10:0026(9)CA - HHS, SSA, Region Vi, and HHS, SSA, Galveston, Texas District and NFFE Local 1823 -- 1982 FLRAdec CA



[ v10 p26 ]
10:0026(9)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 9
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
 SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
 REGION VI, AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
 HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, GALVESTON, TEXAS DISTRICT
 Respondents
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 6-CA-315
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED DECISION IN THE
 ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD ENGAGED IN
 CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING THAT THEY CEASE AND
 DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.  THE JUDGE FURTHER
 FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT GALVESTON DISTRICT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION HAD NOT ENGAGED IN CERTAIN OTHER ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WITH RESPECT
 THERETO.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION WERE FILED BY THE
 RESPONDENTS.
 
    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.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE
 JUDGE'S DECISION AND THE ENTIRE RECORD, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE
 JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AS MODIFIED HEREIN.
 
    THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, REGION VI VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1)
 AND (5) OF THE STATUTE /1/ BY UNILATERALLY ISSUING A MEMORANDUM TO ALL
 SUPERVISORS WITH INSTRUCTIONS THAT IT BE IMPLEMENTED UPON RECEIPT, WHICH
 CHANGED AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT
 (A SUBORDINATE ACTIVITY OF REGION VI) WITH REGARD TO THE MANNER OF
 REPORTING MILEAGE ON TRAVEL VOUCHERS.  IN THIS REGARD, THE JUDGE FOUND
 THAT THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT FOR MORE THAN 20
 YEARS, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
 AND REGIONAL OFFICIALS, WAS THAT EMPLOYEES WOULD RECORD MILEAGE AT A
 GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AS "IN AND AROUND" THE LOCATION, WITH
 APPROPRIATE SPEEDOMETER READINGS;  THAT THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
 UNILATERALLY CHANGED THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICE BY REQUIRING A MILEAGE
 READING FOR EACH LOCATION VISITED;  AND THAT SUCH CHANGE WAS DIRECTED BY
 THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMMEDIATE
 IMPLEMENTATION, WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE CHARGING PARTY, NATIONAL
 FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823 (NFFE), THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GALVESTON DISTRICT'S EMPLOYEES, AND WITHOUT
 AFFORDING NFFE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE CHANGE.  RELYING
 UPON A NUMBER OF CASES DECIDED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ACTS AND CONDUCT OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT AT A LEVEL
 OF AN AGENCY'S ORGANIZATION HIGHER THAN THE LEVEL AT WHICH AN EXCLUSIVE
 BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP EXISTS MAY CONSTITUTE A REFUSAL TO CONSULT OR
 NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH, THE JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT REGION VI
 VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE BY DIRECTING THE
 IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CHANGE IN AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF
 EMPLOYMENT AT THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, THE LEVEL OF EXCLUSIVE
 RECOGNITION, WITHOUT NOTICE TO OR BARGAINING WITH NFFE.
 
    THE AUTHORITY AGREES THAT, UNDER THE STATUTE, WHEN THE OBLIGATION TO
 NEGOTIATE IS BREACHED BY THE ACTS AND CONDUCT OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT, SUCH
 A BREACH MAY PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR A SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5)
 VIOLATION REGARDLESS OF THE LOCATION OF THAT AGENCY MANAGEMENT IN THE
 AGENCY CHAIN OF COMMAND.  /2/ IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHERE AGENCY
 MANAGEMENT AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL DIRECTED THE IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION
 OF A POLICY WHICH ALTERED AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE
 GALVESTON DISTRICT, SUCH ACT WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED SECTION
 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.  /3/ HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITY DISAGREES
 WITH THE JUDGE'S FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT GALVESTON DISTRICT ALSO
 VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5).  AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE JUDGE
 FOUND THAT THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM AND ACCOMPANYING
 INSTRUCTIONS TO SUPERVISORS REQUIRED THE REGION'S CHANGED POLICY WITH
 REGARD TO REPORTING MILEAGE TO BE IMPLEMENTED UPON RECEIPT.  UNDER THESE
 CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE GALVESTON DISTRICT ITSELF DID NOT INITIATE A
 CHANGE IN AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT BUT MERELY COMPLIED
 WITH A DIRECTION FROM AGENCY MANAGEMENT AT A HIGHER LEVEL BECAUSE IT HAD
 NO CHOICE EXCEPT TO DO SO, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE PURPOSES AND
 POLICIES OF THE STATUTE WOULD NOT BE EFFECTUATED BY FINDING A SEPARATE
 VIOLATION OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN SOLELY BASED UPON THE GALVESTON
 DISTRICT'S MINISTERIAL ACTIONS IN IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVES FROM
 HIGHER LEVEL AGENCY MANAGEMENT.  SEE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WATER
 AND POWER RESOURCES SERVICE, GRAND COULEE PROJECT, GRAND COULEE,
 WASHINGTON, 9 FLRA NO. 46(1982).  /4/
 
    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE AUTHORITY SHALL MODIFY THE JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED ORDER TO REQUIRE THE RESPONDENT REGION VI TO CEASE AND
 DESIST FROM CHANGING ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE
 GALVESTON DISTRICT CONCERNING THE MANNER OF REPORTING TRAVEL MILEAGE
 WITHOUT NOTIFYING NFFE OF SUCH INTENDED CHANGE AND AFFORDING NFFE AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST BARGAINING WITH THE DISTRICT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE
 MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING ANY SUCH PROPOSED CHANGE.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE, IT IS
 HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, REGION VI, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) UNILATERALLY CHANGING ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE
 GALVESTON DISTRICT CONCERNING THE MANNER OF REPORTING MILEAGE ON TRAVEL
 VOUCHERS AND DIRECTING THE GALVESTON DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT SUCH CHANGES
 UPON RECEIPT.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ANY EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
 
    (A) WITHDRAW AND RESCIND THE CHANGE CONCERNING REPORTING OF TRAVEL
 MILEAGE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, SET FORTH IN THE REGIONAL
 COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1979, AND REINSTATE IN THE
 GALVESTON DISTRICT THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE REPORTING
 OF TRAVEL MILEAGE AS PRACTICED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 20, 1979.
 
    (B) NOTIFY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823,
 THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT,
 OF ANY INTENDED CHANGE IN THE MANNER OF REPORTING TRAVEL MILEAGE IN THE
 GALVESTON DISTRICT AND PROVIDE SUCH EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE DISTRICT OR OTHER
 APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES ON ANY SUCH PROPOSED CHANGE IN
 ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.
 
    (C) POST AT OFFICES OF REGION VI, DALLAS, TEXAS, AT THE GALVESTON,
 TEXAS, DISTRICT OFFICE, AND AT THE ANGLETON, TEXAS, BRANCH 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 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, REGION VI, SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE REGIONAL
 COMMISSIONER FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES,
 INCLUDING BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES AT EACH OFFICE WHERE NOTICES
 TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER SHALL
 TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
 DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION 6, 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.
 6-CA-315, INSOFAR AS IT ALLEGES A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND
 (5) OF THE STATUTE, BY RESPONDENT GALVESTON DISTRICT BE, AND IT HEREBY
 IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 15, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER, III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
        NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER 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 ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE
 GALVESTON, TEXAS DISTRICT CONCERNING THE MANNER OF REPORTING MILEAGE ON
 TRAVEL VOUCHERS OR DIRECT THE GALVESTON DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT SUCH
 CHANGE WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 1823, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF EMPLOYEES IN THE GALVESTON
 DISTRICT, AND PROVIDING THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 REQUEST NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE DISTRICT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT
 REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING THE PROPOSED 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 WITHDRAW AND RESCIND THE CHANGE CONCERNING REPORTING OF
 TRAVEL MILEAGE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, WHICH WAS SET FORTH IN THE
 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1979, AND WILL
 REINSTATE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES RELATING
 TO THE REPORTING OF TRAVEL MILEAGE AS PRACTICED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO
 SEPTEMBER 20, 1979.
 
                         DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
 
                          HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL
 
                         SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                 REGION VI
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                           REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
 
    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 6, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  ROOM 450, DOWNTOWN POST OFFICE STATION, BRYAN AND ERVAY
 STREETS, DALLAS, TEXAS 75221, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (214)
 767-4996.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND
    WELFARE, REGION VI, SOCIAL SECURITY
    ADMINISTRATION, AND DEPARTMENT OF
    HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE,
    REGION VI, SOCIAL SECURITY
 
    ADMINISTRATION, GALVESTON, TEXAS,
    DISTRICT AND THE SUCCESSOR DEPARTMENT
    OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, REGION
    VI, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
    AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
    SERVICES, REGION VI, SOCIAL SECURITY
    ADMINISTRATION, GALVESTON, TEXAS
    DISTRICT /5/
                                RESPONDENTS
 
    AND
 
    NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
    EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823
                              CHARGING PARTY
 
                            CASE NO.: 6-CA-315
 
    STEVEN M. ANGEL, ESQUIRE
    FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    WILSON SCHUERHOLZ, ESQUIRE
    FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE, CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, 5 U.S.C. 7101,
 ET SEQ.  /6/ AND THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER, 5
 C.F.R. CHAPTER XIV, FED. REG., VOL. 45, JANUARY 17, 1980.
 
    THIS CASE CONCERNS RESPONDENT'S REQUIREMENT THAT VOUCHERS FOR
 REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES AS TO MILEAGE SHOW ALL INFORMATION
 ABOUT A TRIP, INCLUDING MILEAGE READINGS FOR EACH LOCATION VISITED.
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SF-1012, TRAVEL VOUCHER, OR SF-1164, CLAIM
 FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENDITURES ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS, ARE COVERED IN
 RESPONDENT'S ADS GUIDE SSA.G:  240-63 AND PROVIDE, IN RELEVANT PART,
 "SHOW POINT OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION AND SPEEDOMETER READING AT
 BEGINNING AND END OF EACH TRIP . . . ." THERE IS NO DISPUTE CONCERNING
 THIS REQUIREMENT.  THE PRACTICE, FOR MANY YEARS, HAD BEEN THAT IF AN
 EMPLOYEE BEGAN HIS TRIP AT "A" HE SHOWED THE BEGINNING MILEAGE AND IF HE
 DROVE TO VARIOUS PLACES AT "A" HE SHOWED "A" BEGINNING MILEAGE;  "A-- IN
 AND AROUND";  HE REPEATED THE BEGINNING MILEAGE AT "A" AND THE MILEAGE
 AT THE END OF THE TRIP;  OR IF HE WENT FROM "A" TO "B" AND MADE VARIOUS
 TRIPS AT "B" HE WOULD SHOW BEGINNING MILEAGE AT "A";  MILEAGE UPON
 ARRIVAL AT "B";  "B"-- IN AND AROUND";  HE REPEATED THE ARRIVAL MILEAGE
 AT "B" AND THE MILEAGE AT THE END OF THE TRIP.  IN SEPTEMBER, 1979,
 RESPONDENT'S REGIONAL COMMISSIONER ISSUED A MEMORANDUM WHICH DIRECTED
 THAT EACH LOCATION MUST BE SHOWN, INCLUDING MILEAGE READINGS FOR EACH
 LOCATION VISITED, WHICH, IN PRACTICAL TERMS, MEANT THAT "IN AND AROUND"
 WOULD NO LONGER SUFFICE.
 
    THE CHARGE, FILED NOVEMBER 12, 1979 (G.C. EXH. 1(A)) AND FIRST
 AMENDED CHARGE, FILED NOVEMBER 23, 1979 (G.C. EXH. 1(D)) HAD ALLEGED A
 VIOLATION OF SEC. 16(A)(1), (5) AND (7) OF THE STATUTE AS TO THE CHANGE;
  BUT THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGES A VIOLATION OF SEC. 16(A)(1) AND (5)
 (G.C. EXH. 1(G)), IN PARAGRAPH 5, ASSERTED AN UNILATERAL CHANGE WITHOUT
 AFFORDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN OVER THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE.  AT THE OPENING OF THE HEARING, GENERAL
 COUNSEL MOVED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT IN TWO RESPECTS:  FIRST, TO MAKE IT
 CLEAR THAT IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE DISTRICT VIOLATED THE STATUTE AND, IN
 ADDITION, THAT THE REGION ALSO, INDEPENDENTLY, VIOLATED THE STATUTE;
 SECOND, TO REMOVE THE LIMITATION TO IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION AND TO
 ALLEGE A VIOLATION BOTH AS TO SUBSTANCE (DECISION) BARGAINING AND IMPACT
 AND/OR IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  RESPONDENT DID NOT OBJECT TO EITHER
 AMENDMENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL'S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT IN BOTH
 RESPECTS WAS GRANTED.  /7/
 
    PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING (G.C. EXH. 1(G)), A HEARING WAS
 DULY HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED IN GALVESTON, TEXAS, ON MAY 14, 1980.
 ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED BY ABLE COUNSEL, WERE AFFORDED FULL
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND TO
 INTRODUCE EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED.  AT THE CLOSE OF THE
 HEARING, JUNE 16, 1970, WAS FIXED AS THE DATE FOR MAILING POST HEARING
 BRIEFS AND EACH PARTY HAS SUBMITTED A BRIEF, TIMELY MAILED, RECEIVED ON,
 OR BEFORE, JUNE 19, 1980, WHICH HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.  UPON
 THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND
 CONCLUSIONS:
 
                          FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
 
    1.  THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823
 (HEREINAFTER, "LOCAL 1823" OR "UNION"), IS THE RECOGNIZED EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE FOR UNIT EMPLOYEES OF THE GALVESTON, TEXAS, DISTRICT
 (SEE, RES. EXHS. 2 AND 3).  GALVESTON DISTRICT CONSISTS OF TWO OFFICES,
 THE GALVESTON DISTRICT OFFICE AND THE ANGLETON BRANCH OFFICE, AND COVERS
 SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAMS IN GALVESTON, MATAGORDA AND BRAZORIA COUNTIES,
 TEXAS.  REGION VI, DALLAS, TEXAS, INCLUDES SOME 47 DISTRICTS, ONE OF
 WHICH IS THE GALVESTON DISTRICT.
 
    2.  BY MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1979, TO SUPERVISORS, INCLUDING
 ALL AREA DIRECTORS AND ALL BRANCH MANAGERS, THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
 MARTHA A. MCSTEEN, DIRECTED, AS NOTED ABOVE, THAT "THE SSA-6026 MUST
 SHOW ALL INFORMATION ABOUT A TRIP, INCLUDING MILEAGE READINGS FOR EACH
 LOCATION VISITED." (G.C. EXH. 2).  THE MEMORANDUM IS DIRECTIVE TO ALL
 SUPERVISORS AND MR. JAMES HENDRICKS, BRANCH MANAGER OF THE ANGLETON
 BRANCH OFFICE TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS "EFFECTIVE WHEN WE GOT IT." (TR.
 30).  MR. GORDON GONZALES, DISTRICT MANAGER FOR THE GALVESTON DISTRICT,
 TESTIFIED THAT HE AND MR. HENDRICKS FIRST LEARNED OF THE CHANGE ON
 SEPTEMBER 25, 1979, AT AN AREA MANAGER'S CONFERENCE WHEN MR. MAX ODHAM,
 DIVISION DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT, INFORMED THEM THAT
 THE MEMORANDUM "WAS COMING TO THE FIELD AND THAT WE WOULD BE RECEIVING
 IT SHORTLY" (TR. 107);  THAT MR. ODHAM READ THE MEMORANDUM TO THEM, AND
 THAT MR. ODHAM "TOLD US THAT IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1979."
 (TR. 107).  MR. GONZALES FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT, WHILE AT THE
 CONFERENCE, HE AND MR. HENDRICKS PRIVATELY DISCUSSED THE MATTER ON
 SEPTEMBER 25.  MR.  GONZALES TESTIFIED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    " . . . I TOLD JIM THAT AS SOON AS WE GOT THE MEMORANDUM IN OUR
 RESPECTIVE OFFICES THAT WE
 
    WOULD SHARE IT WITH THE UNION.  WE WOULD TELL THE UNION THAT THE
 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
 
    WOULD BE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1979, BUT THAT WE WOULD NEGOTIATE THE
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION
 
    OF IT, NOT THE NEW REQUIREMENT, BUT THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MEMO."
 (TR. 108).
 
    3.  MR. GONZALES STATED THAT HE WAS BACK IN HIS OFFICE ON SEPTEMBER
 26 AND IMMEDIATELY UPON HIS ARRIVAL CALLED MR. KEITH FOLZMAN, EXECUTIVE
 VICE PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 1823, TO HIS OFFICE AND INFORMED HIM THAT "THERE
 WAS A MEMORANDUM COMING OUT AND THAT I WOULD GIVE HIM A COPY . . . AS
 SOON AS IT ARRIVED", THAT HE RECEIVED THE MEMORANDUM ON SEPTEMBER 27, AT
 WHICH TIME HE GAVE MR. FOLZMAN A COPY AND TOLD HIM,
 
    " . . . I WOULD BE GLAD TO DISCUSS THE MEMORANDUM AND IMPACT BARGAIN
 IF HE SO
 
    CHOSE." (TR. 109).
 
    MR. FOLZMAN DID NOT REQUEST BARGAINING.
 
    4.  THE PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 1823, MR. ROY SINCLAIR, WORKS IN THE
 ANGLETON BRANCH OFFICE.  MR. HENDRICKS, BRANCH MANAGER, DID NOT INFORM
 MR. SINCLAIR OF THE COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM, OR OF THE CHANGE, PRIOR
 TO HIS RECEIPT OF THE MEMORANDUM ON, OR ABOUT, OCTOBER 1, 1979.  MR.
 HENDRICKS TESTIFIED THAT BY THE TIME HE RECEIVED THE MEMORANDUM ON
 MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, MR. SINCLAIR HAD LEFT THE OFFICE TO GO TO HIS CONTACT
 STATION AND, ACCORDINGLY, HE DID NOT SEE MR. SINCLAIR UNTIL THE
 FOLLOWING DAY, TUESDAY, WHEN HE GAVE MR.  SINCLAIR A COPY OF THE
 COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM (G.C. EXH. 2) TOGETHER WITH MR. GONZALES'
 COVERING MEMO (WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED AS AN EXHIBIT);  THAT AFTER LOOKING
 AT THEM MR. SINCLAIR "THREW IT BACK ON MY DESK" (TR. 31) AND LEFT FOR
 HIS NORMAL FIELD DUTIES;  AND THE FIRST DISCUSSION HE HAD WITH MR.
 SINCLAIR WAS THE NEXT DAY, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, AT WHICH TIME MR.
 HENDRICKS STATED THAT HE TOLD MR. SINCLAIR,
 
    '"ROY, YOU HAD BETTER READ IT BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO
 IMPLEMENT FOR THIS
 
    MONTH."' (TR. 31).
 
    MR. HENDRICKS STATED THAT MR. SINCLAIR RAISED A GOOD POINT AS TO
 WHETHER A SERIES OF STARTS AND STOPS TO LOCATE A SINGLE PERSON MUST BE
 PUT DOWN AND SAID THAT HE TOLD MR. SINCLAIR THAT HE COULD ACCEPT THE
 "LAST POINT WHERE YOU FOUND THE PERSON . . . AS BEING YOUR STOP POINT
 RATHER THAN ALL OF THOSE OTHER STOPS IN BETWEEN." (TR. 35).  MR.
 HENDRICKS FURTHER STATED THAT HE AND MR. SINCLAIR HAD A FURTHER
 DISCUSSION ON THURSDAY OR FRIDAY AT WHICH TIME HE INFORMED MR. SINCLAIR
 THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED THE "LAST POINT" QUESTION WITH MR. GONZALES WHO
 CONCURRED WITH MR. HENDRICKS' POSITION;  THAT AFTER THEY HAD GONE OVER
 THE MEMORANDUM AGAIN, MR. SINCLAIR SAID HE "COULDN'T BUY IT, THAT HE
 WANTED TO NEGOTIATE" (TR. 36);  THAT HE, HENDRICKS HAD RESPONDED THAT HE
 WAS WILLING TO NEGOTIATE THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION AND ASKED MR.
 SINCLAIR TO GIVE HIM "THE AREA OF THE IMPACT." (TR. 36).  MR. HENDRICKS
 STATED THAT HE MET AGAIN WITH MR. SINCLAIR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 8, 1979,
 AT WHICH TIME HE TOLD MR. SINCLAIR THAT HE "COULDN'T AUTHORIZE HIS
 EXPENDITURES UNLESS IT CAME BACK ON A 6026 AND SHOWED THE STOP AND START
 POINTS." (TR. 36;  TO LIKE EFFECT, SEE, ALSO, TR. 37).
 
    5.  MR. SINCLAIR'S TESTIMONY DIFFERED SHARPLY FROM MR. HENDRICKS' IN
 VARIOUS RESPECTS.  MR. SINCLAIR TESTIFIED THAT HE FIRST SAW THE REGIONAL
 COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, WHEN HE FOUND IT ON HIS
 DESK WHEN HE RETURNED TO THE OFFICE AT 12:30 OR 1:00 PM;  THAT HE HAD NO
 CONVERSATION WITH MR. HENDRICKS BETWEEN THE 1ST AND 5TH OF OCTOBER;
 THAT HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL THE 5TH (TR. 54).  MR. SINCLAIR
 STATED THAT AFTER HE READ THE MEMORANDUM ON THE 5TH HE WENT TO MR.
 HENDRICKS' OFFICE AND ASKED "WHAT IS ALL OF THIS ABOUT?" AND MR.
 HENDRICKS RESPONDED "WELL, THIS IS A NEW WAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
 TO MAKE OUT OUR TRAVEL VOUCHERS, OUR RECORD THAT WE KEEP FOR OUR TRAVEL"
 (TR. 55).  AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, MR. SINCLAIR STATED THAT MR. HENDRICKS
 SAID, "WELL, THIS IS AN ORDER FROM THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND WE HAVE
 TO DO IT LIKE THIS" AND HE, SINCLAIR, HAD STATED, "WELL, I WANT TO
 NEGOTIATE THIS BEFORE THIS IS PUT INTO EFFECT." (TR. 55).  HE SAID MR.
 HENDRICKS HAD SAID "ALL RIGHT, LET'S NEGOTIATE" AND MR. SINCLAIR SAID
 THAT BEFORE HE COULD NEGOTIATE HE NEEDED ANSWERS TO SOME QUESTIONS AND
 HAD GIVEN MR. HENDRICKS SEVERAL SITUATIONS TO WHICH MR. HENDRICKS HAD
 SAID "I WILL FIND OUT.  I WILL CONTACT THE REGIONAL OFFICE AND FIND
 OUT." (TR. 57).  MR. SINCLAIR STATED THAT THE FOLLOWING WEEK, OCTOBER 11
 OR 12, HE HAD GONE TO MR. HENDRICKS' OFFICE AND ASKED "HAVE YOU HEARD
 ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO ON THIS?" AND MR. HENDRICKS
 REPLIED "NO, BUT I WILL FIND OUT AND GET BACK TO YOU." (TR. 58).  ABOUT
 A WEEK LATER, OCTOBER 18 OR 19, MR. SINCLAIR STATED THAT HE AGAIN WENT
 TO MR. HENDRICKS' OFFICE AND THAT THE TOTAL CONVERSATION CONSISTED OF
 MR. HENDRICKS' STATEMENT,
 
    "YES, WE HAVE JUST ABOUT GOT THIS WRAPPED UP AND YOU WILL GET A
 LETTER IN THE NEXT DAY OR
 
    SO." (TR. 59).
 
    6.  MR. SINCLAIR STATED THAT THE NEXT THING THAT OCCURRED WAS HIS
 RECEIPT OF MR. HENDRICKS' LETTER OF OCTOBER 25, 1979 (G.C. EXH. 7).  IN
 HIS LETTER, MR. HENDRICKS STATED, INTER ALIA, THAT:
 
    " . . . THE DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT IS NOT NEW AND IS, THEREFORE,
 NOT SUBJECT TO
 
    NEGOTIATIONS . . .
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    "I HAVE MET WITH YOU . . . AND HAVE ATTEMPTED TO BARGAIN IMPACT WITH
 YOU.  YOU, HOWEVER,
 
    CONSISTENTLY HOLD (SIC) THAT . . . YOU WILL NOT AGREE TO ITS
 IMPLEMENTATION BEFORE
 
    NEGOTIATIONS ON THE POLICY AND RESOLUTION OF ANY DIFFERENCES WE MAY
 HAVE ARISING FROM THE
 
    POLICY . . .
 
    "SINCE YOU AND I HAVE NO CHOICE IN THIS MATTER, I ADVISE YOU TO
 COMPLY IF YOU WANT TO BE
 
    REIMBURSED FOR YOUR LOCAL TRAVEL IN OCTOBER AND SUBSEQUENT MONTHS."
 (G.C. EXH 7).
 
    7.  UPON RECEIPT OF MR. HENDRICKS LETTER, MR. SINCLAIR MET WITH MR.
 HENDRICKS AND TESTIFIED THAT HE AGAIN STATED "THIS HAS TO BE NEGOTIABLE.
  IT IS A CHANGE AND I THINK WHAT WE HAD BETTER DO IS CALL IN A MEDIATOR
 . . . AND ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE THIS CHANGE" (TR. 60), BUT MR. HENDRICKS
 REFERRED HIM TO HIS LETTER AND SAID, "THE CHANGE IS NOT NEGOTIABLE
 BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A CHANGE." (TR. 60).  BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 31,
 1979 (G.C. EXH. 8), MR. SINCLAIR SUBMITTED HIS OCTOBER TRAVEL REPORT TO
 MR. HENDRICKS AND STATED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "AS YOU ARE AWARE, I DID NOT RECEIVE THIS MEMORANDUM UNTIL OCTOBER 5,
 1979 AT WHICH TIME I,
 
    FEELING THAT IT CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN PERSONNEL POLICY AND WORKING
 CONDITIONS, REQUESTED, IN
 
    MY CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 1823, NFFE, TO NEGOTIATE THE
 CHANGE.
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    "ON OCTOBER 25, 1979 I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM YOU STATING THE MATTER
 WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE
 
    . . . ." (G.C. EXH. 8).
 
    BY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 5, 1979 (RES. EXH. 1), MR. HENDRICKS
 RETURNED MR. SINCLAIR'S OCTOBER TRAVEL REPORT.  /8/
 
    8.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF TRAVEL MANUAL WHICH MR. HENDRICKS
 REFERRED TO IN HIS LETTER OF OCTOBER 25, 1979, AND WHICH HE REPRESENTED
 WAS ISSUED NOVEMBER 30, 1959, WAS NOT SHOWN AND THE PORTION OF
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SF-1164'S, SET FORTH IN THE COMMISSIONER'S
 MEMORANDUM OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1979 ("SHOW POINT OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION
 AND SPEEDOMETER READING AT BEGINNING AND END OF EACH TRIP"), DOES NOT
 PURPORT TO REQUIRE DOCUMENTATION OF MILEAGE OF EVERY STOP, OR LOCATION--
 INDEED, MERELY REQUIRED "SPEEDOMETER READING AT BEGINNING AND END OF
 EACH TRIP".  BUT WHATEVER MIGHT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN RESPONDENT'S 1959
 MANUAL AND ASSUMING THAT SUCH MANUAL PROVIDED FOR SUCH DOCUMENTATION, OR
 WAS SUBJECT TO SUCH INTERPRETATION, THE RECORD IS UNEQUIVOCAL THAT THE
 UNIFORM AND CONSISTENT PRACTICE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT /9/ FOR MORE
 THAN 20 YEARS HAD BEEN TO SHOW, SIMPLY, TOTAL MILEAGE FOR "IN AND
 AROUND" DRIVING AND NOT TO SHOW SPEEDOMETER READINGS FOR EVERY STOP AND
 START.
 
                                CONCLUSIONS
 
    RESPONDENT'S THRESHOLD POSITION, THAT, ALTHOUGH NOT ACTING PURSUANT
 TO SEC. 17 OF THE STATUTE, A REGION MAY, NEVERTHELESS, WITH IMPUNITY
 CHANGE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BY ISSUING REGULATIONS DIRECTIVE TO ITS
 SUBORDINATE DISTRICTS AND/OR THAT A REGIONAL POLICY DECISION RELIEVES A
 DISTRICT OF ITS OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN WITH AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 CONCERNING A CHANGE OF AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AND,
 SPECIFICALLY, THEREBY LIMIT THE DISTRICT'S BARGAINING OBLIGATION TO
 IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE CHANGE IS A RESERVED
 RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT PURSUANT TO SEC. 6(A) OF THE STATUTE, IS CONTRARY TO
 THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE, SEE, FOR EXAMPLE SECS. 3(A)(12), 14,
 AND 16(A)(1) AND (5), CF., SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, HEADQUARTERS
 BUREAUS AND OFFICES, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, A/SLMR NO. 1116, 8 A/SLMR 1011
 (1978);  VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, 1 FLRA NO. 101, FLRA REPORT OF CASE
 DECISIONS NO. 15, SEPTEMBER 25, 1979, AND IS REJECTED.  HOWEVER
 DISTASTEFUL IT MAY APPEAR TO RESPONDENT'S CONCEPT OF MANAGEMENT, THE
 STATUTE DOES, INDEED, REQUIRE NOTICE TO EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVES OF PROPOSED CHANGES OF CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND,
 UPON REQUEST, GOOD FAITH BARGAINING;  AND MOST ASSUREDLY RESPONDENT IS
 NOT FREE UNILATERALLY TO CHANGE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WHETHER IT
 CALLS ITS PRONOUNCEMENT A MEMORANDUM, AS IT DID IN THIS CASE, OR A
 REGULATION, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY SEC. 17 OF THE STATUTE.
 OBVIOUSLY, REGION VI IS NOT A PRIMARY NATIONAL SUBDIVISION OF AN AGENCY;
  THE MEMORANDUM OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER WAS NOT A RULE OR
 REGULATION ISSUED BY AN AGENCY OR BY ANY PRIMARY NATIONAL SUBDIVISION OF
 SUCH AGENCY;  NOR, OF COURSE, WAS THE MEMORANDUM A GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE
 OR REGULATION.  ACCORDINGLY, EVEN IF THE MEMORANDUM WERE PROPERLY
 DENOMINATED A REGULATION, NOT AN INCONSIDERABLE HURDLE TO SURMOUNT,
 RESPONDENT, IN ANY EVENT, HAS FAILED UTTERLY TO ESTABLISH ITS EXEMPTION
 FROM THE DUTY TO BARGAIN PURSUANT TO SEC. 17 OF THE STATUTE.
 
    THE UNIFORM AND CONSISTENT PRACTICE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT OF
 RECORDING MILEAGE AT A GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AS "IN AND AROUND"
 THE LOCATION, WITH APPROPRIATE SPEEDOMETER READINGS, FOR MORE THAN 20
 YEARS WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL OF RESPONDENT'S PRINCIPAL
 DISTRICT AND REGIONAL OFFICIALS HAD BECOME AN ESTABLISHED TERM AND
 CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT WHICH, UNLESS A RESERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT,
 RESPONDENT WAS NOT AT LIBERTY, UNILATERALLY, TO CHANGE.  U.S. DEPARTMENT
 OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT, NEW
 ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, A/SLMR NO. 1034, 8 A/SLMR 497(1978);  INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, SOUTHEASTERN REGION, APPELLATE BRANCH OFFICE, NEW
 ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, A/SLMR NO. 1153, 8 A/SLMR 1254(1978);  SEE, ALSO,
 BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, NATIONAL OFFICE AND CENTRAL
 REGION, 2 FLRA NO. 67(1980).  A PRACTICE WHICH HAS RIPENED INTO A
 CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE BARGAINING UNIT MAY NOT BE CHANGED
 UNILATERALLY IN RELIANCE ON A LONG DORMANT REGULATION OR POLICY,
 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, A/SLMR NO. 246, 3 A/SLMR 88(1973).  /10/
 
    RESPONDENT ASSERTS THAT THE CHANGE OF PRACTICE OF REPORTING MILEAGE,
 ADMITTEDLY FOLLOWED FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS, WAS A RESERVED RIGHT OF
 MANAGEMENT PURSUANT TO SEC.  6(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE IT RELATED
 TO:
 
    "INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE AGENCY"
 
    IT IS QUITE TRUE THAT, IN THE MAIN, SEC. 6(A), AND SPECIFICALLY
 "INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES" REFLECTS THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 11(B), OF
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.  I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION
 TO THE COUNCIL'S DECISION IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1592 AND ARMY-AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, HILL
 AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH, FLRC NO. 77A-123, 6 FLRC 612(1978) AND IN
 PARTICULAR TO THE PORTION OF THE COUNCIL'S DECISION CONCERNING UNION
 PROPOSAL III, 6 FLRC AT 617-621, WHEREIN THE COUNCIL STATED, IN PART, AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    "NO INTENT IS EVIDENCED IN THE ORDER, OR IN THE VARIOUS REPORTS AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH
 
    ACCOMPANIED THE ORDER AND ITS SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS, THAT THE PHRASE
 'INTERNAL
 
    SECURITY' PRACTICES IS TO BE ACCORDED ANY MEANING OTHER THAN THE
 COMMON MEANING ASCRIBED TO
 
    IT . . . 'SECURITY' RELATES TO DEFENDING, PROTECTING, MAKING SAFE OR
 SECURE.  HENCE, AS USED
 
    IN THE ORDER . . . THE TERM 'SECURITY' PRACTICES INCLUDE, INTER ALIA,
 THOSE POLICIES,
 
    PROCEDURES AND ACTIONS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED AND UNDERTAKEN TO DEFEND,
 PROTECT, MAKE SAFE OR
 
    SECURE (I.E., TO RENDER RELATIVELY LESS SUBJECT TO DANGER, RISK OR
 APPREHENSION) THE PROPERTY
 
    OF AN ORGANIZATION.
 
    "CLEARLY, THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE 'INTERNAL SECURITY' PRACTICES
 WHICH WOULD BEST
 
    ACCOMPLISH THESE OBJECTIVES FOR A PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION GENERALLY
 WILL DEPEND UPON THE
 
    FUNCTIONS OF THAT ORGANIZATION AND ITS DERIVATIVE GOALS, ACTIVITIES
 AND PROCESSES;  THE
 
    CHARACTER AND VULNERABILITY OF WHAT IS BEING PROTECTED;  AND WHETHER
 SECURITY IS SOUGHT AGAINST
 
    A RISK OR DANGER FROM WITHIN OR FROM OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION .  . .
 .  THUS, DEPENDING UPON
 
    THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY MAY INVOLVE ONE OR A COMBINATION OF
 PRACTICES, FOR EXAMPLE, GUARD
 
    FORCES, BARRIERS, ALARMS AND SPECIAL LIGHTING.  FURTHER, THEY MAY
 INVOLVE PROCEDURES TO BE
 
    FOLLOWED BY EMPLOYEES, WHICH PROCEDURES ARE DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE OR
 MINIMIZE PARTICULAR RISKS
 
    TO THE PROPERTY OF AN ORGANIZATION FROM SUCH EMPLOYEES.
 
    "TURNING TO THE PRESENT CASE . . . AN AGENCY POLICY ESTABLISHING AS
 AN ASSERTED SECURITY
 
    PRACTICE A PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY AGENCY EMPLOYEES INTENDED TO
 ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE A
 
    PARTICULAR RISK FROM SUCH EMPLOYEES TO AGENCY PROPERTY . . . .  IN
 PARTICULAR, THE PROPOSAL
 
    WOULD NEGATE THE AGENCY'S ADOPTION OF A PRACTICE DESIGNED TO PREVENT,
 OR TO RENDER THE
 
    EXCHANGE SERVICE RELATIVELY LESS SUBJECT TO THE RISK OF AN EMPLOYEE
 ABUSING HIS OR HER
 
    'MARKDOWN AUTHORITY' WITH RESPECT TO AGENCY PROPERTY HELD FOR SALE,
 FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT OR
 
    THE ADVANTAGE OF A FELLOW EMPLOYEE.  IN THIS REGARD . . . THE UNION
 AGREES THAT THE EXCHANGE
 
    SERVICE PRACTICE IS CONCERNED WITH 'INSURING EMPLOYEE HONESTY AND
 SAFEGUARDING AGAINST THEFTS
 
    OF THE EMPLOYER'S PROPERTY BY EMPLOYEES.'
 
    "WE, THEREFORE, FIND THAT THIS UNION PROPOSAL CONCERNS A MATTER WITH
 RESPECT TO THE
 
    INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE AGENCY WITHIN THE COMMON MEANING
 OF THE PHRASE AND, HENCE,
 
    WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ORDER . . . ." (6 FLRC AT 619-620)
 
    WEIGHING CAREFULLY THE COMMON MEANING OF THE PHRASE, "INTERNAL
 SECURITY", AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE COUNCIL, SET FORTH ABOVE, I SIMPLY DO
 NOT FIND THAT THE CHANGE IN REPORTING MILEAGE CONCERNED AN INTERNAL
 SECURITY PRACTICE OF RESPONDENT.  RESPONDENT'S INSTRUCTIONS, CONSISTENT
 WITH GENERAL GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, HAD ALWAYS REQUIRED, INTER
 ALIA,
 
    " . . . POINT OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION AND SPEEDOMETER READING AT
 BEGINNING AND END OF
 
    EACH TRIP . . . ."
 
    THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS HAD BEEN TO DESIGNATE
 TRAVEL AT A PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AS "IN AND AROUND" AND,
 ALTHOUGH THE SPEEDOMETER READING WAS SHOWN AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF
 "IN AND AROUND", SPEEDOMETER READINGS FOR EVERY START AND STOP HAD NOT
 BEEN SHOWN.  THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM SOUGHT PRECISELY
 SUCH INFORMATION.  IT IS TRUE, OF COURSE, THAT IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT
 THIS, LIKE THE EXCHANGE SERVICE PROVISION DISCUSSED BY THE COUNCIL,
 CONCERNED "EMPLOYEE HONESTY" IF ADDITIONAL DETAIL OF THE SPEEDOMETER
 READING FOR EVERY START AND STOP TENDED TO DISCOURAGE INFLATED CLAIMS
 FOR MILEAGE.  FOLLOWED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION, RESPONDENT'S POSTURE
 OF PROTECTING THE TREASURY, WHILE WHOLLY LAUDABLE, WOULD ARROGATE TO
 MANAGEMENT, UNDER THE GUISE OF "SECURITY", CONTROL OVER MOST, IF NOT
 ALL, CONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEES THAT INVOLVED PAYMENT OF MONEY.  I DO NOT
 BELIEVE THE TERM "SECURITY" CAN BE SO EXPANSIVELY CONSTRUED.  RATHER, AS
 THE COUNCIL EMPHASIZED, IT MUST BE ACCORDED THE MEANING COMMONLY
 ASCRIBED TO IT, AND, IN MY OPINION, THE CHANGE SOUGHT TO BE MADE BY
 RESPONDENT BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM OF SEPTEMBER 20,
 1979, DID NOT CONCERN "INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE AGENCY" AND
 WAS NOT, THEREFORE, A RESERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT PURSUANT TO SEC.
 6(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, CONSIDERATION HAS
 BEEN GIVEN TO UNITED STATES ARMY, ELECTRONICS COMMAND, FORT MONMOUTH,
 NEW JERSEY, A/SLMR NO. 653, 6 A/SLMR 228, 6 A/SLMR SUPP. 89(1976) WHICH,
 WHILE DISTINGUISHABLE, IS FULLY IN ACCORD IN PRINCIPLE.
 
    BECAUSE RESPONDENT CHANGED AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, IT
 WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE THE UNION NOTICE OF ITS PROPOSED CHANGE AND AFFORD
 THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN BEFORE IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGE.
 OBVIOUSLY, RESPONDENT DID NEITHER.  THUS, THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S
 MEMORANDUM UNILATERALLY CHANGED A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, WAS EFFECTIVE
 WHEN RECEIVED, AND THE UNION'S REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE THE DECISION WAS
 REJECTED.  THE CHANGE OF THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE OF REPORTING MILEAGE
 WAS SIGNIFICANT IN THAT SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DETAIL WAS REQUIRED WITH THE
 NECESSITY FOR SHOWING SPEEDOMETER READINGS FOR EVERY START AND STOP.
 CONTRARY TO RESPONDENT'S ASSERTION, SUCH CHANGE WAS NOT DE MINIMIS.
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, MONTANA, 2 FLRA
 NO. 2(1979);  4392 AEROSPACE SUPPORT GROUP, VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE,
 CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 2 FLRA NO. 14(1979);  INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER, 2 FLRA NO. 97(1980).  NOT ONLY
 WAS MORE DETAIL REQUIRED, BUT THERE WAS A SHIFT FROM ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
 TOTAL MILEAGE TO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY START AND STOP WHICH DIRECTLY
 RESULTED IN REJECTION OF MR. SINCLAIR'S OCTOBER EXPENSE VOUCHER.
 
    BY ISSUANCE OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1979, WITHOUT NOTICE
 TO THE UNION AND WITH INSTRUCTIONS THAT IT BE IMPLEMENTED UPON RECEIPT,
 REGION VI VIOLATED SECTIONS 16(A)(5) AND (1) OF THE STATUTE, VETERANS
 ADMINISTRATION, 1 FLRA NO. 101, FLRA REPORT OF CASE DECISIONS NO. 15,
 SEPTEMBER 25, 1979;  NAVAL AIR REWORK FACILITY, PENSACOLA, FLORIDA AND
 SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, WASHINGTON, D.C., FLRC
 NO. 76A-57, 5 FLRC 303(1977), A/SLMR NO. 873, 7 A/SLMR 618(1977).  IN
 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, SUPRA, THE AUTHORITY STATED, IN PART,
 
    " . . . IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COUNCIL THAT THE ACTS AND CONDUCT OF
 AGENCY MANAGEMENT, AT
 
    A HIGHER LEVEL OF AN AGENCY'S ORGANIZATION, MAY PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR
 FINDING A VIOLATION OF
 
    ANY PART OF SECTION 19(A) OF THE ORDER, BUT, MAY NOT, STANDING ALONE,
 PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR
 
    FINDING A SEPARATE VIOLATION BY 'AGENCY MANAGEMENT' AT A LOWER
 ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL OF THE
 
    AGENCY SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ITS MINISTERIAL ACTIONS IN IMPLEMENTING
 THE DIRECTIONS FROM
 
    HIGHER AGENCY AUTHORITY.  BASED ON THIS RATIONALE, THE AUTHORITY
 FINDS THAT THE VETERANS
 
    ADMINISTRATION AT THE AGENCY LEVEL VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6)
 OF THE ORDER BY, IN
 
    EFFECT, PROHIBITING THE LOCAL VA HOSPITAL FROM NEGOTIATING WITH AFGE,
 LOCAL 1739.  FURTHER,
 
    THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE VA HOSPITAL IN SALEM, VIRGINIA, BY
 FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS FROM
 
    HIGHER AGENCY MANAGEMENT, DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF
 THE ORDER."
 
    THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE STATUTE WHICH MAY WELL
 WARRANT ELIMINATION OF THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN LEVELS OF AGENCY
 MANAGEMENT ALTOGETHER /11/ FOR EXAMPLE SEC. 3(A)(13) OF THE STATUTE
 PROVIDES, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "(12) 'COLLECTIVE BARGAINING' MEANS THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL
 OBLIGATION OF THE
 
    REPRESENTATIVE OF AN AGENCY AND THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 EMPLOYEES IN AN APPROPRIATE
 
    UNIT IN THE AGENCY TO . . . BARGAIN IN A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO REACH
 AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO
 
    CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES . . . ."
 
    IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT MESSRS. GONZALES AND
 HENDRICKS PRIVATELY CONCLUDED ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1979, THAT THE UNION
 WOULD BE PERMITTED TO BARGAIN ONLY ON IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, WHICH
 CONCLUSION WAS PLAINLY DICTATED BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S
 MEMORANDUM AS WELL AS BY THE INSTRUCTIONS THEY, AS SUPERVISORS, WERE
 GIVEN AT THE CONFERENCE.  MR. GONZALES SO INFORMED LOCAL 1823'S
 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 26.  I CREDIT MR. SINCLAIR'S
 TESTIMONY THAT ON, OR ABOUT OCTOBER 5, HE TOLD MR. HENDRICKS HE WANTED
 TO NEGOTIATE RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED CHANGE BEFORE IT WAS IMPLEMENTED
 ("PUT INTO EFFECT");  THAT MR.  HENDRICKS SAID ALL RIGHT, LET'S
 NEGOTIATE;  THAT MR. SINCLAIR TOLD MR. HENDRICKS THAT BEFORE HE COULD
 NEGOTIATE HE NEEDED ANSWERS TO SOME QUESTIONS, WHICH HE STATED;  AND
 THAT MR. HENDRICKS TOLD MR.  SINCLAIR THAT HE WOULD FIND OUT ABOUT THE
 QUESTIONS MR. HENDRICKS HAD RAISED.  I HAVE CREDITED MR.  SINCLAIR'S
 TESTIMONY, IN PART BECAUSE, IN SUBSTANCE, HIS TESTIMONY WAS CORROBORATED
 BY MR. HENDRICKS LETTER OF OCTOBER 25, 1979, IN WHICH MR. HENDRICKS
 STATED, IN PART, "YOU, HOWEVER, CONSISTENTLY HOLD (SIC) THAT . . . YOU
 WILL NOT AGREE TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE POLICY .
 .  . ." (G.C. EXH. 7);  IN PART, BECAUSE MR. HENDRICKS TESTIFIED THAT
 MR. SINCLAIR RAISED A "GOOD POINT";  AND, IN PART, BECAUSE HIS TESTIMONY
 WAS INHERENTLY CONSISTENT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, MR.  HENDRICKS' TESTIMONY
 THAT HE DISCUSSED A QUESTION RAISED BY MR. SINCLAIR WITH MR. GONZALES IS
 MORE CONSISTENT WITH HIS HAVING TOLD MR. SINCLAIR INITIALLY THAT HE
 WOULD FIND OUT THEN WITH MR. HENDRICKS' TESTIMONY THAT HE TOLD MR.
 SINCLAIR HE COULD ACCEPT MR. SINCLAIR'S POSITION.  ACCORDINGLY, I
 CONCLUDE, AS MR. SINCLAIR TESTIFIED, THAT AT HIS INITIAL DISCUSSION WITH
 MR. HENDRICKS, ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 5, HE REQUESTED NEGOTIATION OF THE
 PROPOSED CHANGE;  THAT MR. HENDRICKS AGREED TO NEGOTIATE;  THAT MR.
 SINCLAIR ASKED FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION IN ORDER TO NEGOTIATE;  AND THAT
 MR. HENDRICKS PROMISED TO FIND OUT AND GET BACK TO HIM.  WHILE IT IS
 CLEAR THAT MR. HENDRICKS TOLD MR. SINCLAIR, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT "THIS IS
 WHAT WE ARE GOING TO IMPLEMENT FOR THIS MONTH", AS MR. HENDRICKS
 TESTIFIED, OR "THIS IS A NEW WAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE OUT
 OUR TRAVEL VOUCHERS . . . THIS IS AN ORDER FROM THE REGIONAL
 COMMISSIONER AND WE HAVE TO DO IT LIKE THIS", AS MR. SINCLAIR TESTIFIED;
  NEVERTHELESS, WHEN MR. SINCLAIR DEMANDED NEGOTIATIONS ON THE POLICY,
 MR. HENDRICKS AGREED TO NEGOTIATE AND AGREED TO OBTAIN THE INFORMATION
 REQUESTED BY MR. SINCLAIR.  AT THEIR NEXT MEETING THE FOLLOWING WEEK,
 MR. HENDRICKS REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE THE POLICY, ALTHOUGH HE DID TELL MR.
 SINCLAIR HE WAS WILLING TO NEGOTIATE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.  IT IS
 UNNECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT IN TESTIMONY AS TO WHETHER MR.
 HENDRICKS EVER RESPONDED TO MR. SINCLAIR'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR
 THE REASON THAT MR. HENDRICKS REFUSED, AT ALL SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS WITH
 MR. SINCLAIR, TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE ASSERTED REASON THAT THE "REQUIREMENT
 IS NOT NEW AND IS, THEREFORE, NOT SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATIONS" (G.C. EXH. 7;
  TR. 60).
 
    IN FASHIONING THE REMEDY, INCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT MIGHT BE
 APPROPRIATE UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, SUPRA, ON THE
 THEORY THAT MR. HENDRICKS' STATED REASON FOR REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE WAS
 NOT, DIRECTLY, INSTRUCTIONS FROM HIGHER HEADQUARTERS AND, THEREFORE, THE
 ACTS AND CONDUCT OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT AT A HIGHER LEVEL DID NOT STAND
 ALONE;  BUT, FOR REASONS WELL STATED BY JUDGE ARRIGO, IN BOSTON DISTRICT
 RECRUITING COMMAND, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, 94TH U.S. ARMY RESERVE
 COMMAND, HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMANDER, FORT DEVANS,
 FORT DEVANS, MASSACHUSETTS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, D.C., CASE NOS 1-CA-206, 1-CA-207,
 1-CA-208, 1-CA-209, 1-CA-303, AND 1-CA-304(1980), "ORGANIZATIONALLY
 THERE IS A COMMONALITY WHICH BINDS TOGETHER ALL THESE COMPONENTS OF DOD
 (DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE) . . . .  IT WAS DOD'S REGULATIONS WHICH WERE
 ACTED UPON AND TRANSMITTED THROUGH DOA'S (DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY)
 REGULATIONS TO FORT DEVANS FOR IMPLEMENTATION . . . WHILE I HAVE
 CONCLUDED THAT FORT DEVANS VIOLATED THE STATUTE . . . ALL RELATED
 ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED ARE CHARGED TO COOPERATE IN THE EFFECTUATION OF
 THE ORDER RECOMMENDED HEREIN . . . ", MORE APPROPRIATELY, ALL RELATED
 LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT OF RESPONDENT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATION OF
 SECS. 16(A)(5) AND (1) SHOULD BE CHARGED TO COOPERATE IN THE
 EFFECTUATION OF THE ORDER RECOMMENDED.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT REGION VI VIOLATED SEC. 16(A)(5) AND, DERIVATIVELY,
 SEC. 16(A)(1), OF THE STATUTE BY ITS UNILATERAL ISSUANCE OF ITS
 MEMORANDUM WHICH CHANGED THE MANNER OF REPORTING MILEAGE AND THAT THE
 GALVESTON DISTRICT VIOLATED SEC. 16(A)(5) AND, DERIVATIVELY, SEC.
 16(A)(1), OF THE STATUTE BY ITS REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ON THE DECISION TO
 CHANGE AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, /12/ IT IS RECOMMENDED
 THAT THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 18(A)(7) OF THE STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7), AND
 SECTION 2423.26 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. CHAPTER
 XIV, 2423.26, FED. REG., VOL. 45, NO. 12, JANUARY 17, 1980, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
 SERVICES, REGION VI, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, GALVESTON, TEXAS,
 DISTRICT, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823
 
    (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "LOCAL 1823"), THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN
 
    THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, ON A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE MANNER OF
 REPORTING TRAVEL MILEAGE.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERRING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
 
    (A) WITHDRAW THE CHANGE CONCERNING REPORTING OF TRAVEL MILEAGE IN THE
 GALVESTON DISTRICT,
 
    SET FORTH IN THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER
 20, 1979, AND REINSTATE IN
 
    THE GALVESTON DISTRICT THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE
 REPORTING OF TRAVEL MILEAGE
 
    AS PRACTICED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 20, 1979.
 
    (B) NOTIFY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823
 OF ANY INTENDED
 
    DECISION TO CHANGE THE MANNER OF REPORTING TRAVEL MILEAGE IN THE
 GALVESTON DISTRICT AND UPON
 
    REQUEST OF LOCAL 1823, MEET AND CONFER TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON
 
    ANY SUCH PROPOSED CHANGE.
 
    (C) POST AT OFFICES OF REGION VI, DALLAS, TEXAS, AT THE GALVESTON,
 TEXAS, DISTRICT OFFICE,
 
    AND AT THE ANGLETON, TEXAS, BRANCH 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 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, REGION VI, SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
 
    AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR
 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
 
    THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING BULLETIN BOARDS AND
 OTHER PLACES AT EACH OFFICE
 
    WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE REGIONAL
 COMMISSIONER SHALL TAKE
 
    REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
 DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 
    MATERIAL.
 
    (D) PURSUANT TO SEC. 2423.30 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS,
 NOTIFY THE REGIONAL
 
    DIRECTOR OF REGION 6, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, ROOM 450,
 DOWNTOWN POST OFFICE
 
    STATION, BRYAN AND ERVAY STREETS, DALLAS, TEXAS 75221, IN WRITING,
 WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE
 
    DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                         WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  JANUARY 29, 1981
            WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
        APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND
 
           ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN
 
            ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF FEDERAL SERVICE
 
            LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 
                     RELATIONS IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL WITHDRAW AND RESCIND THE CHANGE CONCERNING REPORTING OF
 TRAVEL MILEAGE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT WHICH WAS SET FORTH IN THE
 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM DATE SEPTEMBER 20, 1979.
 
    WE WILL FORTHWITH REINITIATE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT THE PROCEDURE
 AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE REPORTING OF TRAVEL MILEAGE AS PRACTICED
 IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 20, 1979.
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO NEGOTIATE WITH NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823 ON ANY DECISION TO CHANGE THE MANNER OF REPORTING
 TRAVEL MILEAGE.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS BY SEC. 2 OF THE
 STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 1823 OF ANY INTENDED DECISION TO CHANGE THE MANNER OF REPORTING TRAVEL
 MILEAGE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT AND UPON REQUEST BY LOCAL 1823, MEET
 AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON ANY
 SUCH PROPOSED CHANGE.
 
                       REGIONAL VI, SOCIAL SECURITY
 
                        ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT
 
                       OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                           REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
 
    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 6, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  ROOM 450, DOWNTOWN POST OFFICE STATION, BRYAN AND ERVAY
 STREETS, DALLAS, TEXAS 75221 AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (214)
 767-4996.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) PROVIDES:
 
    SEC. 7116.  UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
 
    (A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER, IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE FOR AN AGENCY--
 
    (1) TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE
 EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF
 
    ANY RIGHT UNDER THIS CHAPTER;
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (5) TO REFUSE TO CONSULT OR NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION AS REQUIRED
 
    BY THIS CHAPTER(.)
 
    /2/ SEE, E.G., DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS AND FIELD
 OPERATIONS, SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, 5 FLRA
 NO. 63(1981), WHEREIN THE AUTHORITY FOUND THAT AGENCY MANAGEMENT AT THE
 DISTRICT OFFICE LEVEL VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE
 BY ANNOUNCING A UNILATERAL CHANGE IN POLICY AFFECTING THE EMPLOYEES'
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION AND
 THE CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT REMAINED AT THE HIGHER
 REGIONAL LEVEL WITHIN THE AGENCY.
 
    /3/ IN SO CONCLUDING, THE AUTHORITY, IN FURTHER AGREEMENT WITH THE
 JUDGE, REJECTS THE AGENCY'S CONTENTION THAT THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S
 CONDUCT CONSTITUTED AN EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT'S RESERVED RIGHT UNDER
 SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE "TO DETERMINE THE . . .  INTERNAL
 SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE AGENCY(.)" SEE E.G., NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1363 AND HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY GARRISON,
 YONGSAN, KOREA, 4 FLRA NO. 23(1980), APPEAL DOCKETED, NO. 80-2341 (D.C.
 CIR. OCT. 23, 1980).  MOREOVER, THE AUTHORITY REJECTS AS UNSUPPORTED THE
 AGENCY'S CONTENTION THAT THE JUDGE'S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH
 GOVERNMENT-WIDE GSA TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF
 TRAVEL VOUCHERS IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO PERMIT PROPER REVIEW BY
 AGENCIES.  THUS, THE AGENCY HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT PREEXISTING
 INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRING "POINT OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION AND SPEEDOMETER
 READING AT BEGINNING AND END OF EACH TRIP" WERE INCONSISTENT WITH SUCH
 TRAVEL REGULATIONS.
 
    /4/ MOREOVER, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGE,
 THAT WHILE THE GALVESTON DISTRICT NOTIFIED NFFE OF THE CHANGE IN THE
 PRACTICE OF REPORTING MILEAGE AND REPEATEDLY OFFERED TO BARGAIN
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT CHANGE, THE RESPONDENT
 REGION WAS NOT THEREBY RELIEVED OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN REGARDING THE
 CHANGE ITSELF.
 
    /5/ AS AMENDED AT HEARING BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.
 
    /6/ FOR CONVENIENCE OF REFERENCE, SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE ARE
 HEREINAFTER, ALSO, REFERRED TO WITHOUT INCLUSION OF THE INITIAL "71"
 PORTION OF THE STATUTE REFERENCE.  FOR EXAMPLE, SECTION 7116(A)(1)
 SIMPLY AS "16(A)(1)".
 
    /7/ IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT, TO WHICH RESPONDENT
 DID NOT OBJECT, NO PROBLEM OF IDENTIFYING THE PROPER RESPONDENT REMAINS.
 CF., INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WASHINGTON D.C. AND INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, HARTFORD DISTRICT OFFICE, 4 FLRA NO.  37(1980).
 
    /8/ MR. SINCLAIR STATED AT THE HEARING THAT HIS TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR
 OCTOBER HAD NEVER BEEN PAID.
 
    /9/ WHILE NOT MATERIAL TO DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE AND, ACCORDINGLY,
 NOT DECIDED, MR. SINCLAIR'S TESTIMONY CONCERNING INSTRUCTIONS ON USE OF
 "IN AND AROUND" BY THE REGION STRONGLY INFERS THAT THE PRACTICE EXTENDED
 TO ALL OF REGION VI.
 
    /10/ BY CONTRAST, COMPLIANCE BY A PORTION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT WITH
 A REGULATION OR POLICY CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED THROUGHOUT THE MAJORITY OF
 THE BARGAINING UNIT MAY NOT CONSTITUTE A CHANGE IN A CONDITION OF
 EMPLOYMENT.  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES ARMY, FORT SAM
 HOUSTON, TEXAS, 1 FLRA NO. 68, FLRA REPORT OF CASE DECISIONS NO. 10,
 JULY 11, 1979.  OBVIOUSLY, SUCH CONSIDERATION IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE IN
 VIEW OF THE CONSISTENT AND UNIFORM PRACTICE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT,
 WHICH IS THE SOLE UNIT OF RECOGNITION INVOLVED.
 
    /11/ IN ALL CANDOR, WHILE THE COUNCIL'S DECISION IN NAVAL AIR REWORK,
 SUPRA, GREATLY SIMPLIFIED THE PROBLEM OF IDENTIFYING THE PROPER
 RESPONDENT UNDER THE ORDER AND ITS CONTINUED APPLICATION TO EXECUTIVE
 ORDER CASES IS NOT QUESTIONED, PERPETRATION OF ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTIONS
 BETWEEN LEVELS OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT UNDER THE STATUTE DOES NOT SEEM
 WARRANTED.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
 AND INTER