16:0602(87)CA - EPA and AFGE -- 1984 FLRAdec CA



[ v16 p602 ]
16:0602(87)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 16 FLRA No. 87
 
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case Nos. 3-CA-2767
                                                      3-CA-2803
                                                      3-CA-2825
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it be ordered to
 cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action.
 Exceptions to the Judge's Decision were filed by the Respondent, and an
 opposition thereto was filed by the Charging Party.
 
    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 /1/ and recommended Order as modified
 herein.  /2/ In this regard, it is the opinion of the Authority that a
 prospective bargaining order will fully remedy the violations found.
 
                                   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 Environmental Protection Agency shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Implementing procedures for the establishment of performance
 standards and critical elements of employee positions without first
 notifying the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the
 exclusive representative of a unit of its employees, and affording such
 representative the opportunity to bargain with regard to such
 procedures.
 
    (b) Failing and refusing to meet and negotiate in good faith with the
 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, over ground rules
 for such negotiations, or conditioning any meeting or negotiation with
 the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, on the
 submission by such exclusive representative of specific, substantive,
 written proposals concerning the performance standard-setting process.
 
    (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
    (a) Upon request, bargain with the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a unit of its
 employees, over ground rules for negotiations and over the procedures
 for the establishment of performance standards and critical elements of
 employee positions.
 
    (b) Post at its facilities copies of the attached Notice to be
 furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority.  Copies of said
 Notice shall be signed by the Administrator, Environmental Protection
 Agency, or his designee, and shall be posted and maintained for 60
 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
 where notices to employees are customarily posted.  Reasonable steps
 shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure 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 III, Federal Labor
 Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
 Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.  
 
 Issued, Washington, D.C., November 30, 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 implement procedures for the establishment of performance
 standards and critical elements of employees positions without first
 notifying the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the
 exclusive representative of a unit of our employees, and affording such
 representative the opportunity to bargain with regard to such
 procedures.
 
    WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to meet and negotiate in good faith with
 the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, over ground
 rules for such negotiations, or condition any meeting or negotiation
 with the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, on the
 submission by such exclusive representative of specific, substantive,
 written proposals concerning the performance standard-setting process.
 
    WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a unit of
 our employees, over ground rules for negotiations and procedures for the
 establishment of performance standards and critical elements of employee
 positions.
                                       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 III, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address
 is:  1111 18th Street, NW., Suite 700, P.O. Box 33758, Washington, D.C.
 20033-0758, and whose telephone number is:  (202) 653-8456.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                Respondent
 
    and
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
    EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
                              Charging Party
 
                                       Case Nos. 3-CA-2767
                                                 3-CA-2803
                                                 3-CA-2825
 
    Mr. Thorne W. Chambers
    Ms. Gail J. Korb
    For the Respondent
 
    Mr. James P. Jones
    For the Charging Party
 
    Eileen Hamamura Miller, Esquire
    For the General Counsel, FLRA
 
    Before:  GAVIN LEE OLIVER
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This decision concerns a consolidated unfair labor practice complaint
 issued by the Regional Director, Region Three, Federal Labor Relations
 Authority, Washington, D.C. against the Environmental Protection Agency
 (Respondent or Agency) based on charges filed by the American Federation
 of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Charging Party or Union).  The
 complaint alleged, in substance, that Respondent violated section
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. (the Statute), by failing and refusing to
 negotiate in good faith with the Union over the procedures, impact, and
 implementation of performance standards.  Respondent's answer denied any
 violation of the Statute.  The pivotal issue is whether Respondent could
 require the Union to submit specific, substantive written proposals on
 the performance standard-setting procedure before Respondent was
 obligated to meet and negotiate ground rules for such bargaining, which
 the Union insisted must be negotiated first.
 
    A hearing was held in this matter in Washington, D.C.  The
 Respondent, Charging Party, and the General Counsel, FLRA were
 represented and afforded full opportunity to be heard, adduce relevant
 evidence, examine and cross-examine witness, 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
 
    The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Charging
 Party or Union) is the certified exclusive representative of national
 consolidated units of certain professional and nonprofessional employees
 of Respondent.  (General Counsel's Exh. Nos. 2(a) and (b)).  There is no
 collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Respondent
 covering the consolidated units.  (Tr. 40).
 
    To administer the duties of the national consolidated exclusive
 recognition between Respondent and the Union, certain delegations of
 authority were made from the Union to the National EPA Council (herein
 EPA Council), the EPA Council's president, and various local Union
 officers.  (General Counsel's Exh. Nos. 3(a) and (c)).  The EPA Council
 is a group of the Union's locals and was formed to administer the
 day-to-day business of representing employees represented by the Union.
 (Tr. 30).
 
    By letter dated February 23, 1981, Thorne W. Chambers, Labor
 Relations Officer for Respondent, informed EPA Council President Harold
 Dodson that Respondent intended to use a procedure to have employees'
 performance standards in place by October 1, 1981, as required by Public
 Law 95-454.  Specifically, Respondent proposed:
 
          (1) Employees will receive training in preparing draft
       performance standards, critical elements, and measures for
       outstanding, satisfactory and unsatisfactory.
 
          (2) Supervisors will meet with each employee and discuss the
       process as it relates to the individual's position and
       organizational goals.
 
          (3) Employees then will develop and submit to their supervisors
       drafts of standards, elements, and measures.
 
          (4) Supervisors will review the submissions and arrive at the
       final elements, standards and measures.  Elements, standards and
       measures per se are not grievable.  The supervisor will discuss
       the elements, standards and measures with the employee and provide
       a copy to the employee.
 
          (5) If the requirements of a position should substantially
       change at any time, the elements, standards, or measures may be
       modified using the above procedures.
 
 Respondent's letter also stated that if the Union wished to make any
 proposals concerning the procedure, it should do so, in writing, no
 later than March 13, 1981, or the procedures outlined would be
 implemented.  (General Counsel's Exh. 4).
 
    Pursuant to the Union's delegation of authority, Mr. Dodson responded
 by a letter dated March 13, 1981.  Mr. Dodson gave notice that the Union
 requested bargaining on the development and application of performance
 standards for bargaining-unit employees.  The Union proposed that the
 parties meet on March 18, 1981 to establish ground rules for the
 negotiation of the proposed procedures.  The letter set out the proposed
 procedures again with slight modifications favoring the Union's proposed
 involvement.  The Union submitted as its proposed ground rules a
 proposed memorandum of understanding which was to govern procedures for
 negotiating a written agreement between Respondent and the Union for
 employees in the consolidated units.  The detailed proposal included
 numerous explicit ground rules regarding negotiating committees,
 bargaining routine, place of meeting, recesses/caucuses, maintenance of
 records, supplies and equipment, impasses in negotiations, and
 authority.  More specifically, for Union negotiators, who are EPA
 employees, there were provisions for duty status during all phases of
 negotiations including preparation time.  There were also provisions for
 official time, travel, and per diem /4/ for ten employee representatives
 and for ten employee alternates for the Union, and duty status for up to
 three resource/observer persons, and for a person to take notes during
 negotiations.  (General Counsel's Exh. 5).
 
    Respondent did not specifically acknowledge the Union's demand for
 ground rules negotiations.  Instead, by letter dated March 24, 1981,
 Respondent advised the Union that since it had not submitted specific
 written proposals on the performance standard-setting procedure, it must
 have misunderstood Respondent's letter.  Therefore, Respondent afforded
 the Union additional time, to April 3, to submit its proposals and
 requested that it submit "specific, substantive, written proposals
 concerning the standard-setting procedure." The letter indicated that if
 specific written proposals concerning the procedure were not received,
 the procedure would be implemented as outlined in the February 23, 1981
 letter.  (General Counsel's Exh. 7).
 
    On April 1, 1981 the Union responded by noting its previous request
 for a meeting to negotiate ground rules and requested that the
 Respondent "answer yes or no, as to whether it will accept the Union's
 proposals for ground rules." (General Counsel's Exh. 6).
 
    Respondent replied in writing the next day, April 2, reiterating its
 request for specific written proposals on standard-setting.  The
 Respondent also reiterated that the Agency's proposals on the
 performance standard-setting process were contained in the February 23
 letter, and that these proposals were necessitated by 5 U.S.C.
 4302(b)(2) which required that elements and standards be communicated to
 each employee by October 1.  The Respondent also stated in its April 2
 letter to the Union:  "Identical proposals on the standard-setting
 process were sent to seven (7) other labor organizations which represent
 EPA employees.  None of the other unions had any problem understanding
 our proposals and responding (for those who wished to negotiate) with
 their own specific, substantive proposals within the designated time
 frames.  Furthermore, we have afforded you an additional amount of time
 in which to respond with specific proposals on standard-setting, which
 was not necessary for any of the other labor organizations." The letter
 stated that unless specific written proposals were received, the
 standard-setting procedure outlined earlier would be implemented.
 (General Counsel's Exh. 8).
 
    By letter dated April 3, 1981 the Union responded to the April 2,
 1981 letter, stating that should Respondent fail to respond by April 10,
 1981 to the Union's March 13, 1981 request to bargain and submission of
 counter-proposals, the Union would consider Respondent's actions to be a
 refusal to bargain in good faith.  (General Counsel's Exh. 9).
 
    By letter dated April 8, 1981 Respondent replied that since the Union
 had repeatedly refused to submit specific substantive written proposals,
 the standard-setting procedures outlined in the February 23, 1981 letter
 had been implemented.  (General Counsel's Exh. 10).
 
    After the Respondent's April 8, 1981 letter informing the Union that
 the February 23 proposal had been implemented, all communications
 between the Respondent and the Union on this matter ceased for some
 time.  The Respondent proceeded to implement the agency proposal by
 developing a training program and preparing related documents.  (Tr.
 10).
 
    On June 12, 1981, Thorne W. Chambers and Gail Korb of the
 Respondent's labor relations staff met with Ronald King and James P.
 Jones of the Union at the Union's national office.  The purpose of the
 meeting, arranged by request of the Agency, was to present to the Union
 the Agency's new Administrator's proposal for the reorganization of the
 Agency.  Mr. Chambers and Ms. Korb presented material to the Union on
 the proposed reorganization.  During the course of the meeting, the
 subject of the Agency's manual for training employees on the performance
 system was discussed.  The Union requested a copy of the manual and the
 Agency representatives readily agreed to send them one.  The Union's
 representatives gained the erroneous impression from the discussion that
 the manual was being used to train supervisors and that the Union would
 have the opportunity to negotiate "the next phase," that is, the
 application of the training manual to employees.  By referring to the
 Union's right to negotiate "the next phase," the Agency representative,
 Mr. Chambers, was actually referring to the application of the
 standards, i.e., the appraisal process itself, which would come at a
 later stage and not at the training stages of the standard-setting
 process.  The Respondent considered the Union's right to negotiate
 training activities during the standard-setting process to be foreclosed
 by its failure to submit specific written proposals in response to the
 procedure outlined.
 
    By the beginning of July 1981, the Respondent began giving training
 courses on the development of critical job elements and performance
 standards to the approximately 4,000 employees in the consolidated
 bargaining units.  (Tr. 9).  When the EPA Council President Dodson
 attended a training session as an employee on July 28, 1981 and received
 the training manuals, he notified Union headquarters that such manuals
 were in use.  (Tr. 46, 66).
 
    By letter dated July 30, 1981, the Union advised Respondent that it
 had previously gained the impression that unit employees not yet be
 involved, asked that any further implementation be halted pending
 negotiations, stated that it wanted the matter elevated to the national
 level for negotiation, and named Mr. Dodson as the Union's bargaining
 agent.  (General Counsel's Exh. 13).
 
    The Agency's response of August 10, 1981 stated that the handbook
 which was provided to the Union at its request was intended for use in
 training employees.  The letter further stated:  "It is a matter which
 falls under the training provision of management's proposal which was
 provided to the union some months earlier.  We do not consider this to
 be a matter subject to bargaining now." (General Counsel's Exh. 14).
 
    On August 11, 1981, the Union again asked for bargaining on the
 Agency's performance standards system and requested that bargaining on
 ground rules commence on August 14, 1981.  (General Counsel's Exh. 15).
 On the same day, Respondent replied stating, in part:
 
          As you know, AFGE was provided an opportunity to submit
       specific written proposals for bargaining on the standard-setting
       process during the period February 23 through April 3 and failed
       to do so.  Since the union failed to bargain on standard-setting,
       management proceeded to implement its proposal of record.  All
       aspects now being implemented fall within and are in accord with
       the provisions of our proposal of February 23, 1981.
 
          Nevertheless, I think you should know that management in the
       not too distant future will have proposals ready for bargaining on
       the second phase of the Performance Management System (PMS) which
       will deal with the application of standards.  We look forward to
       bargaining with AFGE on Phase II of PMS.  (General Counsel's Exh.
       17).
 
    Respondent fully implemented the standard-setting process, and all
 standards and elements were established and in place by October 1, 1981.
  (Tr. 66, 77, 84).
 
                Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations
 
    The complaint alleges that Respondent violated section 7116(1) and
 (5) when it failed to meet and negotiate with the Union in good faith
 over the procedures, impact, and implementation of performance
 standards.  /5/ The complaint alleges that such violation occurred on
 April 8, 1981 when Respondent unilaterally implemented the
 standard-setting procedures contained in its February 23, 1981 letter
 and, in July 1981, when Respondent began to unilaterally implement a
 system of performance standards by distributing a handbook to employees.
 
    Respondent defends on the basis that the agency met its statutory
 obligation by giving the Union timely notice and an opportunity to
 submit specific, substantive written proposals concerning the
 performance standard-setting process.  Respondent alleges that the
 Union's failure to respond with specific relevant proposals and its
 insistence on negotiating ground rules first precluded the consummation
 of impact and implementation bargaining.  Respondent contends that it
 had no obligation to negotiate proposals which bore no relation to the
 substance of the agency's proposals and which were meant to be either in
 lieu of, or as a precondition to, bargaining on specific, substantive
 proposals.  Respondent terms the Union's insistence on first negotiating
 ground rules "sham preconditions and bad faith pretexts" and asserts
 that it had the right to insist on subject-specific proposals "lest the
 bargaining process be crippled by all manner of dilatory obstructionism
 and by blatant bad faith."
 
    Respondent relies on Division of Military and Naval Affairs, State of
 New York, Albany, New York, 8 FLRA No. 71 (March 26, 1982).  In that
 case (1-CA-16), the agency submitted its proposals concerning a position
 conversion program and requested specific proposals from the union.  The
 union requested to bargain, but instead of responding with appropriate
 proposals during the various meetings and in correspondence with the
 agency, it continued to demand written proposals from the agency.  The
 Authority held that the agency had met its obligation to bargain.  The
 Authority adopted the findings and conclusions of Judge Louis Scalzo,
 who stated, in part:
 
          The Union had an obligation to either respond with appropriate
       proposals, request additional information, or request additional
       time in which to prepare to submit a Union position on impact and
       implementation.  Here, there was no reason to believe that the
       Union intended to pursue any of these approaches.
 
 In the instant case, the Union requested to bargain on the performance
 standard-setting procedures, submitted specific proposals regarding
 ground rules, and requested a meeting with Respondent to establish the
 ground rules for the negotiations on the procedures.  In the terms used
 in the Division of Military and Naval Affairs case, the issue is whether
 this was a response "with appropriate proposals" which triggered a
 further obligation on Respondent's part.
 
    I conclude that it was such an appropriate response.  The Statute
 provides for meetings to take place between the parties as part of the
 collective bargaining process.  The phrase, "collective bargaining" is
 defined in section 7103(a)(12) of the Statute as follows:
 
          (12) 'collective bargaining' means the performance of the
       mutual obligation of the representative of an agency and the
       exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit in
       the agency to meet at reasonable times and to consult and bargain
       in a good-faith effort to reach agreement with respect to the
       conditions of employment affecting such employees and to execute,
       if requested by either party, a written document incorporating any
       collective bargaining agreement reached, but the obligation
       referred to in this paragraph does not compel either party to
       agree to a proposal or to make a concession.
 
    See also section 7114(a)(4) and section 7114(b)(3).  There is no
 requirement in the Statute that all proposals must be in writing.  Thus,
 the request by Respondent for specific, substantive written proposals in
 advance was in the nature of a proposed ground rule itself, i.e., a
 guide for the conduct of the negotiations.  The Union was entitled to
 respond in kind with procedural proposals of its own, namely that the
 parties should first negotiate ground rules, the arrangements between
 the parties as to how the negotiations would be conducted.
 
    There is no evidence that the Union's response was made in bad faith.
  The proposed ground rules reveal several obvious matters of legitimate
 concern to the Union and to the conditions of employment of bargaining
 unit employees.  The Union needed advance notice of the number of
 individuals representing the agency so that it would know the number of
 employees for whom official time would be authorized in the negotiations
 under section 7131(a).  The Union also wanted to negotiate the amount of
 official time to be used by union negotiators to prepare for collective
 bargaining negotiations which falls within the duty to bargain as
 provided in section 7131(d) of the Statute.  See Division of Military
 and Naval Affairs, State of New York, Albany, New York, 7 FLRA No. 51
 (1981);  American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
 1962, 3 FLRA No. 47 (1980).  The parties had a continuing controversy
 over the payment of travel and per diem for union negotiators, and the
 Union wanted to ensure that employee representatives would be paid
 travel expenses and per diem in accordance with applicable law.  See
 Interpretation and Guidance, 2 FLRA No. 31 ( 1979).  The duty of an
 agency and an exclusive representative to negotiate in good faith
 includes the obligation under section 7114(b)(3) of the Statute "to meet
 at reasonable times and convenient places as frequently as may be
 necessary, and to avoid unnecessary delay." The Union's proposed ground
 rules legitimately sought to determine "reasonable times and convenient
 places."
 
    There is also no evidence that the Union's response was made for
 purposes of delay.  The Union submitted specific proposals for the
 ground rules and proposed to meet with Respondent five days later "to
 establish (the) ground rules for negotiation(s) . . . ." As noted above,
 the duty of an agency and an exclusive representative to negotiate in
 good faith includes the obligation "to meet at reasonable times and
 convenient places as frequently as necessary . . . ." It must be assumed
 that, had the parties met, reasonable and minimum guides for the conduct
 of negotiations would have been agreed upon.  On this record, it
 certainly cannot be concluded, as urged by Respondent, that negotiation
 of ground rules would have crippled the bargaining process.  As Judge
 Naimark recently stated in California National Guard, Sacramento,
 California, 9-CA-931, 9-CA-1100, OALJ-82-70 (April 14, 1982), in holding
 that travel expenses and per diem should be paid to an employee union
 representative for a meeting regarding ground rules, "Discussions
 regarding rules which will operate as a framework for negotiations are,
 in my opinion, part and parcel of the collective bargaining process."
 
    It is concluded that Respondent violated section 7116(1) and (5) when
 it failed and refused to negotiate in good faith, including the
 negotiation of ground rules, and unilaterally implemented the
 standard-setting procedures contained in its February 23, 1981 letter.
 Since the issuance of the instructional handbook and the training
 commencing in July 1981 were part of this implementation, this finding
 will adequately remedy the violation, and it is unnecessary to pass upon
 whether the Union's July 30, 1981 request would have otherwise created a
 new obligation to negotiate.  It is noted, however, that the contention
 made by Respondent, that an agency has no duty to bargain with regard to
 changes in conditions of employment proposed by an exclusive
 representative, but only with regard to changes proposed by the agency,
 has been held by the Authority to be clearly inconsistent with the
 definition and purposes of "collective bargaining" under the Statute.
 See Library of Congress, 9 FLRA No. 51 (1982).
 
    The Union has requested that, as a remedy, the Authority order a
 return to the status quo ante.  The General Counsel does not seek a
 status quo ante remedy, in view of what he considers the mandate
 contained in 5 U.S.C. 4302 and the implementing regulations issued by
 the Office of Personnel Management.  Rather, the General Counsel asks
 that retroactive effect be given to any bargaining agreement negotiated
 by the parties.  I agree with the General Counsel that, in this
 particular instance, the requirement that any agreement be given
 retroactive effect will best effectuate the purposes and policies of the
 Statute.  Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, I recommend
 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 Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
 that the Environmental Protection Agency shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Establishing or implementing procedures for the
       establishment of performance standards and critical elements of
       employee positions without first notifying the American Federation
       of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of
       a unit of its employees, and affording such representative the
       opportunity to bargain consonant with the obligations imposed by
       the Statute.
 
          (b) Failing and refusing to meet and negotiate in good faith
       with the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
       over ground rules for such negotiations.
 
          (c) Conditioning any meeting or negotiation with the American
       Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO of the submission by
       such exclusive representative of specific, substantive written
       proposals concerning the performance standards-setting process.
 
          (d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
       assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
          (a) Upon request of the American Federation of Government
       Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a unit of its
       employees, bargain consonant with the obligations imposed by the
       Statute over ground rules for negotiations and procedures for the
       establishment or performance standards and critical elements of
       employee positions.
 
          (b) Give retroactive effect to any agreement reached regarding
       procedures for the establishment of performance standards and
       critical elements of employee positions, revise the performance
       standards and critical elements implemented October 1, 1981 to the
       extent they may be changed as a result of implementation of the
       agreed upon procedures, and give retroactive effect to any such
       revision.
 
          (c) Post at its facilities 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 Administrator,
       Environmental Protection Agency, and shall be posted and
       maintained by her for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
       conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other places
       where notices to employees are customarily posted.  The
       Administrator shall take reasonable steps to insure that such
       notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
       material.
 
          (d) Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2423.30 notify the Regional Director,
       Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region III, 1111 18th Street,
       NW., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036, in writing, within 30 days
       from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to
       comply herewith.
 
                                       GARVIN LEE OLIVER
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  July 30, 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
 TITLE 5
 OF THE UNITED STATED CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS WE
 HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT establish or implement procedures for the establishment
 of performance standards and critical elements of employee positions
 without first notifying the American Federation of Government Employees,
 AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a unit of our employees, and
 affording such representative the opportunity to bargain consonant with
 the obligations imposed by the Statute.
 
    WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to meet and negotiate in good faith with
 the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, over ground
 rules for such negotiations.
 
    WE WILL NOT condition any meeting or negotiation with the American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO on the submission by such
 exclusive representative of specific, substantive written proposals
 concerning the performance standards-setting process.
 
    WE WILL, upon request of the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a unit of our
 employees, bargain consonant with the obligations imposed by the Statute
 over ground rules for negotiations and procedures for the establishment
 of performance standards and critical elements of employee positions.
 
    WE WILL give retroactive effect to any agreement reached regarding
 procedures for the establishment of performance standards and critical
 elements of employee positions, revise the performance standards and
 critical elements implemented October 1, 1981 to the extent they may be
 changed as a result of implementation of the agreed upon procedures, and
 give retroactive effect to any such revision.
                                       (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, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region III, whose
 address is:  1111 18th Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036,
 and whose telephone number is:  (202) 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ National Treasury Employees Union and Department of the Treasury,
 Bureau of the Public Debt, 3 FLRA 769 (1980), affirmed sub nom. National
 Treasury Employees Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 691 F.2d
 553 (D.C. Cir. 1982).  See also Department of Defense Dependents
 Schools, 14 FLRA No. 40 (1984).
 
 
    /2/