10:0326(61)CA - IRS (District, Region and National Office Unit and Service Center Unit) and NTEU -- 1982 FLRAdec CA



[ v10 p326 ]
10:0326(61)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 61
 
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
 (DISTRICT, REGION AND NATIONAL
 OFFICE UNIT AND SERVICE CENTER
 UNIT)
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 3-CA-1794
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED DECISION IN THE
 ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN THE
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND RECOMMENDING THAT
 IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS.
 THEREAFTER, THE CHARGING PARTY AND THE RESPONDENT FILED EXCEPTIONS.  /1/
 
    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.
 
    IN AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE RESPONDENT
 (IRS) DID NOT GIVE THE CHARGING PARTY (NTEU) ADEQUATE NOTICE OF ITS
 DECISION TO TERMINATE THE ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM (ATP) FOR CERTAIN
 BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES REFERRED TO AS "CROSS-OVER" EMPLOYEES.  /2/ AS
 PREVIOUSLY NOTED BY THE AUTHORITY, THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT, PRIOR TO
 EFFECTUATING A CHANGE IN ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, AN AGENCY
 MUST GIVE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO
 NEGOTIATE.  SEE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE,
 ILLINOIS, 5 FLRA NO. 2 (1981).  IN THE AUTHORITY'S VIEW, AND IN
 AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RATIONALE, THE NOTICE GIVEN TO
 NTEU BY IRS WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC OR DEFINITIVE REGARDING THE
 ACTUAL CHANGE CONTEMPLATED SO AS TO ADEQUATELY PROVIDE NTEU WITH A
 REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST BARGAINING.  /3/ THUS, WHILE THE
 AUTHORITY FINDS, IN FURTHER AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGE, THAT THE DECISION
 TO TERMINATE THE ATP FOR CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES WAS NOT ITSELF NEGOTIABLE
 SINCE IT INVOLVED THE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT "TO ASSIGN WORK"
 UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE, /4/ IRS NEVERTHELESS HAD THE
 OBLIGATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 7106(B)(2) AND (3) OF THE STATUTE /5/ TO
 AFFORD NTEU THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST NEGOTIATIONS OVER THE PROCEDURES
 TO BE OBSERVED IN IMPLEMENTING THE DECISION AND APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS
 FOR ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.  ACCORDINGLY, ITS FAILURE TO GIVE NTEU
 ADEQUATE NOTICE SO AS TO PERMIT NTEU TO SUBMIT APPROPRIATE BARGAINING
 PROPOSALS PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION
 OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    MOREOVER, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGE, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT A
 STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDY IS WARRANTED.  SUCH CONCLUSION IS BASED UPON A
 CAREFUL BALANCING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIFIC FACTORS ENUMERATED
 IN FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 8 FLRA NO. 111 (1982).  /6/
 SPECIFICALLY, IN THIS CASE, IRS FAILED TO GIVE NTEU ADEQUATE NOTICE OF
 THE PROPOSED CHANGE AND, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE CHANGE, EMPLOYEES IN
 NTEU'S BARGAINING UNIT LOST A TRAINING OPPORTUNITY INTENDED TO QUALIFY
 THEM FOR THE REVENUE AGENT SERIES.  THUS, BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WERE
 SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED BY IRS'S VIOLATION OF ITS BARGAINING OBLIGATION.
 IN CONTRAST, THE AUTHORITY NOTES THAT THE ATP WAS RETAINED FOR MANDATORY
 EMPLOYEES (I.E., THOSE EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM ADDITIONAL CREDITS ARE
 MANDATORY TO REACH A JOURNEYMAN LEVEL IN THEIR CAREER FIELD) AS WELL AS
 FOR CERTAIN CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES WHO WERE "GRANDFATHERED" INTO THE
 PROGRAM.  THUS, THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE THAT INCLUSION OF THE OTHER
 CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES IN THE ONGOING PROGRAM PENDING APPROPRIATE
 NEGOTIATIONS WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY DISRUPT IRS'S OPERATIONS.  ACCORDINGLY,
 WEIGHING THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGE ON UNIT EMPLOYEES AGAINST THE
 APPARENTLY MINIMAL DEGREE OF DISRUPTION IN IRS'S OPERATIONS THAT WOULD
 BE CAUSED BY A RETURN TO THE PREEXISTING PRACTICE, THE AUTHORITY
 CONCLUDES THAT A STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDY IS APPROPRIATE IN ORDER TO BEST
 EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE.  SEE SAN ANTONIO
 AIR LOGISTICS CENTER, (AFLC), KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, 5 FLRA NO. 22
 (1981);  NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 6 FLRA NO. 22
 (1981).
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7118 O THE STATUTE, IT IS
 HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) UNILATERALLY TERMINATING ITS ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM FOR ITS
 CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE BARGAINING UNITS EXCLUSIVELY REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL
 TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION,
 
    WITHOUT FIRST GIVING ADEQUATE NOTICE TO THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND AFFORDING IT
 
    THE OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED
 IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH
 
    CHANGE AND CONCERNING APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES
 ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH
 
    CHANGE.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
 
    THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
    STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) RETURN TO THE PRACTICE WHICH EXISTED PRIOR TO AUGUST 15, 1980
 REGARDING PARTICIPATION
 
    IN THE ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM BY CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES IN THE
 BARGAINING UNITS EXCLUSIVELY
 
    REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION.
 
    (B) NOTIFY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION OF ANY INTENDED
 CHANGE REGARDING
 
    PARTICIPATION IN THE ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM BY CROSS-OVER
 EMPLOYEES AND, UPON REQUEST,
 
    NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED IN IMPLEMENTING
 SUCH CHANGE AND CONCERNING
 
    APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH
 CHANGE.
 
    (C) POST AT ITS FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE BARGAINING UNITS FOR WHICH
 NATIONAL TREASURY
 
    EMPLOYEES UNION HOLDS EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION 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 AN AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED
 FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
 
    THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND
 OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES
 
    TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKE
 TO ENSURE 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, REGION III, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN
 WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS
 
    FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKE TO
 COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 8, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
    OPINION OF LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER:
 
    I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUES IN FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED
 SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE BY FAILING TO GIVE NTEU
 ADEQUATE NOTICE PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING THE DECISION TO TERMINATE THE
 ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM (ATP) FOR "CROSS-OVER" EMPLOYEES IN THE
 BARGAINING UNIT SO AS TO PERMIT NTEU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS
 CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED IN IMPLEMENTING THE DECISION
 AND APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.
 
    HOWEVER, I DISAGREE THAT THE FOREGOING VIOLATION WARRANTS A STATUS
 QUO ANTE REMEDY.  THUS, BALANCING THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
 VIOLATION AGAINST THE DEGREE OF DISRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS THAT
 WOULD BE CAUSED BY SUCH A REMEDY, AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE
 FACTORS ENUMERATED IN FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 8 FLRA NO. 111
 (1982), I CONCLUDE THAT AN ORDER REQUIRING THE RESPONDENT TO BARGAIN
 UPON REQUEST ABOUT IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION WILL BEST EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE.  IN THIS REGARD, I NOTE
 PARTICULARLY THAT THE ATP WAS NOT RELATED TO OR NECESSARY FOR THE
 "CROSS-OVER" EMPLOYEES' CURRENT POSITIONS (AS IT WAS FOR THE
 "MANDATORIES"), BUT RATHER PERMITTED THE CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES TO QUALIFY
 FOR OTHER POSITIONS IN THE FUTURE.  AS SUCH, THE ATP FOR CROSS-OVER
 EMPLOYEES CONSTITUTED ESSENTIALLY A "FRINGE BENEFIT" RATHER THAN ONE OF
 THEIR CURRENT WORKING CONDITIONS, AS THE RESPONDENT ADVISED NTEU.
 MOREOVER, I NOTE THAT THE RESPONDENT TERMINATED THE ATP FOR CROSS-OVERS
 ON A PROSPECTIVE BASIS, WHILE "GRANDFATHERING" IN THE CURRENT
 CROSS-OVERS IN THE UNIT WHO WERE ALREADY BENEFITING FROM THE PROGRAM.
 UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I CONCLUDE THAT THE ADVERSE EFFECTS ON
 CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT CAUSED BY THE RESPONDENT'S PROSPECTIVE
 TERMINATION OF THE PROGRAM WITH RESPECT TO THEM ARE MORE THAN OUTWEIGHED
 BY THE DISRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY AN
 ORDER REQUIRING THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE ATP FOR ALL CROSS-OVER
 EMPLOYEES ON A NATIONWIDE BASIS.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, I RESPECTFULLY DISSENT FROM THE STATUS QUO ANTE PORTION
 OF THE REMEDY ORDERED BY MY COLLEAGUES IN THIS MATTER.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 8, 1982
 
                        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 UNILATERALLY TERMINATE THE ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM
 FOR CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNITS EXCLUSIVELY REPRESENTED
 BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, WITHOUT FIRST GIVING ADEQUATE
 NOTICE TO THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND AFFORDING IT THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED IN
 IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGE AND CONCERNING APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR
 EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH CHANGE.
 
    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 RETURN TO THE PRACTICE WHICH EXISTED PRIOR TO AUGUST 15,
 1980, REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM BY
 CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNITS EXCLUSIVELY REPRESENTED BY
 THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION OF ANY INTENDED
 CHANGE REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM BY
 CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES AND, UPON REQUEST, NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE
 PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGE AND CONCERNING
 APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH
 CHANGE.
 
                                 (AGENCY)
 
    DATED:  BY:  (SIGNATURE) (TITLE)
 
    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:  P.O. BOX 33758, WASHINGTON, D.C.  20033-0758, AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (202) 653-8507.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    MARK KAIZEN, ESQ.
    MICHAEL SUSSMAN, ESQ.
                      FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    SUSAN SHINKMAN, ESQ.
                      FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    SEAN J. ROGERS, ESQ.
                      FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM NAIMARK
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    PURSUANT TO A COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED ON APRIL 30,
 1981 BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY,
 WASHINGTON, D.C. REGION, A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON
 JUNE 24, 1981 AT WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
    THIS PROCEEDING AROSE UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE (HEREIN CALLED THE ACT).  IT STEMS FROM A CHARGE FILED
 ON DECEMBER 23, 1980 BY NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION (HEREIN CALLED
 THE UNION) AGAINST INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DISTRICT REGION, NATIONAL
 OFFICE UNIT AND SERVICE CENTER UNIT, (HEREIN CALLED THE RESPONDENT).
 
    THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT REFUSED TO BARGAIN IN GOOD
 FAITH WITH THE UNION IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE
 ACT.  IN PARTICULAR IT IS ALLEGED THEREIN THAT BY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER
 12, 1980 RESPONDENT ADVISED THE UNION THAT IT HAD TERMINATED THE
 ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM FOR FUTURE CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES, AND THAT
 THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN RE SUCH TERMINATION.
 
    RESPONDENT FILED AN ANSWER ON MAY 21, 1981 WHICH DENIED THE
 COMMISSION OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  IT ADMITTED THAT, BY A LETTER
 DATED NOVEMBER 12, 1980, THE UNION WAS INFORMED OF THE CANCELLATION OF
 THE SAID PROGRAM FOR CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES.  THE ANSWER AVERRED THAT THE
 UNION WAS THEREBY INFORMED NO FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WERE NECESSARY SINCE
 CURRENT CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES COULD COMPLETE THE PROGRAM, AND THUS NO
 IMPACT UPON THEM EXISTED.  FURTHER, IT IS AVERRED THAT THE UNION WAS
 GIVEN TIMELY NOTICE RE CROSS-OVERS AND THE PROGRAM'S TERMINATION;  THAT
 THE PARTIES NEGOTIATED AS TO THE EFFECT UPON SUCH EMPLOYEES AND
 RESPONDENT BARGAINED IN GOOD FAITH.
 
    ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED AT THE HEARING.  EACH WAS AFFORDED FULL
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE, AND TO EXAMINE AS WELL AS
 CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.  THEREAFTER, BRIEFS WERE FILED WITH THE
 UNDERSIGNED WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.  /7/
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN, FROM BY OBSERVATIONS OF THE WITNESSES
 AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM ALL OF THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE ADDUCED
 AT THE HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    1.  AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN THE UNION HAS BEEN THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF RESPONDENT'S PROFESSIONAL AND
 NON-PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES AT THE DISTRICT OFFICES, REGIONAL OFFICES AND
 NATIONAL OFFICE, THE SERVICE CENTERS, THE DATA CENTER, DETROIT MICHIGAN,
 AND THE NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER, MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA.
 
    2.  FOR MANY YEARS RESPONDENT HAS PROVIDED AN ACCOUNTING TRAINING
 PROGRAM (ATP) FOR ITS EMPLOYEES CLASSIFIED AS MANDATORIES AND
 CROSS-OVERS.  MANDATORIES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DESCRIBED AS EMPLOYEES FOR
 WHOM ADDITIONAL CREDITS ARE MANDATORY TO REACH A JOURNEYMEN LEVEL IN
 THEIR CAREERFIELD (I.E., TAX AUDITORS AND TAXPAYER SERVICE SPECIALISTS).
  CROSS-OVERS ARE DEFINED AS EMPLOYEES WHO ARE COMPETITIVELY SELECTED TO
 RECEIVE ACCOUNTING TRAINING TO QUALIFY FOR THE REVENUE AGENT SERIES.
 /8/
 
    3.  THE ATP CONTAINS VARIOUS PROVISIONS REGARDING IN-SERVICE COURSES,
 OUT-SERVICE TRAINING, TRAINING FOR CROSS-OVERS, REIMBURSEMENT TO BOTH
 CLASSES FOR COSTS INCURRED, OFFICIAL TIME ALLOWANCE, AND THE PHASING OUT
 OF THE USE OF SELF-STUDY MATERIALS.
 
    4.  UNDER DATE OF NOVEMBER 9, 1979 RESPONDENT SENT TO UNION HEREIN
 PROPOSED REVISIONS OF THE ATP.  IT SET FORTH DESIRED CHANGES TO THE
 MANUAL TEST AND REQUESTED THAT ANY COMMENTS BY THE BARGAINING AGENT BE
 DIRECTED TO JORDON NYE.  THE DESIRED MODIFICATIONS AFFECTED BOTH
 MANDATORY AND CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES.
 
    5.  BY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 27, 1979 FRANK D. FERRIS, DIRECTOR OF
 TRAINING AND NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION,
 WROTE MICHAEL DOLAN, CHIEF, LABOR RELATIONS BRANCH OF RESPONDENT AND
 DECLARED THAT THE UNION WAS INVOKING ITS RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE OVER THE
 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TRAINING MANUAL.  IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, THE
 PROPOSALS OF THE UNION CONCERNING THE ATP, AS IT RELATED TO BOTH
 MANDATORY AND CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES, WAS HAND-DELIVERED TO RESPONDENT ON
 DECEMBER 21, 1979.
 
    6.  A MEETING BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS HELD ON JANUARY 8, 1980.  /9/
 IT WAS ATTENDED BY FERRIS ON BEHALF OF THE UNION, AND RESPONDENT WAS
 REPRESENTED BY SUSAN BARLIANT, CHIEF OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,
 LABOR-RELATIONS BRANCH, JORDON NYE, SENIOR LABOR RELATIONS SPECIALIST,
 AND WILLIAM M. COFER, CHIEF OF TAXPAYER SERVICE, RETURNS PROCESSING
 BRANCH.  AT THIS SESSION THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY BOTH SIDES WERE
 RECEIVED.  COFER EXPLAINED THAT THE REVISIONS TO THE ATP WERE PREPARED
 BY RESPONDENT BECAUSE THE OLD PROGRAM WAS INEFFECTIVE AND COSTLY.  IN
 RESPECT TO THE PROPOSALS MADE BY THE UNION, MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES
 TOOK THE POSITION THAT SOME PROVISIONS WRESTED CONTROL FROM THE
 EMPLOYER.  AGREEMENT WAS REACHED ON MOST MATTERS EXCEPT FOR:  (1) RIGHT
 OF AN EMPLOYEE TO GRIEVE DISALLOWANCE OF FOUR HOURS STUDY TIME FOR WORK
 RELATED CAUSES, (2) DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGREEMENT, (3) DEFINING "JUST
 CAUSE" IN CONNECTION WITH THE UNION'S PROPOSAL THAT NO EMPLOYEE BE
 REMOVED FROM THE PROGRAM EXCEPT FOR JUST CAUSE.
 
    7.  THE PARTIES MET AGAIN ON JANUARY 11 AT WHICH TIME NYE TOLD FERRIS
 THAT THE UNION'S PROPOSALS CONSTITUTED STRINGENT DEMANDS AND WOULD
 IMPOSE A BURDEN UPON MANAGEMENT.  HE ALSO INFORMED FERRIS THAT IF THE
 LATTER PERSISTED IN THE THREE DEMANDS WHICH WERE CONTROVERSIAL,
 RESPONDENT WOULD WITHDRAW THE PROGRAM.  /10/
 
    8.  ON FEBRUARY 26 NYE AND FERRIS MET TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSALS.  NYE
 TOLD THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE THAT MANAGEMENT WAS SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING
 TERMINATING THE ACCOUNTING PROGRAM;  THAT FERRIS SHOULD SERIOUSLY
 CONSIDER DROPPING HIS PROPOSALS.  FURTHER, HE STATED THIS WAS AN
 EMPLOYEE FRINGE BENEFIT, AND IN THAT CONTEXT IT WAS NOT THE USUAL TYPE
 OF NEGOTIATIONS.
 
    9.  ON MARCH 25, /11/ THE UNION INVOKED THE SERVICES OF THE FEDERAL
 MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE BARGAINING
 PROCESS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  A MEETING ATTENDED BY THE PARTIES'
 REPRESENTATIVES AND A MEDIATOR WAS HELD ON APRIL 21.  PRIOR THERETO THE
 MEDIATOR WAS FURNISHED A LIST OF PROPOSALS AGREED UPON AS WELL AS THOSE
 STILL AT ISSUE.  HE WAS ALSO SUPPLIED WITH THE PROVISION WHICH THE UNION
 DESIRED TO INCLUDE IN THE AGREEMENT.  NYE, ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT,
 DECLARED THAT THE PARTIES HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT
 DESPITE THE NEGOTIATIONS;  THAT FERRIS COULD EITHER ACCEPT MANAGEMENT'S
 LAST PROPOSAL, OR ELSE RESPONDENT WOULD TERMINATE THE ATP.
 
    10.  SINCE NO AGREEMENT WAS REACHED BY THE PARTIES, THE UNION, BY
 WRITTEN REQUEST DATED JUNE 20, SOUGHT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL.  RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIVE, MICHAEL P. DOLAN,
 WROTE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSE PANEL ON JUNE 30 WITH A COPY TO
 FERRIS, STATING THAT MANAGEMENT HAD RECONSIDERED ITS PROPOSAL AND
 DECIDED "NOT TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM." FURTHER, DOLAN STATED THAT
 RESPONDENT WAS THEREFORE WITHDRAWING ITS PROPOSAL.  IN VIEW OF THE
 AFORESAID ACTION TAKEN BY THE EMPLOYER, FERRIS WROTE THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 IMPASSE PANEL ON JULY 28 THAT THE UNION DESIRED TO WITHDRAW ITS PETITION
 FOR ASSISTANCE.
 
    11.  THE ATP FOR CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES WAS TERMINATED BY RESPONDENT IN
 AUGUST 15, HOWEVER, THE TRAINING PROGRAM FOR MANDATORIES CONTINUED IN
 EFFECT AND HAS NOT BEEN TERMINATED.
 
    12.  RECORD FACTS REVEAL THAT IN SEPTEMBER CERTAIN CHAPTERS OF THE
 UNION NOTIFIED FERRIS THAT THE ATP FOR CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES HAD BEEN
 TERMINATED BY RESPONDENT.  ACCORDINGLY, UNDER DATE OF OCTOBER 20 FERRIS
 WROTE A LETTER TO BARLIANT STATING HE JUST LEARNED OF SUCH TERMINATION;
 THAT FERRIS HAD UNDERSTOOD RESPONDENT HAS PLANNED ONLY TO WITHDRAW THE
 INITIATIONS MADE EARLIER BUT TO KEEP THE PROGRAM.  FURTHER, THE UNION
 AGENT STATED THEREIN THAT IF THE AGENCY INTENDED TO TERMINATE THE BASIC
 PROGRAM, IT SHOULD NOTIFY FERRIS SO THAT THE PARTIES COULD NEGOTIATE
 THEREON.
 
    13.  IN ITS REPLY LETTER OF NOVEMBER 12 BARLIANT ADVISED FERRIS THAT
 IT HAD ALWAYS MADE KNOWN TO THE UNION ITS INTENTIONS TO CANCEL THE
 PROGRAM FOR CROSS-OVERS IF AN AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE REACHED.  FURTHER,
 IT WAS STATED THAT THE RESPONDENT TERMINATED THE ATP FOR CROSS-OVERS IF
 AN AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE REACHED.  FURTHER, IT WAS STATED THAT THE
 RESPONDENT TERMINATED THE ATP FOR CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES IN THE FUTURE;
 CURRENT CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES BENEFITTING FROM THE PROGRAM WOULD NOT BE
 AFFECTED.  BARLIANT ALSO MENTIONED THAT THEY AGREED TO "GRANDFATHER"
 CURRENT CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES AND PERMIT THEM TO COMPLETE ADDITIONAL
 ACCOUNTING COURSES NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE PROGRAM.  THE PROGRAM
 REMAINED
 IN EXISTENCE FOR MANDATORY EMPLOYEES.  FERRIS WAS ALSO ADVISED THAT
 SINCE NO EMPLOYEES WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED, RESPONDENT DID NOT
 BELIEVE ITS ACTION REQUIRED ANY OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN FURTHER IN THAT
 ISSUE.  FINALLY, BARLIANT COMMENTED IN THE LETTER THAT THE AGENCY WOULD
 REINSTATE THE PROGRAM FOR CROSS-OVER IN EXCHANGE FOR THE UNION SIGNING
 MANAGEMENT'S LAST PROPOSAL MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (GC 7);  THAT IF
 FERRIS DECIDES TO DO SO, HE SHOULD RESPOND BY NOVEMBER 21.
 
    14.  FERRIS RESPONDED TO BARLIANT IN A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 19
 WHEREIN THE UNION AGENT AVERRED THAT HIS FILES FAIL TO DISCLOSE ANY
 NOTICE FROM RESPONDENT THAT THE CROSS-OVER ATP WOULD BE TERMINATED.  IT
 WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE UNION REJECTED BARLAINT'S OFFER OF NOVEMBER 12,
 AND FERRIS PROPOSED THAT THE PARTIES BARGAIN RE THE MATTER.
 
    15.  THE UNION REQUESTED THE ASSISTANCE OF THE FEDERAL MEDIATION AND
 CONCILIATION SERVICE BY FILING A NOTICE WITH SAID AGENCY ON DECEMBER 19.
  HOWEVER, NO FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OR MEETINGS WERE HELD RE THE
 TERMINATION OF ATP FOR THE CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES.
 
                                CONCLUSIONS
 
    IN ASSERTING THAT RESPONDENT HAS VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5)
 OF THE ACT, THE GENERAL COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT THE EMPLOYER HEREIN
 TERMINATED THE TRAINING PROGRAM (ATP) FOR CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES WITHOUT
 PROPERLY NOTIFYING THE UNION.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ARGUED THAT SUCH
 TERMINATIONS CONSTITUTED A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN AS TO THE SUBSTANCE, AS
 WELL AS THE IMPACT, OF ITS DECISION IN THIS REGARD.  MOREOVER, GENERAL
 COUNSEL TAKES THE POSITION THAT A STATUS QUO ANTE REMEDY IS APPROPRIATE
 UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
 
    IN DISPUTING THE COMMISSION OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, RESPONDENT
 ARGUES THAT NOTIFICATION WAS IN FACT GIVEN THE UNION OF THE INTENDED
 TERMINATION OF ATP, FOR CROSS-OVERS;  THAT, DESPITE SUCH NOTICE, THE
 UNION FAILED TO REQUEST BARGAINING OVER SUCH MATTERS;  AND, IN SUCH, THE
 EMPLOYER HAS FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATION IN THIS REGARD.  /12/
 
    IT IS NOW WELL ESTABLISHED THAT MANAGEMENT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS
 REQUIRED TO GIVE DUE NOTICE TO THE BARGAINING AGENT WHEN IT PROPOSES TO
 CHANGE WORKING CONDITIONS.  THIS OBLIGATION IS IMPOSED UPON THE EMPLOYER
 SO THAT A UNION MAY, IF IT DESIRES, REQUEST BARGAINING ON SUCH CHANGES
 AND THE PARTIES MAY NEGOTIATE THEREON.  AS INDICATED IN FEDERAL RAILROAD
 ADMINISTRATION, A/SLMR NO. 418 THE RIGHT TO A DIALOGUE, WHERE AN
 OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN EXISTS, IS MEANINGFUL ONLY WHEN AGENCY MANAGEMENT
 AFFORDS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE REASONABLE NOTIFICATION AND AMPLE
 OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE MATTERS PRIOR TO TAKING ACTION.
 
    PAST DECISIONS ALSO REVEAL THAT NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN WORKING
 CONDITIONS MUST BE CLEAR AND PRECISE.  THUS, IN JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT,
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, A/SLMR NO. 893,
 REFERENCE TO FUTURE TESTING OF EMPLOYEES TO ASCERTAIN THEIR KNOWLEDGE
 (PRE-TESTS) AND TO DISCOVER HOW EFFECTIVE TRAINING HAD BEEN
 (POST-TESTS), WHICH WAS MENTIONED AT A MEETING BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND
 THE UNION, WAS HELD INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF A
 CHANGE IN THE TESTING PROGRAM PRIOR TO ITS INSTITUTION.  THE ASSISTANT
 SECRETARY CONCLUDED THAT SUCH A REFERENCE DID NOT CLEARLY INFORM THE
 BARGAINING AGENT OF THE CONTEMPLATED CHANGES SO AS TO ENABLE THE UNION
 TO BARGAIN MEANINGFULLY PRIOR TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION.
 
    THE DISCONTINUANCE HEREIN OF THE CROSS-OVER FEATURE OF THE ATP BY
 RESPONDENT HEREIN RESULTED FROM THE INABILITY OF THE PARTIES TO AGREE ON
 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE TRAINING PROGRAM.  ATTENTION MUST BE DIRECTED
 TO THE COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE EMPLOYER TO THE UNION DURING THIS PERIOD
 IN DETERMINING WHETHER APPROPRIATE NOTICE WAS GIVEN OF THE ATP
 TERMINATION.  THUS, AT THE JANUARY 11 MEETING BETWEEN THE PARTIES
 RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIVE NYE TOLD UNION AGENT FERRIS THAT IF THE
 LATTER INSISTED UPON THREE PARTICULAR PROPOSALS-- WHICH WERE REJECTED BY
 MANAGEMENT-- THE RESPONDENT WOULD WITHDRAW THE PROGRAM.  SECONDLY, AT
 THE APRIL 21 MEETING HELD BEFORE THE MEDIATOR FROM THE FEDERAL MEDIATION
 AND CONCILIATION SERVICE NYE INFORMED FERRIS THAT IF MANAGEMENT'S LAST
 PROPOSAL WAS NOT ACCEPTED, THE ATP PROGRAM WOULD BE TERMINATED.
 FINALLY, AFTER THE UNION INVOKED THE SERVICES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 IMPASSE PANEL, RESPONDENT WROTE THE PANEL-- WITH A COPY TO FERRIS-- THAT
 THE EMPLOYER HAD RECONSIDERED ITS PROPOSAL AND "DECIDED NOT TO IMPLEMENT
 THE PROGRAM" AND WAS WITHDRAWING ITS PROPOSAL.
 
    WHILE NOT FREE FROM DOUBT, I AM PERSUADED THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT
 FURNISH THE UNION WITH ADEQUATE NOTIFICATION REGARDING THE TERMINATION
 OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM FOR CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES.  BOTH ON JANUARY 11
 AND APRIL 21 THE EMPLOYER'S NOTICE RE TERMINATION WAS CONDITIONAL AND
 QUALIFIED.  ITS EFFECTUATION WAS DEPENDENT UPON ACTION ON THE PART OF
 THE UNION, I.E., ACCEPTANCE BY THE LATTER OF MANAGEMENT'S PROPOSED
 REVISIONS TO THE ATP.  PROPER NOTICE OF ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY AN
 EMPLOYER REQUIRES AN UNQUALIFIED PRONOUNCEMENT.  UNTIL SUCH
 UNCONDITIONAL NOTIFICATION WAS GIVEN BY RESPONDENT OF ITS INTENTION TO
 TERMINATE THE TRAINING PROGRAM, IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO REQUIRE THE
 UNION TO REQUEST BARGAINING IN RESPECT THERETO.  /13/ IN EACH INSTANCE,
 DURING THE MEETINGS IN JANUARY AND APRIL, RESPONDENT INFORMED FERRIS
 THAT THE PROGRAM WOULD TERMINATE IF THE UNION DID NOT AGREE TO
 MANAGEMENT'S PROPOSALS.  SUCH NOTICE NEITHER CLEARLY ADVISED THE UNION
 AGENT DEFINITELY AS TO THE TERMINATION NOR DID IT APPRISE HIM OF WHEN
 THE ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN.  CF. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL
 REVENUE SERVICE, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, A/SLMR NO.  909.
 
    IN RESPECT TO THE FINAL PRE-TERMINATION NOTICE GIVEN TO THE UNION IN
 RESPONDENT'S LETTER OF JULY 20, I CONCLUDE THAT THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY
 MANAGEMENT FALLS FAR AFIELD FROM PROPER NOTIFICATION.  THE STATED
 DECLARATION "NOT TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM" COULD WELL BE INTERPRETED BY
 THE UNION AS AN INTENTION TO ABANDON THE PROPOSED REVISIONS RATHER THAN
 THE ATP.  THE TRAINING PROGRAM HAD BEEN IN EFFECT AND NEEDED NO
 IMPLEMENTATION.  THUS, IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT, AS FERRIS STATED IN
 HIS LETTER OF OCTOBER 20, THE UNION AGENT UNDERSTOOD THE RESPONDENT WAS
 WITHDRAWING ITS EARLIER "INITIATIONS" AND WOULD RETAIN THE BASIC
 PROGRAM.
 
    THAT MANAGEMENT'S INTENTIONS AND PLANS RE THE PROGRAM WERE NOT
 PRECISE IS SUPPORTED, TO SOME EXTENT, BY ITS DECLARED NEED TO CLARIFY
 THE TRAINING POSTURE IN ITS NOVEMBER 12 LETTER.  IN SO DOING
 RESPONDENT'S CHIEF OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, SUSAN BARLIANT, INFORMED
 FERRIS THAT THE EMPLOYER AGREED TO "GRANDFATHER" CURRENT CROSS-OVER
 EMPLOYEES AND PERMIT THEM TO COMPLETE ADDITIONAL ACCOUNTING COURSES;
 THAT THE ATP WAS TERMINATED FOR CROSS-OVERS IN THE FUTURE;  AND THAT NO
 NEED EXISTED TO BARGAIN RE THE MATTER.
 
    THE FOREGOING CONVINCES ME THAT, PRIOR TO AUGUST 15 WHEN THE ATP FOR
 CROSS-OVERS WAS ENDED, RESPONDENT FAILED TO GIVE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC
 NOTIFICATION TO THE UNION OF ITS INTENT TO TAKE SUCH ACTION.  APART FROM
 THE FACT THAT NO MENTION WAS EVER MADE BY MANAGEMENT THAT THE PROGRAM
 WOULD BE DISCONTINUED FOR CROSS-OVERS ONLY BUT CONTINUE FOR PRESENT
 CROSS-OVERS, I.E., GRANDFATHERED IN, THE NOTIFICATION BY RESPONDENT TO
 TERMINATE ATP FOR CROSS-OVERS LACKED THE REQUISITE SPECIFICITY.  NOT
 ONLY WAS IT CONTINGENT IN NATURE, BUT THE FINAL EXPRESSION BY MANAGEMENT
 WAS, IN MY OPINION, AMBIGUOUS AND SUSCEPTIBLE TO VARYING CONCLUSIONS
 REGARDING SUCH TERMINATION.  ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE RESPONDENT FAILED
 IN ITS OBLIGATION /14/ TO SPECIFICALLY NOTIFY THE UNION OF ITS
 INTENTIONS AND PROVIDE THE LATTER WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
 REQUEST BARGAINING AS TO THE TERMINATION OF ATP FOR CROSS-OVER
 EMPLOYEES-- ALL IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE
 STATUTE.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5)
 OF THE ACT.  I RECOMMEND THE AUTHORITY ADOPT THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
 
                                ORDER /15/
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118(A)(7) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE AND SECTION 2423.29 OF THE RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
 (DISTRICT REGION, NATIONAL OFFICE UNIT AND SERVICE CENTER UNIT), SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) UNILATERALLY TERMINATING ITS ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM FOR ITS
 CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL EMPLOYEES UNION, WITHOUT
 FIRST NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL
 
    TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND AFFORDING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND
 
    NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND
 
    IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH ACTION.
 
    (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 ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSE AND POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE:
 
    (A) RESTORE AND REINSTATE THE ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM, WHICH WAS
 IN EFFECT PRIOR TO ITS
 
    TERMINATION ON AUGUST 15, 1980, FOR ALL CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES IN THE
 UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE
 
    NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION.
 
    (B) NOTIFY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION OF ANY DECISION TO
 TERMINATE THE
 
    ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM FOR CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT
 REPRESENTED BY NATIONAL
 
    TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, AND, UPON REQUEST, MEET AND NEGOTIATE, TO
 THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH
 
    LAW AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH
 ACTION.
 
    (C) POST AT THE FACILITIES OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (DISTRICT
 REGION, NATIONAL OFFICE
 
    UNIT AND SERVICE CENTER UNIT) 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 DISTRICT DIRECTOR, AND THEY SHALL BE POSTED FOR 60
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER
 
    IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO
 EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY
 
    POSTED.  THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE
 THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT
 
    ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY IN WRITING, WITHIN
 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE
 
    OF THIS ORDER, WHICH STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKE TO COMPLY THEREWITH.
 
                        WILLIAM NAIMARK
                        ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  DECEMBER 22, 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
 
                       CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE
 
                            UNITED STATES CODE
 
                FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT UNILATERALLY TERMINATE OUR ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM
 FOR THE CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES, IN THE UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL
 TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND AFFORDING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
 MEET AND NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH ACTION.
 
    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 RESTORE AND REINSTATE THE ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM, WHICH
 WAS IN EFFECT PRIOR TO AUGUST 15, 1980, FOR ALL CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES IN
 THE UNITED REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION.
 
    WE WILL NOTIFY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION OF ANY DECISION
 TO TERMINATE THE ACCOUNTING TRAINING PROGRAM FOR CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES IN
 THE UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, AND, UPON
 REQUEST MEET AND NEGOTIATE, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND
 REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 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
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THIS NOTICE, OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 3, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  1111 18TH STREET, NW., SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, D.C.  20036,
 AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (202) 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ THE RESPONDENT ALSO FILED AN UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO THE CHARGING
 PARTY'S EXCEPTIONS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED.
 
    /2/ CROSS-OVERS ARE DEFINED AS EMPLOYEES WHO ARE COMPETITIVELY
 SELECTED TO RECEIVE ACCOUNTING TRAINING TO QUALIFY FOR THE REVENUE AGENT
 SERIES.
 
    /3/ 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 CONCLUSION 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.
 
    /4/ SEE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AIR TRAFFIC SPECIALISTS AND
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINSTRATION, 6 FLRA NO.
 106 (1981).  NTEU ATTEMPTS TO DISTINGUISH THIS CASE FROM NATIONAL
 ASSOCIATION OF AIR TRAFFIC SPECIALISTS ON THE BASIS THAT THE ATP
 INVOLVED HEREIN DID NOT RELATE TO THE CROSS-OVER EMPLOYEES' CURRENT
 POSITIONS BUT, RATHER, WAS INTENDED TO HELP THEM QUALIFY FOR A DIFFERENT
 CAREER SERIES.  THE AUTHORITY FINDS SUCH A DISTINCTION UNPERSUASIVE.
 THUS, MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO PROVIDE OR DISCONTINUE
 TRAINING FOR BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES DURING DUTY HOURS IS PROTECTED BY
 SECTION 7106(A)(2)(B) OF THE STATUTE IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER SUCH
 TRAINING DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE EMPLOYEES' CURRENTLY ASSIGNED DUTIES.
 
    /5/ SECTION 7106(B)(2) AND (3) PROVIDES:
 
    (B) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PRECLUDE ANY AGENCY AND ANY LABOR
 ORGANIZATION FROM
 
    NEGOTIATING--
 
   .          .          .          .
 
 
    (2) PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE
 IN EXERCISING ANY
 
    AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION;  OR
 
    (3) APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE
 EXERCISE OF ANY
 
    AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION BY SUCH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS.
 
    /6/ AS STATED IN FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION:
 
    (S)TATUS QUO ANTE REMEDIES MAY BE ISSUED IN CERTAIN REFUSAL TO
 BARGAIN CASES EVEN WHERE THE
 
    AGENCY'S DECISION ITSELF IS NOT NEGOTIABLE . . . .  (T)HE
 APPROPRIATENESS OF A STATUS QUO ANTE
 
    REMEDY MUST BE DETERMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, CAREFULLY
 BALANCING THE NATURE AND
 
    CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR VIOLATION AGAINST THE DEGREE OF
 DISRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT
 
    OPERATIONS THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY SUCH A REMEDY.
 
    /7/ IN ITS BRIEF RESPONDENT MOVED TO CORRECT THE TRANSCRIPT IN
 VARIOUS RESPECTS.  THE MOTION IS GRANTED AND THE TRANSCRIPT IS CORRECTED
 AS FOLLOWS:  (TABLE OMITTED)
 
    /8/ SECTION 220 OF IR MANUAL, FEBRUARY 2, 1978.
 
    /9/ UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ALL DATES HEREINAFTER MENTIONED
 OCCURRED IN 1980.
 
    /10/ WHILE RESPONDENT'S WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT NYE, IN STATING THERE
 WOULD BE SUCH WITHDRAWAL, WAS REFERRING TO CROSS-OVERS ONLY, I DO NOT
 FIND SUCH DELIMITATION WAS MADE AT EITHER THE JANUARY 8, OR 11 MEETING.
 
    /11/ FERRIS AND NYE HAD TWO BRIEF MEETINGS, MARCH 7 AND 14, TO
 DISCUSS COUNTERPROPOSALS BUT NO AGREEMENT WAS REACHED BETWEEN THEM.
 
    /12/ RESPONDENT CONCEDES ITS DUTY TO BARGAIN AS TO THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TERMINATION OF ATP AS TO CROSS-OVERS, BUT IT
 INSISTS THAT THE DECISION TO TERMINATE THE PROGRAM IS NON-NEGOTIABLE.
 
    /13/ A VALID REQUEST TO BARGAIN RE TERMINATION OF ATP WOULD BE A
 PREREQUISITE ONLY AFTER A PROPER AND ADEQUATE NOTIFICATION OF SUCH
 ACTIONS WAS GIVEN THE UNION.
 
    /14/ THE DECISION BY MANAGEMENT TO AB