12:0686(133)CA - Bureau of Land Management, Richfield District Office, Richfield, UT and AFGE Local 3790 -- 1983 FLRAdec CA



[ v12 p686 ]
12:0686(133)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 12 FLRA No. 133
 
 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
 RICHFIELD DISTRICT OFFICE,
 RICHFIELD, UTAH
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3790
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 7-CA-247
 
                            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 and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
 filed an opposition.
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute), the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the
 Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
 committed.  The rulings are hereby affirmed.  /1/ Upon consideration of
 the Judge's decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts
 the Judge's findings, /2/ conclusions /3/ and recommendations.
 
    Upon finding that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5)
 of the Statute by its failure to give the Union prior notice and an
 opportunity to request bargaining over the impact and implementation of
 its decision to change the method of communication between unit
 employees and the Bureau of Land Management's Utah state personnel
 office, the Judge ordered a status quo ante remedy, noting that such a
 remedy would not work a hardship upon the Respondent or significantly
 disrupt its operations.  Subsequently, the Authority issued its Decision
 and Order in Federal Correctional Institution, 8 FLRA No. 111 (1982),
 wherein it set forth certain factors to be considered in determining the
 appropriateness of ordering a return to the status quo ante in order to
 remedy a violation of the duty to bargain over the impact and
 implementation of a decision which itself was not negotiable.  Applying
 such factors to the instant case, and noting also the absence of
 exceptions to the Judge's recommended remedy, the Authority finds, in
 agreement with the Judge, that a status quo ante remedy is warranted.
 Thus, as found by the Judge, the Respondent failed to give the Union
 prior notice of the change herein, as embodied in the memorandum of
 April 9, 1979, and as reaffirmed in further violation of the Statute in
 memoranda dated August 15, 1979 and June 9, 1980.  Further, it does not
 appear that such a remedy would seriously disrupt the Respondent's
 operations.  Rather, as Richfield District Manager Don Pendelton stated
 to the Associate State Director by memorandum dated April 10, 1979
 concerning the state office's workload statistics, he would be
 "surprised" if the time spent by the state personnel office to service
 Richfield "exceeded two or three hours per week." See, Department of
 Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Field
 Assessment Office, Atlanta, Georgia, 11 FLRA No. 78 (1983).
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered that the Bureau of Land Management, Richfield District
 Office, Richfield, Utah, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Instituting any change in the method or manner in which unit
 employees contact the Bureau of Land Management's Utah state personnel
 office without first notifying the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3790, the unit employees' exclusive
 representative, and affording it the opportunity to negotiate concerning
 the impact and implementation of such change.
 
    (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing its 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 effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
    (a) Rescind and withdraw the June 9, 1980 memorandum which limited
 the manner in which unit employees may contact the Bureau of Land
 Management's Utah state personnel office.
 
    (b) Notify the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
 Local 3790, of any intention to limit the manner in which unit employees
 contact the Bureau of Land Management's Utah state personnel office,
 and, upon request, negotiate with the exclusive representative
 concerning the impact and implementation of such action.
 
    (c) Post at its Richfield District Office, Richfield, Utah, and the
 field stations of the Richfield District Office, copies of the attached
 Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the
 Richfield District Office Manager, or his designee, and they shall be
 posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
 places, including bulletin boards and other places where notices to
 employees are customarily posted.  Reasonable steps shall be taken to
 insure that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
 other material.
 
    (d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VII, 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., August 30, 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 institute any change in the method or manner in which unit
 employees contact the Bureau of Land Management's Utah state personnel
 office without first notifying the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3790, the unit employees' exclusive
 representative, and affording it the opportunity to negotiate concerning
 the impact and implementation of 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 rescind and withdraw the
 June 9, 1980 memorandum which limits the manner in which unit employees
 may contact the Bureau of Land Management's Utah state personnel office.
  WE WILL notify the American Federation of Government Employees,
 AFL-CIO, Local 3790, of any intention to limit the manner in which unit
 employees contact the Bureau of Land Management's Utah state personnel
 office, and, upon request, negotiate with the exclusive representative
 concerning the impact and implementation of such action.
                                       (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, Region VII,
 Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is:  Federal Building &
 U.S. Customs House, 1531 Stout Street, Suite 301, Denver, Colorado 80202
 and whose telephone number is:  (303) 837-5224.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
                                       Case No.: 7-CA-247
 
    Gerald Rachelson, Esquire
    Mr. Roland J. Payne
          For the Respondent
 
    James J. Gonzales, Esquire
          For the General Counsel
 
    Mr. William E. Wade
          For the Charging Party
 
    Before:  BURTON S. STERNBURG
                         Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code.  Section
 7101, et seq., and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder, Fed.
 Reg., Vol. 45, No. 12, January 17, 1980, 5 C.F.R.Chapter XIV, Part 2411,
 et seq.
 
    Pursuant to amended charges first filed on September 18, 1979, by the
 American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3790 (AFL-CIO),
 (hereinafter called the AFGE or Union), a Complaint and Notice of
 Hearing was issued on August 27, 1980, by the Regional Director for
 Region VII, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Kansas City, Missouri.
 The Complaint alleges in substance that the Bureau of Land Management,
 Richfield District Office, (hereinafter called the Respondent), violated
 Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, (hereinafter called the Statute), by virtue of its
 actions in, unilaterally and without prior notice to the Union, issuing
 memoranda on April 9, 1979, August 15, 1979, and June 9, 1980, which
 restricted or limited unit employees' access to the Personnel Branch
 located in the Utah State Office.
 
    A hearing was held in the captioned matter on November 19, 1980, in
 Richfield, Utah.  All parties were afforded full opportunity to be hard,
 to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
 bearing on the issues involved herein.  The General Counsel and the
 Respondent submitted post-hearing briefs on February 11, 1981, which
 have been duly considered.
 
    Upon the basis of the entire record, including my observation of the
 witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following findings of fact,
 conclusions and recommendations.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    The Bureau of Land Management operates a "State Office" in Salt Lake
 City, Utah which supervises five "District Offices" located in
 Richfield, Cedar City, Moab, Salt Lake City and Vernal, Utah.  The Union
 is the exclusive representative of the non-supervisory employees working
 in the Richfield District and the field stations of the Richfield
 District which are located in Hanksville, Fillmore and Richfield, Utah.
 The personnel department or office which services the Richfield
 District, as well as the other District Offices, is located in the State
 Office in Salt Lake City, Utah.  The personnel department is under the
 supervision of the State Director.  Mr. Donald Pendleton is the manager
 of the Richfield District Office.
 
    By memoranda dated April 9 and 10, 1979, Mr. Pendleton notified the
 State Director and the Associate State Director, respectively, that in
 order to relieve the overloaded employees in the personnel department of
 the State Office from constant telephone interruptions from Richfield
 District Office employees he was designating five individuals who would
 be the "only Richfield District Office personnel authorized to discuss
 personnel matters" with the State Office.  The five individuals were Mr.
 Pendleton, Mr. Neil Thomas, Chief of Division of Administration, and
 their respective administrative assistants.
 
    By memorandum dated August 15, 1979, to the State Director, Mr.
 Pendleton noted that his previous memoranda of April 9 and 10, 1979,
 were not being followed.  "Because of this and the fact that" there was
 a new Assistant Director, a new list of people to contact with respect
 to inquiries to the State Office personnel department was published.
 
    Mr. Pendleton acknowledges that he had no prior discussion with the
 Union prior to issuing the above memoranda.  He further acknowledges
 that he disseminated the above memoranda to all supervisors and put it
 in the "read file", a file containing memoranda concerning District
 Office business that all employees should be aware of.  According to Mr.
 Pendleton, the substance of the memoranda, i.e. limiting employees
 contact to the Personnel department to certain designated individuals,
 was nothing new and that subject had been discussed many times both in
 staff meetings with his supervisors and staff meetings held by the State
 Director with all his District Office managers.  Further according to
 Mr. Pendleton, it had been agreed that the employees in the State Office
 personnel department were unable to complete their personnel work
 because of the constant telephone calls from individual employees and
 that each District Office Manager was to designate certain individuals
 who would be the only contact with the employees in the personnel
 department.  Finally, according to Mr. Pendleton, his memoranda of April
 9 and 10, 1979, was really tongue and cheek in that he was really taking
 a jab at the State Office for not enforcing its own rules with respect
 to limiting the telephone calls to the personnel department employees.
 /4/
 
    Mr. Pendleton's testimony with respect to the many discussions
 concerning the inordinate amount of telephone calls to the State Office
 personnel department and the agreement to limit same by having specified
 contact representatives was supported by the testimony of Mr. Larry
 Oldroyd, Richfield's Chief of Division of Planning, Mr. Tom Jenson,
 Fillmore Area Manager, Mr. S. Douglas Wood, a Richfield Division Chief,
 and Mr. Neil Thomas, Chief of the Richfield Administrative Division.
 Additionally, the above employees along with Mr. Roy Turner, Chief of
 the Administrative Services at the State Office, Ms. Erma Jensen, an
 Administrative Assistant in Richfield and Mr. Mark Bailey, Fillmore Area
 Manager, all testified that it was not only their understanding but
 their accepted practice for many years to contact the State Office
 Personnel Department only through designated employees.  However, none
 of the aforementioned individuals could point to any particular oral
 directive or written memorandum limiting individual Richfield employee
 contact with the personnel department in the State Office in Salt Lake
 City, Utah.
 
    In contrast to the above testimony, Mr. Elbert Lowry, a Richfield
 employee since 1972 and President of the Union, Mr. Charles Horsburgh,
 Program Leader for Minerals, Mr. Michael Whalen, a supervisor who
 transferred to Richfield in February 1979, Mr. Dwane Bayles, a
 supervisor in Richfield since 1976, Mr. Larry Maxfield, Chief of
 Division of Resources in Richfield since 1975, all testified that prior
 to April 9, 1979, they were aware of no policy and/or restriction in
 effect which prohibited individual employee contact with the State
 Office personnel department.  Mr. Maxfield acknowledged attending staff
 meetings wherein Mr. Pendleton informed him and the other supervisors in
 attendance that there were too many telephone contacts being made from
 "district people to personnel and training in the State Office."
 According to Mr. Maxfield, Mr. Pendleton "used to encourage all the
 managers to cut down on their calls, and he relayed Mr. Pendleton's
 wishes to his employees." All the foregoing witnesses testified to
 various telephone calls they had individually and personally made to the
 State Office personnel department.
 
    As noted above in the "Statement of the Case", the Union's National
 Representative William Wade filed the original charge on September 18,
 1979 and an amended charge on March 4, 1980.  Both the original and
 amended charge alleged that the issuance of the April 9, 1979,
 memorandum from Mr. Pendleton was violative of Sections 7116(a)(1) and
 (5) of the Statute.  Thereafter the Regional Director issued a complaint
 on March 13, 1980 alleging that since April 9, 1979, and continuing
 thereafter, the Respondent effected a change in working conditions, i.e.
 change in the manner employees could contact the State Office personnel
 department, without due notice to, and bargaining with, the Union.
 Prior to the hearing on the matter which was scheduled for June 3, 1980,
 the parties agreed to a settlement which provided that the Respondent
 would revoke the April 9, 1979 and August 15, 1979, Richfield District
 Office memoranda and upon request bargain with the Union prior to making
 any changes in the manner in which unit employees contact the State
 Office personnel department.
 
    On or about May 30, 1980, a number of Respondent's representatives
 met with Union President Lowry for purposes of attempting to reach
 agreement on Respondent's policy concerning unit employee contacts with
 the State Office personnel department.  The meeting was marked by the
 submission and discussion of a proposed memorandum dated May 30, 1980
 from Respondent to the unit employees.  Various suggestions were
 submitted by both parties concerning possible improvements in the
 language of the memorandum.  The meeting subsequently came to an end
 sometime in the afternoon when Mr. Lowry made it clear that he wanted to
 take the proposals home and study them over the weekend.  Although
 Respondent initially acquiesced and allowed Mr. Lowry to take the
 proposals and other materials discussed at the meeting, it subsequently
 sent a representative to retrieve same.  /5/
 
    On Tuesday June 3, 1980, Mr. Lowry, along with Mr. Wade, the Union's
 National Representative who had filed the original charges against the
 Respondent, again met with representatives of the Respondent.  Both Mr.
 Wade and Mr. Pendleton affixed their signatures to a settlement
 agreement which provided, among other things, that the Respondent would
 "meet and confer in good faith, and consonant with law, with the Union
 regarding proposed policies involving unit employees contacting the
 State Office about personnel matters".  Following the execution of the
 settlement agreement, the parties began a discussion of the memorandum
 dated May 30, 1980, which had been shown to Mr. Lowry the Friday before.
  Mr. Wade expressed concern that the list of employee contacts on the
 May 30, 1980, memorandum did not include a person from the bargaining
 unit.  /6/ Respondent's representatives, particularly, Mr. Pendleton,
 then made it clear that they did not intend to bargain over the
 substance of the memorandum and were only interested in negotiating
 impact.  The meeting ended without any agreement being reached.
 Thereafter, on June 4, 1980, Mr. Wade gave Mr. Pendleton a letter
 wherein he informed Mr. Pendleton that the Union would only bargain with
 the Respondent after the Regional Director had approved the settlement
 agreement and Respondent had complied therewith.  On June 5, 1980, Mr.
 Pendleton addressed a letter to Mr. Lowry wherein he made it clear that
 it was management's position that it was not under any obligation to
 bargain concerning its decision to limit employee contacts with the
 Personnel Department in the State Office.  Mr. Pendleton went on to
 state in the letter that management would, however, entertain the
 Union's request for impact and implementation bargaining, and felt that
 it had done so on May 30.  Mr. Pendleton further noted that the May 30th
 memorandum presented to the Union as a basis for bargaining was separate
 and apart from the settlement agreement.
 
    On June 9, 1980, Respondent issued two different memorandums.  One
 memorandum informed the employees that the prior memorandums of April 9
 and August 15, 1979, were no longer in effect.  The second memorandum
 was an amended version of the May 30th memorandum used as a basis for
 the earlier discussions between Respondent's representatives and Mr.
 Lowry.  This memorandum, by its terms, reinstated or reinstituted the
 restrictions contained in the revoked April 9, and August 15, 1979,
 memorandums.  /7/
 
    Subsequently, pursuant to a complaint from the Union, the Regional
 Director revoked his approval of the settlement agreement and issued a
 new complaint which, as noted above, alleged that Respondent by virtue
 of its actions on April 9, and August 15, 1979, and June 9, 1980,
 violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    Respondent takes the position that the complaint should be dismissed
 since the memorandums of April 9 and August 15, 1979, are nothing more
 than a reiteration of existing policy and hence not changes in
 conditions of employment necessitating bargaining.  Alternatively,
 Respondent urges dismissal on the ground that the posting of the
 "Notice" pursuant to the settlement agreement mooted the alleged
 violations.  Additionally, Respondent takes the position, that in any
 event, the violations were cured by the discussions occurring on May
 30th and June 3rd wherein the Union was invited to submit its impact
 proposals.  Lastly, Respondent takes the position that the allegations
 of the complaint predicated on Respondent's actions of August 15, 1979
 and June 9, 1980, should be dismissed since they were not included in
 either the original or amended charges filed by the Union.
 
    With respect to the latter contention, i.e. the inclusion of
 allegations in a complaint which were not set forth in the charges, it
 is well established that a complaint need not be confined to only the
 specific matters set forth in a charge.  Additional allegations may be
 included in a complaint as long as such allegations bear a relationship
 to the charge and are closely related to the events complained of in the
 charge.  NLRB v. Kohler Company, 220 Fed.2nd 3 (7th Cir. 1955);  Texas
 Industries Inc. v. NLRB, 336 Fed.2nd 128 (5th Cir. 1964).  Accordingly,
 inasmuch as the events of August 15, 1979 and June 9, 1980, are clearly
 closely related to the allegations of the charge, I find that they were
 properly included in the complaint.
 
    Turning now to the alleged unilateral change underlying the
 complaint, i.e. institution of a restrictive policy concerning
 individual employee telephone contacts with the State Office personnel
 department, I find, based on the record as a whole and contrary to the
 contention of the Respondent, that the policy announced on April 9,
 1979, was not merely a reiteration of an existing policy and/or
 practice, but rather the establishment of a new policy at least with
 respect to the Richfield District employees.  Thus, it is noted that
 while there was general agreement among the witnesses for both the
 Respondent and General Counsel that State Office management had been
 concerned for some time about the many telephone calls to the State
 Office personnel department, that the matter had been raised on many
 occasions in meetings between State Office and District Office
 management and in supervisory meetings at the Richfield District Office,
 and that while there was at least tacit agreement between the parties
 attending the aforementioned meetings to attempt to limit the constant
 telephone interruptions at the State Office personnel department, no
 specific orders or regulations concerning the restrictions on telephone
 contacts were issued to the bargaining unit employees or, for that
 matter to the Richfield District supervisory staff.  Further support for
 this conclusion appears in the testimony of Mr. Pendleton, the Richfield
 District Director, who testified that his April 9th memorandum was in
 fact a tongue in check attempt to prod the State Office management
 officials to limit telephone contact to only certain designated
 individuals.  The foregoing, coupled with the denials by a number of
 Richfield District supervisors of the existence of the restrictive
 telephone policy prior to April 9, 1979, indicates that if there was in
 fact a policy, such policy had never been announced or applied to the
 Richfield District unit personnel.  Moreover, to the extent that there
 had been tacit agreement between District and State management
 representatives regarding such a policy, it appears that such agreement
 or understanding had been equally honored in both the breach and
 enforcement thereof.  Accordingly, I find that the April 9, 1979,
 memorandum issued by Mr. Pendleton amounted to a unilateral change in
 conditions of employment.  Cf. Pennsylvania Army and Air National Guard,
 A/SLMR No. 969;  New Mexico Air National Guard, A/SLMR No. 362.
 
    Inasmuch as the April 9, 1979, memorandum changed conditions of
 employment, Respondent was obligated to give the Union prior notice of
 its decision to institute the change in working conditions and an
 opportunity to request bargaining over the impact of the change and the
 manner of its implementation.  Having failed to do so, Respondent
 violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
 
    Contrary to the contention of the General Counsel, I further find
 that since the change in the manner of communication with the personnel
 department falls within the definition of "methods" in Section
 7106(a)(1) of the Statute, Respondent was under no obligation to bargain
 with the Union over the substance of its decision.  Cf. Norfolk Naval
 Shipyard, 3 FLRA No. 15;  see U.S. Department of Treasury U.S. Customs
 Service, Region IV, Houston, Texas, A/SLMR No. 1048, wherein a similar
 conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge was reversed on other
 grounds.
 
    Inasmuch as the memorandums issued on August 15, 1979, and June 9,
 1980, reaffirmed Respondent's original action taken on April 9, 1979, I
 find that the issuance of such memoranda constituted a further violation
 of Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute in that such memoranda was
 again issued without allowing the Union and opportunity to negotiate the
 impact and implementation thereof.  Contrary to the contention of the
 Respondent, I do not find that the meeting, discussions and/or
 deliberations conducted between Respondent's representatives and the
 Union on May 30 and June 3, 1980, qualify as the "good faith"
 negotiations contemplated by the Statute.  In reaching this conclusion,
 I note that the original violation had not been remedied at the time and
 that Respondent had not entered the discussions with an open mind.  In
 fact Respondent's representatives made it clear that they had no
 intention of entering into the settlement until agreement had been
 reached on the change in conditions of employment.  Until the original
 violation had been cured, the Union was under no obligation to enter
 negotiations.  To hold otherwise, puts the Union at a distinct
 disadvantage since it would be bargaining on a change which had already
 become a fait accompli.  Finally, and again contrary to the contention
 of Respondent, I find that the posting of the notice did not moot the
 matter since the change underlying the charges had been reinstituted on
 June 9, 1980, prior to completion of negotiations with respect to impact
 and implementation.
 
    Having found and concluded that the Respondent violated Sections
 7116(a)(1)(5) of the Statute, I recommend that the Authority issue the
 following order.  /8/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to Section 7118(a)(7)(A) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7118(a)(7)(A), and Section
 2423.29(b)(1) of the Rules and Regulations, 5 C.F.R.Section
 2423.29(b)(1), the Authority hereby orders that the Bureau of Land
 Management, Richfield District Office, Richfield, Utah, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Instituting any change in the method or manner in which
       unit employees contact the State Office personnel department
       without first notifying American Federation of Government
       Employees, Local 3790, AFL-CIO, the unit employees' exclusive
       representative, 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.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing its employees in the 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 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute.
 
          (a) Rescind and withdraw the June 9, 1980, memorandum which
       limited the manner in which unit employees may contact the State
       Office personnel department.
 
          (b) Notify the American Federation of Government Employees,
       Local 3790, AFL-CIO, of any intention to limit the manner in which
       unit employees contact the State Office personnel department, 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 Richfield District Office, Richfield, Utah, and
       the field stations of the Richfield District Office copies of the
       attached notice marked "Appendix", on forms to be furnished by the
       Federal Labor Relations Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms
       they shall be signed by the Richfield District Office manager 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 Office manager
       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, what steps have been
       taken to comply therewith.
                                       BURTON S. STERNBURG
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
 Dated:  April 10, 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 institute any change in the method or manner in which unit
 employees contact the State Office personnel department without first
 notifying American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3790,
 AFL-CIO, the unit employees' exclusive representative, 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, interfere with,
 restrain, or coerce our employees in the rights assured by the Federal
 Service Labor-Ma