21:0455(62)CA - National Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD and National Weather Service Employees Organization, MEBA -- 1986 FLRAdec CA
[ v21 p455 ]
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: . . .