20:0833(104)CA - Bureau of the Census and AFGE Local 2782 -- 1985 FLRAdec CA



[ v20 p833 ]
20:0833(104)CA
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's presence, claiming the work are