12:0122(33)CA - Navy, HQ, Naval Material Command and NFFE -- 1983 FLRAdec CA



[ v12 p122 ]
12:0122(33)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 12 FLRA No. 33
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 HEADQUARTERS, NAVAL
 MATERIAL COMMAND
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION
 OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 3-CA-761
 
                            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 and recommending that it be ordered to
 cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action.  The
 Judge further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other
 alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the
 complaint with respect to them.  Exceptions to the Judge's Decision were
 filed by the Respondent, the Charging Party and the General Counsel.
 
    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 adopting the Judge's finding that employees Paul E. Rasmussen and
 William J. Hancock were not "management officials" within the meaning of
 section 7103(a)(11) of the Statute, the Authority relies upon its
 decision in Department of the Navy, Automatic Data Processing Selection
 Office, 7 FLRA No. 24 (1981), issued after the Judge's Decision herein,
 which interpreted the statutory definition of "management official" to
 include those individuals who:  (1) create, establish or prescribe
 general principles, plans or courses of action for an agency;  (2)
 decide upon or settle upon general principles, plans or courses of
 action for an agency;  or (3) bring about or obtain a result as to the
 adoption of general principles, plans or courses of action for an
 agency.  The Authority concludes that the individuals in question are
 not involved in any of the foregoing duties, but rather, as found by the
 Judge, are technical experts providing professional resource information
 in the Fleet Readiness Branch.
 
                                 ORDER /1/
 
    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 the Navy, Headquarters, Naval
 Material Command, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees Paul E.
 Rasmussen and William J. Hancock by directing them not to act on behalf
 of, or render assistance to, any labor organization because they have
 been designated as management officials for purposes of coverage under
 the merit pay provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
 
    (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to carry out the
 purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute:
 
    (a) Rescind all orders directing employees Paul E. Rasmussen and
 William J. Hancock not to act on behalf of, or render assistance to, any
 labor organization on the ground that they are management officials for
 purposes of coverage under the merit pay provisions of the Civil Service
 Reform Act of 1978.
 
    (b) Post at its facilities in Arlington, Virginia, 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
 appropriate official of the Department of the Navy, Headquarters, Naval
 Material Command, 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 taken to insure that said Notices are not
 altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
    (c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region III, Federal Labor
 Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
 Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.  
 
 Issued, Washington, D.C., June 2, 1983
 
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, 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 interfere with, restrain or coerce employees Paul E.
 Rasmussen and William J. Hancock by directing them not to act on behalf
 of, or render assistance to, any labor organization because they have
 been designated as management officials for purposes of coverage under
 the merit pay provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.  WE
 WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain or
 coerce any of our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by
 the Statute.  WE WILL rescind all orders directing employees Paul E.
 Rasmussen and William J. Hancock not to act on behalf of, or render
 assistance to, any labor organization on the ground that they are
 management officials for purposes of coverage under the merit pay
 provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
                                       . . . Activity
 
 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 its provisions,
 they may communicate directly with the Regional Director for Region III,
 Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is 1111 18th St., NW.,
 Room 700, P.O. Box 33758, Washington, D.C. 20033-0758 and whose
 telephone number is:  (202) 653-8507.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
                                       Case No.: 3-CA-761
 
    Herbert L. Zipperian, Esq.
          For the Respondent
 
    Sharon Prost, Esquire
    Peter Robb, Esquire
          For the General Counsel
 
    Bruce P. Heppen, Esquire
          For the Charging Party
 
    Before:  LOUIS SCALZO
          Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This case arose as an unfair labor practice proceeding under the
 provisions of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 92
 Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101, et seq., (hereinafter referred to as "the
 Statute") and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder.
 
    On June 25, 1980, an unfair labor practice complaint was filed by the
 Regional Director, Region III, Federal Labor Relations Authority,
 Washington, D.C., against the Department of the Navy, Headquarters,
 Naval Material Command (Respondent), on behalf of the National
 Federation of Federal Employees (Charging Party or Union).  An amended
 complaint was filed on October 8, 1980, and on January 6, 1981, the
 Regional Director entered an order withdrawing paragraphs six and ten of
 the amended complaint, and the reference to paragraph six contained in
 paragraph nine of the amended complaint.  The amended complaint, as
 modified by the January 6, 1981 order, alleged that the Respondent
 through the conduct of its agents violated Sections 7116(a)(1)(2) and
 (8) of the Statute by issuing memoranda to Mr. William J. Hancock and
 Mr. Paul E. Rasmussen on October 15, 1979, for the purpose of notifying
 them that their positions were managerial;  by advising them on or about
 November 1, 1979, that as management officials they were not authorized
 to act on behalf of the Union in any capacity;  and by notifying them in
 November 8, 1979 memorandums that they should discontinue any activities
 involving assistance to a labor organization.
 
    Counsel for the Respondent argues that both Mr. Rasmussen and Mr.
 Hancock were, at all times material, management officials within the
 meaning of Section 7103(a)(11) of the Statute, and that since neither
 may be classified as an "employee" within the purview of Section
 7103(a)(2) of the Statute, the protective provisions of the statute may
 not be extended to them or the Union.
 
    All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full
 opportunity to be heard, adduce relevant evidence, and examine and
 cross-examine witnesses.  Post-hearing briefs were received from counsel
 of record.  These have been duly considered.  Based upon the entire
 record herein, including my observations of the witnesses and their
 demeanor, the exhibits and other relevant evidence adduced at the
 hearing, and the briefs, I make the following findings of fact,
 conclusions and recommendations.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    The record disclosed that the Respondent employs about 500 civilian
 in Arlington, Virginia.  There is currently no labor organization ,
 certified or recognized to represent civilian employees employed by the
 Respondent.  In the fall of 1979, employees of the Respondent began
 active organizing efforts on behalf of the Union.  These efforts
 included conducting meetings, preparation of letters to employees, and
 circulating petitions.  Both Mr. Rasmussen and Mr. Hancock were primary
 participants in these organizing activities.  They were then, and on the
 date of the hearing, both assigned to a segment of the Office of the
 Assistant Deputy Chief Naval Material for Fleet Readiness and Support,
 an organizational component under the supervision of the Office of the
 Deputy Chief of Naval Material Logistics.  The latter was, in turn, a
 component under the jurisdiction of the Chief of Naval Material, a key
 element under the jurisdiction of the Chief of Naval Operations.
 
    By memorandum dated October 15, 1979, Mr. Rasmussen and Mr. Hancock
 were informed by Mr. Allen I. Barke, Respondent's Civilian Personnel
 Officer, that they had been designated as management officials under the
 merit pay provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.  /2/ The
 record revealed evidence that both Rasmussen and Hancock always
 considered themselves to be experts and specialists rather than
 management officials;  and further that prior to the fall of 1979, both
 had, for training purposes, been classified by a representative of the
 Respondent as "specialists" rather than as "administrative clerical" or
 "management/supervisory." (Tr. 16-17).
 
    Following receipt of October 15th memoranda designating them as
 management officials, Rasmussen and Hancock continued their organizing
 activities on behalf of the Union.  However, on November 1, 1979, they
 were summoned to a meeting in the office of their immediate supervisor,
 Mr. William P. Emery, III, Head, Fleet Readiness and Support Branch.
 The meeting was also attended by Mr. Barke, the Civilian Personnel
 Officer, and his assistant.  At the meeting Rasmussen and Hancock were
 told by Emery and Barke that because they had been designated as
 management officials they were required to cease their active
 involvement in Union activities, and that they should cease and desist
 all activities in furtherance of the formation of a Union.  Both
 Rasmussen and Hancock unsuccessfully questioned the designation at the
 meeting.
 
    Subsequently, memoranda dated November 8, 1979, addressed to
 Rasmussen and Hancock by Emery, formalized oral instructions conveyed on
 November 1, 1979.  The memoranda included the following statement:
 
          The Deputy Director, Civilian Personnel Law, has expressed an
       opinion that since you are the incumbent of a position identified
       as "Managerial", you do not have the right to form, join, or
       assist any labor organization.  Therefore, you are hereby directed
       to discontinue any activities aimed at forming or assisting a
       labor organization.  (G.C. Exh. 6).
 
    Both Rasmussen and Hancock ceased their organizing activities on
 behalf of the Union following receipt of the November 8, 1979
 communications.
 
    The work responsibilities of both Rasmussen and Hancock relate to the
 Department of the Navy Maintenance and Material Management System, more
 commonly referred to as the "Ships' 3-M Systems," or "3-M System." This
 is a large computer based management information system created in 1966
 for the purpose of providing information about equipment and systems
 aboard ships.  The information is used by personnel aboard ships and on
 shore to manage maintenance, and to facilitate equipment design and the
 supply of spare parts.
 
    The organization and responsibilities for the 3-M System are outlined
 in an April 30, 1979, Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (G.C. Exh.
 7).  The Instruction provides specifically that the 3-M System operates
 "under the policy guidance provided by the CNO (Chief of Naval
 Operations)."
 
    The CNO has responsibility for, among other things, "(d)eveloping and
 implementing the overall policy governing the management of the 3-M
 Systems." Below the CNO, organizationally, are a 3-M Systems
 Coordinating Group and a Policy Committee whose membership consists of
 high level agency officials.  The Coordinating Group considers and
 studies proposals for improvement of the 3-M Systems for presentations
 to the Policy Committee.  The Policy Committee, in turn, "submits
 recommendations to the CNO on the continued refinement, operation and
 use of the Ships' 3-M Systems." Below the CNO and the Coordinating Group
 and Policy Committee, is the Chief of Naval Material.  The Chief of
 Naval Material is the head of Headquarters, Naval Material Command, the
 Respondent herein.
 
    The Chief of Naval Material, pursuant to Navy Instructions, has
 "overall responsibility for development, coordination and maintenance of
 the Ships' 3-M Systems." More specifically, the Chief of Naval Material
 is responsible "for providing instructions and technical directions for
 the management of the Ships' 3-M Systems consistent with the policy
 established by CNO and the requirements of Fleet (Commanders) . . . ."
 
    Six supervisory layers are placed between Rasmussen and Hancock and
 the Chief of Naval Material under the organizational chain of command.
 They are Vice Chief of Naval Material, Deputy Chief of Naval Material
 Logistics, Assistant Deputy Chief of Naval Material Logistics, Assistant
 Deputy Chief Naval Material for Fleet Readiness and Support, Deputy to
 the Assistant Deputy Chief of Naval Material for Fleet Readiness and
 Support, and lastly Head of Fleet Readiness Branch, William Emery.  The
 Fleet Readiness Branch is staffed by Rasmussen, Hancock, one other
 professional, and one clerical employee.  No one is below them
 organizationally and neither Rasmussen nor Hancock performs supervisory
 responsibilities.  (Tr. 25-26, 53-54).
 
    Although Mr. Rasmussen is a program analyst, GS-345-14 and Mr.
 Hancock a general engineer GS-801-14, the types of duties and
 responsibilities which they perform are markedly similar, although the
 specific work performed varies according to the specialized technical
 expertise of each employee.  /3/
 
    The primary work function of both Rasmussen and Hancock relates to
 the review and preparation of draft responses from the Naval Material
 Command to the Chief of Naval Operations concerning the technical
 feasibility of suggestions contained in incoming correspondence relating
 to the 3-M System.  This correspondence may suggest a technical
 improvement, a change in procedures, or request information.  The
 correspondence typically comes from users of the System.
 
    Correspondence comes into the Naval Material Command at
 organizational levels above Rasmussen and Hancock and frequently, when
 these employees receive it, they also receive guidance from their
 superiors as to whether or not their draft response should favor the
 suggestion contained in the correspondence.  When Rasmussen or Hancock
 receive these suggestions, they review and comment on technical
 feasibility.  In order to do so, they will often contact relevant
 technical experts or interested parties to obtain their views for
 incorporation into the draft responses prepared.  In other cases, they
 may rely on the documentation from previously reviewed similar cases or
 on their knowledge of Navy instructions.
 
    Once the draft response commenting on the technical feasibility of
 the suggestion recommended or answering the question presented has been
 prepared by Rasmussen or Hancock, it is reviewed by their immediate
 supervisor and then, by at least several supervisory levels above them.
 Drafts are usually revised by officials operating at organizational
 levels above them.  /4/
 
    Responses are signed off by someone three or more levels above
 Rasmussen and Hancock organizationally.  When procedural changes being
 considered are not minor in nature, they are typically reviewed by the
 3-M System Coordinating Group and Policy Committee, described above.
 Neither Mr. Rasmussen nor Mr. Hancock has ever participated in a 3-M
 System Policy Committee meeting.  Rasmussen has, on occasion, attended
 3-M System Coordinating Group meetings.  The purpose and extent of his
 participation has been to familiarize him with a subject being
 discussed, or to provide the Coordinating Group with his technical
 expertise in certain areas.  Hancock has attended one Coordinating Group
 meeting as an observer.
 
    Rasmussen and Hancock each spend approximately seventy percent of
 their time performing duties of the type described.  The types of tasks
 performed during the time remaining are much more varied.  Rasmussen,
 for example, spends approximately thirty percent of his time identifying
 data requirements or changes in functional descriptions for the 3-M
 System as part of the Navy's efforts in redesigning this computer
 system.  Rasmussen's role is to serve as a facilitator in obtaining
 comments on proposed data requirements.  Hancock's other duties are more
 varied. For example, he spends approximately five percent of his time
 coordinating financial matters that come into the Branch.  His
 responsibility in this regard is to coordinate the review of budget
 documents by persons in his office and send the material on to others.
 Other work was described as being similar in nature to that outlined
 herein.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    Section 7103(a)(2) of the Statute provides that the term "employee"
 does not include "a management official." Section 7103(a)(11) of the
 Statute provides:
 
          '(M)anagement official' means an individual employed by an
       agency in a position the duties and responsibilities of which
       require or authorize the individual to formulate, determine, or
       influence the policies of the agency.
 
    In U.S. Army Communications Systems Agency, Fort Monmouth, New
 Jersey, 4 FLRA No. 83 (November 12, 1980), the Authority determined that
 the mere performance of duties as an expert or professional rendering
 resource information or recommendations with respect to policies would
 not justify classification as a management official within the meaning
 of Section 7103(a)(11);  and further that there must be a finding that
 duties and responsibilities involved extend to the point of active
 participation in the ultimate determination as to what policy will be.
 
    A careful examination of the actual work performed by Mr. Rasmussen
 and Mr. Hancock discloses that neither formulates, determines, or
 influences the policies of the Respondent.  They both work as experts
 providing professional resource information in the Fleet Readiness
 Branch, which is situated under a number of organizational layers having
 review authority over their work activity.  The procedure pursued by
 both in developing correspondence and messages indicates that they are
 not in a position to participate actively in ultimate determinations of
 policy.  Such determinations are made at higher levels in the
 Respondent's organizational structure, or at the Chief of Naval
 Operations level.  Accordingly, there being no other impediment to their
 inclusion within the "employee" classification, it must be concluded
 that both Rasmussen and Hancock are employees within the meaning of
 Section 7103(a)(2) of the Statute.
 
    The Authority has held that an agency would "act at its own peril in
 removing an employee from an established bargaining unit simply because
 of a determination that such an employee is a supervisor or management
 official for merit pay purposes," and further that the unfair labor
 practice procedures of the Statute would be applicable in an appropriate
 case to remedy such removal.  Interpretation and Guidance, Case No.
 0-PS-15, 4 FLRA No. 99 (December 16, 1980).  It follows that an agency
 would act at its peril by precluding any "employee," within the meaning
 of the Statute, from engaging in protected activity because of a
 determination that such employee is a supervisor or management official
 for merit pay purposes.
 
    The Authority's Interpretation and Guidance in 4 FLRA No. 99,
 reflects that a determination by an agency that an employee is a
 supervisor or management official for purposes of coverage under the
 merit pay provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, would not,
 without more, constitute an unfair labor practice.  The Authority also
 concluded that it was "not within the jurisdiction of the Authority to
 make determinations as to whether an individual is a supervisor or
 management official" for merit purposes.  /5/
 
    Counsel for the Charging Party takes issue with the mentioned
 conclusions set out in the Authority's Interpretation and Guidance.  The
 undersigned is bound to follow them.  However, this is not a case
 involving a mere determination that an employee is a management official
 for purposes of coverage under the merit pay provisions of the Civil
 Service Reform Act.  The Respondent's answer admits that agents of the
 Respondent directed Rasmussen and Hancock not to act on behalf of the
 Union in any capacity and to discontinue any activities involving
 assistance to a labor organization.  Since Rasmussen and Hancock were
 employees within the meaning of the Statute, such conduct clearly
 constitutes a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the
 Respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced these two employees
 in the exercise of employee rights guaranteed to them in Section 7102 of
 the Statute.  Accordingly, there has been a showing that the Respondent
 violated Section 7116(a)(1).
 
    Section 7116(a)(2) of the Statute provides that, "it shall be an
 unfair labor practice for an agency . . . to encourage or discourage
 membership in any labor organization by discrimination in connection
 with hiring, tenure, promotion, or other conditions of employment." The
 record here in no way reflects that the Respondent discouraged
 membership in a labor organization "by discrimination." Even assuming
 that the Respondent's administrative act of designating these employees
 as management officials affected the terms and conditions of their ,
 employment, the record is devoid of any showing of discriminatory motive
 associated with the designation.  No evidence was introduced to show
 that the Respondent's designation of these employees as management
 officials was made in bad faith or with animus.  It appeared that the
 decision was made with the understanding (albeit erroneous) that their
 duties and responsibilities fell within the purview of the definition of
 "management official" in Section 7103(a)(11).  In this context it would
 not be possible to find that Respondent's issuance of orders prohibiting
 Union activity constituted disparate treatment as a result of protected
 activity.  The absence of such a showing precludes a determination that
 Section 7116(a)(2) has been violated.  Department of the Treasury,
 Internal Revenue Service and IRS Richmond District Office, 3 FLRA No. 3
 (April 4, 1980);  Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida, 2 FLRA No.
 68 (January 25, 1980);  Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
 Social Security Administration, Great Lakes Program Service Center,
 Chicago, Illinois, 2 FLRA No. 12 (November 29, 1979).  /6/ Accordingly,
 it is concluded that the facts fail to reflect a violation of Section
 7116(a)(2) of the Statute.
 
    Although counsel representing the General Counsel and counsel
 representing the Charging Party argue that Respondent violated Section
 7116(a)(8) of the Statute by reason of Respondent's denial of rights
 guaranteed by Section 7102, it is noted that it is unnecessary to
 determine this issue since even assuming the applicability of Section
 7116(a)(8) to the factual situation herein, no useful purpose would be
 served by such a finding, since the questioned conduct is already
 adequately remedied by provisions of the recommended Order herein.
 Defense Logistics Agency, 5 FLRA No. 21, (February 12, 1981).
 
    Having found that the Respondent violated Section 7116(a)(1) of the
 Statute, it is recommended that the Authority issue the following Order:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Interfering with, restraining or coercing, employees Paul
       E. Rasmussen and William J. Hancock by directing them not to act
       on behalf of, or render assistance to, any labor organization
       because they have been designated as management officials.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
       assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to carry out the
 purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute:
 
          (a) Rescind all orders directing employees Paul E. Rasmussen
       and William J. Hancock not to act on behalf of, or render
       assistance to, any labor organization on the ground that they are
       management officials.
 
          (b) Post at its facilities in Arlington, Virginia, 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 Chief, Naval Material, Headquarters,
       Naval Material Command, and shall be posted and maintained for 60
       consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
       bulletin boards and other places where notices are customarily
       posted.  Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said
       notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
       material.
 
          (c) Notify the Federal Labor Relations Authority in writing
       within 30 days from the date of this order as to what steps have
       been taken to comply herewith.
 
                                       LOUIS SCALZO
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
 Dated:  April 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 rescind all orders directing employees Paul E. Rasmussen and
 William J. Hancock not to act on behalf of, or render assistance to, any
 labor organization on the ground that they are management officials.  WE
 WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees by directing them
 not to act on behalf of, or render assistance to, any labor organization
 because they have been designated as management officials.  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 Statute.
                                       (Agency or Activity)
                                       (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 3, whose address is 1133 15th Street, N.W., Suite 300,
 Washington, D.C.  20005, and whose telephone number is:  (202) 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ The Authority has amended the Judge's recommended Order to
 clarify that the Respondent may not direct employees to refrain from
 acting for or assisting a labor organization merely because they have
 been designated as "management officials" for merit pay purposes under
 Title V of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
 
 
    /2/ 5 U.S.C.Chapter 54.
 
 
    /3/ Mr. Hancock was also a program analyst until 1976 when his
 classification was changed to that of a general engineer.
 
 
    /4/ Mr. Rasmussen's testimony established that he did not have drafts
 typed until Mr. Emery reviewed them.  Hancock testified that since 1975,
 he had to rewrite all but five of the letters which he prepared as a
 result of the process of review utilized by his superiors.
 
 
    /5/ The Interpretation and Guidance explains the role of agencies and
 the Authority as follows:
 
          Determinations as to an individual's supervisory or management
       status made under titles V and VII of the Civil Service Reform Act
       are related to the extent that those who administer the respective
       separate titles utilize the same definitions of supervisor and
       management official.  However, determinations under title V of
       status as a supervisor or management official for merit pay
       purposes does not confer supervisory or managerial status under
       Title VII.  Since it is not within the jurisdiction of the
       Authority to determine whether an individual is a supervisor or
       management official for merit pay purposes under title V, it
       follows that it is outside the jurisdiction of the Authority to
       direct agencies to follow the binding determinations of the
       Authority as to whether an individual is a supervisor