21:0455(62)CA - National Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD and National Weather Service Employees Organization, MEBA -- 1986 FLRAdec CA



[ v21 p455 ]
21:0455(62)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 21 FLRA No. 62
 
 NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE 
 SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE EMPLOYEES 
 ORGANIZATION, MEBA, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 7-CA-40783
 
                            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 filed an opposition 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, /1/ conclusions, and recommended Order as modified
 herein.
 
    The Authority agrees with the Judge that the Respondent violated
 section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by failing and refusing
 to provide the Union with the requested performance appraisal plans of
 certain named unit employees, for the purpose of impact and
 implementation bargaining at its National Service Training Center,
 Kansas City, Missouri (the Center).  Thus, we agree with the Judge that
 the Respondent had agreed to bargain as to the impact and implementation
 of the newly adopted performance rating system on employees at the
 Center;  that the request for information was made by the Union's
 properly designated representative;  and that the information requested
 was necessary in order for the Union to intelligently engage in such
 bargaining at the Center.
 
    With regard to the posting of the remedial unfair labor practice
 notice, the Authority finds that a posting limited to the Respondent's
 Kansas City, Missouri facility, where the employees involved are
 located, will best effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute,
 and we shall modify the Judge's recommended order accordingly.  /2/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered that the National Weather Service, Silver Spring,
 Maryland shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Failing and refusing to furnish the National Weather Service
 Employees Organization, MEBA, AFL-CIO, the employees' exclusive
 bargaining representative, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent
 Mills, Paul Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented on April 1, 1984.
 
    (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute:
 
    (a) Furnish the National Weather Service Employees Organization,
 MEBA, AFL-CIO, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent Mills, Paul
 Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented on April 1, 1984.
 
    (b) Post at its facilities at Kansas City, Missouri, 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 a
 responsible official 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 ensure that such
 Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
    (c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VII, 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., April 24, 1986.
 
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, 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 fail and refuse to furnish the National Weather Service
 Employees Organization, MEBA, AFL-CIO, the employees' exclusive
 bargaining representative, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent
 Mills, Paul Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented on April 1, 1984.
 
    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 furnish the National Weather Service Employees Organization,
 MEBA, AFL-CIO, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent Mills, Paul
 Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented on April 1, 1984.
                                       (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 VII, whose
 address is:  535 16th Street, Suite 310, Denver, Colorado 80202, and
 whose telephone number is:  (303) 837-5224.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Case No. 7-CA-40783
 
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND
    Respondent
 
                                    and
 
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION, MEBA,
 AFL-CIO
    The Charging Party
 
    C.J. Schmidt, Esq.
    For the Respondent
 
    Michael A. Silvestri
    For the Charging Party
 
    Nicholas J. LoBurgio, Esq.
    For the General Counsel
 
    Before:  SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This case arose under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C. Section 7101,
 et seq.
 
    Upon an unfair labor practice charge filed by the National Weather
 Service Employees Organization, MEBA, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to
 as the Union or NWSEO) against the National Weather Service, Silver
 Spring, Maryland (hereinafter referred to as Respondent), the General
 Counsel of the Authority, by the Regional Director for Region VII,
 issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing alleging Respondent violated
 section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by failing and refusing
 to provide the Union with performance and appraisal information of three
 named unit employees.
 
    A hearing on the Complaint was conducted in Washington, D.C. at which
 all parties were represented and afforded full opportunity to adduce
 evidence, call, examine and cross-examine witnesses and argue orally.
 Briefs were filed by Counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent and
 have been carefully considered.
 
    Upon the entire record in this matter, /3/ my observation of the
 witnesses and their demeanor and from my evaluation of the evidence, I
 make the following:
 
                  Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
 
    At all times since April 1981, the Union has been the exclusive
 collective bargaining representative of a nationwide unit of various of
 Respondent's employees including approximately 26 to 30 Instructors
 employed at the National Service Training Center, Kansas City, Missouri
 (herein the Center).  The unit is not presently covered by a nationwide
 collective bargaining agreement although various elements of the unit,
 excluding the Center, are covered by agreements pre-dating unit
 consolidation.  However, Respondent and the Union have been engaged in
 contract negotiations for a nationwide agreement since 1982,
 negotiations proceeding on a face to face basis in 1982 and early 1983
 followed by negotiations by mail at least through 1984.
 
    In early 1984 Respondent notified the Union that it was implementing
 a revision of its performance appraisal system.  The new system
 restructured the prior plan by primarily providing a narrative
 description of performance standards as compared with the prior one word
 description;  adding a new system of weighting standards;  and adding a
 numerical scoring system.  Information regarding the plan was given to
 the Union and the parties met on numerous occasions to discuss various
 aspects of the new plan.  None of the discussions however dealt with
 specific application of the new system to Instructors at the Center.
 The new appraisal system was implemented agencywide on April 1, 1984 but
 Respondent and the Union continued to meet and discuss specific Union
 concerns regarding application of the plan.  On May 26, 1984,
 representatives of Respondent met with Leo Harrison, President of the
 Union, and Richard Horn, the Union's General Counsel, to further discuss
 the matter.  According to the testimony of Joseph Smith, Respondent's
 Chief of Workforce Management (Labor Relations Chief), during the
 meeting after the parties resolved a question concerning employee
 accountability, which apparently was the primary purpose of the meeting,
 the parties discussed core elements and performance standards for
 Meteorological Technicians.  While weights were designated for some of
 the elements, one element did not contain any indication of the weight
 range to be assigned since the weight for that element would vary among
 the various field stations.  According to Smith, Union President
 Harrison was concerned with this and the parties " . . . agreed at that
 meeting that there'd be no negotiation but the local union could discuss
 with the local supervisor that weight and then the supervisor would make
 the final decision on the weight for that particular element." Smith
 continued:  "As I said we discussed this and agreed that local
 discussion would occur that was not negotiations on these particular
 weights or elements or standards." Smith went on to testify, without
 further explanation, that the parties agreed there would be no other
 negotiations at the local level concerning the appraisal system, but
 "(t)here would be discussion".  /4/
 
    Labor Relations Officer Pauline Shanker testified, in conclusionary
 fashion with no reference to the question of weights, that at the
 conclusion of negotiations on employee responsibility she " . . . made
 very certain that we understood there would be no negotiations at any
 level below national but encouraged both management and the union to
 discuss . . . . "
 
    Union President Harrison denied that he ever indicated there would be
 no negotiations, only discussions, below the national level on matters
 concerning the new appraisal plan.  Harrison denied any agreement or
 even any discussion on this subject.  He testified that when considering
 the weighting that was to be accorded critical elements, only the range
 of weights was discussed.  Harrison explained that the assignment of
 specific weights could only be determined by workload and importance of
 a particular job in a particular station and accordingly he "assumed"
 that such matters would be left to local impact and implementation
 bargaining.  /5/
 
    Meanwhile, on March 8, 1984 Michael Silvestri, an Instructor at the
 Kansas City Training Center and the Union's Region 6 Chairman since
 October 1983, /6/ received from management the performance plan under
 the new system for which he would be rated for the April 1, 1984 through
 March 31, 1985 appraisal period.  The plan set out specific performance
 elements and assigned designated numerical weights for those elements.
 /7/ The other Instructors at the Center also received their particular
 performance plans around this time.
 
    Sometime after March 9, 1984, Silvestri met Union President Harrison
 at a Union meeting and questioned whether there had been any discussion
 with management on the new performance appraisal plan.  Harrison
 acknowledged he talked to management about the plan but added that
 Silvestri, as the representative of employees at the Center, was free to
 negotiate on the plan at the Center.  /8/
 
    By letter of May 16, 1984 to S.L. Braden, Respondent's Labor
 Management Relations Designee at Kansas City, Silvestri requested copies
 of the new performance appraisal plans of four named Center Instructors,
 all members of the bargaining unit.  Silvestri indicated that the
 request was " . . . in accordance with U.S.C. Title 5, Chapter 51" and
 the information was " . . . needed for evaluation for the purpose of
 negotiations by NWSEO." Braden, on instructions from Labor Relations
 Chief Smith, responded on June 1, stating:
 
          "Before a response to your inquiry can be made, clarification
       is needed as to what "negotiations" you are referring to, and the
       stated purpose for which the documents are needed.  The second
       paragraph in your letter reads, "This request is in accordance
       with U.S.C. Title 5, Chapter 71," but it is a section which
       encompasses many areas.  Please be specific."
 
    On June 18, 1984 the Union was notified by Respondent that it was
 changing its method of conducting business with NWSEO Region 6 and, in
 the future, the contact for all matters not covered by a negotiated
 agreement would be Labor Relations Chief Smith.  Accordingly, by letter
 to Smith of August 12, 1984 Silvestri requested the new performance
 appraisal plans for three of the employees referred to in his prior
 letter of May 16, /9/ again indicating the data was, " . . . requested
 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. of Chapter 71" and was " . . . necessary for review
 for possible submissions on negotiations." On August 21, 1984 Smith
 replied to Silvestri, with language identical to that in Braden's June 1
 letter, supra.
 
    At no time thereafter did the Union clarify or explain its need for
 the information nor did Respondent furnish the data to the Union.
 
    Silvestri testified that he requested the performance plans of the
 three Instructors:  to ascertain whether they varied in such matters as
 weighting factors for possible impact and implementation bargaining on
 the new performance appraisal system at the local level;  to determine
 whether safety related items in the plans might require attention during
 national negotiations;  /10/ to determine whether the particular needs
 of unique and small groups of employees in the unit such as Instructors
 might require special provisions in a national contract;  and, being of
 the opinion that the national agreement should contain some provision
 relating to performance plans, to prepare himself for those
 negotiations.  Silvestri further testified that he did not respond to
 Smith's request that he clarify his need for the documents since
 Respondent was aware of Silvestri's authority to bargain on impact and
 implementation at the local level and that he was a member of the
 national negotiating team.
 
    Smith gave the following reasons for the response given to
 Silvestri's request for the documents:  a concern for the "privacy
 nature" of the information;  no negotiations were being conducted at
 that time /11/ except national negotiations which did not " . . .
 involve the training center per se except . . . from a general
 standpoint;" and, Respondent " . . . had already negotiated with Mr.
 Harrison over the implementation of this system."
 
    Section 7114(b)(4) provides that an agency must:
 
          " . . . 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;  (and)
 
          "(B) which is reasonably available and necessary for full and
       proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation of subjects
       within the scope of collective bargaining(.)"
 
    In the case herein Silvestri was an "authorized representative" of
 the Union within the meaning of the Statute.  As the Union's Region 6
 Chairman, Silvestri was authorized to engage in "impact or
 implementation bargaining peculiar to the Training Center," as
 Harrison's letter to Respondent of March 15, 1984, supra, clearly
 states.  Further, Silvestri was also a member of the Union's national
 negotiating team whose function was to bargain with Respondent on a
 nationwide agreement which fact had been communicated to Smith by July
 20, 1984.  Accordingly, Respondent was aware of Silvestri's
 representative status on the local and national level on August 12, 1984
 when Smith failed to comply with Silvestri's request for documents.
 
    Production of the documents was not prohibited by law notwithstanding
 that Smith testified he had "privacy concerns" with providing Silvestri
 the specific requested performance appraisal plans of named individuals.
  While providing unsanitized information to a union might, in some
 situations, run afoul of the Privacy Act, /12/ in my view privacy
 considerations are not present herein.  Thus, the performance plans
 requested do not contain any personal information other than the
 position and grade of the individual nor contain any "stigmatizing
 information" /13/ concerning the employee.  Rather, the documents only
 set forth the performance elements and objections for each position with
 an assigned weight for each particular element;  the major activities or
 results which need to be accomplished in support of the performance
 element;  and a blank item entitled "Criteria for Evaluation" for
 generic standards or supplemental performance standards.  When Silvestri
 requested the documents none of the employees had yet been rated as to
 their particular job performance since the actual rating would not have
 taken place until March or April 1985.
 
    Next for consideration is whether the information sought was
 necessary for full and proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation
 of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining.  /14/ The Union
 and the General Counsel contend the information requested was necessary
 for possible local negotiations on implementation and impact aspects of
 the new performance appraisal system and for possible negotiations at
 the national level.  Respondent contends that Union President Harrison
 essentially waived the right to negotiate on impact and implementation
 aspects at local levels when he agreed on May 26, 1984 there would be no
 "negotiations," only "discussions" at local levels.  With regard to use
 of the information by Silvestri in preparation for national
 negotiations, Respondent contends Smith did not formally know until
 December 1984 that Silvestri was a member of the Union's national
 negotiating team and, in any event, it was Smith's understanding that
 negotiations were conducted through the Union's chief negotiator.
 Accordingly, Respondent argues that in light of these circumstances
 Smith's request for clarification was reasonable regarding what
 negotiations Silvestri was referring to in his request for information.
 
    In my view the information requested by Silvestri was necessary for
 full and proper discussion, understanding and negotiation on the impact
 and implementation at the local level of the newly adopted performance
 rating system.  At a minimum the information was necessary to ascertain
 whether the performance criteria in each of the Instructor's performance
 plans were uniform and whether the weights were uniformly applicable.
 Such information was therefore required before Silvestri could determine
 whether any employee was adversely affected and what, if any, proposals
 should be made.
 
    I reject Respondent's contention that Harrison waived all rights of
 the Union to impact and implementation at the local level.  Rather, I
 credit Union President Harrison's testimony over that of Labor Relations
 Chief Smith and Labor Relations Officer Shanker and find Harrison did
 not agree on May 26, 1984 that no negotiations, only discussions, would
 occur on all matters relating to performance plans at the local level.
 I found Harrison's testimony to have the "ring of truth" to it whereas
 Smith's and Shanker's did not.  Thus, Harrison's testimony that while
 the range of weights was discussed, he, in fact, did not have sufficient
 specific knowledge to bargain on the application of the weights to
 particular job tasks and therefore assumed such matters would be left to
 negotiations at the local level.  This approach is reasonable and
 understandable.  On the other hand, Smith testified that the parties
 agreed, for some unstated reason, that only local discussion and not
 negotiation on weights or the appraisal system itself would be permitted
 at the local level.  Shanker similarly gave no indication of why
 Harrison would enter into such an agreement.  The record contains no
 evidence of a quid pro quo for such a waiver and one would expect to
 find some explanation or reason for a conscious yielding sufficient to
 establish a waiver as alleged.  /15/
 
    Even if I were to find that the parties agreed on May 26 that only
 discussion on the new performance plan would occur at the local level, I
 would conclude nevertheless that Respondent was obligated to provide
 Silvestri with the information he requested.  Smith testified that there
 was agreement to discuss " . . . that weight and then the supervisor
 would make the final decision on the weight for that particular
 element." The discussion, which would have been a substitute for the
 Statutory right to negotiate, could only occur in an intelligent fashion
 if the local Union had knowledge of the elements and weights from which
 to make meaningful judgements.  That knowledge could only come from
 viewing the elements and weights for each job, i.e. the performance
 plans themselves.  Indeed, section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute
 specifically requires the production of data " . . . necessary for the
 full and proper discussion, understanding and negotiations" (emphasis
 supplied) of bargaining subjects.  Further, there is neither claim nor
 evidence that Union President Harrison waived the Statutory right to
 information in connection with whatever "discussion" might take place as
 Respondent contends.
 
    Accordingly, I conclude Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5)
 and (8) of the Statute by its failure to provide the Union with data as
 alleged.  In view of this conclusion I need not treat the parties
 arguments regarding the information request for national negotiations
 preparations as it will have no impact on the remedy recommended herein.
  In any event, I reject Respondent's contention that in the
 circumstances herein Smith's request for clarification regarding what
 negotiations Silvestri was referring to in his request for information
 was "reasonable." Since the data Silvestri requested was necessary for a
 purpose relating to a subject within the scope of collective bargaining
 then, in my opinion, an agency is obligated to furnish the data upon
 demand without engaging in the type of "endless bickering and jockeying"
 referred to by National Labor Relations Board Chairman Guy Farmer, when
 discussing a similar issue in Whitin Machine Works, 108 NLRB 1537 at
 1541 (1954), enf'd, NLRB v. Whitin Machine Works, 217 F. 2d 593 (4th
 Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 905 (1955).  In that case Chairman
 Farmer stated:
 
          "I would not require that the union show the precise relevancy
       of the requested information to particular current bargaining
       issues.  It is enough for me that the information relate to the
       wages or fringe benefits of the employees.  Such information is
       obviously related to the bargaining process, and the union is
       therefore entitled to ask and receive it.
 
          "My interpretation of the employer's obligation under Section
       8(a)(5) in this respect, of course, also presupposes that the
       bargaining agent, in this area as in all others, will seek the
       wage-rate information as a good-faith act in the discharge of its
       duty as the representative of the employees.  I would, therefore,
       hold that, short of evidence that union requests for wage data are
       used as an harassing tactic and not in good-faith effort to secure
       pertinent bargaining information, the employer has a continuing
       obligation to submit such data upon request to the bargaining
       agent of his employees . . . .  I am convinced, after careful
       consideration of the import of the problem on the
       collective-bargaining process, that this broad rule is necessary
       to avoid the disruptive effect of the endless bickering and
       jockeying which has theretofore been characteristic of union
       demands and employer reaction to requests by unions for wage and
       related information.  The unusually large number of cases coming
       before the Board involving this issue demonstrates the disturbing
       effect upon collective bargaining of the disagreements which arise
       as to whether particular wage information sought by the bargaining
       agent is sufficiently relevant to particular bargaining issues.  I
       conceive the proper rule to be that wage and related information
       pertaining to employees in the bargaining unit should, upon
       request, be made available to the bargaining agent without regard
       to its immediate relationship to the negotiation or administration
       of the collective-bargaining agreement."
 
    Based upon the entire foregoing, I recommend the Authority issue the
 following:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations Rules and
 Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is hereby ordered that
 the National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Failing and refusing to furnish National Weather Service
       Employees Organization, MEBA, AFL-CIO, the employees exclusive
       representative, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent
       Mills, Paul Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented April 1, 1984.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
       assured by the Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and the policies of the Federal Labor-Management Relations
 Statute:
 
          (a) Furnish National Weather Service Employees Organization,
       MEBA, AFL-CIO, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent Mills,
       Paul Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented April 1, 1984.
 
          (b) Post at its facilities in Kansas City, Missouri and where
       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 a
       responsible official and shall be posted and maintained by him for
       60 consecutive days thereafter, excluding holiday and vacation
       periods, in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and
       other places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
       The responsible official shall take reasonable steps to insure
       that notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
       material.
 
          (c) Notify the Regional Director VII, Federal Labor Relations
       Authority, 1531 Stout Street, Suite 301, Denver, Colorado 80202,
       in writing within 30 days from the date of this Order as to what
       steps have been taken to comply herewith.
 
                                       /s/ SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  June 12, 1985
    Washington, D.C.
 
 
                                 FOOTNOTES$ --------
 
    (1) The Respondent excepted to certain credibility findings made by
 the Judge.  The demeanor of witnesses is a factor of consequence in
 resolving issues of credibility, and the Judge has had the advantage of
 observing the witnesses while they testified.  The Authority will not
 overrule a Judge's resolution with respect to credibility unless a clear
 preponderance of all the relevant evidence demonstrates such resolution
 was incorrect.  The Authority has examined the record carefully, and
 finds no basis for reversing the Judge's credibility findings.
 
    (2) See, e.g., United States Department of Transportation, Federal
 Aviation Administration, 18 FLRA No. 8 (1985).
 
    (3) Unopposed motions to correct the transcript filed by Counsel for
 the General Counsel and Respondent are both hereby granted.
 
    (4) Smith testified without contradiction that at some undisclosed
 time since May 26 a Union Regional Councilman in Tennessee attempted to
 meet with area managers to negotiate further on performance plans.
 According to Smith, subsequent communications between Respondent's
 Regional management and the Union's Regional Council Chairman indicated
 that use of the word "negotiate" was "unfortunate" and the parties
 agreed to "discussion" only.
 
    (5) Harrison testified without contradiction that upon receiving
 information that a local unit in Alpena, Michigan had been denied
 "input" regarding the new performance plan and told Harrison had agreed
 to waive local bargaining, Harrison called Smith and denied any such
 agreement.  According to Harrison, Smith indicated he would call Central
 Region Management to correct the situation.
 
    (6) The Union's Region 6 represented employees at the Center and
 other national elements in the Kansas City area and national
 headquarters elements in Washington, D.C.  To "clarify" representative
 contacts at the Center, Harrison wrote Respondent on March 15, 1984 and
 notified Respondent, inter alia:
 
          "Mr. Silvestri will serve as my representative to receive
       notification of all proposed changes in working conditions at the
       Kansas City Training Center and other matters which may require
       impact and implementation bargaining.  He is also designated by
       the national level of this organization to negotiate on its behalf
       on those proposed changes or impact and implementation bargaining
       peculiar to the Training Center, Reconditioning Center and NWS
       SELS.
 
          "Mr. Silvestri will also serve as the union representative for
       all other matters on behalf of those Weather Service Employees who
       are TDY at the Training Center and all permanent employees of the
       Reconditioning Center and SELS."
 
    (7) The form states, inter alia:  "Weights reflect the level of
 importance and/or amount of time devoted to accomplishing the element."
 
    (8) Around the time of this conversation Silvestri was notified he
 would be a member of the Union's national bargaining team.  Silvestri
 testified Labor Relations Chief Smith was notified of this in March or
 April 1984.  Smith testified he first received such notification from
 Silvestri in July 1984.  In any event, a letter from Smith to Silvestri
 dated July 25, 1984 indicates that Smith was aware of Silvestri's status
 as national bargaining team member at least by July 20.  Written
 notification from the Union that Silvestri was a member of the national
 negotiating team was given to Respondent by letter dated December 17,
 1984.
 
    (9) One of the four employees was no longer employed at the Center.
 The documents requested for the three employees (Kent Mills, Paul
 Haskins and Ron Richardson) totaled 30 pages.
 
    (10) Face to face negotiations were tentatively scheduled in April
 1984 to commence in late November 1984 or January 1985.
 
    (11) In January 1984 Respondent notified the Union that since the
 parties were engaged in negotiations for a nationwide agreement,
 Respondent did not intend to negotiate for an interim agreement relating
 to the Center.
 
    (12) Silvestri testified he did not particularly need the plans to be
 identifiable to an individual employee.
 
    (13) Cf. Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Fort Carson,
 Colorado, 17 FLRA No. 92 (1985) at 628.
 
    (14) Clearly the performance plans were normally maintained by
 Respondent and were reasonably available and production of the data
 would not be burdensome to Respondent.
 
    (15) What might well have occurred on May 26 was an agreement on the
 range of weights to be applied to performance elements and objectives
 but no discussion or yielding on how the weights would be specifically
 distributed among the activities comprising that performance element.
 For example, Silvestri's performance plan, placed in evidence at the
 hearing, indicates "classroom Instructions" is a performance element
 with a total weight of 30.  However, no distribution of this weight has
 been assigned to the "Major Activities" under this element such as
 "Lectures," "Discussions," "Technical Proficiency," etc.
 
 
 
 
 
                                 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 fail and refuse to furnish to National Weather Service
 Employees Organization, MEBA, AFL-CIO, the employees exclusive
 representative, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent Mills, Paul
 Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented April 1, 1984.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL furnish National Weather Employees Organization, MEBA,
 AFL-CIO, with the performance appraisal plans of Kent Mills, Paul
 Haskins and Ron Richardson implemented April 1, 1984.
                                       (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 que