17:0040(13)CA - Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, NH and Portsmouth FEMT Council -- 1985 FLRAdec CA



[ v17 p40 ]
17:0040(13)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 17 FLRA No. 13
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD
 PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 PORTSMOUTH FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 1-CA-854
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 certain of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and
 recommending that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
 certain affirmative action.  Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
 to the Judge's Decision.
 
    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.  See Department of
 Defense, Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, United
 States Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, 15 FLRA
 No. 137 (1984).  /1A/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered that the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New
 Hampshire shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Failing and refusing to continue to implement Arbitrator William
 J. Fallon's January 31, 1981 arbitration award by discontinuing
 Environmental Differential Pay (EDP) payments to employees working in
 the Rubber Molding and Curing Area of Building 60 on July 27, 1981.
 
    (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or
 coercing employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
    (a) Fully comply with Arbitrator William J. Fallon's January 31, 1981
 arbitration award by paying the eight percent (8%) EDP ordered by the
 arbitrator to the appropriate employees working in the Rubber Molding
 and Curing Area of Building 60 and make whole any employee who worked in
 that area during the interim by paying EDP retroactive to July 27, 1981.
 
    (b) Post at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire
 copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal
 Labor Relations Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be
 signed by the Commander, or his designee, and shall be posted and
 maintained 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) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region I, Federal Labor
 Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
 Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.  
 
 Issued, Washington, D.C., February 26, 1985
 
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Chairman
                                       William J. McGinnis, Jr., 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 and refuse to continue to implement Arbitrator William
 J. Fallon's January 31, 1981 arbitration award by discontinuing
 Environmental Differential Pay (EDP) payments to employees working in
 the Rubber Molding and Curing Area of Building 60 on July 27, 1981.  WE
 WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or
 coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Statute.
  WE WILL fully comply with Arbitrator William J. Fallon's January 31,
 1981 arbitration award by paying the eight percent (8%) EDP ordered by
 the arbitrator to the appropriate employees working in the Rubber
 Molding and Curing Area of Building 60 and make whole any employee who
 worked in that area during the interim by paying EDP retroactive to July
 27, 1981.
                                       . . . (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 its provisions, they
 may communicate directly with the Regional Director, Federal Labor
 Relations Authority, Region I, whose address is:  441 Stuart Street, 9th
 Floor, Boston, MA 02116 and whose telephone number is:  (617) 223-0920.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
                                       Case No. 1-CA-854
    A. Gene Niro, Esq.
       For Respondent
 
    Richard D. Zaiger, Esq.
    Marilyn Roth, Esq.
       For General Counsel, FLRA
 
    Before:  SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
       Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This is a proceeding arising under the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the United
 States Code, 5 U.S.C. 7101, et seq., 92 Stat. 1191 (hereinafter referred
 to as the Statute), and the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Labor
 Relations Authority (FLRA), 5 C.F.R.Chapter XIV, Sec. 2410, et seq.
 
    A charge was filed on July 29, 1981 and amended on September 30, 1981
 by the Portsmouth Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO
 (hereinafter called the Union and/or MTC), against Department of the
 Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire (hereinafter
 called Respondent and/or Portsmouth Naval Shipyard).  Pursuant to the
 above described charge and amended charge, the General Counsel of the
 FLRA, by the Director of Region I, issued a Complaint and Notice of
 Hearing on October 9, 1981 alleging that Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
 violated Sections 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute by failing to
 comply with an arbitrator's award.  Respondent filed an Answer denying
 it had violated the Statute.
 
    A hearing in this matter was conducted before the undersigned in
 Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  Respondent and the General Counsel of the
 FLRA were represented and afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
 examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence and to argue
 orally.  Post hearing briefs were submitted and have been duly
 considered.
 
    Based upon the entire record in this matter, my observation of the
 witnesses and their demeanor, and from my evaluation of the evidence, I
 make the following:
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    At all times material herein MTC has been the collective bargaining
 representative for a unit of ungraded and GS employees employed by the
 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, with certain exclusions not here relevant,
 and MTC and Respondent have been parties to a collective bargaining
 agreement.  Employees in the rubber molding and curing area are within
 the unit described above.
 
    Article 20 of the collective bargaining agreement provides that
 Respondent "shall assign environmental pay to unit employees engaged in
 hazardous work . . . to the extent permitted and prescribed by
 applicable regulations." Article 20 further provides for employees and
 the Union to grieve over any work situation that they feel meets the
 criteria for an environmental differential found in the regulations /1/
 for which Respondent refuses to pay such a differential.
 
    MTC filed a grievance that raised many safety issues including, inter
 alia, the entitlement of employees in the rubber molding and curing area
 to environmental differential pay.  The grievance was taken to
 arbitration and the matter was heard by Arbitrator William J. Fallon.
 The matter was presented to Arbitrator Fallon during 4 days of hearing,
 during which the parties had an opportunity and did submit evidence with
 respect to the various issues raised in the grievance.  Arbitrator
 Fallon issued his Arbitration Decision on January 31, 1981.  The
 Arbitration Decision stated, inter alia:
 
          "Since the decision will necessarily be based on the limited
       evidence presented, it should not be construed to limit the
       parties at any time in the future, from making a more
       particularized presentation with additional evidence on any of the
       health, safety or pay issues considered herein." /2/
 
                                .  .  .  .
 
          "The Independent nature of these two subjects (Environmental
       Pay Differential and Positive Safety Action) is also confirmed by
       Article 29, Section 8 of the agreement . . . which indicates that
       when a health impairing condition is found, the remedy provided is
       not environmental pay, but rather a prohibition of further work
       until the unsafe condition has been corrected or until adequate
       protective clothing and/or devices have been provided to affected
       employees." /3/
 
                                .  .  .  .
 
          "Finally, if the union is dissatisfied with a particular
       individual determination, the matter would be deemed grievable
       under Article 34, Section 1 a. . . . and subject to the various
       steps of the general grievance procedure, as described in Article
       34, Section 2 - 5.  Or, if the Union has a more generalized
       grievance, based on the belief 'that a work situation not listed
       in (Enclosure (2)) meets the criteria of an established
       environmental differential category found in Appendix J of FPM
       Supplement 532-1, that complaint shall be filed in accordance with
       Article 34, Section 5 . . .' (Article 20, Section 4, quoted below,
       p. A2)." /4/
 
          "Having considered general engineering controls, there remains
       for our consideration particular controls, if any, warranted by
       the hazardous nature of the particular chemicals.  With respect to
       ETU, the Arbitrator is prepared to accept the Employer's
       representation that NIOSH has concluded that the handling of
       encapsulated NA-22f results in no occupational exposure, because
       it is dustless.  Nevertheless, the Arbitrator notes that the
       manufacturer (Dupont), with the concurrence of Mr. Athanasiou of
       the Industrial Hygiene Department, and Mr. Nelson, the Shop
       Instructor, still recommends that women of child-bearing potential
       should not work with that chemical.  The Employer has not complied
       with this recommendation and should do so in the future.
 
          As noted above, NIOSH has recommended the monitoring of
       employee exposure to ETU.  The Employer should also comply with
       that recommendation.
 
          Also, as noted above, even in its 'dustless', encapsulated
       form, when NA-22f is heated - as it is in the curing of rubber -
       it may be released in vapor form.  These vapors should not be
       breathed, and, therefore, the Arbitrator has already recommended
       that this problem be controlled by isolation, ventilation and/or
       respiratory protection.  The Employer has claimed that the vapors
       and smoke released in this area are harmless, having been measured
       and having produced no test reading in excess of established
       TLV's.  Yet the smoke and vapors were tested for other chemicals--
       and not ETU, which, in any event, does not appear to have an
       established TLV (or at least the Arbitrator is unable to find
       evidence as to any TLV).  Thus the Employer's tests are not
       sufficient to prove that there are no ETU vapors being released,
       and therefore the manufacturer's recommendations should be
       followed." /5/
 
                                .  .  .  .
 
          "Having considered control measures, there remains for our
       consideration the question of environmental pay.  On the record
       before us, a high degree hazard differential should be paid to
       employees working in the molding and curing area at any times when
       molds were being opened and vapors and smoke, possibly including
       ETU, were being released.  Given the lack of ventilation or
       personal respiratory equipment, there existed and continues to
       exist a potential for serious injury from exposure to ETU vapors
       or fumes, which has not been practically eliminated." /6/
 
    As part of his award Arbitrator Fallon provided:
 
          "J.  The Employer should monitor the exposure to Ethylene
       Thiourea of employees assigned to work with it, in accordance with
       applicable NIOSH monitoring procedures." /7/
 
                                .  .  .  .
 
          "The Employer violated Article 20, Section 1 by failing to
       provide the 8% high degree poison (toxic chemicals) differential
       in the following instances:
 
          A. To employees working in the rubber molding and curing area
       when molds are or were being opened, and/or when vapors and smoke
       were being released, and ETU was a component ingredient of the
       rubber being manufactured." /8/
 
    Arbitrator Fallon's award required compliance by Respondent by March
 2, 1981.  Respondent complied with the award by paying $150,000 in back
 pay to affected employees in the rubber molding area and by
 prospectively paying the eight percent environmental differential pay
 (EDP).
 
    Beginning March 2, 1981 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard started taking
 samples in the rubber molding area analyzing for airborne Ethylene
 Thiourea (ETU).  These tests continued during much of March 1981.  On
 March 5 MTC Chief Steward was officially advised of the described tests.
  No representative of MTC requested to participate in the testing
 procedures, but they did review documents relating to the sampling
 process and were given the NIOSH bulletin on the subject.  A copy of the
 detailed report of the study was forwarded to MTC on June 10, 1981.  The
 report concluded that ETU presence in the air of the rubber molding and
 curing area was not as high as the threshold limit established by the
 ETU manufacturer, DuPont.  There is no official or government formulated
 or approved threshold limit for ETU in the air.
 
    By letter dated July 20, 1981 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard advised MTC
 that, as a result of the report, the use of ETU in Building 60 did not
 meet the criteria for toxic chemical pay as set forth in Appendix J of
 FPM Supplement 532-1, and, as a result, such pay " . . . to employees
 who are molding rubber in Building 60 will be paid on a case basis when
 it appears that exposure to ETU has occurred." On July 27, 1981
 Respondent discontinued the eight percent EDP to employees in rubber
 molding and curing area.
 
    The actual job of the employees exposed to ETU in the rubber molding
 and curing area has not changed since the Arbitrator's Award.
 Portsmouth Naval Shipyard did not improve or otherwise change the
 ventilating system or other working conditions in the rubber molding and
 curing area since the arbitrator's award.  The record does not establish
 that there has been any change in the exposure to airborne ETU of the
 employees in the rubber molding and curing area since the arbitrator's
 award.
 
    The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard did not file any exceptions to
 Arbitrator Fallon's Award and did not request a stay.  Article 35 of the
 collective bargaining agreement provides that Respondent and the Union
 can file grievances.  In the past when Respondent determined that it was
 unwarranted, Respondent would discontinue EDP and the Union would file a
 grievance to resolve the dispute.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    The General Counsel of the FLRA contends that by discontinuing the
 eight percent EDP for the employees in the rubber molding and curing
 area Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the
 Statute because it violated Arbitrator Fallon's award and Sections
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute because Respondent unilaterally
 changed a term and condition of employment.
 
    The Statute provides a procedure for appealing to the FLRA if a party
 is dissatisfied with an arbitrator's award.  Both pursuant to the
 collective bargaining agreement (Article 35 Section 6) and the Statute,
 if no exceptions are filed to an arbitrator's award, that award is final
 and binding.  /9/ In the subject case, Respondent filed no exceptions to
 Arbitrator Fallon's Award and did not utilize the procedures provided by
 the Statute to secure review of the Award.  Accordingly, Arbitrator
 Fallon's Award is final and binding.
 
    In the award Arbitrator Fallon found that "On the record before us a
 high degree hazard differential should be paid to employees working in
 the molding and curing area.  . . . Given the lack of ventilation or
 personal respiratory equipment, there existed and continues to exist a
 potential for serious injury from exposure to ETU vapors or fumes, which
 has not been practically eliminated." Arbitrator Fallon was clearly
 making a finding that employees working in the rubber molding and curing
 area are entitled to EDP.  He was not merely saying that in the past
 conditions existed that justified awarding EDP solely for times past.
 Rather he was clearly finding that employees working under the then
 existing conditions were entitled pursuant to the collective bargaining
 agreement to eight percent EDP.  It is a decision that quite obviously
 continues to apply so long as the working conditions in the rubber
 molding and curing area remain unchanged.  Arbitrator Fallon's Award
 concluded that Respondent violated Article 20 Section 1 of the
 collective bargaining agreement "by failing to provide eight percent
 high degree poison (toxic chemicals) differentials . . . to employees
 working in the rubber molding and curing area . . ." The entire thrust
 of the Arbitrator's Decision and Award is that pursuant to the
 collective bargaining agreement employees working in the rubber molding
 and curing area were and continue to be entitled to the eight percent
 EDP and that by failing to pay the eight percent Respondent was
 violating the contract.  Accordingly, it is concluded that Arbitrator
 Fallon's Decision and Award was intended to and did have both
 retrospective and prospective effect.  This is supported by Arbitrator
 Fallon's invitation to come back to him with additional evidence.  This
 clearly was appropriate only because the Decision was to have
 prospective and continuing application.
 
    Portsmouth Naval Shipyard did not justify the discontinuance of the
 eight percent EDP ordered by Arbitrator Fallon on the basis of any
 change in working conditions in the rubber molding and curing area or
 because it had improved ventilation or provided the employees with
 personal respiratory equipment.  Rather, Respondent justified its action
 because it performed studies which, it alleges, show that the ETU level
 in the rubber molding and curing area was not sufficiently hazardous to
 justify an eight percent EDP.  This, however, was the very matter
 considered and decided by Arbitrator Fallon.  Respondent, after losing
 the case before Arbitrator Fallon, recognized that it had not submitted
 sufficiently convincing evidence to persuade Arbitrator Fallon that the
 rubber molding and curing area was not hazardous.  Accordingly, it is
 attempting to rectify that shortcoming by performing its own tests,
 making its own determination and then deciding not to comply with
 Arbitrator Fallon's Decision and Award.  This defeats the very purpose
 of the arbitration process, which is to permit the parties to submit a
 dispute to an arbitrator of their own choosing and to have that dispute
 resolved with finality.  The absence of finality would frustrate the
 entire purpose of going to arbitration.
 
    Respondent urges that it is entitled to refuse to comply with
 Arbitrator Fallon's Decision and Award and, if MTC was dissatisfied, MTC
 should file a new grievance and proceed to Arbitration again to seek a
 new determination of exactly what Arbitrator Fallon had already decided.
  Presumably if MTC prevailed again, Respondent would contend that
 Respondent could again refuse to pay EDP and, not being in noncompliance
 with the arbitrator's decision, require MTC to resort again to
 arbitration to enforce the very same right.  This could, under
 Respondent's theory, be repeated over and over, until some arbitrator
 found in the favor of Respondent.  Then, if Respondent is to be
 consistent, presumably MTC would not be bound by such an arbitrator's
 award and could file a new grievance over the very same employees and
 work.  All of the above could occur, according to Respondent, with
 absolutely no change having taken place in the working conditions.  Such
 an interpretation of the effect and result of an arbitration proceeding
 would render arbitration meaningless and does not permit the parties to
 establish, with any finality, their obligations.
 
    Respondent cites a number of authorities to the effect that an
 arbitrator's award is not precedential and that the principles, of stare
 decisis and res adjudicata do not apply to an arbitrator's award.  These
 precedents are inapposite.  In those situations the issues involved
 whether an arbitrator's interpretation of a contract clause is binding
 in subsequent arbitrations.  That is not the situation in the subject
 case.  In the subject case, the precise issue presented and resolved was
 whether employees in the rubber molding and curing area are entitled to
 the eight percent EDP.  Arbitrator Fallon specifically determined that
 employees in the rubber molding and curing area are entitled to the EDP.
  Thus, Respondent's argument that because neither stare decisis nor res
 adjudicata attaches to arbitration decisions, Arbitrator Fallon's
 Decision has no prospective effect is rejected.  This is further
 supported by Arbitrator Fallon's Decision wherein he recognized that the
 record made at the hearing was not as complete as it should have been.
 Thus he kept jurisdiction over the matter and invited the parties to
 submit additional evidence on any issue considered.  Respondent chose
 not to abide by Arbitrator Fallon's Decision and not to submit its
 additional evidence in order to convince Arbitrator Fallon to change his
 decision.  Rather, by discontinuing the EDP, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
 chose not to continue to comply with Arbitrator Fallon's award and by so
 doing Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the
 Statute.  Marine Corps Case, supra.
 
    Having concluded that Respondent failed to comply with Arbitrator
 Fallon's Decision and Award, I need not reach General Counsel of the
 FLRA's contention that, apart and distinct from the failure to comply
 with the arbitrator's award, there was a unilateral discontinuance of an
 existing working condition which violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
 the Statute.  /10/
 
    Having found that Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1), (5), and
 (8) of the Statute by its failure to continue to comply with Arbitrator
 Fallon's Decision and Award, it is concluded that a status quo ante
 remedy is appropriate.
 
    Having found and concluded that Respondent violated Sections
 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute, I recommend that the Authority
 issue the following:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and Section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered that Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,
 Portsmouth, New Hampshire shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Failing and refusing to comply with the arbitration award
       of Arbitrator William J. Fallon issued on January 31, 1981 by
       failing and refusing to pay an eight percent Environmental to
       employees working in the Rubber Molding and Curing Area of
       Building 60.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
       restraining or coercing employees 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
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
          (a) Comply with the arbitration award of Arbitrator William J.
       Fallon issued on January 31, 1981 by paying an eight percent
       Environmental Pay Differential to employees in the Rubber Molding
       and Curing Area of Building 60 and by making whole any employee in
       the Rubber Molding and Curing Area by making such Environmental
       Pay Differential retroactive to July 27, 1981.
 
          (b) Post at its facilities copies of the Attached notice marked
       "Appendix" on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
       Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms they shall be signed by an
       authorized representative and shall be posted and maintained for
       60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
       all bulletin boards and other places where notices are customarily
       posted.  Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the
       notices are not altered, defaced or covered by 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 with the Order.
 
                                       SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
 Dated:  November 30, 1982
         Washington, DC
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
  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 and refuse to comply with the arbitration award of
 Arbitrator William J. Fallon issued January 31, 1981 by failing to pay
 an eight percent Environmental Pay Differential to employees working in
 the Rubber Molding and Curing Area of Building 60.  WE WILL NOT in any
 like or related manner, interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in
 the exercise of rights assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute.  WE WILL comply with the arbitration award of
 Arbitrator William J.  Fallon issued January 31, 1981 by paying an eight
 percent Environmental Pay Differential to employees in the Rubber
 Molding and Curing Area of Building 60 and by making whole any employee
 in the Rubber Molding and Curing Area by making such Environmental Pay
 Differential retroactive to July 27, 1981.
                                       . . . (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 its provisions, they
 may communicate directly with the Regional Director of the Federal Labor
 Relations Authority, Region 1, whose address is:  441 Stuart Street, 9th
 Floor, Boston, MA 02116, and whose telephone number is (617) 223-1920.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
    /1A/ In view of this conclusion, the Authority finds it unnecessary
 to determine whether the Respondent's conduct was also in violation of
 secti