20:0248(32)CA - DOD, Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Fort Eustis Exchange, Fort Eustis, Virginia -- 1985 FLRAdec CA



[ v20 p248 ]
20:0248(32)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 20 FLRA No. 32
 
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ARMY AND AIR 
 FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE 
 FORT EUSTIS EXCHANGE 
 FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA 
 Respondent 
 
 and 
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R4-114 
 Charging Party 
 
                                    Case Nos. 4-CA-40138;  4-CA-40202
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint in Case No.
 4-CA-40202, and recommending that it be ordered to cease and desist
 therefrom and take certain affirmative action.  No exceptions were filed
 to the Judge's Decision in Case No. 4-CA-20202.  The Judge further found
 that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
 practices alleged in the complaint in Case No. 4-CA-40138, and
 recommended dismissal of that complaint.  Thereafter, the General
 Counsel filed exceptions to the Judge's Decision in Case No. 4-CA-40138.
 
    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.  Noting
 particularly the absence of exceptions with respect thereto, the
 Authority adopts the Judge's Decision that the Respondent had engaged in
 certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint in Case No.
 4-CA-40202.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered in Case No. 4-CA-40202 that the Department of Defense,
 Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Fort Eustis Exchange, Fort Eustis,
 Virginia shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Denying non-AAFES employee representatives of the National
 Association of Government Employees access to the Fort Eustis Exchange
 facilities absent permission from management, and denying official time
 to local officers of the National Association of Government Employees,
 Local R4-114, the exclusive representative of its employees, to
 represent employees located outside their assigned area, or otherwise
 changing established past practices affecting working conditions of
 employees without first notifying the National Association of Government
 Employees, Local R4-114, and affording such exclusive representative an
 opportunity to bargain concerning such matters.
 
    (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
    (a) Upon request, negotiate with the National Association of
 Government Employees, Local R4-114, the exclusive representative of its
 employees, with respect to any proposed change in the access to Fort
 Eustis facilities afforded to non-AAFES employee representatives of the
 National Association of Government Employees, the use of official time
 by local officers of the National Association of Government Employees,
 Local R4-114, to represent employees outside of assigned areas, or any
 other established term or condition of employment.
 
    (b) Post at its facilities at the Fort Eustis Exchange 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
 authorized representative and shall be posted and maintained for 60
 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including bulletin
 boards and other places where notices to employees are customarily
 posted.  Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure 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.
 
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 4-CA-40138 be,
 and it hereby is, dismissed.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., September 24, 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 deny non-AAFES employee representatives of the National
 Association of Government Employees access to the Fort Eustis Exchange
 facilities absent permission from management, or deny official time to
 local officers of the National Association of Government Employees,
 Local R4-114, the exclusive representative of our employees, to
 represent employees located outside of their assigned areas, or
 otherwise change established past practices affecting working conditions
 of employees without first notifying the National Association of
 Government Employees, Local R4-114, and affording such exclusive
 representative an opportunity to bargain concerning such matters.
 
    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 National Association of
 Government Employees, Local 4-114, the exclusive representative of our
 employees, with respect to any proposed change in the access to Fort
 Eustis facilities afforded to non-AAFES employee representatives of the
 National Association of Government Employees, the use of official time
 by local officers of the National Association of Government Employees,
 Local R4-114, to represent employees outside of assigned areas, or any
 other established term or condition of employment.
                                       (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, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region IV, whose address
 is:  1776 Peachtree Street, NW., Suite 501, North Wing, Atlanta,
 Georgia, 30309, and whose telephone number is:  (404) 881-2324.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Pamela B. Jackson, Esquire
    Richard S. Jones, Esquire
    For the General Counsel
 
    Irene Jackson, Esquire
    For the Respondent
 
    James Fleming
    George L. Reaves, Jr.
    For the Charging Party
 
    Before:  JOHN H. FENTON
    Chief Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This case arose pursuant to the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, 92 Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101, et seq., as a result of
 a consolidated unfair labor practice complaint filed on March 29, 1984,
 by the Regional Director, Region IV, Federal Labor Relations Authority
 (FLRA).  The complaint alleges that the Department of Defense, Army and
 Air Force Exchange Service, Fort Eustis Exchange, Fort Eustis, Virginia
 (Respondent) (1) violated Section 7116(a)(4) by reducing the hours of
 employment of certain employees and conducting a reduction-in-force
 because the employees provided information and/or gave testimony in
 proceedings before the FLRA;  (2) violated Section 7116(a)(2) by
 reassigning Susan Moody and reducing her hours because she engaged in
 activities on behalf of the National Association of Government
 Employees, Local R4-114 (the Union);  and (3) violated Section
 7116(a)(1) and (5) by unilaterally changing conditions of employment
 concerning access to the facilities by visiting National Association of
 Government Employees (NAGE) representatives, and representation by local
 Union officers of employees at worksites other than their own.
 
    A hearing was held on May 31 and June 1, 1984 in Norfolk, Virginia.
 All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
 witnesses and to introduce evidence.  Briefs were filed.  Upon the
 entire record, including my observations of the witnesses and their
 demeanor, I make the following findings, conclusions and
 recommendations:
 
    Case No. 4-CA-40138
 
    The Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), a subdivision of the
 Department of Defense, is a nonappropriated fund activity which must
 generate its own revenues.  Out of these revenues, it pays its personnel
 costs and other overhead expenses.  The remainder of its revenues is
 returned to the Army and Air Force for use as welfare and recreation
 funds and is also used for new construction of AAFES facilities.
 
    The AAFES mission is to sell merchandise and services to military
 members and their dependents and other authorized patrons.  Through its
 Fort Eustis Exchange, it sells department store merchandise and also
 operates food and service facilities.  John Birmingham, the Fort Eustis
 Exchange Manager, supervises the operation of the Fort Eustis main
 store, several satellite stores, two service stations, vending machines,
 concessionaires and a food branch which includes a snack bar (cafeteria
 line), deli, hot dog kiosk, theater concession and a mobile food
 operation.  This case involves the snack bar.
 
    John Birmingham became the Fort Eustis Exchange Manager on August 1,
 1983.  His immediate supervisor is Albert Jones, who became General
 Manager for the Tidewater Area Exchange (TDAX) on June 17, 1983.  The
 TDAX is composed of all AAFES facilities at Fort Eustis, Virginia;
 Langley Air Force Base, Virginia;  Fort Lee, Virginia;  Fort Storey,
 Virginia;  and Fort Pickett, Virginia.
 
    The Fort Eustis Exchange is one of 13 local units in a consolidated
 collective bargaining unit represented by NAGE since October 26, 1982.
 (Jt. 1).  Local R4-114 has represented these employees for many years.
 AAFES headquarters in Dallas, Texas, created a Labor Relations Section
 in July 1982, when three unions, including NAGE, gained consolidated
 bargaining rights.
 
    Union activity in Respondent's food branch accelerated after a March
 1983 arbitration decision involving an attempted search of the purse of
 Susan Moody, the Union President, in connection with a running dispute
 over whether she and other food employees were bringing food to work and
 cooking their meals, or were in fact using Respondent's food.  Moody
 said she filed about fifty grievances between May 1983 and May 1984.
 The Union filed four unfair labor practice charges involving food branch
 employees in May, July and August of 1983 (as well as a March charge
 involving a jewelry salesperson);  one alleged discrimination against
 Moody because of Union activity.  One of the cases was eventually
 settled, but three went to hearing in the week of October 4, 1983.  Food
 branch employees Moody, Janice Harrell, Lillian Wright, Alma Jones,
 Louis Jones, and Doris Nazareth testified at the hearings.  In addition,
 Veda Hunter and Lillian Fox gave affidavits to a FLRA agent during the
 investigation of the charges.  At the heart of this case is the fact
 that seven of these eight were adversely affected in the so-called RIF
 (all but Louis Jones).  It should be noted that the RIF also hurt
 employees Michelle Evans and Calvin Fritz who were not involved in the
 FLRA proceedings, and two of the three first-line supervisors.
 
    Upon assuming their positions at the Fort Eustis AAFES, Birmingham
 and Jones reviewed the overall operations and allegedly focused on three
 low-profit areas:  the cafeteria line, the book store and the service
 station.  Between September 12 and October 11, 1983, Birmingham and Fort
 Eustis Food Activity Manager Robert Stiles conducted hourly surveys of
 the cafeteria line to determine customer count, number of sales and
 dollar value (GC 5).  In addition, Birmingham and Jones reviewed food
 branch operating statements, which are monthly breakdowns of sales,
 expenses, gross profits and net profits for the entire food branch (GC
 14) and food data accumulation work sheets, which break down revenue by
 food branch component (GC 13).
 
    The customer and sales count surveys conducted by Birmingham and
 Stiles included 19 employees within the cafeteria line in formulating
 labor costs, although eleven of those employees also worked in other
 food branch components at times.  The food branch does not account for
 personnel costs nor allocations of supplies and merchandise for
 individual components.  Further complicating the financial record is
 Respondent's position statement submitted to the FLRA during
 investigation of this matter, and introduced into this record by the
 General Counsel, which lists its monthly profit or loss for the
 cafeteria line from February 1981 to January 1984 (GC 15).  /2/
 
    Effective September 26, 1983, Major General Lilley ordered the
 various training authorities at Fort Eustis to keep their troops
 involved in training activities from 7 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and, thus, to
 keep them away from the PX, commissary, etc.  Birmingham allegedly
 discovered General Lilley's order after a drop-off in the cafeteria
 line's morning business prompted him to inquire as to the reason for the
 drop-off.  He did not receive written notice concerning this order until
 approximately a month before trial, but he called personnel on General
 Lilley's staff concerning this matter sometime in early October, 1983.
 
    Birmingham was advised that the order had been in effect since
 September 26, 1983, and that the order would be enforced by roving
 courtesy patrols.  The courtesy patrols were required to take the name
 of any soldier found at the PX or other non-training area between the
 hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. and report it to higher command.
 Birmingham and employees had, in fact, observed courtesy patrols in the
 snack bar.  Discussions with Lilley's staff did not change Lilley's
 order.  The other food service operations were not impacted.  The deli
 and hot dog kiosk suffered no noticeable effect because their customers
 had always been lunch-time customers.  The theater concessions operated
 only in the evening.  Likewise, the mobile sales were not affected
 because the mobile units were allowed into the troop training areas and
 the troops were allowed to purchase from them throughout the day.
 
    Prior to the RIF, the cafeteria line's operational hours were 6:30
 a.m. - 5:30 p.m., Monday - Friday and 9:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m., Saturday
 and Sunday (GC 12).  In a letter sent on or about October 13, 1983,
 Birmingham requested Command concurrence from General Lilley on his
 plans to reduce cafeteria line operating hours to 10:30 a.m. - 2:30
 p.m., Monday - Saturday, with Sunday closings (GC 12).  /3/ Respondent
 always requests local Command concurrence on any change of hours because
 of the effect on the troops, although its regulations give the AAFES
 General Manager authority to determine the hours of operation of AAFES
 facilities.  In a letter dated November 8, 1983, Respondent reiterated
 its request for new hours, modifying its proposed schedule to 9:30 a.m.
 - 3:00 p.m., Monday - Friday and 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. on Saturday (R
 3).  Sometime in late November 1983, Colonel Parrish notified Birmingham
 that Command would approve the proposed hours if the cafeteria line
 remained open on Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 2 p.m. (R 4).
 
    Stiles prepared a proposed work schedule and staffing pattern dated
 October 1983 and approved on December 7 and 8, 1983, which identified
 the minimum number of positions necessary to operate the cafeteria line
 under the proposed operational hours.  (R 8).
 
    It proposed to abolish two of three supervisory positions, to reduce
 the grade and hours of the HPP-8 Cook (Harrell), to abolish the HPP-5
 full-time Cook position (Moody) and the HPP-4 part time Cook position
 (Evans) and to reduce the hours of all regular full time and regular
 part time employees, except for the Hot Dog Kiosk (where hours were to
 be increased) and the Mobile Unit, which was unaffected (Witness Louis
 Jones).  After review by Albert Jones, it was sent to the TDAX Personnel
 Manager, Catherine Vader, who prepared a RIF roster dated October 31,
 1983, as required by AAFES regulations (R 12).  The RIF roster was used
 to determine which of the food service employees would occupy the
 remaining available positions in the food branch.  Based on the
 regulatory formula contained in Exchange Service Manual ("ESM") 15-8,
 each employee whose position had been affected by the new branch
 staffing patterns was assigned a RIF score.  Those with the highest
 score in each position (job title and grade) and each category
 (according to number of hours worked) were given first consideration for
 available positions for which they were qualified, including vacant
 positions throughout the Fort Eustis Exchange which were listed on R.
 Ex. 13.  Vader submitted the RIF roster for review by Albert Jones,
 Walter Bender, Operations Specialist/Personnel for the Capitol Exchange
 Region (CPER), and Michael Sexton, Chief of Personnel for CPER.
 
    On November 17, 1983, apparently before Command rejected the proposed
 Sunday closing, Moody received official notice that cafeteria line hours
 would be cut, that all Snack Bar employees would lose four hours per
 week and some employees "including cooks" would be RIFed due to a
 "substantial drop in sales" of which the training policy was a
 "significant" cause (GC 6).  In a request for bargaining dated November
 30, 1983 Moody requested that the Union be provided with records and
 data used by Respondent to substantiate the RIF.  (GC 7).
 
    By letter of December 14, 1983 Albert Jones informed Moody that two
 cook positions, held by Moody and Michelle Evans, would be abolished;
 Wright would be downgraded from a Grade 8 cook to a Grade 6 cook, with a
 cut in hours;  full-time positions held by Harrell, Nazareth, Alma Jones
 and Hunter would be reduced in hours from 40 to 36;  and part-time
 positions held by Fox and Calvin Fritz would be reduced in hours from
 approximately 34 or 36 to 24 (GC 8;  R 14) /4/ All affected employees
 worked in the cafeteria line area, except for Fritz, who performed
 administrative duties for all the components (R 5).  Comparison of
 Respondent's July and October 1983 staffing patterns and schedules
 indicates that four part-time food-service workers in the cafeteria line
 area, Lias, Porter, Smith and Hawkins, were to have their hours cut, but
 Jones' letter shows they were unaffected by Respondent's action (R 5).
 
    As finally implemented, the RIF caused no layoffs.  Moody was
 transferred to the warehouse at the same grade, but at a substantial cut
 in hours.  Evans was cut to an HPP-2 Food Service Worker.  Supervisor
 Lawson quit and supervisor Carter was transferred to Ft. Langley at an
 apparently higher grade but with substantially reduced hours.  As to
 Wright's reduction in grade, Respondent contended that it took
 long-overdue action based upon the fact that she no longer cooked enough
 food "from scratch" to support her HPP-8 position.  This point was not
 disputed.
 
    One final point on the RIF:  it was not unprecedented.  According to
 Operations Clerk and Shop Steward Harrell, there had been a RIF in the
 1970's.  Also of interest is her testimony, in contradiction of General
 Counsel's claim that it is incredible that a RIF decision would be based
 on a one-month customer count and survey of sales, that "usually a
 customer analysis goes on for one month prior to reduction in force."
 This indicates there have been several, at least, in her experience.
 
    The parties met and negotiated over impact and implementation on
 December 20, 1983, and the Union was given a copy of the customer and
 sales count surveys conducted by Stiles and Birmingham (GC 5).
 Respondent implemented the schedule changes and RIF in January 1984.
 
    The daily customer count and sales record (broken into one-half hour
 segments) prepared by Stiles and furnished to the Union in justification
 of the proposed RIF and reduction in hours is a very difficult document
 to deal with.  Aside from the fact that it does not attempt to remove
 labor costs which support other components in addition to the "line
 area" it was attempting to measure, and that costs of supplies are
 ignored, it is not clear how "direct operating profit" or "profit-loss"
 are calculated.  Although records were kept for the period from
 September 12 to October 11, the analysis which purports to show a loss
 of 16.33% between 6:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., and of 28.60% between 3:00
 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. is in fact limited to the week of September 26 to
 October 2, the first week affected by the troop restriction.
 
    On the other hand, General Counsel's analysis of GC-5 (Brief page
 15), confined to the hours of the claimed adverse impact of the troop
 restriction, shows that average daily sales during those hours fell by
 12% after the restriction was imposed.  /5/
 
    According to Moody, she was told, probably in September 1983, by
 Delores Wallace, her first-line supervisor, that Frances Parry, Food
 Activity Manager at Langley Air Force Base, told Wallace, "Talk to Ms.
 Moody and tell her to be careful because management is out to get her at
 any cost." Lillian Wright, Moody's sister, testified that she overheard
 Moody tell Wallace, in a conversation in which Parry's name was
 mentioned, that she (Moody) knew that management was out to get her,
 placing the conversation after Parry left Ft. Eustis, in February, March
 or even earlier in 1983.  Parry said that while on temporary assignment
 as a replacement for Food Manager Stiles at Fort Eustis, between
 November 1982 and February 1983 she noticed Moody's absence one day and
 merely admonished Wallace that she was responsible for Moody's absences
 and should carefully oversee and control Moody's use of official time
 for Union business and have Moody report such absences to her.  She also
 told supervisors Wallace and Carter, in a discussion about possibly
 promoting Lawson, a cook, that she knew they were friends of Moody, but
 that they should be careful about relaying such information to Moody -
 their loyalty was to management.
 
    Wallace was not called, and no explanation was offered for her
 absence.  An adverse inference should be drawn from Respondent's failure
 to present its supervisor.  But that is complicated here by the fact
 that Respondent did call Parry, whose denial of the statement Moody
 attributed to her through Wallace's statement struck me as entirely
 credible, and by the further fact that Moody's credibility gave me
 problems.  The statement recounted by Moody is a rather significant
 threat to a Union president, one which, if not indelibly etched on her
 mind, ought at least to be properly placed in time.  She perhaps
 conveniently placed it in September 1983, within a few weeks of the
 initial decision to abolish her job.  Yet Parry's 90-day detail to Ft.
 Eustis ended in February and Wright placed the conversation at about
 that time, approximately seven months before the incident recalled by
 Moody.  There is no indication in this record that Moody was engaged in
 any activity, back in late 1982 or early 1983 which would have earned
 the enmity of Respondent except for the dispute over the question
 whether cafeteria employees were bringing their own food to work and
 cooking it for their meals, or were in fact consuming Respondent's food.
  This resulted in a grievance over the attempt to search her purse.  The
 50 grievances Moody claims she filed occurred during the 12 months
 beginning in May 1983.  The trial of 16 FLRA No. 93 in October 1983,
 which in large measure underlies the Section 7116(a)(4) allegations
 herein (and in which Moody was not credited where her testimony
 conflicted with that of others) led to a finding that the record up
 until then was barren of any evidence that Respondent was hostile to the
 Union or to Moody.  /6/ Given these considerations, I credit Parry's
 denial.
 
    At one of the unfair labor practice hearings in October 1983, Clara
 Carter, then a supervisor, testified for Respondent.  According to James
 Fleming, a National Representative for NAGE, Carter failed to
 corroborate one of Respondent's other witnesses and her testimony, in
 general, was "confused." During Carter's testimony, Fleming observed
 Catherine Vader write the word "separate" on the bottom of a pad and
 show it to Streeter, after which they both smiled.  Vader was asked
 whether, during the earlier FLRA hearings, she "had a communication with
 Mr. Streeter regarding whether or not Mrs. Carter would be retained as
 an employee." She credibly responded "No, I don't know what you are
 talking about." As I believe Fleming saw what he thought was the word
 "separate" (albeit upside down), and I draw an adverse inference from
 the failure to recall Streeter to speak to the point, I conclude that
 the note described by Fleming was passed.  Recognizing the amusement
 provoked by Carter's testimony, and by the note, I conclude that the
 note left no lasting impression upon Vader, i.e. not one evoked by
 reference to a communication about retaining Carter.
 
    On or about October 13, 1983, George Reaves, a National
 Representative for NAGE, and Streeter were at Respondent's headquarters
 resolving the Fort Eustis unfair labor practice charge involving the
 practice of some of the food branch employees, including Moody, who
 cooked and consumed sausage and eggs they claimed they brought to work.
 Respondent's position was that the employees were using AAFES sausage
 and eggs.  According to Reaves, after the matter was resolved, Streeter
 made disparaging remarks concerning Moody's veracity, trustworthiness
 and reliability.  Streeter further indicated that Moody was using the
 Union to get around AAFES rules and regulations, that he "could not
 condone" her actions, and "that he had means of dealing with employees
 that were . . . 'troublemakers'".  As an example, Streeter allegedly
 stated that AAFES had filed grievances against a union in the West, and
 had taken the cases to arbitration in order to cause that union
 financial hardship.
 
    Streeter denies making any threats against Moody or the Union.  He
 testified that he called Moody an "aggressive" Union official, but that
 all comments on the subject were made in a joking manner, including "We
 know how to handle you guys", "We'll file grievances", and "We'll hit
 you in the pocketbook" I credit Reaves.  While I find the conversation
 puzzling, in that no real context is provided for the disparagement or
 Streeter's belief that Moody was using the Union to get around AAFES
 regulations in a manner that he "could not condone", I conclude that he
 called her a "troublemaker" and said that he had means for dealing with
 such employees.
 
    Catherine Vader, Streeter and Stiles were involved in the October
 1983 unfair labor practice hearings, whereas Birmingham and Albert Jones
 were not.
 
    Case No. 4-CA-40202
 
    Prior to Respondent's change in policy, a NAGE representative
 visiting Fort Eustis Exchange would upon arrival contact Moody, who
 would secure permission from her supervisor to conduct Union business.
 On January 19, 1984, Fleming was at Fort Eustis investigating the charge
 in the instant case.  Birmingham informed him that, thereafter, visiting
 NAGE representatives must get his permission to enter the facility and
 must be accompanied by a management official during meetings with
 employees.  /7/ He explained that Moody was neglecting to get permission
 to meet with the representatives.  Fleming asked Birmingham to submit
 the new policy in writing so that the Union could request negotiations,
 but Respondent never complied.
 
    Birmingham called Streeter later that day and explained the problem
 he had discussed with Fleming.  He further stated that Moody was doing
 all the Union work because Union representatives were not restricting
 their activities to the areas they were authorized to represent,
 generally their immediate work area.  The procedure followed was that
 the employee would get permission from his supervisor to see the Union
 official of his choice and if the Union official was not busy, he would
 meet with the employee.  Similarly, if a Union official wanted to meet
 with an employee not located in his immediate work area, he would get
 permission from his supervisor and visit the employee at the employee's
 work site.
 
    Streeter called Daniel Hurd, a National Representative for NAGE, and
 asserted that the parties' collective bargaining agreement supported
 Respondent's new policy on visitation procedure for non-employee NAGE
 officials.  /8/ He stated that Union officials employed at the Fort
 Eustis Exchange were not getting permission to meet with the National
 Representatives and that a higher level management official ought to
 have control over the employees' whereabouts.  Streeter testified that
 he and Hurd agreed to have visiting NAGE officials secure permission
 from Birmingham.  By letter of January 19, 1984, Streeter confirmed this
 alleged agreement (GC 9).  Hurd received the letter on January 23, 1984
 and immediately responded in writing that no agreement had been reached
 (GC 10).  Streeter testified that in a subsequent conversation on
 January 25, 1984, he proposed that the Food Manager, rather than
 Birmingham, grant permission, and Hurd consented to the arrangement.
 Hurd denies ever reaching an agreement with Streeter.  Based upon my
 observation of the witnesses' demeanor, I credit Hurd's testimony where
 it conflicts with that of Streeter.
 
    On or about January 26, 1984, Moody and Lillian Boyd, Union
 Vice-President and Chief Steward, were told by William Moore, Food
 Manager, and Birmingham that they could no longer meet with bargaining
 unit employees outside of their assigned area.  Moody had met with
 visiting NAGE representatives on the average three times per month, and
 with employees outside of her work area as often as once or twice a day.
 
                     Discussion and Conclusions of Law
 
    Case No. 4-CA-40138
 
    The General Counsel's case is essentially built upon four factors:
 the timing of the RIF decision, approximately a week after unfair labor
 practice hearings;  the high proportion of employees who participated in
 those hearings and were affected by the RIF;  the claimed inadequacy of
 the business records relied upon to justify the cutback;  and three
 statements alleged to be indicative of a disposition to punish those who
 are actively pro-Union or who dare to exercise their rights to
 participate in Authority proceedings.
 
    As participation in Authority proceedings is urged as the reason for
 most of the alleged discrimination, a brief description of those cases
 is in order.  Three hearings were held.  Case No. 4-CA-30293, tried on
 October 3, 1983, involved an alleged violation of the Weingarten rights
 of a sales clerk suspected of involvement in theft at the Ft. Eustis
 jewelry store.  The Administrative Law Judge recommended dismissal of
 the complaint (OALJ 84-28), finding that her Weingarten rights had been
 respected.  That employee, who received a verbal reprimand, is not
 involved in this case, nor was any witness in that proceeding affected
 by this RIF.
 
    On October 4, a second case went to trial.  It involved a reprimand
 of Union President Moody for refusing to execute a standards of conduct
 form.  The witnesses called by the General Counsel, in addition to
 Moody, were steward Janice Harrell, steward Lillian Wright and Alma
 Jones.  All four were adversely affected by the RIF.  In addition, all
 three HPP-4 Food Activity foremen (supervisors) were called by
 Respondent.  The jobs of Clara Carter and Lois Lee Lawson were to be
 abolished also.  However, Lawson quit and Carter received a transfer to
 Langley Air Force Base as an HPP-5 Cook, with a substantial cut in
 hours.  As previously set forth, General Counsel attempts to explain
 away these apparently innocent hostages to Respondent's purpose of
 ridding itself of those who testify against it, by pointing out that
 Carter in fact gave testimony which did not help Respondent's defense,
 and that she was marked for extinction when Vader passed to Streeter the
 note with the word "separate." As noted, the witness to this event, NAGE
 National Representative Fleming, testified the Carter's testimony
 "became rather comical at times because of the way she was getting
 confused . . . (and when Vader wrote the word and showed it to Streeter)
 . . . they both smiled at the writing of the words." Some examination of
 that case (16 FLRA No. 93) seems necessary in the circumstances.
 
    The General Counsel's theory of violation was that President Moody
 was singled out by Food Manager Stiles for imposition of a requirement
 that she execute a new (modified) Standards of Conduct Review
 Certificate and was reprimanded because she engaged in the protected
 activity of insisting upon her right to seek the advice of the Union
 before signing the new form.  Union stewards Harrell and Wright
 testified that they were called upon to sign the old form, /9/ as was
 Alma Jones.  Carter, quite significantly, testified that she asked Moody
 to sign an old form and that Moody refused, thus fully supporting
 Respondent's defense that Moody insubordinately refused to sign either
 form.  In this respect supervisor Carter was credited over Moody's
 denial.  However, in another respect, which concerned a meeting between
 Stiles and Moody, Carter's testimony was not helpful to Respondent.  She
 claimed not to be present although the other two agreed that she was,
 during certain parts of the conversation.  The presiding Judge found her
 testimony "valueless" for purposes of reconciling the differing versions
 of Moody and Stiles, and expressed his impression that she was
 withholding information.  Her testimony about that meeting, and how it
 began, is indeed (in a sense) comical in its repeated inconsistencies,
 and one can understand how it may have provoked smiles.  In any event,
 the Judge, noting his difficulty in crediting Moody when her testimony
 conflicted with that of other witnesses and that the record before him
 was barren of any evidence of hostility towards the Union or Moody,
 found that Moody was both obstinate and recalcitrant in her persistent
 refusal to sign either form, and that such insubordination was the sole
 reason for the reprimand.  In sum, he found that, while Carter appeared
 to be evasive when it came to getting Moody into too much trouble, she
 did truthfully testify that she had asked Moody to sign the old form.
 She thus provided very valuable evidence in support of Respondent's
 defense as well as being unhelpful in resolving the conflicts between
 Stiles and Moody.
 
    The third case, tried on October 5, involved the unlawful
 discontinuance of a policy of providing employees with free beverages
 (Case No. 4-CA-30400, OALJ 84-65).  Moody, Wright, Alma Jones, D.
 Nazareth and Louis Jones testified for the General Counsel that
 Respondent had supplied such beverages for many years.  Food Manager
 Stiles agreed that he had found such a practice when he arrived, and had
 reported this variation from his prior AAFES experience to higher
 management.  In due course he was instructed to end the practice on the
 basis of agency regulations which were found not to constitute a
 defense.  Moody, Wright, A. Jones and Nazareth were hurt in the RIF.  L.
 Jones was not.
 
    To recapitulate, six food service employees testified:  President
 Moody, Steward Harrell, Steward Wright, A. Jones, D. Nazareth and L.
 Jones.  All but L. Jones, who drove a mobile unit which was not affected
 by the restriction on troops, were adversely affected by the RIF.  In
 addition, employees Veda Hunter and Lillian Fox, who gave statements to
 FLRA but did not testify, were adversely affected.  Thus seven of the
 eight employees who participated in Authority proceedings were adversely
 affected, or seven of nine if we count the Weingarten, case.
 Countervailingly, Cook Michelle Evans was downgraded, and Custodial
 Worker Calvin Fritz had his hours reduced the same as Fox's, although he
 did not testify, and two of the three food supervisors (who testified
 for Respondent) were slated for job abolishment.  Thus, six unit
 employees testified, of whom five were hurt.  Two who did not testify
 were hurt, and two of three low level supervisors (who were called to
 testify for management) were also hurt.  Originally, four jobs were to
 be abolished:  two serving line cooks and two supervisors.  As it worked
 out no jobs were lost, but Moody was transferred and suffered a cut in
 hours from 40 to 22 per week, Evans was reduced from HPP-4 Cook to a
 HPP-2 food service worker and lost about ten hours a week and Carter was
 transferred to Langley at a higher grade but substantially fewer hours.
 Steward Wright was reduced from HPP-8 to HPP-6 and lost 4 hours per
 week.  As originally conceived, the RIF centered on the serving line
 cooks and supervision, and would have eliminated the jobs of President
 Moody and Michelle Evans and of supervisors Lawson and Carter.  Even
 accepting the General Counsel's contention that Carter had become
 persona non grata because of her testimony, two of the four people whose
 positions were marked for elimination had not offended Respondent by
 testifying against it, and a finding of discrimination premised in part
 on the ratio of participants to nonparticipants would involve a
 corollary finding that Evans and Lawson were innocents to be sacrificed
 in order to mask Respondent's motive.  Viewed from the perspective of
 actual severity of impact, two participants were hard-hit (Moody and
 Harrell) as opposed to two nonparticipants (Evans and Carter) and
 arguably a third-- Lawson.  Again, the inference from a finding of
 discrimination is that Respondent was willing to severely harm its
 loyalists on a one-for-one basis in order to silence its enemies.
 
    The General Counsel also contends that the timing of Resondent's
 action is circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive.  Birmingham
 first requested Command concurrence on a proposed schedule change on
 October 13, 1983, approximately 9 days after the hearings.  The process
 did not begin directly after the hearings, however, nor did the FLRA
 proceedings.  Birmingham and Stiles began conducting customer and sales
 surveys for the cafeteria line on September 12, 1983.  Thus, this is not
 a case of employee participation in Authority proceedings immediately
 followed by retribution.  While preparation for the unfair labor
 practice hearings was surely underway by September 1983, and Union
 activity had accelerated in general over the summer, I am not persuaded
 that the simultaneity of the events is significant.  The timing of
 Respondent's efforts to improve its operations is also sensibly
 explained as a consequence of Birmingham's arrival in August and Albert
 Jones' arrival in June.
 
    A third factor relied upon to show a discriminatory purpose for the
 "RIF" is the claim that Respondent's business records do not support the
 professed need to retrench, and that the asserted reason is thus a
 pretext.
 
    As noted, the records and calculations of GC 5 were provided to the
 Union to establish that a "substantial drop in sales" had occurred, and
 that a "significant factor in the drop . . . was the restriction by
 Command of troop access to the snack bar during early morning hours."
 (GC 6).  It is a centerpiece of the General Counsel's case that the
 records do not support that claim, but rather show that the troop
 restriction had "little, if any, impact" on sales, and that the
 inference should therefore be drawn in the light of all the evidence
 that other, unlawful, reasons must explain Respondent's action.  The
 drop in sales hardly appears to support Mr. Birmingham's statement that
 the troop restriction "totally reduced our breakfast sales, which were
 very substantial", but it cannot be said that a drop in the range of 8
 to 12% in sales is insubstantial, or that the restriction on troops was
 not a significant factor in that drop, as General Counsel argues.
 
    While I regard GC-5 as tending to support Respondent rather than the
 General Counsel, the brevity of the period covered, the indecipherable
 analysis, and the sales counts themselves render it far from conclusive.
  GC 13 and 14 are, as Respondent notes, unhelpful because they do not
 focus on the "line area" of the snack bar in any probative way.  Given
 the quality of the evidence relied upon by counsel, I turn to GC 15,
 discussed in footnote 1, which was ignored by counsel.  It purports to
 be hand-culled evidence of continual losses in the snack bar (here used,
 as throughout this record, in a confusing and ambiguous way to denote
 the line area), taken from a computerized record system, and in the
 record at the instance of General Counsel without limitation as to
 purpose.  As noted, I think it is appropriate to receive it as probative
 evidence on the issue whether Respondent had reason to cut or eliminate
 its line area losses.  It demonstrates such a need existed, /10/ and had
 existed for a long time, presenting the question whether Respondent was
 finally motivated to address the problem by the arrival of new
 management, by the Union or other protected activity of its employees,
 or by a mixture of the two.
 
    Given this evidence of losses, I cannot conclude that Respondent was
 not faced with the need to cut back on staff and hours, and given the
 losses in the morning the need to focus on cooks and cafeteria line
 employees appears to have been justified.  While the evidence presented
 in GC 15 was developed after-the-fact, and in response to the charge,
 and the General Counsel attempts to confine Respondent to the reasons
 advanced to the Union in GC 6, I would not come to a different result,
 were Respondent so limited, in the absence of clear and convincing
 evidence of hostility to the Union and to its employees who use the
 Authority's process.  There is no direct evidence of the latter at all.
 Rather it must be inferred from the disproportionate impact of the
 cut-back on such employees.  But an at least equally valid inference, or
 assumption, on this record, is that business reasons called for the line
 area to be trimmed, and that Respondent did not cut back its operations
 and sacrifice employees who did it no harm in order to punish those who
 testified or gave affidavits and in order to "silence" others who
 cooperated in Authority proceedings.  Aside from the timing of, and
 selection for inclusion in, the so-called RIF, this record is free of
 any conduct or expression by Respondent indicative of a disposition to
 unlawfully discharge employees who participate in Authority proceedings.
  Given such circumstances, and the demonstrated business losses, I
 cannot conclude that there exists a preponderance of evidence in support
 of the proposition that Respondent engineered its "RIF" to rid itself of
 employees who gave evidence or testified against it.
 
    For largely similar reasons, I do not find that Moody was transferred
 and her hours cut because of her role as a Union activist.  Here there
 is somewhat more evidence for such a finding, as Streeter betrayed a
 hostility to Moody, regarding her as one who used the Union to avoid
 regulations, as well as an untruthful and untrustworthy person.  While
 it is not clear what particular conduct Streeter had in mind, the
 subject of the case they were settling suggests that it had to do with
 the alleged consumption of Respondent's food.  Streeter said he had ways
 of dealing with people like Moody, but the only indication of such a
 method recounted by Reaves was a threat to file costly grievances, a
 threat to the Union as an institution rather than to Moody.  Thus, while
 Streeter's remarks may be viewed as threatening to Moody as a Union
 activist, they are not so clearly threatening as to persuade me that
 Respondent would not have reached her in a reorganization which impacted
 with particular severity on its cooks (and its supervisors).  In sum, I
 conclude that the evidence will not support a finding that Respondent
 concocted a RIF in order to rid itself of the Union President as well as
 all other employees who testified or, so far as we know, were prepared
 to testify, on behalf of the General Counsel.  I therefore recommend
 that the allegations of Section 7116(a)(2) and (4) violations be
 dismissed.
 
    Having found and concluded that Respondent did not violate the
 Statute as alleged, I recommend that the FLRA issue the following order
 pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2423.29(c):
 
                                   ORDER
 
    ORDERED, that the Complaint in Case No. 4-CA-40138 is dismissed.
 
    Case No. 4-CA-40202
 
    It is well established that parties may establish terms and
 conditions of employment by practice, or other form of tacit or informal
 agreement, which may not be altered by either party in the absence of
 agreement or impasse following good faith bargaining.  Past practices
 generally include all conditions of conditions of employment not
 specifically covered in the parties' collective bargaining agreement,
 which are followed by both parties, or followed by one party and not
 challenged by the other over a period of time.  Past practices may also
 include the actual practice being followed, regardless of the
 contractual agreement.  Internal Revenue Service and Brookhaven Service
 Center, 6 FLRA No. 127, 6 FLRA 713(1981);  see also Social Security
 Administration, Mid-America Service Center, Kansas City, Missouri, 9
 FLRA No. 33, 9 FLRA 229(1982).
 
    In the instant case, Birmingham announced to Fleming the change in
 policy concerning non-AAFES employee NAGE representatives' access to the
 Fort Eustis facilities, without notifying the Union or affording it an
 opportunity to bargain.  Similarly, Birmingham and Moore informed Moody
 and Boyd about the change in policy concerning representation by local
 Union officials of employees outside of assigned areas, without
 bargaining over the change.  Although the parties' collective bargaining
 agreement arguably supports Respondent's new policies, Respondent has
 always acquiesced in the former practices and was obligated to notify
 the Union and bargain over the changes in conditions of employment.
 
    Respondent contends that the General Counsel failed to prove that
 Streeter and Hurd did not reach an agreement as to the change in policy
 concerning visiting NAGE representatives.  The General Counsel's only
 burden, however, is to prove that Respondent unilaterally changed a
 condition of employment without affording the Union an opportunity to
 bargain.  If Respondent asserts agreement between the parties as a
 defense, it must bear the burden of proof.  I find that there was no
 such agreement.  In addition, Respondent instituted the policy before
 Streeter spoke with Hurd;  thus, Respondent cannot assert its good faith
 belief that an agreement had been reached as a defense.
 
    Respondent also contends that its changes in policy have not
 substantially affected the employees and, therefore, it is not obligated
 to bargain.  U.S. Government Printing Office, 13 FLRA No. 39, 13 FLRA
 203(1983), cited in support of this position, is inapposite in that it
 involves a management right under Section 7106 of the Statute, rather
 than a condition of employment which may be substantively bargained.
 /11/
 
    Accordingly, Respondent has violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
 the Statute by failing and refusing to negotiate in good faith with the
 Union over the changes in conditions of employment.  Based on the
 foregoing findings and conclusions, it is recommended that the FLRA
 issue the following Order:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and Section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered that the Department of Defense, Army and Air Force
 Exchange Service, Fort Eustis Exchange, Fort Eustis, Virginia shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Denying non-AAFES employee representatives of the National
       Association of Government Employees access to the Fort Eustis
       Exchange facilities absent permission from management, and denying
       official time to local officers of the National Association of
       Government Employees, Local R4-114, to represent employees located
       outside of their assigned areas, or otherwise changing established
       past practices affecting working conditions of employees without
       first notifying the National Association of Government Employees,
       Local R4-114, the exclusive bargaining representative of its
       employees, and affording such representative an opportunity to
       meet and confer on such matters to the extent consonant with law
       and regulation.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
       under the Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
          (a) Upon request, negotiate with the National Association of
       Government Employees, Local R4-114, with respect to any proposed
       change in the access to Fort Eustis facilities afforded to
       non-AAFES employee representatives of the National Association of
       Government Employees, the use of official time by local officers
       of the National Association of Government Employees, Local R4-114,
       to represent employees outside of assigned areas, or any other
       established term or condition of employment.
 
          (b) Post at its facilities at the Fort Eustis Exchange 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 authorized representative 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) Notify the Regional Director, Region IV, Federal Labor
       Relations Authority, in writing within 30 days as to what steps
       have been taken to comply herewith.
 
                                       (s) JOHN H. FENTON
                                       JOHN H. FENTON
                                       Chief Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  March 19, 1985
    Washington, DC
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
  PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
 OF TITLE
 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS
 STATUTE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT deny non-AAFES employee representatives of the National
 Association of Government Employees access to the Fort Eustis Exchange
 facilities absent permission from management, deny official time to
 local officers of the National Association of Government Employees,
 Local R4-114, to represent employees located outside of their assigned
 areas, nor otherwise change established past practices affecting working
 conditions of employees without first notifying the National Association
 of Government Employees, Local R4-114, the exclusive bargaining
 representative of its employees, and affording such representative an
 opportunity to meet and confer on such matters to the extent consonant
 with law and regulation.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL, upon request, negotiate with the National Association of
 Government Employees, Local R4-114, with respect to any proposed change
 in the access to Fort Eustis facilities afforded to non-AAFES employee
 representatives of the National Association of Government Employees, the
 use of official time by local officers of the National Association of
 Government Employees, Local R4-114, to represent employees outside of
 assigned areas, or any other established term or condition of
 employment.
                                       (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 any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
 Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region 4,
 whose address is:  1776 Peachtree Street, NW., Suite 501, North Wing,
 Atlanta, GA 30309, and whose telephone number is:  (404) 881-2324.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ The General Counsel excepted to certain credibility findings made
 by the Judge.  The demeanor of witnesses is a factor of consequence in
 resolving issues of credibility, and the Judge has had the advantage of
 observing the witnesses while they testified.  The Authority will not
 overrule a Judge's resolution with respect to credibility unless a clear
 preponderance of all the relevant evidence demonstrates that such
 resolution was incorrect.  The Authority has examined the record
 carefully, and finds no basis for reversing the Judge's credibility
 findings.
 
 
    /2/ That statement indicates a loss of $3,448 ($287 per month) for
 the eleven months covered in 1980, a loss of $36,680 ($3,057 per month)
 in 1982, and a loss of $81,254 ($6,771 per month) in 1983.  Thus losses
 had allegedly grown 24 fold in three years.  Only 11 of the 35 months
 were profitable, and October 1983 (RIF decision time) was the thirteenth
 consecutive monthly loss.  It posted the largest loss of the entire
 period but for August 1982.  If found to have probative value GC-15
 would have devastating consequences for the General Counsel's view that
 Respondent was not suffering constant losses, but has merely engaged in
 "creative accounting" to give that unfounded appearance and to mask its
 motive for a cut in its capacity to do business.  The claimed losses are
 of course hearsay of the most self-serving kind, as they are not regular
 business entries, but were allegedly culled by hand from
 computer-generated records which focus on the entire Food Branch, so as
 to isolate the Snack Bar from the four other components of the Branch.
 The statement would ordinarily be inadmissible in the absence of the
 regular business records from which it is taken and the testimony of the
 person who manually separated from Respondent's computerized records
 system the data which would allegedly produce the results here achieved.
  That test has not of course been met here, as the General Counsel
 introduced them without objection and without indicating that their
 purpose was limited in any way.  Neither side has made a real effort to
 address this document's purpose or probative value.  A party
 "introducing documentary proof upon an issue vouches for its accuracy so
 far as that issue is concurred, and is, as a rule, bound by its
 recitals." American Jurisprudence, Vol. 29, Section 840, Snell Isle,
 Inc. v. IRS, 90 F.2d 481.  I conclude it is appropriate to give this
 evidence weight.
 
 
    /3/ The letter, obviously based on records and calculations contained
 in GC 5, asserted that during the time of the survey (September 12 to
 October 11) the hours from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. were losing money,
 that the restriction on troops was producing a similar, though smaller
 loss between 6:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., and that Sunday was a loser
 except on payday weekends.  Only the hours from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
 were said to yield a profit.
 
 
    /4/ Respondent contends that the October 1983 staffing patterns and
 the RIF roster in evidence indicate that additional cafeteria line
 employees sustained loss of hours (RBr 25 and R Reply Br. 3-4).
 Inasmuch as Jones' letter to Moody was written after these documents,
 and was intended to notify the Union of the adverse impact of the
 schedule change on its bargaining unit members, I find that Jones' list
 of affected employees is exhaustive.  Further, Respondent introduced
 into evidence advance and final notices of adverse action sent to all
 entitled employees.  No employees other than those listed in Jones'
 letter received such notice (R 14(a)-(j)).
 
 
    /5/ My calculations indicate that those figures require correction to
 show receipt of $102 rather than $418 on September 18, and $707 rather
 than "no record" for September 22, as well as the inclusion of September
 26.  As modified, the decline in sales drops to 8%.
 
 
    /6/ There, in fact, appears to have been no claim that direct
 evidence of animosity even existed.  It was to be inferred from
 allegedly disparate treatment accorded Moody.
 
 
    /7/ The consolidated complaint issued by the General Counsel does not
 allege as a violation of the Statute Respondent's policy requiring
 management officials to be present at meetings between NAGE
 representatives and bargaining unit employees.  Since the General
 Counsel has made no timely motion to amend the complaint and
 Respondent's counsel did not brief this issue, it would be unfair to
 Respondent to adjudicate this issue.  Library of Congress, 15 FLRA No.
 128, 15 FLRA 589(1984).
 
 
    /8/ Article 8, Section 7 of the parties' collective bargaining
 agreement reads:
 
          Authorized non-employee representatives of the Union will be
       allowed to visit the activity at reasonable times for the purpose
       of meeting with officials of the Employer and the Union, subject
       to applicable security regulations.
 
 
    /9/ Harrell, after being presented with a new form by Stiles, and
 expressing a preference to sign the old form, was allowed to do so.
 
 
    /10/ As indicated earlier, it showed continual and accelerating
 losses from 1981 to January 1984.  It is worth noting at this