14:0390(63)CA - Air Force, Air Force Systems Command, Electronic Systems Division and NAGE Local R1-8 -- 1984 FLRAdec CA



[ v14 p390 ]
14:0390(63)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 14 FLRA No. 63
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND, ELECTRONIC
 SYSTEMS DIVISION
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R1-8
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 1-CA-150
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending
 that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
 affirmative action.  Exceptions to the Judge's Decision were filed by
 the Respondent and the General Counsel, and the Respondent filed an
 opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions.
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute), the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the
 Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
 committed.  The rulings are hereby affirmed.  Upon consideration of the
 Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts the
 Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as modified below.
 
    The Judge concluded that the Respondent's promulgation and
 application of performance standards and critical elements for the
 position of Contract Negotiator GS-11 without first giving the National
 Association of Government Employees, Local R1-8 (the Union), prior
 notice and an opportunity to negotiate regarding the procedures to be
 observed and the impact thereof on adversely affected employees
 (including specifically Lee Tennyson), constituted a violation of
 section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.  The Authority adopts the
 Judge's rationale and conclusion that the Respondent violated section
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by the foregoing conduct.  /1/
 
    To remedy the violation, the Judge ordered the Respondent to cease
 and desist from the unfair labor practice found;  to cease applying the
 performance standards and critical elements until the exclusive
 representative is given notice and an opportunity to bargain concerning
 the impact and implementation thereof;  to accord to Tennyson all appeal
 rights that may have existed at the time that the unfair labor practice
 occurred;  and to post the customary notice to its employees.  The Judge
 concluded that an order reinstating Tennyson with full backpay was not
 appropriate, inasmuch as it was not demonstrated that the discharge
 would not have occurred but for the unfair labor practice.  The General
 Counsel excepted to the denial of reinstatement and backpay.
 
    Subsequent to the Judge's Decision, the Merit Systems Protection
 Board (MSPB) ordered Tennyson's discharge reduced to a ten-day
 suspension (Lee Tennyson v. Department of the Air Force, Docket Number
 BN 075219001, August 23, 1981).  /2/ Thus, the action taken by MSPB made
 Tennyson whole except for the ten-day suspension.
 
    The remaining issue concerns ten days of the period sought by the
 General Counsel.  In this regard, the Respondent asserts that an
 Authority order to reinstate Tennyson with backpay would conflict with
 the action taken by MSPB and with section 7116(d) of the Statute, which
 provides that issues which can properly be raised under an appeals
 procedure may not be raised as unfair labor practices.  Contrary to the
 Respondent's assertion, an Authority order reinstating Tennyson with
 backpay would not conflict with section 7116(d).  While the Authority
 recognizes that section 7116(d) of the Statute provides that "(i)ssues
 which can properly be raised under an appeals procedure may not be
 raised as unfair labor practices . . .," when an issue is properly
 raised as an unfair labor practice under section 7116, nothing therein
 would prevent the Authority from remedying any violation found.  /3/
 
    Nevertheless, the Authority concludes that backpay for the ten-day
 period in question is not permissible in the circumstances of this case.
  Section 7118(a)(7)(C) of the Statute empowers the Authority to order
 backpay only in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Back Pay
 Act, 5 U.S.C. 5596.  Accordingly, the Authority has held that, in order
 to warrant an award of backpay under the Statute, it is necessary to
 establish not only that an employee has been adversely affected by an
 unjustified or unwarranted personnel action, but also that but for the
 improper action such employee would not have suffered a loss or
 reduction in pay, allowances, or differentials.  See, e.g., Internal
 Revenue Service, Austin District and National Treasury Employees Union,
 NTEU Chapter 52, 9 FLRA 672 (1982);  Action and Action Employees Union,
 AFSCME Local 2027, 11 FLRA No. 89 (1983).
 
    Inasmuch as it has not been established herein that, but for the
 Respondent's improper refusal to negotiate over the impact and
 implementation of the performance standards, Tennyson would not have
 suffered a loss of pay, the Authority rejects the General Counsel's
 request for an award of backpay.
 
                                 ORDER /4/
 
    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 Air Force, Air Force Systems
 Command, Electronic Systems Division and the 3245th Air Base Group,
 Hanscom Air Force Base, Bedford, Massachusetts, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Implementing performance standards and critical elements for the
 position of Contract Negotiator GS-11, or any other unit position,
 without giving prior notice to the National Association of Government
 Employees, Local R1-8, the employees' exclusive representative, and
 affording it the opportunity to negotiate concerning the procedures to
 be observed in implementing them and concerning appropriate arrangements
 for employees adversely affected thereby.
 
    (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 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute:
 
    (a) Cease applying the performance standards and critical elements
 for the position of Contract Negotiator GS-11 and withdraw the
 evaluation of Lee Tennyson which was based upon those performance
 standards and critical elements.
 
    (b) Provide the National Association of Government Employees, Local
 R1-8, with prior notice of a decision to establish written performance
 standards and critical elements for the position of Contract Negotiator
 GS-11, or any other unit position, and, upon request, negotiate
 concerning the procedures to be observed in implementing them and
 concerning the appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected
 thereby.
 
    (c) Post at its facility at Hanscom Air Force Base, Bedford,
 Massachusetts, 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 Commander of the 3245th Air Base Group, or his
 designee, and shall be posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
 conspicuous places, including all 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 of Region I, 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., May 3, 1984
 
                                       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 performance standards and critical elements for
 the position of Contract Negotiator GS-11, or any other unit position,
 without giving adequate notice to the National Association of Government
 Employees, Local R1-8, the employees' exclusive representative, and
 affording it the opportunity to negotiate concerning the procedures to
 be observed in implementing them and concerning appropriate arrangements
 for employees adversely affected thereby.
 
    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 cease applying the performance standards and critical
 elements for the position of Contract Negotiator GS-11 and withdraw the
 evaluation of Lee Tennyson which was based upon these performance
 standards and critical elements.
 
    WE WILL provide the National Association of Government Employees,
 Local R1-8, with prior notice of a decision to establish written
 performance standards and critical elements for the position of Contract
 Negotiator GS-11, or any other unit position, and, upon request,
 negotiate concerning the procedures to be observed in implementing them
 and concerning the appropriate arrangements for employees adversely
 affected thereby.
                                       (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 I, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is:
  441 Stuart Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02116 and whose telephone
 number is:  (617) 223-0920.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
                                       Case No. 1-CA-150
    James E. Dumerer, Esquire
    John G. Abizaid, Esquire
          For the Respondent
 
    Richard Blazar, Esquire
    Richard Zaiger, Esquire
          For the General Counsel
 
    David C. Jenkins, Esquire
          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.C. Code, 5
 U.S.C.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 an amended charge first filed on September 5, 1979, by
 the National Association of Government Employees, Local R1-8,
 (hereinafter called the Union or NAGE), a Complaint and Notice of
 Hearing was issued on October 27, 1980, by the Regional Director for
 Region I, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Boston, Massachusetts.  The
 Complaint alleges, in substance, that the Department of the Air Force,
 Air Force Systems Command, Electronic Systems Division and 3245th Air
 Base Group, Hanscom Air Force Base, New Bedford, Massachusetts,
 (hereinafter called the Respondent or Air Force), violated Sections
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute, (hereinafter called the Statute), by virtue of its action in
 unilaterally establishing Performance Standards and Critical Elements
 for the position of Contract Negotiator without giving the Union prior
 notice and the opportunity to request bargaining with respect to the
 impact and manner of implementation of such Performance Standards and
 Critical Elements.
 
    A hearing was held in the captioned matter on January 28, 1981, in
 Boston, Massachusetts.  All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
 heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
 bearing on the issues involved herein.  The parties submitted post
 hearing briefs on March 21, 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 Union, the charging party herein, is the certified exclusive
 representative of all non-supervisory employees, non-professional
 General Schedule employees serviced by the Central Civilian Personnel
 Office, Hanscom Air Force Base, Bedford, Massachusetts.  Mr. Lee
 Tennyson, a Contract Negotiator GS-11, was a member of the above
 described unit.
 
    On December 28, 1978, Mr. Tennyson was issued a letter entitled
 "Decision to Withhold Within Grade Increase".  Paragraph 2 of the letter
 informed Mr. Tennyson that his within grade pay increase scheduled to be
 effective 31 December 1978, was not going to be granted because his
 performance during the period 5 January 1976 through 30 December 1978,
 did not establish that he possessed the necessary professional and
 technical knowledge to warrant the within grade increase.  The letter
 went on to point out Mr. Tennyson's deficiencies and give examples
 thereof.  Specifically, Mr. Tennyson was charged with, among other
 things, requiring more than normal supervision in the areas of (1)
 creating and maintaining good interpersonal relationships, (2)
 reflecting office policy and a positive organizational image, (3)
 working closely with others as a team member, (4) attention to details
 and close accuracy, and (5) analyzing problems and providing appropriate
 solutions.
 
    Pursuant to Mr. Tennyson's request for reconsideration, on February
 27, 1979, Mr. Tennyson was issued a memorandum, entitled
 "Redetermination of Within Grade Increase Withheld", wherein Mr.
 Tennyson was informed that his work was "still not at an acceptable
 level of competence".  In support of this decision, Mr. Dean Stewart, a
 Supervisory Control Specialist and author of the memorandum, made it
 clear that Mr. Tennyson had not overcome his deficiencies in the area of
 attention to detail and close accuracy, analyzing problems and providing
 appropriate solutions, and use of independent judgement based upon
 application of current regulations and directives.
 
    On May 17, 1979, Mr. Tennyson was sent a memorandum from Mr. Stewart
 entitled "Annual Performance Rating".  Attached to the memorandum was a
 five page document entitled "Performance Standards For GS-1102-11
 Contract Negotiator".  The document contained two columns of eight
 paragraphs each.  One column was entitled "Duties" /5/ and the other
 "Standards".  The memorandum which is self-explanatory, reads in
 pertinent part as follows:
 
          1.  During the seventeen months that I have supervised you, I
       have had to make many judgements concerning the adequacy of your
       performance as a GS-1102-11 Contract Negotiator.  With the arrival
       of the 15 May annual performance rating date, I have noticed
       slight, but little significant improvement in your performance of
       duties despite numerous counseling sessions I've held with you
       since October of 1978.  Therefore, in accordance with Federal
       Personnel Manual Chapter 430, Performance Evaluation and Rating,
       and Air Force Regulation 40-451, Performance Evaluation, I am
       providing you warning that I am considering assigning you an
       unsatisfactory performance rating.  Your annual performance rating
       will be postponed for a period of 90 calendar days from 15 May
       1979.  During the 90 day period your performance will be assessed
       according to the attached performance standards for a GS-1102-11
       Contract Negotiator position.  The standards are based upon the
       GS-11 duties of the Contract Negotiator GS-1102-12 position
       description number 0-14162-0, pertinent information provided in
       the Position Classification Standards for the GS-1102-11 series,
       and guidance contained in PK OI 11-2.
 
          2.  You may review the standards, discuss them with me and
       recommend any changes concerning their content as they apply to
       you.  Duties listed as 1 through 8 represent the critical elements
       of the position while the standards represents a performance
       requirement which is exemplary of the incumbent to satisfactorily
       complete the task.  With reference to my 28 December 1978 Decision
       to Withhold Your Within Grade Increase and subsequent 27 February
       1979 Redetermination of Within Grade Increase Withheld, I stressed
       that your weak areas were:  (a) attention to detail and close
       accuracy, (b) analyzing problems and providing appropriate
       solutions, and (c) use of independent judgement based upon
       application of current regulations and directives.  An additional
       area which I believe you should improve upon is your interpersonal
       relationship with both internal and external personnel.
 
          3.  Examples of the above mentioned areas which I consider to
       be your weaknesses were explained to you in my 27 February 1979
       letter concerning the Redetermination of Within Grade Increase
       Withheld.  With reference to the eight items mentioned in
       subparagraphs 3.a. through 3.h, items a., b. and h. illustrate
       weakness in attention to detail and close accuracy.  Close
       accuracy is an essential element in performing duties 4, 5 and 6
       of the attached document.  More recently, errors in the DD Form
       350 for P00003 to Contract . . . again illustrated this weakness.
       Secondly, items c. and e. illustrate weakness in analyzing
       problems and providing appropriate solutions, and such analysis is
       a necessary ingredient in performing duties 2., 6. and 7.  A
       further illustration is your desire to delete all Air Force
       technical requirements from proposed Contract . . . in preference
       for the technical proposal of . . . vendor.  Finally, items d.,
       f., g. and h. illustrate weaknesses in use of independence.  Using
       independent judgement based upon regulatory material and
       experience is a key element throughout the attached performance
       standards, but particularly in duties 2., 4., 5., 6. and 7.
       Again, you repeated errors in a current action that had been
       pointed out to you in previous actions.  Solicitation No. . . . is
       a case in point.  You appeared anxious to release the solicitation
       on 3 April 1979 without authority to negotiate and many other
       errors, including an entirely inappropriate type of contract.
 
                                .  .  .  .
 
          6.  The attached "Performance Standards for GS-1102-11 Contract
       Negotiator" are based on the position description and standards
       that had always been expected of you.  Nevertheless, they had
       never before been expressed to you in one written body before this
       time.  Consequently, you are being given the additional time to
       perform under written standards with my objective being to gain
       significant improvement from you.
 
    On August 14, 1979, Mr. Stewart issued a memorandum to Mr. Tennyson
 which was entitled "Notice of Proposed Removal." The memorandum noted
 that his removal was based upon his (Mr. Tennyson) failure to improve in
 "three areas, or critical elements of his position".  The memorandum
 went on to list the three critical elements as (1) attention to detail
 and close accuracy, (b) analyzing problems and providing appropriate
 solutions, and (3) use of independent judgement based upon application
 of current regulations and directives.  Examples of Mr. Tennyson's
 deficiencies in the aforementioned critical elements were also set forth
 in the memorandum.  Mr. Stewart also informed Mr. Tennyson that he would
 request Mr. Fowler, the senior contracting officer to remove Mr.
 Tennyson because of "unacceptable performance within the meaning of 5
 U.S.C.Chapter 43".  The memorandum closed with instructions concerning
 how Mr. Tennyson could appeal the proposed removal action.
 
    On August 21, 1979, Mr. Norman Downes, President of Local R1-8, sent
 a letter to Colonel Thomas O. Duff, Commander of the 3245th Air Base
 Group, Hanscom AFB, wherein he requested "negotiation of the
 'Performance Standards for GS-1102-11' imposed upon Mr. Lee Tennyson by
 letter from his Supervisor, Mr. Dean Stewart dated 17 May 1979".  On
 September 5, 1979, Colonel Duff sent a reply to Mr. Downes' letter.
 Colonel Duff's letter reads in pertinent part as follows:
 
          2.  As Mr. Dean Stewart stated in his 17 May 1979 letter to Mr.
       Tennyson concerning the Annual Performance Rating, the Performance
       Standards for the position of GS-1102-11, Contract Negotiator, are
       based on Mr. Tennyson's current position description and standards
       that had always been expected of him.  The reason for reducing the
       standards to writing was to enable Mr. Tennyson to understand the
       seriousness of his less than satisfactory performance and to show
       what was expected of him to attain a satisfactory rating in the
       future.  It is my understanding that Mr. Stewart gave Mr. Tennyson
       the opportunity to review these standards, discuss them with him
       and recommend changes concerning their content.  It is also my
       understanding that Mr. Tennyson refused to discuss these standards
       with Mr. Stewart.
 
          3.  Because there was neither a change in an existing personnel
       policy or practice nor in the working conditions of Mr. Tennyson,
       I find no requirement to negotiate with you on this matter.  I do,
       however, contemplate encouraging employee participation in
       establishing performance standards when the Air Force performance
       appraisal system is developed in accordance with Section 4302 of
       the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and implementing regulations.
        That participation will be obtained through your exclusively
       recognized union when members of your bargaining unit are
       involved.
 
    On November 2, 1979, Mr. Maurice Fowler, Assistant Deputy for
 Contracting, sent a memorandum to Mr. Tennyson entitled "Notice of
 Decision".  The memorandum informed Mr. Tennyson that it was Mr.
 Fowler's decision that he, Mr. Tennyson, "be removed from his position
 of Contract Negotiator GS-1102-11 and separated from the Federal Service
 effective November 9, 1979".  In support of his decision to separate Mr.
 Tennyson, Mr. Fowler pointed out, among other things, that Mr. Tennyson
 had failed to meet the "critical elements" and "sub-elements" of the
 "performance standards" for his job.  Examples of Mr. Tennyson's
 deficiencies were also set forth in the memorandum.  Additionally, with
 respect to the "legality of the performance standards", Mr. Fowler found
 that the "procedures mandated by 5 U.S.C. 4303 had been followed".
 
    According to Mr. Stewart, who was the author of the May 17, 1979,
 memorandum in which "critical elements" and "performance standards" were
 first mentioned, he wrote the memorandum pursuant to Air Force
 Regulation 40-451 which requires in Section F that the supervisor must
 advise the employee of his short comings in detail.  Mr. Stewart further
 testified that attention to detail and close accuracy was always a
 standard of performance, albeit not written.  When questioned with
 respect to the significance of the words "critical elements" and
 "production standards", Mr. Stewart made it clear that the wording and
 the format of the May 17, 1979, memorandum was the product of the
 personnel department and that prior to the issuance of the memorandum he
 had never heard of the phrase "critical elements".
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    Inasmuch as the Federal Labor Relations Authority has concluded that
 the impact on adversely affected employees occasioned by, and the manner
 of implementation of, performance standards and critical elements
 established pursuant to Section 4302 of the Civil Service Reform Act, 5
 U.S.C. 4302, are negotiable items, /6/ the sole question to be decided
 herein is whether the May 17, 1979, memorandum to Mr. Tennyson did in
 fact establish for the first time performance standards and critical
 elements for the position of Contract Negotiator GS-11.
 
    Respondent takes the position that it did not create new performance
 standards and critical elements on May 17, 1979.  According to
 Respondent, such elements as "close accuracy and attention to detail"
 were always performance requirements and the mere fact that they were
 designated "critical elements" in the May 17, 1979, memorandum did not
 establish any new criterion for job performance.  Further, according to
 Respondent, the May 17, 1979, memorandum to Mr. Tennyson was an attempt
 to comply with the existing Air Force Regulations concerning adverse
 actions and not Sections 4302 and 4303 of the Civil Service Reform Act
 which deal with the establishment of performance standards, critical
 elements, and adverse actions thereunder.
 
    Contrary to the contention of the Respondent, I find that the record
 as a whole supports the conclusion that the attachment to the May 17,
 1979, memorandum did in fact create and/or establish performance
 standards and critical elements for the position of Contract Negotiator
 GS-11.  In reaching this conclusion I note the testimony of Mr. Stewart
 that there had never been any written performance standards for the
 position of Contract Negotiator GS-11, the fact that the August 14,
 1979, memorandum entitled "Notice of Proposed Removal" states that Mr.
 Tennyson was being removed because of "unacceptable performance within
 the meaning of 5 U.S.C.Chapter 43" of the Civil Service Reform Act which
 deals with the establishment of performance standards, critical
 elements, and adverse actions thereunder, and the fact that phrases or
 terms such as critical elements and performance standards had never been
 used in prior discussions between Mr. Stewart and Mr. Tennyson.  In fact
 Mr. Stewart testified that the first time he heard or was aware of the
 expression "critical elements" was when his written draft concerning Mr.
 Tennyson's appraisal was returned from the personnel department.
 
    While I do not doubt that Mr. Stewart was attempting to comply with
 the Air Force Regulations concerning adverse actions when he committed
 his annual performance rating of Mr. Tennyson to writing and sent same
 to the personnel department for approval, the fact remains that the
 personnel department, intentionally or otherwise, attempted to kill two
 birds with one stone, i.e. comply with both the Air Force Regulations
 and Section 4303 of the Civil Service Reform Act.  In doing the latter,
 the personnel department which, of course, is an agent of the
 Respondent, violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Labor
 Relations Statute since it established performance standards and
 critical elements for the position of Contract Negotiator GS-11 without
 first giving the Union prior notice of its decision and the opportunity
 to bargain over the impact of such decision on adversely affected
 employees and the manner of implementation.  /7/
 
    Accordingly, I shall 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 Department of the
 Air Force, Air Force Systems Command, Electronic Systems Division and
 3245th Air Base Group, Hanscom Air Force Base, Bedford, Massachusetts,
 shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Instituting Performance Standards and Critical Elements for
       the position of Contract Negotiator GS-11 without first notifying
       the National Association of Government Employees, Local R1-8, 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 Performance Standards and Critical Elements.
 
          (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) Cease applying the Performance Standards and Critical
       Elements for the position of Contract Negotiator GS-11 until such
       time as the National Association of Government Employees, Local
       R1-8 has been given adequate notice thereof and the opportunity to
       consult and negotiate thereon, to the extent consonant with law
       and regulations, concerning the impact and implementation of the
       Performance Standards and Critical Elements for the position of
       Contract Negotiator GS-11.
 
          (b) Accord Mr. Lee Tennyson all appeal rights that may have
       existed under the Air Force or Civil Service regulations on
       November 9, 1979, irrespective of any time restrictions which may
       have been included in such regulations.
 
          (c) Post at its Hanscom Air Force Base, Bedford, Massachusetts,
       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 Commander of the 3245th
       Air Base Group and they shall be posted for 60 consecutive days
       thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
       notices to employees are customarily posted.  The Commander 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 23, 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 Performance Standards and Critical Elements for
 the position of Contract Negotiator GS-11 without first notifying the
 National Association of Government Employees, Local R1-8, 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 on adversely affected employees and the manner of
 implementation of such Performance Standards and Critical Elements.
 
    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-Management Statute.
 
    WE WILL cease applying any Performance Standards and Critical
 Elements for the position of Contract Negotiator GS-11 until such times
 as the National Association of Government Employees, Local R1-8 has been
 given adequate notice thereof and the opportunity to consult and
 negotiate thereon, to the extent consonant with law and regulations,
 concerning the impact on adversely affected employees and the manner of
 implementation of such Performance Standards and Critical Elements.
 
    WE WILL accord Mr. Lee Tennyson all appeal rights that may have
 existed under the applicable Air Force or Civil Service regulations on
 November 9, 1979, irrespective of any time restrictions which may have
 been included in such regulations.
                                       (Agency or Activity)
 
 Dated:  . . .  By:  (Signature)
 
    This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
 of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
 material.
 
    If employees have any question concerning this Notice or compliance
 with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional
 Director for the Federal Labor Relations Authority whose address is:
 441 Stuart Street, 9th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.  Telephone
 No.: (617) 223-0920.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) provides in pertinent part:
 
          Sec. 7116.  Unfair labor practices
 
          (a) For the purpose of this chapter, it shall be an unfair
       labor practice for an agency--
 
          (1) to inte