12:0019(7)CA - IRS and Brookhaven Service Center and NTEU and NTEU Chapter 99 -- 1983 FLRAdec CA



[ v12 p19 ]
12:0019(7)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 12 FLRA No. 7
 
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND
 BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
 UNION CHAPTER 99
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 2-CA-606
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 certain unfair labor practices 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 with a supporting 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.  Upon consideration of the
 Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts the
 Judge's findings, conclusions and recommendations only to the extent
 consistent herewith.
 
    The Judge concluded that the Internal Revenue Service and Brookhaven
 Service Center (the Respondent) violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
 the Statute by failing to bargain with the Charging Party, National
 Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and NTEU Chapter 99 concerning the
 procedures to be utilized in implementing, and appropriate arrangements
 for employees adversely affected by, the Respondent's "unmeasured"
 system of evaluation to a "measured" system.  In this regard, the Judge
 found that the Respondent announced its intention to implement such
 conversion;  that NTEU requested negotiations over the substance, impact
 and implementation thereof;  that the Respondent asked NTEU to submit
 specific proposals concerning the change;  that NTEU submitted twelve
 proposals as requested;  that the Respondent declared all twelve
 proposals nonnegotiable in a response to NTEU approximately two months
 later;  and that the Respondent effectuated the conversion several weeks
 thereafter.  The Judge further found, contrary to the Respondent's
 contentions, that three of NTEU's twelve proposals /1/ "all relate to
 the equal distribution of work and are negotiable because they concern
 the quantity of work to be assigned to each employee and . . . that
 impacts directly on each employee's potential output.  Those proposals
 do not conflict with management's right to assign a particular type of
 work to an employee." /2/ Accordingly, he concluded that the
 Respondent's refusal to bargain concerning these three proposals,
 thereby instituting a conversion to a measured system of evaluation
 without giving NTEU an opportunity to bargain with respect to the
 implementation and impact of the conversion, constituted a violation of
 section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.  To remedy the violation
 found, the Judge concluded that a status quo ante remedy would be
 appropriate.
 
    While the Authority agrees with the Judge's findings that the
 Respondent was required to notify NTEU of the decision to change from an
 unmeasured to a measured system of performance evaluation for the
 employees in its "Dishonored Check" unit and to bargain with NTEU upon
 request concerning the procedures which management will observe in
 implementing the change and concerning appropriate arrangements for
 employees adversely affected, the Authority disagrees with the Judge's
 conclusion that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
 the Statute in the circumstances of this case.  Thus, as found by the
 Judge, NTEU in fact received adequate notice of the Respondent's
 intended change and an opportunity to submit specific proposals
 concerning the impact and implementation thereof.  NTEU then submitted
 twelve proposals, all of which were considered and declared
 nonnegotiable by the Respondent before the change was implemented.  As
 stated above, the Judge's finding of an unlawful refusal to bargain was
 based on his conclusion that three of the disputed proposals are within
 the Respondent's duty to bargain.  However, the Authority concludes that
 the three proposals at issue (supra n. 1) directly interfere with
 management's right to assign work within the meaning of section
 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute, /3/ and therefore are not within the
 Respondent's duty to bargain.  Thus, contrary to the Judge's conclusion
 that the disputed proposals "do not conflict with management's right to
 assign a particular type of work to an employee," the Authority finds
 that the literal language of the proposals would require the Respondent
 to distribute an equal amount of all types of work to all employees in
 the unit.  In National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the
 Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, 3 FLRA 769 (1980), at 775, affirmed
 sub nom. National Treasury Employees Union v. Federal Labor Relations
 Authority, No. 80-1895 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 12, 1982), the Authority stated:
 
          The right to assign work to employees or positions under
       section 7106(a), subject to the provisions of section 7106(b), is
       composed of two discretionary elements:  (1) the particular duties
       and work to be assigned, and (2) the particular employees to whom
       or positions to which it will be assigned.  (Footnote omitted)
 
 All of the disputed proposals would directly interfere with both
 discretionary elements by requiring management to assign all types of
 work to all employees in the organizational unit and in an equal amount.
  See also National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the
 Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, 7 FLRA No. 35 (1981).  /4/
 Accordingly, the Authority concludes that the Respondent did not violate
 its duty to bargain in good faith with NTEU, /5/ and that the complaint
 alleging a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute must
 be dismissed.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 2-CA-606 be, and it
 hereby is, dismissed.  
 
 Issued, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1983
 
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Elliot M. Carlin, Esq.
    For the Respondent
 
    Allan W. Stadtmauer, Esq.
    For the General Counsel
 
    David H. Lipton
    For the Charging Party
 
    Before:  ALAN W. HEIFETZ
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This proceeding arose pursuant to the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq., as a result
 of an unfair labor practice charge filed on September 19, 1980, with the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority.  Consequently, on November 28, 1980,
 the Acting Regional Director, Region II, of the Authority issued a
 complaint alleging that Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5)
 of the Statute by refusing to negotiate in good faith with the Charging
 Party concerning "the impact of and procedure for implementing its
 decision to measure the output of employees in its dishonored check
 unit." Respondent denies that allegation and moves to dismiss the
 complaint for failure to make a prima facie.
 
    A hearing was held on February 3, 1981, in Holtsville, New York.  All
 parties are afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine witnesses
 and to introduce evidence.  Post hearing briefs have been filed /6/ and
 considered.  /7/ Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
 witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following findings, conclusions
 and recommendations.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    At all times material to this case, Respondent and the Charging Party
 have been parties to a collective bargaining agreement covering unit
 employees at the Brookhaven Service Center (BSC).  Chapter 99 has acted
 for and on behalf of NTEU at BSC and has been recognized as the
 exclusive bargaining agent consistent with the parties' adherence to the
 Multi-Center agreement known as MCA-II.
 
    Unit employees of the Dishonored Check Function process debit
 vouchers issued by IRS' depository banks when they dishonor certain
 taxpayers' checks.  The banks may return checks to the IRS for a variety
 of reasons, e.g. insufficient funds, encoding errors, and missing
 checks.  A debit is entered against the corresponding credit given to
 the taxpayer when the remittance in question was originally received.
 Basic dishonored checks are worked by all employees in the Dishonored
 Check Function although certain employees additionally work encoding
 errors, missing checks, correspondence and adjustments.  There are now
 five permanently assigned employees in this unit although there are
 hired seasonable or WAE (when actually employed) tax examiners during
 peak work periods.
 
    The Dishonored Check Function has been merged with the Unidentified
 Check Unit which determines the source and application of funds derived
 from checks of unknown origin.  That unit has four permanently assigned
 employees as well as an indeterminate number of seasonal and WAE
 employees.
 
    In the Unidentified Check Unit each check is considered to be a
 single case file to be investigated and, therefore, the work is easily
 distributed on an even basis.  However, in the Dishonored Check Unit,
 banks send in packages of twenty to fifty checks each which cannot be
 split up and are, therefore, assigned to individual employees by the
 package, regardless of the total number of checks in each package.
 
    By memorandum dated April 25, 1980, management at BSC announced its
 intention to convert the Dishonored Check Unit from an "unmeasured" (not
 subject to numerical evaluation) system of evaluation to a "measured"
 (numerically evaluated) system.  The terms of "unmeasured" and
 "measured" are described in the collective bargaining agreement under
 Article 6 (Promotions) and Article 26 (Furlough and Recall, Seasonal
 Employees).
 
    By memorandum dated May 1, 1980, the Charging Party requested
 negotiations over the substance, impact and implementation of the
 intended conversion.  On May 9, 1980, Respondent requested that the
 Charging Party submit its proposals concerning the change by May 23 and
 it announced its intention to implement the procedure on June 2, 1980.
 The Charging Party submitted twelve proposals on May 22, 1980.
 Respondent declared all twelve proposals non-negotiable by a response
 dated August 1, 1980, and the conversion was effectuated on or about
 August 25, 1980.
 
    Both before and after the conversion, tax examiners reported their
 time and volume on weekly Employee Time Reports as well as a weekly
 inventory sheet.  Data from the Employee Time Reports were compiled into
 Individual Performance Reports (IPR's) which were available to employees
 both before and after the conversion.  However, before the conversion,
 the IPR's had little significance, if any, to those employees.  The data
 was also kept by a former supervisor in the form of a "blotter record"
 which she used in the process of her evaluation of employees to be
 furloughed or recalled, although there was no evidence that this
 "blotter record" was used to evaluate permanent employees.
 
    The conversion resulted in no change of job function, assigned tasks
 or method of reporting output.  However, employees at a Union meeting
 expressed a number of concerns over the significance of the change from
 an "unmeasured" to a "measured" method of evaluation.  They were most
 concerned that equitable distribution of work was impossible in the
 Dishonored Check Unit since batches of checks were not numerically
 uniform.  They were concerned that not all employees in the unit knew
 how to perform the full range of functions which were to be placed into
 the various production codes.  They were concerned that those who knew
 how to type could use the computers faster than those who could not type
 and that therefore, the former would be able to work faster than the
 latter.  They were concerned about the quality and proximity of research
 material necessary to the completion of individual examinations.  /8/
 They were concerned that any emphasis on quantity would have a
 detrimental effect on both the quality of the work and the cooperative
 attitude among fellow employees.  They were concerned that some
 functions were easier than others and that the easier the function to
 which one might be assigned, the greater the production coefficient that
 might be achieved.  And finally, they were concerned that "nullifieds",
 cases in which errors were made, would be distributed unequally and to
 those who had not caused the error, all to the disadvantage of an
 employee who was attempting to keep his or her production at a high
 level.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    The General Counsel argues that the conversion from an unmeasured to
 a measured system of evaluation is a change in personnel policies and
 practices, that the change had a significant impact which required
 negotiation over that impact and the implementation of the change, and
 that the Union's proposals were negotiable.  Respondent, on the other
 hand, argues that neither a change in working conditions, personnel
 policies or practices, nor impact or any such change, has been proven;
 that the Union failed to submit any negotiable proposals;  and that any
 obligation to bargain over impact and implementation has been satisfied
 by the provisions of the parties' collective bargaining agreement.
 
    There is no question that on April 25, 1980, Respondent announced its
 intention to "convert" the Dishonored Check Function to a measured
 evaluation.  There is also no doubt that the term "conversion" is not a
 metaphysical abstraction;  it is, simply put, a synonym for the word
 "change." And a conversion from one system of evaluation to another is a
 change from one to the other.  The fact that there is no physical change
 in the work to be done by employees or in the method of reporting their
 output does not belie that a change has taken place.  Although the
 differences between subjective and objective evaluation might be subtle,
 their ramifications are not.
 
    Consider, by way of analogy, the conversion at a university from a
 pass-fail system to a numerically graded system.  There is no question
 that students must take the same courses to fulfill their major
 requirements.  There is no question that they must attend classes at the
 appointed hour, read the required texts, devote the same amount of time
 to homework assignments, and take final examinations.  In short, the
 students must perform exactly the same tasks under either system.  It is
 only after the student performs, after the examination is turned in for
 a grade, that the system of evaluation becomes significant.  U under the
 pass-fail system, the student is concerned only whether he or she has
 passed the various courses.  A student who passes is one of a large,
 otherwise undifferentiated class of persons who have demonstrated only
 that they have met the minimum qualifications set by the institution.
 The system of evaluation does not permit a ranking of students solely by
 which selection to an honorary society or to a graduate school might be
 made.  On the other hand, under a numerically graded system, each
 student is ranked in a manner by which his or her individual standing in
 the class may be determined.  A numerical grade not only indicates
 whether the student has passed or failed, but it also indicates whether
 the student is a candidate for the dean's list or is in danger of being
 placed on probationary status.
 
    There is no less change in the case at bar.  Under the unmeasured
 system, employees are rated on the merits of their individual
 performance;  under the measured system, they are rated on the basis of
 their performance as it relates to the performance of their peers.  /9/
 Clearly, under the measured system numerical output becomes significant
 and anything which affects the "numbers" an employee is able to show,
 affects that employee's relative ranking for purposes of promotion or,
 in the case of seasonal or WAE employees, for furlough and recall.
 Thus, the numerical output of an employee is directly dependent upon the
 number of cases assigned to that employee;  an unequal distribution of
 work must correspond to an unequal production coefficient, all other
 things being equal.  Similarly, where numerical production is dependent
 upon computer operational skill, the employee who knows how to type will
 be able to outperform one who must "hunt" and "peck" at the console.
 Finally, where there is pressure to produce numbers, the competitive
 atmosphere, while it may spur many to higher productivity, also tends to
 decrease cooperative attitudes among the competitors where helping a
 colleague to a promotion is viewed as helping yourself out of one.
 
    Respondent argues that there is no evidence of any difference in
 training or in collection of data, of actual rating of employees under
 the new system, of any detailing or adverse or disciplinary action taken
 against any employee, or of any seasonal adjustment in the composition
 of the unit.  Although the evidence is so limited, there is no
 requirement under the Statute that actual impact must be demonstrated.
 In the temporal world of labor relations, the Union need not offer up a
 paschal lamb in order to put the covenant on the table.  All that is
 required is a demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that the change
 would result in a substantial impact adversely affecting employees,
 either immediately or in the future.  /10/ Such a standard is consistent
 with the legislative history of the Statute which indicates that in
 exchange for a strong management rights clause, Congress intended to
 broaden the scope of collective bargaining, including the specific area
 of adverse effects resulting from the exercise of those management
 rights.  /11/ The Authority has recognized this relationship between
 management rights and the duty to bargain over impact and implementation
 where performance standards have been set by management and the union
 seeks negotiations to assure that those standards are fair and
 equitable.  /12/ Under those circumstances, the Authority found a duty
 to bargain.  I conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the
 duty to bargain in good faith must also obtain since there is a
 reasonable likelihood that employee's prospects for promotion, furlough
 and recall will be substantially impacted by the application of a
 changed method of performance evaluation.
 
    Turning to the specific proposals for negotiation, Respondent argues
 that none is negotiable and the General Counsel concedes that certain
 unspecified proposals arguably go to the substance of the decision to
 measure employee output.  Clearly proposal number 1, that the Dishonored
 Check work remain unmeasured, goes solely to the substance of the
 decision and is not negotiable.  Proposal 2, that all employees be
 cross-trained, has not been shown to be negotiable because by terms of
 the collective bargaining agreement, employees may be measured only
 against those who perform the same function /13/ and therefore, there
 would be no reason to train an employee in a function to which the
 employee would not be assigned.  Proposals 3, 5 and 6 all relate to the
 equal distribution of work and are negotiable because they concern the
 quantity of work to be assigned to each employee and, as previously
 discussed, that impacts directly to each employee's potential output.
 Those proposals do not conflict with management's right to assign a
 particular type of work to an employee.  Proposal 4, that "nullifieds"
 not be measured, is similar to proposal 1 and goes to the substance of
 the decision to measure.  As proposed, it is not negotiable.  Proposals
 7 through 10 seek separate reporting of several functions.  There is
 insufficient record evidence upon which I could base a conclusion as to
 the negotiability of those proposals;  /14/ the impact is not obvious on
 their face.  Finally, proposals 11 and 12, concerning the easy
 accessibility and proper indexation of research materials, do not relate
 directly to, nor impact on the decision to convert to a measured
 evaluation.  The change in the location of the research tools was
 unrelated to the decision to convert and, in any event, their location
 and indexation affects all users equally.  Under the circumstances,
 those two proposals have not been shown to be negotiable.
 
    By instituting the conversion to a measured system of evaluation
 without giving the union an opportunity to bargain with respect to the
 implementation and impact of the conversion, I conclude that Respondent
 has violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.  Further, I
 conclude that a status quo ante remedy is appropriate since it is the
 only meaningful and effective way to remedy the violation and the record
 fails to establish that such a remedy would create a serious disruption
 of Respondent's operations.  /15/ Accordingly, I recommend that the
 Authority issue the following order:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority and Section 7118(a)(7)(A) of the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority orders
 that the Internal Revenue Service and its Brookhaven Service Center
 shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Instituting any conversion of the Dishonored Check Unit
       from an unmeasured to a measured system of evaluation without
       first affording the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 99 a
       reasonable opportunity to negotiate, to the extent consonant with
       law and regulations, on the impact and implementation of such
       conversion.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
       restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
       assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
          (a) Rescind and withdraw all evaluations of employees in the
       Dishonored Check Unit represented by the National Treasury
       Employees Union Chapter 99, which were made under the measured
       system of evaluation instituted on or about August 25, 1980,
       reevaluating employees where necessary.
 
          (b) Notify the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 99 of
       any intention to institute a conversion of the Dishonored Check
       Unit to a measured system of evaluation and, upon request, consult
       and negotiate with such representative, to the extent consonant
       with law and regulations, concerning the impact and implementation
       of such action.
 
          (c) Post at its facilities 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
       Director, Brookhaven Service Center, and shall be posted and
       maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
       places, including all bulletin boards and other places where
       notices are customarily posted.  Reasonable steps shall be taken
       to ensure that the 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 as to what steps have
       been taken to comply with the Order.
 
                                       ALAN W. HEIFETZ
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
 Dated:  April 21, 1981
    Washington, DC
 
 
 
                                 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 THE TITLE 5 OF THE
 
                            UNITED STATES CODE
 
                FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT institute any conversion of the Dishonored Check Unit
 from an unmeasured to a measured system of evaluation without first
 notifying the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 99 and affording
 it the opportunity to consult and negotiate, to the extent consonant
 with law and regulations, concerning the impact and implementation of
 such change.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interview with, restrain or
 coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE will rescind and withdraw all evaluations of employees in the
 Dishonored Check Unit represented by the National Treasury Employees
 Union Chapter 99, which were made under the measured system of
 evaluation instituted on or about August 25, 1980, and will issue
 reevaluations where necessary.
 
    WE WILL notify the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 99 of
 any intention to institute a conversion of the Dishonored Check Unit to
 a measured system of evaluation and, upon request, consult and negotiate
 with such representative, 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 questions concerning this Notice or compliance
 with any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
 Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region II,
 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    /1/ NTEU proposals 3, 5 and 6, referred to by the Judge, state as
 follows:
 
          3.  The supervisor will insure an equal distribution of work
       according to the dates and types of work to all employees in the
       unit.
 
          5.  Return mail will be equally distributed among all employees
       in the unit.
 
          6.  Foreign checks will be equally distributed among all
       employees in the unit.
 
 
    /2/ The Judge found that the other nine proposals were nonnegotiable
 or were not shown to be negotiable.  Neither NTEU nor the General
 Counsel filed exceptions to such findings, and especially noting the
 absence of exceptions, the Authority adopts the Judge's decision in this
 respect.
 
 
    /3/ Section 7106(a)(2)(B) provides:
 
    Sec. 7106.  Management rights
 
    (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, nothing in this
 chapter shall affect the authority of any management officials of any
 agency--
 
                                  * * * *
 
          (2) in accordance with applicable laws--
 
                                  * * * *
 
          (B) to assign work, to make determinations with respect to
 
 contracting out, and to determine the personnel by which agency
 operations shall be conducted(.)
 
 
    /4/ Cf. Association of Civilian Technicians and State of Georgia
 National Guard, 2 FLRA 581 (1980), wherein the Authority found
 negotiable a portion of a proposal which required assignment of cleanup
 duties on a fair and equitable basis.  There, the Authority stated, " .
 . . the second paragraph of the proposal merely provides that, once
 management has decided to require a general cleanup and has determined
 which employees will perform such duties, management will distribute
 specific assignments to such duties on a fair and equitable basis.
 Since there is no showing that a procedure to distribute cleanup
 assignments equitably will prevent management from acting at all in
 assigning general cleanup duties to technicians, the procedure in
 question is within the duty to bargain under section 7106(b)(2) of the
 Statute . . . ." Here, as previously stated, NTEU's proposals, by
 requiring assignment of work "equally," would remove the Respondent's
 discretion to decide which employees will perform which type of work.
 
 
    /5/ The ALJ's finding of an unfair labor practice was based solely on
 his conclusions regarding the three proposals determined here to be
 outside the duty to bargain.  There is no evidence that the Respondent
 otherwise refused to negotiate concerning procedures to be utilized in
 implementing, and/or appropriate arrangements for employees adversely
 affected by the change.
 
 
    /6/ Good cause not having been shown, Respondent's motion to file a
 reply brief was denied on April 1, 1981.
 
 
    /7/ Respondent's motion to correct the hearing transcript is hereby
 granted.
 
 
    /8/ These research tools, the RPS and encoding books, were physically
 moved away from the employees in the Dishonored Check Unit some months
 after, and without any connection to, the conversion.  They remain
 equally accessible to all employees in that unit although it will take
 them all more time to do their research because of the change in
 proximity.
 
 
    /9/ For example, Article 6, Section 6(B), of the collective
 bargaining agreement makes the following contrast:
 
          1.  Quantity of Work Produced/Utilization of Time
 
          (a) Measured Work - Quantity of units produced.  Compare output
       with average production of other employees at the same grade in
       the same Branch for each program and function worked.
 
          (b) Unmeasured Work - A measure of the employee's effectiveness
       in using his/her time to accomplish assigned duties.
 
          2.  Quality of Work Produced
 
          (a) Measured Work - A measure of how accurately employees at
       the same grade level in the same Branch working the same program
       and function perform their duties.
 
          (b) Unmeasured Work - A measure of how accurately and
       thoroughly an employee performs his/her duties.
 
 
    /10/ The "reasonable likelihood" test was enunciated by
 Administrative Law Judge Francis E. Dowd in U.S. Government Printing
 Office and Joint Council of Unions, GPO.  Case No. 3-CA-549 (April 9,
 1981).  Although the Dowd doctrine has not yet been reviewed by the
 Authority and, therefore, is not binding, I adopt it for purposes of
 this decis