09:0437(54)CA - Treasury, IRS, Detroit, MI and NTEU and NTEU Chapter 24 -- 1982 FLRAdec CA



[ v09 p437 ]
09:0437(54)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 9 FLRA No. 54
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 DETROIT, MICHIGAN
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
 UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 24
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case Nos. 5-CA-164
                                                      5-CA-192
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED DECISION AND ORDER
 IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDINGS, FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT, INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN (IRS), HAD ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND
 TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS.  THE JUDGE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE
 RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN OTHER ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
 RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WITH RESPECT TO THEM.  THEREAFTER
 THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND IRS FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND
 ORDER, AND AN OPPOSITION BRIEF WAS FILED BY IRS.
 
    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 IN THE SUBJECT CASE,
 THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS.  /1/
 
                                   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 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND ITS
 DETROIT DISTRICT SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INSTITUTING ANY CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF REPORTING ORAL REPLY
 OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION,
 CHAPTER 24, IN THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 24, AND AFFORDING THEM
 THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED IN IMPLEMENTING
 SUCH CHANGE, AND CONCERNING THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE WILL HAVE ON
 ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 24, NEGOTIATE TO THE EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE USED
 IN IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE IN THE REQUIREMENT THAT ORAL REPLY OFFICER
 RECOMMENDATIONS BE MADE ORALLY RATHER THAN IN WRITTEN FORM IN THE
 DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AND CONCERNING
 THE IMPACT OF SUCH CHANGE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) POST AT THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, AND AT THE VARIOUS POSTS OF DUTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE DETROIT
 DISTRICT OFFICE, 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 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, AND BY THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR, DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE, INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE
 DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND
 OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS
 SHALL BE TAKEN TO INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR
 COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION V, 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 HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO.
 5-CA-192, BE AND HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.  
 
 ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 16, 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 AND TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES
 
            CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS WE
 
                    HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
 WE WILL NOT INSTITUTE ANY CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF REPORTING ORAL REPLY
 OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED
 EXCLUSIVELY BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NATIONAL
 TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 24, IN THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE OF
 THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 24, AND
 WITHOUT AFFORDING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE TO THE EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED IN
 IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGE, AND ON THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE WILL HAVE ON
 ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.  WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER
 INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF
 THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE.  WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, NEGOTIATE WITH THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 24,
 CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE UTILIZED IN IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE IN
 THE METHOD OF REPORTING ORAL REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE
 DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AND CONCERNING
 THE IMPACT OF SUCH CHANGE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.  DATED:  . .
 .  BY:  COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DATED:  . . .  BY:
 DISTRICT DIRECTOR, DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE 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,
 REGION V, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  SUITE
 A-1359, 175 WEST JACKSON BLVD., CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    SHEILA A. REILLY, ESQUIRE
                          FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    MICHAEL MAUER, ESQUIRE
                          FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
 
    WILLIAM T. LYONS, ESQUIRE
                         FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    BEFORE:  LOUIS SCALZO
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                            CASE NOS. 5-CA-164
                                 5-CA-192
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS PROCEEDING ARISES FROM AN ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, COMPLAINT
 AND NOTICE OF HEARING, ISSUED ON DECEMBER 20, 1979, UNDER PROVISIONS OF
 THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, 92 STAT. 1191, 5
 U.S.C. 7101 ET SEQ., (HEREINAFTER CALLED "THE STATUTE") AND THE RULES
 AND REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER.
 
    THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1)
 AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.  WITH RESPECT TO CASE NO. 5-CA-164, IT IS
 ALLEGED THAT ON OR ABOUT APRIL 18, 1979, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS
 THE "RESPONDENT" OR "DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE"), UNILATERALLY CHANGED
 EXISTING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BY REQUIRING THAT ALL ORAL REPLY
 OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS BE MADE ORALLY INSTEAD OF IN WRITING /2/ WITHOUT
 FURNISHING THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 24 (REFERRED TO HEREIN AS "THE UNION"), NOTICE
 AND/OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE DECISION TO MAKE THE
 CHANGE, AND CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE.  THE
 COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE UNION REQUESTED THE RESPONDENT TO
 BARGAIN CONCERNING THE CHANGE, BUT THAT THE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO DO SO.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO CASE NO. 5-CA-192, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT IN
 APRIL OF 1979, RESPONDENT UNILATERALLY CHANGED EXISTING CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT AT ITS DEARBORN AND FLINT, MICHIGAN OFFICES BY PROMULGATING A
 SET OF RULES PROVIDING THAT EACH REVENUE OFFICER GROUP MAKE ONE SEIZURE
 A MONTH;  THAT EACH REVENUE OFFICER REDUCE HIS RESPECTIVE OVERAGE
 INVENTORY /3/ BY 25 PERCENT;  AND THAT ANY REVENUE OFFICER WHO ALLOWED A
 COLLECTION OR ASSESSMENT STATUTE TO EXPIRE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A
 THREE-DAY SUSPENSION.  COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL ARGUES THAT THE
 CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO SEIZURES AND REDUCING OVERAGE CASES WERE
 IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT FURNISHING THE UNION NOTICE AND/OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 BARGAIN CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGES.  /4/
 WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF A RULE WHICH WOULD SUBJECT REVENUE
 OFFICERS TO A THREE-DAY PENALTY FOR ALLOWING A COLLECTION OR ASSESSMENT
 STATUTE TO EXPIRE, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO FURNISH
 THE UNION NOTICE AND/OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE
 DECISION TO MAKE THE CHANGE AND CONCERNING IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.
 
    COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE RESPONDENT TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE
 CHANGE RELATING TO ORAL REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS DOES NOT REPRESENT
 A CHANGE IN EXISTING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT;  THAT IT MERELY INVOLVES
 A CHANGE WITH RESPECT TO INTRA-MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATIONS;  THAT THE
 CHANGE HAS HAD NO IMPACT ON BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES;  AND THAT THE
 RESPONDENT HAS NO BARGAINING OBLIGATION WITH RESPECT THERETO.
 CONCERNING ALLEGED CHANGES IN EXISTING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BY THE
 PROMULGATION OF RULES AT RESPONDENT'S DEARBORN AND FLINT, MICHIGAN
 OFFICES, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT STATES THAT THE EVIDENCE IS
 INADEQUATE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE RESPONDENT CHANGED WORKING CONDITIONS
 AS ALLEGED.
 
    BASED ON THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, THE EXHIBITS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE
 ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, AND THE BRIEFS, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF
 FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    CASE NO. 5-CA-192
 
    THE RECORD DISCLOSED THAT ON APRIL 16, 1979 RICHARD A. HICKSON, CHIEF
 OF THE COLLECTION DIVISION IN THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE, FORMULATED A
 SERIES OF COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES FOR 1979.  THESE OBJECTIVES,
 INSOFAR AS THEY ARE PERTINENT HERE, INVOLVED THE FOLLOWING GOALS:
 
    B.  TO REVITALIZE THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM ESPECIALLY IN THE LEVY
 (668B) /5/ AREA TO
 
    INCLUDE PARTICIPATION BY EVERY GROUP EVERY MONTH.  /6/
 RESPONSIBILITY:  ALL MANAGERS.
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    D.  TO REDUCE OUR ASSIGNED TO THE FIELD OVER 1 YEAR TDA'S /7/ BY 25%
 OF THE NUMBER WE HAVE
 
    ON HAND AS OF THE MARCH 1979 DAIP /8/ - TARGET DATE 9/30/79.
 RESPONSIBILITY:  ALL
 
    MANAGERS.  (JOINT EXHIBIT 8).  /9/ THE ATTAINMENT OF THESE OBJECTIVES
 WAS MADE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS ONLY.  THEY WERE
 SUBSEQUENTLY INCORPORATED INTO DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE DIRECTIVE 51-32
 DATED MAY 15, 1979 (JOINT EXHIBIT 11).
 
    EMPHASIS PLACED ON SEIZURE ENFORCEMENT ACTION WAS BASED UPON A
 MANAGEMENT DECISION TO EFFECT REVERSAL OF A PRIOR SUBSTANTIAL DECREASE
 IN THE USE OF SEIZURE AS AN ENFORCEMENT TOOL, AND UPON AN ATTEMPT BY
 MANAGEMENT TO ALLAY CRITICISM OF MANAGEMENT BY REVENUE OFFICERS FOR
 MANAGEMENT FAILURE TO SUPPORT REVENUE OFFICER SEIZURE DECISIONS (TR.
 254-255).  IT APPEARED THAT A TENDENCY TO DISCONTINUE SEIZURE ACTIVITY
 HAD DEVELOPED AS AN AFTERMATH OF THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES
 SUPREME COURT IN G.M. LEASING CORPORATION V. UNITED STATES, 429 U.S. 338
 (1977).  THE RESPONDENT ESTABLISHED THAT NEW PRE-SEIZURE PROCEDURES
 INVOLVING THE NEED FOR WRITS OF ENTRY TO ENTER PRIVATE PREMISES,
 MANDATED BY THE MENTIONED CASE, PRECIPITATED A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN
 THE USE OF SEIZURE BY REVENUE OFFICERS.  DISCONTINUANCE OF THE USE OF
 SEIZURE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE RESPONDENT (TR. 192), BUT WAS MERELY
 THE RESULT OF THE TEMPORARY ABSENCE OF PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO EFFECT
 SEIZURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION (TR. 112-113,
 193).  /10/
 
    AS NOTED ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THIS OBJECTIVE IMPOSED NO REQUIREMENT ON
 THE GROUP OR GROUP MEMBERS TO EFFECT A SEIZURE EACH MONTH.  INSTEAD,
 GROUP MANAGERS WERE MERELY REQUIRED TO FILE A REPORT OUTLINING EFFORTS
 IN THE ENFORCEMENT AREA DURING MONTHS WHEN NO SEIZURES OCCURRED AS A
 RESULT OF GROUP WORK ACTIVITY.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO THE 25 PERCENT REDUCTION OF TAXPAYER DELINQUENCY
 ACCOUNTS ASSIGNED TO THE FIELD FOR OVER ONE YEAR, THE RESPONDENT SOUGHT
 TO REMOVE UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THE MEANING OF THE TERM "OVERAGE" IN
 THE FIELD BY DELIBERATELY OMITTING USE OF THE WORD "OVERAGE" IN THIS
 COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVE, AND BY PROVIDING A SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF
 "OVERAGE" FOR OTHER PURPOSES ASSOCIATED WITH OBJECTIVES OTHER THAN THOSE
 INVOLVED HEREIN (JOINT EXHIBIT 8).  THESE ARE NOT RELEVANT HERE;
 HOWEVER, IT IS NECESSARY TO NOTE THAT JOINT EXHIBIT 8, MAKES IT CLEAR
 THAT THE TERM "OVERAGE" AS DEFINED IN JOINT EXHIBIT 8, HAD NO
 APPLICABILITY TO RESPONDENT'S PLAN TO EFFECT A 25 PERCENT REDUCTION OF
 TAXPAYER DELINQUENCY ACCOUNTS ASSIGNED TO THE FIELD FOR A PERIOD OF MORE
 THAN ONE YEAR (TR. 256-257, 260-261).  IN THIS REGARD IT WAS ESTABLISHED
 THAT IT WAS A LONG-STANDING DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE POLICY FOR ALL
 COLLECTION DIVISION MANAGERS TO EMPHASIZE THE DISPOSAL OF OLDER CASES
 (TR. 256), AND THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE HAS ALWAYS STRESSED THE
 IMPORTANCE OF DISPOSING OF OLD ACCOUNTS (TR. 286, 328).
 
    THE PROMULGATION OF COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES WAS NOT EFFECTED
 WITH INTENT TO IMPOSE A QUOTA SYSTEM ON REVENUE OFFICERS WITH REGARD TO
 SEIZURES OR THE REDUCTION OF CASE INVENTORIES (TR. 255, 257-258), QUOTAS
 WERE NOT IMPOSED (TR. 266-267), AND REVENUE OFFICER EVALUATION
 PROCEDURES WERE NOT CHANGED (TR. 266-267).
 
    A SERIES OF BRANCH CHIEF MEETINGS FOR MANAGERS WAS HELD IN THE
 DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE TO EXPLAIN THE COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES.
 BRANCH CHIEFS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE GROUP MANAGERS ATTENDED.  THE CHIEF
 HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE FLINT AND DEARBORN POSTS OF DUTY (FIELD
 BRANCH 2), TOGETHER WITH GROUP MANAGERS FROM THESE OFFICES ATTENDED SUCH
 A MEETING ON APRIL 17, 1979 (TR. 258, 273, RESPONDENT EXHIBIT 10).  AT
 THIS MEETING BRANCH CHIEF WILLIAM MEEHAN ALSO REFERRED TO THE DUTY OF
 MANAGERS TO PROTECT COLLECTION ACTIVITY BY INSURING THAT STATUTES OF
 LIMITATION NOT BE ALLOWED TO EXPIRE PRIOR TO TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION.
 THE SUBJECT WAS RAISED IN BRIEF SUMMARY FORM BY ADVISING MANAGEMENT
 OFFICIALS THAT THEY HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT COLLECTION
 STATUTES AND BY STATING, "IF YOU ALLOW A COLLECTION STATUTE TO EXPIRE
 PLAN ON A THREE-DAY VACATION" (TR. 274-275).  THE STATEMENT BY BRANCH
 CHIEF MEEHAN WAS NOT MADE WITH THE INTENTION OF IMPOSING ANY BRANCHWIDE
 RULE OR DETROIT DISTRICT POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF A
 PENALTY FOR ALLOWING A STATUTE OF LIMITATION TO EXPIRE (TR. 275), BUT
 RATHER WAS INTENDED AS A HUMOROUS REFERENCE TO THE NEED FOR MANAGERS
 PRESENT TO RECOGNIZE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS IMPORTANT AREA (TR.
 275).
 
    FOLLOWING THE BRANCH CHIEF MEETINGS OUTLINED, H. KENNETH ISENOGLE,
 GROUP MANAGER IN FLINT, MICHIGAN, CONVENED A MEETING IN FLINT FOR
 REVENUE AGENTS UNDER HIS SUPERVISION TO EXPLAIN THE COLLECTION DIVISION
 OBJECTIVES.  THE FLINT MEETING OCCURRED DURING PORTIONS OF A THREE-DAY
 PERIOD COMMENCING ON APRIL 23, 1979, AND ENDING ON APRIL 25, 1979 (TR.
 304,337).  THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION OF THE G.M. LEASING
 CORPORATION OPINION AND THE CHANGE IN CASE HANDLING PROCEDURES DEVELOPED
 AS A RESULT OF CONSTRAINTS GENERATED BY THAT CASE (TR. 105).  COLLECTION
 DIVISION OBJECTIVES RELATING TO EMPHASIS ON SEIZURES AND THE REDUCTION
 OF TAXPAYER DELINQUENCY ACCOUNTS ASSIGNED TO THE FILED FOR OVER ONE YEAR
 WERE DISCUSSED BY MR.  ISENOGLE.  /11/ HE EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT HE
 WOULD NOT LIKE TO FILE A NARRATIVE REPORT IN LIEU OF EFFECTING A SEIZURE
 DURING ANY MONTH, BUT IMPOSED NO DUTY UPON HIS REVENUE OFFICER TO EFFECT
 SEIZURES (TR.  122).  THE IMPOSITION OF QUOTAS ON THE GROUP WAS NOT
 INTENDED WITH RESPECT TO EITHER OF THE TWO OBJECTIVES MENTIONED (TR.
 282-283), AND QUOTAS WERE NOT IMPOSED (TR. 292).
 
    DURING THE COURSE OF THE MEETING MR. ISENOGLE DISTRIBUTED TO REVENUE
 OFFICERS ATTENDING A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "FACTORS FOR USE IN CONDUCTING
 THE REVENUE OFFICER INVENTORY ANALYSIS" (GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 8);
 COPIES OF A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "PROCESSING BMF DELINQUENCIES" (GENERAL
 COUNSEL EXHIBIT 9);  AND COPIES OF REVENUE OFFICER POSITION DESCRIPTIONS
 (TR.  337-338).  THESE HAD, FOR PURPOSES PRESENT IN THIS CASE, BEEN IN
 EFFECT PRIOR TO THE PROMULGATION AND DISCUSSION OF COLLECTION DIVISION
 OBJECTIVES IN ISSUE.  IN FACT, THE FIRST TWO WERE TAKEN FROM THE
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE MANUAL.  THE FIRST (GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 8),
 DEALT WITH FACTORS UTILIZED TO EVALUATE REVENUE OFFICER PERFORMANCE.  IT
 WAS PASSED OUT WITH THE INSTRUCTION THAT IT DESCRIBED THE NATURE OF
 REVENUE OFFICER PERFORMANCE (TR. 116).  REVENUE OFFICERS PRESENT WERE
 INFORMED AS TO THE NATURE OF THEIR DUTIES AND THE ELEMENTS (REFLECTED IN
 THE DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED) WHICH WOULD ENTER INTO THEIR PERFORMANCE
 EVALUATIONS (TR. 337-338).  THE SECOND (GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 9), WAS
 USED TO AID IN EXPLAINING PROCEDURE ALREADY ESTABLISHED TO COLLECT
 DELINQUENT TAXES (TR. 94-95, 121-122).
 
    DURING THE MEETING MR. ISENOGLE APPRISED THE REVENUE OFFICERS
 ATTENDING THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE AN AUTOMATIC THREE-DAY SUSPENSION
 WITHOUT PAY IF THEY ALLOWED A COLLECTION STATUTE TO EXPIRE IN ANY
 ASSIGNED CASE.  THIS STATEMENT WAS ADMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.  HOWEVER,
 STEPHEN D. DUNCAN, A REVENUE OFFICER WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING, AND WHO
 APPEARED AS A WITNESS FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THE PROBLEM
 OF EXPIRED STATUTES OF LIMITATION WAS A CONSTANT SOURCE OF CONCERN IN
 COLLECTION WORK AND THAT THE COMMENT WAS MADE MERELY TO OBTAIN THE
 "ATTENTION" OF THE GROUP (TR. 111).  DUE TO MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE
 REMARK MR. ISENOGLE DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT WITH BRANCH CHIEF MEEHAN, AND
 RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE STATEMENT (TR.  276-277, 288).  HE
 DID SO DURING THE SECOND AND THIRD SESSIONS OF THE MEETING BY EXPLAINING
 THAT IN SUCH A CASE A FULL INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE ALL THE FACTS AND
 CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE WOULD BE
 CONDUCTED, AND THAT ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION WOULD DEPEND UPON THE FACTS
 DEVELOPED (TR. 288).  /12/
 
    IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT MR. ISENOGLE ESTABLISHED NO NEW
 RULE OF DISCIPLINE AT THE MEETING IN QUESTION (TR. 293).  THE TESTIMONY
 OF THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE DIRECTOR ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS IN
 FACT NO STANDARD PENALTY IN THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE FOR ALLOWING A
 STATUTE OF LIMITATION TO EXPIRE;  THAT GROUP MANAGERS PLAYED NO ROLE
 WITH RESPECT TO FIXING THE TYPE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION TO BE PRESCRIBED
 FOR ALLOWING A STATUTE OF LIMITATION TO EXPIRE;  AND FURTHER THAT IN ALL
 CASES DISCIPLINARY ACTION DEPENDED UPON THE FACTUAL SITUATION PRESENTED
 (TR. 170-171).
 
    REVENUE OFFICER REACTION IN FLINT LED TO SOME QUESTIONING AS TO
 WHETHER QUOTAS WERE BEING PRESCRIBED WITH RESPECT TO SEIZURES AND THE
 REDUCTION OF TAXPAYER DELINQUENCY ACCOUNTS, AND UNION STEWARD CHARLES E.
 BURKE, AND OTHER FLINT, MICHIGAN REVENUE OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE, BROUGHT
 THE DETAILS OF MR. ISENOGLE'S COMMENTS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PRESIDENT
 OF CHAPTER 24 IN A LETTER DATED APRIL 25, 1979 (GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT
 4).  /13/ HOWEVER, THE TESTIMONY OF MR. BURKE ESTABLISHED THAT AT THE
 TIME HE PREPARED THE LETTER HE WAS UNCERTAIN THAT MR.  ISENOGLE'S
 COMMENTS REPRESENTED ACTUAL CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS, AND THAT HE
 ONLY FELT THE COMMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN INDICATIONS OF POSSIBLE CHANGE
 (TR. 302-303).
 
    IN THE RESPONDENT'S FLINT OFFICE, THE COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES
 CREATED EMPHASIS ON SEIZURE ENFORCEMENT ACTION GENERALLY, AND RESOLUTION
 OF TAXPAYER DELINQUENCY ACCOUNTS.  IT DID NOT RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION
 OF QUOTAS OR THE WITHDRAWAL OF REVENUE OFFICER AUTHORITY TO MAKE
 DETERMINATIONS AS TO WHETHER SEIZURE ACTION SHOULD BE PURSUED.
 
    COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL ENDEAVORED TO PROVE THAT INDIVIDUAL
 REVENUE OFFICERS IN FLINT AND DEARBORN WERE COMPELLED TO EFFECT SEIZURES
 AFTER ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES, AND THAT PRIOR THERETO
 DETERMINATIONS WERE MADE BY REVENUE OFFICERS.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT
 THIS CLAIM WAS NOT ESTABLISHED;  AND FURTHER THAT A CHANGE IN THIS
 REGARD WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.  /14/
 
    GROUP MANAGERS JOHN MASSON AND BYRON CROWE IN DEARBORN ALSO
 CONDUCTED
 MEETINGS WITH REVENUE AGENTS UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION TO PRESENT THE
 COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES.  SEPARATE GROUP MEETINGS OCCURRED IN THE
 LATTER PART OF APRIL 1979, AND THE TWO GROUPS MET TOGETHER FOR THIS
 PURPOSE ON MAY 1 AND 2, 1979 (GENERAL COUNSEL EXHIBIT 4, TR. 56, 58-59,
 326).  THESE MEETINGS DID NOT RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF QUOTAS WITH
 RESPECT TO THE WORK PERFORMED BY THE REVENUE AGENTS.  THE MEETINGS DID
 RESULT IN EMPHASIS BEING PLACED UPON COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES.
 
    REVENUE OFFICER DUTIES HAVE TRADITIONALLY INVOLVED THE PROMOTION OF
 VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AND THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT TAXES AND RETURNS
 (TR. 60).  RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEIZURE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS AN
 IMPORTANT ASPECT OF EVERY REVENUE OFFICER'S JOB (TR.  81, 224-245, 250).
  THIS IS CLEARLY EVIDENCED IN POSITION DESCRIPTIONS INTRODUCED INTO THE
 RECORD AS RESPONDENT EXHIBITS 4, 7, 8 AND 9.  THESE DOCUMENTS INDICATE
 THAT REVENUE OFFICERS HAVE HAD DURING ALL TIMES PERTINENT HEREIN, THE
 DUTY AND THE AUTHORITY TO EFFECT SEIZURES.  HOWEVER, THIS DUTY AND THIS
 AUTHORITY IS, AND HAS BEEN, SUBJECT TO VARIOUS DEGREES OF SUPERVISORY
 REVIEW DEPENDING ON THE REVENUE OFFICER GRADE LEVEL.  /15/ A CAREFUL
 REVIEW OF THE POSITION DESCRIPTIONS INDICATES A BASIS FOR SUPERVISORY
 REVIEW OF REVENUE OFFICER ACTIONS.  ALTHOUGH THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF
 DISCRETIONARY ACTION WHICH REVENUE OFFICERS ARE ALLOWED TO PURSUE IN THE
 SEIZURE AREA, INTERNAL REVENUE MANUAL GUIDELINES PRESCRIBE PROCEDURES
 WHICH MUST BE PURSUED, AND WHICH FORM THE BASIS FOR EVALUATION OF
 REVENUE OFFICER PERFORMANCE (TR. 284-285).
 
    CASE NO. 5-CA-164
 
    PRIOR TO JULY 12, 1978, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE REGULATIONS PROVIDED
 THAT PERSONS AGAINST WHOM CERTAIN ADVERSE ACTIONS WERE PROPOSED WERE
 ENTITLED TO THE RIGHT TO REPLY ORALLY /16/ TO THE DISCIPLINARY OFFICIAL
 OR HIS DESIGNEE (JOINT EXHIBITS 4-C AND 7), AND FURTHER THAT IN
 SITUATIONS WHEREIN THE ORAL REPLY WAS SUBMITTED TO A REPRESENTATIVE
 (ORAL REPLY OFFICER) OF THE DISCIPLINARY OFFICIAL, THAT THE ORAL REPLY
 OFFICER THEN "SUBMIT A WRITTEN REPORT OF HIS CONCLUSIONS AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DISCIPLINARY OFFICIAL.  THE FUNCTION OF AN ORAL
 REPLY OFFICER IS TO LISTEN TO THE CHARGED EMPLOYEE'S VERBAL RESPONSE TO
 THE CHARGES, WITNESS HIS DEMEANOR, ASSESS CREDIBILITY AND ATTITUDE, AND
 THEN DECIDE WHAT ADVERSE ACTION, IF ANY, TO RECOMMEND (TR. 147).
 ACCORDING TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE MANUAL SECTION 1987.5(2) THE
 WRITTEN REPORT WAS CONSIDERED CONFIDENTIAL AND WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE
 EMPLOYEE OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE (JOINT EXHIBIT 7, TR. 168).
 
    THE RECORD DISCLOSED THAT ON JULY 17, 1978, THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED A
 JULY 12, 1978 TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM (JOINT EXHIBIT 4-B) FROM THE ACTING
 REGIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, CENTRAL REGION, TRANSMITTING A JUNE 30, 1978
 MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE SERVICE'S PERSONNEL DIVISION,
 TO ALL INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE REGIONS (JOINT EXHIBIT 4-C).  THE LATTER
 MEMORANDUM INFORMED THAT ORAL REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS NEED NO
 LONGER BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, BUT COULD INSTEAD BE MADE ORALLY OR IN
 WRITING.  THE JUNE 30, 1978 MEMORANDUM EXPLAINED THAT IF SUBMITTED IN
 WRITING, THE RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE EXPRESSED IN A SIMPLE STATEMENT
 INDICATING WHETHER THE PROPOSED ADVERSE ACTION SHOULD BE SUSTAINED,
 MODIFIED, OR WITHDRAWN, BUT THAT AN ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND RATIONALE
 FOR THE RECOMMENDATION SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED TO WRITING.  THE
 MEMORANDUM
 FROM THE DIRECTOR, PERSONNEL DIVISION, ALSO NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THEN
 CURRENT INTERNAL REVENUE MANUAL SECTION 1987.5(2) (JOINT EXHIBIT 7),
 PROVIDED THAT THE ORAL REPLY OFFICER SUBMIT HIS RECOMMENDATION IN
 WRITING TO THE DISCIPLINARY OFFICIAL, THIS SECTION OF THE MANUAL WOULD
 BE REVISED IN THE FUTURE TO REFLECT THE CHANGE OUTLINED.  /17/ UPON
 RECEIPT OF THIS NOTIFICATION IN THE DETROIT DISTRICT, DISTRICT DIRECTOR
 PLATE DECIDED THAT ALL ORAL REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE MADE
 TO HIM ORALLY RATHER THAN IN WRITING (JOINT EXHIBIT 4-A, TR. 148, 175,
 207-208).  THE NEW PROCEDURE WAS COMMUNICATED TO ALL ORAL REPLY OFFICERS
 (TR. 207-208).  THE UNION WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE CHANGE (TR. 42, 156).
 
    SUBSEQUENTLY, A REQUEST FOR A WRITTEN ORAL REPLY OFFICER
 RECOMMENDATION WAS FILED BY AN INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED IN AN ADVERSE ACTION
 PROCEEDING.  BY LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 12, 1979, DISTRICT DIRECTOR PLATE
 ADVISED THAT NO SUCH RECORD EXISTED, AND THAT "DETROIT DISTRICT
 PROCEDURES PROVIDE THAT THE ORAL REPLY OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE
 ORAL, AND NO WRITTEN DOCUMENT IS TO BE PREPARED" (JOINT EXHIBIT 2).  BY
 LETTER DATED APRIL 2, 1979, THE UNION MADE A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
 REQUEST FOR A COPY OF THE PROCEDURES REFERRED TO IN THE DISTRICT
 DIRECTOR'S FEBRUARY 12, 1979 LETTER.  IN LETTER DATED APRIL 18, 1979
 (JOINT EXHIBIT 4-A), THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR RESPONDED TO THE UNION AND
 FURNISHED COPIES OF THE MEMORANDUMS WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED IN JULY 1978,
 AND WHICH HE THEREAFTER USED AS A BASIS FOR EFFECTING THE CHANGE.  /18/
 
    BY LETTER DATED JUNE 1, 1979 (JOINT EXHIBIT 5), THE UNION ADVISED
 DISTRICT DIRECTOR PLATE THAT SINCE HIS INSTRUCTIONS THAT ALL ORAL REPLY
 OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS BE MADE ORALLY REPRESENTED A CHANGE IN PAST
 PRACTICE, THE UNION WAS REQUESTING NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING "THE
 SUBSTANCE, IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE . . . CHANGE IN PROCEDURES."
 BY LETTER DATED JUNE 26, 1979 (JOINT EXHIBIT 6), DISTRICT DIRECTOR PLATE
 REPLIED TO THE UNION BY ADVISING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NO OBLIGATION
 TO NEGOTIATE THE CHANGE.  HE STATED THAT HE WAS NOT "FAVORABLY DISPOSED
 TO COMMENCE NEGOTIATING THIS TYPE OF ISSUE AT THIS TIME." IN CONCLUDING
 HE STATED, "WHILE I FIND NO BASIS WHICH OBLIGATED MANAGEMENT TO
 NEGOTIATE THIS MATTER, CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE
 COMMENTS YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE ON THIS ISSUE." THE UNION RESPONDED BY
 FILING AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE.
 
    UNDER THE PRIOR PRACTICE THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR WOULD RECEIVE THE ORAL
 REPLY OFFICER'S WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION TOGETHER WITH A TRANSCRIPT OF THE
 ORAL REPLY AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED (TR. 143-144).  THE
 WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THE TRANSCRIPT SUPPLIED, OR MERELY
 REPEATED WHAT WAS SAID BY THE EMPLOYEE.  (TR. 154).  WRITTEN
 RECOMMENDATIONS ALSO INDICATED WHETHER THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE
 SUSTAINED, AND THE REASONS (TR. 155).  A VERBAL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE
 ORAL REPLY OFFICER AND THE DISCIPLINARY OFFICIAL ACCOMPANIED THE
 SUBMISSION OF THE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION (TR. 165, 173, 219).  SINCE IT
 HAD BEEN THE PRACTICE FORMERLY FOR THE ORAL REPLY OFFICER AND THE
 DISCIPLINARY OFFICIAL TO DISCUSS THE EMPLOYEE'S ORAL REPLY, THE NET
 EFFECT OF THE CHANGE WAS TO ELIMINATE A WRITTEN DOCUMENT FROM THE
 ADVERSE ACTION PROCEDURE.
 
    IT ALSO APPEARED THAT THE CHANGE IN PROCEDURE HAD OTHER INDIRECT
 EFFECTS REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORAL REPLY OFFICER'S WRITTEN
 RECOMMENDATION.  ALTHOUGH NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE ADVERSE ACTION
 APPEAL FILE, THE DOCUMENT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOLLOWING AN
 APPEAL FROM AN ADVERSE ACTION.  THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE FOLLOWING
 SEGMENT OF THE JUNE 30, 1978 MEMORANDUM ADDRESSED TO ALL INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE REGIONS BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE SERVICE'S PERSONNEL
 DIVISION:
 
    IN SUMMARY, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THE ORAL REPLY OFFICER'S WRITTEN
 RECOMMENDATION TO THE
 
    DISCIPLINARY OFFICIAL IS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE ADVERSE ACTION
 APPEAL FILE.  AS SUCH, A
 
    REQUEST FROM AN FEAA APPEALS OFFICER FOR THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD BE
 HONORED, BUT ONLY UNDER
 
    PROTEST, WITH A PROVISO TO THAT EFFECT . . . .
 
    SIMILARLY, THE RESPONDENT COULD HAVE SUPPLIED COPIES OF AVAILABLE
 WRITTEN ORAL REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FILED
 UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OR THE PRIVACY ACT (TR. 231).
 THERE IS ALSO INDICATION IN THE RECORD THAT THE STRICT CONFIDENTIALITY
 PROVISION IMPOSED BY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE MANUAL SECTION 1987.5(2)
 (JOINT EXHIBIT 7), COULD HAVE BEEN RELAXED IN APPROPRIATE CASES (TR.
 206-207).
 
                DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
    SECTION 7118(A)(7) OF THE STATUTE, AND SECTION 2423.18 OF THE
 REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. 2423.18 PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL COUNSEL HAS THE
 BURDEN OF PROVING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT BY A PREPONDERANCE OF
 THE EVIDENCE.  A CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSES THAT THIS
 BURDEN HAS NOT BEEN MET IN CASE NO. 5-CA-192, AND THAT IT HAS BEEN MET
 IN CASE NO.  5-CA-164.
 
    5-CA-192
 
    IN THIS CASE COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL WAS OBLIGATED TO PROVE
 THAT THE RESPONDENT UNILATERALLY CHANGED EXISTING CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT AT ITS DEARBORN AND FLINT, MICHIGAN POSTS OF DUTY BY
 PROMULGATING RULES THAT EACH REVENUE OFFICER GROUP MAKE ONE SEIZURE A
 MONTH;  THAT EACH REVENUE OFFICER REDUCE HIS OVERAGE CASE INVENTORY BY
 25 PERCENT;  AND BY IMPOSING A RULE THAT REVENUE OFFICERS BE SUBJECTED
 TO AN AUTOMATIC THREE-DAY SUSPENSION AS A PENALTY FOR ALLOWING A
 COLLECTION OR ASSESSMENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO EXPIRE.  THESE
 ALLEGATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE
 EVIDENCE.  INSTEAD, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE RULES OUTLINED WERE
 NOT IMPOSED ON REVENUE OFFICERS IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.
 
    TURNING FIRST TO THE AUTOMATIC THREE-DAY SUSPENSION, IT APPEARED THAT
 A STATEMENT RELATING TO THIS SUBJECT WAS FIRST VOICED IN THE DETROIT
 DISTRICT OFFICE BY BRANCH CHIEF WILLIAM MEEHAN TO GROUP MANAGERS UNDER
 HIS SUPERVISION.  HIS STATEMENT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE A NEW
 POLICY, BUT WAS MERELY A HUMOROUS REFERENCE TO THE NEED FOR MANAGERS TO
 RECOGNIZE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.  DURING A LATER MEETING OF REVENUE
 OFFICERS IN FLINT, MICHIGAN, MR. MEEHAN'S STATEMENTS WERE REPEATED IN
 SUBSTANTIAL PART BY GROUP MANAGER ISENOGLE.  THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSED THAT
 MR. ISENOGLE'S COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT WERE PERCEIVED BY AT LEAST ONE
 REVENUE AGENT ATTENDING AS MERELY A DEVICE TO OBTAIN THE ATTENTION OF
 THE GROUP, AS THE PROBLEM OF THE EXPIRED STATUTE WAS A CONSTANT SOURCE
 OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN.  HOWEVER, MISUNDERSTANDING CONCERNING THE
 MEANING
 OF THE STATEMENT WAS CLARIFIED BY MR. ISENOGLE AT SUBSEQUENT SESSIONS OF
 THE SAME STAFF MEETING, AND THOSE ATTENDING WERE APPRISED THAT MR.
 ISENOGLE WAS NOT ESTABLISHING A NEW RULE OF DISCIPLINE.  GROUP MANAGERS
 PLAYED NO ROLE WITH RESPECT TO FIXING THE TYPE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION
 THAT WOULD BE METED OUT FOR A PARTICULAR INFRACTION.  THERE WAS NO
 STANDARD PENALTY IN THE DETROIT DISTRICT FOR ALLOWING A STATUTE OF
 LIMITATION TO EXPIRE, AND IN ALL CASES DISCIPLINARY ACTION IN ANY CASE
 DEPENDED UPON THE FACTUAL SITUATION PRESENTED.
 
    WITH REGARD TO COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES, IT WAS ESTABLISHED
 THAT REVENUE OFFICERS IN THE DETROIT DISTRICT WERE NOT IN FACT REQUIRED
 TO REDUCE THEIR CASE LOAD BY ANY NUMBER, NOR WERE REVENUE OFFICER GROUPS
 REQUIRED TO EFFECT ONE SEIZURE PER MONTH.  RESPONSIBILITY FOR COLLECTION
 DIVISION OBJECTIVES WAS PLACED UPON MANAGERS, AND NOT UPON INDIVIDUAL
 REVENUE OFFICERS IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.  MOREOVER, IT CLEARLY APPEARED
 THAT THE RESPONDENT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES
 MERELY RESULTED IN A DEMAND THAT DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE REVENUE
 OFFICERS FULFILL LONG-ESTABLISHED REQUIREMENTS OF THEIR POSITIONS AS SET
 FORTH IN REVENUE OFFICER POSITION DESCRIPTIONS, AND INTERNAL REVENUE
 POLICIES ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO THE PROMULGATION OF THE COLLECTION
 DIVISION OBJECTIVES IN QUESTION.
 
    EMPHASIS PLACED UPON THE USE OF SEIZURES MERELY REITERATED THE BASIC
 DUTY OF REVENUE OFFICERS TO UTILIZE THIS ENFORCEMENT TOOL.  IT WAS
 PRECIPITATED BY A PERIOD OF NON-USE OF THE PROCEDURE BROUGHT ABOUT BY A
 JUDICIAL DECISION.  NO SANCTIONS WERE IMPOSED FOR THE FAILURE OF A
 REVENUE OFFICER GROUP TO EFFECT A SEIZURE DURING ANY MONTH.  GROUP
 MANAGERS WERE MERELY REQUIRED TO FILE REPORTS RELATING TO THEIR EFFORTS,
 IN LIEU OF SEIZURES EFFECTED.
 
    THE RECORD ESTABLISHED THAT "OVERAGE" CASES WERE NOT MADE THE SUBJECT
 OF ANY COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVE REFERRED TO IN THE COMPLAINT.
 INSTEAD, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO A 25 PERCENT REDUCTION OF TAXPAYER
 DELINQUENCY ACCOUNTS ASSIGNED TO THE FILED FOR OVER ONE YEAR.  THE
 LATTER CATEGORY OF CASES WAS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM "OVERAGE" CASES
 REFERRED TO BY COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL DURING THE HEARING AND IN
 HER POST-HEARING BRIEF.  NEVERTHELESS, IT WAS A LONG-STANDING DETROIT
 DISTRICT OFFICE POLICY FOR COLLECTION DIVISION MANAGERS TO EMPHASIZE THE
 DISPOSAL OF OLDER CASES.  THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT THAT REVENUE OFFICERS
 DISPOSE OF A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TAXPAYER DELINQUENCY ACCOUNTS ASSIGNED TO
 THE FIELD OVER ONE YEAR, AND QUOTAS WERE NOT IMPOSED IN THIS REGARD.
 
    COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES INVOLVED NO CHANGE IN REVENUE OFFICER
 POSITION DESCRIPTIONS, NOR WAS THERE ANY CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF
 EVALUATING REVENUE OFFICER PERFORMANCE.  INSTEAD, IT APPEARED THAT THE
 THRUST OF THE COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES WAS MERELY TO REVIVE
 EMPHASIS UPON PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED REVENUE OFFICER RESPONSIBILITIES.
 THIS IS EVIDENCED BY THE DISTRIBUTION OF POSITION DESCRIPTIONS,
 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO FACTORS UTILIZED BY GROUP MANAGERS TO REVIEW CASE
 INVENTORIES, AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED FOR
 HANDLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS.  NONE OF THESE REFLECTED CHANGES
 IN PROCEDURE OR POLICY.  ALTHOUGH REVENUE OFFICER REACTION IN FLINT AND
 DEARBORN INDICATES THAT CERTAIN REVENUE OFFICERS PERCEIVED THE
 COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES AS INVOLVING CHANGES IN EXISTING
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, PROOF ADDUCED DURING THE HEARING FAILED TO
 ESTABLISH THAT CHANGES AFFECTING BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WERE IN FACT
 INTENDED, ANNOUNCED OR IMPLEMENTED.  UNLESS THERE IS A SHOWING OF A
 CHANGE IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT NO OBLIGATION TO
 BARGAIN ARISES.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES DID NOT CHANGE THE
 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS, AND
 HAVING FOUND THAT NO NEW RULE OF DISCIPLINE WAS ESTABLISHED, IT IS
 RECOMMENDED THAT PORTIONS OF THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT DEALING WITH
 CASE NO. 5-CA-192, BE DISMISSED.
 
    5-CA-164
 
    PROCEDURES UTILIZED WITH REGARD TO ORAL REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS
 CLEARLY ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO RIGHTS RESERVED TO MANAGEMENT UNDER THE
 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE SINCE THEY PERTAIN TO
 THE RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT TO TAKE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.  HOWEVER, UNDER THE
 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7106(B)(2) AND (3) OF THE STATUTE, BARGAINING IS
 MANDATORY ON PROCEDURES DESIGNED FOR EXERCISING SUCH RIGHTS, AND ON
 ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED, THAT IS ON THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION.  IN THIS CASE THE RESPONDENT
 ACKNOWLEDGES BARGAINING DID NOT OCCUR PRIOR TO EFFECTUATION OF THE
 CHANGE.
 
    THE CHANGE IN QUESTION CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE
 TERM "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 7103(A)(14) OF
 THE STATUTE, AND IS NOT A SUBJECT OF BARGAINING EXCLUDED BY THE STATUTE.
  FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE CHANGE DID
 NOT, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, AFFECT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT.  THE CHANGE RESULTED IN THE DELETION OF A FULLY SUPPORTED
 ORAL REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, AND BROUGHT ABOUT SUBSEQUENT
 RELIANCE
 UPON ORAL REPORTS FROM ORAL REPLY OFFICERS.  THE DIFFERENCE REPRESENTED
 A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN PROCEDURE, ONE WHICH MAY BE MEASURED IN TERMS OF
 DIMINUTION OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.  IT OPERATED TO DENY TO BARGAINING
 UNIT MEMBERS THE BENEFITS OF A PRACTICE WHICH TENDED TO INSURE
 THOUGHTFUL AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ELEMENTS ENTERING INTO THE ORAL
 REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATION.  IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE REQUIREMENT
 TENDED TO PRODUCE A CAREFUL DELIBERATIVE APPROACH.  THIS PROCEDURAL
 ADVANTAGE WAS WITHDRAWN.
 
    EVEN IF THE MEMORANDUM WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS,
 THEY WERE AVAILABLE TO MANAGEMENT, AND THUS COULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO
 BY MANAGEMENT IN SITUATIONS WHERE AN ADVERSE ACTION CASE WAS BEING
 RECONSIDERED.  THE CONTENTS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE INURED TO THE
 BENEFIT OF BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES INSOFAR AS THEY MIGHT HAVE
 COMPRISED A BASIS FOR ACTION FAVORABLE TO BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS.
 
    EVEN ASSUMING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF SUCH DOCUMENTS, AND THE
 INAPPLICABILITY OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY ACTS, THE
 RECORD INDICATED THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS FREE TO MAKE THE ONCE REQUIRED
 DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES IN APPROPRIATE CASES.
 SUCH DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE DURING THE PROCESSING OF
 AN ADVERSE ACTION APPEAL.  IN FACT THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THE NATIONAL
 OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT RELUCTANTLY CONTEMPLATED SUCH USE OF WRITTEN
 ORAL REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS.  THUS, THE CHANGE IN PROCEDURE
 IMPACTED DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY ON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT.  /19/ CASES CITED BY THE RESPONDENT AS AUTHORITY FOR THE
 POSITION THAT MANAGEMENT HAS NO BARGAINING OBLIGATION IN SITUATIONS
 INVOLVING DECISIONS WHICH HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT ARE INAPPOSITE AND/OR FACTUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE.
 
    THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE UNION FAILED TO SUBMIT BARGAINING
 PROPOSALS FOLLOWING THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR'S JUNE 26, 1979 LETTER
 OFFERING TO CONSIDER THE UNION'S SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE.
 HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENT DID NOT OFFER TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH
 CONCERNING THE CHANGE.  IN FACT THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR'S JUNE 26, 1979
 LETTER STATED THAT THE RESPONDENT PERCEIVED NO BARGAINING OBLIGATION,
 AND ALSO NOTED THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT "FAVORABLY DISPOSED TO
 COMMENCE NEGOTIATING THIS TYPE OF ISSUE AT THIS TIME." IN THE LIGHT OF
 THIS FACTUAL PATTERN IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO FIND THAT DISTRICT
 DIRECTOR'S STATEMENT OFFERING TO CONSIDER SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS
 CONSTITUTED AN OFFER TO NEGOTIATE THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
 DECISION TO EFFECT THE CHANGE.  /20/ MOREOVER, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE
 RESPONDENT DID MAKE A GOOD OFFER TO NEGOTIATE, SUCH AN OFFER, MADE
 NEARLY A YEAR AFTER EFFECTUATION OF THE CHANGE WOULD NOT SERVE TO REMEDY
 THE RESPONDENT'S INITIAL FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE UNION OF THE CHANGE IN
 PROCEDURE.  DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 47TH FLYING TRAINING WING,
 LAUGHLIN AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE NO. 63-8164
 (CA), 2 FLRA NO. 24 (DECEMBER 5, 1979).
 
    SINCE THE RESPONDENT HAD NO OBLIGATION TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE
 UNION CONCERNING THE DECISION TO EFFECT THE CHANGE, A STATUS QUO ANTE
 REMEDY BASED ON THE FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENT TO NEGOTIATE THE IMPACT
 AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED;  HOWEVER THE
 RESPONDENT DOES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN UPON REQUEST CONCERNING
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION.  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT, CASE NO. 4-CA-50(1), 3
 FLRA NO. 103 (JULY 17, 1980);  THE ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, PUERTO
 RICO AIR NATIONAL GUARD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE NO. 37-01985 (CA), 3
 FLRA NO.  55 (JUNE 3, 1980);  DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 47TH FLYING
 TRAINING WING, LAUGHLIN AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE
 NO. 63-8164 (CA), 2 FLRA NO. 24 (DECEMBER 5, 1979);  NATIONAL SCIENCE
 FOUNDATION, ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE NO. 22-08764 (CA), 1 FLRA NO. 116
 (SEPTEMBER 24, 1979);  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, SOUTHWEST REGION, ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE NO. 64-3896 (CA), 1
 FLRA NO. 70 (JUNE 15, 1979);  SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BUREAU OF
 HEARINGS AND APPEALS, A/SLMR NO. 1134, FLRC NO. 78A-143, 1 FLRA NO. 30
 (APRIL 27, 1979);  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, A/SLMR NO. 909 (1977);  DEPARTMENT OF THE
 TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, GREENSBORO DISTRICT OFFICE, A/SLMR
 NO. 1007 (1978).
 
    IN THIS CASE THE CHANGE EFFECTED BY THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR WAS IN
 DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 30, 1978 MEMORANDUM ISSUED AT THE NATIONAL
 OFFICE LEVEL OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.  THE MEMORANDUM OPERATED
 TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR'S ACTION, BY PRECLUDING THE
 DETAILED DOCUMENTATION OF ORAL REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS IN ALL
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE REGIONS.  SINCE THE CHANGE WAS INITIATED IN THE
 FIRST INSTANCE AT THE NATIONAL OFFICE LEVEL, AND WAS IMPLEMENTED AT
 LOWER LEVELS, INCLUDING THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE LEVEL, A REMEDIAL
 ORDER DIRECTED SOLELY TO THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE LEVEL WOULD BE
 INEFFECTIVE.  THE REMEDIAL ORDER MUST BE DIRECTED TO THE NATIONAL OFFICE
 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AS WELL AS THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE
 IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR NECESSARY CORRECTIVE ACTION.  DEPARTMENT
 OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, CINCINNATI DISTRICT OFFICE,
 A/SLMR NO. 1107 (1978);  VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
 CASE NO. 22-09495 (CA), 1 FLRA NO. 101 (AUGUST 21, 1979).
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT THE NATIONAL OFFICE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
 AND THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE VIOLATED
 SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE, I RECOMMEND THAT THE
 AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118(A)(7)(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7)(A), AND SECTION
 2423.29(B)(1) OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. 2423.29(B)(1), THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, AND ITS DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN,
 SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INSTITUTING ANY CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF REPORTING ORAL REPLY
 OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION,
 CHAPTER 24, IN THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
 UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 24, AND AFFORDING
 THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED IN
 IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGE, AND CONCERNING THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE WILL
 HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 24, MEET AND CONFER TO THE
 EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO
 BE USED IN IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE IN THE REQUIREMENT THAT ORAL REPLY
 OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS BE MADE ORALLY RATHER THAN IN WRITTEN FORM IN
 THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, AND CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF SUCH CHANGE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) POST AT THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, AND AT THE VARIOUS POSTS OF DUTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE
 DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE, 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 COMMISSIONER OF THE
 UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND BY THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR,
 DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE, UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AND
 SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE
 NOTICES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN TO
 INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY IN WRITING WITHIN 30
 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO
 COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
    IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO.
 5-CA-192, BE, AND HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
                        LOUIS SCALZO
                        ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
 DATED:  AUGUST 15, 1980 WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
 
 
                               APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
           PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 
            RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 
          POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES
 
            CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS WE
 
                    HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
 WE WILL NOT INSTITUTE ANY CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF REPORTING ORAL REPLY
 OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED
 EXCLUSIVELY BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NATIONAL
 TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 24, IN THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE OF
 THE UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 CHAPTER 24, AND WITHOUT AFFORDING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER
 TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE PROCEDURES TO
 BE OBSERVED IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGE, AND ON THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE
 WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.  WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR
 RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE.  WE WILL UPON REQUEST MEET AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION,
 CHAPTER 24, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE UTILIZED IN IMPLEMENTING THE
 CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF REPORTING ORAL REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS IN
 THE DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, AND CONCERNING THE IMPACT OF SUCH CHANGE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  DISTRICT DIRECTOR, DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ IN SO DOING THE AUTHORITY NOTES PARTICULARLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE
 ALLEGATION IN CASE NO. 5-CA-164 THAT IRS FAILED TO BARGAIN REGARDING THE
 CHANGED REQUIREMENT THAT ALL ORAL REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS BE MADE
 ORALLY INSTEAD OF IN WRITING, THAT THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEE APPEALS AUTHORITY (FEAA) HAD, IN SOME INSTANCES,
 REQUESTED FROM IRS COPIES OF THE ORAL REPLY OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION IN
 CONJUNCTION WITH PROCESSING EMPLOYEE APPEALS OF ADVERSE ACTIONS.  IRS
 ADOPTED A POLICY OF PROVIDING THE RECOMMENDATION TO FEAA UNDER PROTEST.
 HENCE THE RECORD SUPPORTS A CONCLUSION THAT THE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS
 WERE UTILIZED IN THE PROCESSING OF APPEALS TO FEAA OF ADVERSE ACTIONS
 TAKEN AGAINST EMPLOYEES, AND MOREOVER, WERE AVAILABLE TO EMPLOYEES AND
 THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.
 
    FURTHERMORE, IN ADOPTING THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND ORDER, THE
 AUTHORITY NOTES PARTICULARLY THAT NO PARTY EXCEPTED TO HIS CONCLUSION
 THAT THE BARGAINING OBLIGATION INCURRED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE CHANGE
 IN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ORAL REPLY OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION BE IN
 WRITING WAS LIMITED TO IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION AND DID NOT EXTEND TO
 THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DECISION ITSELF.  IN THIS REGARD, THE AUTHORITY
 DOES NOT PASS UPON THE JUDGE'S STATEMENT THAT "(P)ROCEDURES UTILIZED
 WITH REGARD TO ORAL REPLY OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS CLEARLY ARE DIRECTLY
 RELATED TO RIGHTS RESERVED TO MANAGEMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
 7106(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE SINCE THEY PERTAIN TO THE RIGHT OF
 MANAGEMENT TO TAKE DISCIPLINARY ACTION."
 
    /2/ PART 752, SUBPART B OF TITLE 5, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (1978
 EDITION), WHICH WAS IN EFFECT DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED IN THIS CASE,
 PROVIDED THE RIGHT TO REPLY ORALLY TO NOTICES OF PROPOSED ADVERSE ACTION
 RELATING TO REMOVAL, SUSPENSION FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS, FURLOUGH WITHOUT
 PAY, AND REDUCTION IN RANK OR PAY.  THE METHOD OF REPORTING ORAL REPLY
 OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DISCIPLINARY OFFICIAL WAS NOT OTHERWISE
 PRESCRIBED IN THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL OR THE CODE OF FEDERAL
 REGULATIONS.  HOWEVER, INTERNAL REVENUE MANUAL PROVISIONS IN EFFECT
 PROVIDED THAT IF SUCH ORAL REPLY WAS "SUBMITTED TO A REPRESENTATIVE
 (ORAL REPLY OFFICER) OF THE DISCIPLINARY OFFICIAL, THE REPRESENTATIVE
 WILL UPON CONCLUSION OF THE ORAL REPLY PROCEEDINGS, SUBMIT A WRITTEN
 REPORT OF HIS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DISCIPLINARY
 OFFICIAL." (SEE SECTION 1987.5(2) OF INTERNAL REVENUE MANUAL (10-14-66),
 JOINT EXHIBIT 7).
 
    /3/ PARAGRAPHS V-C AND V-D OF THE COMPLAINT REFER TO "RESPECTIVE
 AVERAGE INVENTORY";  HOWEVER, COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL SOUGHT TO
 PROVE FACTS RELATING TO AN ALLEGED 25 PERCENT REDUCTION OF "OVERAGE"
 CASES IN REVENUE OFFICER CASE INVENTORIES (TR. 36, GENERAL COUNSEL'S
 BRIEF AT 9-10, AND 19).  THIS MISTAKE IN PLEADING WAS RECOGNIZED IN
 RESPONDENT'S OPENING STATEMENT, AND THE WORD "AVERAGE" WAS TREATED AS
 "OVERAGE" BY THE RESPONDENT (TR. 39, RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AT PAGES 2 AND
 33).  IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE COMPLAINT IS HEREBY DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN
 AMENDED BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES SO AS TO CHANGE THE WORD "AVERAGE"
 TO "OVERAGE."
 
    /4/ ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES A FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE DECISION TO IMPLEMENT THESE TWO
 ALLEGED CHANGES, THE POST-HEARING BRIEF FILED BY COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL
 COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THEY WOULD, IF OTHERWISE ESTABLISHED, HAVE
 GIVEN RISE ONLY TO AN OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN CONCERNING IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION.  IN ESSENCE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CHANGES RELATED
 TO AN EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT RIGHTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 7106(A) OF THE
 STATUTE.  (SEE PAGES 11-12 OF POST-HEARING BRIEF FILED ON BEHALF OF THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL;  TR. 199-202;  AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION,
 CASE NO.  O-NG-56, 3 FLRA NO. 119 (JULY 31, 1980)).
 
    /5/ A FORM 668B IS USED BY REVENUE OFFICERS IN CONNECTION WITH
 EFFORTS TO SEIZE REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY A DELINQUENT
 TAXPAYER.  SEIZURE IS UTILIZED AS A LAST RESORT TO COLLECT DELINQUENT
 TAXES, AND IS A RELATIVELY COMPLEX LEGAL PROCEDURE WHICH REVENUE
 OFFICERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIATING.
 
    /6/ THE WORD "PARTICIPATION" WAS DEFINED IN THE MEMORANDUM AS EITHER
 EXECUTING A SEIZURE EACH MONTH IN EACH GROUP OR, IN LIEU THEREOF, FILING
 A BRIEF NARRATIVE REPORT OUTLINING REVENUE OFFICER GROUP EFFORT IN THIS
 AREA OF INTEREST.  THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FILING SUCH A REPORT WAS
 PLACED ON REVENUE OFFICER GROUP MANAGERS IN THE FLINT AND DEARBORN
 OFFICES AMONG OTHERS.
 
    /7/ TAXPAYER DELINQUENCY ACCOUNTS.
 
    /8/ DELINQUENCY ACCOUNT INVENTORY PROFILE.
 
    /9/ THE TWO OBJECTIVES OUTLINED ARE HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS
 "COLLECTION DIVISION OBJECTIVES."
 
    /10/ PRIOR TO THE G.M. LEASING CORPORATION CASE, REVENUE OFFICER
 DECISIONS TO SEIZE WERE MADE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY MANAGEMENT BECAUSE
 OF CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT (TR. 245-247).
 
    /11/ A REVENUE OFFICER ASSIGNED TO THE FLINT OFFICE, CALLED TO
 TESTIFY BY COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL, MISINTERPRETED THE
 PRESENTATION OF THE LATTER OBJECTIVE, IN SIGNIFICANT PART, AND
 INTRODUCED SOME CONFUSION AS A RESULT OF THE MISINTERPRETATION (TR.
 98-101), GENERAL COUNSEL'S POST-HEARING BRIEF AT PAGES 2-3).  HOWEVER,
 IT IS CLEAR THAT THE OBJECTIVE RELATING TO INVENTORY REDUCTION WAS
 PRESENTED AS SET OUT PREVIOUSLY HEREIN (TR. 286).
 
    /12/ REVENUE OFFICERS CALLED TO TESTIFY BY COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL
 COUNSEL COULD NOT RECALL WHETHER MR. ISENOGLE OFFERED A FULL EXPLANATION
 AT A SUBSEQUENT SESSION OF THE MEETING, ALTHOUGH IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE
 SUBJE