20:0324(35)CA - Nuclear Regulatory Commission and NTEU -- 1985 FLRAdec CA



[ v20 p324 ]
20:0324(35)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 20 FLRA No. 35
 
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 
 Respondent 
 
 and 
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 
 Charging Party
 
                                         Case No. 3-CA-40391
 
                            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, 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 and the Charging Party
 filed oppositions to the Respondent's exceptions.
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute), the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the
 Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
 committed.  The rulings are hereby affirmed.  Upon consideration of the
 Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts the
 Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommended Order as modified.
 
    In agreement with the Judge, the Authority finds that the Respondent
 violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by its failure to
 provide the Union with prior notice of its decision to detail bargaining
 unit employees slated for eventual reassignment from the Clinch River
 Breeder Reactor Program Office so as to afford the Union the opportunity
 to request bargaining concerning procedures and appropriate arrangements
 for employees adversely affected by those details.  /1/ See United
 States Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
 Washington, D.C. and Central Region, 16 FLRA No. 73(1984);  and U.S.
 Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
 Washington, D.C. and its Central Region, 16 FLRA No. 74(1984).
 
    The Authority further adopts the Judge's conclusion that the
 information requested by the Union was necessary for the purposes sought
 within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, and that the
 Respondent therefore violated 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute as
 alleged in the complaint when it refused to furnish the Union with the
 requested information.  See Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES),
 Fort Carson, Colorado, 17 FLRA No. 92(1985).
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
 that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Detailing Nuclear Regulatory Commission bargaining unit employees
 represented exclusively by the National Treasury Employees Union, in
 furtherance of a decision to effect abolishment of the Nuclear
 Regulatory Commission's Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program Office,
 without first notifying the exclusive representative and affording it
 the opportunity to request negotiations concerning procedures and
 appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by any such
 details.
 
    (b) Failing and refusing to furnish to the National Treasury
 Employees Union, the exclusive representative of its employees,
 information requested in a letter dated April 23, 1984, addressed to
 Greg Benoit, Chief, Labor Relations Branch, Office of Administration,
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, by Teresa S. Barnhart, Stewart, National
 Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 208, for the purpose of enabling the
 National Treasury Employees Union to represent Nuclear Regulatory
 Commission bargaining unit employees with respect to negotiations
 relating to procedures and appropriate arrangements for employees
 adversely affected by the abolishment of the Clinch River Breeder
 Reactor Program Office.
 
    (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
    (a) Upon request, bargain with the National Treasury Employees Union,
 the exclusive representative of its employees, with respect to
 procedures and appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected
 by the detailing of Nuclear Regulatory Commission bargaining unit
 employees in furtherance of a decision to effect the abolishment of the
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program
 Office.
 
    (b) Furnish to the National Treasury Employees Union, the exclusive
 representative of its employees, to the extent it has not previously
 done so, information requested in a letter dated April 23, 1984
 addressed to Greg Benoit, Chief, Labor Relations Branch, Office of
 Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, by Teresa S. Barnhart,
 Steward, National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 208.
 
    (c) Post at its Washington, D.C. metropolitan area facilities,
 wherever bargaining unit employees are located, copies of the attached
 Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms they shall be signed by the
 Executive Director for Operations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or a
 designee, 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 said Notices are not
 altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
    (d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region III, Federal Labor
 Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
 Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., September 26, 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
 
 
 
 
                          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 detail Nuclear Regulatory Commission bargaining unit
 employees represented exclusively by the National Treasury Employees
 Union, in furtherance of a decision to effect abolishment of the Nuclear
 Regulatory Commission's Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program Office,
 without first notifying the exclusive representative, and affording it
 the opportunity to request negotiations concerning procedures and
 appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by any such
 details.
 
    WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to furnish to the National Treasury
 Employees Union, the exclusive representative of our employees,
 information requested in a letter dated April 23, 1984, addressed to
 Greg Benoit, Chief, Labor Relations Branch, Office of Administration,
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, by Teresa S. Barnhart, Steward, National
 Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 208, for the purpose of enabling the
 National Treasury Employees Union to represent Nuclear Regulatory
 Commission bargaining unit employees with respect to negotiations
 relating to procedures and appropriate arrangements for employees
 adversely affected by the abolishment of the Clinch River Breeder
 Reactor Program Office.
 
    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, bargain with the National Treasury Employees
 Union, the exclusive representative of our employees, with respect to
 procedures and appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected
 by the detailing of Nuclear Regulatory Commission bargaining unit
 employees in furtherance of a decision to effect the abolishment of the
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program
 Office.
 
    WE WILL furnish to the National Treasury Employees Union, the
 exclusive representative of our employees, to the extent we have not
 previously done so, information requested in a letter dated April 23,
 1984, addressed to Greg Benoit, Chief, Labor Relations Branch, Office of
 Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, by Teresa S. Barnhart,
 Stewart, National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 208.
                                       (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 of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region III, whose
 address is:  1111 - 18th Street, NW., Suite 700, P.O. Box 33758,
 Washington, D.C. 20033-0758,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
                                       Case No.: 3-CA-40391
 
    Neal E. Abrams, Esquire
    Gregory E. Jackson, Esquire
    For the Respondent
 
    Bruce D. Rosenstein, Esquire
    G. Phillip Boyer, Esquire
    For the General Counsel
 
    Before:  LOUIS SCALZO
    Administrative Law Judge and 
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This case arose as an unfair labor practice proceeding under the
 provisions of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 92
 Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as "the
 Statute"), and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder.
 
    The complaint alleged that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 (Respondent or NRC) violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute
 by unilaterally implementing details of bargaining unit employees slated
 for eventual reassignment because of a NRC decision to abolish its
 Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) Program Office, without affording
 the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU, Charging Party or Union)
 prior notice and an opportunity to negotiate concerning the impact and
 implementation of the change.
 
    The complaint also alleged that the Respondent violated Sections
 7114(b)(4), and 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by refusing to
 furnish information relating to the decision to abolish the CRBR Program
 Office, specifically "information related to the detailing,
 reassignment, or other personnel actions regarding bargaining unit
 employees involved in Respondent's Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program
 Office during the period March 1, 1984 to April 18, 1984."
 
    As a defense to the complaint Counsel representing the Respondent
 argued that on April 27, 1984, the Respondent and Charging Party entered
 into a unilateral agreement which operated to resolve all matters
 relating to the abolishment of the CRBR Program Office, including all
 unfair labor practice issues arising out of the abolition of the CRBR
 Program Office or related matters.  /2/ The Respondent also contended
 that the detailing of CRBR Program Office personnel was accomplished in
 accordance with the provisions of a controlling collective bargaining
 agreement, and that any issues posed relating to the details merely
 involved differing and arguable interpretations of the collective
 bargaining agreement.  Lastly, the Respondent argued that the Charging
 Party's Section 7114(b)(4) request for information was mooted by the
 settlement agreement allegedly entered into on April 27, 1984;  and that
 failure to comply with the information request may not be used as a
 basis for an unfair labor practice because the request did not meet the
 requirements of Section 7114(b)(4)(B).
 
    The parties were represented by counsel during the hearing and were
 afforded full opportunity to be heard, adduce relevant evidence, and
 examine and cross-examine witnesses.  Based upon the entire record
 herein, including exhibits and other relevant evidence adduced at the
 hearing, /3/ and briefs filed by counsel representing the Respondent and
 General Counsel, I make the following findings of fact, conclusions and
 recommendations.
 
                             Findings of Facts
 
    Abolishment of CRBR Program Office
 
    The CRBR Program Office, an element of the Respondent's Office of
 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, was initially established to interact with
 the U.S. Department of Energy, the potential licensee for the CRBR
 project.  The Department of Energy had sought to have the project
 licensed.  However, the Respondent's task of reviewing the CRBR project
 application became unnecessary when the United States Congress withdrew
 financial support for the project in the Department of Energy's Fiscal
 Year 1984 appropriation.  As a result of the withdrawal of funding, and
 the withdrawal of the Department of Energy application, the Respondent
 determined that it would be necessary to abolish the CRBR Program Office
 and transfer bargaining unit employees elsewhere.  The workload in the
 Office began winding down as early as December of 1983, and thereafter
 involved only functions relating to phasing out the work of the Office.
 
    Receipt of Notice of Decision and NTEU Request to Negotiate Impact
 and Implementation
 
    On March 12, 1984, management officials representing the Respondent
 convened a meeting of CRBR Program Office employees to announce the
 proposed abolishment of the Office.  The Union was represented at the
 meeting.  Bargaining unit employees effected by the announcement were
 apprised that a new organizational component would be established, and
 were informed concerning the positions they would be assigned to in the
 new unit.  Teresa Barnhart, an NTEU Chapter 208 steward attending the
 meeting, was informed by Respondent's representatives that the Union
 would be formally apprised of the proposed change, and that the union
 would be provided with an opportunity to negotiate concerning impact and
 implementation.
 
    By memorandum dated March 26, 1984, the Union was formally advised by
 Greg Benoit, Chief of Respondent's Labor Relations Branch, that the
 Respondent had decided to abolish the CRBR Program Office, and that
 counterproposals should be submitted to the Respondent.  (G.C. Exh. No.
 2).  The letter also advised that employees affected "are being
 reassigned" to other positions.  A staffing plan attached to the
 memorandum reflected these changes.  Among other things it indicated
 that Margaret Shuttleworth, a bargaining unit employee classified as a
 Licensing Assistant (301), would be detailed and reclassified as a
 Requirements Assistant (303).  The reclassification did not involve a
 change in duties;  however the Licensing Assistant (301) position was
 considered a professional occupational series, whereas the Requirements
 Assistant (303) position was classified as a clerical occupational
 series.  /4/
 
    Article 5 of the collective bargaining agreement governing the labor
 relations of the parties provided for at least ten days notice to the
 Union and affected employees in situations involving "moves and
 reorganizations." (R. Exh. No. 1 at page 4).  Under the provisions of
 this Article the NRC had an obligation to bargain concerning impact and
 implementation in such cases.  It clearly appeared from the record that
 the terms of Article 5 were applicable in this case.  The applicability
 of this Article was recognized by the Respondent and was the reason for
 the Respondent's transmission of notice on March 26, 1984.  (Tr.
 478-480).  It was specifically admitted that, under the terms of Article
 5, the Respondent was obligated to bargain on impact and implementation
 concerning proposals to move and reorganize prior to effectuating such
 proposals.  (Tr. 494-495).
 
    By memorandum dated March 28, 1984, Teresa Barnhart replied to Benoit
 and requested limited negotiations concerning the proposal to change
 Shuttleworth's occupational series.  (G.C. Exh. No. 3).  /5/
 
    A few days after receipt of the March 28th bargaining request,
 Paulette Weinrich, a Labor Relations Specialist working for Benoit,
 phoned Barnhart and questioned the negotiability of the decision to
 reclassify Shuttleworth.  She informed Barnhart that the Respondent
 would not enter into negotiations on the issue.  /6/ Weinrich advised
 Barnhart that if Barnhart had any other counter proposals she should
 submit them.  (Tr. 366-367).
 
    On April 16, 1984, Weinrich advised Barnhart that April 16, 1984, was
 the last day on which to offer NTEU counter proposals concerning
 Respondent's proposal to abolish the CRBR Program Office, and that the
 Union's earlier March 28th counter proposal was not negotiable.  (Tr.
 34-35, 75-76).
 
    Barnhart responded by drafting additional counter proposals and
 transmitting them to Benoit in a memorandum dated April 16, 1984.  (G.C.
 Exh. No. 4).  /7/ The April 16th memorandum proposed that bargaining
 unit employees affected by Respondent's proposal to abolish the CRBR
 Program Office be given at least eight hours to prepare for relocation;
 that telephone numbers previously assigned be retained;  that employees
 be moved into offices with windows if they previously occupied offices
 with windows;  that employees be assigned new offices with the amount of
 space previously enjoyed;  that "milestones" requirements be deferred
 for affected employees in proportion to the period of time consumed by
 the relocation;  that employees be excused from all lifting and moving
 duties;  and lastly that employees be apprised of their rights, or any
 agreement relating to the move ten days prior to physical relocation.
 
    During Impact and Implementation Negotiations Union Becomes Aware of
 NRC's Detailing of Employees
 
    On April 18, 1984 representatives of NTEU and the NRC met to discuss
 issues raised.  The Respondent was represented by Richard Brady and
 Paulette Weinrich.  The Union was represented by Teresa Barnhart and
 Martin Levy.  These representatives discussed questions posed in the
 Union's March 28 and April 16, 1984 memorandums to Benoit.  (Tr. 37,
 370).  Among other things relating to the relocation of employees,
 specific consideration was given to employee responsibility for packing,
 (Tr. 38, 80, 164), to the identity of employees would have to complete
 relocation, the new office space to be occupied, the retention of
 telephone numbers, and the reclassification of Shuttleworth's
 occupational series to a clerical position (Tr. 38, 80, 164, 328, 348,
 368, 371-372).  /8/
 
    During the meeting Levy advised that it was rumored that affected
 bargaining unit employees had already been detailed out of the CRBR
 Program Office to new positions.  He inquired of Brady whether or not
 the rumor was true.  Brady and Weinrich acknowledged that such details
 had in fact been made for the purpose of implementing the abolition of
 the CRBR Program Office, and stated that management had a legal right to
 make such details under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement
 (Tr. 38, 80-81, 165, 329, 423-424, 433).  It was clearly established
 that as of the date of the April 18, 1984 meeting, bargaining unit
 employees had already been detailed to positions to which the Respondent
 intended to reassign them at a later date.  /9/ (Tr. 39, 80-81, 334-335,
 372).  However, the identities of employees detailed were not disclosed
 to the Union at the meeting, nor were facts relating to the details.
 (Tr. 335-336).
 
    Disclosure of the detailing of employees with an intent to
 permanently reassign them became a source of serious disagreement at the
 meeting, and Union representatives advised Respondent's representatives
 of their displeasure concerning the mooting out of some bargaining
 issues relating to employee relocations.  (Tr. 46, 372).  The testimony
 of Weinrich establishes that the meeting ended without agreement, and
 with Respondent's representatives promising to prepare a series of
 written proposals setting forth Respondent's attempt to resolve issues
 confronting the parties.  (Tr. 372).  /10/ The parties agreed to meet
 later to resolve issues posed.  (Tr. 378).  The Respondent contemplated
 the possibility of the Union signed a document which the Respondent
 intended to develop after the meeting.  (Tr. 378).
 
    The record disclosed that the detailing of bargaining unit employees
 out of the CRBR Program Office actually commenced on or about March 12,
 1984, the date on which the Union and bargaining unit employees were
 orally advised of Respondent's intention to reorganize and relocate
 employees;  and that at least three bargaining unit members were
 involved.  These were Margaret Shuttleworth, Harold Holtz, and Jerry
 Swift.  (Tr. 220-221, 313).  The Respondent acknowledged that the CRBR
 Program Office would have been phased out of existence when the details
 were terminated (Tr. 229), and that employees would not have returned to
 the CRBR Program Office in any event.  (Tr. 229-230).  These employees
 were ultimately reassigned to positions to which they were detailed.
 (Tr. 241, 433).
 
    The record revealed that the abolition of the CRBR Program Office had
 an adverse impact upon bargaining unit employees affected by the
 decision.  In addition to the loss of jobs they had been performing,
 Shuttleworth and Swift were transferred into less desirable work
 locations.  (Tr. 122-123, 158-159).  Shuttleworth was assigned new
 tasks, and had to learn new procedures and regulations with very little
 training.  (Tr. 160-161).
 
    The Respondent claimed that the right to detail without notice to the
 Union emanated from the provisions of Article 23 of the collective
 bargaining agreement.  (R. Exh. No. 1 at page 24).  It was contended
 that under the terms of Article 23 the Respondent possessed at least an
 arguable right to detail without incurring a bargaining obligation, and
 that an obligation to bargain impact and implementation did not arise in
 this case until the Respondent determined that the affected employees
 would be finally reassigned or transferred out of the CRBR Program
 Office.  Section 23.4 of Article 23 required "timely notice to an
 employee in advance of his/her detail." However, Article 23 imposed no
 specific duty on Respondent to give notice to the Union, and did not
 otherwise address the Respondent's bargaining obligation.  Article 24 of
 the agreement dealing with the reassignment of employees imposed an
 obligation to bargain on impact and implementation.  It was contended
 that the Respondent did meet the Article 24 bargaining obligation prior
 to the final formal reassignment of affected employees.
 
    The term "detail" was defined by Jesse L. Funches, Director of NRC's
 Plan and Program Analysis Staff, as "a temporary change of assignment of
 a person to different work or different position." (Tr. 203).  He noted
 that the primary difference between a detail and a reassignment was that
 a detail was a "temporary assignment" to a position.  (Tr. 230).  It was
 given a slightly different meaning by Benoit.  He perceived a detail as
 being temporary in nature with a limiting date, and stated that it would
 "normally" be for less than 120 days.  (Tr. 473).  It was recognized
 that the collective bargaining agreement did not define the term
 "detail," and that Article 23 did not specifically provide for a waiver
 of bargaining rights.
 
    The Respondent's contention concerning the applicability of Article
 23 is surprising in the light of the clear indication that the
 Respondent deemed Article 5 to be applicable to the abolition of the
 CRBR Program Office.  As noted, Article 5, dealing with reorganizations
 and moves, imposed upon Respondent the obligation to negotiate
 concerning the impact and implementation of the decision to abolish the
 CRBR Program Office.  Also, evidence in the record clearly reflects that
 the Respondent intended the relocation of employees to be permanent in
 nature.  Reference to detailing procedures in the collective bargaining
 agreement was merely a device used to relocate these employees under
 Article 23 without incurring a bargaining obligation.  The term
 "detail," as utilized by the Respondent, did not contemplate permanent
 changes in assignment, and as indicated the record shows that permanency
 was indeed intended in this case.  /11/ This is evidenced by the
 decision to abolish the CRBR Program Office, by Respondent's admission
 in Benoit's March 26, 1984 letter that employees were "being
 reassigned," and by Respondent's recognition of the applicability of
 Article 5 of the collective bargaining agreement.
 
    As a result of discussions during the April 18th meeting Weinrich
 delivered a proposed memorandum of understanding to Barnhart on or about
 April 19th (G.C. Exh. No. 5, Tr. 40, 373).  /12/ The memorandum of
 understanding purported to be Respondent's resolution of issues raised
 during the April 18th meeting.  (Tr. 373, 431-432).  It was intended to
 serve as a signed agreement resolving impact and implementation
 bargaining issues.  It provided for "reasonable official time to effect
 the move;" imposed on NRC the responsibility to supply needed materials
 and personnel to effect the move;  required that advance notice of the
 move be given to employees;  made allowance for appropriate extensions
 of time to complete required duties;  and lastly, provided for the use
 of a seniority system to assign preferred offices in situations where
 efficiency of work operations would not be affected.  Inasmuch as it was
 acknowledged that relocations of bargaining unit employees had already
 occurred as of April 18, 1984, it was apparent that the proposed
 memorandum of understanding had limited significance.  It dealt largely
 with bargaining issues mooted out by the Respondent's detailing of
 employees in anticipation of eventual reassignment to new positions.
 /13/
 
    Union's Submission of April 23, 1984 Information Request and Denial
 of Request by Respondent
 
    On April 23, 1984, the Union submitted an information request to the
 Respondent in connection with ongoing negotiations relating to the
 abolishment of the CRBR Program Office (G.C. Exh. No. 6).  In a letter
 addressed to Benoit by Barnhart, the Union requested the Respondent to
 supply documents pertaining to personnel actions relating to employees
 affected by the decision.  The request was limited to the period March
 1, 1984 through and including April 18, 1984, and the Respondent was
 specifically informed that the information was "necessary in order to
 complete the ongoing negotiations with respect to the abolishment of the
 Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program Office." The record disclosed that
 Barnhart wished to respond to the Respondent's proposed memorandum of
 understanding submitted to the Union after the April 18th meeting.  The
 Union felt the need to know the particulars of employee relocations to
 verify what management had admitted on April 18th concerning the
 detailing of employees, and to determine exactly what had occurred
 and/or was planned with respect to personnel actions relating to the
 CRBR matter.  (Tr. 41, 85-86, 89).  Barnhart acknowledged at the hearing
 that she suspected that unfair labor practices had occurred, and that
 one purpose underlying the request related to the use of information
 obtained to make Union determinations concerning suspected unfair labor
 practices.  (Tr. 89-90).  However, the record revealed that at the time
 of the information request the Respondent and the Union still faced
 bargaining issues raised in the Union's April 16, 1984 proposals (G.C.
 Exh. No. 4), and the proposed memorandum of understanding submitted to
 the Union after the April 18th meeting (G.C. Exh. No. 5).
 
    Following Respondent's receipt of the information request, Barnhart
 was phoned by Jacqueline Jackson, a senior Labor Relations Specialist
 employed by the Respondent.  They discussed the question of whether the
 Union would sign off on the proposed memorandum of understanding
 transmitted to the Union by the Respondent, the content of the
 memorandum of understanding, the Union's earlier proposal to retain
 Margaret Shuttleworth's occupational series, and the negotiability of
 the latter proposal.  (Tr. 41-43, 45).  Barnhart also informed Jackson
 that the Union was waiting for the information requested to fashion "a
 more solid proposal to management." (Tr. 42, 45).  Barnhart also noted
 that the information was needed in connection with possible unfair labor
 practice charges.  (Tr. 42, 90).  Jackson advised Barnhart that the
 reasons given for the needed information were inadequate.  (Tr. 42).
 
    On April 25 and 26, 1984, Barnhart discussed the same subject with
 Weinrich.  Barnhart reiterated her reasons for the information
 requested, noting the need for specific information to frame a
 bargaining proposal in response to the proposed memorandum of
 understanding received by the Union from Respondent, and the need to
 verify particulars relating to possible unfair labor practices
 pertaining to the detailing of employees.  (Tr. 45-46, 90-91, 375-376).
 /14/
 
    Unsuccessful Efforts to Complete Negotiations and Settle Anticipated
 Unfair Labor Practice Charges
 
    On or about April 24 or 25, 1984, Weinrich phoned James Thomas,
 President of NTEU Chapter 208 to advise him of difficulty in resolving
 issues relating to the information request, and problems encountered in
 negotiations.  She requested a meeting with Thomas.  (Tr. 376-378, 558).
  Thomas contacted Benoit concerning the matter and indicated his
 intention to resolve problems arising out of negotiations, including
 issues relating to anticipated unfair labor practice charges.  (Tr. 484,
 524).  /15/ It was agreed that the parties would meet on April 27, 1984
 for the purpose of resolving all issues presented.
 
    On April 27, 1984, representatives of the Respondent and the Union
 met.  The Respondent was represented by Benoit, Brady and Weinrich, and
 the Union was represented by Thomas, Levy and Barnhart.  The discussion
 generally pertained to issues raised at the earlier April 18th meeting.
 (Tr. 329).  A substantial portion of the meeting was devoted to the
 reclassification of Licensing Assistant positions at the NRC, and the
 Union's request that incumbents of all such NRC positions be retained in
 the 301 occupational series (Tr. 97, 329-330, 484-485, 527).  /16/ The
 parties also addressed the Union's allegations concerning the premature
 detailing of bargaining unit members, /17/ and issues remaining
 concerning impact and implementation negotiations.  (Tr. 166, 576-577).
 
    The Union proposed that if Respondent would agree to the Union's
 demands relative to the occupational series to be assigned to NRC
 Licensing Assistants, other issues separating the parties "would go
 away." (Tr. 330-331, 559).  This phrase was not then or thereafter
 explained in detail.  However, it was acknowledged by Respondent's
 witnesses that there were a number of other issues facing the parties.
 These related to office space, demands for retention of telephone
 numbers, access to windows, remaining questions concerning negotiations
 pertaining to the abolishment of the CRBR Program Office, and problems
 relating to alleged unfair labor practices.  (Tr. 351, 380, 386,
 485-486, 498, 527).
 
    A tentative agreement was reached by the parties on the basis of the
 Union proposal.  However, Respondent's representatives made it very
 clear that it would be necessary to obtain the approval of higher
 management officials and NRC personnel specialists before agreeing to
 retain all incumbent Licensing Assistants in the 301 occupational
 series.  (Tr. 330-331, 380, 587).  It was understood that Respondent's
 representatives would not promise a concession on this issue.  (Tr. 440,
 486).  In addition, the record also disclosed that some "final details"
 required resolution on the Union side of negotiations.  (Tr. 559).
 Respondent's representatives promised to contact Union representatives
 after the meeting to advise concerning their efforts to obtain approval
 of retention of the 301 occupational series for Licensing Assistants.
 (Tr. 486, 527-528).  Benoit acknowledged that the Respondent was under
 an obligation "to get back to the Union." (Tr. 519).
 
    The Union representatives understood that essentials of an agreement
 had been reached by the parties, but that the agreement could not be
 finalized until Respondent's representatives obtained approval of the
 plan to retain the 301 occupational series for Licensing Assistants.
 Thomas offered to draft a memorandum of understanding relating to the
 matter, and to transmit it to Respondent's representatives.  (Tr. 115,
 166).  The parties left the meeting with the understanding that Thomas
 would prepare a memorandum for submission to management.  (Tr. 559,
 565).  Both Brady and Benoit indicated that they wanted higher
 management to review the draft memorandum of understanding.  (Tr. 569).
 /18/
 
    Although the parties reached a tentative or conditional agreement
 concerning issues relating to impact and implementation negotiations and
 unfair labor practice allegations, it was made clear to Union
 representatives attending the meeting that the Respondent would not in
 any event, comply with the April 23, 1984 information request;  and
 further that final phases of the abolishment of the CRBR Program Office
 would occur on May 6, 1984.  A memorandum to this effect, dated April
 27, 1984, was handed to Barnhart by Weinrich at the close of the April
 27th meeting.  (G.C. Exh. No. 8).  It purported to base refusal of the
 information request upon alleged failure of the Union to disclose why
 the information sought was necessary to complete impact and
 implementation negotiations, and claimed that Respondent's
 representatives could not perceive how such information related to
 issues raised by the negotiations.  The memorandum also addressed the
 point that the Respondent would insist upon impact and implementation
 bargaining terms prescribed in Respondent's earlier proposed memorandum
 of understanding delivered to the Union on or about April 19, 1984.
 Presumably, the April 27th memorandum was delivered to provide guidance
 to Thomas in his drafting of a memorandum of understanding to evidence
 settlement of all issues.  As will be hereinafter discussed, Thomas did
 in fact draft a proposed memorandum of understanding which adopted the
 NRC proposed memorandum of understanding despite the Union's earlier
 vigorous insistence that an unfair labor practice had been committed by
 Respondent's detailing of bargaining unit employees.
 
    Immediately after the April 27th meeting Brady and Weinrich conferred
 with Michael Fox, Chief of Respondent's Position Evaluation Section in
 NRC Personnel about the possibility of retaining Licensing Assistants in
 the 301 series in order to resolve unfair labor practice allegations,
 and to effect agreement regarding the CRBR Program Office matter.  Fox
 agreed to retain incumbent Licensing Assistants in their 301
 designations, and stated he would take the necessary steps to effectuate
 the change.  (Tr. 352-354, 360, 382).
 
    Weinrich made an unsuccessful attempt to reach Thomas by phone on
 April 27th (a Friday), to apprise him of Fox's decision to retain the
 301 occupational series.  On or about Monday, April 30th, she did reach
 him, and advised him of developments.  (Tr. 386-387).  She did not
 otherwise qualify Respondent's intent to comply with the Union demand.
 Weinrich inquired about the draft memorandum of understanding that
 Thomas was preparing, and he advised that he had forwarded it to
 Barnhart.  (Tr. 562-563, 571, 581-582).  /19/
 
    Thomas prepared a draft memorandum of understanding to formalize the
 tentative agreement reached by the parties on April 27th.  (R. Exh. No.
 9).  He forwarded it to Barnhart for her consideration and for
 transmission to management.  After obtaining Thomas' permission to make
 certain changes Barnhart sent it to Respondent's representatives on May
 2, 1984.  (Tr. 114, 116).  The one page document consisted of five
 paragraphs.  The first noted that it pertained to impact and
 implementation bargaining relating to the abolition of the CRBR Program
 Office.  The second adopted in totality the terms of Respondent's
 earlier April 19, 1984 proposed memorandum of understanding.  The third
 paragraph recognized management's intent to carry all incumbent NRC
 Licensing Assistants in the 301 occupational series designation.  The
 fourth paragraph reflected a Union assurance that upon execution of the
 document the Union would request the NTEU National Office to withdraw
 "any Unfair Labor Practice charge which NTEU Chapter 208 has filed or
 requested to be filed in regard to the CRBR abolition or related matters
 . . . " The fifth paragraph indicated that the agreement would take
 effect with the signatures of NRC and NTEU representatives.  It was made
 quite clear that the main elements of the draft memorandum dealt with
 the Union's willingness to waive all of their fundamental interests in
 the negotiations, including unfair labor practice allegations being
 processed, in return for retention of the 301 occupational series for
 NRC Licensing Assistants.  (Tr. 575, 576, 581).
 
    The document was received by NRC representatives on or about May 3 or
 May 4, 1984, or during the first week of May.  (Tr. 390-391, 452).
 Management representatives reviewed it, and agreed with all provisions
 other than paragraph 3, relating to retention of the 301 occupational
 series.  Respondent decided that it would be unwise to execute the
 document because it would reflect that Respondent's representatives had
 in fact negotiated concerning a matter which did not relate to a
 condition of employment within the meaning of Section 7103(a)(14(B) of
 the Statute.  (Tr. 414, 488-489).  However, it was very clear that the
 management felt that the draft accurately represented what the parties
 had agreed to at the April 27th meeting.  (Tr. 488, 522).  Nevertheless,
 management's concern over reference to a classification issue generated
 a management decision to object to the memorandum of understanding.
 (Tr. 488, 521-522).  Benoit instructed Weinrich to phone Barnhart and to
 make known management's concern regarding "problems with entering into
 this MOU." (Tr. 489).  /20/
 
    On the same day that Respondent received the memorandum of
 understanding, Weinrich phoned Barnhart about the matter and advised of
 management's refusal to sign the document.  (Tr. 393, 452-453, 456-457).
  Weinrich suggested working on an approach which did not involve
 execution of a memorandum of understanding.  (Tr. 393).  /21/ A
 suggestion by Weinrich that the Union accept a staffing plan indicating
 that incumbent Licensing Assistants would retain the 301 Occupational
 series was rejected by Barnhart as inadequate.  (Tr. 394).
 
    On the same day or within two days, Weinrich phoned Thomas to convey
 management's position regarding the rejected memorandum of
 understanding.  (Tr. 394, 454-455, 457).  They discussed the document
 and Weinrich advised that management would not execute any agreement
 concerning the matter.  (Tr. 565-566).  Thomas insisted upon execution
 of the memorandum of understanding or some other agreement relating to
 the subject.  (Tr. 464-465).  Thomas thereafter phone the National
 Office of the NTEU and advised that it was not possible for the parties
 to reach a settlement agreement.  (Tr. 578-579).  On May 3, 1984, the
 charge underlying the complaint was served on the Respondent.  /22/
 
    Weinrich subsequently reported the impasse to senior Labor Relations
 Specialist Jackson.  (Tr. 539, 542).  She informed Jackson that "she was
 having some problems completing the CRBR (impact and implementation)
 negotiations," and that Thomas had told Weinrich that he needed a
 written document assuring the Union that the NRC would not change the
 occupational series assigned to NRC Licensing Assistants.  (Tr. 539).
 
    Jackson phoned Thomas on or about May 8 or 9, 1984 to ascertain what
 Thomas needed in order to resolve the matter.  (Tr. 541-542).  Thomas
 states that he wanted a memorandum verifying the arrangement regarding
 the 301 occupational series.  (Tr. 539-540).  Jackson expressed concern
 over this suggestion, but indicated that she would endeavor to work it
 out with Michael Fox, head of the Position Evaluation Section in the
 Personnel Office.  (Tr. 540).  Jackson thereafter asked Fox if something
 in writing could be supplied to Thomas.  Fox then suggested the possible
 use of an annotated staffing plan to indicate the 301 occupational
 series assigned to incumbent Licensing Assistants, and furnished a copy
 of an August 19, 1983 staffing plan to Jackson.  (R. Exh. 12, Tr. 545).
 The document in question lists the names of numerous employees, their
 grades, and occupational series.  The organizational assignments of
 eleven incumbent Licensing Assistants are listed, including Margaret
 Shuttleworth's assignment.  Fox inserted asterisks after their
 occupational series designations, and included notations indicating,
 "Incumbency only for 301 series." The document was not signed by any
 responsible NRC official and did not purport to bind the Respondent.
 
    Jackson testified that she thereafter phoned Thomas and told him
 about the staffing plan idea, and also inquired whether it would "take
 care of everything." Jackson related that Thomas said that it would.
 (Tr. 545).  She mailed a copy of the staffing plan to Thomas on May 9,
 1984.  Thomas testified that he had asked either Jackson or Weinrich to
 provide something to the Union to clearly indicate Margaret
 Shuttleworth's actual assignment as a result of the reorganization, and
 that he requested a staffing plan for this limited purpose only.  He
 denied that he ever agreed to accept a staffing plan in lieu of the
 memorandum of understanding, and stated that he did not otherwise
 indicate that the Union would withdraw the then pending unfair labor
 practice charge, or that the staffing plan received would serve to
 resolve all issue facing the parties.  (Tr. 567-568, 582-583).
 
    The record as a whole indicates very little or no reason to accept
 Jackson's statements that Thomas accepted an annotated staffing plan in
 full settlement of all the issues facing the parties.  The document did
 not represent an agreement between the NRC and the Union.  In fact,
 Respondent's representatives made it abundantly clear to both Thomas and
 Barnhart that an agreement on the issue would not be acceptable to the
 Respondent as the Respondent did not wish to indicate in any way that
 the Respondent had negotiated concerning the classification of a
 position.  It is highly unlikely that the Union's continued insistence
 upon a firm agreement would have been satisfied by an unsigned,
 nonbinding staffing plan which Respondent refused to characterize as an
 agreement.  Uncontradicted evidence in the record indicates that the NRC
 would have had an unfettered right to modify the staffing plan in
 question.  (Tr. 588).
 
    Other elements in the record reflecting vagueness and inconsistency
 in this area of interest do much to undermine Jackson's testimony.  For
 example, it seems unlikely that Jackson would have commenced
 negotiations anew with Thomas, if as represented, Weinrich had in fact
 resolved the issue in Weinrich's conversations with Thomas.
 Accordingly, Thomas' version of the facts relating to the staffing plan
 is credited rather than Jackson's.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    Under the provisions of Section 7106(a)(2)(A) of the Statute,
 management officials have the authority "to hire, assign, direct,
 layoff, and retain employees in (an) agency . . . " Section
 7106(a)(2)(B) gives management officials the right "to assign work, . .
 . and to determine the personnel by which agency operations shall be
 conducted . . . " Also, Section 7106(b)(1) provides that "the numbers,
 types, and grades of employees or positions assigned to any
 organizational subdivision, work project, or tour of duty . . . " are
 negotiable only at the election of the agency.  However, Sections
 7106(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Statute impose an obligation on agencies to
 provide an opportunity to negotiate with respect to procedures designed
 for exercising these management rights, and with respect to arrangements
 for employees adversely affected;  that is, on the impact and
 implementation of such management decisions.
 
    In this case the decision to abolish the CRBR Program Office involved
 the exercise of a management right within the purview of Section 7106.
 The decision to do so involved an actual adverse impact upon bargaining
 unit employees affecting in that at least two of the employees were
 transferred into less desirable work locations.  Margaret Shuttleworth
 was required to perform new tasks with very little additional training.
 She was also relegated to a clerical occupational series in place of a
 previously assigned professional series.  However, in light of the
 provisions of Section 7103(a)(14)(B) of the Statute the proposed change
 in Margaret Shuttleworth's occupational series would not have affected
 "conditions of employment." The statutory duty to negotiate arises if a
 change results in more than a de minimis impact upon unit employees or
 such impact is reasonably foreseeable.  U.S. Government Printing Office,
 13 FLRA No. 39(1983), 13 FLRA 203.  It is clear that the change involved
 elements amounting to much more than a de minimis impact, and further
 that such impact was reasonably foreseeable.
 
    The Respondent argued that under the terms of a unilateral agreement
 reached by the NRC and the Union prior to the filing of the charge, the
 Union had an obligation to withdraw all unfair labor practice charges
 arising out of impact and implementation negotiations pertaining to the
 abolition of the CRBR Program Office.  This argument must be rejected.
 Sections 2423.9 and 2423.11 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, 5
 C.F.R. 2423.9 and 2423.11, require Regional Director approval of
 requests to withdraw charges, or otherwise settle pending unfair labor
 practice charges.  United States Department of Treasury, Bureau of
 Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, D.C. and Central Region, 16
 FLRA No. 73(1984), 16 FLRA 506;  United States Department of the
 Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, D.C., and
 Its Central Region, 16 FLRA No. 74(1984) 16 FLRA 533.  Here the absence
 of Regional Director approval would operate to vitiate such a defense.
 
    Although the settlement agreement defense must be rejected for the
 reason noted, it should also be stressed that even in the absence of the
 regulatory scheme outlined, the defense would have no merit.  Both the
 NRC and the Union anticipated the execution of a signed memorandum of
 understanding as evidence of an agreement relating to the matter.  The
 parties exchanged written proposals and proposed memorandums of
 understanding during the course of negotiations.  The subject matter
 involved issues other than the retention of the 301 occupational series,
 and the parties were in agreement concerning these other issues
 contingent upon resolution of the occupational series to be assigned to
 Licensing Assistants.  There was no credible evidence that the parties
 agreed to dispense with a signed memorandum of understanding.  Both the
 Union and the NRC indicated intense interest in the content of a
 memorandum of understanding during and after the April 27, 1984 meeting.
  However, a signed memorandum of understanding did not materialize
 because the Respondent determined after the April 27th meeting that it
 would not be possible to enter into a binding agreement calling for the
 retention of the 301 occupational series for Licensing Assistants.  In
 light of the NRC position specifically ruling out agreement on this
 point, the NRC's attempt to construct a unilateral settlement agreement
 on the theory of unilateral contract is incongruous.  /23/ In essence
 the Respondent argues that Respondent's vague oral statement promising
 retention of the 301 occupational series, coupled with a nonbinding
 reference in a staffing plan to be supplied later, without more, was
 sufficient to obligate the Union.  On this theory Respondent attempts to
 construct a waiver of all bargaining rights, and insists that the Union
 was under a duty to withdraw any unfair labor practice charges.  The
 record reflects no evidence of such a waiver or promise on the part of
 the Union.
 
    Even assuming that the Union, under the theory advanced, anticipated
 the actual performance of some act on the part of the NRC, the record
 does not in fact reflect evidence that the Respondent acted in a manner
 so as to assure retention of the 301 occupational series for incumbent
 Licensing Assistants.  Thus, even the contract theory relied upon
 precludes the conclusion that an agreement was consummated.  Jackson's
 mailing of an annotated staffing plan to Thomas on May 9, 1984 did not
 operate to commit the Respondent.
 
    Counsel representing the Respondent also argues that the detailing of
 bargaining unit employees without notice to the Union was permitted
 under the provisions of Article 23 of the collective bargaining
 agreement, and that the Respondent had at least an arguable right to
 detail without negotiating.  This argument has no merit because Article
 23 was shown to be inapplicable to the factual situation presented in
 this case.  Evidence adduced from Respondent's witnesses revealed
 Article 23 to be inapplicable in situations involving an intent to
 reassign employees permanently.  In this case the Respondent intended
 permanent reassignments of bargaining unit members.  The permanency of
 the transfers was reflected by the fact that the CRBR Program Office was
 slated to be abolished prior to completion of the details;  by
 Respondent's early announcement of the organizational component to which
 they would be reassigned;  by the eventual reassignment of bargaining
 unit employees after detailing;  and most importantly by the Respondent'
 admission that the provisions of Article 5 of the collective bargaining
 agreement were fully applicable to the decision to abolish the CRBR
 Program Office.  The provisions of Article 5 imposed a contractual
 obligation to bargain concerning impact and implementation in situations
 involving "moves and reorganizations.  /24/ Inasmuch as the provisions
 of Article 23 were not shown to be relevant to the detailing involved
 herein, Respondent's defense based upon an interpretation of Article 23
 is without merit.  Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,
 Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 5 FLRA No. 48(1981), 5 FLRA 352;  Department
 of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Region II,
 New York Regional Laboratory, 16 FLRA No. 30(1984), 16 FLRA 182.
 
    From the foregoing, and other evidence in the record, it is concluded
 that Respondent's unilateral detailing of bargaining unit employees in
 the CRBR Program Office was violative of Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
 the Statute.
 
    Turning to portions of the complaint dealing with Respondent's
 alleged refusal to furnish information, Section 7114(b)(4) of the
 Statute provides in pertinent part:
 
          "(b) The duty of an agency and an exclusive representative to
       negotiate in good faith under subsection (a) of this section shall
       include the obligation--
 
                                  * * * *
 
          "(4) in the case of an agency, to furnish to the exclusive
       representative involved, or its authorized representative, upon
       request and, to the extent not prohibited by law, data--
 
          "(A) which is normally maintained by the agency in the regular
       course of business;
 
          "(B) which is reasonably available and necessary for full and
       proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation of subjects
       within the scope of collective bargaining;  and
 
          "(C) which does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or
       training provided for management officials or supervisors,
       relating to collective bargaining . . . "
 
    The limited request for data filed with Respondent by the Union under
 Section 7114(b)(4) related to documentation of personnel actions
 pertaining to seven employees whose positions were affected by the
 abolition of the CRBR Program Office.  /25/ The request was designed to
 effect the disclosure of documents reflecting personnel actions
 generated during the period March 1, 1984 through April 18, 1984 for
 these seven employees.  /26/
 
    The Respondent admitted receipt of the request for data, and
 Respondent's rejection of the request is clearly reflected in the
 record.  Evidence adduced also shows that the data requested was
 normally maintained by the agency;  that it was reasonably available;
 that it was necessary for full and proper discussion, understanding and
 negotiation of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining;  and
 that it did not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training
 provided for management officials or supervisors, relating to collective
 bargaining.  /27/
 
    With respect to the necessity and relevance of the data, the Union's
 April 23, 1984 request reflects that the Respondent was specifically
 apprised that the information was needed by the Union "to complete
 ongoing negotiations." This need was explained in more detail in
 telephone conversations which Barnhart had with Weinrich and Jackson
 following Respondent's receipt of the Union's request.  At the April 18,
 1984, negotiating session, the Union had been informed in general terms
 concerning employee relocations already effectuated;  however, the
 specific details of administrative actions taken by the Respondent had
 not been revealed to the Union.  Barnhart informed Weinrich and Jackson
 that the data was needed to fashion a more specific impact and
 implementation bargaining proposal, and further that it was needed to
 formulate determinations concerning possible unfair labor practices
 associated with Respondent's detailing of bargaining unit employees
 prior to completion of negotiations.
 
    Bargaining issues relating to the impact and implementation of
 Respondent's decision to abolish the CRBR Program Office were on the
 negotiating table at the time of the request.  This was evidenced by the
 proposed memorandum of understanding submitted to the Union for
 consideration on or about April 19, 1984.  It is difficult or impossible
 to perceive how the Union would have been in a position to continue
 negotiating impact and implementation without an up to date
 understanding of the nature of actions taken by the Respondent to
 implement the decision.  The data was necessary and relevant for the
 purpose of continuing impact and implementation negotiations.  /28/
 
    The refusal to supply the information requested was a breach of a
 duty imposed by Section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, and also constituted
 violations of Sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8).
 
    Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
 Administration, Field Assessment Office, 12 FLRA No. 84(1983), 12 FLRA
 390, 404.
 
    Having found that the Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1)(5) and
 (8) of the Statute, it is recommended that the Authority issue the
 following Order:  /29/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and Section 7118 of the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, it is hereby ordered that
 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Detailing Nuclear Regulatory Commission bargaining unit
       employees represented exclusively by the National Treasury
       Employees Union, in furtherance of a decision to effect
       abolishment of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Clinch River
       Breeder Reactor Program Office, without first notifying the
       exclusive representative, and affording it the opportunity to
       negotiate concerning the impact and implementation of any such
       details.
 
          (b) Failing and refusing to furnish to the National Treasury
       Employees Union, information requested in letter dated April 23,
       1984, addressed to Greg Benoit, Chief, Labor Relations Branch,
       Office of Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, by Teresa
       S. Barnhart, Steward, National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter
       208, for the purpose of enabling the National Treasury Employees
       Union to represent Nuclear Regulatory Commission bargaining unit
       employees in impact and implementation negotiations relating to
       the abolishment of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program
       Office.
 
          (c) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
       assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
          (a) Upon request bargain concerning the impact and
       implementation of the detailing of Nuclear Regulatory Commission
       bargaining unit employees in furtherance of a decision to effect
       abolishment of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Clinch River
       Breeder Reactor Program Office.
 
          (b) Furnish to the National Treasury Employees Union, to the
       extent Respondent has not previously done so, information
       requested in letter dated April 23, 1984, addressed to Greg
       Benoit, Chief, Labor Relations Branch, Office of Administration,
       Nuclear Regulatory Commission, by Teresa S. Barnhart, Steward,
       National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 208.
 
          (c) Post at its Washington, D.C. metropolitan area facilities
       wherever bargaining unit employees are located, copies of the
       attached notice marked "Appendix" on forms to be furnished by the
       Federal Labor Relations Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms
       they shall be signed by the Executive Director for Operations,
       Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or his designee, and shall be
       posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
       conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other places
       where notices are customarily posted.  Reasonable steps shall be
       taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
       covered by any other material.
 
          (d) Pursuant to Section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
       Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region III, 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.
 
                                       (s) LOUIS SCALZO
                                       LOUIS SCALZO
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  March 12, 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 detail Nuclear Regulatory Commission bargaining unit
 employees represented exclusively by the National Treasury Employees
 Union, in furtherance of a decision to effect abolishment of the Nuclear
 Regulatory Commission's Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program Office,
 without first notifying the exclusive representative, and affording it
 the opportunity to negotiate concerning the impact and implementation of
 any such details.
 
    WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish to the National Treasury Employees
 Union, information requested in letter dated April 23, 1984, addressed
 to Greg Benoit, Chief, Labor Relations Branch, Office of Administration,
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, by Teresa S. Barnhart, Steward, National
 Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 208, for the purpose of enabling the
 National Treasury Employees Union to represent Nuclear Regulatory
 Commission bargaining unit employees in impact and implementation
 negotiations relating to the abolishment of the Clinch River Breeder
 Reactor Program Office.
 
    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 bargain concerning the impact and implementation
 of the detailing of Nuclear Regulatory Commission bargaining unit
 employees in furtherance of a decision to effect abolishment of the
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program
 Office.
 
    WE WILL furnish to the National Treasury Employees Union, to the
 extent we have not previously done so, information requested in letter
 dated April 23, 1984, addressed to Greg Benoit, Chief, Labor Relations
 Branch, Office of Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, by
 Teresa S. Barnhart, Steward, National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter
 208.
                                       (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 III,
 whose address is:  1111 - 18th Street, NW., Suite 700, P.O. Box 33758,
 Washington, DC 20033-0758, and whose telephone number is:  (202)
 653-8500.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ In this regard, it is noted that the Respondent does not take
 exception to the Judge's finding that the change involved an impact, or
 a reasonably foreseeable impact, that was more than de minimis.
 
 
    /2/ Counsel representing the Respondent contends that the unilateral
 agreement involved a promise on the part of the Union to withdraw unfair
 labor practice allegations and waive any further bargaining rights
 relating to Respondent's decision to abolish the CRBR Program Office, in
 return for Respondent's forbearance in effecting reclassification of
 certain bargaining unit positions.
 
    In light of Respondent's assertion that all unfair labor practice
 allegations raised in the complaint were resolved by a prior agreement
 entered into by the Respondent and the Union, evidence relating to the
 subject of settlement was considered solely for the limited purpose of
 determining the merits of Respondent's defense on this ground, and not
 as proof of the truth or falsity of any allegations set out in the
 complaint.  It is well settled that such evidence may not be utilized
 for the latter purpose.  U.S. Department of Air Force, Norton Air Force
 Base, A/SLMR No. 261(1973), 3 A/SLMR 175;  Directorate of Facility
 Engineers, Fort Richardson, Alaska, A/SLMR No. 946(1977), 7 A/SLMR 1046;
  General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service,
 A/SLMR No. 1113(1978), 8 A/SLMR 979;  National Labor Relations Board and
 its General Counsel and National Labor Relations Board, Region 29,
 A/SLMR No. 1143, 8 A/SLMR 1197, aff'd, 1 FLRA No. 28(1979), 1 FLRA 220.
 The fact that the parties involved offered such evidence or otherwise
 acquiesced concerning its admission would not operate to modify the
 rules outlined in authorities cited.  Accordingly, such evidence and
 argument relating thereto is considered a part of the record in this
 case only for the limited purpose described.
 
 
    /3/ Under authority reflected in 5 C.F.R. 2423.19(r), the following
 errors in the hearing transcript are noted and corrected:
 
    PAGE LINE CORRECTION
 
       2 10 "114" to "113" 4 17 "and identify" to "an identity"
 
    99 6 "share" to "shape"
 
    99 10 delete "not"
 
    99 11 "vain" to "vein"
 
    155 8 "effects" to "offense"
 
    205 18 "cross" to "direct"
 
    205 23 "here" to "hear"
 
    261 11 delete "of"
 
    261 15 delete "of"
 
    325 15 "of" to "or"
 
    476 11 "INI" to "I and I"
 
    479 13 "INI" to "I and I"
 
    492 19 "INI" to "I and I"
 
    556 13 delete "and"
 
    582 18 "assistance" to "assistants"
 
    584 1 "license" to "licensing"
 
    584 2 "assistance" to "assistants"
 
    584 6 "assistance" to "assistants"
 
    584 13 "assistance" to "assistants"
 
    585 20 "license and" to "licensing"
 
    585 21 "assistance" to "assistants"
 
    591 1 delete "which does you think pears and peaches in some
 
                      way."
 
    592 18 "Administrative law" to "administrative law judges"
 
    593 9 "The case is clearly whole" to "the cases are clear"
 
    599 11 "solvent of" to "settlement of an"
 
    601 23 "wasn't" to "was"
 
 
    /4/ Under guidance from the Office of Personnel Management the
 Respondent was gradually reclassifying all NRC Licensing Assistant
 positions.  Shuttleworth's position in the CRBR Program Office was
 threatened by the reclassification effort when the decision was made to
 abolish the Office.  (Tr. 187, 345).
 
 
    /5/ Barnhart advised Benoit that "(w)e wish to negotiate that Ms.
 Shuttleworth be changed back into the professional 301 series.  If we
 cannot resolve this matter here, we will file an EEO complaint." (G.C.
 Exh. No. 3, Tr. 78-79).
 
 
    /6/ Respondent's position was appropriately based upon language used
 in Section 7103(a)(14)(B) of the Statute which provides that matters
 relating "to the classification of any position" are not included within
 the meaning of the term "conditions of employment." The provisions of
 Section 7103(a)(14)(B) are also reflected in Article 25, Section 25.1 of
 the NRC - NTEU collective bargaining agreement.
 
 
    /7/ The record established that these were received by Weinrich on
 the next day, April 17, 1984.  These counterproposals were accepted by
 the Respondent and otherwise acted upon as timely filed.  (Tr. 77-78,
 367-368).
 
 
    /8/ During the course of the hearing it became apparent that certain
 material portions of documents initially identified and admitted without
 objection as G.C. Exhibit 11 through 19 were not entirely legible.
 These documents reflected personnel actions relating to employees
 affected by the abolition of the CRBR Program Office.  In an effort to
 clarify the record the parties agreed to withdraw entirely this series
 of documents, and to substitute a new series of relevant documents.  The
 new series is included in the record as G.C. Exhibits 11(a) through
 17(f).  (Tr. 262-272).
 
 
    /9/ The record disclosed that Margaret Shuttleworth was not initially
 detailed to the position she was finally assigned to as a result of the
 reorganization.
 
 
    /10/ Weinrich's testimony refers to the existence of issues remaining
 relating to the relocation of employees.  (Tr. 372).
 
 
    /11/ Counsel representing the General Counsel did acknowledge that
 there would have been no bargaining obligation if Respondent had
 intended that employees return to the CRBR Program Office, and if the
 details had in fact been temporary in nature.  (Tr. 235).
 
 
    /12/ Barnhart testified that the document was delivered to her on
 April 19, 1984, and Weinrich testified recalled that it was sent a few
 days after the April 18th meeting (Tr. 40, 373).
 
 
    /13/ Following the April 18, 1984 meeting, and prior to April 27,
 1984, Martin Levy contacted the NTEU National Office about filing an
 unfair labor practice charge for alleged bad faith bargaining arising
 out of the detailing of bargaining unit employees before completion of
 negotiations.  (Tr. 575-576, 578-580).
 
 
    /14/ At one point in her testimony Weinrich testified that Barnhart
 mentioned only that the information was needed to process an unfair
 labor practice charge.  (Tr. 439).  However, at another point she
 acknowledged that Barnhart referred to the fact that ongoing
 "negotiations should be obvious." (Tr. 376).  The record developed
 clearly indicates that dual reasons for the information request were
 spelled out in telephone conversations between Barnhart and Jackson, and
 Barnhart and Weinrich.
 
 
    /15/ A key purpose of the meeting was to resolve unfair labor
 practice allegations relating to the detailing of employees and the
 refusal to furnish information.  (Tr. 577).
 
 
    /16/ At the meeting the Union was advised that Margaret
 Shuttleworth's occupational series had not yet been changed from 301 to
 303.  However, the Union did not know whether to accept this
 representation in the absence of documentation relating to Respondent's
 handling of the reorganization.  (Tr. 100).
 
 
    /17/ With respect to the detailing of employees the Union's concern
 centered around the complaint that Barnhart and Levy were led into
 negotiations on April 18th for the purpose of negotiating impact and
 implementation when in fact bargaining unit employees had already been
 detailed to positions to which the Respondent intended to reassign them.
  (Tr. 576-577).
 
 
    /18/ Respondent's representatives were either vague or could not
 recall Thomas offering to prepare a draft memorandum of understanding
 for consideration by Respondent's representatives.  (Tr. 344, 354, 523).
  It was acknowledged that under the circumstances it would not have been
 "out of the ordinary" for Union representatives to prepare such a
 document, and that most negotiations were resolved with a memorandum of
 understanding.  (Tr. 450, 523).  The record also established that it was
 the practice for the Union and NRC to utilize such documents in any
 situation where either party insisted upon a memorandum of
 understanding.  In such cases oral agreements were not considered
 binding.  (Tr. 565).  Here the evidence disclosed that both parties had
 been operating on the assumption that a signed instrument would be
 necessary to evidence an agreement.
 
 
    /19/ Weinrich's testimony is extremely vague concerning whether there
 was discussion of the draft memorandum of understanding which Thomas had
 agreed to prepare.  She acknowledged that Thomas insisted upon coverage
 of the subject in some form of written agreement, but testified that she
 could not recall discussing the draft memorandum of understanding with
 Thomas.  (Tr. 387, 441-445).  Vague assertions by Weinrich that Thomas
 agreed to accept a nonbinding notated staffing plan showing Respondent's
 retention of the 301 occupational series, in lieu of a written agreement
 designed to protect Union vital interests in the matter, were not at all
 supported by the record, and these assertions were not credited.
 
 
    /20/ The record clearly evidences that at this point Respondent's
 representatives changed their position concerning the tentative
 agreement reached on April 27th.  NRC representatives determined that it
 would not be possible to acknowledge in a signed document that NRC had
 conceded on the classification issue.
 
 
    /21/ As noted, Weinrich's testimony to the effect that Thomas
 indicated an intent to accept a staffing plan showing retention of the
 301 occupational series for incumbent Licensing Assistants, in lieu of
 the memorandum of understanding, was not considered credible.  Her
 statements indicating an intent at this point to negotiate with Barnhart
 to work out an alternative approach tends to indicate that even Weinrich
 realized that the nonbinding staffing plan was not deemed to be a
 sufficient quid pro quo for the resolution of issues raised in the
 memorandum of understanding.
 
 
    /22/ Weinrich's testimony to the effect that after receipt of the
 charge Thomas informed her that the service of the charge was a mistake,
 and that the charge would be withdrawn is not supported by the record.
 Her testimony on this factual element is not credited.
 
 
    /23/ Respondent's theory of unilateral contract is unclear at best.
 A unilateral contract is one in which the offeror (ostensibly the Union
 here) makes a promise and asks for the performance of an act by the
 offeree (NRC) in return.  The performance of the act by the offeree
 generates an obligation or the part of the offeror to implement the
 initial promise.  Here the only evidence of a promise by the Union
 consists of nonspecific statements to the effect that Respondent's
 consent to retain the 301 occupational series would result in the
 resolution of other issues in accordance with Respondent's previously
 expressed desires.  The construction of a specific offer calling for an
 act of performance on the record outlined strains credulity.  The NRC's
 attempt to attach a special significance to statements made by Thomas
 must be considered in the context of negotiations then in process.  Up
 to this point and throughout, the parties contemplated a written
 memorandum of understanding, and it is clear that Thomas merely
 perceived that the parties would find it simple to enter into memorandum
 of understanding when the NRC indicated willingness to retain the 301
 occupational series.  Moreover, Thomas' statements to Respondent's
 representatives did not in fact specifically call for NRC performance
 for the purpose of generating a binding unilateral contract.
 
 
    /24/ The terms of Article 23 of the collective bargaining agreement
 do not specifically provide for a waiver of Union bargaining rights;
 however, in view of the inapplicability of Article 23 to the facts of
 this case, it is unnecessary to decide whether details appropriately
 falling within the purview of Article 23, give rise to an obligation on
 the part of the Respondent to bargain.
 
 
    /25/ Much, if not all, of the data sought was disclosed to the Union
 and the General Counsel during the course of the hearing.
 
 
    /26/ The Respondent's March 23, 1984 letter notifying the Union of
 the decision to abolish the CRBR Program Office identifies seven
 employees as personnel affected by the decision.  The information
 request sought personnel action data relating to these employees.  The
 record established that at least three of the employees were bargaining
 unit members.
 
 
    /27/ The record reflects no showing, and it does not otherwise
 appear, that disclosure of the data was prohibited by law.  This
 argument was not raised as a defense, nor did the Respondent introduce
 any evidence to show that the data was not normally maintained by the
 NRC, that it was not reasonably available, or that it constituted
 guidance, advice, counsel, or training provided for management officials
 or supervisors, relating to collective bargaining.  Evidence concerning