Federal Correctional Institution (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2052, AFL-CIO (Charging Party)

 



[ v08 p604 ]
08:0604(111)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 8 FLRA No. 111
 
 FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2052, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 3-CA-861
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED DECISION AND ORDER
 IN THE ABOVE-ENTITED PROCEEDING, FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED
 IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND
 RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS.  THE JUDGE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
 NOT ENGAGED IN CERTAIN OTHER ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
 RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WITH RESPECT TO THEM.  EXCEPTIONS
 TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND ORDER WERE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THE
 CHARGING PARTY.  THE GENERAL COUNSEL FILED A MOTION TO CORRECT THE
 JUDGE'S ORDER SO AS TO INCLUDE A BARGAINING ORDER, AND THE RESPONDENT
 FILED AN OPPOSITION THERETO.
 
    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 CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENT'S FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO
 NEGOTIATE REGARDING THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED IN IMPLEMENTING
 CERTAIN CHANGES AND THE IMPACT THAT THOSE CHANGES HAD ON ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED EMPLOYEES CONSTITUTED VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 7116(A)(5) AND (1)
 OF THE STATUTE.  THE CHANGES IMPLEMENTED BY THE RESPONDENT INVOLVED THE
 RELOCATION OF A CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FROM A GUARD TOWER TO A MOBILE
 PATROLMAN POSITION;  THE ASSIGNMENT OF ONE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT THE
 DORMITORIES TO WORK AT TWO DORMITORIES IN LIEU OF ASSIGNING ONE
 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TO EACH SEPARATE DORMITORY;  AND THE ADDITION OF A
 POSITION TO THE RECEIVING AND DISCHARGE UNIT.  THE CHARGING PARTY HAD
 REQUESTED BARGAINING OVER PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WOULD OBSERVE IN
 IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGES AND ON THE IMPACT OF THOSE CHANGES ON ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED EMPLOYEES, BUT SUCH REQUESTS WERE DENIED BY THE RESPONDENT AS
 INVOLVING NONNEGOTIABLE MATTERS.  THE AUTHORITY ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S
 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(5)
 AND (1) OF THE STATUTE BY THE FOREGOING CONDUCT.
 
    AS A REMEDY, THE JUDGE ORDERED THE RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND DESIST
 FROM THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES FOUND, AND TO POST THE CUSTOMARY NOTICE
 TO ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE JUDGE CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT A STATUS QUO ANTE
 REMEDIAL ORDER WAS NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT
 OBLIGATED TO BARGAIN AS TO THE DECISION TO TAKE PARTICULAR ACTION, BUT
 WAS ONLY REQUIRED TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
 THE CHANGES.  IN THIS REGARD, THE JUDGE RELIED ON CASES DECIDED UNDER
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    IN DISCHARGING ITS RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY
 IS VESTED WITH WIDE DISCRETION TO FASHION APPROPRIATE REMEDIES FOR
 VIOLATIONS OF ANY PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.  /1/ THUS, CONTRARY TO THE
 JUDGE'S CONCLUSION, STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDIES MAY BE ISSUED IN CERTAIN
 REFUSAL TO BARGAIN CASES EVEN WHEN THE AGENCY'S DECISION ITSELF WAS NOT
 NEGOTIABLE.  WHERE, AS HERE, MANAGEMENT HAS EXERCISED ITS RESERVED
 RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 7106 OF THE STATUTE WITHOUT FULFILLING ITS DUTY TO
 BARGAIN WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES IT
 WILL OBSERVE IN THE EXERCISE THEREOF AND REGARDING APPROPRIATE
 ARRANGEMENTS FOR BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED THEREBY,
 PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 7106(B)(2) AND 7106(B)(3) OF THE STATUTE,
 RESPECTIVELY, THE AUTHORITY ON OCCASION HAS ISSUED ORDERS REQUIRING A
 RETURN TO THE STATUS QUO ANTE.  /2/ HOWEVER, THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A
 STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDY MUST BE DETERMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS,
 CAREFULLY BALANCING THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR
 VIOLATION AGAINST THE DEGREE OF DISRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS THAT
 WOULD BE CAUSED BY SUCH A REMEDY.  /3/ ACCORDINGLY, IN DETERMINING
 WHETHER A STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN ANY SPECIFIC
 CASE INVOLVING A VIOLATION OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN OVER IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION, THE AUTHORITY CONSIDERS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, (1)
 WHETHER, AND WHEN, NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE UNION BY THE AGENCY
 CONCERNING THE ACTION OR CHANGE DECIDED UPON;  (2) WHETHER, AND WHEN,
 THE UNION REQUESTED BARGAINING ON THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED BY THE
 AGENCY IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH ACTION OR CHANGE AND/OR CONCERNING
 APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH
 ACTION
 OR CHANGE;  (3) THE WILLFULLNESS OF THE AGENCY'S CONDUCT IN FAILING TO
 DISCHARGE ITS BARGAINING OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE STATUTE;  (4) THE NATURE
 AND EXTENT OF THE IMPACT EXPERIENCED BY ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES;
 AND (5) WHETHER, AND TO WHAT DEGREE, A STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDY WOULD
 DISRUPT OR IMPAIR THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE AGENCY'S
 OPERATIONS.
 
    IN THE INSTANT CASE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTORS,
 THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT NO STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDY IS REQUIRED OR
 NECESSARY IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE
 STATUTE.  RATHER, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT A PROSPECTIVE BARGAINING
 ORDER SHOULD FULLY REMEDY THE BARGAINING VIOLATION.  IMPORTANTLY, THE
 RECORD INDICATES THAT WHILE THE ASSIGNMENT AND STAFFING CHANGES
 IMPLEMENTED BY THE RESPONDENT WERE DIRECTED TOWARDS ACCOMPLISHING THE
 MISSION OF CONTROLLING THE INMATES AT THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND
 THEREBY INCREASING THE SECURITY SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE STAFF, ONLY A
 FEW OF THE APPROXIMATELY 110 CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AT THE FACILITY WERE
 DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE CHANGES.  THUS, THE IMPACT ON EMPLOYEES WITHIN
 THE BARGAINING UNIT IS MINIMAL.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGE'S ORDER IS
 ADOPTED AS MODIFIED TO INCLUDE A BARGAINING ORDER WHICH WAS
 INADVERTENTLY OMITTED.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE AND SECTION 2423.29 OF THE
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE
 FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA,
 SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) CHANGING WORK ASSIGNMENTS OF A CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FROM A GUARD
 TOWER TO ANY NEW OR
 
    ADDITIONAL CREATED POSITIONS, INCLUDING THAT OF A PERIMETER
 PATROLMAN;  ASSIGNING ONE
 
    CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TO WORK AT TWO DORMITORIES IN LIEU OF ASSIGNING
 ONE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
 
    TO EACH SEPARATE DORMITORY;  AND ADDING A POSITION TO THE RECEIVING
 AND DISCHARGE UNIT, AND
 
    ASSIGNING AN ADDITIONAL OFFICER TO WORK FULL-TIME THEREAT, WITHOUT
 FIRST AFFORDING AMERICAN
 
    FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2052, AFL-CIO, THE
 EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
 
    REPRESENTATIVE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, UPON REQUEST, WITH
 RESPECT TO THE PROCEDURES
 
    WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGES AND
 CONCERNING APPROPRIATE
 
    ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED THEREBY.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) NOTIFY AND BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 
    LOCAL 2052, AFL-CIO, UPON REQUEST, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE
 OBSERVED IN IMPLEMENTING
 
    THE CHANGED WORK ASSIGNMENTS AND RELOCATIONS OF BARGAINING UNIT
 PERSONNEL, AND CONCERNING
 
    APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH
 CHANGES AND RELOCATIONS.
 
    (B) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AT THE FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM, CORRECTIONAL
 INSTITUTION,
 
    PETERSBURG, 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 CHIEF
 
    CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISOR 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 CHIEF CORRECTIONAL
 SUPERVISOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE
 
    STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH 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, 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 COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 3-CA-861 IN ALL
 OTHER RESPECTS BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.  ISSUED, WASHINGTON,
 D.C., MAY 13, 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 WORK ASSIGNMENTS OF A CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
 FROM A GUARD TOWER TO THAT OF A PERIMETER PATROLMAN OR TO ANY OTHER NEW
 OR ADDITIONALLY CREATED POSITION, ASSIGN ONE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TO
 WORK AT TWO DORMITORIES, IN LIEU OF ASSIGNING ONE OFFICER TO WORK AT
 EACH SEPARATE DORMITORY, OR ADD A POSITION TO THE RECEIVING AND
 DISCHARGE UNIT, WITHOUT FIRST AFFORDING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2052, AFL-CIO, THE EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE
 BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, UPON REQUEST, AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE
 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN
 IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGES AND CONCERNING APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR
 EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED THEREBY.
 
    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 NOTIFY AND BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2052, AFL-CIO, UPON REQUEST, CONCERNING
 THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED IN IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGED WORK
 ASSIGNMENTS AND RELOCATIONS OF BARGAINING UNIT PERSONNEL, AND CONCERNING
 APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH
 CHANGES AND RELOCATIONS.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  BY:  (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION III, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  1111 18TH STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C.  20036, AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (202 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM,
    CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
    PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA /4/
                                RESPONDENT
 
    AND
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
    EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2052
                              CHARGING PARTY
 
                            CASE NO.: 3-CA-861
 
 
    WILLIAM C. OWEN, ESQUIRE
    RONALD BROWN, ESQUIRE
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    CLARA A. WILLIAMSON, ESQUIRE
                          FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM NAIMARK
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    PURSUANT TO A COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED ON JUNE 23, 1980
 BY THE ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,
 WASHINGTON, D.C., A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON JULY 24,
 1980.
 
    THIS PROCEEDING AROSE UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE (HEREIN CALLED THE ACT.) IT IS BASED UPON A CHARGE
 FILED ON FEBRUARY 13, 1980 BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2052 (HEREIN CALLED THE UNION OR CHARGING PARTY)
 AGAINST FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, PETERSBURG,
 VIRGINIA (HEREIN CALLED THE EMPLOYER OR RESPONDENT).
 
    THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 29,
 1980, AFTER A PROPER REQUEST FROM THE UNION, THE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO
 NEGOTIATE PROPOSED CHANGES IN ASSIGNMENT OF ITS CORRECTIONAL STAFF;  AND
 THAT RESPONDENT IMPLEMENTED SUCH CHANGES ON JANUARY 31, 1980.  /5/ IT
 WAS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT BY SUCH REFUSALS THE UNION WAS DENIED THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN REGARDING THE IMPACT OF SUCH CHANGES ON
 BARGAINING UNIT AS WELL AS THE METHODS AND PROCEDURES TO BE UTILIZED IN
 IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE-- ALL IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) & (5)
 OF THE ACT.
 
    RESPONDENT'S ANSWER, DATED JULY 15, 1980, DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS IN
 THE COMPLAINT AND THE COMMISSION OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.
 
    ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED AT THE HEARING.  EACH WAS AFFORDED FULL
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE, AND TO EXAMINE AS WELL AS
 CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.  THEREAFTER BRIEFS WERE FILED WITH THE
 UNDERSIGNED WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.  /6/
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, FROM MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM ALL OF THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
 ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    1.  AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN THE UNION HAS BEEN, AND STILL IS,
 THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL EMPLOYEES, CLASS ACT,
 WAGE BOARD, AND PROFESSIONAL, EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT AT PETERSBURG,
 VIRGINIA.
 
    2.  A MASTER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT COVERING SUCH UNIT
 EMPLOYEES BECAME EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 1, 1978, AND, BY ITS TERMS, REMAINED
 IN EFFECT FOR 18 MONTHS.  THE AGREEMENT, MADE AND ENTERED INTO BETWEEN
 THE FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM (BUREAU OF PRISONS & FEDERAL PRISON
 INDUSTRIES, INC.) AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
 (COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS), CONTAINED AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CLAUSE
 EXTENDING IT FOR 6 MONTHS.
 
    3.  THE MISSION OF THE CORRECTIONAL DEPARTMENT OF THIS INSTITUTION IS
 THE SECURITY, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE STAFF.  THERE ARE 110
 CORRECTIONAL POSITIONS, AND IN ORDER TO OBTAIN NEW ONES, REQUESTS MUST
 GO TO CONGRESS THROUGH THE REGIONAL OFFICE IN PHILADELPHIA.  CAPTAIN,
 CURD, WHO CAME TO RESPONDENT IN DECEMBER, 1979, IS IN CHARGE OF THE
 CORRECTIONAL DEPARTMENT.  HE IS EMPOWERED TO CHANGE AND ADD POSTS TO
 FULFILL THE MISSION AS AFORESAID.  IN ADDITION TO CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS,
 THE BASIC JOB CATEGORIES INCLUDE CASEWORKERS, COUNSELORS AND MECHANICAL
 SERVICE EMPLOYEES.  CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS CONTROL THE INMATES THROUGH
 SECURITY MEASURES, PATROLLING THE COMPOUND AND WORKING IN THE GUARD
 HOUSE AND CONTROL CENTER.  BOTH CASEWORKERS, WHO KEEP RECORDS OF PAROLE
 HEARINGS AND THE LIKE, AND COUNSELORS ARE DEEMED OFFICE-TYPE WORKERS.
 
    4.  CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS ARE ROTATED QUARTERLY THROUGH THE VARIOUS
 31 CORRECTIONAL POSTS, WHICH INCLUDE GUARD TIMES, DORMITORIES, FOOT
 PATROLS, AT THE INSTITUTION.  A ROSTER IS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION
 OF THE CAPTAIN, AND A ROSTER COMMITTEE INSURES THAT EMPLOYEES ARE
 ROTATED ON A FAIR AND EQUITABLE BASIS.  THE QUARTERLY ROSTER CONTAINS
 THE NAMES OF THE OFFICERS OCCUPYING POSTS, AND IT INFORMS THEM WHERE
 THEY WILL WORK IN THE FORTHCOMING QUARTER.  THE NAMES OF EMPLOYEES ARE
 PLACED OPPOSITE PARTICULAR POSITIONS ON THE ROSTER.
 
    5.  A ROSTER COMMITTEE OVERSEES THE EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT OF OFFICERS.
  PRIOR TO JANUARY, 1980 ONE UNION STEWARD AND ONE CORRECTIONAL
 SUPERVISOR SERVED THEREIN.  SUBSEQUENTLY CAPTAIN CURD DECIDED TO PUT
 SEVERAL SUPERVISORS ON THE COMMITTEE.  THE UNION OBJECTED AND ASKED FOR
 EQUAL REPRESENTATION AT A FEBRUARY MEETING, BUT CURD REFUSED.  THE
 MARCH, 1980 ROSTER PROVIDED FOR SEVERAL SUPERVISORS AND ONE UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE.
 
    6.  IN THE LATTER PART OF JANUARY, 1980 CAPTAIN CURD CALLED JAMES
 LONG, 2ND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNION, TO HIS OFFICE.  LONG NEGOTIATES
 SHIFT SCHEDULES FOR FARM EMPLOYEES.  HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
 CUSTODIAL ROSTER.  A DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDING PENDING GRIEVANCES.  AT
 THE END OF THE DISCUSSION CURD GAVE LONG A COPY OF THE PROPOSED ROSTER
 FOR THE MARCH-MAY, 1980 QUARTER, WHICH WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE ON MARCH
 9, 1980.  CURD EXPLAINED TO LONG THAT, APART FROM ELIMINATING A GS-7
 POSITION AND CREATING A SUPERVISORY ONE AS A LIEUTENANT, THERE WOULD BE
 SOME CHANGES IN RECEIVING AND DISCHARGE, THE CELLHOUSE, AND THE
 COMPOUND.  /7/
 
    7.  LONG GAVE THE ROSTER TO NATHANIEL NELSON, CUSTODIAL CORRECTIONAL
 STEWARD, WHO IS THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE ON THE ROSTER COMMITTEE, AND
 THE LATTER CALLED CURD TO INQUIRE WHY THE CAPTAIN DISCUSSED THE ROSTER
 WITH LONG INSTEAD OF THE STEWARD.  CURD INFORMED NELSON THAT SINCE LONG
 WAS IN THE OFFICE HE TOLD THE LATTER ABOUT THE PROPOSALS, THAT HE HAD
 THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE CHANGES AND THEY WOULD BE MADE.  SEVERAL WEEKS
 LATER CURD ASKED LONG WHAT HE THOUGHT ABOUT THE ROSTER.  THE UNION
 OFFICIAL REPLIED THAT IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO NEGOTIATE ON IT, AND CURD
 STATED THERE WAS NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE SINCE THE ROSTER WOULD "STAND AS
 IT IS."
 
    8.  TOWARD THE END OF JANUARY, 1980 ROBERT E. HOWARD, PRESIDENT OF
 THE UNION, WAS TOLD BY A SUPERVISOR THAT CERTAIN CHANGES WERE BEING MADE
 AT THE INSTITUTION, VIZ:  THE ABANDONMENT OF TOWER 3, A REDUCTION IN THE
 NUMBER OF COMPOUND PATROL OFFICERS, REQUIRING ONE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
 TO WORK TWO INMATE DORMITORIES, AND THE REDUCTION OF OVERTIME.
 
    9.  BY LETTER DATED JANUARY 29, 1980 ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF
 CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISOR FROM HOWARD, THE UNION PRESIDENT REQUESTED THAT
 MANAGEMENT SEND HIM A COPY OF ALL PROPOSED CHANGES;  THAT RESPONDENT
 NEGOTIATE ALL SUCH CHANGES AFTER THE UNION REVIEWED SAME.  SEVERAL DAYS
 LATER, UPON BEING CALLED TO CURD'S OFFICE, HOWARD REPEATED THE UNION'S
 DESIRE TO NEGOTIATE THE PROPOSED CHANGES.  WHEREUPON THE EMPLOYER'S
 REPRESENTATIVE INFORMED HOWARD THERE WAS NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE.
 
    10.  RECORD FACTS SHOW THAT WHEN CAPTAIN CURD ARRIVED FOR DUTY IN
 DECEMBER, 1979, OF THE FOUR GUARD TOWERS AT THE INSTITUTION ONLY TOWERS
 1 AND 2 WERE MANNED FULL TIME.  TOWER 3 WAS MANNED ONE-THIRD TO ONE-HALF
 THE TIME, AND TOWER 4 WAS STAFFED ONLY WHEN THE INMATES USED THE
 BALLPARK.  THE GUARD AT TOWER 3, WHEN NOT STATIONED THEREAT, WOULD FILL
 IN ELSEWHERE AT THE COMPOUND.  EFFECTIVE JANUARY 31, 1980 GUARD TOWER
 NO. 3 WAS ABOLISHED.  THE GS-7 POSITION WAS ELIMINATED, AND THE REGIONAL
 OFFICER ESTABLISHED A GS-11 LIEUTENANT (SUPERVISOR) POSITION TO
 INVESTIGATE CHARGES AND COMPLAINTS.  WHEN THE TOWER MAN FROM NO. 3 WAS
 TAKEN OFF THE ROSTER, RESPONDENT SUBSTITUTED A ROVING PATROL POST.  A
 MOBILE PATROLMAN WAS ASSIGNED TO PATROL AROUND THE PERIMETER, AND HIS
 JOB FUNCTIONS OVERLAP THOSE OF THE OFFICER FORMERLY ASSIGNED TO TOWER
 NO. 3.
 
    PRIOR TO THE ABOLITION OF TOWER NO. 3 THIS POST WAS MANNED ON A THREE
 SHIFT BASIS BY THE GS CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS.  THE OFFICER WHO WORKED ON
 THE SHIFTS AT 4:00 P.M.-12:00 A.M. AND 12:00 A.M.-8:00 A.M. RECEIVED
 NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL PAY AT THE RATE OF 7% AND 10% ON THE RESPECTIVE
 SHIFTS.  CURD'S TESTIMONY REFLECTS THAT THE PERIMETER PATROLMAN REPLACED
 THE OFFICER ON TOWER NO. 3;  THAT BOTH THE TOWER 3 OFFICER AND THE
 PERIMETER PATROLMAN WERE CONCERNED WITH SECURITY.  FURTHER, HE TESTIFIED
 THAT THE PERIMETER PATROL OFFICER WORKED THE SAME HOURS AS THE TOWER
 OFFICER AND THUS NO NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL PAY WAS LOST.
 
    11.  PRIOR TO JANUARY 31, 1980 TWO COMPOUND PATROLMEN PATROLLED THE
 INNER PART OF THE COMPOUND.  THEY MOVED PROPERTY TO THE CELLHOUSE, TOOK
 INMATES FROM THE COMPOUND FOR DISCIPLINE, MAINTAINED SWITCH WIRES, AND
 RELIEVED DORM OFFICERS AT LUNCHTIME.  ONE PATROLMAN WORKED FROM 4:00
 P.M. TO 12:00 , MIDNIGHT.  THE OTHER, WHO WAS DESIGNATED AS
 "ACTIVITIES", WORKED FROM 2:00 P.M.-10:00 P.M., AND WORKED FOR A FEW
 HOURS IN THE MAILROOM WHEN HIS SHIFT COMMENCED.  CURD TESTIFIED THAT
 SINCE JANUARY 31 THE ROSTER DESIGNATED TWO MEN AS COMPOUND PATROLMEN,
 BOTH OF WHOM ARE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES AND WORK 4:00 P.M.-12:00 MIDNIGHT.
 /8/
 
    12.  IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION THAT OVERTIME WAS DIMINISHED AFTER
 JANUARY 31, 1980, GENERAL COUNSEL ADDUCED EVIDENCE FROM HOWARD THAT
 CASEWORKERS WERE REQUIRED TO RELIEVE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS.  HOWARD WAS
 NOT AWARE THAT THE CASEWORKERS RELIEVED THESE OFFICERS BEFORE THE SAID
 DATE, AND HE TESTIFIED THAT IF THEY DID SO IT WAS WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE.
  A MEMO WAS ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYER DATED JANUARY 25, 1980 TO
 CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISORS ADVISING THEM THAT, TO COMBAT OVERTIME, /9/
 CERTAIN POSTS (MOBILE PATROLMAN, CELLHOUSE OFFICER, R & D OFFICERS,
 SECURITY OFFICERS) COULD BE VACATED IF THESE ARE EXTRA PEOPLE AVAILABLE.
  CURD TESTIFIED THAT SOME OF THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
 ALTHOUGH UNABLE TO SPECIFY WHICH ONES ARE IN EFFECT, HE STATED THEY WERE
 EFFECTED ROUTINELY IN THE PAST.
 
    13.  THERE ARE TWO INMATE DORMITORIES AT THE INSTITUTION:  MARYLAND
 HALL & DELAWARE HALL.  IN THE PAST A CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WAS ASSIGNED
 TO EACH DORM.  HIS DUTY IS TO MAINTAIN THE SECURITY OF THE DORMITORY BY
 LOOKING OUT FOR THE SAFETY OF THE INMATES.  THIS OFFICER ALSO HANDLES
 PROPERTY IN THE DORMS, MAINTAINING SANITARY CONDITIONS, AND LOCATES
 INMATES CALLED FOR REVIEWS.  IN FEBRUARY, 1980 THE INSTITUTION POSTED
 ITS MARCH-MAY, 1980 ROSTER WHICH PROVIDED THAT ONE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
 WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO WORK BOTH DORMS.  COMMENCING ON APRIL 27, 1980 THE
 RESPONDENT IMPLEMENTED THIS CHANGE IN RESPECT TO MANNING THOSE
 BUILDINGS.  THE MARYLAND HALL OFFICER, INSTEAD OF WORKING 7:30 A.M.-4:00
 P.M. DAILY, WAS ASSIGNED TO WORK THEREAT FROM 12:00 NOON TO 8:30 P.M.
 AFTER 4:00 P.M. HE TOOK UP A POSITION OUTSIDE OF THE RECREATION AREA.
 THE DELAWARE HALL OFFICER WAS ASSIGNED TO WORK HIS UNIT AND THE MARYLAND
 HALL IN THE MORNINGS.  THE MEMO ISSUED ON APRIL 18 SET FORTH THIS
 CHANGE.  IT STATED THAT THERE MAY BE TIMES ON WEEKENDS WHEN COUNSELORS
 COULD PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR THAT VACATED POST AT THE MARYLAND HALL;  THAT
 ARMED VEHICLE COVERAGE WILL BE PROVIDED BY VACATING THE LATE R & D
 OFFICER POSITION FROM 5:00 P.M.-8:00 P.M.; AND THAT WEEKEND AND HOLIDAY
 COVERAGE WILL BE PROVIDED VACATING A COMPOUND PATROLMAN POST.
 
    14.  PRIOR TO FEBRUARY, 1980 THE ROSTER CONTAINED ONE POSITION IN THE
 RECEIVING AND DISCHARGE (R & D) UNIT.  THIS PARTICULAR UNIT WAS
 RESPONSIBLE FOR RECEIVING INMATES AND RELEASING THEM UPON DIRECTION, AS
 WELL AS RETURNING THEIR PROPERTY UPON RELEASE FROM THE INSTITUTION.  ONE
 OFFICER WORKED THEREAT REGULARLY FROM 7:30 A.M.-4:00 P.M.  IN ORDER TO
 COMPLETE HIS DUTIES THIS OFFICER WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO WORK ADDITIONAL
 HOURS WHEN BUSES CAME IN WITH INMATES.  CURD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS THAT IT
 WAS TOO MUCH WORK FOR ONE PERSON TO HANDLE THIS JOB ON A REGULAR BASIS.
 ACCORDINGLY, HE POSTED ANOTHER OFFICER'S POSITION AND PROVIDED FOR AN
 ADDITIONAL PERSON AS A FULL TIME OFFICER IN THIS UNIT.  /10/
 
    15.  RECORD FACTS SHOW THAT THERE ARE NOW ON THE ROSTER FOUR MORE
 GS-7 CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS THAN WHEN THE GS-7 TOWER GUARD WAS ELIMINATED
 ON JANUARY 31, 1980.  FURTHER, THE MARCH, 1980 ROSTER REFLECTED AN
 ADDITIONAL NON-SUPERVISORY OFFICER THAN PREVIOUSLY.  MOREOVER, THE
 RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH PRECISE LOSS OF OVERTIME WITH RESPECT TO THE
 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGE IN POST POSITIONS.  IN
 RESPECT TO THE IMPACT OF ANY CHANGES UPON SECURITY AT THE INSTITUTION,
 THE RECORD CONSISTS OF TESTIMONY BY THE UNION OFFICIAL THAT THEY
 BELIEVED THESE CHANGES WOULD AFFECT SECURITY OF BOTH INMATE AND
 OFFICERS.
 
                                CONCLUSIONS
 
    IT IS CONTENDED BY GENERAL COUNSEL THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE ACT
 BY INSTITUTING CERTAIN UNILATERAL CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS.  WHILE
 CONCEDING THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD THE OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE THE DECISION
 TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES, THE GENERAL COUNSEL INSISTS RESPONDENT WAS
 REQUIRED TO BARGAIN REGARDING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF.
 THE PRINCIPAL CHANGES, OVER WHICH THE RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE ALLEGEDLY
 BARGAINED WITH THE UNION, CONCERN (A) DISESTABLISHMENT OF TOWER 3 WHICH
 INVOLVED THE ELIMINATION OF THE GS-7 GUARD POSITION AND THE
 ESTABLISHMENT OF A MOBILE PATROLMAN;  (B) THE CREATION OF A GS-11
 SUPERVISORY POSITION TO INVESTIGATE CHARGES AND COMPLAINTS;  (C) A
 REDUCTION IN COMPOUND PATROLMEN FROM TWO TO ONE;  (D) THE DISCONTINUANCE
 OF ASSIGNING ONE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TO EACH DORMITORY (MARYLAND AND
 DELAWARE HALLS), AND REQUIRING, AFTER APRIL 27, 1980, THAT ONE OFFICER
 WORK BOTH DORMS;  (E) ADDING A POSITION TO THE RECEIVING AND DISCHARGE
 UNIT SO THAT, AFTER JANUARY, 1980, TWO CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WORKED
 THEREAT.  BY UNILATERALLY EFFECTING THESE CHANGES, RESPONDENT ALLEGEDLY
 HAS VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE ACT.  /11/
 
    IN RESPECT TO THE CHANGES MADE AT TOWER 3, RESPONDENT MAINTAINS THESE
 MOVES DID NOT CONSTITUTE CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS.  IT INSISTS NO
 NEW DUTIES WERE IMPOSED ON CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, NO NEW FUNCTIONS WERE
 ADDED AND NO PRACTICES WERE ALTERED.  AS SUCH, THE CHANGE MERELY
 RESHUFFLED POSTS.  IN RESPECT TO THE OTHER REVISIONS, THE EMPLOYER
 CONTENDS THEY WERE ROUTINE ADJUSTMENTS WHICH WERE AN INTEGRAL PART OF
 ITS PAST PRACTICE;  THAT SUCH CHANGES ARE THE PRACTICE SO THAT, IN
 REALITY, NO CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS TOOK PLACE.
 
    RESPONDENT ALSO TAKES THE POSITION THAT, IN ANY EVENT, ANY CHANGES
 INSTITUTED HAD NO ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE UNIT EMPLOYEES, AND THEREFORE
 NO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FINDING IS WARRANTED.  /12/
 
           TOWER NO. 3-- REVISIONS AND REASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL
 
    WHILE IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT RESPONDENT'S PAST PRACTICE INVOLVED
 ROTATING OFFICERS THROUGH CORRECTIONAL POSTS, I DO NOT AGREE THAT ITS
 ACTION WITH REGARD TO TOWER NO. 3 CONSTITUTED NO CHANGE IN WORKING
 CONDITIONS.  IN THIS INSTANCE, ON JANUARY 31, THE EMPLOYER NOT ONLY
 ABOLISHED THIS PARTICULAR TOWER-- WHICH DECISION MIGHT NOT BE
 CHALLENGED, BUT IT CREATED A PERIMETER PATROLMAN TO REPLACE THE TOWER
 GUARD.  THIS CREATION RESULTED IN MORE THAN A ROTATIONAL MANOEUVRE.  NO
 PERIMETER GUARD, IN LIEU OF AN OFFICER AT THIS TOWER, HAD PREVIOUSLY
 BEEN ON THE ROSTER.  FURTHER, THE PERIMETER PATROLMAN'S WORKING
 CONDITIONS, I.E. THE LOCATION OF HIS GUARD DUTIES, EXTENT OF HIS
 PATROLLING, AND SCOPE OF FUNCTIONS, CONTRAST WITH THE CONDITIONS
 SURROUNDING A GUARD OFFICER CONFINED TO THE TOWER.
 
    IT MAY WELL BE, AS RESPONDENT ARGUES, THAT THE NEW POST INVOLVES
 SECURITY FUNCTIONS, AS WAS TRUE IN REGARD TO THE TOWER OFFICER, AND NO
 CHANGE IN HOURS OR PAY RESULTED FROM THE ABOLITION OF TOWER NO. 3.
 NEVERTHELESS, THE REASSIGNMENT OF THIS OFFICER INVOLVED A RELOCATION OF
 WORK PERFORMANCE.  IN AIRCRAFT, FIRE AND RESCUE DIVISION, AIR OPERATIONS
 DEPARTMENT, NAVAL AIR STATION, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, 3 FLRA NO. 18 THE
 CHANGE IN WORK SITE FOR HELIPORT CREWS WAS HELD TO HAVE EFFECTED A
 CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS.  SEE ALSO DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, A/SLMR NO. 1045.  IN EACH
 INSTANCE THE EMPLOYER WAS OBLIGATED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION REGARDING
 THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE OR REASSIGNMENT.
 
    THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PERIMETER PATROLMAN POST HEREIN, WITH ITS
 DIFFERENT WORKSITE AND SCOPE OF OPERATIONS, CAN, IN MY OPINION, IMPACT
 UPON THE PARTICULAR OFFICER WHO MANNED THE GUARD TOWER.  MOREOVER, THE
 TYPE OF OPERATION AFFECTS THE SECURITY AT THE INSTITUTION SINCE THE
 PERIMETER PATROL DIFFERS SIGNIFICANTLY FROM A GUARD WATCH.  IN THE CASE
 AT BAR THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT RESPONDENT REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE AS TO
 ANY OF THE CHANGES OR REVISIONS WHICH IT INSTITUTED AFTER JANUARY 31,
 1980.  CAPTAIN CURD CLEARLY EXPRESSED THIS REFUSAL TO THE UNION.
 ACCORDINGLY, AND SINCE I CONCLUDE THE CHANGES IN SECURITY AT TOWER NO.
 3, WITH THE ATTENDANT CREATION OF A NEW PERIMETER PATROLMAN, WAS A
 CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS, I FIND THAT THE EMPLOYER RAN AFOUL OF THE
 ACT.  RESPONDENT'S FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO BARGAIN REGARDING THE IMPACT
 AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS CHANGE VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5)
 THEREOF.
 
               ESTABLISHMENT OF GS-11 SUPERVISOR'S POSITION
 
    ONE OF THE CHANGES INSTITUTED BY RESPONDENT CONCERNED A NEW
 CORRECTIONAL POSITION-- A GS-11 LIEUTENANT WHOSE FUNCTION INVOLVED
 INVESTIGATING CHARGES AND COMPLAINTS.  THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THIS IS A
 SUPERVISORY CLASSIFICATION.  A READING OF THE AUTHORITY'S VIEWS WITH
 REGARD TO MANAGEMENT'S OBLIGATION WHEN SUCH A POSITION IS FILLED
 CONSTRAINS ME TO CONCLUDE AN EMPLOYER HAS NO DUTY TO BARGAIN THEREON.
 IN NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIELD LABOR LOCALS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON,
 D.C., O-NG-14, THE UNION PROPOSED THAT THE EMPLOYER FOLLOW THE MERIT
 PROMOTION PLAN WHEN FILLING SUPERVISORY OR MANAGEMENT POSITIONS WITH
 BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES.  THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDED THE PROPOSAL WAS
 OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN.  SINCE THE POSITION IS OUTSIDE
 THE BARGAINING UNIT, IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT RELATE TO
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE AUTHORITY DECIDED THAT THE AGENCY HAS NO
 OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN OVER MATTERS RELATING TO NON-BARGAINING UNIT
 POSITIONS, I FIND NO VIOLATION HEREIN BASED ON RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO
 BARGAIN REGARDING THE IMPACT OR IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS GS-11 LIEUTENANT'S
 SUPERVISORY POSITION.
 
                      REDUCTION IN COMPOUND PATROLMEN
 
    BASED ON MY FINDINGS OF FACT, AS HEREIN SET FORTH, THE COMPOUND HAS
 BEEN PATROLLED BY TWO PATROLMEN BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER JANUARY 31, 1980.
 ALTHOUGH THE ROSTER PRIOR TO THAT DATE DESIGNATED THE PATROLMAN AS
 "ACTIVITIES", IT APPEARS BOTH INDIVIDUALS PERFORMED THE SAME DUTIES.
 SUBSEQUENT TO THE AFORESAID DATE RESPONDENT DESIGNATED BOTH OFFICERS AS
 PATROLMEN.  ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE THERE WAS NO REAL CHANGE IN RESPECT
 TO THE NUMBER AND DUTIES OF COMPOUND PATROLMEN.  THE CHANGE CONSISTED
 MERELY OF A DESIGNATION ON THE ROSTER DIFFERENT FROM AN EARLIER ONE.  AS
 SUCH, I FIND NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE AND CONCLUDE NO VIOLATION EXISTS
 HEREIN BY REASON THEREOF.
 
             ASSIGNMENT OF ONE OFFICER TO WORK TWO DORMITORIES
 
    COMMENCING ON APRIL 27, 1980 RESPONDENT ALTERED ITS COVERAGE OF THE
 MARYLAND AND DELAWARE HALLS BY THE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS.  WHEREAS EACH
 DORM HAD BEEN ATTENDED BY AN OFFICER WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS
 SECURITY AND CERTAIN MAINTENANCE, AFTER SAID DATE ONE CORRECTIONAL
 OFFICER COVERED BOTH DORMITORIES.  THIS OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN
 SECURITY AT BOTH SITES, LOCATE INMATES WHEN NECESSARY, HANDLE SANITARY
 PROBLEMS ARISING AT EACH DORM, AND LOCK UP ONE HALL WHEN SECURING THE
 OTHER.  THUS IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE REDUCTION OF COVERAGE FOR THE
 DORM IMPOSED ADDITIONAL DUTIES AND BURDENS UPON THE REMAINING
 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER.  MOREOVER, THE HOURS WERE ALSO CHANGED AFTER APRIL
 27 SO THAT THE OFFICER ATTENDING BOTH HALLS WORKED A DIFFERENT SCHEDULE.
  THE ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COVERAGE EFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE
 INVOLVED MORE THAN A MERE ROTATION OF OFFICERS TO THE POSTS.  ASSIGNING
 ONE OFFICER TO WORK TWO HALLS, IN CONTRAST TO THE PAST PRACTICE OF
 UTILIZING A SEPARATE OFFICER FOR EACH DORM, CONSTITUTED A DIRECT CHANGE
 IN WORKING CONDITIONS.
 
    ALTHOUGH THE BASIC CHANGE WITH REGARD TO THESE TWO DORMS MAY NOT BE
 NEGOTIABLE, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT RESPONDENT IS REQUIRED TO BARGAIN
 REGARDING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF.  IN COMPELLING ONE
 OFFICER TO WORK TWO HALLS THE EMPLOYER HAS EFFECTED A CHANGE WHICH IS
 SIGNIFICANT, AND ITS ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THE REMAINING OFFICER, BASED
 UPON THE WORK DUTIES AND HOURS INVOLVED, APPEARS OBVIOUS TO THE
 UNDERSIGNED.  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT REQUIRING EMPLOYEES TO WORK TWO
 CONSECUTIVE SHIFTS RESULTS IN A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 THUS, CHANGING HOURS OF DUTY FOR THREE SUCH INDIVIDUALS IMPOSED A DUTY
 UPON THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN OVER IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER, 2 FLRA NO. 97.  ACCORDINGLY, AND
 INASMUCH AS RESPONDENT REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE AS TO THE DISCONTINUANCE OF
 THE PRACTICE OF ASSIGNING A CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TO EACH DORMITORY, I
 CONCLUDE THAT IT HAS VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE ACT.
 /13/
 
          ADDITION OF A POSITION TO RECEIVING AND DISCHARGE UNIT
 
    IN RESPECT TO THE R&D UNIT RECORD FACTS SHOW THE ROSTER HAD CONTAINED
 ONLY ONE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER'S POSITION THEREAT.  CURD'S TESTIMONY
 INDICATES THAT, PRIOR TO JANUARY 31, 1980, THERE WERE TWO OFFICERS
 WORKING IN THAT UNIT.  THUS, HE AVERS, THE ADDITION OF ANOTHER R&D
 OFFICER ON THE ROSTER AFTER JANUARY 31 MERELY REFLECTED THE EXISTING
 SITUATION THEREAT.
 
    WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT TWO OFFICERS WORKED IN THAT AREA BEFOREHAND,
 THE RECORD INDICATES THAT ONLY ONE MAN WORKED A FULL DAY-TIME SCHEDULE.
 THE OTHER OFFICER ASSISTED THE REGULAR EMPLOYEE AND DID NOT WORK FULL
 TIME.  CURD'S ACTION RESULTS IN CHANGING THE HOURS OF THE OTHER OFFICER
 SO THAT HE ALSO WORKED FULL TIME.  EACH R&D OFFICER WORKED A FULL SHIFT
 AND THE FIRST EMPLOYEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO WORK BEYOND THE END OF DUTY
 HOURS AS IN THE PAST.
 
    UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I CANNOT AGREE WITH RESPONDENT THAT THE
 CHANGE EFFECTED BY IT WAS LIMITED TO THE ROSTER.  THERE WAS, IN FACT, A
 CHANGE IN THE HOURS OF THE OFFICER WHO ASSISTED IN R&D, AND, TO SOME
 EXTENT, IN THE HOURS OF WORK PERFORMED BY THE ORIGINAL OFFICER.  THE
 CHANGING OF HOURS-- INCLUDING STARTING AND QUITTING TIMES-- IS A MATTER
 CONCERNING WHICH AN EMPLOYER MUST BARGAIN.  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, SOUTHWEST REGION, DALLAS, TEXAS, A/SLMR NO.
 858.  FURTHER, REASSIGNING EMPLOYEES FROM ONE SHIFT TO ANOTHER REQUIRES
 THAT AN AGENCY BARGAIN OVER THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF.
 DEPARTMENT OF NAVY, NAVAL PLANT REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE, BALTIMORE,
 MARYLAND, A/SLMR NO. 486.
 
    ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT HEREIN DOES ESTABLISH A PAST PRACTICE OF ROTATING
 OFFICERS TO DIFFERENT POSTS AND THUS MAKING SOME REASSIGNMENTS, I AM
 PERSUADED THAT NO SUCH PRIOR PRACTICE EXISTED WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTION
 TAKEN IN THE R&D UNIT.  THE ADDITIONS OF A FULL TIME OFFICER IN THIS
 AREA, AND THE ATTENDANT CHANGE SHIFTS AND HOURS, IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM
 ROTATIONAL ASSIGNMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE AT THE INSTITUTION.
 ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE RESPONDENT, BY MAKING THESE CHANGES IN THE R&D
 UNIT, HAS VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE ACT BY REFUSING TO
 NEGOTIATE REGARDING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF.
 
    HAVING FOUND THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF
 THE ACT BY REFUSING TO BARGAIN OVER THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
 CERTAIN UNILATERAL CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS EFFECTED BY IT.  I
 RECOMMEND THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING ORDER.
 
                                ORDER /14/
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118(E)(7) OF THE FEDERAL LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE AND SECTION 2423.29 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, IT
 IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM, CORRECTIONAL
 INSTITUTION, PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) ABOLISHING A GUARD TOWER OR ANY OTHER POSITION, AND RELOCATING A
 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
 
    TO ANY NEWLY CREATED POSITION, INCLUDING THE PERIMETER PATROLMAN,
 WITHOUT AFFORDING AMERICAN
 
    FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2052, THE EMPLOYEES'
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 
    REPRESENTATIVE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT
 WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 
    ON THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING THE
 CHANGE AND RELOCATION OF
 
    THE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, AND ON THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) INSTITUTING A CHANGE AT THE DORMITORIES, MARYLAND AND DELAWARE
 HALLS, WHEREBY ONE
 
    CORRECTIONAL OFFICER IS ASSIGNED TO WORK AT AND COVER BOTH OF THE
 DORMITORIES, IN LIEU OF
 
    ASSIGNING ONE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TO EACH SEPARATE DORMITORY,
 WITHOUT AFFORDING AMERICAN
 
    FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, LOCAL 2052, THE EMPLOYEES
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 
    REPRESENTATIVE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT
 WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 
    ON THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH
 CHANGE AND ASSIGNMENT,
 
    AND TO THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    (C) ADDING ANOTHER POSITION TO THE ROSTER OF A CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
 FOR THE RECEIVING AND
 
    DISCHARGE UNIT, AND THE ASSIGNING OF AN ADDITIONAL FULL TIME OFFICER
 TO WORK AT THE RECEIVING
 
    AND DISCHARGE UNIT, WITHOUT AFFORDING AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2052,
 
    THE EMPLOYEES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AN OPPORTUNITY
 TO NEGOTIATE, TO THE
 
    EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE PROCEDURES WHICH
 MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN
 
    IMPLEMENTING SUCH ADDITION AND ASSIGNMENT, AND ON THE IMPACT IT WILL
 HAVE ON ADVERSELY
 
    AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    (D) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE ACT.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 POLICIES OF THE ACT:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AT THE FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM, CORRECTIONAL
 INSTITUTION,
 
    PETERSBURG, 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 CHIEF CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISOR, 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 CHIEF
 CORRECTIONAL SUPERVISOR
 
    SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT
 ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED
 
    BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (B) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN
 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE
 
    OF THIS ORDER WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                              WILLIAM NAIMARK
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  NOVEMBER 7, 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 FEDERAL SERVICE
 
                    LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT UNILATERALLY CHANGE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT,
 INCLUDING (A) ABOLISHING A GUARD TOWER AND RELOCATING A CORRECTIONAL
 OFFICER TO PERIMETER PATROLMAN, OR OTHER NEWLY CREATED POSITIONS, (B)
 ASSIGNING ONE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TO WORK AT TWO DORMITORIES IN LIEU OF
 ASSIGNING ONE OFFICER TO WORK AT EACH SEPARATE DORMITORY, (C) ADDING A
 POSITION TO THE RECEIVING AND DISCHARGE UNIT AND ASSIGNING AN ADDITIONAL
 OFFICER TO WORK FULL TIME THEREAT, WITHOUT FIRST AFFORDING AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2052, THE EMPLOYEES'
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE, TO
 THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE PROCEDURES WHICH
 MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGES AND ON THE IMPACT
 IT 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 UNDER
 THE ACT.
 
                            AGENCY OR ACTIVITY
 
    DATED:  BY:
 
    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 THE NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, 1133 15TH STREET,
 N.W., ROOM 300, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ SECTION 7105(G)(3) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES:
 
    (G) IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT ITS FUNCTIONS UNDER THIS CHAPTER, THE
 AUTHORITY MAY--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (3) REQUIRE AN AGENCY OR A LABOR ORGANIZATION TO CEASE AND DESIST
 FROM VIOLATIONS OF THIS
 
    CHAPTER AND REQUIRE IT TO TAKE ANY REMEDIAL ACTION IT CONSIDERS
 APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THE
 
    OF THIS CHAPTER.
 
    SEE ALSO SECTION 7118(A)(7) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    /2/ SEE, E.G., SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER (AFLC), KELLY AIR
 FORCE BASE, TEXAS, 5 FLRA NO. 22(198 1);  NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD,
 PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 6 FLRA NO. 22(1981).
 
    /3/ IN THIS REGARD, THE AUTHORITY NOTES THAT SECTION 7101(B) OF THE
 STATUTE STATES, IN PART, THE INTENT OF CONGRESS THAT "(T)HE PROVISIONS
 OF THIS CHAPTER SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE
 REQUIREMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT."
 
    /4/ THE NAME OF THE EMPLOYER APPEARS AS CORRECTED AT THE HEARING.
 
    /5/ GENERAL COUNSEL FILED A POST-HEARING MOTION TO AMEND THE
 COMPLAINT SO AS TO INCLUDE THE DATE OF APRIL 27, 1980 AS A DATE ON WHICH
 CHANGES WERE ALSO IMPLEMENTED BY RESPONDENT AT THE PRISON.  THE MOTION
 IS GRANTED.  THE ADDED DATE IS MERELY AN EXTENSION OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN
 THE COMPLAINT, AND THE MATTER WAS FULLY LITIGATED AT THE HEARING.
 MOREOVER, THE MOTION WAS UNOPPOSED BY RESPONDENT AND THE ADDITION WOULD
 NOT REQUIRE REOPENING THE HEARING.  SEE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
 PERRINE PRIMATE LABORATORY, A/SLMR NO. 136;  NAVAL AIR RESERVE TRAINING
 UNIT, MEMPHIS, TENN, A/SLMR NO. 106.
 
    /6/ GENERAL COUNSEL FILED A MOTION DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 1980, TO
 CORRECT THE TRANSCRIPT IN RESPECT TO DATES, NAMES, AND MINOR
 DISCREPANCIES.  THE MOTION, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OPPOSED, IS HEREBY
 GRANTED.
 
    /7/ THE CHANGES, AS OUTLINED TO LONG AND IMPLEMENTED BY RESPONDENT,
 WILL BE SET FORTH INFRA.
 
    /8/ LONG'S VERSION IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT AS TO THE ENTRIES AND NUMBER
 OF PATROLMEN SERVICING THE COMPOUND.  HIS RECITAL OF THE FACTS WAS
 BASED, HOWEVER, ON HIS UNDERSTANDING THEREOF, AND I HAVE CREDITED CURD
 IN THIS REGARD.
 
    /9/ RECORD FACTS SHOW OVERTIME INCREASED AFTER JANUARY 31;  AND,
 MOREOVER, THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT ALLEGE REDUCTION IN OVERTIME AS A
 UNILATERAL CHANGE IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT.
 
    /10/ WHILE CURD TESTIFIED ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WAS HELPING OUT AS AN
 EXTRA IN R & D, THE FULL TIME R & D POSITION HAD BEEN ADDED PRIOR TO THE
 FEBRUARY, 1980 ROSTER.
 
    /11/ GENERAL COUNSEL ALSO MAINTAINS THAT THE EMPLOYER FAILED TO GIVE
 SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE NOTICE TO THE UNION REGARDING THE IMPENDING
 CHANGES SO AS TO ENABLE THE LATTER TO PREPARE FOR BARGAINING.  IT IS
 TRUE THAT PAST DECISIONS UPHOLD THE OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY THE BARGAINING
 AGENT OF CONTEMPLATED CHANGES SO THE UNION CAN FORMULATE ITS DEMANDS.
 NEVERTHELESS, I AM PERSUADED THAT HOWARD WAS INFORMED, VIA CURD AND
 ANOTHER SUPERVISOR, AS TO THE SPECIFIC CHANGES WHICH RESPONDENT INTENDED
 TO INSTATUTE AT THE PRISON.  WHILE THE MANNER OF NOTIFICATION, AS WELL
 AS THE SPECIFICS THEREOF, COULD WELL HAVE BEEN IMPROVED UPON, I CONCLUDE
 THE UNION DID RECEIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE CONTEMPLATED CHANGES IN THE
 ROSTER AND THE POST POSITIONS.  TO THE SAME EFFECT SEE JUDGE MASON'S
 DECISION IN U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE SYSTEMS, ET. AL IN
 1-CA-256 (SEPTEMBER 17, 1980).  CF. U. S. AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE LOGISTICS
 COMMAND, ET. AL. 4 FLRA NO. 70.
 
    /12/ RESPONDENT ALSO AVERS THAT NO REQUEST TO BARGAIN REGARDING THE
 IMPACT OF ITS CHANGE WAS MADE BY THE UNION.  THIS CONTENTION IS REJECTED
 SINCE RECORD FACTS REVEAL THAT UNION REPRESENTATIVE REQUESTED
 NEGOTIATIONS SEVERAL TIMES.
 
    /13/ GENERAL COUNSEL ALSO CONTENDS THAT RESPONDENT RAN AFOUL OF THE
 ACT BY UNILATERALLY REQUIRING CASEWORKERS TO FILL IN FOR DORMITORY
 OFFICERS.  THE RECORD DOES NOT CLEARLY REFLECT THAT, IN FACT, THE
 CASEWORKERS WERE GIVEN SUCH ASSIGNMENT.  THUS I DO NOT CONCLUDE
 RESPONDENT HAS VIOLATED THE ACT IN THIS REGARD.
 
    /14/ GENERAL COUNSEL SEEKS A STATUS QUO REMEDY WITH