 DUTIES OF THE QUALITY CONTROL POSITIONS.  THE PURPOSE, AS STATED, WAS TO
 REQUIRE INSPECTION OF AIRCRAFT COMPONENTS AND EQUIPMENT TO DETERMINE
 ACCEPTABILITY IN COMPLYING WITH ESTABLISHED QUALITY STANDARDS.  THIS
 CONTRASTED WITH THE CURRENT PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION.  THE
 RECONSTITUTION OF DUTIES WAS DECLARED TO REPRESENT NEW POSITIONS RATHER
 THAN RECLASSIFICATION OF EXISTING ONES.
 
    13.  THE AFORESAID CHANGE RESULTED IN A LOWER PAY SCALE.  THE REASON
 FOR SUCH RESULT LIES IN THE FACT THAT A WG SCALE IS DETERMINED BY THE
 ANNUAL WAGE SURVEY IN A PARTICULAR AREA WHERE THE POSITION IS LOCATED.
 ON THE OTHER HAND THE GS SCALE IS SET BY CONGRESS.  HOWEVER NONE OF THE
 INDIVIDUALS WHOSE JOB WAS CANCELLED HAD THEIR IMMEDIATE PAY REDUCED.
 
    14.  ON OR ABOUT APRIL 14, 1979 COLONEL FEDERICO AGUIRRE, CHIEF OF
 MAINTENANCE FOR RESPONDENT, WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DIRECTIVE.  SINCE HE
 INTENDED TO TAKE TEMPORARY DUTY LEAVE IN A FEW WEEKS.  /6/ AGUIRRE TOLD
 MAJOR MCKENZIE TO "CUT THE FORM 52'S ON THIS CHANGE".
 
    15.  THE EMPLOYEES WERE INFORMED OF THE CHANGE THROUGH SUPERVISORY
 CHANNELS SHORTLY AFTER THE DIRECTIVE WAS RECEIVED.  THEREAFTER, IN
 APRIL, AN ANNUAL CLASS SURVEY MEETING WAS HELD.  HECTOR QUESADA,
 DIRECTOR CHIEF STEWARD OF THE UNION, ATTENDED THE MEETING AND LEARNED OF
 THE NEW POSITIONS WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED.  HE TOLD MAJOR MCKENZIE THAT
 THE UNION DESIRED TO NEGOTIATE RE THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
 CHANGE.  THE MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL REPLIED THE MATTER WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE
 SINCE IT WAS A DIRECTIVE TO BE FOLLOWED.  IT WAS AGREED THAT
 IMPLEMENTATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL WOULD BE DEFERRED UNTIL AGUIRRE
 RETURNED ON APRIL 30.
 
    16.  PRIOR TO HIS LEAVING ON TDY, AGUIRRE SPOKE TO QUESADA.  HE
 MENTIONED THAT MAJOR MCKENZIE WOULD LOOK INTO THE MECHANICS OF THE
 DIRECTIVE TO DETERMINE MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES;  THAT THE UNION
 OFFICIAL SHOULD BECOME FAMILIAR WITH IT AND "ONCE MAJOR MCKENZIE GETS
 ALL THE MECHANICS HE WILL IMPLEMENT."
 
    17.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER AGUIRRE TOLD QUESADA THERE WERE ONLY TWO
 OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE LOCAL MANAGEMENT.  IT COULD HAVE THE NEW
 POSITIONS FILLED IMMEDIATELY, OR IT REQUEST THAT THEY REMAIN
 ENCUMBERED-- WHICH MEANT THAT SOMEONE WAS ON THE JOB DOING THE WORK EVEN
 THOUGH THE POSITION WAS ABOLISHED.  AGUIRRE FELT THE LATTER APPROACH WAS
 THE BEST FOR THE EMPLOYEES, AND DECIDED TO FOLLOW THIS PROCEDURE.
 
    18.  ON APRIL 30, 1979 QUESADA AND TIM BROWN, DIVISION STEWARD, MET
 WITH AGUIRRE AND VARIOUS OTHER MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS.  DISCUSSION
 CENTERED AROUND THE QUALITY CONTROL POSITIONS AND THEIR CANCELLATION AS
 GS POSITIONS WITH CONVERSION TO WG LEVELS.  ALTHOUGH QUESADA INSISTED
 THE CHANGE SHOULD BE NEGOTIATED WITH THE UNION RE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION, AGUIRRE REMARKED THERE WAS NOTHING HE COULD DO SINCE IT
 WAS A DIRECTIVE FROM AIR FORCE RESERVE WHICH MUST BE IMPLEMENTED.
 
    19.  ON MAY 11 FORM 52 FOR THE CANCELLATION AND REESTABLISHMENT OF
 THOSE POSITIONS WAS PROCESSED.  AGUIRRE TESTIFIED THAT ON MAY 18 BE
 SUGGESTED TO THE UNION THEY SHOULD LET HIM KNOW IF IT HAD ANY IDEAS TO
 "DO IT DIFFERENTLY".
 
    20.  RECORD FACTS REFLECT THAT WHILE THE POSITIONS HAD BEEN CANCELLED
 AT HEADQUARTERS, ACTION STILL HAD TO BE TAKEN BY AGUIRRE TO COMPLETE THE
 CHANGE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.  THE COLONEL TESTIFIED HE HAD TO DISCUSS IT
 WITH THE EMPLOYEES IMPACTED, AS WELL AS THE UNION, AND ADVISE THEM HE
 HAD TO COMPLY THEREWITH.
 
                                CONCLUSIONS
 
    THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION HEREIN ARE AS FOLLOWS:  (1)
 WHETHER THE 1979 APPRAISAL/EVALUATION GUIDE CONSTITUTED A UNILATERAL
 CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM OF EVALUATING UNIT EMPLOYEES SO AS TO REQUIRE
 RESPONDENT TO BARGAIN RE THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, (2) WHETHER THE
 RESPONDENT DID, IN FACT, NEGOTIATE OVER THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
 THE CANCELLATION OF THE QUALITY INSPECTION SPECIALIST POSITIONS AT THE
 433RD TACTICAL AIR WING, AND THEIR REESTABLISHMENT AS AIRCRAFT WORK
 INSPECTORS.
 
    (1) IT IS CONTENDED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL THAT THE 1979 APPRAISAL
 EVALUATION GUIDE ALTERED THE PREVIOUS PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING UNIT
 EMPLOYEES, AS SET FORTH IN REGULATION 40-6.  THE 1979 GUIDE CHANGED THE
 SYSTEM, IT IS ALLEGED, IN TWO /7/ RESPECTS;  (A) LEVELS OF SUPERVISORS
 ARE NOW REQUIRED TO KEEP STATISTICAL TABULATIONS OF APPRAISAL SCORES;
 (B) THE REVIEW PROCEDURE, WHICH FORMERLY WAS LIMITED TO FIRST AND SECOND
 LINE SUPERVISORS, NOW PROVIDES FOR REVIEW BY HIGHER LEVELS OF
 SUPERVISION-- ALL OF WHICH RESULTS IN HOLDING UP THE EMPLOYEE'S
 EVALUATION UNTIL THE REVIEW PROCESS IS COMPLETED, AS WELL AS A POSSIBLE
 CHANGE THEREOF BY HIGHER MANAGEMENT.
 
    IN RESPECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT LEVELS OF SUPERVISION MAINTAIN
 STATISTICS OF THOSE RECEIVING DIFFERENT APPRAISAL SCORES, I AM NOT
 PERSUADED THAT SUCH A DIRECTIVE IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN PAST PRACTICE
 REEVALUATION OF EMPLOYEES.  THE EMPLOYER HEREIN WAS UNDERSTANDABLY
 CONCERNED THAT TOO MANY INDIVIDUALS WERE RECEIVING HIGH SCORES AFTER
 THEIR APPRAISALS.  THIS RESULTED IN AN UNREALISTIC EVALUATION,
 COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, OF THE UNIT EMPLOYEES.  IT IS, THUS, FURTHER
 UNDERSTANDABLE THAT MANAGEMENT DESIRED TO HAVE A STATISTICAL RECORD OF
 THE SCORES IN THE FUTURE.  APART FROM THE FACT THAT SUPERVISORS MAY
 HAVE, IN FACT, KEPT THIS DATA IN THE PAST, I DO NOT FIND SUCH A
 PROCEDURE TO BE SO MATERIAL A CHANGE AS TO REQUIRE MANAGEMENT TO BARGAIN
 OVER ITS IMPACT WITH THE UNION.  THE MAINTENANCE OF SUCH DETAILS IS, IN
 MY OPINION, AN INTEGRAL PART OF SUPERVISION AND QUITE MINISTERIAL IN
 NATURE.  ACCORDINGLY, I FIND THAT ITS INSTITUTION DOES NOT RUN AFOUL OF
 RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN UNDER THE ACT.
 
    IN RESPECT TO THE REVIEW PROCEDURE UNDER THE 1979 APPRAISAL
 EVALUATION GUIDE, RESPONDENT DOES NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT IT REFUSED
 TO NEGOTIATE RE ITS IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  IT TAKES THE POSITION,
 HOWEVER, THAT THERE WAS NO ESSENTIAL CHANGE FROM THE PROCEDURE IN FORCE
 UNDER REGULATION 40-6;  THAT, IN ANY EVENT, NO DEMONSTRABLE IMPACT
 RESULTED FROM THE REVIEW BY HIGHER LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT.
 
    A CASE WHICH AROSE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, INVOLVED
 A CHANGE IN REVIEW PROCEDURE WITH AN ATTENDANT REFUSAL BY THE EMPLOYER
 TO BARGAIN RE ITS IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  IN DEPARTMENT OF THE
 TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, CINCINNATI DISTRICT OFFICE, A/SLMR
 NO. 1107 THE EMPLOYER INSTITUTED AND IMPLEMENTED A CHANGE IN THE LEVEL
 OF REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION FROM THE REGIONAL
 COMMISSIONER TO THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR.  NO OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED THE
 BARGAINING AGENT TO NEGOTIATE ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
 CHANGE IN THE REVIEW LEVEL.  IN THE CITED CASE THE ARBITRATOR
 RECOMMENDED THAT AN EMPLOYEE BE REINSTATED AFTER ADVERSE ACTION HAD BEEN
 TAKEN AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL.  THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS REVIEWED BY THE
 DIRECTOR, IN ACCORD WITH THE ALTERED PROCEDURE, WHO REJECTED IT AND
 SUSTAINED THE EMPLOYEE'S REMOVAL.  IT WAS HELD BY THE ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY THAT SUCH A CHANGE IN REVIEW PROCESS AFFECTED THE WORKING
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES.  ACCORDINGLY, AN IMPACT THEREON RESULTS FROM
 THE CHANGE IN THE LEVEL OF REVIEW.  BY FAILING AND REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE
 AS TO THIS NEW REVIEW PROCEDURE, THE RESPONDENT THEREIN VIOLATED ITS
 OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN UNDER 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.
 
    THE REASONING AND HOLDING IN THE CITED CASE IS APPOSITE TO THE CASE
 AT BAR.  IN THE INSTANT MATTER RESPONDENT LIKEWISE CHANGED THE LEVEL OF
 REVIEW.  ORIGINALLY, UNDER REGULATION 40-6, THE FIRST AND SECOND LINE
 SUPERVISORS REVIEWED THE APPRAISALS.  DESPITE RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT THAT
 HIGHER MANAGEMENT LEVELS ALWAYS REVIEWED EVALUATION, IT DOES NOT APPEAR
 THAT SUCH PROCEDURE WAS FORMALIZED UNDER THE REGULATION OR UNIFORMLY
 ADOPTED AS A REVIEW PRACTICE.  FURTHER, THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT THAT
 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WAS FORMERLY REQUIRED-- AS IS THE CASE UNDER THE
 1979 GUIDE-- TO APPROVE ALL APPRAISAL/EVALUATIONS BEFORE THEY WERE
 FINALIZED AND THEN DISCUSSED WITH THE EMPLOYEE.  UNDER THE NEW
 PROCEDURE, THE EVALUATION IS HELD UP UNTIL SUCH APPROVAL IS OBTAINED.
 IN MY OPINION THIS CHANGE IN REVIEW SYSTEM IS EVEN MORE MARKED AND
 SIGNIFICANT THAN THAT INVOLVED IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CASE AND RESULTS
 IN A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT UPON WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, I REJECT RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS NO
 CHANGE IN THE REVIEW LEVEL UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM AS WELL AS ITS ARGUMENT
 THAT NO IMPACT RESULTS FROM THIS REVIEW PROCEDURE.  RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL
 AND FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE RE THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LEVEL
 OF REVIEW UNDER THE 1979 APPRAISAL EVALUATION GUIDE CONSTITUTES A
 VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE ACT.
 
    (2) RESPONDENT DOES NOT DISPUTE ITS OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN RE THE
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CANCELLATION AND REESTABLISHMENT OF THE
 POSITIONS AT THE 433RD TACTICAL AIR WING.  IT ARGUES, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH
 OBLIGATION WAS FULFILLED AND THE MATTER WAS DISCUSSED WITH AFGE;  THAT
 THE UNION WAS AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ALTERNATIVES TO THE
 TWO OPTIONS OPEN TO MANAGEMENT, BUT THE BARGAINING AGENT FAILED TO DO
 SO.  I DO NOT AGREE.
 
    IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED, AT THE OUTSET, THAT AN EMPLOYER MUST NOTIFY
 THE BARGAINING AGENT OF AN INTENDED CHANGE AND PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME
 FOR THE UNION TO OFFER PROPOSALS AND EXCHANGE VIEWS IN RESPECT THERETO.
 OTHERWISE, AND UNLESS SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY IS OFFERED TO CONFER AND
 NEGOTIATE ON IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS, THE BARGAINING PROCESS IS
 MEANINGLESS.  DEPARTMENT OF HEW, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BRS 1,
 NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM CENTER, A/SLMR NO. 1101.  IN THE CASE AT BAR THE
 UNION WAS NOT NOTIFIED ON THE CANCELLATION OF POSITIONS UNTIL AFTER IT
 HAD BEEN DIRECTED BY HEADQUARTERS.  MOREOVER, AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
 MANAGEMENT ADVISED UNION REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONVERSION NEAR THE END
 OF APRIL 1979.  ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES MET ON APRIL 30 TO DISCUSS THE
 CHANGE IN THESE POSITIONS.  AGUIRRE INSISTED THE DIRECTIVE MUST BE
 IMPLEMENTED, AND THE FORMS WERE PROCESSED ON MAY 11 FOR THE
 REESTABLISHMENT OF THE POSITION.  I CANNOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT
 SINCE AGUIRRE TOLD THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE ON MAY 18 HE SHOULD LET HIM
 KNOW IF THE HAD ANY IDEAS TO "DO IT DIFFERENTLY", THE UNION THEREFORE
 RECEIVED SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO OFFER PROPOSALS.  NOT ONLY HAD THE
 REESTABLISHMENT BEEN PROCESSED PRIOR TO MAY 18, BUT MANAGEMENT MADE IT
 CLEAR IN APRIL AND MAY THAT THE CONVERSION WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED, AND
 THAT THE OPTION SELECTED BY AGUIRRE WOULD BE ADOPTED BY THE RESPONDENT
 AS THE BEST PROCEDURE.  IN THIS POSTURE THE UNION SCARCELY HAD
 SUFFICIENT TIME TO WEIGH THE CONVERSION AND PREPARE PROPOSALS FOR
 DISCUSSION WITH MANAGEMENT RELATIVE TO THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.
 
    FURTHER, I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT RESPONDENT DID, IN GOOD FAITH,
 BARGAIN WITH AFGE RE THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVERSION.
 DESPITE THE UNION'S REQUEST TO SO BARGAIN IN APRIL, MANAGEMENT
 STEADFASTLY INSISTED THERE WAS LITTLE ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION.  BOTH
 AGUIRRE AND MCKENZIE CONTINUED TO STATE THAT THE DIRECTIVE WOULD BE
 FOLLOWED.  AGUIRRE ALSO INFORMED QUESADA THAT AFTER MCKENZIE OBTAINED
 "ALL THE MECHANICS" HE WOULD IMPLEMENT THE CONVERSION.  MOREOVER,
 AGUIRRE ADVISED THE UNION THAT MANAGEMENT HAD SELECTED THE OPTION IT
 DEEMED BEST FOR ALL CONCERNED, TO WIT, RETAINING THE NEW POSITIONS AS
 ENCUMBERED WITHOUT FILLING THEM AT THAT TIME.  ALTHOUGH THE COLONEL
 SUGGESTED ON MAY 18 THAT THE UNION COULD OFFER OTHER IDEAS RE THE
 CONVERSION, MANAGEMENT'S SUGGESTION WAS LITTLE MORE THAN AN IDLE GESTURE
 SINCE THE RECLASSIFICATION SOUGHT BY RESPONDENT HAD ALREADY BEEN
 PROCESSED.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE UNION HEREIN WAS LEFT WITH
 THE BELIEF THAT THE RECLASSIFICATION WAS, AS FAR AS RESPONDENT WAS
 CONCERNED, AN ACCOMPLISHED FACT.  IN THIS POSTURE THE UNION WAS NOT
 AFFORDED MUCH OPPORTUNITY TO INJECT ANY INPUT INTO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
 THE DECISION.  ACCORDINGLY, THE EMPLOYER DID NOT NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH
 RE THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVERSION, AND I FIND IT
 VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) BY REASON THEREOF.  SEE ARMY AND
 AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, PACIFIC EXCHANGE SYSTEM, HAWAII REGIONAL
 EXCHANGE, A/SLMR NO. 454.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT VIOLATIVE OF
 SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE ACT, I HEREBY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING
 ORDER DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 7105(G)(3) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, AND SECTION 2400.2 OF ITS
 REGULATIONS, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS
 CENTER (AFLC), KELLY AIR FORCE BASE SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INSTITUTING ANY CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF REVIEW OF
 APPRAISAL/EVALUATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
 
    EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617,
 
    WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT AND
 
    NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND
 
    IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CHANGE.
 
    (B) CANCELLING AND REESTABLISHING JOB POSITIONS OF EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN
 
    FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617 WITHOUT FIRST
 NOTIFYING SUCH
 
    REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT AND
 NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT
 
    CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH ACTION.
 
    (C) 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 ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSE AND POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT STATUTE:
 
    (A) RESCIND AND WITHDRAW ALL EVALUATIONS OF EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617, WHICH WERE MADE UNDER THE
 1979 APPRAISAL/EVALUATION
 
    GUIDE.
 
    (B) RESCIND AND REVOKE THE CANCELLATION OF THE GS QUALITY INSPECTION
 SPECIALIST POSITIONS
 
    AND THEIR REESTABLISHMENT AS WG AIRCRAFT WORK INSPECTORS AT THE 433RD
 TACTICAL AIR WING.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 LOCAL 1617, OF ANY
 
    INTENDED CHANGE IN THE LEVEL OF REVIEW OF ITS APPRAISAL-EVALUATIONS
 WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEES
 
    REPRESENTED BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617, AND, UPON
 
    REQUEST, CONSULT AND NEGOTIATE WITH SUCH REPRESENTATIVE TO THE EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 
    REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH INTENDED
 CHANGE.
 
    (D) NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 LOCAL 1617, OF ANY
 
    INTENTION TO CANCEL AND REESTABLISH JOB POSITIONS OF EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN
 
    FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617, AND, UPON
 REQUEST, CONSULT AND
 
    NEGOTIATE WITH SUCH REPRESENTATIVE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW
 AND REGULATIONS,
 
    CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH ACTION.
 
    (E) POST AT ITS FACILITY AT THE SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS COMMAND
 (AFLC), KELLY AIR FORCE
 
    BASE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 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 COMMANDER OF THE SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
 (AFLC), AND THEY SHALL BE
 
    POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES,
 INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE
 
    NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE COMMANDER SHALL
 TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO
    INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICE ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (F) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN
 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO 
 COMPLY THEREWITH.
 
                         WILLIAM NAIMARK
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  MARCH 11, 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 FEDERAL SERVICE
 
          LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR
 
                             EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT INSTITUTE ANY CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF REVIEW OF
 APPRAISAL/EVALUATIONS WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617 WITHOUT FIRST
 NOTIFYING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO
 CONSULT AND NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CHANGE.
 
    WE WILL NOT CANCEL AND REESTABLISH JOB POSITIONS OF EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 LOCAL 1617 WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT
 THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT AND NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH
 ACTION.
 
    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 AND WITHDRAW ALL EVALUATIONS OF EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED
 BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617,
 WHICH WERE MADE UNDER THE 1979 APPRAISAL/EVALUATION GUIDE.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617 OF ANY INTENDED CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF REVIEW OF
 APPRAISAL/EVALUATIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES, AND, UPON REQUEST, CONSULT AND
 NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CHANGE.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND AND REVOKE THE CANCELLATION OF THE GS QUALITY
 INSPECTION SPECIALIST POSITIONS AND THEIR REESTABLISHMENT AS WG AIRCRAFT
 WORK INSPECTORS AT THE 433RD TACTICAL AIR WING.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617 OF ANY INTENTION TO CANCEL AND REESTABLISH JOB
 POSITIONS OF EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617, AND UPON REQUEST, CONSULT AND NEGOTIATE,
 TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH ACTION.
 
                            AGENCY OR ACTIVITY
 
    DATED:  BY:  SIGNATURE
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ THE AUTHORITY IS EMPOWERED TO "REQUIRE AN AGENCY OR A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND
 REQUIRE IT TO TAKE ANY REMEDIAL ACTION IT CONSI