19:0652(83)CA - DOD, Army and Air Force HQ, Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Dallas, TX and AFGE -- 1985 FLRAdec CA



[ v19 p652 ]
19:0652(83)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 19 FLRA No. 83
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
 DEPARTMENTS OF THE ARMY AND THE AIR
 FORCE, HEADQUARTERS, ARMY AND AIR FORCE
 EXCHANGE SERVICE, DALLAS, TEXAS
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 6-CA-20285
 
                            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.  Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party 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 /1/ and recommended Order.  /2/
 
                                   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 United States Department of Defense,
 Departments of the Army and the Air Force Headquarters, Army and Air
 Force Exchange Service, Dallas, Texas, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with the American Federation
 of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive bargaining
 representative of its employees, by implementing reductions in hours
 without affording the Union the opportunity to negotiate on national
 procedures and appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected
 thereby.
 
    (b) Failing and refusing to provide the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, with requested information relating to
 which components of the consolidated bargaining unit were planning
 personnel reductions in April 1982.
 
    (c) 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) Upon request, negotiate with the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative, over
 national procedures to be observed in implementing reductions in hours.
 
    (b) Upon request, furnish the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, necessary information in compliance with section
 7114(b)(4) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    (c) Post at its facilities where the employees comprising American
 Federation of Government Employees consolidated bargaining unit are
 located, copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms, they
 shall be signed by the Commander, or a designee, and they 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.
 
    (d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VI, 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., August 12, 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 refuse to negotiate in good faith with the American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, by implementing reductions
 in hours without affording the Union an opportunity to negotiate on
 national procedures and appropriate arrangements for employees adversely
 affected thereby.  WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to provide the American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, with requested information
 relating to which components of the consolidated bargaining unit were
 planning personnel reductions in April 1982.  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, upon request, negotiate with the American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, over national procedures to
 be observed in implementing reductions in hours.  WE WILL, upon request,
 furnish the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
 necessary information in compliance with section 7114(b)(4) of the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
                                       (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 VI, Federal
 Labor Relations Authority, whose address is:  Federal Office Building,
 525 Griffin Street, Suite 926, Dallas, TX 75202, and whose telephone
 number is:  (214) 767-4996.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
                                       Case No. 6-CA-20285
 
    Luther G. Jones, III
       Counsel for Respondent
 
    Carolyn M. Rains,
       Counsel for Charging Party
 
    Susan E. Jelen,
       Counsel for the General Counsel Federal Labor Relations Authority
 
    Before:  ISABELLE R. CAPPELLO
       Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This is a proceeding under Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act
 of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1192, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.
 (1982), commonly known as the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute, and hereinafter referred to as the "Statute," and the rules and
 regulations issued thereunder and published at 5 CFR 2411 et seq.
 
    On June 3, 1982, the Charging Party (also referred to herein as the
 ("Union" and "AFGE") filed, with the Federal Labor Relations Authority
 ("Authority"), a charge of an unfair labor practice against the
 Respondent ("AAFES").  The General Counsel of the Authority investigated
 and, on September 28, 1983, served the complaint initiating this action.
  The complaint alleges that unfair labor practices, in violation of
 Sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute, /3/ have occurred and
 are occurring.
 
    The alleged violative acts are two in number.  The first is that,
 since on or about April 16, 1982, Respondent "has failed and refused,
 and continues to fail and refuse, to bargain in good faith with the
 Union by implementing reductions in hours and/or reductions in force at
 the Hill Air Force Base Exchange without affording the Union the
 opportunity to negotiate on national procedures to be observed in
 implementing the changes and appropriate arrangements for adversely
 affected employees." See GC 1(d).  /4/
 
    The second alleged violative act is that, on or about April 14, 15
 and 16, 1982, the Union requested from Respondent "necessary and
 relevant information relating to which other components of the unit, if
 any, were planning personnel reductions" and, continuing to date,
 Respondent has refused and failed to furnish it.  See GC 1(d).
 
    Respondent denies engaging in any unfair labor practices.
 
    A hearing was held on February 16, 1984, in Dallas, Texas.  The
 parties appeared, adduced evidence, and examined witnesses.  Briefs were
 filed by Respondent and the General Counsel on March 20.  Based upon the
 record made in this proceeding, my observation of the demeanor of the
 witnesses, and the briefs, I enter the following findings of fact and
 conclusions of law, and recommend the entry of the following order.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    1.  It is admitted that Respondent has been an agency, and the Union
 has been a labor organization, within the meaning of Sections 7103(a)(3)
 and (4) of the Statute, at all times material herein.
 
    2.  It is further admitted that, since November 13, 1981, the Union
 has been the exclusive representative of all employees of the Respondent
 in the worldwide consolidated unit in which the Union was certified in
 Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Dallas, Texas, Case No. 6-UC-1, 5
 FLRA No. 90, 5 FLRA 657 (1981) (hereinafter referred to as the "AAFES"
 case.  According to AAFES, 69 units were to be consolidated.  See 5 FLRA
 at 657.  However, there are now apparently 72 in the consolidated unit.
 See Tr. 9 and 28.
 
    3.  Respondent is a joint command of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air
 Force.  It provides services and merchandise for the military, and
 manages such operations in order to generate a profit.  Profits, or
 "surplusage(s)" (Tr. 13), from its operations go into the welfare funds
 of the Army and Air Force.  It is a nonappropriated fund instrumentality
 (i.e. taxpayers do not support it), and a primary national subdivision
 of the Department of Defense.  /5/ See AAFES, 5 FLRA at 658.
 
    4.  AAFES has exchanges located throughout the United States and
 overseas, in Europe and the Pacific areas.  It is divided into six
 regions, each headed by a region chief.  The regions are divided into
 areas, each headed by a general manager.  Areas are divided into
 individual exchanges, headed by an exchange manager.  Store managers and
 supervisors report to the exchange managers.  Headquarters of AAFES is
 located in Dallas, Texas.
 
    5.  Hill Air Force Base is located in Utah, and is part of the
 Arizona Area Exchange which is headquartered at Davis Monthan Air Force
 Base in Tucson.  The Arizona Area Exchange is part of the Golden Gate
 Exchange Region, headquartered in San Francisco, California.  Employees
 at the Hill Air Force Base Exchange are part of the Union's worldwide
 consolidated unit.
 
    6.  No national agreement had been reached by the parties, at the
 time of the hearing.  Negotiations for one began on June 7, 1982,
 according to Respondent (Tr. 15) and not disputed by the General
 Counsel.  At the time of the consolidation, the vast majority of the
 separate locals had local contracts, including the one at the Hill Air
 Force Base Exchange.  As of the dates critical herein, there had been no
 agreement by the parties to delegate bargaining on local issues to the
 local level;  and the Union had not unilaterally made such a delegation.
  /6/
 
    7.  AAFES promulgates service manuals from its headquarters in Dallas
 for use by subordinate activities.  The manuals set forth current
 policies, procedures, and guidelines for forecasting, controlling, and
 evaluating manpower needs.  See forward to Jt. 4.  Within each exchange
 region in the Continental United States guidelines are individually
 provided for main retail stores.  See paragraph 4-5 to Jt. 4.
 
    Each guideline is presented in the form of a mathematical equation,
 from which the standard guideline manhours can be computed directly from
 each store's projected sales.  See paragraphs 4-6 of Jt. 4.  /7/ The
 manuals give instructions on how to complete the Basic and Supplemental
 Branch Staffing Patterns.  The Basic Branch Staffing Pattern is prepared
 15 calendar days before the beginning of each fiscal year, with
 adjustments made during the year according to major changes in operating
 conditions, such as permanent increases or decreases in troop strength.
 See Jt. 4, para. 6-2.  The Supplemental Branch Staffing Pattern makes
 needed adjustments during the fiscal year.  See Jt. 4, para. 6-7.  The
 supplemental form (AAFES Form 2100-22) shows "Decreased workload
 resulting from lower sales." See Figure 6-5 to Jt. 4.  It is the policy
 of AAFES that:  "Responsible management officials should make sure that
 AAFES retail activities are consistently staffed with the fewest
 employees required to give the desired level of customer service,
 (etc.)." See paragraph 1-3 of Jt. 4.  The performance of exchange
 managers is judged on how well they implement this policy.  Therefore,
 when projected sales figures and personnel costs get out of line, so
 that surplusages for the welfare funds of the military forces are
 unlikely to be generated, personnel costs are quickly reduced, by
 reducing the number of personnel, or the numbers of hours they work.
 
    8.  During the latter part of 1981, management at the Hill Air Force
 Base Exchange received its branch financial projections for fiscal year
 1982 from the Arizona Area Exchange.  The projections originated at the
 Golden Gate Region.  According to Vernon Campbell, Exchange Manager at
 the Hill Air Force Base Exchange, it was determined that management
 would need to reduce personnel costs in order to attain surplusages
 necessary to reach financial goals.  The decision was therefore made to
 reduce the hours of operation at the Hill Air Force Base Exchange in
 order to reduce personnel costs.  A staffing pattern was submitted,
 reviewed by Mr. Campbell, and then forwarded to the Arizona Area
 Exchange.  It was returned to Mr. Campbell in early February 1982.
 
    9.  The reduction in hours at the Hill Air Force Base Exchange was
 initially implemented before the Union was notified.  However, at the
 instructions of the Regional Office, the reduction was rescinded and
 employees were compensated for any time lost.  Following this, Mr.
 Campbell approached Elsie Sorenson, union steward, and informed her it
 would be necessary to reduce hours at the Hill Air Force Base Exchange.
 Ms. Sorenson stated that she would contact John Darlington, an officer
 with the AFGE Local 1592.
 
    10.  John Darlington, as the local union representative, requested
 negotiations, and the parties met for two or three days of negotiations,
 in early April 1982.  Respondent was represented by Doris Kerr from the
 Arizona Area Exchange.  Also present for Respondent were Mr. Campbell
 and Jerry Peterson, store manager.  Mr. Darlington was present for the
 Union, with chief steward Susan Von Beuzekom and union members, Dora
 Fuller, and Ms. Sorenson.  No agreement was reached during these
 negotiations.
 
    11.  On April 8, 1982, Mr. Darlington wrote Ms. Kerr, stating that as
 a result of the consolidation, ". . . the Union does hereby formally
 advise you at the local level that there is no obligation for the Union
 to bargain on your proposals.  These negotiations and any agreement
 reached must be done with the AFGE National Office and Headquarters
 AAFES." See Jt. 7.  At the same time, Mr. Darlington contacted David
 Rodriguez, a labor relations specialist with AFGE's national office, and
 informed him of the impending reduction in hours at the Hill Air Force
 Base Exchange.  Mr. Rodriguez also received information from the local
 union at Fort Carson, in Colorado that there was to be a
 reduction-in-force at the exchange at that location.
 
    12.  On April 9, 1982, Robert E. Edwards, Associate General Counsel
 for AAFES, located at its Dallas headquarters, wrote John Mulholland,
 Director, Labor-Management Services Department, AFGE, and arranged for
 negotiations at Hill Air Force Base beginning April 14, 1982.  Mr.
 Edwards also stated:
 
          . . . We submit to you that handling a matter involving a RIF
       from the national level at a field location which affects only
       those persons at that particular location, makes no conceptual
       sense and certainly militates against efficiency and effectiveness
       of governmental operations.
 
 See Jt. 8.
 
    13.  On April 14, 1982, the parties met at Hill Air Force Base to
 begin negotiations.  Representing the Union were Mr. Rodriguez, the
 Union's national representative, Mr. Darlington, and three employees
 from the Hill Air Force Base Exchange.  Representing AAFES were Ellen
 Littrell, an operations specialist and personnel and labor relations
 representative from the Golden Gate Region, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Peterson,
 and Ms. Kerr.  Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Littrell were the chief
 negotiators.  The Union submitted a proposal on the procedure to be used
 in implementing a reduction in hours See Jt. 9.  On April 14, 1982, Mr.
 Rodriguez also requested from Ms. Littrell "information as to what
 locations were going to be affected by these changes" (Tr. 49).  Ms.
 Littrell responded that "she was only there to negotiate on the changes
 at Hill Air Force Base and that she was not authorized to speak as to
 changes any place else, and she would not provide the information" (Tr.
 49).  The record reveals no other reason given for the denial of the
 information.  Ms. Littrell was designated by Respondent to act for it at
 these bargaining sessions, as the bargaining agent "at the headquarters
 level" (Tr. 99).
 
    14.  The parties proceeded to exchange proposals;  and the Union
 agreed to one option on how the reduction in hours would be implemented
 at the Hill Air Force Base Exchange.  The parties, however, were not
 able to reach agreement regarding the scope of the negotiations.  The
 Union argued that "whatever method was used to reduce the hours at Hill
 Air Force Base would in the future be the criteria established for any
 of our exchanges worldwide" (Tr. 107).  The Union proposed that the
 parties execute a partial agreement on the manner in which the reduction
 in hours would be accomplished, and that the issue of the scope of the
 agreement be presented to the Federal Service Impasses Panel.
 Respondent, however, took the position that the negotiations were only
 concerned with the change at the Hill Air Force Base Exchange and its
 impact and implementation on the Hill Air Force Base Exchange unit
 employees.  In a letter to Mr. Rodriguez dated April 15, 1982, AAFES's
 Associate General Counsel stated:
 
          With reference to my letter to you of April 9, 1982, in which
       we delegated to our local bargaining team authority to deal with
       this Hill AFB Exchange problem, you should-- which I am sure you
       do-- understand that whatever agreement comes out of this purely
       local problem is relevant only to the employees at the Hill AFB
       Exchange and we do not view the same as binding in the future
       impact and implementation bargaining of a reduction in force at
       any other location within the consolidated unit.
 
 See G.C. 3.
 
    15.  Negotiations ended on April 16, 1982, with no agreement reached
 by the parties.  The employees at the Hill Air Force Base Exchange were
 notified of the reduction in hours on April 16, 1982;  and the changes
 were made effective June 4, 1982.
 
    16.  Forty-five employees at the Hill Air Force Base Exchange had
 their hours reduced, as of June 4, 1982.  As early as June 18, the Hill
 exchange began to rescind the reduction of hours, and had completely
 rescinded it by October 13.  See Jt. 16 and Tr. 115.
 
    17a.  Pursuant to a subpena, AAFES furnished to the General Counsel
 the information basically requested by the Union during the April 1982
 negotiations.  Compare Jt. 17 and finding 13, above.  It was compiled by
 a labor relations specialist at the Dallas headquarters, after telephone
 conversations with personnel staff in various facilities outside
 headquarters.  The project took 4 1/2 workdays.  It was compiled from
 "available records" and 12 pages of personal notes taken by the labor
 relations specialist.  See page 2 of Jt. 17.  It was furnished on
 February 9, 1984, in response to subpenas dated November 10, 1983, and
 February 3, 1984.
 
    17b.  From the information compiled, it was established that, from
 March 1982 through April 1982, there were curtailments of hours, or
 reductions-in-force ("RIF") actions, at the Hill Air Force Base Exchange
 (45 employees reduced from 2 to 6 hours a week);  at the Fort Carson
 Exchange in Colorado (62 employees were affected by a RIF);  at the Fort
 Sam Houston Exchange in Texas (one employee was downgraded as a result
 of a RIF);  at the Fort Jackson Exchange in South Carolina (one employee
 was reduced from 26 to 20 hours);  and at the Northwest Area Exchange,
 Fort Lewis, Washington (3 employees were reduced from 25 to 20 hours).
 See Jt. 17 and Jt. 16.  In connection with each action, the exchange
 officials gave prior notice to local union officials.
 
                       Discussion and Conclusions.
 
    I.  The General Counsel has established, by a preponderance of the
 evidence, /8/ that Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
 the Statute when it refused, in April 1982, to negotiate national
 procedures to be observed in implementing reductions in hours, and
 appropriate arrangements for adversely affected employees, with the
 Union, certified as the exclusive representative of a consolidated unit
 of Respondent's employees.
 
    Just six months prior to the grant of the Union's petition for
 certification of a worldwide unit at AAFES, this Authority ruled that
 "the mutual obligation to bargain as articulated in the Statute exists
 only at that level of exclusive recognition (i.e., the national level)
 with respect to conditions which affect any employees within the unit"
 (and that) a contrary result would render consolidation meaningless."
 See Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
 Administration and Local 1346, American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, 6 FLRA No. 33, 6 FLRA 202, at 204 (June 25, 1981,
 hereinafter, "HHS").  In HHS, it was the agency which refused to enter
 into negotiations at the local level, under the terms of a reopener
 clause in an agreement between AFGE Local 1346 and the agency there
 involved.
 
    Here, it is the agency which is initiating changes.  The changes came
 to the attention of national officers of AFGE in April 1982, just a few
 months before bargaining began on a national contract.  See findings 6
 and 11, above.  AFGE's national officers, having learned the lesson
 taught to them in HHS, made a request to bargain national procedures, so
 that consolidation would not be rendered "meaningless." Thus, during
 negotiations at Hill, AFGE proposed that "whatever method was used to
 reduce the hours at the Hill Air Force Base Exchange would in the future
 be the criteria established for any of (AAFES's) exchanges worldwide."
 See finding 14, above.  It must be emphasized that AFGE wanted to
 bargain only the "method" and "criteria" for its worldwide unit, not
 specifics, which would vary from exchange to exchange, of course.
 
    This Authority held, in AAFES, in directing an election for a
 consolidated unit, that employees in the consolidated unit here involved
 share a "clear and identifiable community of interest" (5 FLRA at 660),
 and that the consolidated unit will enhance "effective dealings and the
 efficiency of Agency's operations" (5 FLRA at 661).  The facts of this
 case illustrate the soundness of that decision.  Here, all exchange
 employees in the consolidated unit are subject to staff reductions
 whenever a significant drop in sales volume is projected for the
 particular exchange in which they work.  Negotiating a method and
 criteria for accomplishing these staff reductions, each time a need
 occurs, would be wasteful of Respondent's resources, as well as those of
 the Union, and could result in a mishmash of methods and criteria that
 would be difficult to administer.  Yet, under Respondent's view of its
 bargaining responsibilities to a consolidated unit, it would have
 negotiated methods and criteria for a reduction in hours three times,
 from March through April 1982,-- once at the Hill Air Force Base
 Exchange;  again at the Fort Jackson Exchange;  and again at the
 exchange at Fort Lewis.  At none of these exchanges was it shown that
 there was an existing agreement covering procedures for reducing hours
 of personnel.  This piecemeal approach to bargaining would surely render
 consolidation "meaningless," within the intent of HHS.  See 6 FLRA at
 204.
 
    Respondent argues that some issues are "not national in scope," and
 that pending negotiations on a national agreement, it has no duty to
 bargain over national procedures as to the "impact and implementation"
 of a staff reduction at one facility.  /9/ See Tr. 21.  This argument
 ignores the fact that Respondent policy is for staff reductions to take
 place quickly at every exchange affected by a reduced sales volume.
 This record demonstrates that such cuts are not uncommon.  The argument
 also ignores the lesson of HHS, that bargaining be at the national level
 whenever any employee in a consolidated unit is affected.  See 6 FLRA at
 204.  While the specifics, at each exchange, may not be "national in
 scope," the methods and criteria for implementing the changes certainly
 are;  and this is all that the Union proposed in the way of bargaining
 over national procedures.  See finding 14, above.
 
    Respondent finally argues that the allegations of the General Counsel
 seem to be in conflict with 5 CFR 2422.2(h)(8), wherein the Authority
 has provided that:
 
          Upon the issuance of a certification of consolidation of units,
       the terms and conditions of existing agreements covering those
       units embodied in the consolidation shall remain in effect except
       as mutually agreed to by the parties until a new agreement
       covering the consolidated unit becomes effective.
 
    Respondent notes that Article XVI of the collective bargaining
 agreement with Local 1592, at Hill Air Force Base, deals with procedures
 for reduction in force.  Tr. 27-28.  However, the agreement at Hill does
 not deal with procedures for reductions in hours, which was the subject
 of the Union's proposals here.  See Joint Exhibit 15.  Nor was it shown
 that such procedures were the subject of any other local agreement.
 Thus, 5 C.F.R. 2422.2(h)(8) does not even come into play, in this case.
 
    II.  The General Counsel has established, by a preponderance of the
 evidence, that Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the
 Statute when it refused to furnish information to the Union during
 negotiations over reductions in hours, in April 1982, at the Hill Air
 Force Base Exchange.
 
    Section 7114 of the Statute sets forth an agency's obligation to
 furnish information to a union.  This section is quoted fully in
 
 
 footnote 3, above.  In summary, the "data" sought must be "normally
 maintained by the agency in the regular course of business," and must be
 "reasonably available and necessary for full and proper discussion,
 understanding, and negotiation of subjects within the scope of
 collective bargaining." /10/
 
    What the Union requested here was "information" as to what other
 exchanges in the consolidated unit were going to be affected by such
 changes.  See finding 13, above.  "Information" is one definition of
 "data." See page 339 of The Random House College Dictionary.
 
    It is clear from this record that Respondent keeps, "in the regular
 course of business," records which reveal this information.  One such
 record is the Supplemental Branch Staffing Pattern (AAFES Form 2100-22).
  See finding 7, above.  Also, when Respondent responded to the subpena
 of the General Counsel, and prepared detailed information about
 reductions in hours and/or force at exchanges, its agents advised that
 they had "documents" and "records" to support their findings.  See Jt.
 16 and 17.
 
    Respondent made no effort to prove that the documents and records,
 themselves, were not "reasonably available." Instead, if proved that one
 of its agents spent four and a half workdays compiling information from
 the records and documents of the exchanges.  But the Union did not ask
 that information be compiled.  And Respondent never complained to the
 Union of the burdensomeness of the request, in which case the Union
 could have offered to work something out with Respondent that would
 minimize the burden.  Instead, Respondent flatly refused to give out any
 information as to exchanges other than the one at Hill Air Force Base.
 See finding 13, above.  Had Respondent been willing to make any effort
 at all, it could have sent, to each of its exchanges, a simple
 memorandum asking whether a staff reduction was being planned and, if
 so, to send a copy of any documents concerning the plans to the Union.
 
    Finally, as already discussed above, the information sought
 concerning other exchanges in the consolidated unit which were to be
 affected by staff reductions, was necessary in order for the Union to
 fulfill its obligation to bargain for the consolidated unit.
 Impact-and-implementation bargaining over staff reductions is clearly a
 subject within the scope of collective bargaining;  and Respondent does
 not argue otherwise.
 
    What Respondent does argue, perhaps facetiously, is that it furnished
 the requested data as to "these changes," namely the ones at the Hill
 Air Force Base Exchange.  See R Br 1 and 2.  The testimony of Ms.
 Littrell, its chief bargaining agent and the agent to whom the request
 was made at Hill Air Force Base, clearly understood that the request
 concerned changes at other exchanges than that at Hill Air Force Base.
 See finding 13, above.
 
    Respondent also argues that the data requested was equally available
 to the Union, by telephoning all of its locals.  See R Br 2.  The record
 indicates otherwise.  The request was for information as to "what
 locations were going to be affected" (finding 13, above).  As was
 initially done at Hill Air Force Base, (see finding 9, above) other
 exchanges may have had plans in the works, but had not given any notice
 of them to the local union officials.
 
                                  Remedy
 
    The General Counsel requests "an appropriate posting throughout the
 consolidated unit," and "a make whole remedy for all employees in the
 consolidated unit affected by Respondent's conduct" (GC Br 13).  The
 General Counsel also proposes a cease-and-desist order and a bargaining
 order.  See Appendix A to the General Counsel's brief.
 
    In view of the basic nature of the problem in this case, Respondent's
 refusal to recognize that, upon consolidation, the Union gained the
 right to bargain on behalf of the entire unit, a unit-wide posting, as
 proposed, is appropriate.  See United States Forces Korea, Eighth United
 States Army, 11 FLRA No. 79, 11 FLRA 434, 437, 441, and 453 (1983).
 
    A cease-and-desist and bargaining order is also appropriate.
 
    The issue of the "make whole remedy" requested is more difficult to
 decide.  By this proposal I presume that the General Counsel seeks a
 status-quo-ante type of relief, as to the failure to bargain.  The
 Authority measures the appropriateness of such relief by considering
 five points:  (1) whether and when the union was notified of the changes
 at issue;  (2) whether and when the union demanded negotiations;  (3)
 the willfulness of the agency's refusal to bargain;  (4) the nature and
 extent of the impact of the changes upon employees, and (5) the degree
 of disruption or impairment upon the efficiency and effectiveness of the
 agency's operations, should the remedy be imposed.  See Federal
 Correctional Institution, 8 FLRA No. 111, 8 FLRA 604, 606 (1982).  Here,
 Respondent gave prior notice of the changes, but to the wrong union
 officials.  In the one instance where no notice was given, Respondent
 immediately ordered the change rescinded, and the employees made whole.
 The Union did make a timely demand to bargain upon behalf of the
 consolidated unit, and, in rejecting the demand, Respondent acted
 willfully.  The reductions in hours about which the Union made proposals
 for unit-wide adoption affected 3 out of the 65 or over facilities
 represented in the consolidated unit, with a total of 49 unit employees
 suffering reductions in hours of from 2 to 6 hours a week.  At Hill Air
 Force Base, the cut in hours was of only a few weeks duration, for some;
  and all hours were restored after four months.  To the extent that any
 back pay, or restoration of hours were to be ordered, the ability of the
 AAFES to generate welfare funds for soldiers and airmen of the United
 States Army and Air Force would be diminished.  All of the above having
 been considered, and balanced, it does not appear that the requested
 "make whole" remedy would be in the best public interest, in this case.
 
                  Ultimate Findings and Recommended Order
 
    Respondent has violated Sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8), as alleged.
 
    Pursuant to 5 CRF 2423.29 and Section 7118 of the Statute, the
 Authority hereby orders that the United States Department of Defense,
 Departments of the Army and the Air Force, Headquarters, Army and Air
 Force Exchange Service, Dallas, Texas, shall:
 
          1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with the American
       Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive
       bargaining representative of its employees, by implementing
       reduction in hours without affording the Union the opportunity to
       negotiate on national procedures to be observed in implementing
       the changes and appropriate arrangements for adversely affected
       employees.
 
          (b) Failing and refusing to provide the American Federation of
       Government Employees, AFL-CIO, with requested information relating
       to which other components of the consolidated bargaining unit,
       were planning personnel reductions in April 1982.
 
          (c) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
       assured by the Federal Service-Labor Management Relations Statute.
 
          2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to
       effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
          (a) Upon request, negotiate with the American Federation of
       Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative, over
       national procedures to be observed in implementing reductions in
       hours and appropriate arrangements for adversely affected
       employees.
 
          (b) Upon request, furnish the American Federation of Government
       Employees, necessary information in compliance with Section
       7114(b)(4) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
       Statute.
 
          (c) Post, at all facilities of AFGE's consolidated bargaining
       unit, copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by
       the Federal Labor Relations Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms
       they shall be signed by the Commander 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.  The Commander shall
       take reasonable steps to ensure that such notices are not altered,
       defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
          (d) Pursuant to 5 CFR 2423.30, notify the Regional Director of
       Region VI, 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.
 
                                       ISABELLE R. CAPPELLO
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
 Dated:  June 7, 1984
         Washington, D.C.
 
 
 
 
 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