19:0304(43)CA - Treasury, Customs Service, Region IV, Miami, FL And NTEU -- 1985 FLRAdec CA



[ v19 p304 ]
19:0304(43)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 19 FLRA No. 43
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
 U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, REGION IV
 MIAMI, FLORIDA 
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 4-CA-40108
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending
 that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
 affirmative action.  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 as modified.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
 that the Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, Region IV,
 Miami, Florida shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Instituting any change in holiday work schedules without
       first notifying the National Treasury Employees Union, the
       exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, and
       affording such representative the opportunity to bargain with
       respect to procedures and appropriate arrangements for employees
       adversely affected by such change.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
       rights assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
       Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
    (a) Notify the National Treasury Employees Union, the exclusive
 representative of its employees, of any decision to change holiday work
 schedules and, upon request, bargain with respect to procedures and
 appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by such
 change.
 
    (b) Post at its facilities, including the Jacksonville Tactical
 Enforcement Division, 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 an appropriate official 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 IV, 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., July 25, 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 institute any change in holiday work schedules without first
 notifying the National Treasury Employees Union, the exclusive
 bargaining representative of our employees, and affording such
 representative the opportunity to bargain with respect to procedures and
 appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by such
 change.  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 National Treasury Employees Union, the exclusive
 representative of our employees, of any decision to change holiday work
 schedules and, upon request, bargain with respect to procedures and
 appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by such
 change.
                                       (Activity)
 
 Dated:  . . .  By:  (Signature) (Title) This Notice must remain posted
 for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be
 altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.  If employees have
 any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions,
 they may communicate directly with the Regional Director, Region IV,
 Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is:  1776 Peachtree
 Street, NW., Suite 501, North Wing, Atlanta, GA 30309, and whose
 telephone number is:  (404) 881-2324.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
                                       CASE No. 4-CA-40108
 
    For the General Counsel
        Pamela Jackson, Esq.
 
    For the Respondent
        Jeanne M. Mullenhoff, Esq.
        Linda Hanthorn
        Kerry Brooks Thomas, Esq. (on brief)
 
    For the Charging Party
       Timothy Welsh, Esq.
 
    Before:  FRANCIS E. DOWD
       Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Cast
 
    This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, herein referred to as the Statute, 92 Stat. 1191, 5
 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.  It was instituted by the Acting Regional Director
 of the Fourth Region of the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
 
    The charge in Case No. 4-CA-40108 was filed on November 29, 1983, by
 National Treasury Employees Union, hereinafter referred to as the Union,
 Charging Party or NTEU.  On January 31, 1984, the Acting Regional
 Director issued a complaint alleging that Department of Treasury, U.S.
 Customs Service, Region IV, Miami, Florida, herein the Respondent,
 violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) by its unilateral change in
 conditions of employment without notice to the Union and without
 providing the Union with a meaningful opportunity to bargain.
 Specifically the complaint alleges that on or about October 10, 1983,
 Respondent, changed an existing policy whereby two teams of two
 employees each would work on all scheduled holidays at Respondent's
 Jacksonville, Florida station, and implemented a new policy whereby all
 available employees would be required to work on the Thanksgiving,
 Christmas and New Years, 1983 holidays.  This allegation was changed at
 the hearing and on brief to all available employees "except two."
 Respondent's answer denies any violations of the Statute.
 
    A hearing was held in Jacksonville, Florida at which time the parties
 were represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to adduce
 evidence and call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses and argue
 orally.  Briefs filed by the Respondent and General Counsel have been
 duly considered.
 
    Upon consideration of the entire record /2/ in this case, including
 my evaluation of the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing,
 and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
 following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended order.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    1.  The Union has been and is now a labor organization within the
 meaning of section 7103(a)(4) of the Statute.  The Union has been and
 remains the exclusive representative of certain employees of Respondent
 in an appropriate unit as set forth in a nationwide collective
 bargaining agreement, herein called the agreement, which was effective
 by its terms from June 30, 1980, until at least December 8, 1983.
 
    2.  The Department of the Treasury has been and is now an agency
 within the meaning of section 7103(a)(3) of the Statute.  The U.S.
 Customs Service, Region IV, Miami, Florida, has been and is now an
 activity of the Department of Treasury within the meaning of section
 2421.4 of the Rules and Regulations of the Authority.  The individuals
 listed below occupied the positions appearing opposite their names, and
 have been and are now supervisors and/or management officials within the
 meaning of section 7103(a)(10) and (11) of the Statute and are agents of
 Respondent:
 
          Thomas Mitchell Supervisory Customs Patrol Officer
 
          E. M. Cross Supervisory Customs Patrol Officer
 
          J. M. Schnorbus Supervisory Customs Patrol Officer
 
    3.  The credited testimony of Robert Durst and Dione Holland
 establishes that prior to June 1983, Respondent at its Jacksonville
 office routinely scheduled two or less Customs Patrol Officers to work
 on holidays.  /3/ The foregoing testimony is also corroborated by
 documentary evidence and testimony referred to in Appendix B, a chart
 prepared by Counsel for the General Counsel, adopted by the undersigned
 (as modified) and incorporated herein.  The holiday schedules would
 occasionally change due to unforeseen circumstances or emergencies, and
 fewer or more officers would work than originally scheduled.  At one
 time or another, the number of nonsupervisory personnel involved in this
 proceeding ranged from nine to ten.
 
    4.  On June 10, Respondent announced to its supervisors and employees
 that two teams would be assigned to work "each holiday" effective
 immediately (G.C. Exh. No. 4).  On June 20, Respondent announced a
 "holiday schedule" (G.C. Exh. No. 5) for the next six holidays (Columbus
 Day through New Years Day) requiring the assignment of two teams of two
 employees each (one team for shift B and one team for shift C).  Neither
 G.C. Exh. Nos. 4 nor G.C. Exh. No. 5 provided any explanation for
 Respondent's action.  This change in past practice whereby the number of
 officers assigned to holiday work was increased from two to four is not
 an issue in this proceeding.  (Why it is not an issue was not
 explained).
 
    5.  By memorandum dated October 12, 1983, (issued two days after
 Columbus Day), Respondent again changed its holiday leave policy, and
 implemented a policy whereby all officers, except two, would be required
 to work the Veterans, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's holidays
 (G.C. Exh. No. 6).  Therefore, October 1983, was the first time that
 Respondent routinely scheduled all Patrol Officers, except two, to work
 the Veterans, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's holidays.  Again,
 the memorandum by Respondent provided no explanation for the change in
 holiday schedule.  It is this change which is being litigated herein.
 
    6.  The Union was not provided with any notice of the change set
 forth in paragraph 5, supra.  The testimony of Union President Dan
 Sherlock is not in dispute.
 
    7.  As a result of the change in holiday schedule, Robert Durst's
 previously approved annual leave request for the holiday period
 including Christmas and New Years was cancelled.  (Each year in February
 leave requests are submitted for the next 12 months).  As a result Durst
 had to work both holidays and alter his vacation plans.  Durst has been
 an employee of Respondent for 13 years.  He could not recall any
 previous occasion when holiday leave was approved and later rescinded.
 Holland, an employee for 2 1/2 years, also could not recall any holiday
 leave cancellation prior to the period which is the subject of this
 proceeding.
 
    8.  As a result of the change holiday schedules, Vincent Dolan's
 previously approved (in February) request for annual leave was
 rescinded.  His wife and children went to Massachusetts on a ski trip
 and he stayed behind to work both holidays (Christmas and New Years).
 There was no special "operation" in progress at that time.  He merely
 performed his regular duties.  Clearly, his leave was cancelled-- like
 Durst's-- because of the new schedules and not because of any emergency
 and special operation.  There is no dispute that changes in assigned
 holiday schedules may occur at the 11th hour due to emergencies of one
 kind or another.
 
    9.  Respondent's witnesses were Ernest Cross and James Schnorbus,
 both supervisory officials.  They explained the nature of the work and
 the duties of Customs Patrol Officers.  Although Schnorbus testified
 that the increase in staff over the holidays was due to operational
 needs, I find and conclude that there were no specific needs
 demonstrated by Respondent which were any different from previous years.
  Rather, it appears that this is simply a case where Respondent knew it
 was going to have sufficient funds in their fiscal year 1984 budget to
 cover the additional cost involved in holiday pay, and for this reason
 decided in advance to increase the number of patrol officers required to
 work on these holidays.
 
    10.  G.C. Exhibit No. 2 is the collective bargaining agreement
 between Respondent and the Union.  G.C. Exh. 3 in the Supplemental
 Agreement involving the Miami Region.  Specific provisions may be
 referred to later in this decision.
 
                     Discussion and Conclusions of Law
 
 A. Change in Conditions of Employment
 
    Respondent, in its Answer, denied that its October 12 holiday
 schedule constituted a change in conditions of employment.  The
 evidence, however, is to the contrary.  Thus, the record clearly
 reflects that for more than two years only one to two officers were
 routinely scheduled to work on holidays.  It was not until October 1983
 that Respondent, for the first time, implemented a policy requiring a
 majority or all but two officers to work the Thanksgiving, Christmas and
 New Year's holidays.  Respondent argues that no change in its holiday
 leave policy occurred because the number of officers working holidays
 has always varied.  While it is true that Respondent may have required
 more officers to work on some holidays than it originally scheduled, due
 to unforeseen circumstances, it never routinely required most of its
 officers to work on holidays.  Prior to June 1983, unless acting on
 specific information, or unless some special project was underway, not
 more than two officers were scheduled to work holidays.  In fact, even
 when acting on specific information or when a special project was
 underway, rarely were more than three officers scheduled to work on
 holidays.  From January of 1981 to June of 1983, out of 27 recognized
 holidays there were only two holidays, the July 4th holiday 1981 /4/ and
 the Christmas 1982 holiday, /5/ when more than two officers were
 scheduled to work.
 
    Respondent further argues that its holiday leave policy has not
 changed because the number of officers required to work on holidays has
 always been determined by enforcement needs, and enforcement needs are
 higher during the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's holiday
 season.  Respondent admits, however, that the 1983
 Thanksgiving/Christmas/New Year holiday enforcement needs were no
 greater than previous Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year Holiday needs
 when Respondent only required two employees to work.  Thus, Respondent
 can hardly argue that its scheduling of all officers except two to work
 the Thanksgiving/Christmas/New Year Holidays was due to enforcement
 needs, as usual.  Respondent's position that no change has occurred in
 its holiday leave policy is wholly unsupported by the record.
 
    Finally, it should be noted that the October 12 memo (G.C. Exh. No.
 5) changed the schedule for four holidays substantially in advance of
 the holiday dates.  Thus, it cannot be seriously argued that this change
 was due to any last-minute emergency or some unforeseen circumstances.
 It was a change of policy, pure and simple, about the number of
 employees to be assigned to holiday work.  It is undisputed that
 Respondent did not notify the Union of this change.  B.  Impact of the
 Change
 
    There is no dispute that two employees, who submitted leave requests
 the previous February and received approval for same, had their leave
 cancelled and had to thereby change their plans.  Not only did the
 change result in an actual impact which, in my opinion, was more than de
 minimus, but such impact was reasonably foreseeable since the Respondent
 was already aware of the approved leave requests.
 
    Moreover, it's a well-established fact and custom that certain
 holidays-- like Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years-- are special
 occasions when employees normally spend time with their families.  It
 should be obvious to anyone, therefore, that such a change could have a
 disruptive impact on the employees and their families, and that such
 adverse impact was reasonably foreseeable.  C. Respondent's Position
 
    Respondent argues that its bargaining obligation has been fulfilled
 by virtue of Article 13, Sec. 7(a) /6/ of the parties' collective
 bargaining agreement, and by virtue of Article II of a supplemental
 agreement (G.C. Exh. No. 3) entered into by the parties in April of
 1981.  Respondent's argument fails for several reasons.  First, neither
 of the above-mentioned sections addresses the impact directly resulting
 from Respondent's implementation of a new holiday leave policy.  Article
 13 Sec. 7(a) addresses the manner in which individual employees will be
 notified if leave is cancelled, presumably due to unforeseen
 circumstances.  It does not address a situation, where as here,
 Respondent implemented a new policy regarding how many employees it
 would require to work on holidays, regardless of special circumstances.
 Similarly, Article II of the Supplemental Agreement is equally
 inapplicable as it merely addresses the issue of which employee will be
 granted leave after a decision has been made to grant leave.  It does
 not address a situation, as here, where the number of employees who will
 be granted leave has changed.  I specifically reject, therefore,
 Respondent's contention (brief at p. 9) that implementation and impact
 negotiations (of cancelled leave) have already taken place as evidenced
 by the Agreement.
 
    Respondent, by arguing that it has fulfilled its bargaining
 obligation by negotiating Article 13 Section 7(a) of the parties'
 collective bargaining agreement and Article II of the parties'
 supplemental agreement, is in effect asserting that the union waived its
 right to bargain on changes in holiday leave policy.  It is
 well-settled, however, that a waiver can be found only if it can be
 shown that the exclusive representative clearly and unmistakably waived
 its statutory right to negotiate.  Department of the Air Force, U.S. Air
 Force Academy, 6 FLRA No. 100, 6 FLRA 548 (1981), Internal Revenue
 Service (District Region, National Office Unit), 13 FLRA No. 61 (1983).
 Clearly in the instant case, the Union has not expressly waived its
 right to bargain on the impact and implementation of Respondent's
 changes in holiday leave policy.
 
    Respondent also contends that because the National Agreement
 contemplates the cancellation of leave and permits employees to file
 grievances in respect thereto, that the instant controversy is one of
 contract interpretation over which the Authority should not assert
 jurisdiction.  This contention is completely lacking in merit.  First of
 all, there is no dispute as to interpretation of any provision
 specifically dealing with holiday schedules.  Secondly, the mere fact
 that individual employees may file grievances concerning their cancelled
 leave does not preclude the Union from filing an unfair labor practice
 alleging that the underlying cause of the leave cancellation was a
 unilateral change of conditions of employment without adequate notice to
 the exclusive representative of the individual employees.  D.  Summary
 of Conclusions
 
    It is undisputed that Respondent has the right under section 7106 to
 assign employees work and determine the personnel by which agency
 operations shall be conducted.  /7/ The issue in this case essentially
 is whether or not changes in holiday work schedules constitute the kind
 of changes about which there is an obligation to bargain as to impact
 and implementation.
 
    The Authority has addressed the issue of changing holiday work
 schedules in two fairly recent cases, /8/ herein referred to as the FAA
 case and the BATF case, respectively.  The FAA case involved a decrease
 in the number of hours to be worked by the employees assigned to holiday
 work.  The case before me involves an increase in the number of
 employees routinely assigned to holiday work, as distinguished from a
 staffing increase based upon an emergency of some sort.
 
    In the BATF case, the Authority held that the Agency violated section
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by (1) its failure to give the union
 adequate prior notice of its decision to change the scheduling of
 holiday work so as to afford the union the opportunity to request
 bargaining concerning the impact and implementation of the change;  and
 (2) by its subsequent refusal, after implementation of its decision, to
 honor the union's request to bargain over the impact of the change.  /9/
 In so finding, the Authority noted that where an Agency in exercising a
 management right under section 7106 of the Statute decides to change a
 condition of employment of unit employees, there exists a statutory duty
 to negotiate if such change results in more than a de minimis impact
 upon unit employees or such impact is reasonably foreseeable.  See U.S.
 Government Printing Office, 13 FLRA No. 39 (1983) and Department of
 Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Chicago
 Region, 15 FLRA No. 174 (1984).
 
    In my opinion, the Authority's decisions in the FAA and BATF cases
 are applicable to the case before me.  Accordingly, I find that
 Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) by its unilateral change
 in holiday work schedules on October 10, 1983, without notifying the
 union and providing it with a meaningful opportunity to bargain.
 
                                  REMEDY
 
    Both parties were requested-- in written guidelines furnished them at
 the hearing-- to brief the questions of remedy in the event I found a
 violation of the Statute.  Counsel for Respondent did not brief the
 issue.  Counsel for General Counsel requested a status quo remedy but
 did not cite any applicable precedent.  Respondent's position as to a
 status quo remedy is not known and no evidence was adduced by Respondent
 /10/ to show that rescission of the new holiday work schedule would
 seriously disrupt the efficiency and effectiveness of Respondent's
 operations.
 
    Recently, the Authority took the opportunity to point out that the
 criteria set forth in Federal Correctional Institution /11/ for
 determining whether to grant a status quo remedy-- are applicable only
 to cases where a Respondent agency has failed to negotiate impact and
 implementation of a decision which was itself not negotiable.  /12/
 Since Respondent's decision to change the holiday schedules is not at
 issue herein, I shall consider that appropriateness of a status quo
 remedy in the light of the criteria set forth in Federal Correctional
 Institution.  On the one hand, Respondent clearly did not provide the
 Union with any notice of the change and, in this regard, its conduct was
 willful since it asserted no obligation to give notice.  No contention
 is made that the failure to provide notice was inadvertent or an
 oversight.  Also, there's no evidence that Respondent's operation would
 be seriously disrupted by an order to rescind the October 12, 1983,
 change in the holiday schedule.  On the other hand, the nature and
 extent of the impact experienced by two adversely affected employees,
 namely, cancellation of leave back in 1983, is not significant enough by
 itself to weigh in favor of a status quo remedy even it is sufficient to
 give rise to an obligation to provide adequate notice.  More
 significant, but not by itself a determining factor, is that the Union
 did not request to bargain about Respondent's October 12 change in the
 holiday schedule.  Clearly, there was ample opportunity, after learning
 of the change, to request bargaining about impact and implementation.
 Such failure to request bargaining is hard to understand and was not
 explained during the hearing.  In my judgment, however, the most
 significant factor is that the change in holiday policy, as far as this
 record shows, appears to be limited to four holidays in 1983 and the
 record does not show that the change of policy was a continuing one
 affecting all holidays from that date on, as was the situation in the
 FAA case, supra.  For this latter reason, it seems to me it would be a
 meaningless gesture to order Respondent to rescind any policy which only
 dealt with four holidays which have come and gone.
 
    The General Counsel's concept of status quo in this case is to order
 Respondent to return to its former policy of requiring only two officers
 to work on the four holidays mentioned above, absent emergency
 circumstances.  My first problem with this request is that the two-man
 policy was changed on June 10, 1983, was apparently acquiesced in by the
 Union, and was deliberately not made an issue in this case.
 Accordingly, if any policy is to be restored it must be the two-team
 policy lasting from June 10 to October 12.  My second problem with this
 request is that it appears to restrict management's right to decide on
 the number of employees who will work on holidays, when the unlawful
 conduct to be remedied is not the specific number of employees so much
 as it is the procedure to be used in implementing any policy change, as
 well as the impact on any employees adversely affected by such change.
 In these circumstances, I conclude that a status quo remedy is
 inappropriate.  /13/
 
    Having concluded that Respondent violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (5)
 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, the
 Authority hereby orders that the Department of the Treasury, U.S.
 Customs Service, Region IV, Miami, Florida:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Instituting a change in holiday work schedules /14/ without
       first notifying the exclusive bargaining representative, the
       National Treasury Employees Union, and affording it the
       opportunity to negotiate concerning the impact and implementation
       of such change.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing its employees in the rights assured by
       the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative actions in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute:
 
          (a) Notify the National Treasury Employees Union of any
       decision to change holiday work schedules and, upon request,
       negotiate concerning the impact and implementation of such change.
        /15/
 
          (b) Post at its facilities, including the Jacksonville Tactical
       Enforcement Division, 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 an appropriate official 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 IV, 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.
 
                                       FRANCIS E. DOWD
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
 Dated:  December 31, 1984
       Washington, D.C.
 
                                APPENDIX A
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
  PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
 OF TITLE
 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS
 STATUTE WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
 WE WILL NOT institute a change in holiday work schedules without first
 notifying the exclusive bargaining representative, the National Treasury
 Employees Union, and affording such representative the opportunity to
 negotiate concerning the impact and implementation of such change.  WE
 WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or
 coerce our employees in the rights assured by the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute.  WE WILL notify the National
 Treasury Employees Union of any change in holiday work schedules and,
 upon request, negotiate concerning the impact and implementation of such
 change.