20:0233(31)CA - HUD, Columbia Area Office, Columbia, SC and AFGE Local 3654 -- 1985 FLRAdec CA



[ v20 p233 ]
20:0233(31)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 20 FLRA No. 31
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 
 DEVELOPMENT, COLUMBIA AREA OFFICE 
 COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 
 Respondent 
 
 and 
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3654, AFL-CIO 
 Charging Party 
 
                                              Case No. 4-CA-30630
 
                            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 Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's
 Decision and the General Counsel filed an opposition thereto.
 
    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 recommendations only to the extent
 consistent herewith.
 
    The Judge concluded, in essence, that the Respondent's failure to
 notify the Charging Party and afford it an opportunity to negotiate
 concerning the procedures to be used in the reassignments of two unit
 employees and any appropriate arrangements for employees adversely
 affected thereby violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.  He
 determined that the reassignments resulted in more than a de minimis
 impact on the two reassigned employees because their work duties,
 performance standards and supervision were changed.  He further found
 that the reassignments had a reasonably foreseeable impact on other
 employees.  In its exceptions, the Respondent argues that the Judge
 erred in finding a violation and excepts to his conclusion that the
 reassignments resulted in an impact which was more than de minimis.
 
    Since 1978, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
 has represented a nationwide consolidated unit of approximately 200
 professional employees and a nationwide consolidated unit of
 approximately 8,000 nonprofessional employees at the central and field
 offices of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  /1/
 Both units, however, are governed by one master collective bargaining
 agreement.  The record is not clear as to the professional or
 nonprofessional status of the two employees reassigned herein.
 
    Pursuant to a national field reorganization and a reduction in staff,
 the Columbia Area Office was facing a loss of 17 employees.  Prior to
 the reorganization, the Respondent, without notice to the Charging
 Party, reassigned two employees from positions slated to be transferred
 to Atlanta, Georgia, into positions which would remain in Columbia,
 South Carolina.  The Charging Party thereafter requested bargaining over
 the procedures to be observed and concerning appropriate arrangements
 for employees adversely affected by the reassignments, but the
 Respondent never replied.
 
    The Authority has held that "where an agency in exercising a
 management right under section 7106 of the Statute, changes conditions
 of employment . . . , the statutory duty to negotiate comes into play if
 the change results in an impact upon unit employees or such impact was
 reasonably foreseeable." See U.S. Government Printing Office, 13 FLRA
 203, 204-05(1983).  The Authority thereafter held that "no duty to
 bargain arises from the exercise of a management right that results in
 an impact or a reasonably foreseeable impact on bargaining unit
 employees which is no more than de minimis." See Department of Health
 and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Chicago Region, 15
 FLRA No. 174(1984).  The Authority has also held that in determining
 whether the impact or reasonably foreseeable impact of the exercise of a
 management right on bargaining unit employees is more than de minimis,
 the totality of the facts and circumstances presented in each case must
 be carefully examined.  Thus, in Department of Health and Human
 Services, Social Security Administration, Region V, Chicago, Illinois,
 19 FLRA No. 101(1985), the Authority looked to such factors as the
 nature of the change (e.g., the extent of the change in work duties,
 location, office space, hours, loss of benefits or wages and the like);
 the temporary, recurring or permanent nature of the change (i.e.,
 duration and frequency of the change affecting unit employees);  the
 number of employees affected or foreseeably affected by the change;  the
 size of the bargaining unit;  and the extent to which the parties may
 have established, through negotiations or past practice, procedures and
 appropriate arrangements concerning analogous changes in the past.  /2/
 The Authority also emphasized therein that the factors considered in the
 circumstances of that case were not intended to constitute an
 all-inclusive list or to be applied in a mechanistic fashion.  Moreover,
 the Authority noted that a determination as to whether the exercise of a
 management right under section 7106(a) of the Statute gives rise to a
 duty to bargain under section 7106(b)(2) and (3) will not necessarily
 require in every case a determination as to whether the exercise of the
 management right results in a change in a condition of employment having
 an impact or a reasonably foreseeable impact on bargaining unit
 employees which is more than de minimis, especially where there is no
 indication that the nature and degree of impact is at issue in the case.
  However, in cases where it must be determined whether the nature and
 degree of impact is more than de minimis, factors such as those listed
 above will be considered.
 
    Applying the above factors to the instant case, the Authority finds,
 in disagreement with the Judge's conclusion, and based upon the totality
 of the facts and circumstances presented, that the impact or reasonably
 foreseeable impact of the change on the conditions of employment of unit
 employees was no more than de minimis.  Therefore, the Respondent was
 not obligated to bargain with the Charging Party over the procedures it
 would observe in exercising its section 7106 rights and concerning
 appropriate arrangements for adversely affected employees.  In reaching
 this result, the Authority notes with respect to the nature of the
 change that although the work positions and duties of the two employees
 were changed, these employees remained in the Columbia Area Office,
 their pay and grade were not affected, and their reassignments did not
 result in any change in promotion potential.  Additionally, in the
 circumstances of this case, any foreseeable adverse impact arising from
 the employees' change in job positions in speculative.  As to the
 foreseeable impact on other employees, the record does not establish
 that other employees were qualified for the two positions involved in
 the reassignments, notwithstanding the fact that no other employee was
 permitted to compete for the positions.  Further, notwithstanding the
 permanent nature of the change, it had a specific and immediate impact
 on only two employees /3/ in a nationwide unit comprised of
 approximately 200 professional employees or, in the alternative, of a
 nationwide unit comprised of approximately 8,000 nonprofessional
 employees.  Finally, the record does not show any past bargaining
 history or past practice where the parties had handled analogous
 changes.
 
    Based on the totality of the facts and circumstances presented, and
 noting particularly that the nature of the change did not alter the two
 employees' work location, pay, grade or promotion potential, and that
 only two employees in a unit of approximately 200 employees, or in the
 alternative, of 8,000 employees, were affected, the Authority concludes
 that the impact or reasonably foreseeable impact of the reassignments on
 unit employees' conditions of employment herein was no more than de
 minimis.  Accordingly, the Respondent was under no obligation to notify
 the Charging Party and afford it an opportunity to request bargaining
 pursuant to section 7106(b)(2) and (3) of the Statute, and its refusal
 to negotiate therefore was not violative of section 7116(a)(1) and (5)
 of the Statute.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 4-CA-30630 be, and it
 hereby is, dismissed.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., September 24, 1985
 
                                       (s) HENRY B. FRAZIER III
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Chairman
                                       (s) WILLIAM J. MCGINNIS JR.
                                       William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    John Kosloske, Esq.
    Linda B. Backus
    For the Respondent
 
    Pamela B. Jackson, Esq.
    For the General Counsel
 
    Before:  WILLIAM NAIMARK
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    Pursuant to a Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued on December 31,
 1983 by the Regional Director for the Federal Labor Relations Authority,
 Atlanta, Georgia Region, a hearing was held before the undersigned on
 January 19, 1984 at Columbia, South Carolina.
 
    This proceeding arises under the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. (herein called the Statute).
 The charge herein was filed on September 19, 1983 by American Federation
 of Government Employees, Local 3654, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union)
 against Department of Housing and Urban Development, Columbia Area
 office, Columbia, South Carolina (herein called Respondent).
 
    The Complaint alleged, in substance, that in and about May, 1983
 Respondent reassigned unit employees Leon Babridge and Lance Folsom;
 that, despite requests by the Union that management bargain re the
 impact and implementation of such reassignment, Respondent failed and
 refused to bargain with the Union-- all in violation of Section
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
 
    Respondent's Answer, dated November 16, 1983, denied the commission
 of any unfair labor practice.  It admitted that:  (a) the Union
 requested negotiation on April 15, 1983 as to the impact and
 implementation of the reassignments;  (b) Babridge was reassigned
 effective April 17, 1983, and Folsom was reassigned effective May 1,
 1983;  (c) Respondent did not bargain re the impact and implementation
 of the said reassignments.
 
    All parties were represented at the hearing.  Each was afforded full
 opportunity to be heard, to adduce evidence, and to examine as well as
 cross-examine witnesses.  Thereafter, briefs were filed which have been
 duly considered by the undersigned.  /4/
 
    Upon the entire record herein, from my observation of the witnesses
 and their demeanor, and from all of the testimony and evidence adduced
 at the hearing, I make the following findings and conclusions:
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    1.  At all times material herein, the Union has been and still is the
 exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's professional and
 non-professional employees.
 
    2.  The Union and Respondent were parties to a written collective
 bargaining agreement which, by its terms, was effective from November
 10, 1979, for a period of three years.  The said agreement contained an
 automatic renewal clause providing for yearly renewals after the
 termination date.  It was in effect at the time of the reorganization
 and reassignments.  /5/
 
    3.  At all times relevant herein Respondent was composed of
 subdivisions, two of which were Community Planning and Development and
 Housing.  Included within the Housing Division were the Loan Management
 Branch and the Assisted Housing Management Branch.
 
    4.  In February, 1983 the Department of Housing and Urban Development
 announced that it proposed a field reorganization and a reduction in
 staff personnel.  As part of the reorganized plan, the Community
 Development Division, along with the Labor Relations Staff and the
 Environmental Staff in the Columbia Area office, were to be relocated
 from Columbia, South Carolina to Atlanta, Georgia.  The reorganization
 called for reducing the staff of the Columbia Area office by 17
 employees.  Moreover, some of those affected thereby were part of the
 Community Development Division.
 
    5.  The reorganization of the Columbia Area office resulted in
 management's reassigning two of its employees:  Leon Babridge and G.
 Lance Folsom.  No notification was given by Respondent to the Union of
 the intended reassignments, nor did management seek to confer or
 negotiate with the bargaining agent in regard thereto.
 
    6.  Prior to the implementation of the reassignment of Babridge and
 Folsom, the Union learned of the intended action concerning these
 employees.  In a letter dated April 15, 1983 /6/ Alice C. Taylor, the
 Union's Executive vice-president, requested that Respondent bargain re
 the impact and implementation of the reassignment of employees.  No
 reply was made thereto by Respondent, nor has management consented to
 bargain re the reassignment as requested by the Union.
 
    7.  Effective as of April 17 Babridge was transferred within the
 Columbia Area office from the position of Loan Specialist (Realty), /7/
 Community Planning and Development Division (CPD), Program Management
 Team to Maintenance Engineer, Housing Division, Assisted Housing
 Management Branch.  The action was taken to correct a work load
 imbalance, since the work load in CPD was diminishing whereas the work
 load in Assisted Housing was increasing.
 
    8.  Prior to his reassignment and as Loan Specialist (Realty) or
 Rehabilitation Specialist, Babridge was responsible for rehabilitation
 management.  He performed functions relating to multi-family,
 single-family, commercial and non-residential rehabilitation loans.  His
 duties required giving technical assistance and advice to cities in the
 Community Development Block Grant Program in South Carolina relative to
 rehabilitation, conservation and maintenance of existing buildings and
 structures.  Babridge also rendered assistance re rehabilitation
 financing methods, as well as standards and local code enforcement.  He
 monitored and evaluated performance of local rehabilitation loan and
 grants under several programs;  participated in training conferences
 involving rehabilitation programs.  (Respondent's Exhibit 8).
 
    9.  The position to which Babridge was reassigned-- Maintenance
 Engineer, Housing Division-- entailed duties in connection with the
 technical and engineering aspects of maintenance, rehabilitation and
 modernization of HUD assisted housing projects and properties.  In his
 capacity as Maintenance Engineer, Babridge was responsible for selecting
 utilities in planning projects, as well as utility cost and controls in
 project operations.  The position description calls for the review of
 bill and contract documents for maintenance, repair, alterations,
 replacement and conversion-- as well as post development improvement to
 structures, roads, grounds, equipment, heating systems and underground
 systems of housing projects.
 
    10.  Prior to Babridge's reassignment, there were two Maintenance
 Engineers in the Assisted Housing Management Branch-- Roy Blades and
 James B. McCullough.  /8/ Blades was responsible for surveys of HUD
 housing projects-- visiting sites, making inspections, and submitting
 reports to housing authorities.  McCullough was responsible for the
 engineering aspect of the modernization program, the Comprehensive
 Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP).  Upon his transfer, Babridge was
 assigned to CIAP.
 
    11.  Record facts show that the Loan Specialist Realty position,
 which Babridge occupied before his reassignment was later abolished.
 This was a foreseeable affect of the reassignment.  However, an
 individual who was a multi-family representative in the Housing Division
 was transferred into the Rehabilitation Specialist position from which
 Babridge was reassigned.  The transfer of Babridge did not result in any
 change in pay or grade.  Neither position (GS-12) had any promotion
 potential.
 
    12.  Effective as of May 1, employee Folsom was reassigned within the
 Columbia Area office from the position of Relocation Specialist, CPD,
 Program Support Branch, to Loan Specialist (Realty), Housing Division,
 Loan Management Branch.  This transfer occurred as a result of the
 promotion of a GS-12 Loan Specialist into a Deputy Branch Manager
 position.  Folsom was transferred to fill the vacancy of Loan Specialist
 in the Housing Division.  The Relocation Specialist position was
 transferred to Atlanta.
 
    13.  The Program Support Branch, to which Folsom was assigned before
 his transfer, provided technical support to the Program Management
 Branch.  This involved financial analysis, relocation, real estate,
 automatic data processing, and non-automated record-keeping.  Folsom, as
 a Relocation and Real Estate Specialist, provided technical assistance
 to communities and states concerning relocation and real estate.  He
 also monitored community development projects throughout South Carolina.
 
    14.  The Loan Management Branch, to which Folsom was reassigned in
 May, monitors assisted and unassisted housing.  This Branch is
 responsible for servicing insured and Secretary-held multi-family
 mortgages, defaulted Title I and Sections 312 loans, as well as Housing
 for the Elderly and College Housing Loans.  It checks to see that rents
 were charged in accordance with government regulations;  monitors the
 payment of assistance on behalf of tenants to project owners where
 housing was built by private developers and loans insured by HUD;
 assures that loan payments are made on time to mortgagees.  In general,
 this branch protects the government's interest as guarantor.
 
    15.  Folsom, as a Loan Specialist (Realty), performed the following
 duties:  reviewed rent increases on Section 8 housing projects;
 conducted supervisory review of annual financial statements;  monitored
 expenditures of travel monies;  obtain flexible subsidy loan for a
 housing project;  monitored 23 troubled housing projects.
 
    16.  Record facts reflect there were five other Loan Specialists in
 the Loan Management Branch.  Each such specialist had been handling a
 workload of 60-65 projects.  Upon Folsom's transfer thereto, about 4-5
 projects were reassigned from each specialist to Folsom.  Respondent
 deems that 50-55 projects for each Loan Specialist is a full workload.
 In regard to the 23 troubled projects reassigned to Folsom, the other
 Loan Specialists spent less than 5% of their time thereon.  The
 reassignment of Folsom did not result in any loss of pay or grade.
 
    17.  None of the employees transferred to the Atlanta Regional office
 as part of the reorganization was qualified for either position to which
 Babridge or Folsom were reassigned.  Likewise, none of the employees who
 were downgraded within the Columbia Area office as a result of the
 reorganization was qualified for either position to which Babridge and
 Folsom were reassigned.  /9/ However, no other employee in the Columbia
 office was permitted to compete for the positions to which the aforesaid
 individuals were transferred.
 
    18.  The reorganization of HUD became effective on September 9, 1983.
  At the last moment the functions of the Rehabilitation Specialist
 position were not regionalized to Atlanta.
 
                                Conclusions
 
    While not denying that an agency is obliged to bargain over the
 impact and implementation of changes in employment conditions,
 Respondent maintains no such obligation existed herein.  It predicates
 this contention on the prior holdings in the public sector that such
 changes must have a reasonably foreseeable or substantial impact flowed
 from the reassignments of Babridge and Folsom;  that any possible impact
 at the time was not reasonably foreseeable.  Hence, it maintains, no
 violation occurred by virtue of its failure to notify the Union in
 advance of the changes and to bargain re the impact and implementation
 thereof.
 
    Earlier cases in the public sector stressed the fact that no duty to
 bargain arose unless a substantial impact existed, or was reasonably
 foreseeable, when management rights were exercised by an agency.
 Department of Defense, Air National Guard, Texas Air National Guard,
 Camp Mabry, Austin, Texas, 6 A/SLMR 591.  The "substantial impact"
 standard, however, is no longer followed by the Authority.  In U.S.
 Government Printing Office, 13 FLRA No. 39 it was concluded that " . . .
 the statutory duty to negotiate comes into play if the change results in
 an impact upon unit employees or such impact is reasonably foreseeable."
 A recent decision by the Authority, however, makes it evident that a
 change in working conditions does not necessarily impose a bargaining
 obligation upon the employer.  Thus, where the resultant effect, as well
 as the reasonably foreseeable impact of a change in working conditions
 on bargaining unit employees was de minimis, no statutory duty may be
 imposed upon an agency to notify the union in advance and afford it an
 opportunity to bargain in regard thereto.  Department of Health and
 Human Services, Social Security Administration, Chicago Region, 15 FLRA
 No. 179.
 
    The central issue posed for determination herein may be stated as
 follows:  whether the reassignments by Respondent of Babridge and Folsom
 within the Columbia Area office resulted in an impact, or a reasonably
 foreseeable impact, upon bargaining unit employees which was more than
 de minimis - all of which required Respondent to notify the Union herein
 and afford it an opportunity to negotiate re such impact and
 implementation.
 
    In support of its position that no "substantial" impact flowed from
 the reassignments, Respondent adverts to several factors.  Thus, it
 maintains, inter alia, that neither Babridge nor Folsom objected to the
 transfer;  that the reassignments did not alter the pay or grade of
 either employee, that their workload was not appreciably increased.
 Further, Respondent argues that any possible effects of the
 reorganization, i.e. those employees who would be either transferred to
 Atlanta or demoted, was not reasonably foreseeable in April, 1983.
 
    Upon due consideration of the entire record herein, I am satisfied
 that a resultant impact flowed from the reassignment of employees
 Babridge and Folsom.  Further, I conclude that the unilateral conduct by
 management created a foreseeable impact upon unit employees.  Moreover,
 I am persuaded that the impact, in either case, was not de minimis so as
 to relieve Respondent of any obligation to notify the Union of its
 action and negotiate in respect thereto.
 
    (1) It is noteworthy to the undersigned that the reorganization and
 the accompanied reassignments effected marked changes in the work
 positions and duties of both Babridge and Folsom.  Prior to the change
 and transfer Babridge was concerned with rehabilitation management of
 housing in the Community Planning and Development Division.  To this
 end, he rendered assistance re financing, and monitored local
 rehabilitation loans and grants.  The position to which he was assigned
 called for technical and engineering expertise in respect to the
 rehabilitation and modernization of HUD projects.  Babridge dealt with
 improvements to structures, roads, equipment and housing systems.
 Likewise, while Folsom's functions pertained to relocation as a real
 estate specialist before the transfer, his new position as Loan
 Specialist (Realty) required servicing mortgages and dealing with
 mortgages and/or mortgages.  He also reviews requests for rental
 increases and releases of security.
 
    The Authority has determined that changing the duties performed by
 employees constitutes a change in conditions of employment which could
 reasonably be foreseen to have a substantial impact upon employees.
 Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration,
 Field Assessment Office, Atlanta, Georgia, 11 FLRA No. 78.  In the cited
 case it was concluded that additional duties could affect appraisals of
 their work as to how well the employees performed.  This conclusion was
 reasonably to be foreseen by the change.  In much the same vein, I am
 constrained to conclude that the change in job positions of both
 Babridge and Folsom must necessarily result in an impact upon those
 employees.  Not only has the nature of their work been altered, but
 their responsibilities are of a different character.  Further, each
 employee is subject to rating and appraisal by a supervisor attached to
 a different Division and Branch.  The standards for performance may well
 vary and affect the rating of each individual.
 
    It is argued by Respondent that the two employees did not object to
 the reassignments;  moreover, no promotion potential existed in any
 event, and there was no change in their pay or grade.  These factors,
 however, do not, in my opinion, militate against finding a significant
 impact by reason of the transfers.  Numerous considerations may prompt
 employees to consent-- or not voice objection-- to a reassignment.  In
 particular, they may fear being "riffed" by virtue of a reorganization,
 or they may hesitate to confront management for fear of retaliation.  In
 any event, the duty is imposed upon management to notify the union with
 respect to changed conditions, and the obligation to bargain runs toward
 the bargaining representative.
 
    (2) In respect to the foreseeability of any impact upon bargaining
 unit employees by reason of the reorganization and reassignment,
 Respondent suggests that management did not know in April, 1983 which
 employees would be either transferred to Atlanta, downgraded, or be part
 of a reduction in force.  Moreover, it insists that post-reorganization
 staffing-- which might involve filling a vacancy created by Babridge's
 reassignment or the elimination of one of three Maintenance Engineers--
 was not foreseeable at the time of the reassignments of Babridge and
 Folsom.
 
    While it may be true that Respondent did not know in April, 1983
 which employees would be affected by the reorganization and
 reassignments, it seems difficult to gainsay that an impact upon unit
 employees was reasonably foreseeable.  The reorganization called for
 reducing the staff by 17 employees.  Such plan included Babridge and
 Folsom since there positions were to be regionalized to Atlanta.
 However, inasmuch as both employees were retained in the Columbia Area
 office, any reduction in force would have required letting go two other
 employees.  Note is taken that, as of the time when the plan was
 proposed, Respondent encouraged employees to retire in order to help
 fulfill the quota of 17 "riffed" individuals.  The fact that it was not
 ultimately necessary to RIF 17 employees does not, in my opinion, negate
 the foreseeability of an impact.  One must view the likelihood of a
 result at the time of proposed action, and the contemplated reduction in
 force could reasonably be expected to affect other employees if Babridge
 and Folsom were not included in the reduction in force.
 
    Moreover, since Babridge's former position in Community Development
 was filled by another employee and the position is to be abolished, such
 abolitions will necessarily affect said employees who could be "riffed".
  I agree with General Counsel's contention that this result was
 reasonably foreseeable in view of the fact that the workload in
 Community Development was known by management to be diminishing and that
 the Division was winding up its operations.  The record also reflects
 that there were employees - apart from those downgraded or to be
 transferred to Atlanta - who could have qualified for the positions to
 which Babridge and Folsom were reassigned.
 
    I am persuaded that the reorganization and reassignments herein
 resulted in an impact upon bargaining unit employees which were
 reasonably foreseeable.  See U.S. Government Printing Office, supra.
 Thus, it was incumbent upon management to bargain concerning the impact
 and implementation thereof.  Having failed to do so, I conclude that
 Respondent violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.  /10/
 
    Accordingly, I recommend that the Authority issue the following order
 designed to effectuate the purposes of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority and Section 7118 of the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
 that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Columbia Area
 office, Columbia, South Carolina, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Instituting a reassignment of employees represented
       exclusively by the American Federation of Government Employees,
       Local 3654, AFL-CIO, without first notifying the exclusive
       representative and affording it the opportunity to negotiate the
       procedures which management will observe in implementing such
       reassignment as well as the appropriate arrangements for employees
       adversely affected thereby.
 
          (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 action in order to effectuate the purposes and
 policies of the Statute:
 
    (a) Notify the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 3454, AFL-CIO, of any intended reassignment of employees and, upon
 request, negotiate the procedures which management will observe in
 implementing such reassignment as well as the appropriate arrangements
 for employees adversely affected thereby.
 
    (b) Post at its facility at the Columbia Are office, Columbia, South
 Carolina, 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 Area Manager and shall be posted and maintained
 by him for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
 including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to
 employees are customarily posted.  The Area Manager shall take
 reasonable steps 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, in writing, within
 30 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to
 comply herewith.
 
                                       (s) WILLIAM NAIMARK
                                       WILLIAM NAIMARK
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  September 28, 1984
    Washington, DC
 
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
  PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER
 71 OF TITLE
 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT institute any reassignment of employees represented
 exclusively by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 3654, AFL-CIO, without first notifying the exclusive representative and
 affording it the opportunity to negotiate the procedures which
 management will observe in implementing such reassignment as well as the
 appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected thereby.
 
    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
 Federa