Social Security Administration (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923, AFL-CIO (Charging Party)



[ v08 p517 ]
08:0517(102)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 8 FLRA No. 102
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 3-CA-128
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED DECISION AND ORDER
 IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED
 IN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND RECOMMENDING
 THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS.
 NO TIMELY EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND ORDER.  /1/
 PURSUANT TO PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE AUTHORITY, THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
 MANAGEMENT FILED AN AMICUS CURIAE 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 DECISION AND ORDER, AND THE ENTIRE RECORD, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY
 ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS
 MODIFIED BELOW.
 
    THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND
 (5) OF THE STATUTE BY INCREASING A PRODUCTION STANDARD FOR FOR CERTAIN
 UNIT EMPLOYEES WITHOUT FIRST GIVING THE CHARGING PARTY AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 NEGOTIATE THE PROCEDURES USED IN DEVELOPING SUCH STANDARD AND BY
 REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DECISION TO INCREASE THE
 BASIC PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE EMPLOYEES.  THE JUDGE FURTHER
 FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) BY
 REFUSING TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
 CHANGES IN THE BASIC PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS.  TO REMEDY THE UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICES FOUND, THE JUDGE RECOMMENDED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE
 RESPONDENT CEASE AND DESIST FROM CHANGING THE BASIC PERFORMANCE
 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN UNIT EMPLOYEES WITHOUT BARGAINING ON THE
 DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH A CHANGE, RESCIND THE UNILATERALLY
 IMPLEMENTED CHANGE IN THE BASIC PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, AND BARGAIN ON
 REQUEST WITH RESPECT TO ANY INTENDED CHANGES.
 
    FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND ORDER, THE
 AUTHORITY HELD THAT PROPOSALS TO ESTABLISH PARTICULAR CRITICAL ELEMENTS
 AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS DIRECTLY INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF
 MANAGEMENT'S RIGHTS TO DIRECT EMPLOYEES AND ASSIGN WORK UNDER SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(A) AND (B) OF THE STATUTE, AND THEREFORE ARE NOT WITHIN THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN.  SEE, E.G., NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT, 3 FLRA 768(1980),
 APPEAL DOCKETED, NO. 80-1895(D.C. CIR. AUG. 4, 1980).  AS THE
 ESTABLISHMENT OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS HAS BEEN HELD TO BE OUTSIDE THE
 DUTY TO BARGAIN, THE AUTHORITY CANNOT SUSTAIN THE JUDGE'S FINDING HEREIN
 THAT THE RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE WITH RESPECT TO ITS DECISION
 TO CHANGE THE PRODUCTION STANDARD FOR CERTAIN OF ITS EMPLOYEES
 CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO STATED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
 7106(B)(2) AND (3) OF THE STATUTE, THAT THERE IS A DUTY TO BARGAIN
 CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING
 ITS RESERVED RIGHTS AND CONCERNING APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR
 EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY MANAGEMENT'S EXERCISE THEREOF.
 DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT,
 3 FLRA 130(1980).  THEREFORE, NOTING PARTICULARLY THE ABSENCE OF TIMELY
 EXCEPTIONS, THE AUTHORITY ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT
 VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE BY REFUSING TO
 BARGAIN REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF THE CHANGES IN BASIC
 PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN UNIT EMPLOYES.
 
    CONSISTENT WITH THE FOREGOING FINDINGS, THE AUTHORITY SHALL MODIFY
 THE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ORDER SO AS TO REQUIRE THE RESPONDENT
 TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM CHANGING BASIC PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT
 AFFORDING THE CHARGING PARTY AN OPPORTUNITY TO EFFECTUATE SUCH A CHANGE.
  MOREOVER, NOTING PARTICULARLY THE UNCONTROVERTED RECORD EVIDENCE THAT
 THE RESPONDENT ELIMINATED THE CHANGED PRODUCTION STANDARD SHORTLY AFTER
 IT WAS UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTED, THE AUTHORITY FINDS IT UNNECESSARY TO
 PASS UPON WHETHER A STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDY WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN
 APPROPRIATE (AS URGED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL) TO REMEDY THE UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE COMMITTED HEREIN.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUE, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) CHANGING THE BASIC PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS IN JOB CODE 1310-3
 (RV) WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO, AND AFFORDING IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 NEGOTIATE ABOUT THE PROCEDURES THAT MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN
 IMPLEMENTING SUCH A CHANGE AND CONCERNING APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR
 EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH A CHANGE.
 
    (B) 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) NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 1923, AFL-CIO, OF ANY INTENDED CHANGES IN THE BASIC PERFORMANCE
 REQUIREMENTS IN JOB CODE 1310-3 (RV) AND, UPON REQUEST, NEGOTIATE
 CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGES
 AND UPON THE IMPACT OF SUCH CHANGES ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN
 THE BARGAINING UNIT.
 
    (B) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 HEADQUARTERS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, 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 COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED FOR 60
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES CUSTOMARILY
 ARE POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN 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.
 
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) ALLEGATIONS
 OF THE COMPLAINT PREDICATED ON THE RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE
 WITH RESPECT TO ITS DECISION TO CHANGE THE PRODUCTION STANDARD, WHICH
 HAVE BEEN FOUND SUPRA NOT TO BE VIOLATIVE OF THE STATUTE, BE, AND THEY
 HEREBY ARE, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 7, 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 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 THE BASIC PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS IN JOB CODE
 1310-3 (RV) WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO, AND AFFORDING IT AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE ABOUT THE PROCEDURES THAT MANAGEMENT WILL
 OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH A CHANGE AND CONCERNING APPROPRIATE
 ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH A CHANGE.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 1923, AFL-CIO, OF ANY INTENDED CHANGES IN THE BASIC PERFORMANCE
 REQUIREMENTS IN JOB CODE 1310-3 (RV) AND, UPON REQUEST, NEGOTIATE
 CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGES
 AND UPON THE IMPACT OF SUCH CHANGES ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN
 THE BARGAINING UNIT.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:
 
                         BY:  (SIGNATURE) (TITLE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF THIS POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS 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 1111 18TH STREET, NW., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 AND WHOSE TELEPHONE
 NUMBER IS (202) 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 ------------------------ ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS: ---------------
 
    LEE MINGLEDORFF, ESQUIRE
    PETER ROBB, ESQUIRE
                       FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    DANIEL GREEN, ESQUIRE
    JOHN BARRETT, ESQUIRE
                       FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    BEFORE:  ELI NASH, JR.
    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 INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED
 THEREUNDER, FED. REG., VOL. 44, NO. 147, JULY 30, 1979, 5 C.F.R. CHAPTER
 XIV, PART 2411, ET SEQ.
 
    PURSUANT TO A CHARGE FILED ON APRIL 9, 1979, A COMPLAINT AND NOTICE
 OF HEARING WAS ISSUED ON OCTOBER 1, 1979 AND AMENDED ON NOVEMBER 27,
 1979 ALLEGING THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
 OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, HEREIN REFERRED TO AS THE "RESPONDENT"
 UNILATERALLY AND WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE TO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO, HEREIN REFERRED TO AS THE
 "UNION", RAISED CERTAIN BASIC PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS IN VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.  RESPONDENT'S ANSWER DENIED
 THAT IT HAD COMMITTED SUCH VIOLATION.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN THE CAPTIONED MATTER ON DECEMBER 20, 1979, IN
 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.  ALL PARTIES WERE AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
 BEARING ON THE ISSUES HEREIN.  ALL PARTIES SUBMITTED BRIEFS WHICH HAVE
 BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    UPON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
 CONCLUSIONS.
 
                              FINDING OF FACT
 
    1.  RESPONDENT AND THE UNION, WHICH IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED HEREIN, ARE PARTIES TO A
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT COVERING ALL PERIODS MATERIAL HEREIN.
 
    2.  ON OR ABOUT MARCH 5, 1979, RESPONDENT'S CHIEF, RECEIVING AND
 RECONCILIATION BRANCH, ROBERT BOROWY AND SUPERVISORS PATRICIA A. TAYLOR
 AND LADELL GORDON, RECEIVED STATISTICAL ARRAYS OF EMPLOYEE'S PERFORMANCE
 FOR THE PRECEDING MONTHS AND DECIDED TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE
 REQUIREMENT IN ONE OF THE JOB CODES, JOB CODE 1310-3(RV) FROM 20 ITEMS
 PER HOUR TO 30 ITEMS PER HOUR.  MR. BOROWY WHO WAS TO BE OUT OF THE
 OFFICE THE NEXT WEEK, DIRECTED MS. TAYLOR, WHO WOULD BE ACTING SECTION
 CHIEF, TO "CONSULT" WITH THE UNION PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING THE
 AFOREMENTIONED INCREASES.
 
    3.  ON MARCH 12, 1979, MS. TAYLOR, IN HER CAPACITY AS ACTING CHIEF,
 MET WITH JAMES SLEBZAK, SERGEANT-AT-ARMS OF THE UNION AND PRESENTED HIM
 WITH A MEMORANDUM WHICH INFORMED HIM THAT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE
 18, SECTION D /2/ OF THE PARTIES' GENERAL AGREEMENT, THAT TAYLOR WAS
 CONSULTING HIM "CONCERNING THE CHANGES IN NUMERICAL STANDARDS FOR THE
 CONVERSION EXCEPTION LISTING JOB." THE MEMORANDUM FURTHER STATED THAT,
 (U)SING THE GUIDELINES STATED IN CHAPTER V, SSA GUIDE 4, SUPPLEMENT 1,
 NEW MEDIANS WHICH WILL BE USED DURING MARCH, APRIL AND MAY HAVE NOW BEEN
 ESTABLISHED" AND THAT "THE CHANGE IN THE REQUIREMENT ON CODE 1310-3
 (RV)" WOULD BE FROM 20.0 ITEMS PER HOUR TO 30.0 ITEMS PER HOUR.
 
    4.  AFTER READING THE MEMORANDUM SLEBZAK WAS INFORMED BY TAYLOR THAT
 THE CHANGES WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED ON THE FOLLOWING DAY MARCH 13.  SLEBZAK
 STATED THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH ANY CHANGES IN THE MINIMUM PRODUCTION
 REQUIREMENT AND NOTED HIS DISAGREEMENT ON THE MEMORANDUM.  SLEBZAK ALSO
 STATED THAT THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM PRODUCTION REQUIREMENT
 WAS AN ADVERSE ACTION BEING TAKEN AGAINST EMPLOYEES AND THAT UNDER THE
 CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT, THE UNION HAD THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE ANY
 CHANGE IN WORK POLICY, PRACTICE OR PROCEDURES.  AT THIS TIME, SLEBZAK
 REQUESTED BARGAINING ON THE ADVERSE IMPACT OF THE CHANGE ON EMPLOYEES.
 ACCORDING TO SLEBZAK, HE FELT THAT INCREASING THE MINIMUM PRODUCTION
 REQUIREMENT WOULD NOT ONLY AFFECT AN EMPLOYEE WHO MIGHT FALL BELOW THE
 MINIMUM, BUT ALSO WOULD RESULT IN EMPLOYEES GETTING LOWER RATINGS FOR
 THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORK.  IN RESPONSE TO SLEBZAK'S REQUEST FOR
 NEGOTIATIONS, TAYLOR ADVISED SLEBZAK THAT SHE WOULD DELAY ANNOUNCEMENT
 OF THE INCREASE IN THE BASIC MINIMUM PRODUCTION REQUIREMENT SO THAT SHE
 MIGHT CHECK WITH RESPONDENT'S LABOR RELATIONS OFFICE.
 
    5.  ON MARCH 21, TAYLOR AND SLEBZAK MET AGAIN.  AT THAT TIME, SLEBZAK
 WAS INFORMED THAT THE LABOR RELATIONS OFFICE HAD CONFIRMED TAYLOR'S
 POSITION THAT THE CHANGE IN PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS WAS NOT A
 NEGOTIABLE MATTER AND THEREFORE THE INCREASE WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.  /3/
 
    6.  IN RESPONSE TO THE MARCH 21 CONVERSATION, SLEBZAK SENT TAYLOR A
 LETTER ON MARCH 22, SETTING FORTH THE UNION'S POSITION THAT THE PROPOSED
 CHANGES IN NUMERICAL STANDARDS FOR CONVERSION EXCEPTION LISTINGS WAS A
 NEGOTIABLE MATTER.  SLEBZAK ALSO RESTATED HIS EARLIER POSITION THAT THE
 INCREASE HAD AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON EMPLOYEES AND AGAIN REQUESTED THAT
 RESPONDENT INITIATE THE PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR NEGOTIATION UNDER
 ARTICLE 2, SECTION C AND D OF THE PARTIES AGREEMENT, CONCERNING CHANGES
 IN LAW, REGULATIONS AND DECISIONS OF OTHER AUTHORITIES WHICH MIGHT
 NECESSITATE CHANGES IN PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES OR OTHER MATTERS
 AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS AND UNION PARTICIPATION.
 
    7.  ON MARCH 30, TAYLOR CARRIED A MEMORANDUM TO SLEBZAK, IN RESPONSE
 TO THE MARCH 22 MEMORANDUM FROM SLEBZAK, WHICH DENIED THAT THE CHANGES
 IN NUMERICAL STANDARDS FOR CONVERSION EXCEPTION LISTINGS WAS NEGOTIABLE
 AND INFORMED SLEBZK THAT IF, AT A LATER DATE, THE IMPACT OF INSTITUTING
 NEW STANDARDS PROVED UNFAVORABLE FOR THE MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES, SLEBZAK
 MIGHT HAVE REASON FOR FURTHER "CONSULTATION" AT THAT TIME.  THE
 MEMORANDUM FURTHER STATED THAT TAYLOR HAD ISSUED THE NEW PRODUCTION
 REQUIREMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES WORKING EXCEPTION LISTINGS.  TAYLOR DID NOT
 SENT PROPOSALS TO THE UNION PRESIDENT CONCERNING ARTICLE 2, SECTION C OF
 THE PARTIES AGREEMENT AS SLEBZAK HAD EARLIER REQUESTED.  THE STANDARDS
 ANNOUNCED IN THE MARCH 30 LETTER WERE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY BY
 SUPERVISORS IN THEIR APRIL INTERVIEWS WITH SUPERVISORS REGARDING THE
 EMPLOYEES MARCH WORK PRODUCTION.
 
    8.  RESPONDENT AND THE UNION HAD, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, USED
 PROCEDURES WHERE CHANGES IN THE QUANTITATIVE EMPLOYEE'S APPRAISAL WERE
 IMPLEMENTED OR DISCUSSED.  THE PAST PRACTICE HAD BEEN TO DISCUSS THE
 CHANGE WITH THE UNION AND GIVE IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW MANAGEMENT'S
 RAW DATA, CHECK FOR CONFORMITY WITH CHAPTER V, SSA GUIDE 4, AND TO MAKE
 COUNTERPROPOSALS.  THE CHANGES IMPLEMENTED BY TAYLOR WERE THE FIRST
 IMPLEMENTED STANDARDS WHICH HAD NOT BEEN AGREED TO BY THE UNION.
 
                         ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT A PARTICULAR SUBJECT
 MATTER IS NONNEGOTIABLE, AGENCY OR ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT IS REQUIRED TO
 MEET AND CONFER ON PROCEDURES MANAGEMENT INTENDS TO USE IN IMPLEMENTING
 ITS DECISION AND ON THE IMPACT OF SUCH DECISION ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED
 EMPLOYEES.  NEW MEXICO AIR NATIONAL GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY
 AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO, 4 A/SLMR
 175, A/SLMR NO. 438(1974);  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND OFFICE OF
 INVESTIGATIONS, 5 A/SLMR 580, A/SLMR NO. 555(1975).  IN ADDITION, IT WAS
 ALSO CLEAR UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT WHILE MANAGEMENT RETAINED
 RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 12(B), IT HAD AN OBLIGATION TO CONSULT AS TO THE
 IMPACT OF CHANGES MADE IN THE AREA OF MANAGEMENT'S PEROGATIVE AND THAT
 FAILURE TO DO SO ALSO VIOLATED THE ORDER.  SEE DEPARTMENT OF
 AGRICULTURE, SUPRA.
 
    THE GENERAL COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN
 IN THIS MATTER IS NOT LIMITED TO BARGAINING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION AND
 IMPACT OF THE CHANGE BUT, THAT IT WAS OBLIGATED TO NEGOTIATE THE
 SUBSTANCE OF ITS DECISION TO RAISE THE BASIC PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
 FOR CODING CLERKS.  FURTHER, IT IS CONTENDED THAT RESPONDENT FAILED TO
 MEET ITS OBLIGATION UNDER SECTION 7106(B)(2) OF THE STATUTE /4/ TO
 NEGOTIATE ANY CHANGE IN THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED IN DECIDING
 WHETHER OR NOT AND TO WHAT EXTENT BASIC PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS WOULD
 BE RAISED.
 
    STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE PARTICULARLY WHERE THEY SERVE AS AN INDEX
 FOR THE EVALUATION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S PERFORMANCE AND ELIGIBILITY FOR
 ACTIONS REGARDING FROM QUALITY AWARDS FOR HIGH-LEVEL PERFORMANCE TO
 REMOVAL FROM UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE AREAS, ARE NEGOTIABLE.  PATENT
 OFFICE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION AND U.S. PATENT OFFICE, WASHINGTON,
 D.C., 74 FSIP AND 3 FLRA NO. 75A-13(1975).  ALSO, SECTIONS 7102, 7103
 AND 7114 OF THE STATUTE ESTABLISHED THAT AN AGENCY AND THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE ARE REQUIRED TO MEET AT REASONABLE TIMES AND CONFER AND
 BARGAIN IN A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO REACH AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AFFECTING SUCH EMPLOYEES.  ACCORDING TO SECTION
 7103(A)(14) CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT MEANS PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES
 AND MATTERS AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS.  THE CHANGE HEREIN INVOLVED AN
 INCREASE IN A WORK MEASUREMENT CRITERION, A CRITERION DESIGNED TO BE
 USED IN RATING THE JOB PERFORMANCE OF AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.  THE INCREASE
 IN THE PRODUCTION REQUIREMENT INVOLVED A CHANGE IN A CONDITION OF
 EMPLOYMENT ABOUT WHICH RESPONDENT HAD AN OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN.  UNITED
 STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, CLEVELAND,
 OHIO, A/SLMR NO. 972, WORK EVALUATION PROGRAM;  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
 BOARD, 3 A/SLMR 88, A/SLMR NO. 246, CHANGE IN TIMES SCHEDULES.
 
    THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE UNION HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO
 NEGOTIATE THE PROCEDURES TO BE USED IN CHANGING THE BASIC PRODUCTION
 REQUIREMENTS.  I AGREE WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL THAT RESPONDENT HAD A
 GENERAL OBLIGATION, PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW STANDARDS, TO
 NEGOTIATE THE METHODOLOGY, CRITERIA, OR THE PROCEDURES TO BE USED IN
 DEVELOPING NEW PRODUCTION STANDARDS.  MOREOVER, THE RECORD REVEALS THAT
 SUCH WAS THE PRIOR PRACTICE OF THE PARTIES WHEN DEVELOPING SIMILAR
 PRODUCTION STANDARDS.  ACCORDINGLY, RESPONDENT'S DECISION TO INCREASE
 PRODUCTION STANDARDS, WITHOUT FIRST GIVING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 NEGOTIATE THE PROCEDURES AND ITS REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE THE SUBSTANCE OF
 ITS DECISION TO INCREASE THE BASIC PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS EACH
 CONSTITUTED A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION IN VIOLATION OF SECTION
 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE ORDER.
 
    WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE UNION WAS NOTIFIED AND
 AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN OVER THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF
 THE CHANGE.  THE RECORD ESTABLISHED THAT UNION STEWARD SLEBZAK REQUESTED
 IMPACT BARGAINING ON MARCH 12.  SECTION 7106(B)(3) /5/ OF THE STATUTE
 GIVES THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE
 ARRANGEMENTS FOR BOTH ACTUAL AND POTENTIALLY ADVERSE AFFECTS PRIOR TO
 CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS OR WITH RESPECT TO IMPLEMENTATION AND
 IMPACT ON EMPLOYEES.  SLEBZAK'S REQUEST WAS CONTINUALLY DENIED AS
 RESPONDENT MAINTAINED THAT IT HAD ONLY THE OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN
 CONSULTATION WHICH IT FELT WAS SATISFIED BY TELLING SLEBZAK OF THE
 CHANGES.
 
    IN THIS MATTER, RESPONDENT CLEARLY EFFECTED A CHANGE OF THE BASIC
 PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS OF CODE 1310-3(RV) BY VIRTUE OF ITS MEMORANDUM
 OF MARCH 12 WHICH IT SUBSEQUENTLY IMPLEMENTED ON APRIL 1, 1979.  WHILE
 RESPONDENT DELAYED IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER ITS
 ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE UNION, THAT DELAY WAS BASED NOT ON WILLINGNESS TO
 BARGAIN ON ITS PART, BUT ON ITS SEEKING ADVICE REGARDING THE
 "CONSULTATION" POSITION WITH ITS LABOR RELATIONS OFFICE.  IT IS EQUALLY
 CLEAR THAT THE MEETINGS BETWEEN SLEBZAK AND TAYLOR AND THE EXCHANGE OF
 MEMORANDUM BETWEEN THE TWO DURING MARCH FALL SHORT OF CONSULTATION AS IS
 REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE OR BY THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
 RESPONDENT CONTENDS, THAT REGARDING ONGOING PAST PRACTICES, ITS
 OBLIGATION IS LIMITED TO "CONSULTATION" AS PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENT AND
 "IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT BARGAINING" AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
 NEGOTIATIONS.  HOWEVER, THERE CAN BE NO DISTINCTION ON NEGOTIABLE ISSUES
 UNLESS THE OBLIGATION IS MUTUALLY LIMITED BY THE PARTIES.  SEE REPORT
 AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS COUNCIL, (JANUARY
 1975), AT PP. 43-44;  KESSLER TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER, KESSLER AIR
 FORCE BASE, MISSISSIPPI, FLRC NO. 74-84.  WHILE THE WORDS "MEET AND
 CONFER," "CONSULTATION" AND "NEGOTIATION" APPEAR IN THE AGREEMENT THERE
 IS NO EXPRESS DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE TERMS.  ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME
 EVIDENCE OF RECORD OF THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES DURING NEGOTIATIONS
 THERE IS NO CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE A
 WAIVER OF THE UNION'S RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING SECTION 18, D. NASA,
 KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FLORIDA, 2 A/SLMR NO. 1045.
 SINCE THESE TERMS WERE NOT DIFFERENTIATED AND SINCE THEY WERE USED
 INTERCHANGEABLY IN THE EARLY DAYS OF FEDERAL SECTOR BARGAINING, WHEN THE
 AGREEMENTS IN QUESTION WERE NEGOTIATED, THEY ARE NOT NOW FOUND TO BE
 LIMITING ON THE UNION.  THEREFORE, RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT MUST BE
 REJECTED SINCE IT MAY NOT NOW SEEK TO CONFINE ITS OBLIGATION TO
 CONSULTATION CONCERNING THE PRODUCTION REQUIREMENT CHANGES.  /6/
 FURTHERMORE, RESPONDENT'S ANNOUNCEMENT THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN
 CONSULTATION, IN NO WAY MEETS THE GOOD FAITH BARGAINING REQUIREMENTS OF
 THE STATUTE.  ANNOUNCING THE CHANGE AS A FAIT ACCOMPLI MADE IT
 IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PARTIES TO ENGAGE IN ANY MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION OR
 NEGOTIATIONS AND RESPONDENT NEVER CHANGED THIS POSITION.  GOOD FAITH
 BARGAINING CAN SCARCELY BE CONDUCTED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF A STATED
 POSITION WHICH ASSERTS THAT AN EMPLOYER IS NOT OBLIGATED TO NEGOTIATE.
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, CHICAGO DISTRICT
 OFFICE, A/SLMR NO. 962, 8 A/SLMR 40.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FOUND THAT
 RESPONDENT BY REFUSING TO BARGAIN REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND
 IMPACT OF THE CHANGES IN THE BASIC PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS VIOLATED
 SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.  /7/
 
                              RECOMMENDATION
 
    ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, IT IS
 RECOMMENDED THAT THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING ORDER PURSUANT TO 5
 C.F.R. 2423.29(C):  /8/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. SECTION 7118(A)(7)(A) AND 5 C.F.R. SECTION
 2423.28(B)(1), THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) CHANGING THE BASIC PERFORMANCE REQUIRMENTS IN JOB CODE 1310-3(RV)
 FROM 20 ITEMS PER
 
    HOUR TO 30 ITEMS PER HOUR OF EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO, WITHOUT AFFORDING SUCH
 REPRESENTATIVE THE
 
    OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATION, ON THE DECISION TO
 
    EFFECTUATE SUCH A CHANGE.
 
    (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 CARRY OUT THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE:
 
    (A) RESCIND THE MEMORANDUM OF MARCH 12, 1979 PERTAINING TO CHANGES IN
 THE BASIC PERFORMANCE
 
    REQUIREMENTS OF JOB CODE 1310-3 (RV) RAISING THE REQUIREMENT TO 30
 ITEMS PER HOUR AND RESTORE
 
    THE BASIC PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT OF 20 ITEMS PER HOUR WHICH WAS IN
 IN EFFECT PRIOR TO APRIL
 
    1, 1979.
 
    (B) NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 1923, AFL-CIO OF ANY
 
    INTENDED CHANGES IN BASIC PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS IN JOB CODE 1310-3
 (RV).
 
    (C) UPON REQUEST, BARGAIN WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923,
 
    AFL-CIO, WITH RESPECT TO ANY INTENDED CHANGES IN BASIC PERFORMANCE
 REQUIREMENTS IN JOB CODE
 
    1310-3 (RV)
 
    (D) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AT THE PACA PRATT BUILDING, BALTIMORE,
 MARYLAND, COPIES OF THE
 
    ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE
 AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF
 
    SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR 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
 COMMANDER SHALL TAKE REASONABLE
 
    STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR
 COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (E) PURSUANT TO 5 C.F.R. SECTION 2423.29, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR, IN WRITING, WITHIN
 
    30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN
 TO COMPLY THEREWITH.
 
                              ELI NASH, JR.
 
                          ADMINSTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  MAY 9, 1980
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
           PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 
            RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 
             POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 
          RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUT
 
                             EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT CHANGE THE BASIC PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT IN JOB CODE
 1310-3(RV) OF EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY AMERICAN FEDERATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO, WITHOUT AFFORDING SUCH
 REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH A CHANGE.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND THE MEMORANDUM OF MARCH 12, 1979 PERTAINING TO
 CHANGES IN THE BASIC PRODUCTION REQUIREMENT OF JOB CODE 1310-3(RV)
 RAISING THE REQUIREMENT TO 30 ITEMS PER HOUR AND RESTORE THE BASIC
 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT OF 20 ITEMS PER HOUR WHICH WAS IN EFFECT PRIOR
 TO APRIL 1, 1979.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OF ANY
 CHANGE IN THE BASIC PRODUCTION REQUIREMENT OF JOB CODE 1310-3(RV) AND,
 UPON REQUEST, MEET AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT
 WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS ON THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH A CHANGE.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:
 
                                (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, 1730 K STREET,
 NW., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED EXCEPTIONS WHICH WERE DATED JUNE 11,
 1980 AND RECEIVED BY THE AUTHORITY ON JUNE 16, 1980.  SUCH EXCEPTIONS
 HAVE BEEN OBJECTED TO BY THE CHARGING PARTY ON THE BASIS THAT THEY ARE
 UNTIMELY.  INASMUCH AS THE EXCEPTIONS WERE NOT FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY
 WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (INCLUDING THE FIVE DAYS FOR MAILING PERMITTED
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 2429.22 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS)
 FROM THE DATE OF THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND ORDER (MAY 9, 1980), AS IS
 REQUIRED BY SECTION 2423.26(C) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS,
 SUCH EXCEPTIONS ARE UNTIMELY AND HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE
 AUTHORITY IN RENDERING ITS DECISION HEREIN.
 
    /2/ ARTICLE 18, SECTION D READS, IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    . . . THE PARTIES AGREE THAT ANY EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL SYSTEM USED
 BY THE ADMINISTRATION BE CARRIED OUT IN A UNIFORM MANNER.  THE FOLLOWING
 ARE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SYSTEM.
 
    1.  NUMERICAL STANDARDS IF ANY WILL BE SET IN CONFORMANCE WITH
 CHAPTER V, SSA GUIDE 4-1, SUPPLEMENT 1, "ESTABLISHING MEDIANS FOR
 QUANTITATIVE EMPLOYEE APPRAISAL ITEMS." ANY PROPOSED CHANGES IN EXISTING
 STANDARDS OR THE PROPOSED CREATION OR ELIMINATION OF ANY STANDARDS SHALL
 BE THE SUBJECT OF CONSULTATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
 
    2.  GUIDELINES ON THE APPLICATION OF RATING FACTORS AND THE OVERALL
 APPROACH TO BE UTILIZED IN RATING EMPLOYEES SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE
 ADMINISTRATION FOR USE THROUGHOUT THE UNIT.  THE ADMINISTRATION WILL
 MEET AND CONFER WITH THE UNION IN DESIGNING THESE GUIDELINES . . .
 
    /3/ TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS AWARE OF MANAGEMENT'S OBLIGATION TO
 NEGOTIATE MATTERS CONCERNING IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  HOWEVER, SHE
 DID NOT INFORM SLEBZAK THAT HER NONNEGOTIABILITY POSITION DID NOT APPLY
 TO IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION BUY ONLY TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CHANGE.
 
    /4/ SECTION 7106(B)(2) READS:
 
    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;  . . .
 
    /5/ SECTION 7106(B)(3) READS IN PERTINENT PART:
 
    . . . (3) APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED
 BY THE EXERCISE OF ANY
 
    AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION BY ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS.
 
    /6/ NOR DOES RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT THAT UNDER SECTION 7135(A)(1) OF
 TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT CONTINUE THE RIGHTS AND
 OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES "REMAIN UNCHANGED," HAVE MERIT.  THIS
 ARGUMENT IS MERELY AN EXTENSION OF ITS CONTENTION THAT IT WAS SUBJECT
 ONLY TO "CONSULTATION" AS PROVIDED BY THE AGREEMENT AND "IMPLEMENTATION
 AND IMPACT" BARGAINING AND MUST BE REJECTED FOR THE REASONS STATED
 ABOVE.
 
    /7/ IT IS UNNECESSARY TO FIND THE MEASURE OF THE IMPACT IN THIS
 MATTER AND RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE CONDUCT HEREIN WOULD
 CONSTITUTE A DE MINIMUS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEES IS REJECTED.  THE
 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IN "ADVERSE
 EFFECT" NEGOTIATIONS, THE FULL EXPECTATION IS THAT