15:0026(7)CA - Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Navy and IFPTE Local 3; Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Navy and Philadelphia MTC -- 1984 FLRAdec CA



[ v15 p26 ]
15:0026(7)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 15 FLRA No. 7
 
 PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS,
 LOCAL 3
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 2-CA-720
 
 PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 2-CA-715
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
 above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
 engaged in certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint,
 /1A/ and recommending that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom
 and take certain affirmative action. The General Counsel filed
 exceptions to the Judge's recommended Order.
 
    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 recommended Order.
 
    The Judge found that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and
 (5) of the Statute when it instituted a new "Magistrate System,"
 described more fully in his Decision, without bargaining over the impact
 and implementation of the new system.  The Authority agrees, for the
 reasons stated by the Judge.
 
    To remedy the violation, the Judge ordered the Respondent to cease
 and desist from the unfair labor practices found, give the exclusive
 representative notice and an opportunity to bargain concerning the
 impact and implementation of the new system, and post the customary
 notice to its employees.  The Judge concluded that neither a status quo
 ante remedy nor a make-whole order was appropriate in the circumstances.
  While the Authority has determined that in some cases a status quo ante
 remedy may be warranted for a refusal to negotiate over impact and
 implementation, Federal Correctional Institution, 8 FLRA No. 111 (1982)
 (issued after the Judge's Decision herein), the Authority agrees with
 the conclusion of the Judge that such remedy is not appropriate herein.
 Thus, applying the standards of Federal Correctional Institution, the
 nature and circumstances of the unfair labor practice must be balanced
 against the disruption to government operations which would be caused by
 directing a return to the status quo ante.  It is noted that the
 decision to institute the magistrate system over which the Union sought
 impact and implementation bargaining emanated from higher levels of
 management and affected 35 tenant activities at the Philadelphia Naval
 Base, in addition to the Respondent Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.  Thus,
 a requirement to reinstitute the prior system as to the Shipyard, as
 sought by the General Counsel and rejected by the Judge, clearly would
 prevent uniform traffic administration at the Base.  The alternative of
 reinstating the prior system on the entire base pending impact
 bargaining would be inappropriate because it would have an effect on the
 35 other tenant activities at the Base and hence would extend far beyond
 the operations of the Respondent which committed the unfair labor
 practice.  On the other hand, the record does not suggest great
 inconvenience or hardship to adversely affected employees as a result of
 the unilateral implementation of the system.  Moreover, the record
 suggests that the Respondent's failure to negotiate over the impact and
 implementation of the new system, while violative of the Statute, may
 have resulted at least in part from confusion rather than willfulness.
 
    In view of the foregoing, the Authority concludes that a prospective
 bargaining order, giving the employees' exclusive representative an
 opportunity to present proposals concerning the impact and
 implementation of the decision to institute the magistrate system, will
 fully remedy the violation in this case and will effectuate the purposes
 and policies of the Statute.
 
    Finally, in adopting that portion of the Judge's Decision denying
 reimbursement to employees adversely affected by the new procedure, it
 is noted that there has been no showing that any losses suffered were
 related to the Respondent's refusal to bargain since another system for
 regulating offenses was in place prior to implementation of the new
 system and there is no evidence to suggest that losses through fines
 under the magistrate system would not have occurred under the system
 which existed previously.  Accordingly, a make-whole remedy is not
 appropriate.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the
 Authority hereby orders that the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Department
 of the Navy, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Instituting changes in the method of handling traffic and
 non-traffic offenses at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, without first
 affording the International Federation of Professional and Technical
 Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia Metal Trades Council, the exclusive
 bargaining representatives of employees in their respective bargaining
 units, an opportunity to bargain concerning the procedures to be
 observed in implementing such changes and appropriate arrangements for
 employees adversely affected thereby.
 
    (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:
 
    (a) Upon request, bargain with the International Federation of
 Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia Metal
 Trades Council concerning the procedures to be observed in instituting
 changes in the method of handling traffic and non-traffic offenses and
 appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected thereby.
 
    (b) Post at its facility at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard 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
 Shipyard Commander, or his designee, and shall be posted 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 such
 Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
    (c) Notify the Regional Director of Region II, 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 6, 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 changes in the method of handling traffic and
 non-traffic offenses at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard without first
 affording the International Federation of Professional and Technical
 Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia Metal Trades Council, the exclusive
 representatives of our employees, an opportunity to bargain concerning
 the procedures to be observed in implementing such changes and
 appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected thereby.  WE
 WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
 coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.  WE WILL, upon request,
 bargain with the International Federation of Professional and Technical
 Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia Metal Trades Council concerning the
 procedures to be observed in instituting changes in the method of
 handling traffic and non-traffic offenses, and appropriate arrangements
 for employees adversely affected thereby.
                                       (Activity)
                                       By:  (Signature) (Title)
 
    Dated:  . . .
 
    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 II, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address
 is:  26 Federal Plaza, Room 241, New York, New York 10278 and whose
 telephone number is:  (212) 264-4934.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Joseph J. Dallas,
    Jerry Snyder, Esq.
    For the Respondent
 
    Lee Mingledorff, Esq.
    Nina Schwartz, Esq.
    For the General Counsel
 
    Before:  WILLIAM NAIMARK
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This proceeding arises under the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. (herein called the Act).  On
 December 22, 1980 a charge was filed in Case No. 2-CA-720 by
 International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local
 3 (herein called IFPTE) against Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Department
 of the Navy (herein called Respondent).  On December 18, 1980 a charge
 was filed in Case No. 2-CA-715 by Philadelphia Metal Trades Council
 (herein called PMTC) against the aforesaid Respondent.
 
    Pursuant to an Order Consolidating Cases, /1/ Complaint and Notice of
 Hearing issued on February 27, 1981 by the Regional Director for the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority, New York, N.Y. Region, a hearing was
 held before the undersigned on May 20, 1981 at Philadelphia, PA.
 
    Based upon the aforesaid charges it was alleged in the Consolidated
 Complaint that Respondent, on December 15, 1980, implemented a change to
 a U.S. Magistrate System in respect to traffic and parking violations;
 that Respondent implemented such change without affording IFPTE or PMTC
 an opportunity to negotiate the procedures, implementation and impact of
 such system, that Respondent, in fact, did refuse to negotiate thereon
 despite a request by said unions to do so-- all in violation of Sections
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
 
    Respondent's answer, dated March 19, 1981, denied the aforesaid
 allegations and that it committed any unfair labor practices.
 
    All parties were represented at the hearing.  Each was afforded full
 opportunity to be heard, to adduce evidence, and to examine as well as
 cross-examine witnesses.  Thereafter General Counsel filed a brief with
 the undersigned which has been duly considered.
 
    Upon the entire record herein, from my observation of the witnesses
 and their demeanor, and from all of the testimony and evidence adduced
 at the hearing, I make the following findings, conclusions and
 recommendations:
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    1.  At all times material herein IFPTE has been, and still is, the
 exclusive bargaining representative of all non-supervisory technical and
 professional employees in Respondent's Planning Department (Codes 240
 thru 270, and Code 202), Production Engineering Division (Code 385);
 upgraded non-supervisory personnel, Reproduction Branch, Planning
 Department (Code 202);  non-supervisory graded technical employee of the
 Combat Systems Office (Code 190).
 
    2.  At all times material herein PMTC has been, and still is, the
 exclusive bargaining representative of all non-supervisory ungraded
 employees who are employed by Respondent, excluding ungraded employees
 in units where exclusive recognition has been granted to other labor
 organizations.
 
    3.  Approximately 30,000 employees are engaged at the Naval Base in
 Philadelphia, PA.  Of this amount, about 10,600 individuals are employed
 by the Respondent, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, which is a tenant
 activity.  There are about 35 other activities occupying a similar
 status.  Respondent recognizes and negotiates with six labor
 organizations as the exclusive representatives of various unit employee.
  Bargaining does not take place by the unions with the Naval Base, and
 all requests to bargain must be made to the appropriate command of the
 particular activity.
 
    4.  Various operations at Respondent which involve police actions,
 fire maintenance, mail, et al, are under the employer's administrative
 department.  The police division handles the parking traffic program at
 the Shipyard and the Naval Base.  This is in accord with the delegation
 by the Commander of the Naval Base of responsibility for administering
 and enforcing traffic regulations to the Commander of the Naval
 Shipyard.
 
    5.  In August 1980, /2/ management held a meeting with the various
 union representatives to discuss a proposed new parking system.  As an
 ancillary matter, Commander Moyers informed the union officials that a
 Magistrate System was planned.  However, no details were imparted to
 those in attendance, nor did the union representatives request
 negotiations thereon at that time.
 
    6.  As called by Richard R. Britt, Head of Labor Relations for
 Respondent, a meeting was held by management with union officials on
 November 12 to inform the latter of the new Magistrate System.  Britt
 explained it would cover traffic-type offenses.  However, he did not
 list which offenses would constitute violations nor indicate the
 correlative penalties or fines.  Management was unable to inform the
 union agents the exact date when the new system would be implemented.
 Several matters, in connection therewith, were raised by the union
 representatives.  A question was posed as to whether employees, who are
 required to appear in court, would be charged for annual leave.
 Further, it was posed as to whether "double jeopardy" would prevail if
 an employee received a fine in court and was also disciplined at the
 base.  Several union officials stated to Britt that they desired to
 negotiate these matters as well as the implementation of the Magistrate
 System.  /3/ Britt testified that he told the union representatives
 that, in his opinion, the Magistrate System was non-negotiable since it
 was beyond his control as it was imposed upon Respondent by the
 ComnavBase;  that the Admiral was telling the Shipyard it would have
 such a system.
 
    7.  During the week following the aforesaid meeting Frank McHale,
 representative of PMTC, spoke to Britt re the negotiability of the
 Magistrate Court System.  McHale asked the management official if he
 intended to negotiate any proposals and Britt replied it was
 non-negotiable.
 
    8.  Under date of November 18 the ComnavBase sent out a TWX advising
 all "Navacts" that commencing December 15 all traffic (including
 parking) violations on the base would be referred to Federal
 Magistrate's Court for disposition;  that non traffic offenses committed
 by civilians and retired military personnel would also be similarly
 referred to said Court.
 
    9.  A letter dated December 3 was sent from James McGinley,
 President, Local F-61 IAFF, to Rear Admiral C. A. Brettschneider
 requesting negotiation re the impact and implementation of the proposed
 Magistrate System.
 
    10.  It was announced in the December 7 issue of the Beacon /4/ that
 "in accordance with Department of Defense instructions, the Philadelphia
 Naval Base will begin a Federal Magistrate Program beginning on December
 15."
 
    11.  In the December 12 issue of the Beacon it was specified, for the
 first time, which acts by employees (traffic and non-traffic) were
 deemed offenses and would require the appearance of the offender in
 Federal Court.  Alongside of each such offense was listed the
 correlative fine to be imposed therefor.
 
    12.  Prior to the imposition of this system the union represented
 employees at the police station for traffic infractions.  Individuals
 charged with such acts might have their parking sticker revoked, but
 fines were not levied.  Under the Magistrate System both penalties could
 result.  Non-traffic offenses were handled via the grievance procedures,
 and employees who were such offenders might have union representation.
 Penalties in these instances could involve reprimands, warnings,
 suspension, or removal.  Under the Magistrate System /5/ an individual
 might be subject to such punishments and be fined by the Court.
 Representation by the union in the latter tribunal was no longer
 feasible, and fines imposed by the Magistrate were not grievable.
 
    13.  Record facts reflect that on December 12, during contract
 negotiations between the unions and management, Michael Ricci,
 corresponding secretary of PMTC, asked Britt to negotiate the impact and
 implementation of the Magistrate System.  Further, Respondent's labor
 relations specialist replied that the matter was not negotiable.
 
    14.  The Magistrate Court System was put into effect on December 15,
 and no negotiation took place between the parties with respect to its
 impact or implementation.
 
    15.  By memo dated December 16 the ComnavBase referred McGinley's
 letter of December 3 (requesting negotiation of the Magistrate System)
 to the Commander of the Shipyard for appropriate action.
 
    16.  Under date of December 23 Britt returned McGinley's letter to
 him, stating it was erroneously forwarded to the Shipyard for action.
 
    17.  In a letter dated January 5, 1981 Joseph J. Dallas, Senior Labor
 Relations Advisor for Department of the Navy, wrote McGinley re his
 request of December 3 to negotiate "the implementation and impact of the
 Federal Magistrate Court Program on conditions of employees in your
 bargaining unit." Dallas stated that the "employer" for the unit
 employees is the Commander, Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia;  that,
 therefore, the Commander, Naval Base Philadelphia has no obligation to
 bargain re the Magistrate Programs;  that if the Shipyard Commander
 chooses to issue implementing instructions, his representative will
 afford an opportunity to bargain on impact and implementation.
 
                                Conclusions
 
    While conceding it may have an obligation to bargain over the impact
 and implementation of the Magistrate System, Respondent insists it did
 not flout its duty in this regard.  Thus, it contends that no request
 was made to negotiate the system's impact or implementation;  that
 assuming arguendo such a request was made, it was not in writing and
 therefore the employer should not be faulted for failing to so
 negotiate.
 
    It is clear that although certain decisions in respect to operations,
 or the change thereof, are reserved for management, it is incumbent upon
 the latter to negotiate with the bargaining representative as to their
 impact and implementation.  Federal Railroad Administration, 4 A/SLMR
 No. 497.  This principle is well established in the public sector, and
 it is qualified in the main only to the extent that the impact is
 significant to warrant fulfilling such obligation.  Thus, an employer is
 required to notify the representative, before it effects any change in
 operation, and afford the union an opportunity to bargain concerning the
 implementation thereof.  Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C., 4
 FLRA No. 68.
 
    In respect to the change instituted by Respondent herein concerning
 the Magistrate System, it is noted that the Authority has had occasion
 to consider a case wherein an employer adopted such a system with
 respect to traffic and parking violation.  It was held in Department of
 the Air Force, Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, 2 FLRA No. 2 that
 while the decision to institute such a procedure was reserved to
 management, the latter was obliged to bargain over its impact and
 implementation.  Since, in the cited case, the employer had not afforded
 the bargaining representative an opportunity to negotiate the Magistrate
 System's impact and implementation, it was concluded that management had
 failed to bargain as required under the Order.  /6/
 
    The chief contention of the Respondent herein is that no request was
 made to bargain over the impact and implementation of the Magistrate
 System at the Shipyard.  The facts herein belie this argument.  Union
 witnesses testified credibly that, at the November 12 meeting with
 management, they requested of Britt that the impact and implementation
 of the new system be negotiated.  Britt's testimony reflecting he deemed
 the Magistrate procedure to be non-negotiable leaves little room for an
 inference that he was referring solely to the decision to institute the
 new system.  This is buttressed by the conversation a week later between
 PMTC representative McHale and Britt regarding the matter.  When asked
 by the union official whether he intended to negotiate any proposals,
 Britt replied the matter was non-negotiable.
 
    Respondent's insistence that it would have negotiated the change if
 it had received a request to do so is not persuasive.  Thus, no
 affirmative response was made by the Shipyard to union agent McGinley's
 written request of December 12, 1980 to negotiate the impact and
 implementation of the Magistrate Program.  The employer had a clear
 opportunity to comply with its obligation in this regard, and the
 request to bargain was explicit and in writing.  Its failure to do so
 comports with the conclusion, which I reach, that Britt's statement in
 which he declared the Magistrate System non-negotiable was referable to
 impact and implementation as well as the decision itself.  The entire
 thrust of Britt's declarations re the new Court System was to the effect
 that no negotiations were, in fact, in order;  that no duty was imposed
 upon Respondent to bargain at all.  Neither do I conclude that IFPTE or
 PMTC - the charging parties - were obliged to make a written request to
 negotiate as opposed to an oral one.  No cases have been cited to the
 undersigned which would support such a conclusion.  Moreover, past
 decisions reflect that the bargaining agents have satisfied their
 obligation to demand bargaining re impact and implementation by means of
 a verbal request in this regard.  Department of Health, Education and
 Welfare, SSA, BRSI, Northeastern Service Center, 8 A/SLMR 894.
 
    Accordingly, and on the basis of the foregoing I am constrained to
 conclude that a request was made to bargain re the impact and
 implementation of the Magistrate System with the bargaining
 representations of the employees in the appropriate units herein;  that
 Respondent refused and failed to negotiate thereon;  and that by such
 refusal it has violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
 
    General Counsel seeks a remedy, inter alia, which restores the status
 quo in respect to the traffic and non-traffic violations occurring at
 the Shipyard.  He requests that (1) the Respondent be directed to
 rescind the implementation of the Magistrate System as it applies to
 employees represented by IFPTE and PMTC;  (2) Respondent make whole
 employees within such units who were adversely affected by reason of
 such implementation.
 
    (1) While it has been held proper to grant a status quo remedy where
 impact and implementation bargaining is ordered, /7/ I do not deem such
 remedy is appropriate in the case at bar.  The regulation herein
 emanated from higher level management, Department of Defense via the
 naval base, and it was made applicable to over 30 other tenants or
 activities stationed at the base.  As such, the Magistrate System was
 imposed over the Shipyard by a higher level, and thus Respondent had no
 control over its imposition.  Since neither the Department of Defense
 nor the Naval Base is a party Respondent, no jurisdiction vests herein
 which warrants or justifies ordering either entity to rescind the System
 implemented at the Shipyard.  Moreover, Respondent is in no position to
 revoke the procedure by virtue of the fact that it has merely followed
 directions from higher level management.  See decision of Judge
 Salvatore J. Arrigo in 1-CA-206 et seq., OALJ-81-023 where, in the
 "parking cases", a status quo ante remedy was denied as unwarranted.
 /8/ Also, see and compare General Services Administration, 6 FLRA No.
 77.
 
    (2) Nor do I conclude that it is proper to order Respondent to make
 whole employees adversely affected by the new procedure.  While a
 bargaining order re impact and implementation is warranted, I do not
 view a make whole remedy as appropriate under the circumstances.  Apart
 from the fact that fines are paid into the Court, and beyond the control
 of the Shipyard, such a remedy is seemingly not justified where the
 decision re the System was not made by the Respondent.  Thus, I find the
 case of Department of Transportation et al, 8 FLRA 674 to be
 distinguishable from the facts herein.  In the cited case the order ran
 against the higher level management, which was the Respondent therein,
 and that entity was ordered to direct the subordinate activity (Dulles
 International Airport) to make whole employees adversely affected by
 parking permit fees which were exacted.  But in the instant case the
 decision was not made by the Shipyard.  Since the higher levels were not
 party Respondent, I cannot order them to make such direction.
 Accordingly, I shall not fashion a remedy which reimburses adversely
 affected employees as requested by the General Counsel.  /9/
 
    Having concluded that Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5)
 of the Act, it is recommended the Federal Labor Relations Authority
 issue the following order:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and Section 7118 of the Statute, the
 Authority hereby orders that the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Instituting a "Magistrate System" as the method of handling
       traffic and non-traffic offenses at the Philadelphia Naval
       Shipyard, without first affording the International Federation of
       Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia
       Metal Trades Council, the exclusive bargaining representatives of
       employees in their particular appropriate units a reasonable
       opportunity to bargain, to the extent consonant with law and
       regulations, on the procedures to be observed in implementing such
       System and the impact of the System on adversely affected
       employees.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
       assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative actions:
 
          (a) Upon request by the International Federation of
       Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia
       Metal Trades Council, bargain, to the extent consonant with law
       and regulations, concerning the procedure to be observed in
       instituting a Magistrate System as the method of handling traffic
       and non-traffic offenses, and on the impact such System will have
       on adversely affected employees.
 
          (b) Post at its facility at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard 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 Shipyard Commander, and shall be
       posted thereafter in conspicuous places, including bulletin boards
       and other places where notices to employees are customarily
       posted.  The Shipyard Commander shall take reasonable steps to
       insure that such 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.
                                       WILLIAM NAIMARK
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  September 9, 1981
 
    Washington, DC
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
  PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
 OF TITLE
 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT institute a "Magistrate System" as the method of handling
 traffic and non-traffic offenses at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard without
 first affording the International Federation of Professional and
 Technical Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia Metal Trades Council, a
 reasonable opportunity to bargain, to the extent consonant with law and
 regulations, on the procedures to be observed in implementing such
 System and the impact on adversely affected employees.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL upon request, bargain with International Federation of
 Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 3, and Philadelphia Metal
 Trades Council, to the extent consonant with law and regulations,
 concerning the procedures to be observed in instituting a "Magistrate
 System" as the method of handling traffic and non-traffic offenses, and
 on the impact of such System on adversely affected employees.
                                       Agency or Activity
                                       By:  (Signature)
 
    Dated:  . . .
 
    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 II for the Federal Labor Relations Authority whose
 address is:  Room 241, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278;  and
 telephone number is (212) 264-3934.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
    /1A/ At the hearing, upon a motion by the General Counsel with no
 objection from the Respondent, the Judge severed Case Nos. 2-CA-679 and
 2-CA-855 from this proceeding.
 
 
    /1/ Both 2-CA-270 and 2-CA-715 were consolidated with cases 2-CA-679
 and 2-CA-855 by an order dated May 12, 1981.  Subsequent thereto, and
 prior to the hearing, both 2-CA-679 and 855 were settled.  A motion by
 the General Counsel at the hearing to sever 2-CA-679 and 2-CA-855 from
 this proceeding was granted by the undersigned.
 
 
    /2/ Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter mentioned occur
 in 1980.
 
 
    /3/ While Britt denies that any specific requests were made to so
 negotiate, I credit the contrary testimony adduced from union officials
 William Rheil, Howard J. Landry, and George Wilent.
 
 
    /4/ A publication issued weekly by the Shipyard and sent to all its
 employees.
 
 
    /5/ The system is under the Federal District Court's jurisdiction.
 The Magistrate is an official of the Court, and fines collected are
 deposited with U.S. Treasury.
 
 
    /6/ The obligation imposed upon an employer in the public sector to
 negotiate or bargain with the bargaining representative under Executive
 Order 11491, as amended, is continued under the Act herein.
 
 
    /7/ San Antonio Air Logis