Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Southeastern Program Service Center, Birmingham, Alabama (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2206, AFL-CIO (Charging Party)



[ v05 p400 ]
05:0400(52)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 5 FLRA No. 52
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
 SERVICES, /1/ SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, SOUTHEASTERN
 PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER
 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2206, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 4-CA-15
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING, FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT
 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
 AMENDED, BY UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTING ON THE JOB BENEFIT
 AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS AUTHORIZER TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES (BAT/CAT
 GUIDELINES) FOR EVALUATING TRAINEES, AND, FURTHER, BY IMPLEMENTING THE
 GUIDELINES WITHOUT AFFORDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF, 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 FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF THE
 REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF
 FUNCTIONS IS IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2423.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2423.1).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE
 FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7135(B) OF
 THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HAS
 REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING
 AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE
 HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE SUBJECT
 CASE, INCLUDING THE RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS
 THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 AS MODIFIED BELOW.
 
    IN ADOPTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDING THAT RESPONDENT
 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY UNILATERALLY
 IMPLEMENTING THE BAT/CAT GUIDELINES, THE AUTHORITY DOES NOT CONSTRUE THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDING TO MEAN THAT ANY PROPOSAL CONCERNING
 TRAINEE EVALUATION GUIDELINES WOULD BE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN, I.E.,
 CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS.  RATHER, INASMUCH AS THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WAS NEITHER PRESENTED WITH NOR WAS HIS
 DETERMINATION BASED UPON A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL WITH REGARD THERETO, IN THE
 AUTHORITY'S VIEW, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MERELY RULED THAT
 SPECIFIC PROPOSALS PERTAINING TO THE MATTER OF TRAINEE EVALUATION
 GUIDELINES COULD BE DRAFTED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN
 UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  /2/ ACCORDINGLY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
 INSTANT CASE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 LAW JUDGE, THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE
 EXECUTIVE ORDER BY UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTING THE BAT/CAT GUIDELINES.
 HOWEVER, IN SO FINDING, THE AUTHORITY MAKES NO JUDGEMENT AS TO WHETHER
 PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE MATTER OF TRAINEE EVALUATION GUIDELINES WOULD
 BE WITHIN THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE STATUTE.  SUCH A DETERMINATION
 WOULD REQUIRE THE PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND
 DELIMITED IN FORM AND CONTENT BY WHICH THE AUTHORITY COULD ASCERTAIN
 WHETHER NEGOTIATIONS OVER SUCH PROPOSALS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH LAW,
 REGULATIONS AND THE STATUTE.  /3/
 
    WITH RESPECT TO THE RECOMMENDED REMEDY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 ORDERED RESPONDENT TO RESTORE THE TRAINEE EVALUATION GUIDELINES THAT
 WERE IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE UNILATERAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAT/CAT
 GUIDELINES ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 1, 1978;  TO NEGOTIATE, UPON THE UNION'S
 REQUEST, CONCERNING SUCH GUIDELINES;  AND, PURSUANT TO SECTION
 7118(A)(7)(B) OF THE STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7)(B)), TO GIVE
 RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO ANY BAT/CAT GUIDELINES SO NEGOTIATED BY THE
 PARTIES.  IN THE AUTHORITY'S VIEW, IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE IN THE
 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE TO REQUIRE AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PURSUANT TO
 A PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE STATUTE (I.E., GIVING RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO
 A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT) IN ORDER TO REMEDY RESPONDENT'S VIOLATION OF THE
 EXECUTIVE ORDER.  ACCORDINGLY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ORDER IS HEREBY AMENDED, AS SET FORTH BELOW, TO
 REQUIRE RESPONDENT TO RESCIND THE BAT/CAT GUIDELINES, NOTIFY THE UNION
 OF ANY INTENDED CHANGES IN THE PREEXISTING TRAINEE EVALUATION STANDARDS,
 AND, UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER IN GOOD FAITH ON SUCH INTENDED
 CHANGES TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW, REGULATIONS AND THE STATUTE.
 /4/
 
                                 ORDER /5/
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE,
 THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
 SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE
 CENTER, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REFUSING TO CONSULT, CONFER OR NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2206, AFL-CIO, THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE, CONCERNING ON THE JOB BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS
 AUTHORIZER TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS:
 
    (A) WITHDRAW THE "SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, ON THE JOB
 BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS AUTHORIZER TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES, OCTOBER
 1978," UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTED ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 1, 1978, AND RETURN
 TO THE STATUS QUO ANTE AS IT EXISTED PRIOR THERETO BY FORTHWITH
 REINSTATING THE INFORMAL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES OF THE SOUTHEASTERN
 PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER WITH RESPECT TO BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS
 AUTHORIZER TRAINEES AS THEY EXISTED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1, 1978.
 
    (B) NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 2206, AFL-CIO, OF ANY INTENDED CHANGES IN THE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES
 WITH RESPECT TO BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS AUTHORIZER TRAINEES AS THEY
 EXISTED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1, 1978, AND, UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER IN
 GOOD FAITH, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW, REGULATIONS AND THE
 STATUTE, ON SUCH INTENDED CHANGES.
 
    (C) POST AT ITS FACILITIES IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 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
 DIRECTOR, SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, 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 DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE
 STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED
 BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION IV, FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS
 ORDER, AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 30, 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 REFUSE TO CONSULT, CONFER, OR NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH
 WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2206,
 AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, CONCERNING ON THE JOB BENEFIT
 AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS AUTHORIZER TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    WE WILL WITHDRAW THE "SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, ON THE JOB
 BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS AUTHORIZER TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES, OCTOBER
 1978," UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTED ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 1, 1978, AND RETURN
 TO THE STATUS QUO ANTE AS IT EXISTED PRIOR THERETO BY FORTHWITH
 REINSTATING THE INFORMAL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES OF THE SOUTHEASTERN
 PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER WITH RESPECT TO BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS
 AUTHORIZER TRAINEES AS THEY EXISTED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1, 1978.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 2206, AFL-CIO, OF ANY INTENDED CHANGES IN THE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES
 WITH RESPECT TO BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS AUTHORIZER TRAINEES AS THEY
 EXISTED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1, 1978, AND, UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER IN
 GOOD FAITH, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW, REGULATIONS AND THE
 STATUTE, ON SUCH INTENDED CHANGES.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:
 
                                   BY:
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE, OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION IV,
 WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  SUITE 501, NORTH WING, 1776 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W.,
 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (404) 881-2324.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
 
    DIVISION OF LABOR RELATIONS
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
    G-314
    WEST HIGH RISE BUILDING
    6401 SECURITY BOULEVARD
    BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21235
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    WILLIAM N. CATES, ESQUIRE
    REGIONAL ATTORNEY
    MATHILDE LORRAINE GENOVESE, ESQUIRE
    ATTORNEY
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
    SUITE 501-NORTH WING
    1776 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W.
    ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
                          FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE U.S. CODE, 5 U.S.C.
 SECTION 7101, ET SEQ., AND THE INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED
 THEREUNDER, FED. REG., VOL. 44, NO. 147, JULY 30, 1979, 5 C.F.R. CHAPTER
 XIV, PART 2411, ET SEQ.  THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ASSERTED IN THIS
 PROCEEDING COMMENCED ON, OR ABOUT, NOVEMBER 1, 1978, AND THE VIOLATION
 ALLEGED, AS NOTED IN PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE COMPLAINT (G.C. EXH. 1(D)), IS
 OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED
 (HEREINAFTER, ALSO, REFERRED TO AS THE "ORDER").  SECTION 7135(B) OF THE
 STATUTE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES, IN PART, THAT "POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND
 PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491...IN EFFECT ON THE
 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CHAPTER, SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND
 EFFECT..." ALTHOUGH A PRE-COMPLAINT CHARGE WAS FILED PURSUANT TO THE
 ORDER WITH RESPONDENT ON NOVEMBER 8, 1978 (ALJ EXH. 1), A CHARGE /6/ WAS
 FILED BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2206,
 AFL-CIO (HEREINAFTER, ALSO, REFERRED TO AS "UNION") ON FEBRUARY 12,
 1979, WITH THE AUTHORITY (G.C.  EXH. 1(A));  AN AMENDED CHARGE WAS FILED
 WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE AUTHORITY ON APRIL 2, 1979 (G.C. EXH.
 1(C);  AND ON APRIL 10, 1979, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE A
 COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED (G.C. EXH. 1(D)), THE HEARING
 BEING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 1, 1979;  ON AUGUST 15, 1979, AN AMENDMENT
 TO COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED (G.C. EXH. 1(D)) WHICH FIXED
 THE TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF THE HEARING ON NOVEMBER 1, 1979,
 INADVERTENTLY OMITTED IN THE NOTICE OF HEARING OF APRIL 10, 1979,
 PURSUANT TO WHICH A HEARING WAS DULY HELD IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, ON
 NOVEMBER 1, 1979, BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED.  ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED
 BY ABLE COUNSEL, WERE AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO EXAMINE
 AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE
 ISSUES INVOLVED HEREIN;  AND THE PARTIES WERE AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY
 TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY.  AT THE
 CLOSE OF THE HEARING, AT THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
 WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, AND FOR GOOD CAUSE
 SHOWN, DECEMBER 12, 1979 WAS FIXED AS THE DATE FOR MAILING POST-HEARING
 BRIEFS AND COUNSEL FOR EACH PARTY HAS TIMELY SUBMITTED AN EXCELLENT AND
 MOST HELPFUL BRIEF RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE ON DECEMBER 14, 1979, WHICH
 HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.  UPON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE RECORD,
 INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE
 FOLLOWING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER:
 
                         FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    THE SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, IS ONE
 OF SIX SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM CENTERS.  IN JUNE 10,
 1969, THE NATIONAL OFFICE OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENT CENTER
 LOCALS, WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF RETIREMENT AND
 SURVIVORS' INSURANCE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, AS THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL NON-SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES, WITH CERTAIN
 EXCLUSIONS, IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM CENTERS.
 LOCAL 2206 IS ONE OF THE LOCALS CONSTITUTING THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
 SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENT CENTER LOCALS;  THERE IS A MULTI-CENTER
 AGREEMENT, WHICH IS NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING;  AND THERE IS A
 LOCAL AGREEMENT COVERING THE BIRMINGHAM CENTER, WHICH IS ALSO NOT AN
 ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING.
 
    THIS PROCEEDING CONCERNS PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR BENEFIT AUTHORIZER
 TRAINEE-CLAIMS AUTHORIZER TRAINEE IN THE BIRMINGHAM CENTER, SOMETIMES
 EUPHEMISTICALLY REFERRED TO AS BAT/CAT GUIDELINES.  FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR
 TO 1970, ALL PROGRAM SERVICE CENTERS HAD USED NUMERIC STANDARDS.  IN
 1970, THE THEN DIRECTOR, DISCONTINUED NUMERIC STANDARDS IN ALL PROGRAM
 SERVICE CENTERS AND AFTER 1970 THERE WAS NO FORMAL SYSTEM OR NUMERIC
 STANDARDS EITHER FOR TRAINEE OR FOR JOURNEYMEN;  HOWEVER, MR. CLARENCE
 R. ELDER, NOW ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT, TESTIFIED THAT WHEN HE
 CAME TO BIRMINGHAM IN JANUARY, 1971, AS CHIEF, CLAIMS AUTHORIZATION
 BRANCH, THERE WAS THEN AN INFORMAL SYSTEM OF ASSESSMENT OF TRAINEES WITH
 MAJOR EMPHASIS ON THE AMOUNT OF TRAINEE'S OUTPUT AND THE QUALITY OF THE
 TRAINEE'S PRODUCT.  MR. ELDER FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT THERE HAD BEEN OVER
 THE PERIOD SINCE 1971, AN INFORMAL SYSTEM OF AN ACCEPTABLE AMOUNT OF
 WORK OF ACCEPTABLE QUALITY, ASSESSED BY MAINTAINING A RECORD OF THE
 NUMBER OF CASES COMPLETED AND A RECORD OF ACCURACY OF THE PRODUCT;
 HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO UNIFORMITY IN THAT INFORMAL SYSTEM IN THE
 BIRMINGHAM CENTER AND MS.  IMOGENE SHOEMAKER, PRESIDENT OF THE UNION WAS
 NOT AWARE OF THE INFORMAL STANDARDS;  INDEED, SHE TESTIFIED THAT AFTER
 MR. MCKINNA DISCONTINUED NUMERIC STANDARDS, "THEY WERE NO LONGER SUPPOSE
 (SIC) TO APPLY NUMERICAL STANDARDS TO THEM AT ALL." (TR. 137).
 
    IN MAY, 1977, THE THEN DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF RETIREMENT AND SURVIVORS
 INSURANCE, MR. PASQUALE F. CALIGIURI, ADVISED MR. DONALD W. JONES, THEN
 PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENT CENTER
 LOCALS, THAT THE BUREAU WAS ASKING EACH CENTER TO SUPPLEMENT ITS
 INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM WITH AN ADDENDUM CONCERNING EMPLOYEES IN
 TRAINEE POSITIONS (G.C. EXH. 2).  SOME CENTERS, FOR EXAMPLE,
 PHILADELPHIA, MOVED MORE RAPIDLY ON BAT/CAT GUIDELINES THAN OTHERS (SEE,
 FOR EXAMPLE, G.C. EXH. 5).  RESPONDENT'S "FIRST DRAFT PROPOSAL-JULY 21,
 1978" (G.C. EXH. 3) WAS SUBMITTED TO THE UNION ON JULY 27, 1978, /7/
 WITH REQUESTED COMMENTS BY JULY 31, 1978.  THE TIME TO COMMENT WAS
 ORALLY EXTENDED UNTIL AFTER AUGUST 4, 1978, WHICH MS.  SHOEMAKER
 CONFIRMED BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 3, 1978 (G.C. EXH. 4).  SOME COMMENTS
 WERE SUBMITTED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO MS. SHOEMAKER'S LETTER OF AUGUST 3,
 1978.  A MEETING WAS SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 22, 1978.  BY MEMORANDUM DATED
 AUGUST 22, 1978 (G.C. EXH. 5), MS. SHOEMAKER ADVISED MR. GEORGE F.
 SEDBERRY, LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS SPECIALIST, INTER ALIA, "...THAT
 AFTER EVALUATION OF TRAINING GUIDELINES ISSUED BY TWO OTHER PROGRAM
 CENTERS REGARDING THESE SAME TWO IDENTICAL POSITIONS, LOCAL 2206 IS
 FORCED TO ADOPT THE POSITION THAT ANY GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE
 SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER CANNOT BE MORE DEMANDING OR
 NARROW
 IN SCOPE THAN THOSE ISSUED BY OTHER PROGRAM SERVICE CENTERS FOR THESE
 SAME TWO POSITIONS... REVIEW OF SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER
 PROPOSALS SHOW CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE CURRENT PROPOSED MANAGEMENT
 GUIDELINES ARE NOT IN LINE WITH THOSE ADOPTED BY TWO OTHER PROGRAM
 SERVICE CENTERS.  ACCORDINGLY, WE MUST TAKE EXCEPTIONS WITH YOUR
 PROPOSALS.  THESE EXCEPTIONS WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU ORALLY TODAY AT
 2:00 P.M., AUGUST 22, 1978.  BASED ON THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE UNION
 REQUESTS THAT A REVISED MANAGEMENT DRAFT BE DRAWN UP AND PRESENTED TO
 THIS UNION PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY TRAINING GUIDELINES.  IF AT
 THAT POINT THIS LOCAL SHOULD FIND THE REVISED GUIDELINES ARE
 SUFFICIENTLY IN LINE WITH THOSE OF OTHER PROGRAM SERVICE CENTERS...THE
 ISSUE WILL NOT BE ESCALATED TO A NATIONAL LEVEL FOR NEGOTIATIONS..."
 (G.C. EXH. 5)
 
    THE PARTIES MET ON AUGUST 22, 1978;  THE UNION MADE BOTH AN ORAL
 PRESENTATION AND A WRITTEN STATEMENT AS TO CERTAIN OF IT'S POSITIONS
 (G.C. EXH. 6);  AND RESPONDENT PREPARED A SECOND DRAFT, DATED AUGUST 25,
 1978 (G.C. EXH. 7).  /8/
 
    THERE IS STRONG DISAGREEMENT AS TO WHEN THE SECOND DRAFT WAS RECEIVED
 BY THE UNION.  MS. SHOEMAKER TESTIFIED THAT SHE DID NOT RECEIVE IT UNTIL
 OCTOBER 12, 1978, AS AN ATTACHMENT TO MR. SEDBERRY'S LETTER OF OCTOBER
 12, 1978 (RES. EXH 2) AS A FINAL VERSION OF THE GUIDELINES.  MR.
 SEDBERRY TESTIFIED THAT HE PERSONALLY DELIVERED THE SECOND DRAFT TO THE
 UNION OFFICE ON AUGUST 28, 29 OR 30, 1978;  AND THAT THE DOCUMENT
 ATTACHED TO HIS LETTER OF OCTOBER 12, 1978, WAS THE "SOUTHEASTERN
 PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER ON THE JOB BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS AUTHORIZER
 TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES, OCTOBER 1978" (RES. EXH. 3).  I HAVE
 CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE RECORD AND CREDIT MR. SEDBERRY'S TESTIMONY AND
 FIND THAT THE SECOND DRAFT WAS DELIVERED TO THE UNION ON AUGUST 28, 29
 OR 30, 1978;  AND THAT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 3 WAS ATTACHED TO MR.
 SEDBERRY'S MEMORANDUM OF OCTOBER 12, 1978 (RES. EXH. 2).  I HAVE REACHED
 THESE CONCLUSIONS FOR MANY REASONS, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:  A) MR.
 SEDBERRY WAS AN ENTIRELY CREDIBLE WITNESS AND TESTIFIED THAT HE
 PERSONALLY DELIVERED GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 7, STATING:
 
    "A.  I PERSONALLY HAND DELIVERED THIS DOCUMENT.
 
    "Q.  WHO WOULD YOU HAVE DELIVERED IT TO, MR. SEDBERRY?
 
    "A.  I CANNOT SAY FOR CERTAIN...
 
    "AT THIS POINT IN TIME THERE WERE TWO INDIVIDUALS IN OFFICE:  MS.
 SHOEMAKER WAS THE
 
    PRESIDENT AND MR. POST THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT.
 
    "TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, BOTH OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WERE
 PRESENT WHEN I VISITED THE
 
    UNION OFFICE.  I LEFT THE DOCUMENT WITH ONE OR THE OTHER.  (TR.
 119-120) MR. SEDBERRY FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT THE ATTACHMENT TO HIS
 MEMORANDUM OF OCTOBER 12, 1978 (RES. EXH. 2) WAS RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 3
 AND THAT HE PERSONALLY DELIVERED HIS MEMORANDUM OF OCTOBER 12, 1978, AND
 THE ATTACHMENT, TO MS. SHOEMAKER OR TO MR. POST (TR.  122-123);  B) MR.
 ELDER, WHO I ALSO FOUND TO BE A WHOLLY CREDIBLE WITNESS, TESTIFIED THAT
 WHEN HE APPROVED THE MEMORANDUM OF OCTOBER 12, 1978, THE DOCUMENT
 ATTACHED WAS RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 3;  C) MR. POST WAS NOT CALLED AS A
 WITNESS;  D) I DID NOT FIND MS. SHOEMAKER TO BE AN ENTIRELY RELIABLE
 WITNESS, AS SHOWN, FOR EXAMPLE, BY HER TESTIMONY WHEREBY SHE ATTEMPTED
 TO DISCREDIT HER OWN LETTER OF AUGUST 3, 1978;  E) MR. SEDBERRY'S LETTER
 OF OCTOBER 12, 1978, IS WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 3
 HAVING BEEN ATTACHED, BUT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE "SECOND DRAFT"
 HAVING BEEN ATTACHED;  NEVERTHELESS, MS. SHOEMAKER'S MEMORANDUM TO MR.
 SEDBERRY OF OCTOBER 12, 1978 (G.C.  EXH.9) MAKES NO REFERENCE TO "SECOND
 DRAFT," RATHER THAN THE "FINAL VERSION" REFERRED TO BY MR.  SEDBERRY.
 
    ALTHOUGH I HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DID DELIVER ITS SECOND DRAFT TO
 THE UNION ON AUGUST 28, 29, OR 30, 1978, I DO NOT AGREE WITH
 RESPONDENT'S CONCLUSION THAT, BECAUSE THE UNION DID NOT RESPOND , IT WAS
 FREE TO UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENT THE GUIDELINES, ON, OR AFTER, OCTOBER 16,
 1978.  AT THE OUTSET, IT MUST BE NOTED THAT RESPONDENT'S SECOND DRAFT
 (G.C. EXH. 7) WAS SUBMITTED WITHOUT STATING ANY TIME FOR RESPONSE;
 WITHOUT NOTICE AS TO WHEN RESPONDENT INTENDED TO PUT THE GUIDELINES INTO
 EFFECT;  AND WITHOUT NOTICE THAT RESPONDENT CONSIDERED THIS AS ITS FINAL
 DETERMINATION OR DECISION.  INDEED, THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT CONSIDER THE
 DOCUMENT AS MORE THAN A SECOND DRAFT AND THAT IT CONTEMPLATED FURTHER
 DISCUSSION IS SHOWN NOT ONLY BY THE DOCUMENT AND BY THE MANNER OF ITS
 SUBMISSION, BUT, AS DISCUSSED MORE FULLY HEREINAFTER, BY RESPONDENT'S
 LETTER OF OCTOBER 12, 1978 (RES. EXH. 2).
 
    RESPONDENT HAS NEVER CONTENDED THAT THE GUIDELINES WERE NOT A
 REQUIRED SUBJECT FOR BARGAINING.  TO THE CONTRARY, THE DIRECTOR'S LETTER
 OF MAY, 1977 (G.C.  EXH. 2) INVITED "INPUT" FROM EACH LOCAL IN DEVISING
 AN ADDENDUM TO EACH CENTER'S INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM CONCERNING
 EMPLOYEES IN TRAINEE POSITIONS;  AND RESPONDENT MET AND NEGOTIATED WITH
 THE UNION ON AUGUST 22, 1978, AND SUBMITTED ITS SECOND DRAFT TO THE
 UNION ON AUGUST 28, 29 OR 30, 1978.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE UNION
 CONTEMPLATED AND EXPECTED FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS.  DILATORY THOUGH THE
 UNION WAS, IT WAS RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO GIVE REQUIRED NOTICE, AS TO
 TIME FOR RESPONSE, INTENDED DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION, OR AS TO INTENDED
 FINALITY OF THE SECOND DRAFT WHICH PRECLUDED RESPONDENT'S UNILATERAL
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUIDELINES.  FIRST, IN SOUTHEAST EXCHANGE REGION
 OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, ROSEWOOD WAREHOUSE,
 COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, A/SLMR NO. 656, 6 A/SLMR 237 (1976), THE
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY, AS TO AN ITEM NEGOTIABLE UNDER SECTION 11(A) OF THE
 ORDER, STATED:
 
    "THEREFORE, THE RESPONDENT WAS OBLIGATED TO NOTIFY THE COMPLAINANT
 PRIOR TO MAKING ITS
 
    FINAL DETERMINATION OR DECISION TO CHANGE THE HOURS OF THOSE
 EMPLOYEES, AND, UPON REQUEST, TO
 
    MEET AND CONFER IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE COMPLAINANT..."
 
    (6 A/SLMR AT 239).  HERE, OF COURSE, THERE WAS NOTHING WHICH
 INDICATED THAT RESPONDENT'S SECOND DRAFT CONSTITUTED RESPONDENT'S FINAL
 DETERMINATION OR DECISION.  NOR WOULD THE RECORD HAVE SUPPORTED A
 CONTENTION THAT THE PARTIES HAD BARGAINED IN GOOD FAITH TO AN IMPASSE AS
 OF THE DATE OF SUBMISSION OF THE SECOND DRAFT.
 
    SECOND, IN U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT,
 A/SLMR NO. 673, 6 A/SLMR 339 (1976), WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE BARGAINED TO
 IMPASSE, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY STATED,
 
    "...AFTER BARGAINING TO AN IMPASSE, THAT IS AFTER GOOD FAITH
 NEGOTIATIONS HAVE EXHAUSTED
 
    THE PROSPECT OF CONCLUDING AN AGREEMENT, AGENCY MANAGEMENT DOES NOT
 VIOLATE THE ORDER BY
 
    UNILATERALLY IMPOSING CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT...SO LONG AS APPROPRIATE
 
    NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AS TO WHEN THE
 CHANGES ARE INTENDED TO BE PUT
 
    INTO EFFECT IN ORDER TO AFFORD THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AMPLE
 OPPORTUNITY TO INVOKE THE
 
    SERVICES OF THE PANEL AT A TIME PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
 CHANGES.
 
    "...IN THE INSTANT CASE, HOWEVER, IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT COMPLAINANT
 WAS NOT NOTIFIED PRIOR
 
    TO THE INSTITUTION OF THE CHANGE...AND WAS NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO
 INVOKE THE PROCEDURES OF
 
    THE PANEL PRIOR TO THE RESPONDENT'S INSTITUTING A CHANGE IN EXISTING
 TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF
 
    EMPLOYMENT.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I FIND THAT THE RESPONDENT
 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1)
 
    AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY UNILATERALLY INSTITUTING THE CHANGE HEREIN
 WITHOUT PROVIDING THE
 
    COMPLAINANT WITH REASONABLE NOTICE OF ITS INTENDED ACTION." (6 A/SLMR
 AT 341).  HERE THE PARTIES HAD NOT BARGAINED TO AN IMPASSE.  THE RECORD
 SHOWS THAT THE PARTIES HAD HAD ONLY ONE BARGAINING SESSION AND TOTALLY
 FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE PARTIES HAD EXHAUSTED BARGAINING.  IN FACT, THE
 DETAILS OF THE BARGAINING THAT TOOK PLACE ON AUGUST 22, 1978, WERE
 PRESENTED IN A MOST SUMMARY FASHION BY BOTH PARTIES AND THE CLEAR
 IMPRESSION OF THAT MEETING WAS THAT IT WAS WHOLLY PRELIMINARY AND
 CONSISTED LARGELY OF THE UNION PRESENTING ITS COMMENTS. NOTWITHSTANDING
 THE UNION'S SPECIFIC CONCERN, STATED IN IT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUGUST 22,
 1978 (G.C.  EXH. 5), THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW ANY BARGAINING ON THE
 ASSERTED DIVERGENCE OF RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED GUIDELINES FROM GUIDELINES
 NEGOTIATED BY TWO OTHER PROGRAM SERVICE CENTERS.  THE MINUTES OF THE
 AUGUST 22 NEGOTIATING SESSION, WHICH MS. SHOEMAKER TESTIFIED SHE DID NOT
 RECEIVE UNTIL OCTOBER 30, 1978, WERE NOT OFFERED IN EVIDENCE.
 NEVERTHELESS, I CONCLUDE FROM THE TESTIMONY OF MS.  SHOEMAKER AND MR.
 ELDER, THE ONLY PARTICIPANTS OF THE AUGUST 22 NEGOTIATION SESSION WHO
 TESTIFIED, THAT NEGOTIATIONS HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED ON AUGUST 22, 1978,
 NOR, OF COURSE, HAD THE PARTIES BARGAINED IN GOOD FAITH TO AN IMPASSE.
 CF., U.S. ARMY ELECTRONICS COMMAND, FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY, A/SLMR
 NO. 855, 7 A/SLMR 506 (1977).  IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT IF AN AGENCY
 MAY NOT UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENT A CHANGE IN EXISTING TERMS AND CONDITIONS
 OF EMPLOYEMENT AFTER IMPASSE WITHOUT HAVING GIVEN NOTICE AS TO WHEN THE
 CHANGES ARE INTENDED TO BE PUT INTO EFFECT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF
 ENGINEERS, PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, SUPRA, MOST ASSUREDLY IT MAY NOT
 UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENT A CHANGE IN EXISTING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT HERE, WHERE IT HAS NEITHER GIVEN NOTICE AS TO WHEN THE
 CHANGES WERE INTENDED TO BE PUT INTO EFFECT NOR HAD IT BARGAINED TO AN
 IMPASSE.  WHILE THE UNION DID NOT DILIGENTLY SEEK FURTHER BARGAINING
 AFTER RECEIPT OF RESPONDENT'S SECOND DRAFT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
 EDUCATION AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BUREAU OF
 RETIREMENT AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER,
 A/SLMR NO. 1170, 8 A/SLMR 1360 (1978), NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE
 CENTER, PRINCIPLE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE REASON
 THAT THE PARTIES HAD BEGUN BARGAINING;  THE SECOND DRAFT REPRESENTED A
 CONTINUATION OF NEGOTIATIONS;  RESPONDENT, CONTRARY TO ITS PRIOR
 PRACTICE DID NOT FIX ANY TIME FRAME FOR RESPONSE;  AND, BECAUSE OF THE
 ON-GOING NEGOTIATIONS, THE PRESENT CASE IS GOVERNED BY THE FORT MONMOUTH
 AND PHILADELPHIA DECISIONS, SUPRA.
 
    THIRD, RESPONDENT'S LETTER OF OCTOBER 12, 1978, WHICH TRANSMITTED
 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 3, FOR THE FIRST TIME DESIGNATED THIS DOCUMENT AS
 ITS "FINAL VERSION" AND FOR THE FIRST TIME STATED THAT RESPONDENT
 INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT "THESE GUIDELINES THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 16, 1978."
 (RES. EXH. 2) /9/ SIGNIFICANTLY, MR. SEDBERRY'S MEMORANDUM FURTHER
 STATED:
 
    "IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS ANY PART OF THE GUIDELINES WE WILL BE
 PREPARED TO MEET WITH YOU AT
 
    10 A.M. ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13.  IF THIS TIME IS NOT CONVENIENT,
 PLEASE NOTIFY MY
 
    OFFICE." (RES. EXH. 2).  NOTWITHSTANDING THAT MR. SEDBERRY
 TRANSMITTED RESPONDENT'S "FINAL VERSION" AND STATED THAT RESPONDENT
 EXPECTED TO IMPLEMENT THESE GUIDELINES "THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 16, 1978,"
 HIS INVITATION TO THE UNION TO "DISCUSS ANY PART OF THE GUIDELINES"
 CERTAINLY DOES NOT SHOW, OR IMPLY, ANY INTENT BY RESPONDENT TO THEREBY,
 UNILATERALLY, IMPLEMENT THE GUIDELINES.  NOT ONLY WAS RESPONDENT NOT
 FREE TO UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENT THE GUIDELINES, FOR THE REASONS STATED
 ABOVE, BUT RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM OF OCTOBER 12, 1978, DISCLAIMS ANY
 INTENT TO DO SO.
 
    OF COURSE, MS. SHOEMAKER DID, PROMPTLY, RESPOND ON OCTOBER 12, 1978,
 AND IN HER MEMORANDUM OF OCTOBER 12, 1978, TO MR. SEDBERRY SHE, INTER
 ALIA, INFORMED MR.  SEDBERRY THAT OCTOBER 13 WAS NOT A CONVENIENT DATE;
 STATED THAT THE GUIDELINES SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED DURING THE WEEK OF
 OCTOBER 16;  REQUESTED A MEETING NO EARLIER THAN OCTOBER 22;  AND,
 FINALLY, THAT THE UNION WOULD STATE ITS POSITION AT SAID MEETING "SO
 THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SETTLED PRIOR TO THEIR IMPLEMENTATION." (G.C.
 EXH. 9) RESPONDENT DID NOT RESPOND TO MS.  SHOEMAKER'S MEMORANDUM OF
 OCTOBER 12, 1978;  HOWEVER IT DID NOT IMPLEMENT THE GUIDELINES THE WEEK
 OF OCTOBER 16, 1978.  ON OCTOBER 25, 1978, MS. SHOEMAKER WROTE A
 MEMORANDUM TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER,
 MR. E. J. LISTERMAN, IN WHICH SHE STATED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "THIS CONSTITUTES MY FORMAL REQUEST TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING THE
 PROGRAM CENTER'S
 
    PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF GUIDELINES ENTITLED 'ON THE JOB BENEFIT
 AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS AUTHORIZER
 
    TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES'
 
    "...THE PUBLICATION OF THESE GUIDELINES WILL HAVE SUCH AN ADVERSE
 IMPACT ON MEMBERS OF THE
 
    BARGAINING UNIT THAT NEGOTIATIONS ON CERTAIN POINTS MUST BE ENTERED
 INTO, TO EFFECTUATE A
 
    REALLY MEANINGFUL GUIDELINE.
 
    "I REFER YOU TO MY LETTERS TO MR. GEORGE F. SEDBERRY DATED AUGUST 22,
 1978 AND OCTOBER 12,
 
    1978, DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE GUIDELINES.
 
    "MANAGEMENT SHOULD CEASE AND DESIST FROM FURTHER ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT
 THESE GUIDELINES
 
    UNTIL NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED..." (G.C. EXH. 10) RESPONDENT
 DID NOT RESPOND TO MS. SHOEMAKER'S MEMORANDUM OF OCTOBER 25, 1978.  ON,
 OR ABOUT, NOVEMBER 1, 1978, RESPONDENT, WITHOUT NOTICE TO UNION,
 IMPLEMENTED ITS BAT/CAT GUIDELINES.  MS. SHOEMAKER TESTIFIED THAT SHE
 LEARNED OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUIDELINES "VIA THE GOOD OLD
 GRAPEVINE" AFTER DISTRIBUTION TO THE MANAGERS "SOMEWHERE AROUND NOVEMBER
 1ST." (TR. 46).
 
    RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE GUIDELINES DID NOT CHANGE PERSONNEL
 POLICIES, PRACTICES AND MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS SINCE THE
 GUIDELINES CONSTITUTED "A MERE FORMALIZATION OF ON-GOING, CONTINUING,
 AND ESTABLISHED PRACTICES" (RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PP. 37) HAS BEEN
 CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND IS REJECTED.  THE RECORD IS WHOLLY TO THE
 CONTRARY.  ALTHOUGH IT IS CLEAR THAT RESPONDENT HAD, AT LEAST SINCE
 1971, USED AN INFORMAL SYSTEM OF ASSESSMENT OF TRAINEES WITH MAJOR
 EMPHASIS ON THE AMOUNT OF TRAINEE'S AND THE QUALITY OF TRAINEE'S
 PRODUCT, INCLUDING AN INFORMAL SYSTEM OF AN ACCEPTABLE AMOUNT OF WORK OF
 ACCEPTABLE QUALITY, AS MR.  ELDER TESTIFIED, IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR, AS MR.
 ELDER FURTHER TESTIFIED, THAT THERE WAS NO UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ASSESSMENT.
  THUS, HE STATED:
 
    "A.  WELL, THERE HAS BEEN CONCERN EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF MANAGEMENT,
 BY EMPLOYEES, AND BY
 
    THE UNION, CONCERNING THE FACT THAT WE NEEDED TO BE UNIFORM AND
 CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT OUR 36
 
    MODULES.
 
    "I THINK IT WAS FELT BY MANAGEMENT, BY EMPLOYEES, AND IF I MIGHT
 SPEAK, I THINK THE UNION
 
    HAD A CONCERN, THAT THERE MIGHT BE INCONSISTENT DECISIONS MADE
 CONCERNING PROGRESS IN THE
 
    ABSENCE OF A MORE FORMAL GUIDELINES PROCEDURE TO AID AND ASSIST
 SUPERVISORS IN MAKING THESE
 
    KINDS OF DECISIONS." (TR. 85).  NOR, OF COURSE, SINCE 1970, HAD THERE
 BEEN ANY FIXED NUMERIC GUIDELINES EITHER FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES OR FOR
 QUALITY, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT EACH SUPERVISOR ASSESSED WHAT HE, OR SHE,
 CONSIDERED AN ACCEPTABLE AMOUNT OF WORK OF ACCEPTABLE QUALITY.  THE
 BAT/CAT GUIDELINES CONTAINED QUITE FIXED GUIDELINES.  ACCORDINGLY, I
 CONCLUDE THAT THE BAT/CAT GUIDELINES DID CHANGE EXISTING PERSONNEL
 POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS BY,
 INTER ALIA, ESTABLISHING FIXED AND UNIFORM NUMERIC GUIDELINES FOR
 EVALUATION OF TRAINEES;  AND BY THE FORMALIZATION OF UNIFORM AND
 COMPREHENSIVE TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES.  BY MEMORANDUM DATED OCTOBER
 12, 1978, UNION DID ADVISE RESPONDENT THAT OCTOBER 13, 1978, WAS NOT A
 CONVENIENT DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFERRING;  REQUESTED A DATE NOT
 EARLIER THAN OCTOBER 22, 1978;  AND STATED THAT THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES
 SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED DURING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 16, 1978.  BY
 MEMORANDUM DATED OCTOBER 25, 1918, UNION MADE A FURTHER FORMAL REQUEST
 TO MEET AND CONFER AND AGAIN STATED THAT RESPONDENT SHOULD CEASE AND
 DESIST FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED GUIDELINES UNTIL NEGOTIATIONS
 HAD BEEN COMPLETED.
 
    RESPONDENT DID NOT RESPOND EITHER TO THE MEMORANDUM OF OCTOBER 12,
 1978, OR TO THE MEMORANDUM OF OCTOBER 25, 1978.  RESPONDENT DID NOT MEET
 WITH UNION;  BUT, UNILATERALLY, ON OR ABOUT, NOVEMBER 1, 1978,
 IMPLEMENTED ITS BAT/CAT GUIDELINES.  BY SUCH UNILATERAL ACTION,
 RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER.  ALTHOUGH
 UNION DID NOT REQUEST BARGAINING OVER IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, SUCH A
 REQUEST IS NOT NECESSARY AFTER THE FACT TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE
 ORDER.  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AUSTIN
 SERVICE CENTER, AUSTIN, TEXAS, A/SLMR NO. 1142, 8 A/SLMR 1188 (1978).
 ACCORDINGLY, RESPONDENT FURTHER VIOLATED SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF
 THE ORDER BY ITS UNILATERAL IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS BAT/CAT GUIDELINES
 WITHOUT AFFORDING UNION ANY OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING IMPACT
 AND IMPLEMENTATION.  /10/
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE ORDER BY ITS FAILURE AND
 REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH, BY ITS UNILATERAL IMPLEMENTATION OF
 ITS PROPOSED BAT/CAT GUIDELINES WITHOUT HAVING BARGAINED IN GOOD FAITH
 TO AN IMPASSE, AND BY ITS FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ON IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF BAT/CAT GUIDELINES, SUCH VIOLATIONS CAN BE REMEDIED
 EFFECTIVELY ONLY BY RESTORING THE STATUS QUO ANTE AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO
 RESPONDENT'S UNILATERAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAT/CAT GUIDELINES ON, OR
 ABOUT, NOVEMBER 1, 1978, INCLUDING THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE BAT/CAT
 GUIDELINES, WHICH IT UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTED IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDER,
 BY REINSTATING THE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO TRAINEES AS
 THEY EXISTED PRIOR THERETO AND BY REQUIRING, UPON DEMAND OF THE UNION,
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 18(A)(7)(B) OF THE STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. SECTION
 7118(A)(7)(B), THAT ANY RENEGOTIATED BAT/CAT GUIDELINES BE GIVEN
 RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO NOVEMBER 1, 1978.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 18(A)(7) OF THE STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. SECTION
 7118(A)(7), AND SECTION 2423.25 OF THE INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS,
 FED. REG., VOL. 44, NO. 147, JULY 30, 1979 (5 C.F.R. SECTION 2423.25),
 THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND
 WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE
 CENTER, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    A) REFUSING TO CONSULT, CONFER OR NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2206, AFL-CIO, THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE, CONCERNING ON THE JOB BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS
 AUTHORIZER TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES.
 
    B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AND OF THE
 STATUTE:
 
    A) WITHDRAW THE "SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, ON THE JOB
 BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS AUTHORIZER TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES, OCTOBER
 1978" UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTED ON, OR ABOUT, NOVEMBER 1, 1978, AND
 RETURN TO THE STATUS QUO ANTE AS IT EXISTED PRIOR THERETO BY FORTHWITH
 REINSTATING THE INFORMAL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES OF THE SOUTHEASTERN
 PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER WITH RESPECT TO BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIM
 AUTHORIZER TRAINEES AS THEY EXISTED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1, 1978.
 
    B) ANY RENEGOTIATED AGREEMENT RELATING TO ON THE JOB BENEFIT
 AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS AUTHORIZER TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES SHALL, UPON
 DEMAND OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2206,
 AFL-CIO, BE RETROACTIVE TO NOVEMBER 1, 1978.
 
    C) POST AT ITS FACILITIES IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 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
 DIRECTOR, SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, 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 DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE
 STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED
 BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    D) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS,
 NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION 4 SUITE 501, NORTH WING, 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.
 
                          WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  JANUARY 8, 1980
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
 
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
        NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF
 
           THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO
 
              EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 
                    LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO CONSULT, CONFER, OR NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH
 WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2206, AFL-CIO,
 THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE, CONCERNING ON THE JOB BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIM
 AUTHORIZER TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    WE WILL WITHDRAW THE "SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER, ON THE JOB
 BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIMS AUTHORIZER TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES, OCTOBER
 1978," UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTED ON, OR ABOUT, NOVEMBER 1, 1978, AND WE
 WILL RETURN TO THE STATUS QUO ANTE AS IT EXISTED PRIOR THERETO BY
 FORTHWITH REINSTATING THE INFORMAL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES OF THE
 SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER WITH RESPECT TO BENEFIT
 AUTHORIZER/CLAIM AUTHORIZER TRAINEES AS THEY EXISTED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER
 1, 1978.
 
    WE WILL MAKE ANY RENEGOTIATED AGREEMENT RELATING TO ON THE JOB
 BENEFIT AUTHORIZER/CLAIM AUTHORIZER TRAINEE PROCESS GUIDELINES, UPON
 DEMAND OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2206,
 AFL-CIO, RETROACTIVE TO NOVEMBER 1, 1978.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:
 
                                   BY:
 
                                 DIRECTOR
 
                    SOUTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE, OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 4 WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  SUITE 501, NORTH WING, 1776 PEACHTREE STREET, N.W.,
 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
 EDUCATION, THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION
 AND WELFARE WAS DESIGNATED AS THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
 SERVICES.
 
    /2/ SEE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, 3 FLRA NO. 123 (1980).
 
    /3/ IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENT'S
 UNILATERAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAT/CAT GUIDELINES CONSTITUTED A
 VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE
 AUTHORITY FINDS IT UNNECESSARY TO REACH OR PASS UPON THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 LAW JUDGE'S FURTHER FINDING THAT RESPONDENT ALSO VIOLATED SECTION
 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY ITS FAILURE TO AFFORD THE UNION AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE REGARDING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
 GUIDELINES.
 
    /4/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 901(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
 OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS
 OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
  THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
 MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE
 RESULT WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN
 UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
 
    /5/ AS THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FINDING IS LIMITED SOLELY TO A
 BARGAINING UNIT AT THE NEWLY DESIGNATED DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
 SERVICES, THE REMEDIAL ORDER HEREIN IS SO DESIGNATED.
 
    /6/ THE COMPLAINT FORM OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY WAS, IN FACT,
 UTILIZED.
 
    /7/ I GIVE NO CREDENCE TO MS. SHOEMAKER'S TESTIMONY (TR. 54) THAT
 JULY 27 WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND THAT SHE RECEIVED THE DOCUMENT ON
 AUGUST 2, 1978.  THE WHOLE TENOR OF THE LETTER IS TO THE CONTRARY;  SHE
 STATED THAT COMMENTS WERE REQUESTED BY JULY 31;  THAT SHE FOUND IT
 IMPOSSIBLE TO...PRESENT COLLECTIVE COMMENTS...WITHIN THE TIME FRAME
 ALLOTED...;" BUT MADE NO SUGGESTION THAT THE TIME (JULY 31) HAD EXPIRED,
 AS IT WOULD IF SHE RECEIVED THE DOCUMENT ON AUGUST 2.  I CONCLUDE,
 THEREFORE, THAT SHE RECEIVED THE FIRST DRAFT ON JULY 27, 1978, AS HER
 LETTER STATES.
 
    /8/ THE SECOND DRAFT, AS PREPARED AND AS SUBMITTED TO THE UNION HAD A
 NOTE ATTACHED WHICH READ,
 
    "REVISIONS AS RESULT OF CONSULTATION WITH THE LOCAL HAVE BEEN
 UNDERSCORED FOR
 
    REFERENCE.  HOWEVER, UNDERSCORING ON PAGE 10 IS FOR EMPHASIS AND DOES
 NOT REPRESENT A
 
    REVISION." THIS NOTE, FOR CONVENIENCE OF COPYING, WAS OVER-PRINTED ON
 THE LEFT HAND, LOWER CORNER OF GENERAL COUNSEL'S EXH. 7.
 
    /9/ I AM FULLY AWARE THAT THE ONLY CHANGE RELATED TO THE COVER SHEET.
  GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 7 DESIGNATED THE DOCUMENT AS "SECOND DRAFT,"
 WHICH, OF COURSE, WAS DELETED FROM RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 3.  NOT ONLY DID
 RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 3 SHOW THE GUIDELINES AS "OCTOBER 1978," BUT
 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 2, AS NOTED ABOVE, STATED THIS "IS A FINAL VERSION"
 WHICH RESPONDENT EXPECTED TO IMPLEMENT THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 16, 1978.
 
    /10/ HERE, OF COURSE, UNION IN ITS MEMORANDA OF OCTOBER 12, AND 25,
 1978, HAD, SPECIFICALLY, STATED THAT THE GUIDELINES SHOULD NOT BE
 IMPLEMENTED UNTIL AFTER APPROPRIATE MEETING TO CONFER.  HAVING SOUGHT A
 MEETING, TO WHICH RESPONDENT DID NOT RES