17:0927(122)CA - GPO, Public Documents Distribution Center, Pueblo, CO and AFGE Local 3392 -- 1985 FLRAdec CA



[ v17 p927 ]
17:0927(122)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 17 FLRA No. 122
 
 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 
 PUBLIC DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER 
 PUEBLO, COLORADO 
 Respondent
 
 and 
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3392 
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 7-CA-659
 
                            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 be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
 affirmative action.  The Judge further found that the Respondent had not
 engaged in another unfair labor practice alleged in the complaint and
 recommended dismissal of that portion of the complaint.  Exceptions to a
 part of the Judge's Decision were filed by the Respondent, and the
 General Counsel filed an opposition to the Respondent's exceptions.
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute), the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the
 Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
 committed.  The rulings are hereby affirmed.  Upon consideration of the
 Judge's Decision and the entire record in this case, the Authority
 hereby adopts the Judge's findings and conclusions only to the extent
 consistent herewith.
 
    The Judge concluded that the Respondent failed to comply with section
 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute when it did not provide the Union with an
 opportunity to be represented at a meeting on July 10, 1980, between the
 first level supervisor of the Receipts and Verification Unit (Dorene Van
 Dover) and the four Verification employees, inasmuch as the meeting was
 in his view a formal discussion.  /1/ In so concluding, the Judge found
 that the meeting in question was "formal" in nature, and that the
 subject matter of the meeting came within the meaning of section
 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute as required.  The Authority disagrees.
 
    In a subsequently issued decision, Bureau of Government Financial
 Operations, Headquarters, 15 FLRA No. 87 (1984), appeal docketed sub
 nom. National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, No. 84-1493 (D.C. Cir.
 Oct. 1, 1984), the Authority reiterated that in order for a union's
 right to be represented under section 7114(a)(2)(A) to attach, "all
 elements set forth in that section must be found to exist:  (1) a
 discussion;  (2) which is formal;  (3) between one or more
 representatives of the agency and one or more employees in the unit or
 their representatives;  /2/ (4) concerning any grievance or any
 personnel policy or practices or other general conditions of
 employment."
 
    Under the facts presented, the Authority concludes that no formal
 discussion took place because the final element reviewed above is not
 manifest.  With regard to the final element, in finding that the subject
 matter of the July 10 meeting concerned "any personnel policy or
 practices or other general condition of employment" within the meaning
 of section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute, /3/ the Judge stated at pages 9
 and 10 of his Decision:
 
          (T)he record clearly indicates that through discussion
       initiated by Van Dover, there was an unsuccessful attempt to gain
       voluntary employee acceptance of a significant change in the
       method of reporting "nonproductive" or "unmeasured time" on the
       back of the Verification Production Report.  The discussion also
       involved an inquiry into the reasons underlying the high
       productivity of Verification employees, and statements by Van
       Dover as to the potential future impact of high productivity
       levels on Verification employees.  She noted that if the employees
       continued to exceed production standards they would be detailed
       out more frequently in the future, and that if Verification
       employees did continue to exceed high production levels, there
       conceivably could be some impact on the number of positions in the
       Unit.
 
 The record reflects that the Public Documents Distribution Center in
 Denver, Colorado employs over eighty employees in conducting the mail
 order distribution operation for the Respondent.  Van Dover supervises
 the Receipts and Verification Unit of the Mail Order Processing Section
 at the Center.  Included among the employees supervised by Van Dover are
 the four employees of the Verification Area with whom she met on July
 10, 1980.
 
    In Bureau of Government Financial Operations, supra, the Authority
 clarified further the meaning of the phrase "concerning any grievance or
 any personnel policy or practices or other general condition of
 employment," contained in section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute.  In this
 regard, as relevant herein, the Authority concluded, in discussing the
 meaning of "any personnel policy or practices," that such policies and
 practices involve "general rules applicable to agency personnel, not
 discrete actions taken with respect to individual employees." Further,
 in discussing the meaning of "other general condition of employment,"
 the Authority concluded "that formal discussions are limited to those
 discussions (except grievance meetings) 'which concern conditions of
 employment affecting employees in the unit generally.'" (footnote
 omitted)
 
    In applying these considerations to the facts in the instant case,
 the Authority concludes, contrary to the Judge, that the subject matter
 of the meeting did not involve "any personnel policy or practices," or
 "other general condition of employment," within the meaning of section
 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute.  The discussion did not involve conditions
 of employment affecting employees in the unit generally, but instead
 concerned the manner in which four specific employees in one small
 subcomponent of the Respondent's operations were reporting their
 productivity.  Thus, the discussion constituted no more than a routine
 monitoring function by management.  No other employees in the Receipts
 and Verification Unit supervised by Van Dover, or anywhere else within
 the Public Documents Distribution Center, were involved in or affected
 by the particular inquiry concerning the reporting of productivity by
 the four employees at the meeting.  Moreover, any further discussion
 that ensued at the meeting concerning future details and staffing levels
 if productivity levels remained excessively high was speculative in
 nature and did not involve any specific personnel policies or practices
 of the Respondent.  Therefore, the Authority concludes that the subject
 matter of the July 10 meeting did not involve a grievance or any
 personnel policy or practice or other general condition of employment--
 at least one of which must be present as a prerequisite for finding that
 the subject matter of the discussion falls within the purview of section
 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute.
 
    Accordingly, the Authority concludes that the July 10 meeting was not
 a formal discussion within the meaning of section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the
 Statute inasmuch as the meeting did not concern subject matter within
 the purview of section 7114(a)(2)(A).  /4/ It follows, therefore,
 contrary to the conclusion of the Judge, that Respondent's failure to
 provide the Union with an opportunity to be represented at the July 10
 meeting was not violative of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the
 Statute.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 7-CA-659 be, and it
 hereby is, dismissed.  
 
 Issued, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1985
 
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Chairman
                                       William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Neal Fine, Esquire
    Robert F. Green, Esquire
    For the Respondent
 
    Gavin K. Lodge, Esquire
    For the General Counsel
 
    Mr. Michael R. Hudson
    For the Charging Party
 
    Before:  LOUIS SCALZO, Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This case arose as an unfair labor practice proceeding under the
 provisions of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 92
 Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101, et seq., (hereinafter referred to as "the
 Statute") and the rules and regulations issued thereunder.
 
    The complaint as amended at the hearing alleged that on or about July
 10, 1980, the Respondent, acting by and through Mrs. Dorene Van Dover, a
 Supervisory Supply Technician, at Respondent's Pueblo, Colorado
 facility, violated Sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by
 conducting a formal discussion with bargaining unit employees concerning
 personnel policies, practices and other general conditions of
 employment, as described in Section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute,
 without affording the Charging Party (hereinafter also referred to as
 "the Union") an opportunity to be represented at such discussion.  The
 amended complaint also alleged that on or about the same date, the
 Respondent, acting by and through Mrs. Van Dover, violated Sections
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by unilaterally changing terms and
 conditions of employment when Mrs. Van Dover changed requirements "for
 the reporting of non-productive time" without giving the Union notice of
 the change and affording the Union an opportunity to bargain.  /5/
 
    Counsel for the Respondent argues that the meeting convened by Mrs.
 Van Dover was not a "formal discussion" within the meaning of Section
 7114(a)(2)(A), and further that no unilateral change in the terms and
 conditions of employment occurred.
 
    The parties were represented by counsel during the hearing, and were
 afforded full opportunity to be heard, adduce relevant evidence, and
 examine and cross-examine witnesses.  Post-hearing briefs were received
 from counsel representing the General Counsel and counsel representing
 the Respondent.  These have been duly considered.  /6/
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
            General Information Pertaining to Center Operations
 
    The Public Documents Distribution Center conducts a mail order
 distribution operation for the Government Printing Office and other
 United States government agencies.  /7/ Work is performed by
 approximately eighty-two permanent employees.  In 1980, the Center
 distributed four and one half billion pieces of mail.  Since 1977, the
 Center has utilized formal production standards to project work loads,
 and to justify positions (Tr. 157).  Production standards are based on
 prior production figures of employees doing the same type of work in a
 unit (Tr. 157-158).
 
    Mrs. Van Dover, a supervisor in the Center's Mail Order Processing
 Section, was in charge of the Receipts and Verification Unit of the
 Section.  The Receipts and Verification Unit was housed in one room
 which in turn was divided into a Receipts area and a Verification area.
 The Receipts area employees received all paid orders for publications
 and processed the orders into batches.  The batches of paid orders were
 then received in the Verification area for further processing.
 
    Productivity was a special concern of Center management and
 production employees were required to fill out production reports.
 Employees in the Verification area executed Verification Production
 Reports daily (Tr. 30, Jt. Exh. 1).  Verification Production Reports
 were quite detailed and employees were required to account for their
 time.  Specific types of work activity were described and activities not
 directly related to production were also identified, but in more general
 terms.  The latter category, described in large measure as "unmeasured
 time," pertained to activity not relating directly to work performed by
 Verification employees (Tr. 51-52).
 
    The Mail Order Processing Section was required to file Manpower
 Utilization Reports based in part upon data collected in Verification
 Production Reports /8/ submitted by Verification employees.  Production
 standards imposed on employees in the Receipts and Verification Unit
 have gone up since 1977, and employees assigned to the Unit have been
 expected to perform more work as a result (Tr. 158).
 
  Managements Concern Relating to Tendency of Verification Employees to
 Exceed Production Standards, and Events Leading to July 10, 1980
 Meeting.
 
    About two weeks prior to July 10, 1980, Van Dover invited the
 attention of the Chief of the Mail Order Processing Section to the fact
 that Verification employees were frequently meeting and exceeding one
 hundred percent of production standards relating to Verification area
 work (Tr. 38, 56).  A total of four employees in the Receipts and
 Verification Unit were involved.  These were Jackie Mitts, Mary Lou
 Apodaca, Lucille Hernandez /9/ and Nanette Christenson.  Robert Sykes,
 Chief of the Section requested Van Dover to convene a meeting of
 Verification area employees to discuss the accuracy of Verification
 Production Reports (Tr. 67).  At the time Sykes was engaged in a study
 of production standards on behalf of management as management was
 considering an increase in production required of employees.  Accuracy
 in production reporting was deemed essential in order for Sykes to
 perform the task of recommending production standards (Tr. 68).  /10/ It
 was established that Sykes was concerned over the fact that Verification
 area employees were exceeding one hundred percent of their standards,
 and he felt that something "could be wrong in the reporting of the (sic)
 time" by Verification employees (Tr. 68, 76).  Sykes had previously
 submitted proposed production standards, but management had asked him to
 "refigure" his proposal and to provide "another set of figures" (Tr.
 153).
 
    It was made clear that management's concern relating to the
 consistently high productivity was the reason for convening the meeting
 (Tr. 28, 31).  Each time that it happened management was required to
 provide a narrative explanation in the Manpower Utilization Report (Tr.
 28-29).  Van Dover testified that prior to the July 10, 1980 meeting it
 was her intention to discuss Verification's record of exceeding
 standards with Verification employees (Tr. 29).  This discussion was
 contemplated as background for management's interest in assuring the
 accuracy of employee production reports (Tr. 123).
 
    July 10, 1980 Meeting
 
    Van Dover convened the meeting of the four Verification area
 employees on July 10, 1980 (Tr. 130).  The meeting lasted about one hour
 (Tr. 38-39).  Mary Lou Apodaca, one of the four employees was summoned
 back to the area from a detail by Van Dover, so that all Verification
 employees could attend the meeting (Tr. 29-30).  The Union was not
 notified of the meeting in advance (Tr. 41).  /11/
 
    Van Dover began the meeting by noting that the Verification segment
 of the Unit was consistently exceeding production standards imposed by
 management, and that she did not know whether the standards were set too
 low (Tr. 120).  She indicated that management wanted to know why
 employees were consistently exceeding the standards (Tr. 86).  /12/ As a
 result of the discussion concerning the high productivity of
 Verification area employees, one employee suggested that perhaps the
 standards were not high enough (Tr. 89, 131), at which point Van Dover
 responded by saying that she had been unsuccessful in efforts to
 persuade higher management officials to increase the standards (Tr. 89,
 114).  Van Dover's comments concerning high productivity also generated
 other employee comment as to the reasons for Verification's high
 performance (Tr. 120-121).
 
    Van Dover's main topic of discussion related to management's need for
 accuracy in reporting productivity on Verification Production Reports.
 She generated a discussion of the methodology utilized by the employees
 to compute and record time assigned by them to activities identified in
 the report (Tr. 33).  The following testimony elicited from Van Dover by
 counsel for the General Counsel indicates the nature of the discussion:
 
          Mr. Lodge:  You talked also didn't you?
 
          Mrs. Van Dover:  I listened too.
 
                                .  .  .  .
 
          Mrs. Van Dover:  I wanted to hear their ideas and I wanted to
       know what's wrong here with the time recording?  Are we all doing
       the same thing?
 
          Mr. Lodge:  Why was the unit exceeding production?
 
          Mrs. Van Dover:  True, I wanted to know if we were all
       recording it in the same way.  (Tr. 33-34)
 
    Some employees exhibited their logbooks or notebooks to indicate
 their method of preparing data for the Report (Tr. 37, 58-59).  Van
 Dover stated:  "I really wanted to know how they kept track of their
 time. . . .  So I was concerned.  I felt it was my concern" (Tr. 70-71).
  At another point she stated that the meeting was designed to review the
 methodology used to gather figures for the Verification Production
 Report (Tr. 83).
 
    In large measure the meeting was designed to produce ideas for
 improving the accuracy of the Report (Tr. 83, 133).  However, at least
 one employee, Jackie Mitts, perceived the inquiry as a possible
 management suggestion that reports were being falsified.  Mrs. Van Dover
 denied this, but indicated that it was management's intent to make their
 reports more accurate (Tr. 97).
 
    A considerable portion of the discussion related to the treatment of
 "unmeasured time," or time not directly associated with production
 because "it was easy to use unmeasured time (as a) catchall for any
 extra time we might not be able to account for. . . ." (Tr. 89,
 149-150).  /13/ Although no new production standards were imposed upon
 Verification area employees, and although employees were not ordered to
 change their method of reporting "non-productive time" or "unmeasured
 time," Van Dover did explore new methods of calculating and presenting
 such time on the Verification Production Report, and suggested to
 employees that they might keep an accurate accounting of unmeasured time
 on the back of the Verification Production Report instead of recording
 amounts of such time without further explanation (Tr. 124).  However,
 when Mary Lou Apodaca indicated that she wanted to keep such information
 in her own personal notebook, Van Dover indicated that this would be
 acceptable to management (Tr. 124-125).
 
    Van Dover's suggestion was in fact erroneously perceived as a
 directive by Jackie Mitts, who began to detail in more specific terms on
 the back of the Report, exactly how she utilized "unmeasured time" (Tr.
 90, 98-99, 103-104).  However, the record clearly indicated that
 reporting in a more detailed manner was strictly voluntary and not
 mandated (Tr. 37, 59, 84, 124-125, 133, 151).  There was no showing that
 Verification area employees were required to change their method of
 reporting time, or that, except for volunteers, employees ever did
 report their utilization of time in more detail.
 
    During the course of the meeting management concern over the high
 productivity record of Verification employees led to employee
 speculation as to whether the Unit would lose a position, speculation as
 to who would be transferred out, and/or whether there would be an
 increase in the detailing of employees (Tr. 34-35, 59, 88, 109, 115,
 122).  Van Dover noted that a position would not be "affected at this
 time," (Tr. 34), and said that a smaller unit was not then being planned
 (Tr. 59-60).  However, she acknowledged that it was possible that
 continuation of the group's consistently high productivity could lead to
 reduction in the size of the unit, the transfer of personnel, or an
 increase in detailing (Tr. 88, 109, 115).  However, Van Dover indicated
 that it was much more likely that there would be an increase in the
 practice of detailing employees out of Verification to help in other
 work areas (Tr. 36, 65, 121-122, 125, 127, 130-131, 152, 154).  The
 record disclosed that Verification area employees were ordinarily
 detailed out by Van Dover to the Order Preparation Unit or to warehouse
 work on an equitable basis involving volunteers or selection from a
 roster.  Details were considered undesirable by bargaining unit members
 in many cases (Tr. 77-78).
 
    A portion of the discussion during the course of the meeting related
 to comments made by Jackie Mitts with respect to her complaint that
 Verification area employees should be commended for their productivity
 rather than accused, and with respect to her inquiring whether
 management was in fact requesting that Verification employees slow down
 and produce less.  Van Dover denied that the meeting was convened to
 accuse them or to effect a slow down in their work.  She insisted that
 the meeting was convened to "assist them in recording their time
 properly" (Tr. 36-37), and said that there had to be a reason for
 consistently exceeding one hundred percent of their standards (Tr. 87).
 /14/
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    Section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute provides:
 
          (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 concerning any grievance or any personnel policy
       or practices or other general conditions of employment. . . .
 
    Although there is little or no case law specifically construing the
 provisions of Section 7114(a)(2)(A), cases construing Section 10(e) of
 Executive Order 11491, are relevant since the terminology used in
 Sections 10(e) is nearly identical to that utilized in Section
 7114(a)(2)(A).
 
    In Department of Defense, U.S. Navy, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, 1 FLRA
 No. 32, May 1, 1979, an unfair labor practice case initiated under
 Executive Order 11491, the Authority approved the following language
 used by the Federal Labor Relations Council in its Lyndon B. Johnson
 Space Center (NASA) decision:  /11/
 
          The language of the pertinent portion of section 10(e) . . .
       makes clear that it is not the intent of the Order to grant to an
       exclusive representative a right to be represented in every
       discussion between agency management and employees.  Rather, such
       a right exists only when the discussions are determined to be
       formal discussions and concern grievances, personnel policies and
       practices, or other matters affecting the general working
       conditions of unit employees.  (Footnotes omitted.)
 
    The Authority's decision in 1 FLRC No. 32, also adopted the following
 Council language from the Council's decision reviewing the Assistant
 Secretary's decision in A/SLMR No. 908:
 
          Thus, the discussion or meeting for which representation is
       sought must be "formal" in nature and the topic of the meeting
       must be one or more of the matters enumerated in the last sentence
       of section 10(e), i.e., "grievances, personnel policies and
       practices, or other matters affecting general working conditions
       of employees in the unit." Both elements must exist for the right
       of representation under section 10(e) to accrue either to the
       exclusive representative or, derivatively, to the employee
       involved.
 
          As to the first element, the question of whether a meeting is
       "formal" or informal is essentially a factual determination which,
       in our view, is a matter best resolved on a case-by-case basis by
       the Assistant Secretary as finder of fact, taking into
       consideration and weighing a variety of factors such as:  who
       called the meeting and for what purpose;  whether written notice
       was given;  where the meeting was held;  who attended;  whether a
       record or notes of the meeting were kept;  and what was actually
       discussed.  (Footnotes omitted).
 
    In the instant case it is determined that the July 10, 1980 meeting
 was "formal" within the meaning of Section 7114(a)(2)(A) for a number of
 reasons.  /16/ Van Dover, as supervisor in charge of the Receipts and
 Verification Unit was a representative of the agency, and the discussion
 was between a representative of the agency and "one or more employees in
 the (bargaining) unit." The meeting was convened by Van Dover at the
 request of Section Chief Robert Sykes;  both Sykes and Van Dover, two
 key management officials were involved in planning the meeting in the
 first instance;  the meeting lasted about one hour;  all Verification
 area employees were required to attend;  notice of the meeting was given
 to Verification area employees;  Mary Lou Apodaca, was returned from a
 detail by Van Dover in order to make certain that she would attend;  and
 lastly the subject of the meeting was of considerable concern to
 management and directly related to the operation of the Center.
 
    Turning to the second element of Section 7114(a)(2)(A), that is
 whether formal discussion at the July 10, 1980 meeting concerned "any
 personnel policies or practices or other general conditions of
 employment," the record clearly indicates that through discussion
 initiated by Van Dover, there was an unsuccessful attempt to gain
 voluntary employee acceptance of a significant change in the method of
 reporting "nonproductive" or "unmeasured time" on the back of the
 Verification Production Report.  The discussion also involved an inquiry
 into the reasons underlying the high productivity of Verification
 employees, and statements by Van Dover as to the potential future impact
 of high productivity levels on Verification employees.  She noted that
 if the employees continued to exceed production standards they would be
 detailed out more frequently in the future, and that if Verification
 employees did continue to exceed high production levels, there
 conceivably could be some impact on the number of positions in the Unit.
  The foregoing elements of discussion constituted a "discussion . . .
 concerning . . . personnel policies or practices or other general
 conditions of employment" within the meaning of Section 7114(a)(2)(A) of
 the Statute.  /17/
 
    It should be noted that Section 10(e) of Executive Order 11491 was
 not construed so narrowly as to encompass only discussions concerning
 changes or proposed changes in the terms and conditions of employment.
 Internal Revenue Service, Atlanta District Office, Atlanta, Georgia,
 A/SLMR No. 1014, 6 FLRC 812 (FLRC No. 78-58 (October 31, 1978)).  It
 appears that the Authority has taken a similar position in the
 interpretation of Section 7114(a)(2)(A).  Department of Health,
 Education and Welfare, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia and Department of
 Health and Human Services, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia, supra at Note
 12.  In this case the record reflects proof of a discussion concerning a
 change in the terms and conditions of employment in addition to evidence
 establishing mere discussion of the terms and conditions of employment.
 
    The facts presented here resemble analogous factual situations
 presented in Internal Revenue Service, Atlanta District Office, Atlanta,
 Georgia, supra;  Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
 and Firearms, Midwest Region, Chicago, Illinois, A/SLMR No. 1070, 6 FLRC
 920 (FLRC No. 78A-90 (December 6, 1978));  and Department of Health,
 Education and Welfare, Social Security Administration, BRSI,
 Northeastern Program Service Center, 1 FLRA No. 88 (July 31, 1979).  It
 is felt that the rules articulated in these cases govern.  Accordingly,
 it is determined that the facts outlined indicate that the Respondent
 failed to comply with the provisions of Section 7114(a)(2)(A).  This
 failure involved unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections
 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
 
    With regard to the alleged change in requirements "for the reporting
 of non-productive time," or "unmeasured time," the record clearly
 indicates that no such change was ever effectuated.  No bargaining
 obligation arises when management makes no change in a past practice or
 personnel policy.  Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social
 Security Administration, BRSI, Northeastern Program Service Center,
 supra;  Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Cleveland,
 Ohio, 3 FLRA No. 106 (July 17, 1980).
 
    Upon the basis of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Authority
 issue the following Order pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2423.19(c).
 
                                   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 United States Government Printing Office, Public Documents
 Distribution Center, Pueblo, Colorado, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Conducting formal discussions between management and unit
       employees, or their representatives, concerning personnel policies
       or practices, or other matters affecting general conditions of
       employment in the unit, without notifying and affording the
       American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3392,
       the exclusive representative of its employees, or any other
       exclusive representative of its employees, the opportunity to be
       represented at such discussions.
 
          (b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
       the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal Service
       Labor-Management Relations Statute by failing to notify and afford
       the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
       3392, or any other exclusive representative of its employees, the
       opportunity to be represented at formal discussions between
       management and unit employees, or employee representatives,
       concerning personnel policies or practices, or other matters
       affecting general conditions of employment in the unit.
 
          (c) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing any employee in the exercise of any right
       under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purpose and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute:
 
          (a) Notify the American Federation of Government Employees,
       AFL-CIO, Local 3392 of, and afford it the opportunity to be
       represented at, formal discussions between management and unit
       employees, or employee representatives, concerning personnel
       policies or practices, or other matters affecting general
       conditions of employment in the unit.
 
          (b) Post at its facilities at the Public Documents Distribution
       Center, Pueblo, Colorado, copies of the attached notice marked
       "Appendix" on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
       Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by
       the Manager of the Public Documents Distribution Center 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 by Respondent 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 VII, 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.
 
                                       LOUIS SCALZO
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
 Dated:  May 27, 1981
         Washington, DC
 
 
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
  PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
 OF TITLE
 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS
 WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
 WE WILL NOT conduct formal discussions between management and unit
 employees, or their representatives, concerning personnel policies or
 practices or other matters affecting general conditions of employment in
 the unit, without notifying and affording the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3392, the exclusive representative
 of our employees, or any other exclusive representative of our
 employees, the opportunity to be represented at such discussions.  WE
 WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce unit employees in the
 exercise of their rights assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute by failing to notify and afford the American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3392, or any other
 exclusive representative of our employees, the opportunity to be
 represented at formal discussions between management and employees, or
 employee representatives, concerning personnel policies or practices, or
 other matters affecting general conditions of employment in the unit.
 WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
 coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.  WE WILL notify the
 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3392, and
 afford it the opportunity to be represented at, formal discussions
 between management and unit employees or their representatives,
 concerning personnel policies or practices, or other matters affecting
 general conditions of employment in the unit.
                                       (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, Region VII of the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is:  Suite 680, City
 Center Square, 1100 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64105;  and whose
 telephone number is (816) 374-2199.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ Section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute provides:
 
          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 concerning any grievance or any personnel policy
       or practices or other general condition of employment(.)
 
 
    /2/ As there appears to be no dispute that the meeting was a
 discussion between representatives of the agency and bargaining unit
 employees, the Authority concludes that elements 1 and 3 have been met.
 
 
    /3/ No party alleged, and it does not appear, that the meeting
 concerned a grievance within the meaning of section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the
 Statute.
 
 
    /4/ In view of this finding, the Authority does not decide whether
 the meeting was formal (element 2).
 
 
    /5/ During the course of the hearing "non-productive time" was
 referred to as "unmeasured time," or time not directly associated with
 production work performed by the unit.
 
 
    /6/ Counsel for the Respondent moved to correct the hearing
 transcript as follows:
 
          Page Line Change To
 
          26 5 3 FLRA 687 3 FLRC 697
 
          163 6 manage side manning
 
    Under authority provided in Section 2423.19(r) of the Regulations, 5
 C.F.R. 2423.19(r), the motion to correct is granted.  The following
 additional corrections are also made in the hearing transcript:
 
          Page Line Change To
 
          41 24 objection Jenck's Act
 
          119 9 Union Unit
 
 
    /7/ The Center bids on mail order distribution contracts offered by
 government agencies on a competitive basis and performs distribution
 services for such agencies under the terms of contracts negotiated.
 
 
    /8/ The Manpower Utilization Report reflected the productivity of the
 Section, and not individual employee productivity.
 
 
    /9/ This individual is referred to in the record as Lucille Hernandez
 and Priscilla Hernandez.  Her correct name was finally reported as
 Lucille Priscilla Hernandez.
 
 
    /10/ The Manager of the Center had the authority to set standards and
 Sykes had authority to recommend changes (Tr. 158).
 
 
    /11/ Although a Union steward was in the room where the meeting was
 held, the steward was not notified in advance and did not overhear what
 was discussed by those in attendance (Tr. 136).
 
 
    /12/ Although Van Dover testified that she could not recall bringing
 up the subject of employees exceeding production standards relating to
 Verification work, the record is clear that she intended to mention this
 fact and that she did mention this at the meeting.  It was also brought
 out that it was common knowledge that the group was then exceeding
 productivity standards (Tr. 123, 132).
 
 
    /13/ Work in this category included activities relating to union
 work, worker safety, women's programs, welfare, and equal employment
 opportunity matters (Tr. 51-52, 149-150).
 
 
    /14/ The record reflected no indication whatsoever that the
 Respondent was encouraging a slow down.  If anything, the evidence shows
 that the opposite result was intended.
 
 
    /15/ National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
 Washington, D.C., and Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (NASA), Houston,
 Texas, A/SLMR No. 457, 3 FLRC 617 (FLRC No. 74A-95 (September 26,
 1975)).  The Authority's decision in 1 FLRA No. 32, resulted from
 Authority review of the Federal Labor Relations Council's decision
 remanding a decision of the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
 Labor-Management Relations in Department of Defense, U.S. Navy, Norfolk,
 Naval Shipyard, A/SLMR No. 908, (FLRC No. 77A-141 (December 28, 1978)).
 
 
    /16/ See 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 (April 14, 1981).
 
 
    /17/ The phrase "conditions of employment" is, with exceptions not
 pertinent here, defined in Section 7103(14) of the St