United States Department of Labor (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 12, AFL-CIO (Charging Party) 



[ v07 p688 ]
07:0688(107)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 7 FLRA No. 107
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 3-CA-506
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED RECOMMENDED DECISION
 AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING, FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT
 HAD ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UNDER SECTIONS 7115(A) AND
 7116(A)(1), (5) AND (8) OF THE STATUTE AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE
 AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS.  EXCEPTIONS
 TO THE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER WERE FILED BY RESPONDENT,
 WITH AN OPPOSITION TO THOSE EXCEPTIONS BEING FILED BY THE CHARGING
 PARTY.
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 (5 CFR 2423.29) AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL 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.
 
                                   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 U.S.  DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON,
 D.C., SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) UNILATERALLY CHANGING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT CONCERNING
 
    DUES CHECK-OFF WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 12,
 
    AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) EFFECTUATING DUES REVOCATION REQUESTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES WITHOUT
 COMPLYING WITH SECTION
 
    7115(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
 
    THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHT UNDER THE STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) REIMBURSE THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 12, AFL-CIO FOR ALL
 
    DUES REVOCATIONS EFFECTUATED IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH SECTION
 7115(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    (B) POST AT ALL WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 WHERE AMERICAN
 
    FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO, IS THE
 EXCLUSIVE CERTIFIED
 
    REPRESENTATIVE, 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 DIRECTOR OF THE
 
    OFFICE OF LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND
 SHALL BE POSTED AND
 
    MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS
 PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 
    BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE
 
    DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE
 NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR
 
    COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE
 
    REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION III, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY IN
 WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS
 
    FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO
 COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 15, 1982
 
                       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 BY 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 UNILATERALLY CHANGE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT CONCERNING DUES CHECK-OFF WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT OF
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO, THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES.
 
    WE WILL NOT EFFECTUATE DUES REVOCATION REQUESTS FOR OUR EMPLOYEES
 WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH SECTION 7115(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHT UNDER THE STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL REIMBURSE THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO FOR ALL DUES REVOCATIONS EFFECTUATED IN A MANNER
 INCONSISTENT WITH SECTION 7115(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                           (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 ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION III, WHOSE ADDRESS
 IS:  1133 15TH STREET, N.W., SUITE 300, WASHINGTON, D.C.  20005, AND
 WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (202) 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    ARLEAN LELAND, ESQUIRE
    FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    EILEEN H. HAMAMURA, ESQUIRE
    FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    BETTEJANE LUMPKIN, PRES., LOCAL 12
    FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
 
    BEFORE:  BURTON S. STERNBURG
    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., AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER,
 FED. REG., VOL. 45, NO. 12, JANUARY 17, 1980, 5 C.F.R.  CHAPTER XIV,
 PART 2411, ET SEQ.
 
    PURSUANT TO AN AMENDED CHARGE FIRST FILED ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1979, BY
 THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO,
 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE UNION OR AFGE), A COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF
 HEARING WAS ISSUED ON MAY 16, 1980, BY THE ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR
 REGION III, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.  THE
 COMPLAINT ALLEGES, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE RESPONDENT OR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR), VIOLATED
 SECTIONS 7116(A)(1), (5) AND (8) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE STATUTE), BY VIRTUE OF ITS
 ACTION IN UNILATERALLY CHANGING THE TERMS OF AN EXISTING COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND IMPLEMENTING DUES REVOCATIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES
 IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY'S
 PRONOUNCED INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 7115(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN THE CAPTIONED MATTER ON NOVEMBER 12, 1980, IN
 WASHINGTON, D.C.  ALL PARTIES WERE AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
 BEARING ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED HEREIN.  THE PARTIES SUBMITTED POST
 HEARING BRIEFS ON DECEMBER 12, 1980, WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
 /1/
 
    UPON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESS AND HIS DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, /2/
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    THE UNION, WHICH IS THE EXCLUSIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE OF A UNIT OF ALL EMPLOYEES IN RESPONDENT'S NATIONAL
 OFFICE, AND THE RESPONDENT WERE PARTIES TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT WHICH REMAINED IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL JULY 7, 1980,
 WHEN A NEW CONTRACT WAS SIGNED.  THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
 PROVIDED IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:
 
    ARTICLE II - DURATION OF AGREEMENT
 
    B.  IF DURING THE LIFE OF THIS AGREEMENT, A LAW, EXECUTIVE ORDER,
 RULE OR REGULATION ISSUED
 
    FROM HIGHER AUTHORITY INVALIDATES, OR REQUIRES AN AMENDMENT TO, ANY
 PART OF THIS AGREEMENT OR
 
    ANY SUPPLEMENT HERETO, THE PARTIES AGREE TO MEET WITHIN A REASONABLE
 TIME TO NEGOTIATE THE
 
    MANDATED CHANGES.
 
    C.  AT ANY TIME IN THE LIFE OF THIS AGREEMENT, EITHER PARTY MAY GIVE
 THE OTHER PARTY
 
    WRITTEN NOTICE OF ITS DESIRE TO DISCUSS OTHER CHANGES AND REVISIONS
 HEREIN THROUGH JOINT
 
    CONFERENCE.  HOWEVER, NO CHANGE IN THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE PUT INTO
 EFFECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
 
    CONCURRENCE OF BOTH PARTIES.
 
    THE UNION AND THE RESPONDENT WERE ALSO PARTIES TO DUES CHECK-OFF
 AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDED IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:
 
    2.  REVOCATION AND TERMINATION OF DUES WITHHOLDING;
 
    A.  MEMBERS MAY REVOKE THEIR AUTHORIZATIONS AT ANY TIME BY SENDING
 NOTICE IN DUPLICATE ON
 
    SF-1188 OR BY A MEMORANDUM TO THEIR BUREAU PERSONNEL OFFICE.
 HOWEVER, THE REVOCATION WILL NOT
 
    BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST PAY PERIOD WHICH
 STARTS AFTER MARCH 1 OR
 
    SEPTEMBER 1, WHICHEVER DATE FIRST OCCURS, PROVIDED THE REVOCATION IS
 RECEIVED BY THE
 
    APPROPRIATE PAYROLL OFFICE BY THAT DATE.
 
    BY LETTER DATED JANUARY 2, 1979, MR. ROBERT HASTINGS, RESPONDENT'S
 DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, INFORMED THE UNION
 THAT AS OF JANUARY 11, 1979, IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 7115 OF THE
 STATUTE (WITH RESPECT TO DUES REVOCATION) WAS MANDATORY AND ACCORDINGLY,
 THE 1 - YEAR DUES REVOCATION PERIOD SET FORTH IN SECTION 7115 OF THE
 STATUTE WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE BEGINNING THE FIRST FULL PAY PERIOD WHICH
 BEGAN ON OR AFTER MARCH 1, 1979, AND YEARLY THEREAFTER.  THE LETTER
 FURTHER INFORMED THE UNION THAT IN THE EVENT THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS,
 THE UNION SHOULD CONTACT A DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT
 WITHIN FIVE DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE LETTER.  THEREAFTER, ON JANUARY 15,
 1979, RESPONDENT, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE OR CONTACT WITH THE
 UNION, ISSUED A MEMORANDUM TO ITS EMPLOYEES WHEREIN THE REVOCATION
 PERIOD FOR DUES WITHHOLDING WAS CHANGED FORM A SIX MONTH TO A ONE YEAR
 INTERVAL.  THE MEMORANDUM, A COPY OF WHICH HAD BEEN ATTACHED TO THE
 JANUARY 2, 1979 LETTER TO THE UNION, READS IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:
 
    . . . ONE-YEAR REVOCATION PERIOD WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE FROM THE
 BEGINNING OF THE FIRST FULL
 
    PAY PERIOD WHICH STARTS ON OR AFTER MARCH 1, 1979, AND YEARLY
 THEREAFTER ON THE FIRST FULL PAY
 
    PERIOD WHICH STARTS ON OR AFTER MARCH 1 OF EACH SUCCEEDING CALENDAR
 YEAR . . .
 
    ON FEBRUARY 5, 1979, THE AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 WROTE A LETTER TO THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WHEREIN IT
 REQUESTED THAT THE AUTHORITY PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF POLICY AND GUIDANCE
 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 7115(A) OF THE
 STATUTE.  ATTACHED TO THE AFOREMENTIONED LETTER WAS A COPY OF
 RESPONDENT'S JANUARY 15TH MEMORANDUM TO THE UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    SEVERAL WEEKS LATER ON FEBRUARY 23, 1979, THE AUTHORITY ISSUED A
 NOTICE AND DIRECTION "TO THE HEADS OF AGENCIES AND PRESIDENTS OF LABOR
 ORGANIZATIONS" WHEREIN THE AUTHORITY DIRECTED THAT:
 
    2.  PENDING DISPOSITION OF THE INSTANT MATTER BY THE AUTHORITY . . .
 AGENCIES SHALL NOT
 
    EFFECTUATE EMPLOYEE REVOCATIONS OF DUES ASSIGNMENTS RECEIVED BY SUCH
 AGENCIES ON OR AFTER
 
    JANUARY 11, 1979.  INSTEAD, WHERE EMPLOYEES SEEK OR HAVE SOUGHT TO
 TERMINATE SUCH DUES
 
    ASSIGNMENTS THROUGH REVOCATIONS RECEIVED BY AGENCIES ON OR AFTER
 JANUARY 11, 1979, AGENCIES
 
    SHALL HOLD SUCH REVOCATIONS IN ABEYANCE AND CONTINUE TO WITHHOLD DUES
 AS PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED,
 
    MAINTAINING THESE FUNDS IN APPROPRIATE SUSPENSE OR ESCROW ACCOUNTS
 UNTIL OTHERWISE ADVISED BY
 
    THE AUTHORITY.  WHERE AGENCIES HAVE RECEIVED EMPLOYEE REVOCATIONS OF
 DUES WITHHOLDING
 
    ASSIGNMENTS ON OR AFTER JANUARY 11, 1979, AND HAVE ALREADY
 EFFECTUATED SUCH REVOCATIONS, THE
 
    REVOCATIONS SHALL BE HELD IN ABEYANCE.  DUES WITHHELD PURSUANT TO
 SUCH REINSTATED ASSIGNMENTS
 
    SHALL ALSO BE MAINTAINED IN APPROPRIATE SUSPENSE OR ESCROW ACCOUNTS
 UNTIL OTHERWISE ADVISED BY
 
    THE AUTHORITY.
 
    ON MARCH 19, 1979, MR. HASTINGS SENT A MEMORANDUM TO MR. WILLIAM
 REESE, RESPONDENT'S COMPTROLLER, WHEREIN HE ADVISED MR. REESE TO
 "PROCEED TO IMPLEMENT THOSE REVOCATIONS OF DUES AUTHORIZATIONS WHICH
 HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE (LABOR) DEPARTMENT ON OR AFTER JANUARY 11,
 1979, AND NO LATER THAN COB MARCH 1, 1979".  MR. HASTINGS ACKNOWLEDGED
 IN HIS MEMORANDUM THAT HIS INSTRUCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REVOCATIONS
 WERE CONTRARY TO THE NOTICE AND DIRECTION OF THE AUTHORITY.  IN THIS
 LATTER REGARD, MR. HASTINGS POINTED OUT THAT OPM DID NOT BELIEVE THAT
 THE "FLRA HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT AGENCIES, IN THIS MANNER" AND THAT
 HE AGREED WITH OPM'S POSITION.  AS FURTHER JUSTIFICATION FOR
 IMPLEMENTING THE DUES REVOCATIONS, MR. HASTINGS INFORMED MR. REESE THAT
 THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED "HAVE WAIVED SPECIFICALLY AND
 UNEQUIVOCALLY THEIR RIGHTS TO BARGAIN" ON THE MATTER. /3/
 
    IN ACCORDANCE WITH MR. HASTINGS MEMORANDUM OF MARCH 9, 1979,
 RESPONDENT COLLECTED ALL DUES REVOCATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN JANUARY 11
 AND MARCH 1, 1979, AND MADE THEM EFFECTIVE FOR THE PAYROLL PERIODS
 ENDING ON MARCH 24, 1979, THROUGH JUNE 16, 1979.  /4/
 
    ON APRIL 19, 1979, THE AUTHORITY ISSUED ITS INTERPRETATION AND
 GUIDANCE, FLRA NO. O-PS-1, WHEREIN IT CONCLUDED IN PERTINENT PART AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    1) THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 7115(A), NAMELY THAT "ANY SUCH (DUES)
 ASSIGNMENT MAY NOT BE
 
    REVOKED FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEAR," DOES NOT APPLY IN THOSE SITUATIONS
 WHERE THE PARTIES TO AN
 
    EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT HAVE MUTUALLY AGREED IN
 SUBSTANCE TO RENEW OR
 
    CONTINUE THE SIX-MONTH INTERVALS FOR REVOCATION OF DUES ASSIGNMENTS.
 
    2) THE 1-YEAR PERIOD PROVIDED IN SECTION 7115(A) FOR DUES REVOCATIONS
 APPLIES WHERE A LABOR
 
    ORGANIZATION OR AN AGENCY OBJECTS TO SUCH A RENEWAL OR CONTINUATION;
 AND SUCH 1-YEAR PERIOD
 
    BEGINS TO RUN FROM EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING DATES, WHICHEVER IS LATER:
 
    (A) THE ENDING DATE OF THE PRECEDING SIX-MONTH INTERVAL DURING WHICH
 THE EMPLOYEE COULD
 
    HAVE REVOKED HIS DUES AUTHORIZATION;  OR
 
    (B) THE DATE ON WHICH THE EMPLOYEE AUTHORIZED DUES WITHHOLDING.
 
    THIS INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE CONSTITUTES ADVICE TO AGENCIES FOR
 PURPOSES OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S NOTICE AND DIRECTION OF
 FEBRUARY 23, 1979, RELATING TO THE MAINTENANCE OF DUES ASSIGNMENTS IN
 SUSPENSE OR ESCROW ACCOUNTS.
 
    ON JUNE 4, 1979, MR. RUSSELL BINION, THEN PRESIDENT OF THE UNION,
 WROTE A LETTER TO THE RESPONDENT WHEREIN HE COMPLAINED THAT THE
 RESPONDENT WAS VIOLATING THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
 THE DUES REVOCATIONS AND REQUESTED THAT IT RECTIFY THE SITUATION.  MR.
 BINION CITED THE AUTHORITY'S NOTICE AND DIRECTION OF FEBRUARY 23, 1979,
 AND INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE OF APRIL 19, 1979, IN SUPPORT OF HIS
 POSITION.
 
    ON JUNE 15, 1979, MR. HASTINGS RESPONDED TO MR. BINION'S LETTER.  MR.
 HASTINGS TOOK THE POSITION THAT RESPONDENT HAD PROPERLY TERMINATED THE
 DUES ALLOTMENTS, CITING AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT HAD
 GIVEN TIMELY NOTICE VIA ITS JANUARY 2, 1979, LETTER OF ITS INTENT TO
 IMPLEMENT CHANGES IN DUES REVOCATIONS AND THE UNION'S FAILURE TO RESPOND
 THERETO.  ACCORDING TO MR. HASTINGS, THE UNION'S FAILURE TO RESPOND
 CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF ITS RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE THE MATTER OF DUES
 REVOCATIONS IN A MANNER DIFFERENT THAN THAT SET FORTH IN THE EXISTING
 DUES CHECK-OFF AGREEMENT.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, MR. HASTINGS NOTED
 THAT THE AUTHORITY'S INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE WAS NOT APPLICABLE
 SINCE THE AUTHORITY'S RULING WAS "LIMITED ONLY TO SITUATIONS WHERE THERE
 IS EXPRESS AND TIMELY DISAGREEMENT ON CONTINUING ANTECEDENT CONTRACTUAL
 DUES DEDUCTIONS PROVISIONS BEYOND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE,
 JANUARY 11, 1979."
 
    MR. HASTINGS, WHO WAS THE ONLY WITNESS CALLED BY EITHER PARTY AT THE
 HEARING, TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS RESPONDENT'S PRACTICE SINCE 1977 TO GIVE
 THE UNION NOTICE OF ALL PROPOSED CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.
 THEREAFTER, FAILING TO RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE FROM THE UNION WITHIN A
 REASONABLE TIME, IT WAS RESPONDENT'S PRACTICE TO IMPLEMENT THE
 RESPECTIVE PROPOSALS.  IN SUPPORT OF MR. HASTINGS TESTIMONY IN THE ABOVE
 RESPECT, RESPONDENT PRESENTED TEN EXHIBITS DEALING WITH CHANGES IN
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WHICH HAD BEEN IMPLEMENTED BY RESPONDENT AFTER
 ALLOWING THE UNION A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PRIOR
 NOTICE OF SUCH INTENDED ACTION.  ALTHOUGH NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR FORM THE
 RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT IN EACH CASE THE UNION HAD FAILED TO RESPOND TO
 THE NOTICE.  NONE OF THE TEN CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT,
 HOWEVER, WERE SHOWN TO HAVE CONSTITUTED A CHANGE OR ALTERATION IN THE
 PROVISIONS OF EITHER THE EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT OR THE
 SUPPLEMENT THERETO COVERING DUES CHECK-OFF.
 
                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    IT IS CLEAR THAT RESOLUTION OF THE INSTANT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 COMPLAINT TURNS ON WHETHER OR NOT THE PARTIES "HAVE MUTUALLY AGREED IN
 SUBSTANCE TO RENEW OR CONTINUE THE SIX-MONTH INTERVALS FOR THE
 REVOCATION OF DUES ASSIGNMENTS".  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH MUTUAL
 AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THE EXISTING SIX-MONTH INTERVALS, RESPONDENT'S
 ACTION IN EFFECTUATING THE DUES REVOCATIONS DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 24,
 1979 - JUNE 16, 1979, WAS VIOLATIVE OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1), (5) AND (8)
 OF THE STATUTE SINCE IT AMOUNTED TO A UNILATERAL CHANGE IN THE TERMS OF
 THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND WAS ALSO CONTRARY TO THE
 AUTHORITY'S INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 7115(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    RESPONDENT TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION
 THAT THE PARTIES DID MUTUALLY AGREE TO THE EXTENSION OF THE SIX MONTH
 INTERVALS CONTAINED IN THE EXISTING DUES CHECK OFF AGREEMENT.  IN
 SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION IT POINTS TO PAST PRACTICE WITH RESPECT TO
 CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  ACCORDING, TO THE RESPONDENT, IN
 THE PAST, ABSENCE OF A RESPONSE FROM THE UNION CONCERNING A NOTICE OF A
 PROPOSED CHANGE BY THE RESPONDENT CONSTITUTED IMPLICIT AGREEMENT WITH
 THE PROPOSAL.  APPLYING THE PAST PRACTICE TO THE INSTANT SITUATION,
 RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE UNION'S ACTION IN FAILING TO RESPOND TO ITS
 JANUARY 2, 1979, LETTER CONCERNING THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE CHECK-OFF
 AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO DUES REVOCATION, CONSTITUTED AGREEMENT WITH
 THE PROPOSAL, AND HENCE ITS ACTIONS IN IMPLEMENTING THE REVOCATIONS IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROPOSAL WAS NOT VIOLATIVE OF EITHER THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT OR SECTION 7115(A) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    HAD THE PAST CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT CONCERNED CHANGES IN
 THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT OR SUPPLEMENT THERETO, THERE WOULD
 BE MERIT IN RESPONDENT'S POSITION.  HOWEVER, SUCH IS NOT THE CASE.  THE
 CHANGES SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION INVOLVED
 WORKING CONDITIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT OR SUPPLEMENT THERETO.
 
    AS A GENERAL RULE, AN AGENCY OR ACTIVITY IS FREE TO MAKE CHANGES IN
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY A COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT AFTER TIMELY NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO A
 UNION AND ABSENT A TIMELY REQUEST TO BARGAIN THEREON BY THE UNION.  /5/
 THE SAME RULE, IS NOT APPLICABLE, HOWEVER, TO THOSE CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT WHICH HAVE BEEN EMBODIED IN A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD DESTROY NOT ONLY THE INTEGRITY OF
 THE AGREEMENT BUT DISRUPT THE LABOR HARMONY THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS
 DESIGNED TO FOSTER.
 
    THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS ASIDE, A LITERAL READING OF THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PARTICULARLY ARTICLE II, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT
 CHANGES IN THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT MAY ONLY
 OCCUR AFTER NEGOTIATIONS AND THE WRITTEN CONCURRENCE OF BOTH PARTIES.
 HERE, THERE WAS DEFINITELY NO WRITTEN CONCURRENCE OF THE UNION TO THE
 PROPOSED CHANGES.  IN THE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN CONCURRENCE FROM THE UNION,
 THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT FREE TO CHANGE THE TERMS OF THE CHECK-OFF
 PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT.  HAVING UNILATERALLY
 ALTERED THE AGREEMENT, RESPONDENT COMMITTED A VIOLATION OF SECTIONS
 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.  /6/
 
    INASMUCH AS THERE WAS NO MUTUAL AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THE SIX MONTH
 CHECK-OFF PROVISIONS, THE RESPONDENT'S ACTION WAS CLEARLY CONTRARY TO
 THE AUTHORITY'S NOTICE AND DIRECTION OF FEBRUARY 23, 1979, AND
 INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE, FLRA NO. O-PS-1 OF APRIL 19, 1979 WITH
 RESPECT TO SECTION 7115(A) OF THE STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, I FIND THAT THE
 RESPONDENT'S ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE DUES CHECK-OFF REVOCATIONS WAS
 ALSO VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 7116(A)(8) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1), (5) AND
 (8) OF THE STATUTE BY VIRTUE OF ITS ACTIONS IN UNILATERALLY CHANGING THE
 TERMS OF THE PARTIES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND EFFECTUATING
 DUES REVOCATIONS IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTERPRETATION AND
 GUIDANCE OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, I RECOMMEND THAT THE
 AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING ORDER DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES
 OF THE STATUTE.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118(A)(7)(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, 5 U.S.C.SECTION 7118(A)(7)(A), AND
 SECTION 2423.29(B)(1) OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R.SECTION
 2423.29(B)(1), THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
 LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C., SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) UNILATERALLY CHANGING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT CONCERNING
 
    DUES CHECK-OFF WITHOUT FIRST RECEIVING THE WRITTEN CONCURRENCE OF,
 THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 OF ITS EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) EFFECTUATING DUES REVOCATION REQUESTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES WITHOUT
 COMPLYING WITH THE
 
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY'S PUBLISHED INTERPRETATION OF
 SECTION 7115(A) OF THE
 
    STATUTE.
 
    (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) REIMBURSE THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 12, AFL-CIO, FOR ALL
 
    DUES REVOCATIONS EFFECTUATED IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE
 INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE OF
 
    THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY DATED APRIL 19, 1979.
 
    (B) POST AT ALL WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 WHERE AMERICAN
 
    FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO, IS THE
 EXCLUSIVE CERTIFIED
 
    REPRESENTATIVE, 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
 
    DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, U.S.
 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND SHALL BE
 
    POSTED AND MAINTAINED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN
 CONSPICUOUS 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.
 
                         BURTON S. STERNBURG
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  MARCH 4, 1981
    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 RECOGNIZE THAT THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 12, AFL-CIO IS THE EXCLUSIVE COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
 OF A UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONSISTING O