Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia (Respondent) and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council (Charging Party)



[ v06 p74 ]
06:0074(22)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 6 FLRA No. 22
 
 NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD
 PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 3-CA-435
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED RECOMMENDED DECISION
 AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT RESPONDENT HAD
 ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE
 ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE
 ACTIONS.  THE JUDGE ALSO FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN
 CERTAIN OTHER ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDED THAT THOSE
 PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED.  THEREAFTER, THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND A
 SUPPORTING BRIEF.
 
    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 (THE STATUTE), THE AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED THE RULINGS
 OF THE JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS
 COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS, EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN.
 
    THE JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENT, ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1, 1979,
 AND MAY 22, 1979, VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE
 /1/ WHEN IT CHANGED JOB DUTIES AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF BARGAINING UNIT
 MEMBERS BY UNILATERALLY REQUIRING CRANE OPERATORS IN THE BARGAINING UNIT
 TO LUBRICATE MOBILE CRANES AND MAINTAIN LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS IN MOBILE
 CRANES WITHOUT FIRST PROVIDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE
 CONCERNING PROCEDURES THE RESPONDENT WOULD OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING THE
 CHANGE AND CONCERNING APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR BARGAINING UNIT
 EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE.  NO EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED TO
 THIS FINDING.  THE GENERAL COUNSEL DID, HOWEVER, EXCEPT TO THE FAILURE
 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE TO ORDER A RESTORATION OF THE STATUS QUO
 ANTE.
 
    THE JUDGE ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT VIOLATE SECTIONS
 7116(A)(1) AND (8) /2/ OF THE STATUTE WHEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
 RESPONDENT ALLEGEDLY HELD TWO FORMAL MEETINGS, ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1,
 1979, WITH CRANE OPERATORS IN THE BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
 DISCUSSING THE CHANGE IN JOB DUTIES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, WITHOUT
 PROVIDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT THOSE MEETINGS.
 /3/ IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, THE JUDGE DETERMINED THAT THE UNION HAD
 PRIOR NOTICE OF THE TWO MEETINGS AND WAS IN FACT REPRESENTED AT BOTH
 MEETINGS.  IN HIS EXCEPTIONS TO THIS FINDING, THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 CONTENDS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE
 CONCLUSION THAT THE UNION HAD PRIOR NOTICE AND THAT, IN FACT, THE UNION
 HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE.  AS TO THE JUDGE'S CONCLUSION THAT, IN ANY EVENT,
 THE UNION WAS REPRESENTED AT BOTH MEETINGS, THE GENERAL COUNSEL ARGUES
 THAT ALTHOUGH THE UNION'S CHIEF STEWARD AND A UNION SHOP STEWARD WERE
 PRESENT AT THE MEETINGS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SHIFTS, THEY WERE THERE IN
 THEIR CAPACITY AS EMPLOYEES AND NOT AS UNION REPRESENTATIVES.
 
    CONTRARY TO THE JUDGE, THE AUTHORITY IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE
 RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT REGARDING THE TWO MEETINGS OF MARCH 1, 1979, DID
 NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 7114(A)(2)(A).  SECTION
 7103(12) OF THE STATUTE DEFINES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN TERMS OF THE
 "MUTUAL OBLIGATION" OF THE PARTIES TO CONSULT AND BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH.
  THUS, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP REQUIRES THAT EACH PARTY
 HAVE THE ABILITY TO FUNCTION AS AN EQUAL PARTNER.  IT FOLLOWS THAT EACH
 PARTY SHOULD DEAL WITH THE OTHER DIRECTLY AND IN A DIGNIFIED MANNER.
 SEE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND AND LOCAL 221,
 AFGE, AFL-CIO, 4 FLRA NO. 70(1980).  THIS THE RESPONDENT DID NOT DO.
 
    MORE SPECIFICALLY, SECTION 7114(A)(2)(A) REQUIRES THAT A UNION "BE
 GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY" TO BE REPRESENTED DURING FORMAL DISCUSSIONS
 INVOLVING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  THIS CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES PRIOR
 NOTICE TO THE UNION SO THAT, INTER ALIA, THE UNION WILL HAVE AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS OWN CHOOSING TO BE PRESENT.
  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT THE RESPONDENT IN ANY WAY GAVE
 SUCH NOTICE TO THE UNION OF THE FORMAL MEETINGS OF MARCH 1, 1979.  THE
 MERE FACT THAT EMPLOYEES WHO WERE PRESENT AT THESE REQUIRED MEETINGS
 INVOLVING WORKING CONDITIONS ALSO HAPPENED TO BE UNION STEWARDS DOES NOT
 LEAD TO A CONTRARY CONCLUSION, FOR THEY CLEARLY WERE NOT IN ATTENDANCE
 AS UNION REPRESENTATIVES.  SEE AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, SUPRA.
 ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS
 7116(A)(1) AND (8) OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
 SECTION 7114(A)(2)(A).
 
    FURTHER, THE AUTHORITY FINDS MERIT IN THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S EXCEPTION
 TO THE FAILURE OF THE JUDGE TO INCLUDE IN HIS RECOMMENDED ORDER A
 PROVISION REQUIRING A RETURN TO THE STATUS QUO ANTE.  THE JUDGE
 CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT FAILED TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES
 WHICH RESPONDENT WOULD OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE AND
 CONCERNING
 APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH
 CHANGE.  /4/ IN THIS REGARD, HE FOUND THAT THE UNION OBJECTED TO THE
 FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE UNION WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGE.  A MEETING WAS CONVENED
 THEREAFTER BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION AND RESPONDENT.
 RESPONDENT'S SPOKESMAN ATTENDED, BUT WITH NO INTENTION TO ENGAGE IN
 BARGAINING AND BARGAINING DID NOT OCCUR.  THE UNION WAS PERMITTED ONLY
 TO OUTLINE ITS CONCERNS WHICH INCLUDED THE SAFETY FACTORS INVOLVED.  THE
 AUTHORITY IS OF THE OPINION THAT A RETURN TO THE STATUS QUO ANTE IS
 APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WHEREIN THE RESPONDENT
 REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE PROCEDURES AND APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS
 CONCERNING,
 INTER ALIA, SAFETY FACTORS.  MOREOVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO
 INDICATE THAT A STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDY WOULD CREATE A SERIOUS DISRUPTION
 OF THE RESPONDENT'S OPERATIONS.  SEE SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
 AND AFGE, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617, 5 FLRA NO. 22(1981).
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, PORTSMOUTH,
 VIRGINIA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) CHANGING JOB DUTIES AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF BARGAINING UNIT
 EMPLOYEES, AND REQUIRING MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS TO PERFORM JOB DUTIES
 RELATING TO THE LUBRICATION OF MOBILE CRANES AND TO THE MAINTENANCE OF
 LUBRICATION LOG RECORDS PERTAINING TO MOBILE CRANES, WITHOUT FIRST
 NOTIFYING TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL OF
 ITS INTENTION TO REQUIRE THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH JOB DUTIES, AND
 AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES THAT MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN
 REQUIRING BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES TO PERFORM SUCH JOB DUTIES AND
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGES WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) HOLDING OR CONDUCTING FORMAL DISCUSSIONS WITH BARGAINING UNIT
 EMPLOYEES WITHOUT FIRST PROVIDING, BY APPROPRIATE ADVANCE NOTICE, THE
 EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT SUCH
 FORMAL DISCUSSIONS.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) RESCIND THE ORAL INSTRUCTIONS AND DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS THAT
 WERE ISSUED ON MARCH 1, 1979 AND MAY 22, 1979, RESPECTIVELY, THAT
 REQUIRED MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS TO PERFORM JOB DUTIES RELATING TO THE
 LUBRICATION OF MOBILE CRANES AND TO THE MAINTENANCE OF LUBRICATION LOG
 RECORDS PERTAINING TO MOBILE CRANES.
 
    (B) UPON REQUEST, NEGOTIATE WITH THE TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATIONS, CONCERNING PROCEDURES TO BE USED IN REQUIRING MOBILE CRANE
 OPERATORS TO PERFORM JOB DUTIES RELATING TO THE LUBRICATION OF MOBILE
 CRANES AND MAINTENANCE OF LUBRICATION LOG RECORDS PERTAINING TO MOBILE
 CRANES AND CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF OF SUCH CHANGES ON ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.
 
    (C) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AT THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, PORTSMOUTH,
 VIRGINIA, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY
 SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE COMMANDER, NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, AND SHALL BE
 POSTED AND MAINTAINED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS
 PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES
 CUSTOMARILY ARE POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN 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 OF REGION III, 1133 15TH
 STREET, N.W., ROOM 300, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 IN WRITING, WITHIN 30
 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO
 COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 17, 1981
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                          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 JOB DUTIES AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF BARGAINING
 UNIT EMPLOYEES OR REQUIRE MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS TO PERFORM JOB DUTIES
 RELATING TO THE LUBRICATION OF MOBILE CRANES AND TO THE MAINTENANCE OF
 LUBRICATION LOG RECORDS PERTAINING TO MOBILE CRANES, WITHOUT FIRST
 NOTIFYING TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL OF
 OUR INTENTION TO REQUIRE THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH JOB DUTIES, AND
 AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE
 IN REQUIRING BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES TO PERFORM SUCH DUTIES AND
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGES WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    WE WILL NOT HOLD OR CONDUCT FORMAL DISCUSSIONS WITH BARGAINING UNIT
 EMPLOYEES WITHOUT FIRST PROVIDING, BY APPROPRIATE ADVANCE NOTICE, THE
 EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT SUCH
 FORMAL DISCUSSIONS.
 
    WE WILL NOT, IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND THE ORAL INSTRUCTIONS AND DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS
 THAT WERE ISSUED ON MARCH 1, 1979 AND MAY 22, 1979, RESPECTIVELY, AND
 THAT REQUIRED MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS TO PERFORM JOB DUTIES RELATING TO
 THE LUBRICATION OF MOBILE CRANES AND TO THE MAINTENANCE OF LUBRICATION
 LOG RECORDS PERTAINING TO MOBILE CRANES.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, NEGOTIATE WITH THE TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATIONS, CONCERNING PROCEDURES TO BE USED IN REQUIRING MOBILE CRANE
 OPERATORS TO PERFORM JOB DUTIES RELATING TO THE LUBRICATION OF MOBILE
 CRANES AND TO THE MAINTENANCE OF LUBRICATION LOG RECORDS PERTAINING TO
 MOBILE CRANES AND CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF SUCH CHANGES ON ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  BY:  (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:
 1133 15TH STREET, N.W., ROOM 300, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (202) 653-8452
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    WALTER B. BAGBY, ESQUIRE
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    CLARA A. WILLIAMSON, ESQUIRE
 
    BRUCE ROSENSTEIN, ESQUIRE
 
                          FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    BEFORE:  LOUIS SCALZO
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS CASE AROSE AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING UNDER THE
 PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, 92
 STAT. 1191, 5 U.S.C.  7101, ET SEQ., (HEREINAFTER CALLED "THE STATUTE")
 AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER.
 
    ON FEBRUARY 25, 1980, AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT WAS FILED BY
 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION III, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,
 WASHINGTON, D.C.  AGAINST THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, PORTSMOUTH,
 VIRGINIA (RESPONDENT), ON BEHALF OF THE TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL (COUNCIL OR UNION), THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE OF AN APPROPRIATE UNIT OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AT THE
 NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD.  THE COMPLAINT, AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING,
 ALLEGED THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1), (5) AND (8) OF
 THE STATUTE.  VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) WERE PREDICATED
 UPON ALLEGATIONS THAT THE RESPONDENT CHANGED JOB DUTIES AND WORKING
 CONDITIONS OF BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1, 1979 AND MAY
 22, 1979, BY UNILATERALLY REQUIRING CRANE OPERATORS IN THE BARGAINING
 UNIT TO LUBRICATE MOBILE CRANES, AND MAINTAIN LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS IN
 MOBILE CRANES, WITHOUT FIRST PROVIDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 NEGOTIATE CONCERNING PROCEDURES WHICH RESPONDENT WOULD OBSERVE IN
 IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE, AND CONCERNING APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR
 EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE.
 
    VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (8) WERE PREDICATED UPON
 ALLEGATIONS THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RESPONDENT, ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1,
 1979, HELD FORMAL MEETINGS WITH CRANE OPERATORS IN THE BARGAINING UNIT
 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE JOB DUTIES MENTIONED, WITHOUT
 PROVIDING THE UNION WITH NOTICE OF THE MEETINGS, AND WITHOUT AFFORDING
 THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION
 7114(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE.  /5/
 
    COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE JOB DUTIES IN QUESTION
 WERE ASSIGNED TO ALL CRANE OPERATORS, THAT THESE DUTIES HAVE BEEN
 PERFORMED BY CRANE OPERATORS FOR AT LEAST SIX YEARS, THAT ORAL
 INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMAL INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT WERE MERELY
 REAFFIRMATIONS OF EXISTING WORK PRACTICES, AND THAT ALTHOUGH THE UNION
 WAS AWARE OF THE PRACTICE, THE UNION NEVER REQUESTED THAT THE RESPONDENT
 NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT THAT SUCH JOB DUTIES BE PERFORMED
 BY CRANE OPERATORS EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT.
 
    THE RESPONDENT AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY, WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND WERE AFFORDED FULL
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, ADDUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND EXAMINE AND
 CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.  POST-HEARING BRIEFS WERE RECEIVED FROM COUNSEL
 REPRESENTING THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
 RESPONDENT.  THESE HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.  BASED UPON THE ENTIRE
 RECORD HEREIN, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR
 DEMEANOR, THE EXHIBITS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE
 HEARING, /6/ AND THE BRIEFS, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT,
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
 
    GENERAL BACKGROUND
 
    THE RECORD DISCLOSED THAT THE RESPONDENT'S FACILITY INCLUDES A PUBLIC
 WORKS DEPARTMENT, WHICH IN TURN INCLUDES A SHOP 02 CONSISTING OF A
 TRANSPORTATION OR OPERATIONS SECTION, AND A MAINTENANCE SECTION.  AMONG
 OTHER DUTIES, THESE SECTIONS HAD RESPONSIBILITY FOR CRANE OPERATIONS AT
 THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD.  SHOP 02 IS SUPERVISED BY A SHOP HEAD, WHO
 IN TURN DIRECTS OPERATIONS THROUGH A GENERAL FOREMAN AND A NUMBER OF
 CRANE OPERATOR FOREMEN WHO SUPERVISE APPROXIMATELY 103 CRANE OPERATORS.
 AS OF MARCH 1, 1979, JOHN V. LUCAS WAS A CRANE OPERATOR FOREMAN IN SHOP
 02;  AND CHARLES CRONIN, ALSO A CRANE OPERATOR FOREMAN, WAS TEMPORARILY
 ACTING AS THE GENERAL FOREMAN OF SHOP 02.
 
    CRANE OPERATORS HEREIN INVOLVED WERE CLASSIFIED AT WAGE GRADE 11 AND
 12 LEVELS.  THE RECORD DISCLOSED THAT THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS PERTAINING TO
 THE WAGE GRADE 11 LEVEL IMPOSED NO DUTY TO LUBRICATE (R. EXH. 6, G.C.
 EXH. 10, TR. 181-182, 217, 233).  /7/ FOR THE MOST PART MOBILE CRANE
 OPERATORS WERE ASSIGNED A WAGE 11 GRADE CLASSIFICATION (TR. 181-182,
 183).
 
    COMMENCING IN THE EARLY 1960'S, THE RESPONDENT BEGAN TO ELIMINATE
 PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO PERFORM LUBRICATION DUTIES ON CRANES (TR. 178).
 IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT EMPLOYEES, OTHER THAN CRANE OPERATORS WERE AT
 ONE TIME ASSIGNED TO EACH CRANE TO PERFORM LUBRICATION SERVICES, BUT
 THAT ONLY TWO OR THREE INDIVIDUALS WERE PERFORMING SUCH LUBRICATION
 DUTIES AS OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING (TR. 178).  IT WAS THE INTENTION OF
 THE RESPONDENT TO HAVE CRANE OPERATORS EVENTUALLY ASSUME ALL OF SUCH
 DUTIES (TR. 179).
 
    BY MEMORANDUM DATED DECEMBER 7, 1978, ADDRESSED TO THE HEADS OF THE
 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SECTIONS, W. R. SKITTLETHORP, THEN ACTING AS
 HEAD OF SHOP 02, SET FORTH THE FOLLOWING POLICY:
 
    MOBILE CRANES ARE LUBRICATED AND SERVICED BY MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL
 WHEN
 
    SCHEDULED.  HOWEVER, SOME COMPONENTS REQUIRE SERVICES MORE
 FREQUENTLY.  TO PERFORM THIS
 
    SERVICE, A LUBRICATION CHART WILL BE POSTED IN THE CAB, DESIGNATING
 AREAS TO BE LUBED AND THE
 
    FREQUENCY.  THE OPERATIONS FOREMAN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
 INSTRUCTING ASSIGNED OPERATORS TO
 
    PERFORM THIS FUNCTION AS SPECIFIED.  A GREASE GUN AND LUBRICANT WILL
 BE STORED ON THE
 
    CRANE.  CODE 424 WILL CONDUCT RANDOM AUDITS FOR COMPLIANCE TO (SIC)
 THIS INSTRUCTION.
 
    THIS INTERNAL MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM WOULD NOT NORMALLY HAVE BEEN
 TRANSMITTED TO THE UNION (TR. 163), AND THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE
 RECORD THAT IT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE UNION.  FOLLOWING ISSUANCE OF THIS
 MEMORANDUM, SHOP 02 MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS DISCUSSED THE FUTURE PLACEMENT
 OF LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS AND LUBRICATION CHARTS ON ALL MOBILE CRANES
 (TR.  290).  THE POLICY, ALTHOUGH ARTICULATED AT THE MANAGEMENT LEVEL,
 WAS NOT THEN IMPLEMENTED.
 
    THE MARCH 1, 1979 MEETINGS
 
    ON MARCH 1, 1979, JOHN V. LUCAS, CRANE OPERATOR FOREMAN IN CHARGE OF
 THE DAY SHIFT CONSISTING OF 14 TO 15 CRANE OPERATORS, ADVISED CRANE
 OPERATORS UNDER HIS SUPERVISION THAT THEIR DUTIES HENCEFORTH WOULD
 INCLUDE THE LUBRICATION OF MOBILE CRANES (TR. 175).  THE PRONOUNCEMENT
 OCCURRED AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE SHIFT.  IT WAS BROUGHT OUT THAT
 CRANE OPERATOR FOREMEN OR SUPERVISORS HAD A POLICY OR PRACTICE OF
 MEETING WITH EMPLOYEES PRIOR TO SIGNING CRANE OPERATORS OUT ON A SHIFT.
 THESE MEETINGS WERE DESIGNED TO INFORM CRANE OPERATORS OF IMPORTANT
 DEVELOPMENTS (TR. 55).  THE MEETING CONVENED BY LUCAS WAS ATTENDED BY
 OTIS ALLISON, A MOBILE CRANE OPERATOR, WHO AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING
 WAS SERVING AS THE UNION'S CHIEF STEWARD FOR SHOP 02.  HE HAD HELD THE
 POSITION FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1979 (TR. 54).  /8/
 
    A SIMILAR MEETING OCCURRED ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1, 1979 IN CONNECTION
 WITH ANOTHER GROUP OF CRANE OPERATORS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF CHARLES
 CRONIN, A CRANE OPERATOR FOREMAN, THEN SERVING AS ACTING GENERAL FOREMAN
 OF SHOP 02.  CRONIN ALSO INFORMED A GROUP OF 14 TO 15 CRANE OPERATORS
 THAT THEY WOULD, IN THE NEAR FUTURE, START GREASING MOBILE CRANES (TR.
 361-362).  THIS MEETING WAS ATTENDED BY JAMES CASON, A CRANE OPERATOR IN
 SHOP 02, WHO PROVIDED CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL TESTIMONY RELATING TO
 CRONIN'S STATEMENT.  /9/ CASON WAS ACTING AS A UNION SHOP STEWARD IN
 SHOP 02 AT THE TIME THAT HE ATTENDED THE MEETING IN QUESTION.  HE TOOK
 NOTE OF THE CHANGE ANNOUNCED AND DISCUSSED IT WITH CHIEF STEWARD OTIS
 ALLISON THREE OR FOUR DAYS LATER (TR. 366).  /10/
 
    LUBRICATION CHARTS AND LOGS PLACED IN MOBILE CRANES
 
    FOLLOWING THE MARCH 1, 1979 MEETINGS DESCRIBED, LUBRICATION CHARTS
 AND LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS WERE PLACED IN MOBILE CRANES.  LUBRICATION
 CHARTS WERE PLACED TO PROVIDE LUBRICATING INSTRUCTIONS TO CRANE
 OPERATORS (TR. 328).  LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS WERE PLACED IN MOBILE CRANES
 TO PROVIDE A DETAILED RECORD OF LUBRICATION REQUIRED AND PERFORMED (TR.
 162-163, 324, 334).  ALTHOUGH THE TESTIMONY OF CHARLES CRONIN WAS VAGUE
 AND INDEFINITE AT MANY POINTS INSOFAR AS IT RELATED TO THE PLACEMENT OF
 LUBRICATION CHARTS AND LOG BOOKS ON MOBILE CRANES;  HIS TESTIMONY DID
 ESTABLISH THAT ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1, 1979, CRONIN HAD LUBRICATION CHARTS
 AND LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS PLACED IN EVERY PIECE OF MOBILE EQUIPMENT IN
 THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, OTHER THAN SPECIAL PURPOSE CRANES (TR.
 292-293, 303).  /11/ HE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE
 PREPARATIONS RELATING TO THE DESIGN OF THE LUBRICATION LOG BOOK WERE IN
 PROCESS PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1979, AND THAT THIS PROCESS COMMENCED IN
 JANUARY OF 1979 (TR. 314-314).  AFTER MARCH 1, 1979, CHARLES CRONIN,
 ACTING AS SHOP 02 GENERAL FOREMAN, GAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO CRANE OPERATOR
 SUPERVISORS THAT MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS SHOULD UTILIZE LUBRICATION LOG
 BOOKS TO MAKE APPROPRIATE ENTRIES (TR. 294).
 
    PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1979, AND THEREAFTER, A "CRANE OPERATOR'S LOG BOOK"
 OR "CRANE LOG" WAS UTILIZED ON ALL CRANES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A
 GENERALIZED RECORDING OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF
 THE CRANE (TR. 109, 162(.  THIS LOG WAS USED TO RECORD THE LENGTH OF
 TIME THE CRANE WAS UTILIZED AND THE FACT OF COMPLETION OF AN "OPERATOR'S
 DAILY CHECK LIST" (ODCL), (R. EXH. 2, G.C. EXH. 3, TR. 113-114, 273-274,
 289).
 
    THE ODCL HAD BEEN IN USE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS (TR. 272-273, 322).
 IT WAS NOT A RECORDING OF SPECIFIC LUBRICATION SERVICES PERFORMED (TR.
 322).  THE DOCUMENT WAS RECEIVED BY CRANE OPERATORS FROM CRANE OPERATOR
 SUPERVISORS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF EACH SHIFT, AND WAS THEN
 UTILIZED TO RECORD THE RESULT OF A COMPLETE "VISUAL" INSPECTION OF THE
 CRANE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CRANE WAS OPERABLE (TR. 80-81, 100, 108).
  COMPLETED ODCL'S WERE RETURNED TO CRANE OPERATOR SUPERVISORS BY CRANE
 OPERATORS AT THE END OF EACH SHIFT (TR. 101-102, 108, 324).  SUPERVISORS
 SIGNED THEM AND FORWARDED THEM TO A "QUALITY ASSURANCE" SECTION, WHICH
 IN TURN, WAS CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING LUBRICATION
 NEEDS (TR. 324-325).  "QUALITY ASSURANCE" KEPT APPRISED OF CRANE
 OPERATIONS, AND WHEN APPROPRIATE, ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO BRING CRANES IN
 FOR MAINTENANCE (TR. 325).  THE ODCL INCLUDED A REFERENCE TO
 "LUBRICATION" AS ONE OF THE MANY ITEMS TO BE CHECKED VISUALLY BY CRANE
 OPERATORS;  HOWEVER, THE CRANE OPERATOR WAS MERELY REQUIRED TO VISUALLY
 INSPECT, AND THEN INDICATE ON THE ODCL, BY A CHECK MARK, WHETHER
 "LUBRICATION" WAS SATISFACTORY OR UNSATISFACTORY (TR. 80-81, 310, 322).
 THE RECORD PROVIDED NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT EITHER THE CRANE LOG OF
 ODCL IMPOSED A LUBRICATION REQUIREMENT OR LUBRICATION RECORD KEEPING
 REQUIREMENT ON MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS.
 
    PUBLIC WORKS INSTRUCTION 11200.3B DATED MAY 22, 1979
 
    ON MAY 22, 1979, THE HEAD OF RESPONDENT'S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
 ISSUED AN INSTRUCTION FORMALIZING THE ORAL INSTRUCTIONS PREVIOUSLY
 CONVEYED TO A NUMBER OF MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1,
 1979, (G.C. EXH. 2).  ITEM 15 OF "ENCLOSURE (1)," ATTACHED TO THE
 INSTRUCTION, REFLECTS THAT MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS WOULD HAVE THE
 FOLLOWING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
 
    15.  LUBRICATION.  ENSURE THAT THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE CRANE ARE
 LUBRICATED (TO BE
 
    ACCOMPLISHED BY VISUAL OBSERVATION AND SOUND OF COMPONENTS).
 VISUALLY OBSERVE ALL BRAKE AND
 
    CLUTCH FRICTIONS AND DRUMS FOR EXCESSIVE LUBRICANT (WHERE
 ACCESSIBLE-- NO DISASSEMBLY
 
    REQUIRED).  MOBILE CRANES ONLY-- OPERATORS WILL LUBRICATE THE CRANE
 UPPER (PORTIONS OF THE
 
    CRANE ABOVE THE CARRIER TO INCLUDE CRANE MACHINERY, ROTATING SYSTEM,
 BOOM, A FRAME AND HOIST
 
    BLOCK) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPERATOR'S MANUAL AND/OR OTHER SPECIAL
 INSTRUCTIONS . . .
 
    PUBLIC WORKS INSTRUCTION 11200.3A, DATED JULY 10, 1978 (G.C. EXH.
 3), THE BASIS FOR POLICY IN EFFECT IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF
 THE MAY 22, 1979 INSTRUCTION, WAS CANCELED BY THE MAY 22, 1979
 INSTRUCTION.  THE EARLIER JULY 10, 1978 INSTRUCTION REFLECTED DIFFERENT
 JOB REQUIREMENTS.  IT DESCRIBED CRANE OPERATOR LUBRICATION RELATED
 DUTIES IN THE FOLLOWING SUCCINCT TERMS:
 
    15.  LUBRICATION.  ENSURE THAT THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE CRANE ARE
 LUBRICATED.  CHECK BY
 
    VISUAL OBSERVATION AND SOUND OF COMPONENT.  /12/
 
    IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE MAY 22, 1979 INSTRUCTION
 SPECIFICALLY IMPOSED A LUBRICATION REQUIREMENT ON MOBILE CRANE
 OPERATORS, WHEREAS THE EARLIER JULY 10, 1978 INSTRUCTION DID NOT.  THIS
 DIFFERENCE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY CHARLES CRONIN (TR. 308).
 
    PRIOR TO THE MARCH 1, 1979 MEETINGS AND PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE
 MAY 22, 1979 INSTRUCTION, RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIVES HAD NO DISCUSSION
 WITH THE UNION CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT THAT MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS
 LUBRICATE MOBILE CRANES AND MAINTAIN DETAILED LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS.
 
    REPRESENTATIVES OF RESPONDENT AND UNION MEET ON JUNE 27, 1979
 
    COMPLAINTS FROM CRANE OPERATORS CONCERNING THE NEW DUTIES WERE
 CONVEYED TO CHIEF STEWARD ALLISON DURING THE LATTER PART OF MAY AND THE
 BEGINNING OF JUNE 1979 (TR. 59).  ON OR ABOUT JUNE 1, 1979, ALLISON
 DISCUSSED THE MAY 22, 1979 INSTRUCTION WITH LOUIS NARDOZI, A MEMBER OF
 THE UNION'S CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, A GROUP DESIGNATED TO MEET
 PERIODICALLY WITH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS TO RESOLVE LABOR DISPUTES (TR.
 21, 23-24, 58-59), AND SHORTLY BEFORE JUNE 12, 1979, ALLISON ALSO
 DISCUSSED THE ISSUES TELEPHONICALLY WITH WILLIAM POTTS, A REPRESENTATIVE
 OF THE RESPONDENT ASSIGNED TO THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
 DIVISION.  HE WAS ADVISED BY POTTS THAT THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED WERE NOT
 NEGOTIABLE (TR. 215-216).
 
    BY LETTER DATED JUNE 12, 1979, THE UNION OBJECTED TO THE FAILURE OF
 THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE THE UNION WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF THE MAY 22, 1979 INSTRUCTION (G.C. EXH. 4).
 ARRANGEMENTS WERE THEREAFTER MADE FOR REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION AND
 THE RESPONDENT TO MEET ON JUNE 27, 1979 (TR. 37).  DURING A TELEPHONE
 CALL PRIOR TO THE MEETING WILLIAM POTTS ADVISED LOUIS NARDOZI THAT THE
 JUNE 27, 1979 MEETING WOULD NOT BE CONVENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
 NEGOTIATING (TR. 224).
 
    ON JUNE 27, 1979, A MEETING WAS CONVENED BY THE PARTIES.  LOUIS
 NARDOZI AND OTIS ALLISON ACTED AS SPOKESMEN FOR THE UNION AND WILLIAM
 POTTS REPRESENTED THE RESPONDENT.  IT WAS ADMITTED BY WILLIAM POTTS THAT
 THE RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIVES MET WITH NO INTENTION OF BARGAINING
 WITH THE UNION (TR. 197).  THE MEETING WAS PERCEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT
 AS AN "INFORMATIONAL MEETING" (TR. 197), AND A MEETING OUT OF COURTESY
 (TR. 29).  BARGAINING DID NOT TAKE PLACE (TR. 189, 221-222).  HOWEVER,
 THE MAY 22, 1979 INSTRUCTION WAS BRIEFLY DISCUSSED AND THE UNION WAS
 ALLOWED TO OUTLINE THEIR CONCERNS REGARDING THE IMPOSITION OF
 LUBRICATION DUTIES ON MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS.  REFERENCE WAS MADE TO
 SAFETY FACTORS RELATING TO CLIMBING REQUIREMENTS, THE AGE OF CRANE
 OPERATORS, THE NEED FOR PROTECTIVE CLOTHING, AND THE FACT THAT "DIRTY
 WORK" WAS INVOLVED.  THE RESPONDENT FELT NO OBLIGATION TO GIVE SERIOUS
 CONSIDERATION TO THESE ELEMENTS OF CONCERN, BECAUSE OF AN INITIAL
 DECISION THAT NO CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS HAD BEEN INTRODUCED (TR.
 28), THAT THERE WAS NO IMPACT ON WORKING CONDITIONS (TR. 193-194, 220,
 237-238), AND THAT CRANE OPERATOR JOB DESCRIPTIONS, AS CONSTRUED BY
 RESPONDENT, INCLUDED AUTHORITY FOR ASSIGNING SUCH DUTIES (TR.  194-195).
  POTTS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT MANPOWER CEILINGS IMPOSED UPON THE RESPONDENT
 COMPELLED A CHOICE BETWEEN RETAINING SERVICE PERSONNEL OR CRANE
 OPERATORS (TR. 227).  POTTS DID AGREE TO CHECK WITH HIGHER AUTHORITY
 REGARDING THE MATTER (TR. 29, 46).  THE MEETING LASTED APPROXIMATELY
 FORTY-FIVE TO SIXTY MINUTES (TR. 41, 224).  AFTER THE MEETING POTTS
 PHONED NARDOZI TO VERIFY THAT THE ISSUE COULD NOT BE RESOLVED, AND THAT
 THE MAY 22, 1979 INSTRUCTION WOULD STAND (TR. 31, 226).  /13/
 
    LUBRICATION PRACTICE BEFORE AND AFTER MARCH 1, 1979
 
    THE TESTIMONY OF OTIS ALLISON AND JAMES CASON PROVIDED DIRECT
 EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO
 LUBRICATE MOBILE CRANES OR MAINTAIN LUBRICATION RECORDS PRIOR TO MARCH
 1, 1979.  THIS TESTIMONY IS CREDITED RATHER THAN THE TESTIMONY OF
 RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.  /14/ ON THESE FACTUAL ISSUES IT
 WAS NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES
 CONTRADICTED ALLISON AND CASON, THE FORMER, IN LARGE MEASURE TENDED TO
 BE CORROBORATIVE OF ALLISON AND CASON IN KEY AREAS OF INTEREST.  IT WAS
 ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES WAS VAGUE AND
 INDEFINITE AT A NUMBER OF CRITICAL POINTS.
 
    PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1979, MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS NOTIFIED THEIR
 SUPERVISORS OR MAINTENANCE SHOP PERSONNEL WHEN THEY NOTICED THAT MOBILE
 CRANES NEEDED LUBRICATION (TR.  55-56, 85-86).  SERVICE EQUIPMENT
 EMPLOYEES PERFORMED SUCH SERVICES RATHER THAN MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS,
 AND THERE WERE FOUR OR FIVE SERVICE EQUIPMENT EMPLOYEES AVAILABLE IN
 SHOP 02 TO PERFORM SUCH SERVICE (TR. 56, 63, 362).  MOBILE CRANE
 OPERATORS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PERFORM LUBRICATION PRIOR TO MARCH 1,
 1979 (TR. 72, 362).  IT WAS ALSO ESTABLISHED THAT PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1979
 LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS WERE NOT KEPT IN MOBILE CRANES (TR. 363).
 
    AFTER MARCH 1, 1979, THE JOB DUTIES OF MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS CHANGED
 AND THEY WERE REQUIRED TO LUBRICATE MOBILE CRANES AND TO MAINTAIN
 LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS.  THESE DUTIES WERE PHASED IN GRADUALLY OVER A
 PERIOD (TR. 56).  GREASE GUNS WERE INSTALLED ON MOBILE CRANES AND
 LUBRICATION CHARTS AND LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS WERE PLACED FOR USE (TR.
 56-57).  AFTER MARCH 1, 1979 MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS WERE TOLD TO PERFORM
 LUBRICATION DUTIES AND WERE CRITICIZED FOR NOT PROPERLY PERFORMING SUCH
 DUTIES (TR. 67).
 
    THE TESTIMONY OF LEWIS RARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
 SUPERINTENDENT, WITH JURISDICTION OVER SHOP 02 AND OTHER SHOPS (TR.
 140), ESTABLISHED THAT HE DID NOT OBSERVE LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS WITH
 ENTRIES BY MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS, PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1979 (TR. 181).
 CHARLES CRONIN ESTABLISHED THAT MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS WERE NOT REQUIRED
 TO MAKE ENTRIES IN LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1979 (TR.
 303-304), THAT THE MAINTENANCE SECTION KEPT LUBRICATION RECORDS PRIOR TO
 MARCH 1, 1979, AND FURTHER THAT THESE WERE KEPT UP TO DATE BY SHOP 02
 MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL IN A MAINTENANCE SHOP SOME DISTANCE FROM THE
 CRANES (TR. 334-337).
 
    RARY'S TESTIMONY AND THAT OF WILLIAM POTTS REFLECTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE PRE-MARCH 1, 1979 PRACTICE OF APPRISING CRANE
 OPERATOR SUPERVISORS OF MOBILE CRANE LUBRICATION NEEDS, AND FURTHER THAT
 IN SUCH CASES PERSONNEL OTHER THAN MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS PERFORMED
 LUBRICATION ON MOBILE CRANES (TR. 148, 236-237).  RARY TESTIFIED THAT AS
 OF MARCH 1, 1979 THERE WERE TWO TO FIVE SERVICE EQUIPMENT EMPLOYEES
 ENGAGED IN SUCH WORK (TR.  148-149).  HE INDICATED THAT THERE WAS A
 MANPOWER SHORTAGE IN THE SHIPYARD AND THAT SERVICE EQUIPMENT EMPLOYEES
 HAD DWINDLED IN NUMBER (TR. 176-178).  RARY STATED THAT THESE EMPLOYEES
 WERE SPECIFICALLY CHARGED WITH MOBILE CRANE LUBRICATION DUTIES (TR. 150,
 179-180).  /15/
 
    JOHN LUCAS STATED THAT CRANES WENT TO THE MAINTENANCE SHOP AS
 FREQUENTLY AS EVERY TWO DAYS DEPENDING ON USE, AND THAT MAINTENANCE, DID
 MOST OF THE LUBRICATION WORK (TR. 351).  IT WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT
 LUBRICATION OF MOBILE CRANES WAS ROUTINELY ACCOMPLISHED ONCE A CRANE WAS
 TAKEN IN FOR MAINTENANCE.  RARY'S TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED THAT HE DID NOT
 OBSERVE MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS LUBRICATING MOBILE CRANES PRIOR TO MARCH
 1, 1979 (TR. 149, 152, 180-181).  JOHN LUCAS TESTIFIED THAT HE "COULD
 NOT SAY" THAT HE HAD SEEN MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS LUBRICATING THEIR
 CRANES PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1979 (TR. 342).  CHARLES CRONIN'S INITIALLY
 STRONG CONTENTIONS IN THIS REGARD WERE ATTENUATED BY LATER ASSERTIONS
 INDICATING A WEAK BASIS FOR HIS POSITION (TR.  306-307).
 
    WILLIAM POTTS TESTIFIED THAT AFTER MARCH 1, 1979, MOBILE CRANE
 OPERATORS WERE REQUIRED TO LUBRICATE MOBILE CRANES (TR. 228);  THAT IT
 WAS "POSSIBLE" THAT REDUCTION OF SERVICE EQUIPMENT EMPLOYEES WAS THE
 REASON FOR ISSUANCE OF THE MAY 22, 1979 INSTRUCTION;  AND THAT THE
 NUMBER OF SUCH EMPLOYEES WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ACCOMPLISH THE TASK OF
 LUBRICATING MOBILE CRANES (TR. 235-236).  LASTLY, IT WAS BROUGHT OUT BY
 LEWIS RARY THAT A NEW 40 HOUR CRANE OPERATOR'S COURSE WHEREIN
 LUBRICATION WAS STRESSED, WAS INITIATED AFTER MARCH 1, 1979 (TR.
 131-132, 133).
 
                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
         THE QUESTION OF UNION REPRESENTATION AT THE MARCH 1, 1979
 
                                 MEETINGS
 
    SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN AGENCY TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY
 EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHT PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE, AND
 SECTION 7116(A)(8) PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE TO
 OTHERWISE FAIL OR REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH ANY PROVISION OF CHAPTER 71 OF
 THE STATUTE.  SECTION 7114(A)(2)(A) PROVIDES:
 
    (2) AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF AN APPROPRIATE UNIT IN AN AGENCY
 SHALL BE GIVEN THE
 
    OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (A) ANY FORMAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN ONE OR MORE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
 AGENCY AND ONE OR MORE
 
    EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING ANY
 GRIEVANCE OR ANY PERSONNEL
 
    POLICY OR PRACTICES OF OTHER GENERAL CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT .  . .
 
    SECTION 7114(A)(2)(A) CLOSELY FOLLOWS THE LANGUAGE PREVIOUSLY
 UTILIZED IN SECTION 10(E) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AND AUTHORITIES
 REFLECTING INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 10(E) ARE RELEVANT HERE.  THE ISSUE
 POSED WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (8) VIOLATIONS BASED ON THE
 MARCH 1, 1979 MEETINGS HELD BY CHARLES CRONIN AND JOHN LUCAS, INVOLVES
 THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE IMPOSITION OF NEW JOB REQUIREMENTS
 RELATING TO THE LUBRICATION OF MOBILE CRANES CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF THE
 COUNCIL'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE PRIOR NOTICE OF THE MEETINGS, AND THE RIGHT
 TO BE REPRESENTED AT SUCH MEETINGS.
 
    IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DECISION TO IMPOSE THESE NEW DUTIES REPRESENTED
 A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR
 MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS, SINCE THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT PRIOR TO
 MARCH 1, 1979, MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS WERE NOT, IN FACT, REQUIRED TO
 PERFORM SUCH DUTIES.  THE NEW DUTIES IMPOSED DIRECTLY, AND IN A
 SIGNIFICANT MANNER, UPON A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE
 BARGAINING UNIT.  HOWEVER, DESPITE THE FOREGOING, NO VIOLATIONS OF
 SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (8), BASED UPON A VIOLATION OF SECTION
 7114(A)(2)(A), OCCURRED BECAUSE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE COUNCIL HAD
 PRIOR NOTICE OF BOTH MEETINGS, AND FURTHER THAT THE COUNCIL WAS IN FACT
 REPRESENTED AT BOTH MEETINGS.  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, CHICAGO DISTRICT, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, A/SLMR NO. 1120,
 FLRC NO. 78A-145, 1 FLRA NO. 14 (APRIL 9, 1979);  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
 ARMY, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND COMMAND, MARYLAND, A/SLMR NO. 837 (MAY 6,
 1977);  FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL AVIATION FACILITIES
 EXPERIMENTAL CENTER, ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY, A/SLMR NO. 438
 (SEPTEMBER 30, 1974).
 
    THE RECORD ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH MEETINGS OF THE TYPE INVOLVED WERE
 REGULARLY HELD AT THE BEGINNING OR END OF A SHIFT TO INFORM CRANE
 OPERATORS OF IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS.  SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT
 THAT CRANE OPERATOR SUPERVISORS REGULARLY HELD SUCH MEETINGS WAS
 ESTABLISHED BY OTIS ALLISON, THE UNION'S CHIEF STEWARD (TR. 55).  BOTH
 MEETINGS WERE ATTENDED BY UNION REPRESENTATIVES.  CHIEF STEWARD ALLISON
 ATTENDED THE MEETING CONVENED BY JOHN LUCAS, AND UNION STEWARD JAMES
 CASON ATTENDED THE MEETING CONVENED BY CHARLES CRONIN.
 
    IN DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, CHICAGO
 DISTRICT, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, SUPRA, THE AUTHORITY NOTED:
 
    (T)HE AUTHORITY NOTES PARTICULARLY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S FINDING
 'UNDER THE PARTICULAR
 
    CIRCUMSTANCES HEREIN,' THAT THE UNION WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF ITS SECTION
 10(E) RIGHT TO BE
 
    REPRESENTED AT A FORMAL DISCUSSION SINCE IT HAD ACTUAL NOTICE OF AND
 WAS IN FACT REPRESENTED
 
    AT THE MEETING BY THE UNION STEWARD WHO CUSTOMARILY ATTENDED SUCH
 FORMAL DISCUSSIONS, AND THE
 
    UNION THEREFORE SUFFERED NO DETRIMENT FROM LACK OF FORMAL NOTICE.
 
    SIMILARLY, IN THIS CASE, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT, IN LIGHT OF THE
 NOTICE PROVIDED, AND IN LIGHT OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE COUNCIL AT
 THE MEETINGS, THE LACK OF FORMAL NOTICE HAD NO DETRIMENTAL EFFECT UPON
 THE RIGHTS OF THE COUNCIL.
 
    WHETHER THE RESPONDENT UNILATERALLY CHANGED TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT BARGAINING WITH THE COUNCIL.
 
    UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE
 MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS HAVE THE RIGHT "TO ASSIGN WORK, . . . AND TO
 DETERMINE THE PERSONNEL BY WHICH AGENCY OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED. .
 . . " HOWEVER, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7106(B)(2) AND (3) OF THE
 STATUTE, BARGAINING IS MANDATORY ON PROCEDURES DESIGNED FOR EXERCISING
 SUCH RIGHTS, AND ON ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED, THAT
 IS ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH MANAGEMENT DECISIONS.  IN
 THIS CASE, THE RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT ON OR ABOUT MARCH 1,
 1979, AT CRANE OPERATOR MEETINGS HELD BY SUPERVISORS JOHN LUCAS AND
 CHARLES CRONIN, UNILATERAL CHANGES IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT WERE IMPLEMENTED, IN THAT AS OF THE DATES OF THESE TWO
 MEETINGS MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS WERE ASSIGNED SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITY
 FOR LUBRICATING MOBILE CRANES, AND FOR MAINTAINING RECORDS OF SUCH
 LUBRICATION, WHEREAS PRIOR TO THESE MEETINGS SUCH WORK WAS HANDLED BY
 OTHER PERSONNEL EMPLOYED BY THE SHIPYARD.  THAT IS, PRIOR TO THESE
 MEETINGS MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS WERE MERELY CHARGED WITH THE
 RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENT TO EFFECT LUBRICATION
 NEEDED, AS DISTINCT FROM THE TASK OF ACTUALLY LUBRICATING AND
 MAINTAINING DETAILED LUBRICATION RECORDS.  IN ADDITION, THE RECORD
 ESTABLISHED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN, WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE
 STATUTE, WAS PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THIS
 CHANGE BY JOHN LUCAS AND CHARLES CRONIN.
 
    SUBSEQUENTLY, ON MAY 22, 1979, THE CHANGES INFORMALLY EFFECTUATED ON
 OR ABOUT MARCH 1, 1979, WERE FORMALIZED BY PUBLIC WORKS INSTRUCTION
 11200.3B, DATED MAY 22, 1979.  THIS INSTRUCTION SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED
 MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS TO LUBRICATE MOBILE CRANES "IN ACCORDANCE WITH
 THE OPERATOR'S MANUAL AND/OR OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS."
 
    AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE MAY 22, 1979 INSTRUCTION, THE PARTIES DID, ON
 JUNE 27, 1979, ENGAGE IN SOME DISCUSSION OF THE NEW JOB REQUIREMENTS
 ASSIGNED TO MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS;  HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENT'S
 REPRESENTATIVES ADVISED THE COUNCIL, PRIOR TO THE MEETING THAT THE
 MATTER WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE.  RESPONDENT'S SPOKESMAN ATTENDED THE MEETING
 WITH NO INTENTION TO ENGAGE IN BARGAINING, AND LASTLY THE SPOKESMAN
 ACKNOWLEDGED THAT BARGAINING DID NOT IN FACT OCCUR.  THEREFORE, THE
 RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE MAY 22, 1979
 INSTRUCTION, BARGAINING WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE DID NOT OCCUR.
  /16/
 
    BASED UPON THE FOREGOING IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENT ON OR
 ABOUT MARCH 1, 1979, AND MAY 22, 1979, CHANGED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
 OF EMPLOYMENT RELATING TO BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS BY UNILATERALLY
 REQUIRING MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS TO LUBRICATE MOBILE CRANES AND MAINTAIN
 LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS IN MOBILE CRANES, WITHOUT FIRST PROVIDING THE
 COUNCIL WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH
 RESPONDENT WOULD OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE AND CONCERNING
 APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR VIOLATIVE OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF
 THE STATUTE.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA
 VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE, I RECOMMEND THAT
 THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118(A)(7)(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7)(A), AND SECTION
 2423.29(B)(1) OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. 2423.29(B)(1), THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, PORTSMOUTH,
 VIRGINIA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REQUIRING MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS TO PERFORM JOB DUTIES RELATING
 TO THE LUBRICATION OF
 
    MOBILE CRANES, AND MAINTENANCE OF LUBRICATION LOG RECORDS PERTAINING
 TO MOBILE CRANES, WITHOUT
 
    FIRST NOTIFYING THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING
 IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO
 
    MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS ON
 THE PROCEDURES WHICH
 
    MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN REQUIRING MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS TO
 PERFORM SUCH DUTIES, AND
 
    CONCERNING THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGES WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) 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) UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH THE TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES METAL
 
    TRADES COUNCIL, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 CONCERNING PROCEDURES TO BE
 
    USED IN REQUIRING MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS TO PERFORM JOB DUTIES
 RELATING TO THE LUBRICATION OF
 
    MOBILE CRANES, AND MAINTENANCE OF LUBRICATION LOG RECORDS PERTAINING
 TO MOBILE CRANES;  AND
 
    CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF SUCH CHANGES ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES
 IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.
 
    (B) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AT THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, PORTSMOUTH,
 VIRGINIA, COPIES OF
 
    THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 
    AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE
 COMMANDER, NORFOLK NAVAL
 
    SHIPYARD, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
 THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS
 
    PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES
 ARE CUSTOMARILY
 
    POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN TO INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES
 ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED,
 
    OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE 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.
 
                               LOUIS SCALZO
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  OCTOBER 15, 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 REQUIRE MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS TO PERFORM JOB DUTIES
 RELATING TO THE LUBRICATION OF MOBILE CRANES AND MAINTENANCE OF
 LUBRICATION LOG RECORDS PERTAINING TO MOBILE CRANES, WITHOUT FIRST
 NOTIFYING THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATIONS ON THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN REQUIRING
 MOBILE CRANE OPERATORS TO PERFORM SUCH DUTIES, AND CONCERNING THE IMPACT
 SUCH CHANGE WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    WE WILL NOT, IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH THE TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW
 AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING PROCEDURES TO BE USED IN REQUIRING MOBILE
 CRANE OPERATORS TO PERFORM JOB DUTIES RELATING TO THE LUBRICATION OF
 MOBILE CRANES, AND MAINTENANCE OF LUBRICATION LOG RECORDS PERTAINING TO
 MOBILE CRANES;  AND CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF SUCH CHANGES ON ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.
 
                           (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 III,
 WHOSE ADDRESSES IS:  1133 15TH STREET, NW., SUITE 300, WASHINGTON, D.C.
 20005, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (202) 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ SEC. 7116.  UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
 
    (A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER, IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE FOR AN AGENCY--
 
    (1) TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE
 EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF
 
    ANY RIGHT UNDER THIS CHAPTER;
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (5) TO REFUSE TO CONSULT OR NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION AS REQUIRED
 
    BY THIS CHAPTER (.)
 
    /2/ SEC. 7116.  UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
 
    (A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER, IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE FOR AN AGENCY--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (8) TO OTHERWISE FAIL OR REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS
 CHAPTER.
 
    /3/ SECTION 7114(A) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, INTER ALIA, AS FOLLOWS:
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF AN APPROPRIATE UNIT IN AN AGENCY
 SHALL BE GIVEN THE
 
    OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT--
 
    (A) ANY FORMAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN ONE OR MORE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
 AGENCY AND ONE OR MORE
 
    EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING ANY
 GRIEVANCE OR ANY PERSONNEL
 
    POLICY OR PRACTICES OR OTHER GENERAL CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT(.)
 
    /4/ SECTION 7106(B)(2) AND (3) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES:
 
    (B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR
 ORGANIZATION FROM
 
    NEGOTIATING--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE
 IN EXERCISING ANY
 
    AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION;  OR
 
    (3) APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE
 EXERCISE OF ANY
 
    AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION BY SUCH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS.
 
    /5/ ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT REFERS TO "CRANES" GENERALLY, COUNSEL FOR
 THE GENERAL COUNSEL CONTENDED THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDING THAT THE
 ALLEGED
 CHANGE AFFECTED "MOBILE CRANES" ONLY (TR. 82-84).  PROOF INTRODUCED BY
 COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL REFERRED SOLELY TO MOBILE CRANES, AND
 THIS LIMITATION WAS RECOGNIZED BY COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENT
 (TR. 158).  BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES THE MOBILE CRANE CATEGORY WAS
 FURTHER LIMITED SO AS TO EXCLUDE MOBILE CRANES DESIGNATED AS "SPECIAL
 PURPOSE CRANES" (TR. 286-287).
 
    /6/ HEREINAFTER REFERENCES TO THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE DESIGNATED "TR.
 . . . ," AND REFERENCES TO EXHIBITS WILL BE DESIGNATED "G.C. EXH. . . .
 ," "R. EXH., . . . ," OR "JT. EXH. . . . . "
 
    /7/ TWO WAGE GRADE 11 JOB DESCRIPTIONS WERE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE
 RECORD.  THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FOR PURPOSES INVOLVED IN THIS
 CASE (TR. 193, 204-205).  INTERESTINGLY, THE WAGE GRADE 12 CRANE
 OPERATOR JOB DESCRIPTION DOES CARRY A REQUIREMENT IMPOSING SOME
 LUBRICATION DUTIES (R. EXH. 5, TR. 217).
 
    /8/ UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT GOVERNING
 THE LABOR RELATIONS OF THE PARTIES CHIEF STEWARDS HAD AUTHORITY TO MEET
 AND CONFER WITH SHOP HEADS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESOLVING PROBLEMS
 INVOLVING PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES, AND APPROPRIATE MATTERS
 CONCERNING EMPLOYEE WORKING CONDITIONS (JT. EX. 1 AT 86-87).
 
    /9/ CHARLES CRONIN TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT RECALL SUCH A MEETING,
 BUT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE MEETING COULD HAVE OCCURRED (TR. 288-289).
 
    /10/ THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE COUNCIL
 WOULD ASSIGN STEWARDS TO PERFORM APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATIONAL
 ACTIVITIES, THAT STEWARDS WOULD ACT ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL IN THEIR
 RESPECTIVE AREAS OR SHOPS, AND THAT STEWARDS WOULD WORK WITH MANAGEMENT
 OFFICIALS AT THE FOREMAN OR GENERAL FOREMAN LEVELS TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS
 (ARTICLES 7 AND 32, JT. EXH. 1).
 
    /11/ CRONIN ACKNOWLEDGED THAT LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS WERE NOT USED ON
 MOBILE CRANES PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1979 (TR. 291).  CRONIN INITIALLY
 TESTIFIED THAT ON INSTRUCTIONS FROM HIGHER AUTHORITY HE HAD LUBRICATION
 LOG CHARTS AND LUBRICATION LOG BOOKS PLACED ON MOBILE CRANES IN OR
 AROUND APRIL, MAY AND JUNE OF 1979 (TR. 289-291).
 
    /12/ THE TWO INSTRUCTIONS DID IMPOSE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS WITH
 REGARD TO THE MAINTENANCE OF "CRANE LOG" BOOKS AND ODCL'S (TR. 114).
 
    /13/ A SUBSEQUENT SEPTEMBER 25, 1979 MEETING ATTENDED BY THE PARTIES
 PROVED TO BE A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE CONVENED AFTER THE FILING OF THE
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE HEREIN.  EVIDENCE RELATING TO THIS MEETING
 HAS BEEN GIVEN NO CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER, AND IS NOT OTHERWISE
 CONSIDERED PROBATIVE EVIDENCE ON ANY ISSUE.
 
    /14/ REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE TESTIMONY OF LEWIS RARY, WILLIAM POTTS,
 CHARLES CRONIN AND JOHN LUCAS.
 
    /15/ WILLIAM POTTS' TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED THAT LUBRICATION WAS THE
 MAJOR FUNCTION PERFORMED BY THESE EMPLOYEES (TR. 194-195), THAT THEY
 WERE DOING MOST OF THE LUBRICATION OF MOBILE CRANES PRIOR TO MARCH 1,
 1979 (TR. 228), AND THAT IT WAS, AT THAT TIME, PART OF THEIR JOB
 DESCRIPTION (TR. 233).
 
    /16/ SECTION 7103(A)(12) OF THE STATUTE DEFINES "COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING" AS "THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF AN AGENCY AND THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 EMPLOYEES IN AN APPROPRIATE UNIT IN THE AGENCY TO MEET AT REASONABLE
 TIMES AND TO CONSULT AND BARGAIN IN A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO REACH
 AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AFFECTING SUCH
 EMPLOYEES AND TO EXECUTE, IF REQUESTED BY EITHER PARTY, A WRITTEN
 DOCUMENT INCORPORATING ANY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT REACHED, BUT
 THE OBLIGATION REFERRED TO IN THIS PARAGRAPH DOES NOT COMPEL EITHER
 PARTY TO AGREE TO A PROPOSAL OR MAKE A CONCESSION."
 
    EVEN ASSUMING THAT BARGAINI