18:0693(80)CA - IRS, Kansas City Service Center, Kansas City, MO and NTEU and NTEU Local Chapter 66 -- 1985 FLRAdec CA



[ v18 p693 ]
18:0693(80)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 18 FLRA No. 80
 
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 
 KANSAS CITY SERVICE CENTER 
 KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 
 Respondent 
 
 and 
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 
 AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 
 LOCAL CHAPTER 66 
 Charging Party
 
                                            Cass Nos. 7-CA-1000
                                                      7-CA-1002
 
                            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 consolidated 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 certain other alleged unfair labor
 practices and recommended dismissal of the consolidated complaint as to
 them.  Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's
 Decision.  /1/
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute), the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the
 Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
 committed.  The rulings are hereby affirmed.  Upon consideration of the
 Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts the
 Judge's findings, conclusions and recommended Order, /2/ only to the
 extent consistent herewith.
 
    The Judge found that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and
 (5) of the Statute by preventing the Union from bargaining effectively
 concerning the impact and implementation of the Respondent's decision to
 change certain conditions of employment.  /3/ The Authority disagrees.
 The record in the instant case reveals that the Respondent first
 notified the Union, at a labor-management meeting held on August 28,
 1980, of its decision to institute performance expectations by September
 30, 1980, at the Kansas City Service Center.  At this meeting the
 Respondent discussed the general guidelines of the proposed performance
 expectations with representatives of the Union in as much detail as
 possible at that time, given that actual performance expectations had
 not yet been formulated.  The Respondent next met with the Union on
 September 10, 1980, to provide the Union with additional information
 concerning the changes in working conditions which was then available
 and to reaffirm its intention to implement those changes by September
 30, 1980.  At this meeting the Respondent provided the Union with two
 sample performance expectations, which were not applicable to any
 particular work unit within the Kansas City Service Center, but which
 were made available to the Union for general illustrative purposes.  It
 was further established that the actual performance expectations
 applicable to particular work units at the Kansas City Service Center
 were not available at the time of the September 10 meeting as it was the
 Respondent's intention to allow individual supervisors to tailor the
 sample performance expectations to fit the needs of their particular
 units and this process had not yet been completed.  The Union made no
 request to bargain at this meeting.  Finally, the record also indicates
 that the Respondent and the Union met again on September 18, 1980 for
 the purpose of further discussing the sample copies of the performance
 expectations and that the Union failed to submit bargaining proposals at
 that time.
 
    Although the Judge found that the Respondent's failure to provide the
 Union with the actual performance expectations applicable to particular
 work units of the Kansas City Service Center prevented the Union from
 bargaining effectively concerning the impact and implementation of the
 changes, the Authority concludes that under the circumstances herein,
 the sample performance expectations that the Union did receive at the
 September 10 meeting were sufficient for purposes of negotiating impact
 and implementation.  In this regard, the General Counsel failed to
 demonstrate that the Union was prevented from presenting proposals at
 either of the September meetings described above based on the
 information it did receive.  Moreover, the Union's request for more
 specific information with respect to actual performance expectations
 could not have been provided inasmuch as individual supervisors had not
 yet completed the task of tailoring the sample performance expectations
 to fit the needs of their particular work units.  Finally, the Authority
 notes that when individual unit supervisors did eventually implement
 performance expectations specifically tailored to their particular work
 units, upon appropriate bargaining requests by the Union, the Respondent
 discontinued implementation in those work units until a decision on the
 negotiability of the requests was reached.  Indeed, the record shows
 that agreement between the Union and the Respondent has been reached
 concerning the impact and implementation of the changes herein
 subsequent to the filing of the instant consolidated complaint.
 Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing record evidence, the Authority
 concludes that the Respondent did not prevent the Union from bargaining
 effectively under the circumstances herein and, accordingly, the
 allegation that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
 the Statute shall be dismissed.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS ORDERED that the consolidated complaint in Case Nos. 7-CA-1000
 and 7-CA-1002 be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.  
 
 Issued, Washington, D.C., June 21, 1985
 
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Chairman
                                       William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Megan Yearout, Esquire
    For the Respondent
 
    John J. Rubin, Esquire
    For the General Counsel
 
    M. Kathryn Durham, Esquire
    For the Charging Party
 
    Before:  BURTON S. STERNBURG, Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement Of The Case
 
    This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, Section 7101,
 et seq., and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder, Fed. Reg. Vol.
 45, No. 12, January 17, 1980, 5 C.F.R. Chapter XIV, Part 2411, et seq.
 
    Pursuant to charges filed on February 9, 1981, by the National
 Treasury Employees Union and National Treasury Employees Union Local
 Chapter 66, (hereinafter called the NTEU or Union), a Consolidated
 Complaint and Notice of Hearing was issued on March 31, 1981, by the
 Regional Director for Region VII, Federal Labor Relations Authority,
 Kansas City, Missouri.  The Consolidated Complaint alleges in substance
 that the Internal Revenue Service, Kansas City Service Center, Kansas
 City, Missouri, (hereinafter called the IRS or Respondent), violated
 Sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, (hereinafter called the Statute), by virtue of its
 actions in (1) "unilaterally implementing changes in performance and
 dependability expectations (performance standards)" without first giving
 the Union prior notice of the changes and the opportunity to request
 bargaining with respect to impact, implementation, and the form of
 employee participation in the establishment of said performance
 standards;  and (2) refusing to furnish the Union the historical data
 relied upon by Respondent in establishing the performance standards.
 
    A hearing was held in the captioned matter on June 18, 1981, in
 Kansas City, Missouri.  All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
 heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
 bearing on the issues involved herein.  The General Counsel and
 Respondent submitted post-hearing briefs on August 24, 1981, which have
 been duly considered.
 
    Upon the basis of the entire record, including my observation of the
 witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following findings of fact,
 conclusions and recommendations.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    Respondent's Kansas City Service Center, which employs several
 thousand individuals, is responsible for processing the tax returns
 emanating from four mid-western states.  NTEU, Chapter 66 has been the
 exclusive representative of Respondent's non-supervisory employees since
 1973.  On August 31, 1977, the NTEU, of which Chapter 66 is a
 constituent local, was certified as the exclusive representative in a
 consolidated unit of all Respondent's Service Centers throughout the
 United States, including Kansas City.
 
    The work performed by the employees at the Kansas City Service Center
 falls into two categories, measured or unmeasured work.  Measured work
 is work which by its nature can be measured in terms of numbers and
 quality produced during a given span of time.  Unmeasured work, on the
 other hand, is work which by its nature "doesn't lend itself to easy
 measurement".  More than fifty percent of the employees at the Kansas
 City Service Center perform measured work.  /4/
 
    Prior to August of 1980, Respondent had in effect written quantity
 and quality expectations for an unspecified number of its units wherein
 measured work was performed.  Other unspecified units were working under
 expectations which had been delivered verbally by the respective
 supervisors;  and still other unspecified units were performing measured
 work with no quantity or quality expectations at all.
 
    In mid-July, 1980, the Director of the Service Center decided that
 the concept of written performance expectations should be expanded to
 cover the entire work force of the Kansas City Service Center,
 irrespective of the type of work performed.  The performance
 expectations for the unmeasured work was to consist of a verbal written
 summary of the work to be performed and the proper manner to be utilized
 in performing the work.  Measured work on the other hand was to consist
 of numerical expectations with respect to quantity and quality.  /5/
 
    On August 28, 1980, a regular bi-monthly Labor-Management Relations
 Committee meeting was held.  In addition to discussing several agenda
 items submitted by the Union, the Respondent, for the first time,
 informed the Union that it intended in the near future to update
 existing expectations and establish new expectations for all work
 performed by the employees at the Service Center.  Thus, the minutes of
 the meeting, which were signed by Ms. Elizabeth Conway, Chief, Personnel
 Branch and Management Spokesperson and Ms. Anne Eckstein, NTEU Chapter
 66 President, described the discussion of the performance expectation as
 follows:
 
    1.  Performance Expectations
 
          Management stated that performance expectations would soon be
       issued in all areas of the Service Center.  Many areas already
       have such expectations established and all will be reviewed at
       least quarterly once they are established.  Management stated
       these expectations would be issued for the purpose of improving
       communications between managers and employees about what is
       expected of them.  Management stated these would be used in
       granting or denying Within-Grade Increases and career ladder
       promotions and would also be used as a basis for incentive awards
       as well as for determining the appropriateness of adverse actions
       based on poor performance.  Management stated the issuance of
       these expectations would not modify the requirements of the
       Multi-Center Agreement in any way and did not constitute
       establishment of a performance appraisal system or critical job
       elements which are to be established under the Civil Service
       Reform Act.
 
          The Union asked how these expectations will affect ISEP and
       promotions.  Management responded that these expectations do not
       affect evaluations based on ISEP nor do they affect evaluations
       prepared under the negotiated agreement for internal promotion
       announcements.
 
          Management stated expectations would be issued by September 30,
       1980.  Management also stated plans were not completely finalized
       but would be shared with NTEU when they are finalized.
 
    Representatives of the Respondent and the Union, pursuant to a
 request by the Respondent, met on or about September 10, 1980.  At this
 meeting, Mr. William Bridges, Assistant Director of the Service Center,
 presented to the Union representatives in attendance, i.e. Ms. Eckstein,
 Union President and Mr. Ray Williams, Chief Steward, two sample copies
 of the new expectations which were going to be distributed to the
 managers who were responsible for supervising the various areas of the
 Service Center.  The samples were not applicable to any particular area
 of the Service Center and indicated that new or returning employees
 would be expected to achieve a certain percentage of the expectations
 established for any particular area or job.  Moreover, the samples did
 not set forth any numerical quantity and quality expectations.
 
    Other than questioning the percentages appearing on the samples for
 new or returning employees, the Union made no request to bargain since
 they were not prepared for the presentation and had not had an
 opportunity to study the samples, which as noted above, were not
 applicable to any specific unit.  The meeting ended with the Union
 stating it would get back in touch with the Respondent after it had an
 opportunity to go over the information set forth in the samples.
 
    On September 18, 1980, James Blase, a labor relations officer, met
 with Mr. Williams and Ms. Eckstein for purposes of further discussing
 the sample copies of the new expectations.  During the course of the
 discussion the Union raised a number of its concerns with the new
 expectations and Mr. Blase attempted to assuage or pacify the Union and
 supply answers to various questions propounded by the Union.  The
 meeting ended with the Union expressing dissatisfaction with the answers
 given by Mr. Blase and inquiring whether or not the Respondent intended
 to bargain with the Union over the expectations.  Mr. Blase, according
 to a memorandum to the file dated September 19, 1980, informed the Union
 that negotiations would depend on the Union's proposals.
 
    Beginning on or about September 18, 1980, and continuing through
 approximately October 1, 1980, Respondent without any further discussion
 or notice to the Union implemented new or revised production
 expectations in some 26 units of the Service Center where measured work
 was being performed.  The production expectations made provision for new
 and/or returning employees to work up over a period of time to 100% of
 the performance expectations.  Upon receiving the expectations in the
 respective units, the Union's Chief Steward immediately directed a form
 letter to the respective unit supervisors which requested substance,
 impact and implementation bargaining;  that any implementation of the
 expectations be rescinded;  and that the Union be provided all the
 historic information relied upon "to arrive at the quantity and quality
 percentages." /6/
 
    On October 10, 1980, Respondent directed a memorandum to Ms. Eckstein
 and Mr. Williams in response to their requests to negotiate the
 expectations implemented in some 26 individual units.  The memorandum
 pointed out that during a meeting on October 1, 1980, management had
 indicated that while the performance expectations were non-negotiable it
 welcomed feedback from the Union concerning any specific problems in
 connection with the expectations.  The memorandum went on to encourage
 such feedback and point out that the expectations were not part of the
 performance appraisal system required under the Civil Service Reform Act
 of 1978 which would be developed on a National level.  Additionally, the
 memorandum indicated that there would be no deferral of implementation
 and that the Union's request for information underlying the expectations
 was denied since the information related to the substance of the
 expectations which Respondent considered to be outside the scope of
 bargaining.
 
    The closing paragraph of Respondent's October 1, 1980, letter
 acknowledged that there may be impact and implementation proposals which
 may be negotiable and requested that the Union submit such proposals by
 October 17, 1980.
 
    On November 7, 1980, /7/ the Union submitted a number of proposals
 concerning the performance expectations.  The Union's proposals dealt,
 in the main, with the percentage production expectations assigned to new
 or returning employees.  Additionally, the Union renewed its request for
 the "historical" data relied upon by management to arrive at the hourly
 production rates.  The Union proposed that a new employee be allowed six
 months to arrive at 100% of expected level while returning employees be
 allowed four weeks to arrive at 100% of expected levels.
 
    On November 17, 1980, Respondent responded to the Union's November 7,
 1980, letter and informed the Union that its proposals went to substance
 and hence were non-negotiable.  The Respondent further informed the
 Union that it intended to continue implementation of the expectations
 beginning November 24, 1980.
 
    On December 10, 1980 and December 18, 1980, various representatives
 of the Union, by separate letters, renewed the Union's request for the
 information underlying the production expectations.  Both requests were
 subsequently denied by the Respondent on the ground that the information
 pertained to matters outside the scope of collective bargaining and, as
 such, the Respondent was under no obligation to supply same.
 
    The record reveals that the performance expectations were
 subsequently utilized or relied upon by Respondent as a ground for
 demoting an employee to a lower grade.
 
    The record further reveals that the IRS and NTEU had been negotiating
 performance standards and critical elements within the meaning of
 Section 4302 of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), on a National
 basis.  The record also reveals that the parties entered into an
 agreement with respect to "employee participation" in April of 1981.
 
    According to the uncontested testimony of Ms. Conway, Chief of the
 Personnel Branch, the printouts, etc., which comprise the "historical"
 data requested by the Union, occupy about "90 cubic feet of space".
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    The General Counsel in both his opening remarks and post-hearing
 brief makes it clear that the alleged Section 7116(a)(1) and (5)
 violation of the Statute is predicated solely upon Respondent's action
 in unilaterally implementing changes in the employees' performance
 expectations without first notifying the Union and affording it a
 meaningful opportunity to bargain, at least, with respect to impact and
 implementation.  /8/ Additionally, relying primarily on the Authority's
 decision in National Treasury Employees Union, 3 FLRA No. 119, the
 General Counsel takes the position that performance expectations are in
 fact performance standards within the meaning of Section 4302 of the
 CSRA and, accordingly, the Union is also entitled to bargain over the
 form of employee participation in the establishment of such performance
 standards.  As a further alternative position, the General Counsel,
 relying on the Authority's decision in Internal Revenue Service and
 Brookhaven Service Center, 4 FLRA No. 30, argues that the substance of
 the expectations is negotiable.  Finally, the General Counsel takes the
 position that the Union is entitled to the information underlying the
 numerical expectations announced at various times by the Respondent.
 
    The Respondent on the other hand takes the position that the
 expectations are not equivalent to the performance standards and
 critical elements encompassed by Section 4302 of the CSRA, that the
 Authority's decision in Internal Revenue Service and Brookhaven Service
 Center, supra, does not make the substance of performance expectations
 negotiable, and that it did give the Union adequate notice of its
 decision to change or install new performance expectations.  Lastly,
 Respondent takes the position that inasmuch as the Union was not
 entitled to bargain over the substance of Respondent's expectations, it,
 the Respondent, was under no obligation to supply the historical data
 requested by the Union.
 
    Based upon the record as a whole and particularly the uncontested
 testimony of Ms. Conway, Chief of the Personnel Branch, I can not find,
 as urged by the General Counsel, that the performance expectations
 established or changed during the period September 18 1980 through
 October 1, 1980, amounted to "performance standards" within the meaning
 of Section 4302 of the CSRA.  Thus, the record indicates that a number
 of similar performance expectations had been in force prior to the
 passage of the CSRA and that the parties were negotiating, on the
 national level, the ground rules for the participation of the Union in
 the establishment of the production standards and critical elements
 mandated by Section 4302 of the CSRA.  Accordingly, the Authority's
 decision in National Treasury Employees Union, supra, is not applicable
 to the unilateral changes alleged herein as a violation, and the
 Respondent is therefore under no obligation to bargain with the Union
 concerning the form of employee participation in the establishment of
 the production expectations.
 
    I further find, again contrary to the position of the General
 Counsel, that the substance of the performance expectations is not a
 negotiable item.  Thus, the Authority in National Treasury Employees
 Union, supra, made it clear that the levels of output and the quality of
 work product fall within the rights accorded management to direct
 employees under Section 7106(a)(2)(A) and assign work under Section
 7106(a)(2)(B) of the Statute.  The subsequent decision in Internal
 Revenue Service and Brookhaven Service Center, supra, does not call for
 a contrary conclusion.  In this latter case the Authority made it clear
 that its decision was confined solely to the particular facts of the
 case and that while it was finding that a Union proposal concerning the
 procedure to be utilized in setting production expectation was
 negotiable, it was not holding "that any proposal concerned with the
 subject of procedures used to determine acceptable levels of performance
 would be within the duty to bargain".
 
    In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3656
 and Federal Trade Commission, Boston Regional Office, 5 FLRA No. 70, the
 Authority reiterated its position that Section 7106(a)(2)(A) and Section
 7106(a)(2)(B) make the content of performance standards non-negotiable.
 In this case the Authority reemphasized that, under Section (b)(2) and
 (3), an agency has however, the duty to bargain on the procedures
 management will observe in, and on appropriate arrangements for
 employees adversely affected by, the establishment of performance
 standards by agency management.
 
    With the above principles, findings and conclusions in mind, I now
 turn to the basic facts underlying the General Counsel's contention that
 the Respondent violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
 
    The record reveals, and there does not appear to be any dispute, that
 the Respondent for a number of years had in effect written and/or oral
 performance expectations in a number of its units where measurable work
 was performed.  The record further indicates that in other units where
 measurable work was performed no such standards existed.
 
    On August 28, 1980, Respondent announced for the first time its
 intention to issue written performance expectations for all of its
 units.  Thereafter, Respondent again met with the Union on or about
 September 10, 1980, and presented to the Union two sample copies of
 expectations which were going to be distributed to the various managers
 who would then be responsible for drafting expectations.  Neither of the
 two samples were applicable to any particular unit.  Thereafter, without
 any further meaningful discussion Respondent proceeded to implement
 performance expectations in some twenty-six units without first giving
 the Union either notice or copies of the new or revised performance
 expectations and allowing the Union the opportunity to request impact
 and implementation bargaining.
 
    All parties agree that as a general rule it is incumbent upon an
 agency to give the exclusive representative of its employee prior notice
 of any contemplated change in conditions of employment and allow such
 representative the opportunity to request, at least, impact and
 implementation bargaining.
 
    Respondent takes the position that it was not under any obligation to
 give such notice as its action was mere extension of an existing
 practice, and that in any event, it did give the Union adequate notice
 of its decision to implement performance expectations and allow it the
 opportunity to request impact and implementation bargaining.
 
    I cannot agree with Respondent's position.  The law is settled that a
 substantial change in conditions of employment necessitates impact and
 implementation bargaining.  Here, although not all the changes in
 performance expectations are set forth in the record, the credited
 testimony of Mr. Williams establishes that performance expectations were
 indeed set for a number of units where there were no past written or
 oral performance expectations.  In such circumstances, Respondent was
 obligated to give the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain over
 impact implementation.  This it did not do.
 
    Respondent's announcement of its decision to institute performance
 expectations and the presentation of two sample performance
 expectations, which were not applicable to any particular unit, falls
 short of the duties imposed by the Statute.  In order to conduct
 meaningful negotiations a union must know with some sort of
 particularity what it is to bargain over.  Until it is faced with
 specific changes in conditions of employment, how can it determine if
 there is a substantial impact over which it might want to formulate
 bargaining proposals.  The Union is entitled to specifics not
 generalities.  Having failed to give the Union actual copies of the
 respective performance expectations prior to instituting same during the
 period September 18 through October 1, 1980, I find that the Respondent
 violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
 
    Finally, with regard to the alleged Section 7116(a)(8) violation
 predicated upon the Respondent's admitted failure to honor the Union's
 requests for all the historical data underlying the new or modified
 performance expectations, I cannot agree that the Union is entitled to
 all the historical data relied upon by Respondent in setting the new or
 revised performance expectations.  Thus, according to Section 7114(b)(4)
 of the Statute, an agency is only required to furnish data:
 
          (B) which is reasonably available and necessary for full and
       proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation of subjects
       within the scope of collective bargaining.
 
    Inasmuch as the substance of the performance expectations is not
 within the scope of the bargaining obligation, Respondent is not
 required to supply the data underlying same.  However, since the
 Respondent is under an obligation to bargain with the Union over the
 impact and implementation of the new or modified performance
 expectations, it is required to supply to the Union all the information
 in its possession which is "reasonably available and necessary for full
 and proper discussion" of the impact and implementation issues.
 
    In this latter context, the record is barren of any evidence
 indicating how any part of the "historical data" relied upon by the
 Respondent in setting the performance expectations bears any
 relationship to the impact and implementation discussions or
 negotiations mandated by the Statute.  In the absence of a showing that
 the historical data is necessary for a full and proper discussion,
 understanding, and negotiation of the impact and implementation issues,
 I cannot conclude, as urged by the General Counsel, that Respondent
 violated Section 7116(a)(8) of the Statute by refusing to make the
 historical data available.  /9/ Cf. Director of Administration,
 Headquarters, USAF, 6 FLRA No. 24.
 
    Aside from the above considerations, I question the validity of the
 Union's request for the information.  While a union does not have to be
 specific with regard to each and every bit of information requested for
 purposes of fulfilling its representational duties, it has to do more
 than merely demand "all historical data" relied upon by Respondent in
 setting the performance expectations.  Thus, I find that it is incumbent
 upon the Union to designate with some particularity the subjects it
 wishes to discuss and the relationship of the designated material to
 such discussion.  In the absence of a more definite description of the
 information desired and a showing of a relationship to the mandatory
 subject of bargaining, the Respondent does not violate the Statute by
 denying a union's general, comprehensive, unspecific demand for
 information.
 
    Having found and concluded that the Respondent violated Sections
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by virtue of its actions in
 instituting new or revised performance expectations during the period
 September 18, 1980 through October 1, 1980, without first giving the
 Union notice and allowing the Union the opportunity to negotiate
 concerning the procedures to be utilized in implementing the performance
 expectations and their impact on adversely affected employees, I
 recommend that the Authority issue the following order designed to
 effectuate the purposes of the Statute.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to Section 7118(a)(7)(A) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C.Section 7118(a)(7)(A), and
 Section 2423.29(b)(1) of the Rules and Regulations, 5 C.F.R.Section
 2423.29(b)(1), the Authority hereby orders that the Internal Revenue
 Service, Kansas City Service Center, Kansas City, Missouri shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Instituting new or reviewed production expectations in the
       Kansas City Service Center without first notifying the National
       Treasury Employees Union and affording it the opportunity to meet
       and confer, to the extent consonant with law and regulations,
       concerning the procedures to be observed in implementing such
       performance expectations, and their impact on adversely affected
       employees.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
       assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Federal Labor Management Relations Statute:
 
          (a) Rescind and withdraw the performance expectations which
       were instituted during the period September 18, 1980 through
       October 1, 1980, without first giving the National Treasury
       Employees Union prior notice of same and affording it the
       opportunity to meet and confer, to the extent consonant with law
       and regulations, concerning, the procedures to be observed in
       implementing such performance expectations, and their impact on
       adversely affected employees.
 
          (b) Notify the National Treasury Employees Union prior to the
       installation of any new or revised performance expectations, and
       upon request, consult and negotiate with such labor organization,
       to the extent consonant with law and regulations, concerning the
       impact and implementation of such new or revised performance
       expectations.
 
          (c) Post at its Kansas City Service Center, Kansas City,
       Missouri, 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 Director of
       the Service Center and they shall be posted for 60 consecutive
       days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
       notices to employees are customarily posted.  The Director of the
       Service Center shall take reasonable steps to insure that such
       notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
       material.
 
          (d) Notify the Federal Labor Relations Authority in writing,
       within 30 days from the date of this Order as to what steps have
       been taken to comply herewith.
 
    IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining allegations of the
 complaint, which have been found supra not to be violative of the
 Statute, be, and hereby are dismissed.
 
                                       BURTON S. STERNBURG
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  September 24, 1981
    Washington, D.C.
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
  PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
 OF TITLE
 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS
 We hereby notify our employees that:
 
    WE WILL NOT institute new or revised performance expectations without
 first providing to the National Treasury Employees Union and National
 Treasury Employees Union Local Chapter 66, the exclusive representative
 of our bargaining unit employees, adequate advance notice and a
 meaningful opportunity to bargain consonant with law and regulations,
 concerning the procedures to be observed in implementing such
 performance expectations, and the impact of the performance expectations
 on adversely affected employees.
 
    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
 Statute.
 
    WE WILL rescind and withdraw the performance expectations which were
 instituted during the period September 18, 1980 through October 1, 1980,
 without first giving advance notice to the National Treasury Employees
 Union and National Treasury Employees Union Local Chapter 66 of the
 performance expectations, and affording it the opportunity to meet and
 confer, to the extent consonant with law and regulations, concerning,
 the procedures to be observed in implementing the performance
 expectations, and their impact on adversely affected employees.
 
    WE WILL in the future notify the National Treasury Employees Union
 and the National Treasury Employees Union Local Chapter 66 to the
 installation of any new or revised performance expectations, and upon
 request, consult and negotiate with such labor organization, to the
 extent consonant with law and regulations, concerning the impact and
 implementation of such new or revised performance expectations.
                                       (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 question concerning this Notice or compliance
 with any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
 Regional Director for the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region VII,
 whose address is:  Suite 680, City Center Square, 1100 Main Street,
 Kansas City, Missouri, 64105 and whose telephone number is:  (816)
 374-2199.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ The General Counsel Exceptions were untimely filed and therefore
 have not been considered.
 
 
    /2/ In adopting the Judge's dismissal of an allegation that
 Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute by failing
 to supply certain data to the Union, the Authority notes that no timely
 exceptions were filed to such dismissal.
 
 
    /3/ In so concluding, the Judge found that a substantial change in
 conditions of employment necessitates impact and implementation
 bargaining.  The Authority emphasizes that such duty to bargain arises
 where an agency, in exercising a management right under section 7106 of
 the Statute, changes conditions of employment of unit employees, if such
 change results in more than a de minimis impact upon unit employees or
 such impact is reasonably foreseeable.  U.S. Government Printing Office,
 13 FLRA 203 (1983) and Department of Health and Human Services, Social
 Security Administration, Chicago Region, 15 FLRA No. 174 (1984).
 
 
    /4/ The record reveals that there are approximately 50 different
 units at the Kansas City Service Center.  The work of over 25 of these
 units is considered or classified as measured work.
 
 
    /5/ In line with the Director's decision to establish expectations
 for all jobs, a committee of managers was formed for purposes of
 reviewing the existing expectations and establishing guidelines for the
 setting of expectations by first line supervisors for jobs where no
 expectations had previously existed.
 
 
    /6/ The record indi