20:0833(104)CA - Bureau of the Census and AFGE Local 2782 -- 1985 FLRAdec CA
[ v20 p833 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
20 FLRA No. 104 BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Respondent and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2782, AFL-CIO Charging Party Case No. 3-CA-30410 DECISION AND ORDER The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's Decision. 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, only to the extent consistent herewith. On December 26, 1982, 45 employees were transferred from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the Respondent's Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Prior to the transfer, the Respondent and the Charging Party bargained over the effect of the transfer on those employees already in the unit. Subsequent to the transfer, the Charging Party, after inspecting the location where the new employees were placed, requested bargaining on January 3, 1983, concerning the effects of the transfer on these new employees. A second request was made on March 7, 1983. The requests noted the Charging Party's concerns over work space, orientations, access to work areas, storage of material, and flextime schedules. The Respondent refused to comply with either request. The Judge found that the Respondent's refusal to bargain concerning the effects of the transfer on the new employees violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. He concluded that the transfer resulted in changes in conditions of employment and that the transfer affected these new employees as well as the pre-transfer unit employees. Finally, relying on dictum contained in an Executive Order case, /1/ he concluded that the Respondent was obligated to bargain over procedures and appropriate arrangements for adversely affected new employees resulting from the transfer. While the only issue herein is whether the Respondent, the gaining employer, failed to bargain in good faith concerning the effects of the transfer on new employees in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute, the Authority concludes that it would be helpful to set forth the respective rights and obligations with respect to those employees affected by the decision to transfer in circumstances such as involved herein. It should be noted at the outset, and there is no contention to the contrary herein, that the decision to transfer and assign employees is itself a reserved management right under section 7106(a) of the Statute, /2/ and therefore not subject to the duty to bargain. /3/ However, it is well settled that "where management exercises a reserved management right to change conditions of employment, there is nonetheless a duty to bargain consistent with section 7106(b)(2) and (3) of the Statute /4/ over the procedures that management will follow in exercising such rights and appropriate arrangements for employees who may be adversely affected thereby." See Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., 20 FLRA No. 54 (1985); U.S. Customs Service, 18 FLRA No. 34 (1985); Internal Revenue Service, 17 FLRA No. 103 (1985), petition for review filed sub nom. National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, No. 85-1361 (D.C. Cir. June 14, 1985). Accordingly, where a decision to transfer is made, prior to its effectuation the losing agency or activity (FTC herein) has the duty to notify the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit(s) from which the employees are to be transferred and provide such representative(s) an opportunity to request bargaining pursuant to section 7106(b)(2) and (3) of the Statute concerning procedures and appropriate arrangements for adversely affected employees. /5/ Furthermore, if, subsequent to the transfer, the losing agency or activity were to make further changes in conditions of employment affecting the remaining unit employees, it would be required to notify and bargain upon request with the exclusive representative(s) concerning negotiable matters pertaining to such changes. Similarly, the gaining agency or activity (the Respondent Bureau of Census herein) likewise would have the duty to give prior notice of the transfer to the exclusive representative(s) of the bargaining unit(s) into which the employees are to be transferred and provide such representative(s) an opportunity to request bargaining concerning the impact or reasonably foreseeable impact of the transfer on the employees then in the unit(s) of the gaining employer. The record indicates that the Respondent met such bargaining obligation herein by notifying the Charging Party of the impending transfer and negotiating upon request concerning procedures and appropriate arrangements for the Respondent's employees already in the unit to which the new employees were to be transferred. There is no contention that the Respondent failed to meet its duty to bargain in good faith with the Charging Party in this regard. Rather, it is clear that the parties met and reached agreement concerning the effect of the transfer on those employees already in the unit. With regard to the only issue herein, as to whether the Respondent unlawfully failed and refused to bargain with the Charging Party concerning changes in the conditions of employment of the new employees following their transfer into the bargaining unit, the Authority concludes that the Respondent had no such duty to bargain in the circumstances of this case and therefore its refusal to do so did not constitute a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute as alleged. Thus, where the Respondent has fulfilled its bargaining obligation to the Charging Party prior to the transfer concerning the unit employees and makes no further changes in the conditions of employment of unit employees after the transfer has been effectuated, but instead applies established personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions to all the unit employees, including the newly transferred employees, the Authority concludes that there is no obligation under the Statute for the Respondent to negotiate with the Charging Party concerning the application of established policies to new employees in a bargaining unit. Were it otherwise, there would be an obligation to bargain whenever a new employee (e.g., new hire) enters the bargaining unit. /6/ Of course, if the Respondent had proposed to implement changes in conditions of employment applicable to unit employees after the new employees had been transferred, then the Respondent would have been required to notify and bargain upon request with the Charging Party concerning such proposed changes to the extent consonant with law and regulation. In the instant case, the Judge concluded that there were a number of changes in conditions of employment which gave rise to a bargaining obligation: Those changes involved space and office relocations, area of occupancy, workable space and storage of materials within offices. Items such as office space, crowded areas, new access location for the union representative, and flextime arrangements-- all of which are posed as a result of transferring a considerable number of people to Respondent's facility-- are legitimate concerns of the bargaining representative. The Authority disagrees. In reaching his conclusions, the Judge relied, for the most part, on a comparison of conditions of employment existing before and after the transfer without considering or discussing whether the Respondent applied the modified conditions of employment differently to the new employees following the transfer than to those employees who had been in the unit prior to the transfer. As to office space and crowding, the General Counsel only provided evidence as to the number of persons occupying the space prior to the transfer, not how new employees' conditions of employment differed from those of the other unit employees after the transfer occurred. As to the storage of materials, the General Counsel did not demonstrate that the new employees had to store more materials in their offices than other unit employees. As to the new access location for the union representative, the evidence demonstrates that the union representative was denied access to a location in one isolated instance and, thus, the Respondent did not change the access locations. As to the Charging Party's request for an orientation for the new employees, there is insufficient evidence to determine what the Respondent's practice was concerning orientations for new employees generally and whether the refusal to bargain over orientations was, in fact, a change in a condition of employment. Further, as to the Charging Party's concerns regarding flexitime, the General Counsel has failed to establish that a change in conditions of employment in fact took place. In this regard, the record establishes that the Respondent had an established flexitime policy which left to the discretion of the supervisor, within limits, the commencement time of the shift. In the Authority's view, the exercise of such discretion by a supervisor as to one new Census employee which required the employee to report for work at the same time that he had previously reported for work at the FTC, cannot be held to constitute a change in the Respondent's established policy regarding flexitime. See, e.g., Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 18 FLRA No. 87 (1985); United States Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, D.C. and Central Region, 16 FLRA No. 73 (1984); Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Norfolk, Virginia, 9 FLRA 774 (1982); Department of the Navy, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, 9 FLRA 784 (1982). Accordingly, as the General Counsel has failed to establish that the Respondent has changed established personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions for all unit employees, the Authority shall order that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 3-CA-30410 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C., December 11, 1985 --- Henry B. Frazier III, Acting Chairman --- William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ In U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Federal Highway Projects, Vancouver, Washington, 6 A/SLMR 87 (1976), the Judge, in dismissing the complaint, concluded that no violation had occurred inasmuch as the Charging Party had not requested bargaining over the impact of a transfer on bargaining unit employees. The Judge also discussed the Respondent's duties and obligations to bargain with the union over the transfer as it affected both the transferees at the new workplace and the employees already in the unit. In adopting the Judge's conclusion therein, the Assistant Secretary did not pass upon the Judge's dictum pertaining to what the Respondent's duty to bargain would have been if the Charging Party had so requested. /2/ Section 7106(a) provides in pertinent part: 7106. Management rights (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, nothing in this chapter shall affect the authority of any management official of any agency-- (1) to determine the mission, budget, organization, number of employees, and internal security practices of the agency; and (2) in accordance with applicable laws-- (A) to hire, assign, direct, layoff, and retain employees in the agency, or to suspend, remove, reduce in grade or pay, or take other disciplinary action against such employees; (B) to assign work, to make determinations with respect to contracting out, and to determine the personnel by which agency operations shall be conducted(.) /3/ See, e.g., National Association of Government Employees, Local R14-89 and Department of the Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army Air Defense Center and Fort Bliss, Texas, 15 FLRA No. 4 (1985); American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 2 FLRA 604 (1980), enforced sub nom. Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 659 F.2d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub nom. AFGE v. FLRA, 455 U.S. 945 (1982). /4/ Section 7106(b)(2) and (3) provides: 7106. Management rights (b) Nothing in this section shall preclude any agency and any labor organization from negotiating-- (2) procedures which management officials of the agency will observe in exercising any authority under this section; or (3) appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by the exercise of any authority under this section by such management officials. /5/ The record does not establish whether the employees transferred from The FTC were exclusively represented and, in any event, there is no issue herein as to whether the FTC met its obligation to notify and bargain with its employees' exclusive representative(s) prior to the transfer. /6/ Indeed, imposition of such a requirement on the Respondent would be inconsistent with the principle that management has an obligation to notify the union and bargain upon request on negotiable matters with regard to changes it makes in conditions of employment of unit employees. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 19 FLRA No. 123 (1985); U.S. Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center, St. Louis, Missouri, 19 FLRA No. 40 (1985); Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia, 16 FLRA No. 72 (1984); Internal Revenue Service, Western Region, San Francisco, California, 11 FLRA 655 (1983). Absent a management-initiated change, there is no duty to bargain during the term of an existing agreement concerning union-initiated proposed changes in unit employees' conditions of employment. See Internal Revenue Service, 17 FLRA No. 103 (1985), petition for review filed sub nom. National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, No. 85-1361 (D.C. Cir. June 14, 1985). -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS -------------------- BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Respondent and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2782, AFL-CIO Charging Party John Koslowe, Esquire For the Respondent Carolyn J. Dixon, Esquire For the General Counsel Before: WILLIAM NAIMARK Administrative Law Judge DECISION Statement of the Case Pursuant to a Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued on June 28, 1983 by the Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Washington, D.C., a hearing was held before the undersigned on September 9, 1983 at Washington, D.C. This case arises under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (herein called the Statute). It is based on a charge filed on March 29, 1983 by American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2782, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union) against Bureau of the Census (herein called Respondent). The Complaint alleged, in substance, that since March 18, 1983 Respondent has refused to negotiate over the impact and implementation of the transfer of approximately 40 employees on December 26, 1982 from the Federal Trade Commission to Respondent-- all in violation of Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. Respondent's Answer, duly filed, admits its refusal to negotiate as alleged in the Complaint but denies the Commission of any unfair labor practices under the Statute. Both parties were represented at the hearing. Each was afforded full opportunity to be heard, to adduce evidence, and to examine as well as cross-examine witnesses. Thereafter, briefs were filed with the undersigned which had been duly considered. /1/ Upon the entire record herein, from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, and from all of the testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing, I make the following findings and conclusions. Findings of Fact 1. At all times material herein the Union has been, and still is, the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's professional and new professional employees stationed in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area. 2. Both the Union and Respondent are parties to a written collective bargaining agreement executed on June 23, 1977. The said agreement, which is in effect, and has been at all times material herein, provides under Article 2.4 thereof as follows: "Changes Initiated by Employees. When, during the life of this Agreement, the Employer proposes to act on a subject or matter negotiable under the Act, but which requires no change in the terms of this Agreement, the Employer will notify the Union, in writing, setting forth the proposal. The parties shall, upon a timely written request from the Union, meet and confer upon the proposed action. Such a request by the Union must be submitted within 5 work days of the original notification." 3. In August, 1982 Edward Hanlon, chief steward of the Union, was notified by Respondent that employees from the Federal Trade Commission would be transferred to the Bureau of the Census. Thereafter, both on August 31, and in October, 1982 Hanlon requested bargaining re the transfer of said employees. Management informed Hanlon that the transferees were not "on board" as yet and could not be deemed bargaining unit employees; that the Union did not represent them and management felt it had no obligation to bargain over them. 4. The transfer of about 45 employees (40 were non-supervisors) from Federal Trade Commission to Respondent became effective on December 26, 1982. These individuals were placed in the Economic Surveys Division on the third floor. About 29 Census Bureau employees had occupied this space before the transfer. The main hallway rooms, 3064-3068, were occupied by six employees, but after the transfer there were 15 employees thereat. /2/ 5. After inspecting the premises and making certain measurements, Hanlon wrote a letter dated January 3, 1983 to John Marshall, Chief of Employee Relations for Respondent. He stated therein that the Union requested bargaining on the impact and implementation of the move involving the former Federal Trade Commission Employees. Hanlon stated the Union "is concerned in particular that space allocation problems associated with the size of the work station, access to work areas, orientation sessions for the new employees, distribution of Union literature, etc." /3/ 6. A response to Hanlon's request was made by Michael E. Freeman, Labor Relations Specialist, in a letter dated January 12, 1983. Freeman commented therein that Hanlon failed to indicate how the various items mentioned by the latter has any substantial impact upon working conditions of unit employees. As a result, Freeman stated the Respondent was unable to determine whether a bargaining obligation existed. He further stated that the employer would reconsider the Union's request if Hanlon specified how the move impacted upon unit employees. 7. Hanlon thereupon called Freeman and expressed regret at the refusal to negotiate. He informed Freeman that the work space had been measured and amounted, in each instance to 40 rather than 60 square feet as required. Hanlon stated that a supervisor told him to leave the area since it was classified. Further, the union representative mentioned an orientation program for the new people since they are different from other employees. Hanlon commented he wanted to bargain on these matters, and Freeman replied that he was not convinced Respondent was obliged to bargain. 8. After speaking with several new employees re the lack of space, Hanlon revisited the work site on February 2, 1983. He and Assistant Division Chief, Zarrett measured the work station size of telephone interviewer which amounted to 40 square feet. One of the employees told Hanlon he wanted to talk to the union agent later. Subsequent thereto the employee visited Hanlon and mentioned he wanted to work flexitime as scheduled at the Census Bureau. The employees, formerly with Federal Trade Commission, had worked flexitime thereat, but the schedules differed. Thus, flexitime at Respondent was from 7:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m., whereas at his former employment the earliest time one could commence work was 7:30 a.m. 9. Under date of March 7, 1983 Hanlon wrote Freeman again re the Union's desire to negotiate re the conditions of employment resulting from the transfers. He stated that the rooms into which they were transferred were over crowded, particularly the area where telephone interviews occurred; that the space for the workstation was half that required; that employees had not been given the appropriate material to be supplied under the bargaining agreement. Hanlon repeated his request to discuss orientation of the new employees, and mentioned there were questions re "core hours, use of flexitime, etc." 10. On March 8, 1983 Hanlon telephoned Freeman and they discussed the letter written by the Union agent on the previous day. Freeman said he was assured the work space was appropriate. Hanlon again referred to the fact that many of the transferees needed copies of the flexitime handbook, flexitime manual, and the various agreements and memorandas of understanding on work and safety as well as those pertaining to renovation and cleaning up of areas. Freeman responded that he was not certain there was an obligation to bargain. 11. Freeman wrote a letter dated March 18, 1983 to Russell Davis, President of the Union, in reply to Hanlon's letter of March 7, 1983. He mentioned that the space was in compliance with regulations; that Hanlon was not specific as to materials-- other than the "Contract"-- required by the collective bargaining agreement, and Freeman would take appropriate action if Davis would specify materials to be given. Re problems or complaints concerning core hours and use of flexitime, Freeman stated that the flexitime handbook-- a copy of which are furnished each employee-- spells out flexitime requirement and procedures for addressing problems. The management official concluded by stating that Respondent did not believe a bargaining obligation existed over the transfer of the employees from the Federal Trade Commission to the Bureau. Conclusions It is conceded by Respondent that it was under a duty to bargain re the impact and implementation of the transfer of the 45 employees to the Bureau before the transfer occurred. In this respect it cites Bureau of Government Financial Operations Headquarters and National Treasury Employees Union, 11 FLRA No. 68 (1983). However, the employer insists that since the employees were not yet transferred they were not part of the bargaining unit, and thus no obligation existed with respect to them. Further, it is argued that no duty to bargain existed after the transfer since there were no changes in employment conditions and Respondent was not obliged to negotiate over mid-term proposals. The foregoing contention is seemingly specious in nature. Conceding that it was required to negotiate with the Union in regard to the proposed transfer of the 45 employees to the Bureau, Respondent impliedly agrees there were to be changes in conditions of employment, Yet the employer rejects any duty to bargain upon the transfer by insisting that this would constitute mid-term bargaining which can only be mandated by changes in employment conditions. Under this theory a union, representing agency employees, would never be able to seek bargaining in respect to any changes arising from a reassignment or transfer of employees from another source to such agency. While Respondent asserts that no changes were effected as a result of the transfer to the Bureau of 45 employees from Federal Trade Commission, I reject such assertion. The record supports the conclusion that, in order to accommodate the transferees, there were new space allocations, and the main hallway rooms were occupied by twice as many employees as previously. There is further evidence that the Union representative was denied access to the work area of the transferred employees on the ground that such locale was classified and restricted. Record facts also show that, due to the over crowded work areas, materials and furniture were stored in rooms-- all of which raised questions re the safety of working conditions resulting from the transfer and relocation of employees. Finally, the Union was concerned with the flexitime schedules prevailing at the Census Bureau which differed from those in effect at FTC. This concern arose because a transferred employee was obliged to follow the flexitime schedule at FTC, despite the fact that he now worked at the Bureau, and the said employee desired to adhere to the Bureau's flexitime arrangements. The Authority has held in Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. et al, 7 FLRA No. 89 (1982) that such items as office size, equipment and facilities, as well as the location of employees within an area, are negotiable. They are incidental to the performance of the agency's work and relate to matters affecting working conditions of employees. To the same effect see Internal Revenue Service, Chicago, Illinois, 9 FLRA No. 73 (1982) wherein matters dealing with space design and ventilation problems were deemed within the duty to bargain by an employer. A case /4/ arising under Executive Order 11491, as amended, dealt with the transfer of 21 employees from the agency's Portland office to its Vancouver location. The Complainant union, which represented the unit of employees which would absorb the transferees, desired to consult with management re the impact and implementation of the transfer. While the Assistant Secretary found that no proper demand for bargaining was made by the union as to the impact of the decision to transfer employees, he did adopt the findings and conclusions of Judge Fenton. The latter concluded as follows: "Thus, Complainant had the right, upon appropriate request, to be consulted about implementation of the transfer as it affected the transferees at their new workplace, and as it might affect other employees in the Vancouver unit. Further, he determined that such matters as arrangements for space and for parking were clearly bargainable. In the case at bar I am persuaded that the transfer of 45 employees from Federal Trade Commission to the Respondent's facility occasioned changes in working conditions. Those changes involved space and office relocations, area of occupancy, workable space and storage of materials within offices. Items such as office space, crowded areas, new access location for the union representative, and flexitime arrangements-- all of which are posed as a result of transferring a considerable number of people to Respondent's facility-- are legitimate concerns of the bargaining representative. The transfer could well impact upon those assigned to the Bureau as well as those already working thereat who were moved to accommodate the transferees. Accordingly, I am constrained to conclude Respondent was required to bargain re the impact and "implementation of the transfer /5/ . It was not free to ignore the bargaining requests of January 3 and March 17, 1983, and by failing to negotiate in those respects it violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. /6/ Having found that Respondent violated the Statute as set forth above, I recommend the Authority adopt the following order: Order Pursuant to Section 7118(a)(7) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and Section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations, it is hereby ordered that the Bureau of the Census shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2782, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of its employees, to the extent consonant with law and regulations, concerning the impact and implementation of the transfer on December 26, 1982 of employees to its headquarters in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area from the Federal Trade Commission. (b) In any like or related manner Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights assured by the Statute. 2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Statute: (a) Upon request, negotiate in good faith with the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2782, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of its employees, to the extent consonant with law and regulations concerning the impact and implementation of the transfer on December 26, 1982 of employees to its headquarters in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area from the Federal Trade Commission. (b) Post at its facilities in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area 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 Chief Executive of the Bureau of the Census, and they shall be posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The Chief Executive shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materials. (c) 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. --- WILLIAM NAIMARK Administrative Law Judge Dated: February 22, 1984 Washington, D.C. 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 refuse to negotiate in good faith with the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2782, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of our employees, to the extent consonant with law and regulations, concerning the impact and implementation of the transfer on December 26, 1982 of employees to our headquarters in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area from the Federal Trade Commission. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercises of rights assured by the Statute. WE WILL, upon request, negotiate in good faith with the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2782, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of our employees, to the extent consonant with law and regulations concerning the impact and implementation of the transfer on December 26, 1982 of employees to our headquarters in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area from the Federal Trade Commission. --- (Agency or Activity) Dated: --- --- (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 question concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional Director for the Federal Labor Relations Authority whose address is: 1111-18th Street, N.W., Suite 700, P.O. Box 33758, Washington, D.C. 20033-0758, and whose telephone number is 202-653-8452. --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ Subsequent to the hearing General Counsel and Respondent filed with the undersigned separate Motions to Correct Transcript. No objections having been interposed thereto, and it appearing that the proposed corrections are proper, both motions are granted. The transcript is hereby corrected as reflected in APPENDIX which is annexed to this decision. /2/ General Counsel's Exhibit 6(a) thru 6(e) purports to show the number of employees to be relocated in various divisions, as well as proposed modifications of space allotments. It is not clear, however, from the exhibit alone-- and no testimony was adduced in connection therewith-- as to what changes were related to the transfer of the 45 employees in the particular division. /3/ During the week of December 26, 1982, Hanlon inspected the work area and measured some work stations. These stations, to which the transferees would be assigned, measured 40 square feet. At the time of the inspection Hanlon was confronted by supervisor Lee who had transferred over from the Federal Trade Commission. Lee objected to the union agent'