09:0575(66)CA - Army, Harry Diamond Laboratories, Adelphi, MD and AFGE Local 2 -- 1982 FLRAdec CA



[ v09 p575 ]
09:0575(66)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 9 FLRA No. 66
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 HARRY DIAMOND LABORATORIES,
 ADELPHI, MARYLAND
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 3-CA-1113
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS DECISION IN THE
 ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN AN
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND RECOMMENDING THAT
 IT BE ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE
 ACTION.  THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENT FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE JUDGE'S
 DECISION AND AN ACCOMPANYING BRIEF.
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 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.  /1/ UPON CONSIDERATION OF
 THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE AUTHORITY
 HEREBY ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AS
 MODIFIED HEREIN.
 
    THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND
 (5) OF THE STATUTE BY FAILING TO GIVE THE UNION ADEQUATE NOTICE AND AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS
 DECISION TO USE UNIT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY GUARD
 FORCE TO COLLECT NEWLY-IMPOSED DAILY PARKING FEES.  THE AUTHORITY ADOPTS
 THE JUDGE'S FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT'S "NOTICE" TO THE UNION OF ITS
 INTENTION TO USE GUARDS TO COLLECT THE FEES WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO THE
 UNION PRIOR TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION MADE NO MENTION THAT GUARDS WOULD BE
 USED FOR THE COLLECTION OF PARKING FEES.  FURTHER, WHEN THE RESPONDENT'S
 REPRESENTATIVE MET AT A NEGOTIATING SESSION WITH THREE OF THE UNION'S
 MOST EXPERIENCED AND VOCAL REPRESENTATIVES ON OCTOBER 26 TO DISCUSS THE
 INSTITUTION OF PARKING FEES AS OF NOVEMBER 1, THE FOCUS OF THE
 DISCUSSION WAS ON THE AMOUNT OF SUCH FEES AND NOT ON WHO WOULD COLLECT
 THEM.  IN THIS REGARD, THE RESPONDENT'S ONLY REFERENCE TO COLLECTIONS
 WAS A STATEMENT OF CONCERN THAT THE GUARDS SHOULD NOT BE HARASSED BY
 THEIR FELLOW EMPLOYEES BECAUSE MANAGEMENT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW
 PAY-TO-PARK PROGRAM WAS NOT THE GUARDS' FAULT.  ACCORDINGLY, WHILE THE
 RESPONDENT HAD ANTICIPATED THAT THE USE OF GUARDS TO COLLECT THE PARKING
 FEES WOULD BE OF GREAT CONCERN TO THE UNION, THE RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT
 IN THE FOREGOING CONTEXT DID NOT REGISTER ON ANY OF THE UNION
 REPRESENTATIVES AND COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE BEEN EXPECTED TO DO SO.
 BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE STATEMENTS IN
 REGARD TO THE USE OF GUARD FORCE PERSONNEL IN COLLECTING THE FEES, MADE
 DURING A DISCUSSION OF THE AMOUNT OF DAILY PARKING FEES TO BE CHARGED,
 WERE PASSING REFERENCES, IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT, AND, THEREFORE, WERE
 NEITHER SPECIFIC NOR CLEAR ENOUGH TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE NOTICE TO THE
 UNION OF THE CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE.
 /2/
 
                                   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 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, HARRY DIAMOND
 LABORATORIES, ADELPHI, MARYLAND SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) FAILING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE ADVANCE NOTICE TO THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO, THE EMPLOYEES'
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, CONCERNING A CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS FOR
 SECURITY GUARD FORCE EMPLOYEES, SO AS TO AFFORD THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION
 CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WOULD OBSERVE IN
 IMPLEMENTING
 SUCH A CHANGE AND ON APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE.
 
    (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 THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2,
 AFL-CIO, THE EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, OF ANY INTENDED CHANGE
 IN WORKING CONDITIONS OF SECURITY GUARD FORCE EMPLOYEES AND, UPON
 REQUEST, AFFORD THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE
 CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING
 SUCH A CHANGE AND ON APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE.
 
    (B) POST AT THE HARRY DIAMOND LABORATORIES, ADELPHI, MARYLAND, COPIES
 OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE, ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED
 BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER AT SAID ACTIVITY 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 COMMANDING OFFICER SHALL TAKE
 REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED,
 OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION III, FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS
 ORDER, AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.  
 
 ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 21, 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 FAIL TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE ADVANCE NOTICE TO THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO, THE EMPLOYEES'
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, WITH RESPECT TO A CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS
 FOR SECURITY GUARD FORCE EMPLOYEES, SO AS TO AFFORD THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION
 CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WOULD OBSERVE IN
 IMPLEMENTING
 SUCH A CHANGE AND ON APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE.  WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER
 INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF
 THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE.  WE WILL NOTIFY THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO, THE EMPLOYEES'
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, OF ANY INTENDED CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS
 FOR SECURITY GUARD FORCE EMPLOYEES AND, UPON REQUEST, AFFORD THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE
 PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH A CHANGE
 AND ON APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE
 CHANGE.
 
                           (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,
 REGION III, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  1111
 18TH STREET, NW., SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, D.C.  20036, AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (202) 653-8507.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    JOSEPH M. DAVIS, ESQ.
    FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    ERICK J. GENSER, ESQ.
    FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    DOUGLAS H. KERSHAW
    FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
 
    BEFORE:  ELI NASH, JR.
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    PURSUANT TO A COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED ON JULY 28, 1980
 BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,
 WASHINGTON, D.C., A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON OCTOBER
 20, 1980 IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
    THIS MATTER ARISES UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE (HEREIN CALLED THE STATUTE).  IT IS BASED ON A CHARGE
 FILED ON APRIL 25, 1980 BY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO (HEREIN CALLED THE UNION) AGAINST DEPARTMENT OF THE
 ARMY, HARRY DIAMOND LABORATORIES (HEREIN CALLED RESPONDENT).
 
    THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT ONE OR ABOUT OCTOBER 31, 1979, RESPONDENT
 WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE UNION, AND PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF NEGOTIATIONS,
 IMPLEMENTED A PAID PARKING PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, THEREBY
 DENYING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT
 OF THE PARKING PROGRAM AND THE GUARD FORCE COLLECTION OF FEES FROM
 BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    RESPONDENT'S ANSWER DENIED THE COMMISSION OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICES.
 
    ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED AT THE HEARING, WERE AFFORDED FULL
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AND TO EXAMINE AND CROSS
 EXAMINE WITNESSES.  THEREAFTER BRIEFS WERE FILED WITH THE UNDERSIGNED
 AND HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS MATTER, 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.
 
    1.  AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL, RESPONDENT HAS RECOGNIZED THE UNION AS THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS GUARD FORCE AND JANITORIAL EMPLOYEES.
 FURTHERMORE, THE PARTIES HEREIN WERE ENGAGED IN MULTI-UNIT CONTRACT
 NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING THE ABOVE-MENTIONED EMPLOYEES.
 
    2.  AROUND OCTOBER 19, 1979, RESPONDENT WAS ADVISED BY THE DEPARTMENT
 OF THE ARMY THAT ITS FACILITY WAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GOVERNMENT WIDE
 PAY-TO-PARK PROGRAM TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON NOVEMBER 1, 1979.  ALTHOUGH
 RESPONDENT DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD SUBMIT AN APPEAL TO THE DEPARTMENT
 OF THE ARMY SEEKING AN EXEMPTION TO THE PAY-TO-PARK PROGRAM IT
 NONETHELESS BEGAN SOMETIME IN MID-OCTOBER TO ESTABLISH MEANS BY WHICH IT
 COULD IMPLEMENT THE PAY-TO-PARK PROGRAM.  /3/ RESPONDENT DECIDED THAT
 SECURITY GUARDS WERE TO MAN THE ENTRANCE GATES AND INSURE THAT EMPLOYEES
 DISPLAYED THEIR MONTHLY PERMITS UPON ENTERING AND LEAVING THE FACILITY.
 IN ADDITION, THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE REQUIRED TO ISSUE DAILY PARKING
 TICKETS AND TO COLLECT A $1.00 FEE FROM VISITORS WHO STAYED LONGER THAN
 THREE HOURS.  FACILITY EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN GUARDS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR
 ISSUING DAILY EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE PROGRAM.
 
    3.  ACCORDING TO RESPONDENT, IT ISSUED A DRAFT ENTITLED "HDL PAID
 PARKING PROCEDURES" DATED OCTOBER 24, 1979 AND DELIVERED A COPY OF THOSE
 INSTRUCTIONS TO THE UNION'S CHIEF NEGOTIATOR DOUGLAS H. KERSHAW.  THE
 ABOVE DOCUMENT, HOWEVER, MAKES NO MENTION OF USE OF THE SECURITY GUARD
 FORCE TO COLLECT DAILY PARKING FEES AT THE FACILITY.
 
    4.  ON OCTOBER 26, 1979, THE PARTIES MET AT A NEGOTIATION SESSION
 CONCERNING THE MULTI-UNIT AGREEMENT.  DOUGLAS KERSHAW, JESSE COPELAND,
 WILLIAM ANDREWS AND JESSE DAVIS REPRESENTED THE UNION.  REPRESENTING
 MANAGEMENT WERE KATHLEEN HERING, JOSEPH DAVIS, DANIEL WILCOX AND GENE
 CROSS.  DURING THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE DRAFT PAID PARKING PROCEDURES MS.
 HERING ALLEGEDLY ADVISED KERSHAW THAT THE GUARD UNIT WOULD BE COLLECTING
 THE DAILY FEE.  ACCORDING TO HERING WHEN DISCUSSING THE DAILY FEE AND
 MANAGEMENT'S REASON FOR WANTING A $1.50 DAILY CHARGE SHE EXPLAINED TO
 KERSHAW THAT THE RATIONALE FOR MANAGEMENT'S PROPOSAL WAS TO DISCOURAGE
 EMPLOYEES FROM PAYING ON A DAILY BASIS.  HERING ALSO ADVISED KERSHAW
 THAT MANY OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES HAD THREATENED TO PAY THE DAILY FEE
 WITH $20 AND $50 BILLS IN ORDER TO SLOW UP THE DAILY COLLECTIONS.  IN
 THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION, MR. KERSHAW WAS ADVISED THAT
 MANAGEMENT'S DAILY FEE PROPOSAL WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT HARASSMENT OF
 THE GUARD UNIT AS THEY COLLECTED THE DAILY FEES.  HERING ALLEGEDLY MADE
 THE POINT SEVERAL TIMES TO THE UNION NEGOTIATION TEAM INDICATING THAT
 MANAGEMENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE BARGAINING UNIT, IN THAT THEY DID NOT
 WANT THE GUARD FORCE HARASSED BY FELLOW EMPLOYEES, SINCE IT WAS NOT
 THEIR FAULT THEY HAD TO ENFORCE THE PARKING REGULATIONS TO INCLUDE
 COLLECTING THE DAILY FEES.
 
    5.  KERSHAW CONTINUED TO ARGUE OVER THE DAILY FEE.  MR. KERSHAW, IN
 TESTIMONY, CONTENDS THAT THE HERING STATEMENT CONCERNING THE GUARDS
 COLLECTING THE DAILY FEE DID NOT REGISTER ON HIM.  COPELAND AND ANDREWS,
 WHO ARE BOTH EMPLOYED BY THE SECURITY GUARD FORCE ACCORDING TO
 RESPONDENT WITNESSES LOOKED AT KERSHAW EXPECTING HIM TO SAY SOMETHING
 CONCERNING THE USE OF THE GUARD FORCE TO COLLECT THE PARKING FEE.  WHILE
 THERE IS TESTIMONY THAT COPELAND AND ANDREWS USUALLY ACTIVELY
 PARTICIPATED IN NEGOTIATIONS AND CALLED CAUCUSES WHEN MATTERS AROSE OVER
 WHICH THEY DID NOT AGREE NO SUCH CAUCUS WAS CALLED DURING THIS SESSION
 AND NEITHER COPELAND OR ANDREWS COMMENTED ON THE HERING REMARK.
 
    6.  SECURITY GUARD PERSONNEL WERE ASSIGNED TO THE GATES FOR
 COLLECTION PURPOSES ON NOVEMBER 1, 1979.  THE FOLLOWING DAY, NOVEMBER 2,
 1979 SECURITY GUARD FORCE PERSONNEL WERE BRIEFED ON PERFORMING
 ENFORCEMENT AND COLLECTION DUTIES FOR THE PAY-TO-PARK PROGRAM.
 BASICALLY, SECURITY GUARDS ON THE SECOND AND THIRD WATCH WERE INCLUDED
 IN THIS MEETING SINCE THEY WERE EXPECTED TO BE PART OF THE ENFORCEMENT
 PROGRAM.  THIS INFORMAL COURSE INCLUDED HOW TO COLLECT THE FEES, HOW TO
 USE THE TIME CLOCK, WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE EXEMPT, WHO WERE NOT EXEMPT,
 AND OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS.  NO WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS WERE DISTRIBUTED
 SINCE THE PROGRAM WAS ONLY TENTATIVE AND NEGOTIATIONS HAD NOT BEEN
 COMPLETED WITH THE UNION OVER IMPLEMENTING INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PARKING
 PROGRAM.
 
    7.  THE NEXT NEGOTIATION SESSION TOOK PLACE ON NOVEMBER 9, 1979.  AT
 THIS MEETING, NO MENTION WAS MADE BY MR. KERSHAW OF THE GUARD
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE PAY-TO-PARK PROGRAM.  FURTHERMORE, UNION STEWARDS
 COPELAND AND ANDREWS, DID NOT SAY ANYTHING TO THE MANAGEMENT NEGOTIATION
 TEAM REGARDING THE GUARD ENFORCEMENT OF THE PAY-TO-PARK PROGRAM.
 
    8.  AT THE NOVEMBER 16, 1979 NEGOTIATION SESSION, MR. KERSHAW, FOR
 THE FIRST TIME, RAISED THE ISSUE OF GUARD ENFORCEMENT OF THE PAY-TO-PARK
 PROGRAM.  ACCORDING TO KERSHAW HE WAS MADE AWARE THAT GUARDS WERE
 COLLECTING PARKING FEES BY A GUARD AT THE GATE.  THERE KERSHAW ADVISED
 RESPONDENT THAT IT HAD NOT NOTIFIED HIM ABOUT THE USE OF SECURITY GUARDS
 TO COLLECT FEES.  HERING ADVISED KERSHAW THAT SHE HAD IN FACT NOTIFIED
 THE UNION ON TWO OCCASIONS AT THE OCTOBER 26, 1979 NEGOTIATION SESSION.
 MR. KERSHAW REPLIED "OH", AND THEN REQUESTED A SPECIAL BARGAINING
 SESSION.  IN RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST, A SPECIAL SESSION WAS SCHEDULED
 FOR NOVEMBER 21 TO DISCUSS THE USE OF SECURITY GUARDS IN THE PAY-TO-PARK
 PROGRAM.
 
    9.  FIVE DAYS LATER, ON NOVEMBER 21 THE SPECIAL SESSION WAS HELD.  AT
 THAT SESSION RESPONDENT DID NOT SUBMIT ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL PROPOSALS TO
 THE UNION, BUT THE UNION SUBMITTED TWO PROPOSALS FOR MANAGEMENT.  THE
 FIRST PROPOSAL DEALT WITH THE GUARDS NOT COLLECTING FEES.  WITH RESPECT
 TO THIS PROPOSAL THE UNION WAS ADVISED THAT GUARD COLLECTION OF FEES WAS
 ONLY TEMPORARY AND THAT MANAGEMENT DID NOT WANT THE GUARDS TO BE
 COLLECTING ON A PERMANENT BASIS.  RESPONDENT ALSO STATED THAT IT HAD THE
 RIGHT TO ASSIGN WORK AND WOULD RETAIN THAT RIGHT.  SPECIFICALLY,
 RESPONDENT POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHO WOULD
 COLLECT FEES.  THE SECOND PROPOSAL DEALT WITH ESTABLISHING A FULL-TIME
 POSITION, THE DUTIES OF WHICH WOULD BE THAT OF COLLECTING FEES, AND THIS
 POSITION WOULD PROVIDE A PLACE FOR LIGHT-DUTY EMPLOYEES.  RESPONDENT
 REJECTED THAT PROPOSAL AS DEALING WITH ITS STAFFING PATTERNS.  WHILE
 RESPONDENT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY DECLARE THE PROPOSALS NON-NEGOTIABLE, IT
 DID INDICATE TO THE UNION THAT THE SUBJECTS THEY DEALT WITH WERE
 NON-NEGOTIABLE SUBJECTS.  KERSHAW THEN REQUESTED WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS.
 RESPONDENT INDICATED THAT THERE WERE NO WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS DEVELOPED;
 RATHER AN INFORMAL COURSE HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE GUARDS DESCRIBING THEIR
 ASSIGNMENT OF COLLECTING FEES.  RESPONDENT CLOSED THE SESSION BY
 INDICATING THAT IT WOULD DRAFT WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE UNION.
 
    10.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PARTIES CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS OVER
 THE USE OF GUARD FORCE PERSONNEL TO COLLECT FEES AS WELL AS OTHER
 ASPECTS OF THE PAY PARKING PROGRAM, AND THAT SOMETIME DURING FEBRUARY
 1980, RESPONDENT INITIATED RECRUITING ACTIONS FOR TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES TO
 COLLECT PARKING FEES.  FINALLY, IN JULY 1980 TEMPORARY PARKING
 ATTENDANTS WERE HIRED TO COLLECT FEES AND THE SECURITY GUARD FORCE WAS
 RELIEVED OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
 
                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    A.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS.
 
    RESPONDENT ORIGINALLY MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE
 GROUND THAT THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT OCCURRED MORE THAN SIX
 MONTHS BEFORE THE CHARGE, UPON WHICH THE COMPLAINT WAS BASED WAS SERVED
 ON RESPONDENT.  AT THE HEARING, RESPONDENT ENLARGED ITS MOTION TO
 INCLUDE THE ALLEGATION THAT THE UNION HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE
 PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  SPECIFICALLY, RESPONDENT ALLEGED THAT THE UNION:
 (1) FAILED TO SERVE A COPY OF THE CHARGE ON RESPONDENT AT THE TIME IT
 WAS FILED;  (2) FAILED TO SERVE THE CHARGE BY CERTIFIED MAIL;  AND, (3)
 FAILED TO CERTIFY SERVICE TO THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AT
 THE TIME THE CHARGE WAS FILED.  RESPONDENTS MOTION TO DISMISS WHICH WAS
 TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT AT THE HEARING IS DENIED.
 
    THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE ALLEGED VIOLATION COMPLAINED OF
 OCCURRED ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 1, 1979 WHEN THE PAY-TO-PARKING PROGRAM
 WAS ALLEGEDLY IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT NOTICE TO OR BARGAINING WITH THE
 UNION.  THE CHARGE IN THIS MATTER WAS FILED ON APRIL 25, 1980.  SECTION
 7118(A)(A) PROVIDES:
 
    NO COMPLAINT SHALL BE ISSUED BASED ON ANY ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE WHICH OCCURRED MORE
 
    THAN 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE FILING OF THE CHARGE WITH THE AUTHORITY.
 
    RESPONDENT DOES NOT SERIOUSLY CONTEND THAT THE CHARGE HEREIN WAS NOT
 FILED WITHIN THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD SET OUT IN THE STATUTE.  IT ARGUES
 ONLY THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 CHARGE, WHICH WAS SERVED ON IT BY CERTIFIED MAIL BY THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR UNTIL MAY 2, 1980 OR AFTER THE STATUTORY SIX-MONTH PERIOD.
 THIS ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT FOUNDATION.  THE CHARGE IN THIS MATTER WAS
 CLEARLY FILED WITHIN THE SIX-MONTH LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE
 STATUTE.  THE STATUTE MAKES NO MENTION OF WHEN THE CHARGE MUST BE SERVED
 OR HOW SERVED UPON A RESPONDENT BUT STATES MERELY THAT IN ORDER TO ISSUE
 A COMPLAINT THE CHARGE MUST BE FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY WITHIN THE
 SIX-MONTH PERIOD.  THAT REQUIREMENT WAS MET BY THE APRIL 25 FILING AND
 BY APPARENTLY EXPEDITIOUS SERVICE OF THE CHARGE ON MAY 2, 1980 BY THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION 3.
 
    RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE UNION DID NOT SERVE IT BY CERTIFIED
 MAIL AS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATIONS OR THAT IT DID NOT MEET ALL OF THE
 REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATIONS IS ALSO WIDE OF THE MARK.  RESPONDENT
 WAS INDEED SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE CHARGE BY THE UNION ALBEIT NOT
 UNTIL AROUND JUNE 17, 1980.  HOWEVER, RESPONDENT WAS SERVED WITH A COPY
 OF THE CHARGE ON MAY 2, 1979 BY CERTIFIED MAIL BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
  SECTION 2423.6(B) STATES THAT:
 
    UPON THE FILING OF A CHARGE, THE CHARGING PARTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE
 FOR THE SERVICE OF A
 
    COPY OF THE CHARGE (WITHOUT THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS)
 UPON THE PERSON(S) AGAINST
 
    WHOM THE CHARGE IS MADE, AND FOR FILING A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF SUCH
 SERVICE WITH THE REGIONAL
 
    DIRECTOR.  THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR WILL, AS A MATTER OF COURSE, CAUSE A
 COPY OF SUCH CHARGE TO
 
    BE SERVED ON THE PERSON(S) AGAINST WHOM THE CHARGE IS MADE, BUT SHALL
 NOT BE DEEMED TO ASSUME
 
    RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH SERVICE.
 
    THIS SECTION HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN MY VIEW.  IT DOES NOT MEAN AS
 THE RESPONDENT STATES THAT THE UNION MUST IMMEDIATELY OR SIMULTANEOUSLY
 SERVE A COPY OF THE CHARGE UPON RESPONDENT, BUT MEANS ONLY THAT THE
 CHARGING PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SEEING THAT SERVICE IS MADE.
 FURTHERMORE, THE REGIONAL OFFICE ASSERTS THAT ALL PROCEDURAL
 REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING OF THE CHARGE WERE MET AND THAT THE REGULATIONS
 WERE COMPLIED WITH.  MOREOVER, AS ALREADY STATED, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS
 THAT RESPONDENT WAS SERVED BY CERTIFIED MAIL ON MAY 2, 1980 BY THE
 REGIONAL OFFICE.  IN ESSENCE, RESPONDENT WITHOUT SHOWING ANY DETRIMENT
 IS COMPLAINING THAT IT WAS NOT SERVED THE CHARGE BY CERTIFIED MAIL
 TWICE.  ABSENT ANY SHOWING OF PREJUDICE AND IN VIEW OF THE REGIONAL
 OFFICE'S ASSERTION THAT ALL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS HAD BEEN MET BEFORE
 IT SERVED THE CHARGE ON RESPONDENT, I FIND THAT RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS
 LACK MERIT.
 
    B.  NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE USE OF
 SECURITY GUARDS TO COLLECT PARKING FEES.
 
    THE PIVOTAL QUESTION IN THIS MATTER IS WHETHER RESPONDENT MET ITS
 INITIAL BURDEN OF NOTIFYING THE UNION THAT THE SECURITY GUARD FORCE
 WOULD ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR COLLECTING DAILY PARKING FEES AT
 RESPONDENT'S FACILITY BEGINNING NOVEMBER 1, 1979.  /4/ RESPONDENT ARGUES
 THAT IT GAVE PROPER NOTIFICATION AT AN OCTOBER 26, 1979 NEGOTIATION
 SESSION AND THAT IT WAS THEN INCUMBENT ON THE UNION TO REQUEST IMPACT
 AND IMPLEMENTATION BARGAINING PRIOR TO THE DATE THE GUARDS WERE TO BEGIN
 PERFORMING SUCH DUTIES.  THE GENERAL COUNSEL, ON THE OTHER THAN,
 CONTENDS THAT DISCUSSION DURING THE OCTOBER 26, 1979 MEETING CONCERNING
 RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES FOR THE PAID PARKING
 PROGRAM DID NOT CONSTITUTE PROPER NOTIFICATION UNDER THE STATUTE.  THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL ARGUES THAT THE STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY
 RESPONDENT'S OFFICIALS WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR AND SPECIFIC TO PUT
 THE UNION ON NOTICE OF A CONTEMPLATED CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS IN
 ORDER THAT THE UNION COULD INTELLIGENTLY ANALYZE THE PROPOSED CHANGES
 AND REQUEST BARGAINING IF IT SO DESIRED.  IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENT THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL CITED SEVERAL EXECUTIVE ORDER CASES, JACKSONVILLE
 DISTRICT, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, 7 A/SLMR 758,
 A/SLMR NO. 893 (SEPTEMBER 1977);  ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE,
 PACIFIC EXCHANGE SYSTEM, HAWAII REGIONAL EXCHANGE, 4 A/SLMR 791, A/SLMR
 NO. 454 (NOVEMBER 1974);  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, MANHATTAN DISTRICT, 7 A/SLMR 419, A/SLMR NO. 841 (MAY 16, 1977)
 WHICH CASES INVOLVED ADEQUATE NOTICE AND TIME TO CONSIDER THE CHANGE,
 THE PROCEDURES FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND ITS POSSIBLE AND PROBABLE
 IMPACT;  AND TO REQUEST BARGAINING AND TO ACTUALLY BARGAIN ABOUT THE
 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES AND ITS IMPACT.
 
    ASSUMING THAT RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIVE HYER MENTIONED THE
 HARASSMENT OF GUARDS WHEN THE PARTIES WERE DISCUSSING THE PROPOSED
 CHARGES FOR THE DAILY FEE, THE QUESTION BECOMES WHETHER THIS WAS
 ADEQUATE NOTICE TO THE UNION THAT GUARDS WERE TO COLLECT FEES THEREBY
 REQUIRING IT TO REQUEST IMPACT BARGAINING THAT TIME.  THE FACTS IN THIS
 MATTER DO NOT SUPPORT SUCH A FINDING.  FIRST, IT IS NOTED THAT THE
 OCTOBER 24, 1979 DRAFT OF PARKING REGULATIONS MAKES NO MENTION OF GUARDS
 COLLECTING FEES AND IN NO WAY PUT THE UNION ON NOTICE THAT THIS
 RESPONSIBILITY WOULD FALL ON THE GUARD FORCE.  SECONDLY, UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE KERSHAW IS CREDITED THAT THE STATEMENTS OF HYER MADE
 DURING DISCUSSION OF THE COLLECTION OF FEES DID NOT REGISTER WITH HIM.
 FURTHER, RESPONDENT'S IMPRESSION THAT OTHER UNION NEGOTIATORS UNDERSTOOD
 THE IMPACT OF HYERS STATEMENT IS OF LITTLE ASSISTANCE SINCE THESE
 NEGOTIATORS WERE ALSO TESTIFIED TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INPUT BY VIRTUE OF
 QUESTIONS AND CAUCUSES WHEN THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH A POINT DURING
 NEGOTIATIONS.  HERE THEY MADE NO COMMENTS.  FINALLY, KERSHAW CREDIBLY
 TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF THE USE OF GUARDS TO COLLECT
 FEES UNTIL SOMETIME AROUND NOVEMBER 16.  NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT
 ANY UNION OFFICIAL DESIGNATED TO RECEIVE NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN WORKING
 CONDITIONS WAS INFORMED THAT GUARDS WERE TO ASSUME NEW RESPONSIBILITY.
 IN ALL THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS FOUND THAT THE UNION WAS NOT INFORMED
 OF THE USE OF GUARDS TO COLLECT FEES AT THE OCTOBER 26 MEETING, BUT THAT
 ITS NEGOTIATOR BECAME AWARE OF THE USE OF GUARDS ONLY ON NOVEMBER 9 OR
 THEREAFTER, OR AFTER THE CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS HAD BEEN IN EFFECT
 FOR WELL OVER A WEEK.  /5/ IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING THAT ADEQUATE
 NOTICE WAS NOT GIVEN AT THE OCTOBER 26 MEETING IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
 DECIDE WHETHER NOTICE GIVEN FIVE DAYS BEFORE A CHANGE IN WORKING
 CONDITIONS IS MADE CONSTITUTES SUFFICIENT TIME.
 
    IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT UNION NEGOTIATORS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR
 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE USE OF THE GUARD
 FORCE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO REQUEST NEGOTIATIONS.  CERTAINLY GUARD
 COLLECTION OF FEES WAS DISCUSSED AT NEGOTIATION MEETING AFTER NOVEMBER
 9.  HOWEVER, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NEITHER THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION'S
 NEGOTIATION TEAM WERE NOT APPROACHED TO DISCUSS THE USE OF GUARD FORCE
 PERSONNEL TO COLLECT FEES NOR IT IS LIKELY THAT THE GUARDS OR
 NEGOTIATORS WERE AWARE THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COLLECT DAILY FEES
 UNTIL ABOUT NOVEMBER 1.  ALTHOUGH GUARDS ATTENDED THE NOVEMBER 2, 1979
 MANAGEMENT MEETING TO DISCUSS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM SUCH
 DISCUSSION OCCURRED AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE AND WAS NOT
 DIRECTED TO THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE DESIGNATED TO RECEIVE NOTICE OF
 CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS AND WOULD NOT SERVE AS NOTICE.  THEREFORE,
 THAT MEETING CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENT.  THE AUTHORITY STATED
 IN UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND, AEROSPACE
 GUIDANCE AND METROLOGY CENTER, NEWARK, OHIO, 4 FLRA NO. 70 (1980) THAT
 CHANCE KNOWLEDGE OF AN AGENT THAT A CHANGE IS BEING MADE IS NOT
 APPROPRIATE NOTICE TO THAT AGENT OR OTHER UNION OFFICIALS, DOES NOT
 CONSTITUTE APPROPRIATE ADVANCE NOTICE AND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH A
 RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATION TO CONSULT IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY THE
 STATUTE.  THE RATIONALE IN THAT CASE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THIS
 MATTER.  THE RECORD HEREIN CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT NO NOTICE WAS GIVEN
 OF THE RESPONDENT'S INTENTION TO USE GUARDS AS COLLECTORS OF THE DAILY
 PARKING FEES.
 
    I ALSO AGREE WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL THAT NEGOTIATIONS CONDUCTED
 SUBSEQUENT TO NOVEMBER 1, 1979 WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE
 FULFILLMENT OF ITS BARGAINING OBLIGATION UNDER THE STATUTE.  THE
 OBLIGATION TO MEET AND CONFER BECOMES MEANINGFUL ONLY WHEN AGENCY
 MANAGEMENT HAS AFFORDED THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE REASONABLE
 NOTIFICATION AND AN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE FULLY THE MATTERS
 INVOLVED PRIOR TO TAKING ACTION.  FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, 4
 A/SLMR 498, A/SLMR NO. 418 (JULY 1977).  THEREFORE RESPONDENT'S
 CONTENTION THAT IT HAS MET AND BARGAINED IN GOOD FAITH SINCE NOVEMBER 9
 CONCERNING DAILY FEE COLLECTIONS BY SECURITY GUARDS BECOMES IRRELEVANT
 SINCE IN ORDER TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATION UNDER THE STATUTE ITS
 OBLIGATION WAS BARGAINING CONCERNING IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION PRIOR TO
 INSTITUTING THE CHANGE.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) BY
 FAILING TO GIVE THE UNION ADVANCE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS DECISION TO USE THE
 SECURITY GUARD FORCE TO COLLECT DAILY PARKING FEES, I HEREBY RECOMMEND
 THAT THE AUTHORITY ADOPT THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7) AND SECTION 2423.26 OF THE FINAL
 RULES AND REGULATIONS, 45 FED.REG. 3482, 3510 (1980), IT IS HEREBY
 ORDERED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, HARRY DIAMOND LABORATORIES,
 ADELPHI, MARYLAND SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) FAILING TO NOTIFY AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO, OR ANY
 
    OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, CONCERNING A CHANGE IN WORKING
 CONDITIONS FOR THE SECURITY
 
    GUARD FORCE, AND TO AFFORD SUCH REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
 MEET AND CONFER, TO THE
 
    EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT SUCH CHANGE
 IN WORK CONDITIONS WILL
 
    HAVE ON THE UNIT EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH ACTION.
 
    (B) ASSIGNING TO GUARD FORCE EMPLOYEES WORK TASKS DIFFERENT FROM
 THOSE ASSIGNABLE PRIOR TO
 
    THE CHANGE IN WORK CONDITIONS, WITHOUT AFFORDING THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND
 
    CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE
 IMPACT THAT SUCH CHANGES WILL
 
    HAVE ON UNIT EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH ACTION.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.
 
    (A) NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2,
 AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER
 
    EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY INTENDED CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS
 OF SECURITY GUARD FORCE
 
    EMPLOYEES AND, UPON REQUEST, AFFORD SUCH REPRESENTATIVE THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO
 
    THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT SUCH
 CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS
 
    WILL HAVE ON THE UNIT EMPLOYEES ALREADY AFFECTED BY SUCH ACTION.
 
    (B) POST AT THE HARRY DIAMOND LABORATORIES, ADELPHI, MARYLAND, COPIES
 OF THE ATTACHED
 
    NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORITY.
 UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH
 
    FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER AT SAID
 ACTIVITY 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
 
    COMMANDING OFFICER SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID
 NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
 
    DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS,
 45 FED.REG.AT 3511,
 
    NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION III, 1133 15TH STREET, N.W.,
 SUITE 300 WASHINGTON,
 
    D.C.  20005, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER,
 AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE
 
    BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                         ELI NASH, JR.
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
 DATED:  APRIL 16, 1981
         WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
           PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 
            RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 
         POLICIES CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
 
           FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS WE HEREBY
 
                        NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
 WE WILL NOT FAIL TO NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, WITH
 RESPECT TO A CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS FOR SECURITY GUARD FORCE
 EMPLOYEES, AND AFFORD SUCH REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND
 CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT
 AND IMPLEMENTATION THAT SUCH CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS WILL HAVE ON
 UNIT EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH ACTION.  WE WILL NOT ASSIGN
 WORK TASKS TO SECURITY GUARD FORCE EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO, WITHOUT AFFORDING
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO, OR ANY
 OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO
 THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT SUCH
 ASSIGNMENTS WILL HAVE ON UNIT EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH
 ACTION.  WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH,
 RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS
 ASSURED BY THE STATUTE.  WE WILL NOTIFY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, OF ANY
 INTENDED ASSIGNMENTS TO UNIT EMPLOYEES AND, UPON REQUEST, AFFORD SUCH
 REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT
 CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT SUCH ASSIGNMENT WILL
 HAVE ON UNIT EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH ACTION.
 
                           (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 MATERIALS.  IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY
 QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF ITS
 PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR
 THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  1133 15TH
 STREET, N.W., SUITE 300, WASHINGTON, D.C.  20005.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ THE AUTHORITY ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S CONCLUSION THAT THE COMPLAINT
 SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE CHARGING PARTY'S NONCOMPLIANCE
 WITH PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.
 THUS, WHILE THE CHARGING PARTY DID NOT, "(U)PON THE FILING OF THE
 CHARGE," SERVE THE RESPONDENT WITH A COPY THEREOF OR PROVIDE THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR WITH A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO SECTION
 2423.6(B) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND DID NOT SERVE
 THE RESPONDENT WITH A COPY OF THE CHARGE BY CERTIFIED MAIL PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 2429.27(B), THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR DID IN FACT SERVE THE
 RESPONDENT WITH A COPY OF THE CHARGE WITHIN A FEW DAYS AFTER THE CHARGE
 WAS FILED.  ACCORDINGLY, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY
 CONCLUDES THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT PREJUDICED AS A RESULT OF THE
 CHARGING PARTY'S FAILURE TO SERVE A COPY OF THE CHARGE ON THE RESPONDENT
 HEREIN "UPON THE FILING OF THE CHARGE," AND THAT IT WOULD NOT EFFECTUATE
 THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.
 
    /2/ SEE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND,
 ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION, HANSCOM AFB, MASSACHUSETTS, 5 FLRA NO. 88
 (1981), WHEREIN THE AUTHORITY ADOPTED THE JUDGE'S DECISION THAT AN
 AGENCY MUST GIVE THE UNION "ADEQUATE NOTICE" OF ITS DECISION TO
 EFFECTUATE A CHANGE, I.E., SPECIFIC NOTICE OF ANY INTENDED CHANGE, AND
 THAT A MERE PASSING REFERENCE TO A GENERAL SUBJECT MATTER WITHOUT
 MENTIONING ANY CONTEMPLATED CHANGE RELATING TO SUCH MATTER DOES NOT
 CONSTITUTE ADEQUATE NOTICE.  IN THAT CASE, THE AUTHORITY FURTHER ADOPTED
 THE JUDGE'S FINDING, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED, THAT MANAGEMENT HAD
 GIVEN THE UNION ADEQUATE ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE DOWNGRADINGS IN QUESTION.
 
    /3/ FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DECISION THE MECHANICS OF APPEAL FOR
 EXEMPTION AND THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO USE SE