Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Office of Program Operations and Field Operations, Sutter District Office, San Francisco, California (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3172, AFL-CIO (Charging Party) 



[ v05 p504 ]
05:0504(63)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 5 FLRA No. 63
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
 OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS AND FIELD OPERATIONS,
 SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE,
 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA /1/
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 3172, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                                Case Nos. 9-CA-35
                                                          9-CA-36
                                                          9-CA-37
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS DECISION IN THE
 ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN
 CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND
 RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S DECISION.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND FURTHER THAT THE
 RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN CERTAIN OTHER UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
 ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND RECOMMENDED THE DISMISSAL OF THAT PORTION
 OF THE COMPLAINT.  THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENT FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S DECISION AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHARGING
 PARTY FILED OPPOSITIONS TO THE RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS.
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2423.29) AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101 - 7135), THE AUTHORITY
 HAS REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE
 HEARING AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS
 ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S DECISION, AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE SUBJECT CASE, INCLUDING
 THE RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S AND THE CHARGING
 PARTY'S OPPOSITIONS, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING
 MODIFICATION.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO THE RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTION CONCERNING THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO THE APPROPRIATE
 BARGAINING UNIT, IT APPEARS CLEAR THAT THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE
 LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO
 REGION (THE UNION) IS IN FACT THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA) GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES IN THE SAN
 FRANCISCO REGION.  IN THIS CONNECTION, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SSA, SAN FRANCISCO REGION AND THE UNION REFERENCES
 CASE NO. 70-2428, ISSUED ON AUGUST 9, 1972, BY THE AREA ADMINISTRATOR,
 SAN FRANCISCO AREA OFFICE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR LABOR
 MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE UNION IS THE
 REPRESENTATIVE FOR PURPOSES OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION FOR THE
 AFOREMENTIONED UNIT.  ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISION HEREIN IS CLARIFIED TO
 REFLECT THAT FACT.
 
                                 ORDER /2/
 
    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 HEALTH AND HUMAN
 SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS
 AND FIELD OPERATIONS, SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
 SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) CHANGING POLICIES RELATIVE TO THE DEFINITION TO BE GIVEN TO THE
 TERM "FLEXIBILITY," AS USED IN EVALUATING ITS EMPLOYEES WITHOUT FIRST
 AFFORDING THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION, NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 BARGAIN, CONSONANT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE,
 CONCERNING ANY PROPOSED CHANGE IN SUCH POLICIES.
 
    (B) CHANGING POLICIES GOVERNING APPRAISALS OF ITS EMPLOYEES RELATIVE
 TO LINKING THOSE APPRAISALS TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE'S RANKING WITH
 OTHER DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION, NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN,
 CONSONANT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE, CONCERNING ANY
 PROPOSED CHANGE IN SUCH POLICIES.
 
    (C) 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 ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE:
 
    (A) RESCIND THE ANNOUNCED CHANGE IN POLICY RELATIVE TO THE DEFINITION
 TO BE GIVEN TO THE TERM "FLEXIBILITY" AS USED IN EVALUATING ITS
 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION.
 
    (B) RESCIND THE ANNOUNCED CHANGE IN POLICY GOVERNING APPRAISALS OF
 ITS EMPLOYEES RELATIVE TO LINKING TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE'S
 RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION WITH RESPECT TO
 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION.
 
    (C) UPON REQUEST, REAPPRAISE, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT
 OFFICE'S RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION, ANY
 EMPLOYEE WHO WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MARTHA LOWERY AND WHOSE
 APPRAISAL IN APRIL 1979 WAS LOWER THAN THE OCTOBER 1978 APPRAISAL OF
 THAT EMPLOYEE.
 
    (D) UPON REQUEST, BARGAIN, CONSONANT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY
 THE STATUTE AND THE APPLICABLE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, WITH THE
 COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION, CONCERNING ANY PROPOSED CHANGE
 REGARDING THE DEFINITION TO BE GIVEN TO THE TERM "FLEXIBILITY," AS USED
 IN EVALUATING SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE EMPLOYEES, AND LINKING EMPLOYEE
 APPRAISALS TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE'S RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL
 SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION.
 
    (E) POST AT ITS SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE FACILITY LOCATED IN SAN
 FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, 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 DISTRICT MANAGER OF THE SUTTER DISTRICT
 OFFICE, 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
 DISTRICT MANAGER SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES
 ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (F) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION 9, ROOM 11408, 450
 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, P.O. BOX 36016, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102, 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., APRIL 21, 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 CHANGE POLICIES RELATIVE TO THE DEFINITION OF
 "FLEXIBILITY" AS USED IN EVALUATING EMPLOYEES OR CHANGE POLICIES
 RELATIVE TO LINKING EMPLOYEE APPRAISALS TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE'S
 RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION WITHOUT FIRST
 AFFORDING THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION, NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 BARGAIN, CONSONANT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE,
 CONCERNING ANY PROPOSED CHANGES IN SUCH POLICIES.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND THE ANNOUNCED CHANGE IN POLICY RELATIVE TO THE
 DEFINITION TO BE GIVEN TO THE TERM "FLEXIBILITY" AS USED IN EVALUATING
 EMPLOYEES AND RESCIND THE CHANGE IN POLICY RELATIVE TO LINKING EMPLOYEE
 APPRAISALS TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE'S RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL
 SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, REAPPRAISE, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SUTTER
 DISTRICT OFFICE'S RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES IN THE
 REGION, ANY EMPLOYEE WHO WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MARTHA LOWERY AND
 WHOSE APPRAISAL IN APRIL 1979 WAS LOWER THAN THE OCTOBER 1978 APPRAISAL
 OF THAT EMPLOYEE.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, BARGAIN, CONSONANT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS
 IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE AND THE APPLICABLE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT, WITH THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION, CONCERNING ANY
 PROPOSED CHANGE REGARDING THE DEFINITION TO BE GIVEN TO THE TERM
 "FLEXIBILITY," AS USED IN EVALUATING EMPLOYEES, AND LINKING EMPLOYEE
 APPRAISALS TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE'S RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL
 SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:
 
                             BY:  (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 9, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  ROOM 11408, 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, P.O. BOX 36016, SAN
 FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (415)
 556-8105.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    WILSON G. SCHUERHOLZ
         FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    JOSANNA BERKOW, ESQ.
    THOMAS ANGELO, ESQ.
         FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    BEFORE:  SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE U.S. CODE, 5 U.S.C.
 SECTION 7101 ET SEQ.
 
    UPON THE FILING OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGES BY THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3172, AFL-CIO ON APRIL 27 AND
 APRIL 30, 1979 AGAINST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS AND FIELD OPERATIONS,
 SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA (RESPONDENT), THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE AUTHORITY, BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION 9,
 ISSUED AN ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON
 JANUARY 21, 1980 ALLEGING THAT RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN AND IS ENGAGING
 IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND
 (5) OF THE STATUTE.  THE COMPLAINT ESSENTIALLY ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENT
 ON FEBRUARY 8, MARCH 8 AND MARCH 22, 1979 UNILATERALLY CHANGED EXISTING
 POLICIES AND PRACTICES AFFECTING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT
 AFFORDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN ON THE CHANGES OR IMPACT
 THEREOF.  RESPONDENT DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS.
 
    A HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT HEREIN WAS CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 25 AND
 26, 1980 IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, AT WHICH TIME ALL PARTIES WERE
 REPRESENTED AND AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AND CALL,
 EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND ARGUE ORALLY.  BRIEFS WERE FILED
 BY RESPONDENT AND COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS MATTER, MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM MY EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE, I
 MAKE THE FOLLOWING:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS,
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION (THE
 UNION HEREIN) HAS BEEN THE EXCLUSIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE OF AN APPROPRIATE UNIT OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES IN THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE, SAN FRANCISCO
 REGION.  LOCAL 3172 IS A CONSTITUENT MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL.  THE UNION
 IS REPRESENTED AT THE VARIOUS DISTRICT OFFICES, INCLUDING THE SUTTER
 OFFICE, THROUGH A UNION REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL TO DEAL
 WITH DISTRICT OFFICE MANAGEMENT ON PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES
 AFFECTING UNIT EMPLOYEES AT EACH SPECIFIC LOCATION.  THE UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE AT THE SUTTER OFFICE FROM 1977 TO SOMETIME SHORTLY PRIOR
 TO MARCH 17, 1979 WAS MARC SEIDENFELD, A UNIT EMPLOYEE WHO WAS ALSO A
 COUNCIL CHIEF STEWARD FROM MARCH 1978 TO MARCH 1979.  /3/ AS UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE SEIDENFELD HAD DEALINGS REGARDING LABOR RELATIONS MATTERS
 WITH MANAGEMENT ON VIRTUALLY A DAILY BASIS.
 
    A.  FLEXIBILITY
 
    ON JANUARY 19, 1979 ARTHUR MATSUYAMA CAME TO THE SUTTER OFFICE AS ITS
 NEWLY APPOINTED DISTRICT MANAGER.  SUBSEQUENTLY, MATSUYAMA WISHED TO
 ASSURE THAT SUTTER DISTRICT EMPLOYEES WERE FAMILIAR WITH RESPONDENT'S
 PROMOTION POLICY AND ACCORDINGLY, ON FEBRUARY 8, 1979 HE CONDUCTED A
 TRAINING SESSION ON RESPONDENT'S MERIT PROMOTION PLAN.  /4/ THE MEETING
 WAS ATTENDED BY VARIOUS SUPERVISORS AND NUMEROUS UNIT EMPLOYEES.  /5/
 DURING THE SESSION COPIES OF THE MERIT PROMOTION PLAN AND RESPONDENT'S
 EMPLOYEE EVALUATION FORM FOR APPRAISALS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO THE
 AUDIENCE.  MATSUYAMA STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF EMPLOYEE "FLEXIBILITY"
 IN ACHIEVING A HIGH RATING UNDER THE PLAN AND DEFINED THE TERM AS A
 WILLINGNESS TO HELP OUT.  IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
 WHICH SOUGHT TO ASCERTAIN A MORE PRECISE DEFINITION OF THE TERM
 FLEXIBILITY, MATSUYAMA INDICATED THAT IF EMPLOYEES REFUSED TO WORK
 OVERTIME, OUT OF THEIR JOB DESCRIPTIONS OR AWAY FROM ASSIGNED DUTY
 STATIONS THEY COULD EXPECT NOT TO BE PROMOTED OR RECOMMENDED FOR
 PROMOTION.  MATSUYAMA ALSO STATED THAT ABSENCES WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS
 AN UNWILLINGNESS TO WORK AND IF AN EMPLOYEE WAS UNWILLING TO WORK HE
 WOULD NOT PROMOTE THAT PERSON.  VARIOUS EMPLOYEES MADE COMMENTS TO THE
 EFFECT THAT EMPLOYEES HAD THE RIGHT TO TAKE ACCRUED ANNUAL LEAVE AND
 SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR EXERCISING THAT RIGHT AND THAT ABSENCE FOR
 SICKNESS WAS NOT WITHIN THE EMPLOYEES' CONTROL.  IN RESPONSE MATSUYAMA
 ESSENTIALLY RESTATED THAT ABSENCES WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS AN
 UNWILLINGNESS TO WORK.
 
    WITHIN A WEEK OR TWO PRIOR TO THE FEBRUARY 8 MEETING, WILLIAM AMBORN,
 RESPONDENT'S OPERATION OFFICER AT THE SUTTER OFFICE MET WITH UNION
 REPRESENTIVE SEIDENFELD AND INFORMED HIM THAT MANAGEMENT PLANNED TO
 CONDUCT A TRAINING PROGRAM AMONG EMPLOYEES ON THE PROMOTION PLAN.
 SEIDENFELD WAS SHOWN COPIES OF THE MERIT PROMOTION PLAN AND EVALUATION
 FORM WHICH WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED WHEN THE TRAINING SESSION WAS HELD.
 SEIDENFELD AGREED THAT THE TRAINING PROGRAM WAS DESIRABLE, HOWEVER, NO
 MENTION WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE MEETING REGARDING MATSUYAMA'S
 INTERPRETATION OF "FLEXIBILITY" SET FORTH ABOVE.  THAT INTERPRETATION
 WAS INCONSISTANT WITH THE DEFINITION OF FLEXIBILITY AS SET FORTH IN
 RESPONDENT'S RATING AID FOR EMPLOYEE APPRAISAL /6/ AND WORKING OVERTIME,
 OUT OF JOB DESCRIPTIONS OR AWAY FROM ASSIGNED DUTY STATIONS AND
 INTERPRETING ABSENCES AS AN UNWILLINGNESS TO WORK WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY
 MATTERS CONSIDERED BY SUPERVISORS IN EVALUATING A SUBORDINATE EMPLOYEE'S
 "FLEXIBILITY".
 
    AFTER THE FEBRUARY 8 TRAINING PROGRAM CONCLUDED, VARIOUS EMPLOYEES
 COMPLAINED TO SEIDENFELD THAT MANAGEMENT WAS IMPLEMENTING A NEW POLICY
 ON "FLEXIBILITY".  HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO SEIDENFELD, HE UNDERSTOOD
 MATSUYAMA TO DEFINE FLEXIBILITY MERELY AS A "WILLINGNESS TO HELP OUT"
 AND, A WILLINGNESS TO WORK OVERTIME BUT RECALLED NO MENTION OF WORKING
 OUTSIDE ONES JOB DESCRIPTION.  /7/
 
    ACCORDINGLY, SEIDENFELD DID NOT INTERPRET MATSUYAMA'S COMMENTS TO BE
 A DEPARTURE FROM PAST PRACTICE AND ATTEMPTED TO ASSURE THESE EMPLOYEES
 THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO CHANGE.  LATER, SEIDENFELD RELAYED TO AMBORN THAT
 THE STAFF HAD "READ" MATSUYAMA'S STATEMENTS INCORRECTLY BUT NO EFFORT
 WAS MADE TO FURTHER CLARIFY MANAGEMENT'S POSITION ON THE MATTER.
 
    B.  OFFICE RANKING AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS
 
    SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY 1979 SEIDENFELD MET WITH AMBORN AND DISCUSSED
 THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE'S LOW OFFICE RANKING.  SEIDENFELD WAS
 INFORMED THAT MATSUYAMA WAS GOING TO MEET WITH EMPLOYEES TO TALK ABOUT
 APPRAISALS AND THE SUTTER OFFICE'S LOW OFFICE RANKING.  HOWEVER,
 SPECIFICS OF WHAT MATSUYAMA WAS GOING TO SAY WERE NOT DISCUSSED.  DURING
 THE CONVERSATION AMBORN QUESTIONED HOW THE GENERAL LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE
 APPRAISALS COULD BE HIGH WHILE THE OFFICE RANKING WAS LOW.  SEIDENFELD
 WAS OF THE OPINION THAT APPRAISALS HAD ALREADY BEEN LOWERED DURING THE
 OCTOBER 1978 APPRAISALS BUT, IN ANY EVENT, SEIDENFELD AND AMBORN AGREED
 THAT INDIVIDUAL APPRAISALS SHOULD NOT BE LINKED TO OVERALL OFFICE
 RANKINGS.
 
    IN LATE FEBRUARY 1979 MATSUYAMA MET WITH THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE
 SUPERVISORY STAFF TO DISCUSS EMPLOYEE APPRAISALS.  DURING THE MEETING
 MATSUYAMA STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE'S LOW
 RANKING AS COMPARED TO OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES IN THE SAN
 FRANCISCO REGION, THE HIGH PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS GIVEN TO SUTTER OFFICE
 EMPLOYEES COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED.  HENCEFORTH, MATSUYAMA ANNOUNCED,
 SUPERVISORY PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS WOULD BE LINKED TO THE RANKING OF THE
 SUTTER OFFICE.  MATSUYAMA FURTHER STATED THAT INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE
 APPRAISALS SHOULD REFLECT THE OFFICE RANKING AND ACCORDINGLY, IF THE
 OFFICE DID NOT IMPROVE IN RANKING, INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE APPRAISALS SHOULD
 BE LOWERED.
 
    ON MARCH 8, 1979 DURING A GENERAL STAFF MEETING ATTENDED BY VARIOUS
 SUPERVISORS AND UNIT EMPLOYEES, SUTTER OFFICE MANAGEMENT REVIEWED THE
 PRIOR WEEK'S OVERALL OFFICE PERFORMANCE.  DISTRICT MANAGER MATSUYAMA,
 WHILE DISCUSSING THE SUTTER OFFICE'S POOR PERFORMANCE SHOWING IN
 RELATION TO OTHER DISTRICT OFFICES IN THE REGION, OBSERVED THAT EMPLOYEE
 APPRAISALS IN AT THE SUTTER OFFICE HAD BEEN QUITE HIGH IN THE PAST AND
 MATSUYAMA RHETORICALLY QUESTIONED HOW EMPLOYEES AT THE SUTTER OFFICE
 COULD BE EVALUATED SO HIGHLY, INDICATING A HIGH LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE,
 WHEN THE OFFICE ITSELF WAS RATED VERY LOW.  MATSUYAMA STATED THAT IF THE
 OFFICE RANKING DID NOT IMPROVE THEN EMPLOYEE APPRAISALS WOULD BE LOWERED
 BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE LOW OFFICE RANKING.
 ONE EMPLOYEE ASKED MATSUYAMA WHAT KIND OF AN APPRAISAL OFFICE.
 MATSUYAMA RESPONDED THAT THE APPRAISAL WOULD BE A LOW ONE.  THE EMPLOYEE
 THEN ASKED WHAT KIND OF AN APPRAISAL WOULD BE A MEDIOCRE CLAIMS
 REPRESENTATIVE RECEIVE IF THE INDIVIDUAL WORKED IN A VERY HIGH RANKING
 OFFICE.  MATSUYAMA TURNED AWAY WITHOUT RESPONDING.
 
    MATSUYAMA'S COMMENTS AT THE MARCH 8, 1979 MEETING LINKING OFFICE
 RANKING WITH INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PAST
 PRACTICE AT THE SUTTER OFFICE.  NO SUCH RELATIONSHIP HAD EXISTED
 PREVIOUSLY.  ACCORDINGLY, AFTER THE MEETING VARIOUS EMPLOYEES RELATED
 THEIR DISMAY TO SEIDENFELD.  HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO SEIDENFELD, HE DID
 NOT UNDERSTAND OR CONCLUDE FROM MATSUYAMA'S COMMENTS THAT HE WAS
 LINKING
 INDIVIDUAL APPRAISALS WITH OFFICE RANKING AND ATTEMPTED TO SO INFORM THE
 EMPLOYEES.  INDEED, SEIDENFELD TESTIFIED THAT AT THIS MEETING HE HEARD
 EXACTLY WHAT HE EXPECTED TO HEAR, WHICH WAS THERE WAS NOT GOING TO BE
 ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL APPRAISALS AND OFFICE PERFORMANCE.  IN
 ANY EVENT, SEIDENFELD INFORMED AMBORN THAT SOME EMPLOYEES HAD
 MISUNDERSTOOD MATSUYAMA BUT APPARENTLY NO FURTHER INFORMATION WAS
 CONVEYED TO THE EMPLOYEES ON THIS SUBJECT.
 
    C.  SOCIALIZATION
 
    SOCIALIZATION BETWEEN SUPERVISORS AND NON-SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES HAD
 BEEN FREQUENTLY DISCUSSED BY SEIDENFELD AND AMBORN SINCE AMBORN FIRST
 CAME TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE IN NOVEMBER 1978.  BOTH FELT THAT
 SOCIALIZATION WAS OBJECTIONABLE IN THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS HAD RECEIVED
 FAVORABLE TREATMENT AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER EMPLOYEES REGARDING AWARDS,
 PROMOTIONS AND EVALUATIONS.  INDEED, SEIDENFELD AND AMBORN CONSIDERED
 SOME PAST ACTIONS "OUTRAGEOUS".
 
    SOON AFTER MATSUYAMA CAME TO THE SUTTER OFFICE AMBORN TOLD SEIDENFELD
 THAT MATSUYAMA WAS GOING TO MEET WITH SUPERVISORS AND TELL THEM NOT TO
 SOCIALIZE WITH EMPLOYEES AND THEN MEET WITH EMPLOYEES AND INFORM THEM HE
 OBJECTED TO SOCIALIZATION AND WOULD HAVE PROBLEMS ACCEPTING PROMOTION
 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THOSE SUPERVISORS WHO WERE KNOWN TO SOCIALIZE.
 SEIDENFELD WAS "VERY HAPPY" THAT THE MATTER WAS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED.
 
    SHORTLY AFTER SEIDENFELD AND AMBORN HAD THE ABOVE CONVERSATION
 MATSUYAMA MET WITH THE VARIOUS SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE SUPERVISORS.  AT
 THIS MEETING MATSUYAMA ANNOUNCED THAT FRATERNIZATION (SOCIALIZATION)
 BETWEEN SUPERVISORS OR MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WOULD
 NO
 LONGER BE PERMITTED AND IF HE BECAME AWARE OF SUCH SOCIALIZATION, THE
 EMPLOYEES INVOLVED WOULD NEVER BE PROMOTED IN HIS DISTRICT.  IN RESPONSE
 TO QUESTIONS MATSUYAMA INFORMED THE SUPERVISORS THAT THIS POLICY
 PRECLUDED SUPERVISORS FROM PARTICIPATION ON THE OFFICE BOWLING TEAM AND
 APPLIED TO SOCIALIZATION AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE WORK DAY.  PRIOR THERETO
 RESPONDENT HAD NO POLICY OR PRACTICE PRECLUDING SOCIALIZATION BETWEEN
 SUPERVISION AND UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    ON MARCH 22, 1979 MATSUYAMA ADDRESSED VARIOUS SUPERVISORS AND UNIT
 EMPLOYEES AT ANOTHER GENERAL STAFF MEETING.  AT THIS TIME MATSUYAMA
 INDICATED HE HAD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS FROM SOME EMPLOYEES THAT PAST
 PROMOTIONS HAD BEEN BASED UPON FAVORITISM SUPERVISORS HAD SHOWN TOWARDS
 EMPLOYEES WITH WHOM THEY FRATERNIZED.  MATSUYAMA STATED THAT IT WAS
 DIFFICULT FOR SUPERVISORS TO BE OBJECTIVE IN MAKING PROMOTION
 RECOMMENDATIONS ON EMPLOYEES WITH WHOM THEY SOCIALIZED.  MATSUYAMA
 INFORMED THE GROUP THAT HE FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT A SUPERVISOR'S
 RECOMMENDATION IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND ACCORDINGLY, EMPLOYEES WHO
 ENGAGED IN "FRATERNIZATION" WITH SUPERVISORS WOULD NOT BE PROMOTED OR
 RECOMMENDED FOR PROMOTION OR TRANSFER.  SOME EMPLOYEES ASKED IF
 MANAGERIAL AND NON-MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES COULD ATTEND BIRTHDAY PARTIES,
 LUNCHES, RETIREMENT LUNCHES AND DINNERS, AFTER HOURS PARTIES, OR
 PARTICIPATE IN BOWLING LEAGUE ACTIVITIES OR SATURDAY SOFTBALL GAMES, ALL
 OF WHICH HAD CUSTOMARILY BEEN THE PRACTICE UP TO THAT TIME.  MATSUYAMA'S
 RESPONSE WAS "NO" TO THE ABOVE INQUIRIES.  ONE EMPLOYEE ASKED IF SHE WAS
 NOT TO SOCIALIZE AFTER WORK WITH A SUPERVISOR WITH WHOM SHE HAD BEEN A
 FRIEND FOR 10 YEARS.  MATSUYAMA REPLIED "YES", EMPHASIZING HE DID NOT
 WANT FRATERNIZATION BETWEEN SUPERVISORS AND EMPLOYEES.  THE EMPLOYEE
 PROTESTED CLAIMING HER CIVIL LIBERTIES WERE BEING VIOLATED AND MATSUYAMA
 REPLIED THAT NON-FRATERNIZATION WAS HIS POLICY AND SHE WOULD HAVE TO
 "DEAL WITH IT."
 
    D.  PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS
 
    SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE EMPLOYEES WERE APPRAISED IN EARLY APRIL 1979.
 THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN THAT OFFICE IS FOR THE VARIOUS SUPERVISORS TO
 PREPARE AN APPRAISAL ON EACH OF THEIR SUBORDINATES AND THEREAFTER, ALL
 APPRAISALS ARE PLACED ON A CHART AND ALL SUPERVISORS COME TOGETHER TO
 COMPARE AND COMMENT ON ALL EMPLOYEE APPRAISALS.
 
    NOTHING WAS MENTIONED DURING THE APRIL APPRAISAL SESSIONS RELATING TO
 POOR OFFICE PERFORMANCE AND INDIVIDUAL APPRAISALS.  HOWEVER, SUPERVISOR
 MARTHA LOWERY, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
 TESTIFIED THAT DURING THE APRIL APPRAISALS BECAUSE OF DISTRICT MANAGER
 MATSUYAMA'S COMMENTS REGARDING LINKING INDIVIDUAL APPRAISALS WITH THE
 RANKING OF THE SUTTER OFFICE SHE GAVE LOWER APPRAISALS TO HER
 SUBORDINATES THAN SHE HAD GIVEN IN PREVIOUS YEARS.  PAMELA COWEN,
 ANOTHER SUPERVISOR CALLED AS A WITNESS FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
 TESTIFIED THAT ALTHOUGH SHE PERSONALLY DID NOT DOWNGRADE THE TWO
 EMPLOYEES SHE APPRAISED, /8/ AN UNSPECIFIED NUMBER OF DOWNGRADINGS OF
 APPRAISALS FROM PRIOR YEARS OCCURRED IN APRIL BUT SHE GAVE NO FURTHER
 PROBATIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS MATTER.  SEIDENFELD, WHO WAS A SUPERVISOR AT
 THE TIME OF THE APRIL EVALUATIONS AND BY VIRTUE OF HIS PRIOR POSITION AS
 UNION REPRESENTATIVE HAD EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPRAISALS GIVEN IN
 PREVIOUS YEARS, TESTIFIED THAT THE OVERALL APPRAISALS IN APRIL 1979 WERE
 AS HIGH, IF NOT HIGHER, THAN THE PRIOR YEAR, THE LAST APPRAISALS BEING
 GIVEN IN OCTOBER 1978.  NO OTHER SPECIFIC PROBATIVE EVIDENCE WAS
 SUBMITTED ON WHETHER DOWNGRADINGS OCCURRED DURING THE APRIL APPRAISALS
 BASED ON MATSUYAMA'S STATEMENTS.  /9/
 
                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    THE GENERAL COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE STATUTE BY
 MAKING CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT POLICIES REGARDING MATTERS WHICH AFFECTED
 EMPLOYEE APPRAISALS, NAMELY "FLEXIBILITY", "OFFICE RANKING" AND
 "SOCIALIZATION", AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, WITHOUT AFFORDING THE UNION PRIOR
 NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN ON THE CHANGES.  RESPONDENT
 CONTENDS THAT THE GENERAL COUNSEL HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT A CHANGE
 IN CONDITIONS ACTUALLY OCCURRED;  THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE UNION, THROUGH
 ITS REPRESENTATIVE, MARC SEIDENFELD, RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THE
 EMPLOYER'S INTENTIONS REGARDING WHAT WAS TO BE SAID BY MANAGEMENT NOTICE
 THEREBY INDICATING ACQUIESCENCE IN SUCH ACTION;  AND LASTLY, THE UNION
 FILED GRIEVANCES ON THESE MATTERS IN QUESTION AND THEREFORE, AN UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE FINDING IS PRECLUDED BY OPERATION OF SECTION 7116(D) OF
 THE STATUTE.  /10/
 
    A.  FLEXIBILITY
 
    WITH REGARD TO THE FEBRUARY 8, 1979 MEETING, DISTRICT MANAGER
 MATSUYAMA ESSENTIALLY ANNOUNCED THAT THE DEFINITION TO BE GIVEN TO THE
 TERM "FLEXIBILITY", AS USED IN RESPONDENT'S APPRAISALS OF EMPLOYEES, WAS
 TO INCLUDE ELEMENTS NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED WHEN EMPLOYEES WERE BEING
 APPRAISED AND EVALUATED I.E. A WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM WORK OUTSIDE OF
 THE EMPLOYEES' JOB DESCRIPTION OR AWAY FROM ASSIGNED DUTY STATIONS AND
 WORK OVERTIME WHEN REQUESTED.  FURTHER, ABSENCES WOULD, ACCORDING TO
 MATSUYAMA, NOW BE A CONSIDERATION WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WAS BEING CONSIDERED
 FOR PROMOTION.  THUS, NEW STANDARDS FOR EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE WERE
 ANNOUNCED AT THE MEETING WHICH STANDARDS MANIFESTED A SUBSTANTIAL
 DEPARTURE FROM RESPONDENT'S POLICY IN EFFECT PRIOR THERETO.
 
    MARC SEIDENFELD, BY VIRTUE OF HIS POSITION AS UNION REPRESENTATIVE AT
 THE SUTTER OFFICE, COULD BIND THE UNION BY AGREEING TO A CHANGE IN SUCH
 POLICY.  HOWEVER, PRIOR TO THE FEBRUARY 8 MEETING, WHILE SEIDENFELD KNEW
 THAT MATSUYAMA WAS GOING TO DISCUSS RESPONDENT'S MERIT PROMOTION PLAN
 AND AGREED THAT SUCH A DISCUSSION WAS DESIRABLE, HE WAS NOT ADVISED THAT
 RESPONDENT INTENDED TO CHANGE ITS POLICY IN THIS REGARD.  THEREFORE,
 SINCE HE HAD NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF PRECISELY WHAT MATSUYAMA WAS GOING TO
 SAY AT THE MEETING, SEIDENFELD COULD NOT HAVE AGREED TO THE CHANGE IN
 POLICY IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING NOR CAN ANY SUCH AGREEMENT BE INFERRED
 FROM THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
 
    I FURTHER CONCLUDE THAT SEIDENFELD'S POST MEETING ACTIONS DO NOT
 ESTABLISH UNION ACQUIESCENCE WITH THE ANNOUNCED CHANGE IN POLICY.
 SEIDENFELD TESTIFIED HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT A POLICY CHANGE HAD BEEN
 ANNOUNCED AT THE MEETING AND, AFTER ATTEMPTING TO ASSURE EMPLOYEES OF
 THIS, TOLD AMBORN THAT THE EMPLOYEES HAD MISUNDERSTOOD MATSUYAMA.  THERE
 IS NO EVIDENCE OF AMBORN ATTEMPTING TO CLARIFY THE MATTER AT THAT TIME
 OR AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER.  IN MY VIEW, THE REASONABLE INFERENCE TO BE
 DRAWN FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES HEREIN IS THAT AT NO TIME WAS THERE A
 MEETING OF MINDS BETWEEN THE UNION AND MANAGEMENT WHICH WOULD GIVE RISE
 TO AN ACQUIESCENCE BINDING THE UNION TO THE NEW POLICY WHICH MATSUYAMA
 ANNOUNCED ON STANDARDS FOR EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE.  /11/
 
    ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES RESPONDENT'S
 FEBRUARY 8, 1979 ANNOUNCED UNILATERAL CHANGE IN POLICY AFFECTING THE
 EMPLOYEES' CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AS SET FORTH ABOVE, CONSTITUTED A
 FAILURE TO CONSULT OR NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE UNION VIOLATIVE
 OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.  /12/
 
    B.  OFFICE RANKING AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS
 
    WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF LINKING INDIVIDUAL APPRAISALS WITH THE
 RANKING OF THE SUTTER OFFICE, MATSUYAMA ANNOUNCED TO SUPERVISORS IN LATE
 FEBRUARY 1979 THAT THE APPRAISALS OF SUPERVISORS WOULD BE LINKED TO THE
 OFFICE RANKING.  SINCE SUPERVISORS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE UNION, RESPONDENT WAS FREE TO
 UNILATERALLY EFFECTUATE SUCH A CHANGE WITHOUT RUNNING AFOUL OF THE
 STATUTE.
 
    HOWEVER, MATSUYAMA'S ANNOUNCEMENT TO EMPLOYEES ON MARCH 8 CONCERNING
 LINKING WAS COUCHED IN DIFFERENT TERMS.  THUS, MATSUYAMA INFORMED UNIT
 EMPLOYEES THAT IF THE OFFICE RANKING DID NOT IMPROVE, THEN EMPLOYEE
 APPRAISALS WOULD BE LOWERED, THEREBY IMPOSING A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO
 THE LOWERING OF APPRAISALS.  NEVERTHELESS, BY THIS STATEMENT MATSUYAMA
 ADDED A NEW ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING AN EMPLOYEE'S
 APPRAISAL I.E. THE RANKING OF THE OFFICE, AN ELEMENT WHICH HAD NEVER
 BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE, THEREBY CONSTITUTING A CHANGE FROM RESPONDENT'S
 PRIOR POLICY IN APPRAISING EMPLOYEES.
 
    I REJECT RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE UNION ACQUIESCED IN THIS
 CHANGE.  ACCORDING TO SEIDENFELD, PRIOR TO MATSUYAMA'S ANNOUNCEMENT TO
 EMPLOYEES ON MARCH 8, 1980 SEIDENFELD AND OPERATION OFFICER AMBORN
 AGREED THAT INDIVIDUAL APPRAISALS SHOULD NOT BE LINKED TO OFFICE
 RANKING.  /13/ SEIDENFELD FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT AFTER THE MARCH 8
 MEETING HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT MATSUYAMA HAD DECLARED THAT
 APPRAISALS WOULD BE LINKED TO OFFICE RANKING.  THUS, SEIDENFELD'S
 COMMENTS TO AMBORN AFTER THE MEETING EXPLAINING THAT SOME EMPLOYEES HAD
 MISUNDERSTOOD MATSUYAMA CLEARLY DISPELS ANY NOTION OF UNION AGREEMENT OR
 ACQUIESCENCE WITH MATSUYAMA'S ANNOUNCED POLICY CHANGE.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE THAT MATSUYAMA'S ANNOUNCEMENT ON MARCH 8 THAT
 RESPONDENT'S POLICY WHEN APPRAISING INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES WOULD
 THEREAFTER INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUTTER OFFICE'S RANKING AS
 COMPARED TO OTHER OFFICES IN THE REGION, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
 CONSTITUTED A UNILATERAL CHANGE AND VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5)
 OF THE STATUTE /14/ I FURTHER CONCLUDE THAT SUPERVISOR MARTHA LOWERY'S
 EFFECTUATION OF MATSUYAMA'S POLICY WITH REGARD TO LINKING, AS FOUND
 ABOVE, ALSO VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    C.  SOCIALIZATION
 
    TURNING NOW TO RESPONDENT'S MARCH 22, 1979 MEETING, THE FACTS AS
 FOUND ABOVE ESTABLISH THAT MATSUYAMA ANNOUNCED TO EMPLOYEES A NEW POLICY
 WHEREBY SOCIALIZATION BETWEEN SUPERVISORY AND NON-SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
 WAS PROHIBITED UNDER THE PENALTY OF A DENIAL OF FUTURE PROMOTIONS.
 HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE ALSO ESTABLISHES THAT SEIDENFELD, AS UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE, WAS IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH MANAGEMENT THAT SOCIALIZATION
 RESULTED IN FAVORITISM IN APPRAISALS, PROMOTIONS AND AWARDS AND
 THEREFORE, WAS OBJECTIONABLE.  SEIDENFELD, SHORTLY AFTER MATSUYAMA CAME
 TO THE SUTTER OFFICE AS DISTRICT MANAGER ON JANUARY 19, 1979, WAS
 NOTIFIED BY AMBORN THAT MATSUYAMA WAS GOING TO MEET WITH SUPERVISORS AND
 NON-SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES AND INFORM THEM HE OPPOSED SOCIALIZATION AND
 WOULD HAVE PROBLEMS ACCEPTING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
 SUPERVISORS
 WHO WERE KNOWN TO SOCIALIZE.  INDEED, SOON AFTER THE PARTIES AGREED TO
 THE NEW POLICY, MATSUYAMA INFORMED HIS SUPERVISORS OF THE POLICY AGAINST
 SOCIALIZATION AND HIS INABILITY TO RELY ON SUPERVISORS' RECOMMENDATIONS
 UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AS WELL AS THE ADVERSE AFFECT A BREACH OF THE
 POLICY WOULD HAVE ON EMPLOYEES WHO WERE RECOMMENDED FOR PROMOTION.
 
    THUS, THE FACTS DISCLOSE THAT:  THE UNION, THROUGH SEIDENFELD, WAS
 APPRISED THAT MANAGEMENT WAS GOING TO ANNOUNCE A POLICY CHANGE WHICH
 WOULD HAVE ADVERSE AFFECTS ON THE PROMOTABILITY OF THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO
 SOCIALIZED WITH SUPERVISORS;  SEIDENFELD CONCURRED IN THIS APPROACH;
 AND RESPONDENT TOOK ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THAT AGREEMENT BY NOTIFYING
 ITS SUPERVISORS OF THE NEW POLICY.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I DO NOT FIND
 IT SIGNIFICANT THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT IMMEDIATELY ANNOUNCE THE CHANGE
 TO ITS EMPLOYEES BUT RATHER, WAITED UNTIL MARCH 22, PERHAPS SIX WEEKS TO
 TWO MONTHS AFTER THE CHANGE IN POLICY HAD BEEN AGREED TO BY THE UNION'S
 REPRESENTATIVE.  /15/
 
    THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF THE MARCH 22 ANNOUNCEMENT ON
 SOCIALIZATION SEIDENFELD WAS NO LONGER THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE, DOES
 NOT CONVINCE ME THAT I SHOULD COME TO A CONTRARY CONCLUSION.  THE TERMS
 OF THE AGREEMENT HAD ALREADY BEEN SET IN MOTION WHEN MATSUYAMA
 ANNOUNCED
 THE CHANGE TO THE SUTTER OFFICE SUPERVISORS.  /16/ MOREOVER, A UNION,
 QUA UNION, OR EMPLOYER, IS BOUND BY THE AGREEMENTS REACHED BY ITS
 REPRESENTATIVES WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONTINUING TO HOLD A
 POSITION OF AGENT FOR THAT PARTY, ABSENT UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE
 NOT PRESENT HEREIN.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING I CONCLUDE THAT THE GENERAL
 COUNSEL HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN
 AS A WHOLE THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE
 STATUTE BY ANNOUNCING TO EMPLOYEES ITS CHANGE IN POLICY REGARDING
 SOCIALIZATION BETWEEN SUPERVISORS AND NON-SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES.
 
    D.  THE SECTION 7116(D) DEFENSE
 
    RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE UNION HAS FILED GRIEVANCES WITH REGARD
 TO THE THREE MEETINGS IN QUESTION AND, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
 SECTION 7116(D) OF THE STATUTE, THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT
 HEREIN SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  /17/ TO SUPPORT ITS POSITION RESPONDENT
 RELIES ON THE TESTIMONY OF GENERAL COUNSEL'S WITNESS DENISE CHUN WHILE
 UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION.  MS. CHUN BECAME THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE AT
 THE SUTTER OFFICE SUBSEQUENT TO SEIDENFELD'S RESIGNATION FROM THAT POST.
  THAT PORTION OF MS. CHUN'S TESTIMONY RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENT IS AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    Q.  DID YOU FILE ANY GRIEVANCES AFTER THE MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY OR
 MARCH, THE THREE MEETINGS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE?
 
    A.  WOULD YOU SPEAK UP, PLEASE?
 
    Q.  WERE THERE ANY GRIEVANCES FILED BY YOURSELF AFTER THESE MEETINGS
 IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH?
 
    A.  AFTER I TOOK OFFICE, YES.
 
    Q.  AFTER YOU TOOK OFFICE?
 
    A.  YES.
 
    Q.  WHEN, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN?
 
    A.  LATE APRIL OR EARLY MAY.
 
    HOWEVER, THE COMPLETE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MS. CHUN ON THIS SUBJECT
 CONTINUED:
 
    Q.  DO YOU KNOW IF THE UNION EVER DISCUSSED THESE MATTERS WITH
 MANAGEMENT, THE MATTERS TALKED ABOUT IN THESE MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY AND
 MARCH?  DO YOU KNOW IF THE UNION DISCUSSED IT WITH MANAGEMENT?
 
    A.  MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT HADN'T BEEN DISCUSSED.
 
    Q.  IT HAD NOT BEEN?
 
    A.  RIGHT.
 
    Q.  DID YOU TALK TO MR. SEIDENFELD ABOUT THIS?
 
    A.  NO.
 
    Q.  HE WAS YOUR UNION REPRESENTATIVE, IS THAT CORRECT?
 
    A.  THAT'S TRUE.
 
    Q.  SO IF YOU DID NOT TALK TO HIM HOW DO YOU KNOW IF IT WAS DISCUSSED
 OR NOT?
 
    A.  THERE IS ANOTHER UNION OFFICIAL IN THE OFFICE AS WELL.
 
    Q.  WHO WOULD THAT BE?
 
    A.  PAULA DESMOND.
 
    IN MY VIEW, THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ISSUES
 RAISED IN THE COMPLAINT HEREIN WERE RAISED UNDER THE GRIEVANCE
 PROCEDURE.  THUS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AS TO THE NATURE OF THE
 "GRIEVANCE FILED", OR WHETHER INDEED THE SAME ISSUES WERE RAISED
 THEREIN.  THEREFORE, I CONCLUDE RESPONDENT HAS FAILED TO SUPPORT ITS
 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THAT SECTION 7116(D) APPLIES HEREIN AND THE
 CONTENTION IS REJECTED.  /18/
 
                                  REMEDY
 
    THE RECORD CONTAINS EVIDENCE THAT DURING THE APRIL 1979 APPRAISALS
 EMPLOYEES UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF SUPERVISOR MARTHA LOWERY WERE
 GENERALLY LOWER THAN THOSE GIVEN IN PRIOR YEARS.  LOWERY ATTRIBUTED HER
 LOWERING OF APPRAISALS TO MANAGEMENT'S STATEMENTS MADE TO HER AND OTHER
 SUPERVISORS URGING THEM TO LOWER APPRAISALS BECAUSE OF THE LOW OFFICE
 RANKING.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I CONCLUDE THAT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY
 IN THIS MATTER SHOULD INCLUDE REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO REAPPRAISE,
 WITHOUT REGARD TO THE OFFICE RANKING, ANY EMPLOYEE WHO WAS UNDER THE
 SUPERVISION OF MS. LOWERY WHOSE APRIL 1979 APPRAISAL WAS LOWER THAN THE
 APPRAISAL OF THAT EMPLOYEE GIVEN IN OCTOBER 1978.
 
    I FIND THE FACTS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INFERENCE THAT, IN
 ADDITION TO LOWERY, OTHER SUPERVISORS WERE INFLUENCED BY MATSUYAMA TO
 LOWER APPRAISALS.  THUS, SUPERVISOR COWENS, CALLED AS A WITNESS FOR THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL, DID NOT LOWER APPRAISALS NOR WAS THERE TESTIMONY FROM
 ANY OTHER WITNESS THAT APPRAISALS WERE LOWERED.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
 I WOULD REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION BY COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF
 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE NATURE OF TESTIMONY FROM EMPLOYEES,
 SUPERVISORS OR THE SUBMISSION OF ACTUAL APPRAISALS TO RAISE SUCH AN
 INFERENCE.
 
    AS TO THE OTHER UNILATERAL CHANGES FOUND TO HAVE CONSTITUTED
 VIOLATIONS OF THE STATUTE, THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH
 THAT THE CHANGES IN RESPONDENT'S POLICIES RESULTED IN ADVERSELY
 AFFECTING EMPLOYEE'S APPRAISALS OR PROMOTIONS.  THEREFORE, I CONCLUDE
 THAT REAPPRAISALS OR SIMILAR REMEDIAL ACTION IS NOT REQUIRED TO FULLY
 REMEDY THESE VIOLATIONS OF THE STATUTE.
 
    HAVING FOUND AND CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION
 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE, I RECOMMEND THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THE
 FOLLOWING:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS RULES AND
 REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE
 OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS AND FIELD OPERATIONS, SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE, SAN
 FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA SHALL:  1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) CHANGING POLICIES RELATIVE TO THE DEFINITION TO BE GIVEN TO THE
 TERM "FLEXIBILITY", AS USED IN EVALUATING ITS EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT FIRST
 AFFORDING THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION (OF WHICH LOCAL 3172 IS A
 CONSTITUENT) NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN, CONSONANT WITH THE
 OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE, CONCERNING ANY PROPOSED CHANGE IN
 SUCH POLICIES.
 
    (B) CHANGING POLICIES GOVERNING APPRAISALS OF ITS EMPLOYEES RELATIVE
 TO LINKING THOSE APPRAISALS TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE'S RANKING WITH
 OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION, WITHOUT FIRST AFFORDING THE
 COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION (OF WITH LOCAL 3172 IS A CONSTITUENT)
 NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN, CONSONANT WITH THE OBLIGATION
 IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE, CONCERNING ANY PROPOSED CHANGE IN SUCH POLICIES.
 
    (C) 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 ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) RESCIND THE ANNOUNCED CHANGE IN POLICY RELATIVE TO THE DEFINITION
 TO BE GIVEN TO THE TERM "FLEXIBILITY" AS USED IN EVALUATING ITS
 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION (OF WHICH LOCAL
 3172 IN A CONSTITUENT).
 
    (B) RESCIND THE ANNOUNCED CHANGE IN POLICY GOVERNING APPRAISALS OF
 ITS EMPLOYEES RELATIVE TO LINKING TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE'S
 RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION WITH RESPECT TO
 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION (OF WHICH LOCAL
 3172 IS A CONSTITUENT).
 
    (C) UPON REQUEST, REAPPRAISE, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT
 OFFICE'S RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION, ANY
 EMPLOYEE WHO WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MARTHA LOWERY AND WHOSE
 APPRAISAL IN APRIL 1979 WAS LOWER THAN THE OCTOBER 1978 APPRAISAL OF
 THAT EMPLOYEE.
 
    (D) UPON REQUEST, BARGAIN, CONSONANT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY
 THE STATUTE, WITH THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION (OF WHICH LOCAL
 3172 IS A CONSTITUENT) CONCERNING ANY PROPOSED CHANGE REGARDING THE
 DEFINITION TO BE GIVEN TO THE TERM "FLEXIBILITY", AS USED IN EVALUATING
 ITS EMPLOYEES, AND LINKING EMPLOYEE APPRAISALS TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT
 OFFICE'S RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION.
 
    (E) POST AT ITS SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE FACILITY LOCATED IN SAN
 FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, 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 DISTRICT MANAGER OF THE SUTTER DISTRICT
 OFFICE, 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 INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN
 BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY
 POSTED.  THE DISTRICT MANAGER SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT
 SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (F) NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION 9, 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE,
 ROOM 11409, P.O. BOX 36016, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102, IN WRITING, WITHIN
 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO
 COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                          SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  JULY 23, 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 CHANGE POLICIES RELATIVE TO THE DEFINITION OF
 "FLEXIBILITY" AS USED IN EVALUATING EMPLOYEES OR CHANGE POLICIES
 RELATIVE TO LINKING EMPLOYEE APPRAISALS TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE'S
 RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION WITHOUT FIRST
 AFFORDING THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION, (OF WHICH LOCAL 3172 IS A
 CONSTITUENT) NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN, CONSONANT WITH THE
 OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE, CONCERNING ANY PROPOSED CHANGES IN
 SUCH POLICIES.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND THE ANNOUNCED CHANGE IN POLICY RELATIVE TO THE
 DEFINITION TO BE GIVEN TO THE TERM "FLEXIBILITY" AS USED IN EVALUATING
 EMPLOYEES AND RESCIND THE CHANGE IN POLICY RELATIVE TO LINKING EMPLOYEE
 APPRAISALS TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE'S RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL
 SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, REAPPRAISE, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SUTTER
 DISTRICT OFFICE'S RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES IN THE
 REGION, ANY EMPLOYEE WHO WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MARTHA LOWERY AND
 WHOSE APPRAISAL IN APRIL 1979 WAS LOWER THAN THE OCTOBER 1978 APPRAISAL
 OF THAT EMPLOYEE.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, BARGAIN, CONSONANT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS
 IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE, WITH THE COUNCIL OF DISTRICT LOCALS, AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SAN FRANCISCO REGION (OF WHICH LOCAL
 3172 IS A CONSTITUENT) CONCERNING ANY PROPOSED CHANGE REGARDING THE
 DEFINITION TO BE GIVEN TO THE TERM "FLEXIBILITY", AS USED IN EVALUATING
 EMPLOYEES, AND LINKING EMPLOYEE APPRAISALS TO THE SUTTER DISTRICT
 OFFICE'S RANKING WITH OTHER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES IN THE REGION.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:
 
    BY:  (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THIS NOTICE, OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 9,
 WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, ROOM 11409, P.O.  BOX 36016,
 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (415) 556-8105.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THE
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE WAS REDESIGNATED AS THE
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.
 
    /2/ IN THE CHARGES AND THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT HEREIN THE SSA'S
 SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE AND NOT THE SAN FRANCISCO REGION WAS ALLEGED AS
 THE RESPONDENT.  AS NOTED ABOVE, AT ALL TIMES RELEVANT HEREIN THE LEVEL
 OF RECOGNITION AND CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT REMAINED AT
 THE SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL LEVEL.  CLEARLY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
 CASE, THE DISTRICT OFFICE WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT FOR THE REGION AND, AS
 SUCH, ITS ACTIONS WERE BINDING UPON THE REGION.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
 AUTHORITY CONSTRUES ITS ORDER HEREIN TO BIND THE REGION.
 
    /3/ SEIDENFELD RESIGNED HIS UNION OFFICE WHEN APPOINTED TO A
 SUPERVISORY POSITION WITH RESPONDENT EFFECTIVE MARCH 26, 1979.
 
    /4/ THE FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THIS MEETING AND THE MEETINGS OF
 MARCH 8 AND MARCH 22, INFRA, GENERALLY REPRESENT A SYNTHESIS OF
 TESTIMONY BASED UPON CREDIBILITY RESOLUTIONS NECESSITATED BY THE
 PRESENTATION OF DIVERGENT ACCOUNTS OFFERED BY WITNESSES FOR THE GENERAL
 COUNSEL AND RESPONDENT.  WHILE THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO SOME MATTERS,
 THERE IS, HOWEVER, A SUBSTANTIAL VARIANCE IN TESTIMONY AS TO THE
 SPECIFICS OF VARIOUS STATEMENTS MADE BY MR.  MATSUYAMA AT THESE THREE
 MEETINGS.
 
    I AM AWARE THAT TESTIMONY AS TO THE DETAILS OF OCCURRENCES MAY VARY
 FROM WITNESS TO WITNESS FOR MANY REASONS INCLUDING THE LISTENER'S
 ATTENTION, MEMORY AND THE PERSONAL IMPACT A STATEMENT MAY HAVE ON AN
 INDIVIDUAL.  IN ADDITION, CREDIBILITY FINDINGS AND THE DECISION TO RELY
 ON PARTICULAR TESTIMONY MAY ALSO BE DETERMINED BY WHETHER ACTIONS OR
 EXPLANATIONS ARE REASONABLE IN THE TOTAL CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION;
 WHETHER TESTIMONY IS CLEAR OR VAGUE AND CONCLUSIONARY OR SELF
 CONTRADICTORY;  OR WHETHER THERE IS A FAILURE TO DENY OR PRESENT
 EVIDENCE OR ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE TESTIMONY.  IN ANY
 EVENT, I WAS PARTICULARLY IMPRESSED AT THE HEARING WITH THE DEMEANOR AND
 PRESENTATION OF GENERAL COUNSEL'S WITNESS DENISE CHUN UPON WHOSE
 TESTIMONY, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY OTHERS, I HAVE RELIED SUBSTANTIALLY IN
 REACHING FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE MEETINGS IN QUESTION.
 
    /5/ THE SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE IS COMPOSED OF APPROXIMATELY 6 TO 8
 SUPERVISORS AND ABOUT 100 UNIT EMPLOYEES.  MOST SUPERVISORS ARE
 RESPONSIBLE FOR 7 TO 15 EMPLOYEES IN THEIR SPECIFIC WORK GROUPS.
 
    /6/ FLEXIBILITY IS DEFINED IN RESPONDENT'S PERSONNEL GUIDE FOR
 SUPERVISORS, RATING AID FOR EMPLOYEE APPRAISALS, AS FOLLOWS:  THIS ITEM
 MEASURES THE EFFECTIVENESS IN WORKING UNDER UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR
 PRESSURES, AND IN RESPONDING TO PROCEDURAL CHANGES;  AND THE DEGREE OF
 RESPONSIVENESS TO CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
 
    /7/ SEIDENFELD RECALLED THAT OVERTIME AND ABSENCES WERE MENTIONED AT
 THIS MEETING BUT THE RECORD IS VOID OF ANY OTHER PARTICULARS CONCERNING
 HIS RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT WAS SPECIFICALLY SAID ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS.
 
    /8/ LOWERY TESTIFIED THAT ONE EMPLOYEE SHE APPRAISED WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
 DOWNGRADED BY AMBORN.  HOWEVER, AMBORN DENIED SUCH ACTION AND NO OTHER
 EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED ON THIS SUBJECT.
 
    /9/ THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT EITHER MATSUYAMA'S DEFINITION OF
 "FLEXIBILITY" OR "FRATERNIZATION" WERE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
 EMPLOYEE APPRAISALS OR PROMOTION EVALUATIONS.
 
    /10/ AT THE HEARING RESPONDENT URGED DURING ITS OPENING STATEMENT
 THAT UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND
 UNION, RESPONDENT WAS NOT OBLIGED TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE UNION, ONLY
 CONSULT.  NO SUCH CONTENTION IS MADE IN RESPONDENT'S BRIEF NOR IS THERE
 ANY REFERENCE IN THE BRIEF TO SPECIFIC CONTRACT LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD
 SUPPORT THIS ARGUMENT.  ACCORDINGLY, I ASSUME THIS CONTENTION HAS BEEN
 ABANDONED.  IN ANY EVENT, FROM MY REVIEW OF THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING, I
 DO NOT FIND THAT THE UNION WAIVED ITS STATUTORY RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE ON
 THE MATTERS AT ISSUE HEREIN.
 
    FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT NO CONTENTION HAS BEEN RAISED AS TO THE
 APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE REGARDING ANY OF THE
 MATTERS AT ISSUE HEREIN.
 
    /11/ C. HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT AND READINESS
 COMMAND, 8 A/SLMR 240, A/SLMR NO. 994.
 
    /12/ CF. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, REGION I,
 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.  1 FLRA NO. 49;  LOUISIANA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD,
 NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 8 A/SLMR 1020, A/SLMR NO. 117;  FEDERAL AVIATION
 ADMINISTRATION, FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA, 8
 A/SLMR 572, A/SLMR NO. 1047.
 
    /13/ THERE IS NO TESTIMONY BY ANY RESPONDENT WITNESS THAT CONTRADICTS
 SEIDENFELD'S ACCOUNT REGARDING THIS MATTER.
 
    /14/ ID.
 
    /15/ ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY DISCLOSE THAT
 SEIDENFELD AGREED WITH AMBORN THAT SOCIALIZATION BETWEEN SUPERVISORS AND
 NON-SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WOULD ALSO JEOPARDIZE SUPERVISOR'S
 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRANSFERS, WHICH WAS PART OF MATSUYAMA'S
 ANNOUNCEMENT TO EMPLOYEES, SINCE THE THRUST OF THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT
 WENT TO THE UNRELIABILITY OF A SOCIALIZING SUPERVISOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS,
 I CONCLUDE THAT RECOMMENDATIONS ON TRANSFERS WERE REASONABLY
 REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    /16/ CF. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, WACO, TEXAS, 6 A/SLMR 580,
 A/SLMR NO. 735.
 
    /17/ SECTION 7116(D) PROVIDES, IN RELEVANT PART, THAT " . . .  ISSUES
 WHICH CAN BE RAISED UNDER A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE MAY, IN THE DISCRETION
 OF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY, BE RAISED UNDER THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE OR AS AN
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER THIS SECTION, BUT NOT UNDER BOTH
 PROCEDURES."
 
    /18/ CF.  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE