16:0232(33)CA - HHS, SSA and AFGE Local 1395 -- 1984 FLRAdec CA



[ v16 p232 ]
16:0232(33)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 16 FLRA No. 33
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1395, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 5-CA-20141
 
                            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 cease and desist therefrom and take certain
 affirmative action.  The Judge further found that the Respondent had not
 engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended
 dismissal of the complaint with respect to them.  Thereafter, the
 Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's Decision and the General
 Counsel filed cross-exceptions and an opposition to the Respondent's
 exceptions.  /1/
 
    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, and noting particularly that no
 exceptions were filed with respect to the Judge's dismissal of the
 allegations concerning the November 2, 1981 meeting, the Authority
 hereby adopts the Judge's findings, conclusions and Recommended Order.
 /2/ With respect to the "orientation session" held on September 8, 1981,
 the Judge concluded that inasmuch as the format of that meeting was so
 similar to the "orientation sessions" held to be formal discussions
 within the meaning of section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute in Department
 of Health, Education and Welfare, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia and
 Department of Health and Human Services, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia, 5
 FLRA 458 (1981), that it was unnecessary for him to respond to
 Respondent's contention that the meeting did not constitute a
 "discussion" within the meaning of section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute.
  In this regard, the Respondent contended that the meeting in question
 was not a "discussion" because it was limited to a presentation by
 Respondent's agent in which no debate or argument with employees was
 involved.  However, the Authority addressed a similar contention, and
 found it to be without merit, in Department of Defense, National Guard
 Bureau, Texas Adjutant General's Department, 149th TAC Fighter Group
 (ANG) (TAC), Kelly Air Force Base, 15 FLRA No. 111 (1984).  The
 Authority concluded in this regard that the absence of actual dialogue
 may not be relied upon to justify a failure to have given the exclusive
 representative an opportunity to be present at a formal discussion,
 concerning grievances, personnel policies or practices or other general
 conditions of employees.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Statute, the Authority hereby orders that the
 Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration,
 shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Failing or refusing to give the American Federation of Government
 Employees, Local 1395, AFL-CIO, the employee's exclusive representative,
 an opportunity to be represented at formal discussions, such as the
 orientation session held September 8, 1981, with bargaining unit
 employees at which personnel policies or practices or other general
 conditions of employment are discussed.
 
    (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing its employees in the exercise of rights assured by the Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
    (a) Give the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1395,
 AFL-CIO, the employees' exclusive representative, the opportunity to be
 represented at formal discussions, including orientation sessions for
 new employees in the bargaining unit, at which personnel policies or
 practices or other general conditions of employment are discussed.
 
    (b) Post at its facilities located at 6349 South Cottage Grove,
 Chicago, Illinois, 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 District Manager, or his
 designee, and 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.
 
    (c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region V, 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., October 19, 1984.
 
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, 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 fail or refuse to give the American Federation of
 Government Employees, Local 1395, AFL-CIO, our employees' exclusive
 representative, the opportunity to be represented at formal discussions,
 such as the orientation session held September 8, 1981, with bargaining
 unit employees at which personnel policies or practices or other general
 conditions of employment are discussed.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights assured by the
 Statute.
 
    WE WILL give the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 1395, AFL-CIO, our employees' exclusive representative, the opportunity
 to be represented at formal discussions, including orientation sessions
 for new employees in the bargaining unit, at which personnel policies or
 practices or other general conditions of employment are discussed.
                                       (District Manager)
 
    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 V, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is:
  Suite 1359-A, 175 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and
 whose telephone number is:  (312) 353-6306.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
    SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY
    ADMINISTRATION
                                Respondent
 
    and
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
    EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1395, AFL-CIO
                              Charging Party
 
                                       Case No.: 5-CA-20141
    Mr. Wilson G. Schuerholz
    For the Respondent
 
    Ms. Mary McManus
    For the Charging Party
 
    Judith Ramey, Esquire
    For the General Counsel
 
    Before:  GARVIN LEE OLIVER
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This decision concerns an unfair labor practice complaint issued by
 the Regional Director, Region Five, Federal Labor Relations Authority,
 Chicago, Illinois against the Department of Health and Human Services,
 Social Security Administration (Respondent), based on a charge filed by
 the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1395, AFL-CIO
 (Charging Party or Union).  The amended complaint alleged, in substance,
 that Respondent violated sections 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et
 seq. (the Statute), by conducting orientation meetings with employees on
 September 8, 1981 and November 2, 1981 at which personnel policies,
 practices, and other general conditions of employment were discussed
 without complying with section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute and in
 bypassing the Union.  Respondent denied any violation of the Statute.
 
    A hearing was held in this matter in Chicago, Illinois.  The
 Respondent, Charging Party and the General Counsel were represented and
 afforded full opportunity to be heard, adduce relevant evidence, examine
 and cross-examine witnesses, and file post-hearing briefs.  Based on the
 entire record herein, /3/ including my observation of the witnesses and
 their demeanor, the exhibits, other relevant evidence adduced at the
 hearing, and the briefs, I make the following findings of fact,
 conclusions of law, and recommendations.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    Employees of the Social Security Administration at its District
 Office at 6349 South Cottage Grove, Chicago, Illinois (herein referred
 to as the Cottage Grove office or as the Activity) are part of a
 consolidated unit represented by the American Federation of Government
 Employees (AFGE).  Local 1395 has acted as AFGE's representative on its
 behalf, with respect to those employees, at all times material to this
 case.  Mary McManus, a claims representative at the Activity since 1962,
 has served as steward for Local 1395 since 1974.  Ms. McManus is the
 primary labor-management contact for the Cottage Grove office.
 
    During 1981, a number of new and/or rehired employees came into the
 Cottage Grove office to begin work.  New employees were introduced to
 other employees, in 1981, either in staff meetings or in desk-to-desk
 introductions.  The Union was not given, in 1981, notice that new
 employees were to begin work, nor was it given notice that any
 orientation meetings were to be held.  The Union was not afforded an
 opportunity to be represented in any of these meetings nor was the Union
 steward present at any of them.
 
    The September 8, 1981 Meeting
 
    September 8, 1981 was the first day for a number of new employees at
 the Cottage Grove office.  The group numbered approximately six, an
 unusually large number for this office.  At an early morning staff
 meeting, District Manager Robert Hall asked the new employees to stand
 as he introduced them to the other employees.  Following the staff
 meeting, Mr. Hall asked the new employees to go to the office's only
 conference, or training, room where the orientation session took place.
 
    District Manager Hall and Assistant District Manager Addison Kennon
 made brief speeches.  Mr. Hall gave his standard greeting speech.  He
 welcomed the new employees and explained the hierarchy of the office.
 He advised them that there was a Union, Local 1395;  that they would be
 introduced to the Union steward, Mary McManus, later;  and that
 management was neutral in terms of whether or not employees joined or
 did not join the Union.  Mr. Hall also informed the new employees of the
 existence of a sunshine club, operated by employees for the purpose of
 collecting money for special occasion gifts, etc., which they could also
 choose whether or not to join.  The manager and assistant manager left
 after five or ten minutes.
 
    Barbara Sims, operations officer for the Activity, then conducted the
 rest of the meeting.  The Cottage Grove office has no personnel or labor
 relations specialist assigned to the office.  Ms. Sims is responsible
 for all program activities, including administrative and management
 support for these areas.  She supervises seven supervisors, who in turn
 supervise approximately 80 employees.  Ms. Sims conducts 8 to 12
 orientation sessions a year.  She regards the purpose of these sessions
 as being to familiarize new employees with the office operations and
 provide them information regarding procedures and policies which they
 will need to know.  Ms. Sims does not follow an agenda.  She does not
 cover the various items in any particular order, but, by memory, covers
 the same items with each group.
 
    Ms. Sims first distributed orientation packets prepared for each
 employee by the regional personnel office.  /4/ The packets varied
 somewhat depending on the type of appointment of the employee, such as
 temporary or career.  Generally, the packets contained the same basic
 information including pamphlets on working for the Federal government
 and the Social Security Administration, retirement, life insurance, and
 health insurance.  The packets also contained personnel forms to be
 filled out by the employees, such as the oath of office and certificate
 against striking, insurance forms, and tax withholding forms.
 
    Ms. Sims administered the oath of office, and the employees proceeded
 to fill out the forms.  She was available to explain and answer
 questions on the forms, although the record does not show that any
 particular questions were asked concerning the forms.
 
    After going through the orientation packets, and emphasizing the time
 limit on selecting insurance coverage, Ms. Sims explained the working
 hours, breaks, and leave procedure.  Ms. Sims also explained the
 necessity for reporting to work on time and the number to call in the
 event of tardiness, sick leave, or other emergency.  She advised the
 employees about the restrictions on giving or receiving gifts and the
 necessity for permission in order to engage in outside work.  She told
 them about lunch places in the area and the agenda they would have for
 their job training.  Ms. Sims was available to answer questions
 concerning these items.  However, the only question discovered by the
 record dealt with when the employees would receive their first pay
 checks.
 
    The tone of the meeting was relaxed.  No controversies arose.  No
 notes were taken.  The September 8, 1981 meeting lasted one hour and a
 half.
 
    The November 2, 1981 Meeting
 
    On November 2, 1981 two employees, Almira Eagles and Denise Clinton,
 reported for work at the Cottage Grove district office.  Eagles had once
 worked in the office for three years and was being reinstated as a
 claims development clerk after a two-year absence.  Clinton was
 reporting for duty at Cottage Grove after having worked at another
 office.  The two were welcomed by Assistant Manager Kennon, in his
 office, and then were taken to Ms. Sims' office by Ms. Sims.
 
    Ms. Sims introduced herself as the operations officer and welcomed
 the two employees.  The meeting was friendly and casual.  Ms. Eagles
 asked Mr. Sims whether the dress code had changed.  The record does not
 reflect Ms. Sims' reply.  Ms. Sims brought up leave usage.  She stated
 that the office really didn't have a problem;  that leave was the
 employee's to use, but should be requested as far in advance as
 possible.  Ms. Eagles and Ms. Sims then discussed what had happened to
 some employees who had been there when Ms. Eagles left for maternity
 leave.  The meeting ended shortly thereafter.  No personnel forms were
 filled out at this time.  Ms. Eagles did not get the impression at this
 meeting that Ms. Sims was working from a piece of paper or covering
 specific items.  Ms. Sims testified that she has no recollection of this
 meeting.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    The issue presented for determination is whether Respondent violated
 sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute /5/ by holding formal
 discussions within the meaning of section 7114(a)(2)(A) /6/ on September
 8, 1981 and November 2, 1981 without providing the Union with notice and
 an opportunity to be present, and additionally by bypassing the Union
 and dealing directly with bargaining unit employees at such meetings.
 
    Since these were allegedly orientation sessions, the analysis must
 start with the existing precedent of Department of Health, Education and
 Welfare, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia and Department of Health and Human
 Services, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia, 5 FLRA No. 58 (1982) (hereinafter
 HHS, Atlanta).  In that case, the stipulated record reflected that new
 employees, including some bargaining unit employees, were required to
 attend orientation sessions on the third Wednesday of each month.  The
 orientation sessions were conducted by personnelists from the regional
 personnel office.  The format consisted of the distribution of an
 orientation packet and discussion, including questions and answers,
 between the personnelists and employees concerning the subjects covered
 by the materials in the packet as well as those set forth in an
 established agenda.  The packet and the agenda covered a range of
 material including basic information on Federal employment and the
 agency as well as various areas involving personnel policies, programs
 and general conditions of employment, such as alcoholism and drug abuse,
 equal employment opportunity, standards of conduct, training and career
 development, labor relations, and conduct and discipline.  The Authority
 found that the required mandatory attendance of new employees at the
 orientation sessions, the subject matter discussed, and the established
 agenda for such discussions were included in the circumstances which
 made the meetings formal discussions.  It was not found to matter that
 the orientation sessions were not limited to employees of one particular
 bargaining unit nor that they were conducted by representatives of the
 regional personnel office and that only basic information concerning
 employment was disseminated.  The Authority noted that the parties
 stipulated, and the record revealed, that the subjects covered concerned
 personnel policies, practices or other general conditions of employment.
 
    The General Counsel contends that the meetings at issue come within
 HHS, Atlanta and also have the indicia of formality set out by the
 Authority in Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
 Administration, Bureau of Field Operations, San Francisco, California,
 10 FLRA No. 24 (1982) (hereinafter HHS, San Francisco).  Respondent
 argues that there are major differences between the meetings at hand and
 the orientation sessions in HHS, Atlanta;  that broad generalizations
 from that decision are flawed by the stipulated record which does not
 reveal the specifics of what happened;  that the meetings in issue do
 not meet the formality criteria set out in HHS, San Francisco;  and were
 not discussions as that term is properly used in the Statute.
 
    It is not disputed that in the two meetings that are the subject of
 this case an agency representative or representatives met with employees
 in the unit.  It is also clear that the Union was not afforded notice or
 given the opportunity to be represented at either meeting.
 
    The September 8, 1981 Meeting
 
    As to the formality of the September 8, 1981 discussion under section
 7114(a)(2)(A), it is noted that the individual who conducted most of the
 discussion was a second-level supervisor and that the two top management
 officials also were present and participated for a short period.  The
 meeting took place in the office's only conference room.  The meeting
 lasted one and one half hours.  The meeting was not spontaneous.  The
 orientation session for new employees was obviously prearranged to be
 one of the first items of business for the new employees' first day on
 the job.  There is no indication that the attendance of new employees
 was other than mandatory.  Since the employees had to complete personnel
 forms at this time, it is clear that their identity and attendance at
 the meeting were noted, even though their oral comments were not noted
 or transcribed.  Although no agenda was established for the meeting
 beforehand, it is apparent from the recurring nature of the sessions
 that there was a definite plan of things to be considered or done.  The
 District Manager covered the standard items he always covers with new
 employees.  The orientation packet, prepared in advance, covered a set
 range of material.  Similarly, Ms. Sims went through the orientation
 packet and, by memory, provided the employees additional standard
 information regarding policies and procedures.  Upon consideration of
 these factors, I conclude that the discussion was "formal" under section
 7114(a)(2)(A).
 
    Respondent contends that this presentation by management, consisting
 basically of a speech or lecture, with opportunity for employees to ask
 questions, does not constitute a "discussion" under section
 7114(a)(2)(A).  Respondent contends that unless there is some debate or
 argument with employees, some give and take, some attempt to bargain
 with employees, management's merely presenting them with basic
 information on terms and conditions of employment does not rise to the
 level of a "discussion."
 
    The definition of "discussion" urged by Respondent has been adopted
 by several Administrative Law Judges, and some such cases are currently
 pending review by the Authority.  /7/ However, these cases did not
 involve orientation sessions for new employees.  In HHS, Atlanta, as
 noted above, the format of the orientation sessions for new employees
 consisted of distribution of an orientation packet and discussion,
 including questions and answers, between the personnelists and employees
 attending the session on the subjects covered in the packet and in an
 established agenda.  Here, a similar format was followed by the
 second-level supervisor for the new employees after brief speeches by
 the manager and assistant manager.  Although only one question was
 asked, it is clear that, as in the past, the operations officer was
 available and prepared to answer questions concerning the designated
 subjects had they been raised.  I conclude that the format of this
 orientation session was so sufficiently similar to that in HHS, Atlanta
 that, pending further clarification of this issue by the Authority, it
 too constituted a formal discussion of personnel policies, practices,
 and general conditions of employment, and Respondent was clearly bound
 by this Authority precedent to afford the Union advance notice and an
 opportunity to be represented at the meeting.  /8/
 
    As noted, it is concluded that the September 8, 1981 meeting
 concerned personnel policies, practices, and general conditions of
 employment.  The orientation packets which were distributed contained
 basic information on working for the Federal government and the agency,
 pamphlets on retirement, life insurance, and health insurance, and
 personnel forms containing the oath of office, insurance and tax forms.
 The manager and the operations officer covered a range of subjects, such
 as labor relations, working hours, breaks, leave, tardiness, and
 restrictions on gifts and outside employment.  The subjects covered were
 substantially the same as those covered at the orientation sessions in
 HHS Atlanta.
 
    Inasmuch as the September 8, 1981 orientation session was a formal
 discussion within the meaning of section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute,
 the Union was entitled to be given the opportunity to be represented.
 Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute by denying
 the Union this opportunity.
 
    With regard to the allegation that the Respondent bypassed the Union
 by holding the September 8, 1981 orientation session with unit
 employees, the record is inadequate to sustain the General Counsel's
 burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the
 Respondent violated sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute in
 contradiction of its collective bargaining obligation.  The evidence
 discloses that the discussion was of an instructional nature on
 apparently long-standing personnel policies, practices, and general
 conditions of employment.  There is no evidence that Respondent
 attempted to bypass the Union and deal or negotiate directly with
 employees, or urged employees to put pressure on the Union to take a
 certain course of action, or threatened or promised benefits to
 employees.  See U.S. Department of the Air Force, 47th Air Base Group
 (ATC), Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas, 4 FLRA No. 65 (1980);  Division
 of Military and Naval Affairs, State of New York, Albany, New York, 8
 FLRA No. 71 (1982);  Iowa National Guard and National Guard Bureau, 8
 FLRA No. 101 (1982).
 
    The November 2, 1981 Meeting
 
    The evidence discloses that the brief meeting on November 2, 1981
 between the operations officer and two unit employees took place in the
 office of the operations officer, a second-level supervisor.  Neither of
 the two employees was a new employee.  One was a reinstated employee and
 the other was an employee transferring from another location.  The
 meeting took place immediately after a brief welcome by the assistant
 manager in his office.  There was no established agenda for the meeting.
  It apparently lasted only a few minutes.  Other than welcoming the
 employees and engaging in small talk about other employees, the only
 statement of substance initiated by the operations officer was the
 comment that leave should be requested as far in advance as possible.
 The evidence does not show the supervisor's response to the employee's
 question about whether the dress code had changed.  The evidence does
 not show that a record was made of the meeting.
 
    It is concluded that the General Counsel has not met the burden of
 proving that the November 2, 1981 meeting was a "formal" discussion.
 See HHS, San Francisco.  The meeting was essentially a brief word of
 kindly greeting by the second-level supervisor.  It was unstructured and
 no record of the meeting was made.
 
    For the reasons discussed in connection with the September 8, 1981
 meeting, a preponderance of the evidence also does not establish that
 Respondent bypassed the Union in violation of sections 7116(a)(1) and
 (5) of the Statute by holding the November 2, 1981 meeting.
 
    Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is recommended
 that the Authority issue the following Order:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority and section 7118 of the Statute, the
 Authority hereby orders that the Department of Health and Human
 Services, Social Security Administration shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Failing to give the American Federation of Government
       Employees, Local 1395, AFL-CIO, the opportunity to be represented
       at orientation sessions for new employees in the bargaining unit
       conducted by one or more representatives of the agency at which
       personnel policies or practices or other general conditions of
       employment are discussed.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing any employee in the exercise of rights
       assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purpose and policies of the Statute:
 
          (a) Give the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
       1395, AFL-CIO, the opportunity to be represented at orientation
       sessions for new employees in the bargaining unit conducted by one
       or more representatives of the agency at which personnel policies
       or practices or other general conditions of employment are
       discussed.
 
          (b) Post at its facilities at 6349 South Cottage Grove,
       Chicago, Illinois copies of the attached Notice marked "Appendix"
       on forms to be furnished by the Authority.  Upon receipt of such
       forms, they shall be signed by the District Manager, and shall be
       posted and maintained by him for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
       in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other
       places where notices to employees are customarily posted.  The
       District Manager shall take reasonable steps to insure that such
       notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
       material.
 
          (c) Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2423.30 notify the Regional Director,
       Region Five, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Chicago, Illinois,
       in writing, within 30 days from the date of this order, as to what
       steps have been taken to comply herewith.
 
    3.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges a
 bypass of the Union and any violation with respect to the November 2,
 1981 meeting, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
 
                                        GARVIN LEE OLIVER
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Date:  November 24, 1982
    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
 STATUTE WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT fail to give the American Federation of Government
 Employees, Local 1395, AFL-CIO, the opportunity to be represented at
 orientation sessions for new employees in the bargaining unit conducted
 by one or more representatives of the agency at which personnel policies
 or practices or other general conditions of employment are discussed.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce any employee in the exercise of rights assured by the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL give the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 1395, AFL-CIO, the opportunity to be represented at orientation sessions
 for new employees in the bargaining unit conducted by one or more
 representatives of the agency at which personnel policies or practices
 or other general conditions of employment are discussed.
                                       (Agency or Activity)
 
    Dated:  By:  (Signature)
 
    This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
 of posting and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other
 material.
 
    If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
 with any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
 Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region Five,
 whose address is:  175 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1359-A, Chicago, IL
 60604, and whose telephone number is:  (312) 353-6306.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ The General Counsel's exceptions were limited to the Judge's
 dismissal of the section 7116(a)(1) and (5) allegation with respect to
 the September 8, 1981 meeting.  No exceptions were filed by either party
 with respect to the Judge's dismissal of the allegations concerning the
 November 2, 1981 meeting.
 
 
    /2/ With respect to the General Counsel's exceptions regarding the
 Judge's dismissal of the section 7116(a)(1) and (5) allegation of the
 complaint concerning the September 8, 1981 meeting see Department of
 Defense, National Guard Bureau, Texas Adjutant General's Department,
 149th TAC Fighter Group (ANG) (TAC), Kelly Air Force Base, 15 FLRA No.
 111 (1984), wherein the Authority concluded, in dismissing the section
 7116(a)(1) and (5) allegation, that section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute
 does not itself give rise to an obligation to negotiate within the
 meaning of the Statute.  With respect to the Judge's finding that the
 General Counsel failed to establish that a bypass occurred at the
 September 8th meeting, see also Internal Revenue Service (District,
 region, National Office Unit), 11 FLRA. 23 (1983), affirmed sub nom.
 National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 725 F.2d 126 (D.C. Cir.
 1984).
 
 
    /3/ The transcript is hereby corrected as set forth in the General
 Counsel's unopposed motion.  (General Counsel's Brief, p. 2).
 
 
    /4/ On occasion, the Cottage Grove office does not receive the
 orientation packet or personnel forms at the time an employee first
 reports for duty.  If that occurs, the supervisor to whom the employee
 is assigned sees that the forms are completed when they arrive.
 
 
    /5/ Sec. 7116.  Unfair labor practices
 
          (a) For the purpose of this chapter, it shall be an unfair
       labor practice for an agency--
 
          (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the
       exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter;
 
                                  * * * *
 
          (5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a
       labor organization as required by this chapter;
 
                                  * * * *
 
          (8) to otherwise fail or refuse to comply with any provision of
       this chapter.
 
 
    /6/ Sec. 7114.  Representation rights and duties
 
                                  * * * *
 
          (a)(2) An exclusive representative of an appropriate unit in an
       agency shall be given the opportunity to be represented at--
 
          (A) any formal discussion between one or more representatives
       of the agency and one or more employees in the unit or their
       representatives concern