21:0546(72)CA - SSA (Baltimore, Md.) And OHA, Region II (New York, N.Y.) And OHA (Syracuse and Buffalo, N.Y.) and AFGE, Local 1760 -- 1986 FLRAdec CA



[ v21 p546 ]
21:0546(72)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 21 FLRA No. 72
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 
 (BALTIMORE, MARYLAND) AND OFFICE 
 OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS, REGION II 
 (NEW YORK, NEW YORK) AND OFFICE 
 OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS (SYRACUSE AND 
 BUFFALO, NEW YORK)
 Respondents
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF G0VERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 1-CA-20322
                                                            1-CA-20341
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           I.  Statement of Case
 
    This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority because of
 exceptions filed by the Respondents to the attached Decision of the
 Administrative Law Judge.  The General Counsel filed a response in
 opposition and cross exceptions.  The issue concerns whether the
 Respondents violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to bargain
 concerning the procedures to be observed in implementing the relocations
 of their Hearings and Appeals offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York,
 and concerning appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected
 by such relocations.
 
                              II.  Background
 
    These consolidated cases involved the displacement and relocation of
 the entire office staffs in Respondents' Region II Hearings and Appeals
 Offices in Syracuse and Buffalo, New York, a distance of some five and
 four city blocks, respectively.  The Union requested impact and
 implementation bargaining and submitted a number of proposals.
 Agreement was reached on several of the proposals but the Respondents
 refused to bargain on others, claiming that those proposals involved
 working conditions which were either unchanged or improved as a result
 of the move.
 
                          III.  Judge's Decision
 
    The Judge concluded that the Respondent's improperly refused to
 bargain over the impact and implementation of the office relocations and
 thereby violated section 7116(1)(1) and (5) of the Statute.  In reaching
 such conclusion, the Judge found that the foreseeable impact of the
 relocation of the Syracuse and Buffalo offices was "substantial." Once
 the impact test was met, the Judge concluded that the Respondents were
 obligated to bargain over the Union's proposals submitted in connection
 with and relating to the office relocations which all concerned working
 conditions, even if a particular proposal addressed a situation where no
 change or an improvement in preexisting working conditions resulted from
 the relocation of the offices.
 
                       IV.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Respondents except to the Judge's Decision, asserting essentially
 that the relocations had no substantial adverse impact on unit employees
 as a whole.  They further take issue with the Judge's finding that they
 must bargain over specific proposals, contending that each proposal must
 address substantial adverse impact.  Finally, they assert that those
 proposals involving issues under negotiation at the national level could
 not be negotiated at the regional or local level.  The General Counsel's
 opposition to the Respondents' exceptions fully agrees with the Judge's
 findings, conclusions and rationale.
 
                               V.  Analysis
 
    With respect to the Respondents' initial contention pertaining to the
 impact of the relocations on unit employees, after the Judge issued his
 Decision in this case, the Authority held that "where an agency in
 exercising a management right under section 7106 of the Statute, changes
 conditions of employment of unit employees . . . , the statutory duty to
 negotiate comes into play if the change results in an impact upon unit
 employees or such impact was reasonably foreseeable." (Footnote
 omitted.) U.S. Government Printing Office, 13 FLRA 203, 204-05 (1083).
 The Authority thereafter held that "no duty to bargain arises from the
 exercise of a management right that results in an impact or a reasonably
 foreseeable impact on bargaining unit employees which is no more than de
 minimis." Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
 Administration, Chicago Region, 15 FLRA 922 (1984).  Further, the
 Authority looks to the totality of the facts and circumstances presented
 in each case in determining whether the impact or reasonably foreseeable
 impact of the exercise of a management right on bargaining unit
 employees is more than de minimis.  Thus, in Department of Health and
 Human Services, Social Security Administration, Region V, Chicago,
 Illinois, 19 FLRA No. 101 (1985), the Authority looked to such factors
 as the nature of the change (e.g., the extent of the change in work
 duties, location, office space, hours, loss of benefits or wages and the
 like);  the temporary, recurring or permanent nature of the change
 (i.e., duration and frequency of the change affecting unit employees);
 the number of employees affected or foreseeably affected by the change;
 the size of the bargaining unit;  and the extent to which the parties
 may have established, through negotiations or past practice, procedures
 and appropriate arrangements concerning analogous changes in the past.
 The Authority also emphasized that the factors considered in the
 circumstances of that case were not intended to constitute an
 all-inclusive list or to be applied in a mechanistic fashion.  Moreover,
 where there is no indication that the nature and degree of impact is at
 issue in the case, the Authority will not necessarily require in every
 case a determination as to whether the exercise of the management right
 results in a change in a condition of employment having an impact or a
 reasonably foreseeable impact on bargaining unit employees which is more
 than de minimis.  However, in cases where it must be determined whether
 the nature and degree of impact is more than de minimis, factors such as
 those listed above will be considered.
 
    In applying the above factors to this case, the Authority finds,
 based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances presented, that
 the relocation of the Syracuse and Buffalo offices did have an impact or
 a reasonably forseeable impact on the conditions of employment of unit
 employees and that such impact or reasonably foreseeable impact was more
 than de minimis.  Therefore, the Respondents were obligated to notify
 the Union and bargain upon request over the procedures they would
 observe in exercising its section 7106 rights and concerning appropriate
 arrangements for adversely affected employees.  In reaching this result,
 the Authority notes that the nature of the change involved the movement
 of the entire Syracuse and Buffalo offices a distance of some five and
 four city blocks, respectively, from their former locations, and that
 the moves brought about differences in such things as building
 structures and office space.  Further, the duration of the moves was
 permanent.  Although the employees are part of a consolidated unit, the
 Authority notes in the particular circumstances of this case that the
 moves involved the displacement and relocation of the entire office
 staffs in two of the Respondents' Region II Hearings and Appeals
 Offices.  Accordingly, based on the totality of the facts and
 circumstnaces presented, the Authority finds that the relocation of the
 two offices imposed a duty upon the Respondent to bargain with the Union
 concerning procedures and appropriate arrangements for adversely
 affected employees.
 
    Finally, for the reasons stated by the Judge, the Authority finds no
 merit to the Respondents' other two contentions that they were relieved
 of the duty to bargain because each Union proposal must meet the test of
 substantial adverse impact and because those proposals involving issues
 under negotiations at the national level could not be negotiated at the
 regional or local levels.  See Social Security Administration, Office of
 Hearings and Appeals, Region II, New York, New York, 19 FLRA No. 47
 (1985), which involved basically the same parties and similar issues and
 arguments.
 
                                VI.  Remedy
 
    Having found that the Respondents' conduct violated section
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute, the remaining issue concerns the
 appropriate remedial order.  The Authority notes as to remedy that no
 retroactive relief was sought by the General Counsel.  The Judge, in
 noting the same circumstances, chose to address the need for a status
 quo ante remedy, and in keeping with our decision in Federal
 Correctional Institution, 8 FLRA 604 (1982), determined that such a
 remedy was not warranted.  The Authority is in agreement with that
 analysis by the Judge and determines that a prospective remedy is
 warranted and will fully effectuate the purposes and policies of the
 Statute in the circumstances of this case.
 
                             VII.  Conclusion
 
    Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and Section 7118 of the Statute, the Authority has reviewed the rulings
 of the Judge made at the hearing, finds that no prejudicial error was
 committed, and thus affirms those rulings.  The Authority has considered
 the Judge's Decision, the exceptions to that Decision, the positions of
 the parties and the entire record, and adopts the Judge's findings,
 conclusions and recommended Order.  We therefore find, in agreement with
 the Judge, that the Respondents violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
 the Statute by implementing the Syracuse and Buffalo office relocations
 without negotiating over the Union's negotiable proposals concerning
 procedures and appropriate arrangements for unit employees adversely
 affected by such relocations.  /1/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and Section 7118 of the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
 that the Social Security Administration (Baltimore, Maryland) and Office
 of Hearings and Appeals, Region II (New York, New York) and Office of
 Hearings and Appeals (Syracuse and Buffalo, New York), shall:
 
                        1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Relocating or moving their offices and employees, without
       first notifying the American Federation of Government Employees,
       Local 1760, the agent of the exclusive bargaining representative
       of its employees, and affording it the opportunity to negotiate
       concerning the procedures to be observed in implementing the
       relocations of the Hearings and Appeals offices in Buffalo and
       Syracuse, New York, and concerning appropriate arrangements for
       employees adversely affected by such relocations.
 
          (b) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with the American
       Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760, the agent of the
       exclusive bargaining representative of their employees, concerning
       the procedures to be observed in implementing the relocations of
       the Hearings and Appeals offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New
       York, and concerning appropriate arrangements for employees
       adversely affected by such relocations.
 
          (c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
       assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
           2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to
 
                effectuate the purposes and policies of the Federal
 
                Service Labor-Management Relations Statute:
 
          (a) Notify the American Federation of Government Employees
       Local 1760, the agent of the exclusive bargaining representative
       of their employees, of any intention to relocate or move any of
       their offices and employees and, upon request, negotiate with such
       representative concerning the procedures to be observed in
       implementing the relocations of the Hearings and Appeals offices
       in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, and concerning appropriate
       arrangements for employees adversely affected by such relocations.
 
          (b) Post at its Hearings and Appeals offices in Buffalo and
       Syracuse, New York, 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 an appropriate official and
       they shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days
       thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards
       and other places where notices to employees are customarily
       posted.  Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that 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 I, Federal Labor
       Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of
       this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply with the
       Order.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., April 30, 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 relocate or move our offices and employees without first
 notifying the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760,
 the agent of the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees,
 and affording it the opportunity to negotiate concerning the procedures
 to be observed in implementing the relocations of the Hearings and
 Appeals offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, and concerning
 appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by such
 relocations.
 
    WE WILL NOT refuse to negotiate in good faith with the American
 Federation Of Government Employees, Local 1760, the agent of the
 exclusive bargaining representative of our employees, concerning the
 procedures to be observed in implementing the relocations of the
 Hearings and Appeals offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, and
 concerning appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by
 such relocations.
 
    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 notify the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 1760, the agent of the exclusive bargaining representative of our
 employees, of any intention to relocate or move any of our offices and
 employees and, upon request, negotiate with such representative
 concerning the procedures to be observed in implementing the relocations
 of the Hearings and Appeals offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New Yrok,
 and concerning appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected
 by such relocations.
                                       (Agency)
 
    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 must communicate directly with the Regional
 Director, Region I, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is:
  441 Stuart Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02116, and whose telephone
 number is:  (617) 223-0920.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Case No.  1-CA-20322 and 1-CA-20341
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (BALTIMORE, MARYLAND) AND OFFICE
 OF
 HEARINGS AND APPEALS, REGION II (NEW YORK, NEW YORK) AND OFFICE
 OF
 HEARINGS AND APPEALS (SYRACUSE AND BUFFALO, NEW YORK
    Respondents
 
                                    and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760
    Charging Party
 
                                 DECISION
 
    This is a proceeding under Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act
 of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1192, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.
 (Supp. V, 1981), commonly known as the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, and hereinafter referred to as the "Statute," and the
 rules and regulations issued thereunder the published at 5 CFR 2411 et
 seq.
 
    Charges of an unfair labor practice under the Statute were filed in
 Case No. 1-CA-20341 on August 10, 1982 and amended on November 29, 1982
 by the Charging Party (hereinafter also referred to as the "union").
 The General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority
 ("Authority") investigated and, on November 30,1982, served as the
 complaint initiating Case No. 1-CA-20341.
 
    In Case No. 1-CA-20322, charges of unfair labor practices under the
 Statute were filed on July 14,1982, and amended on November 29, 1982.
 The General Counsel investigated and, on November 30, 1982, served this
 complaint initiating Case No. 1-CA-20322.
 
    As amended at the hearing, /2/ each complaint in this proceeding
 alleges that the Respondent has engaged, and is engaging in unfair labor
 practices in violation of 5 U.S.C. 7116(a)(1) and (5).  /3/ Each
 complaint names the alleged violative act as being the relocation of a
 hearing office without affording the Union an opportunity to negotiate
 concerning the impact and implementation of the decision to relocate.
 At the hearing, the two cases were consolidated.
 
    The hearing was held on April 21, 1983, in New York City.  The
 parties appeared, adduced evidence and examined witnesses.  Pursuant to
 an order dated May 9, 1983, the briefing time was extended until June
 23.  Respondent filed its brief on June 21.
 
    The General Counsel, on June 22, filed a memorandum, enclosing a copy
 of a decision rendered on May 23 by Administrative Law Judge William
 Naimark in Case Nos. 12-CA-20179 and 20355, entitled Social security
 Administration, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Region II, New York, New
 York, Respondent and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 1760, Charging Party.  That proceeding also involved, inter alia,
 alleged violations of 5 U.S.C. 7116(a)(1) and (5) caused by an alleged
 unilateral relocation of an office -- from Mineola to Hempstead New
 York.  In the memorandum filed in this proceeding, the General Counsel
 asserts that there are "no material differences between the facts and
 legal arguments raised in the proceeding before Judge Naimark from those
 present in the instant case" and that the same legal conclusions should
 be reached herein.  Filed along with the memorandum and the decision was
 the brief submitted on behalf of the General Counsel in Case No.
 12-CA-20179 and 20355.
 
    Judge Naimark concluded that it was "the change in location that
 underlies a possible obligation to bargain in such a situation;  and he
 rejected Respondent's position that what controlled was "the extent of a
 change in a particular condition." See his slip opinion, pages 10-11 in
 OALJ-83-89.  He concluded that if a decision to relocate involves
 foreseeable impact and the specific union proposals relate to working
 conditions encompassed by the move, an employer is required to bargain
 regarding the impact and implementation of the relocation.
 
    Judge Naimark noted that the foreseeable impact of a planned
 relocation must be a substantial one and not "a mere possibility of some
 impact" (slip op.12).  In the case before him, the move was "from one
 town to another, with attendant differences in building structures and
 size, location, area, neighborhood facilities, transit routes and
 security - to name a few considerations . . ." (slip op.12).  These
 factors led to Judge Naimark's conclusion "that it is a reasonable
 likelihood such relocation will produce a substantial and adverse impact
 upon Respondent's workers" (slip op.12). Accordingly, he concluded that
 Respondent must bargain with the Union over any proposal which related
 to working conditions, even though the particular proposal might
 represent an improvement over that particular working condition at the
 old location, or even no change.  As examples, there was a water cooler
 at both locations;  and there were no day care centers or lounge areas
 at either location.  Nevertheless, Judge Naimark concluded that
 Respondent must bargain over Union's proposals on water coolers, lounge
 areas, and a space for a day care center.
 
    Based upon the record made in this case, including my observation of
 the demeanor of the witnesses, and the brief and memorandum filed, I
 enter the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended
 order.
 
                           Findings of Fact /4/
 
    1.  It is admitted that Respondent is an "agency" and the Union is a
 "labor organization", within the meaning of the Statute.
 
    2.  It is further admitted that the American Federation of Government
 Employees ("AFGE") is the exclusive bargaining representative of a
 consolidated nationwide unit of Respondent's employees, including ones
 employed at Respondent's hearing offices located at Buffalo and
 Syracuse, New Yrok.
 
    3a.  In Case No. 1-CA-20322, it is further admitted that, at all
 times material herein, Respondent has recognized Local 1760 of AFGE, as
 a representative of AFGE, "for the purposes of collective bargaining at
 the Hearings Offices of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, New York
 Region on matters involving changes in working conditions at the local
 level." The New York Region is also referred to as "Region II."
 
    3b.  In Case No. 1-CA-20341, it is further admitted that, at all
 times material herein, Local 1760 of AFGE "has been, and is now
 recognized by Respondent Office of Hearings and Appeals, Region II, New
 York, New York, and Respondent Office of Hearings and Appeals, Buffalo,
 New York acting thereby as agents of Respondent Social Security
 Administration, Baltimore, Maryland . . . as the agent of American
 Federation of Government Employees for the purpose of collective
 bargaining, at the Regional and local (Hearing Office) level, concerning
 the impact and implementation of changes in conditions of employment
 affecting employees employed by Respondent at its Hearing Office located
 at Buffalo, New York."
 
    4a.  It is stipulated that Respondent has an obligation to bargain
 with the Union over the impact and implementation of the relocation of
 the Syracuse and Buffalo hearing offices of the Office Of Hearings and
 Appeals("OHA"), of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), in
 accordance with 5 U.S.C.  7106(b)(2) and (3).  /5/
 
    4b.  It is undisputed that the Union submitted proposals on the
 relocations and agreement was reached as to some items.  As to the
 rejected ones, management's basis response was that "there was no
 adverse impact" and, as to a "few", that they were "on the table at the
 national level" (TR 118).
 
    5a.  Effective June 11, 1982, AFGE and SSA are bound by a national
 agreement applicable to the nationwide bargaining unit. The agreement
 remains in effect for three (3) years from its effective date, and
 automatically renews itself from year to year thereafter.  At the time
 of the relocations here at issue (May 3, 1982 for the Buffalo office and
 February 20, 1982 for the Syracuse office) only memorandum of
 understandings existed between AFGE and SSA;  and they concerned
 grievances, negotiations, and official time.
 
    5b.  Articles in the national agreement cover such items as health
 and safety;  parking;  child care, including a study on a model child
 care center at one facility;  excused absences;  and supplemental
 agreements.  The national contract provides for supplemental
 negotiations over seven items, including health and safety;  facilities,
 parking, and flextime.  See R 1.9, Section 3 of Article 5.  As of the
 time of the hearing in these cases, there had been no negotiations for
 supplemental agreements.  See TR 70.
 
    6a.  James Armet, Vice-President for Administration, Local 1760, is
 responsible for negotiating with Respondent on matters dealing with a
 change in physical location for any OHA office in New York and New
 Jersey.
 
    6b.  Elliot Glassman served as Region II'S technical advisor on
 management's team negotiating the relocations here at issue.  He serves
 as "labor relations coordinator" (TR 57).  Specialists "at the central
 office of OHA" advised him of what was "on the table at the national
 negotiations" (TR 60).
 
                  Case No. 20322, the Syracuse relocation
 
    7.  Around 40 bargaining unit employees work in the Syracuse office
 of OHA.
 
    8.  By letter dated October 27, 1981, the Deputy Regional Management
 Office of OHA notified Mr. Armet that the Syracuse office of OHA would
 be relocated.  The letter stated that the move was to be made on or
 about December 1 from the Federal Building at 100 South Clinton Steet to
 the seventh floor of a building at 351 South Warren Street.
 
    9.  On October 30, 1981, Mr. Armet wrote a letter to Respondent in
 which he demanded bargaining on the "plans to relocate" and the
 "potential adverse impact of that decision on members of the bargaining
 unit" (GC 3).
 
    10.  On November 12, 1981, Respondent replied to the October 30
 demand to bargain.  The letter stated that the move was to a building "a
 distance of approximately 5 city blocks" and that "(s)ince both new and
 old locations (were) in the same neighborhood with access to the same
 transportation and both locations conform to GSA (General Services
 Administration) requirements and regulations, the potential adverse
 impact of this move is de minimis" (GC 4).  The letter explained that
 GSA was forcing the move upon Respondent.  It also contained an offer to
 meet with Mr Armet to "discuss any potential adverse impact that (he)
 identified" (GC 4).
 
    11.  Approximately 12 meetings were held between the parties on the
 impact and implementation of the Syracuse relocation, the first being on
 December 15, 1981 and the last on June 16, 1982.  The move took place on
 February 20, 1982.
 
    12.  On December 17. 1981, the Union delivered its bargaining
 proposals to management.  At the time the proposals were submitted, the
 negotiations on a national agreement were being mediated by an
 arbitrator appointed by the Federal Service Impasses Panel ("FSIP").
 Larry Kramer, the Chief of labor relations for the central office of
 OHA, located in Arlington, Virginia, gave directions to the management
 team negotiating over the relocation of the Syracuse office.  Mr. Kramer
 informed Mr. Glassman that "they did not want, under the guise of impact
 implementation bargaining, any of their subordinate region offices to
 reach an agreement which the union negotiating team then would use as a
 precedence in its negotiations -- either the national unit or any
 supplemental units have to negotiate on these things -- it's being on
 the table, you do not have to negotiate on it" (TR 64).  The central
 office mentioned "certain areas" as being "on the negotiating table at
 the national level" (TR 64).
 
    13.  As to some union proposals, agreement was reached smoking;
 provision for a safe and healthy work environment and prompt action to
 correct any unsafe or unhealthy ones;  provision for an emergency
 lighting system;  provision for a security guard, subject to the
 availability of funds;  and the application of the agreement to the
 Syracuse OHA office until specific provisions of a national agreement
 superceded them.  See R 4.
 
    14.  As to seven proposals, agreement was not reached.
 
    14a.  Flextime.  Mr. Armet explained that he had received an
 anonymous tip from an employee in the Syracuse OHA office that led to
 the Union's proposal on this item.  The tipster told Mr. Armet that
 employees were "most upset about the relocation and that they were being
 relocated from a Federal building in the center of Syracuse,
 approximately six to eight blocks away in an area that was an urban
 renewal area . . . that was undergoing construction, renovation . . .
 that it wasn't a safe area, safe as the central location that they were
 in presently, and there were people hanging around in the street corners
 and things like that" (TR 19-20).  The flextime proposal was to allow
 employees to be dropped off at a mutually convenient time for spouses
 and employees.  This tip was not mentioned at the bargaining table.
 
    Management responded that it would not consider the flextime
 proposal;  that it exceeded the scope of impact bargaining;  that there
 was no substantial adverse impact;  and that it was on the table at
 negotiations on the national agreement which were taking place in
 Baltimore.
 
    There is no article on flextime in the national agreement.  Mention
 of flextime appears only in the provision for supplemental agreements.
 See finding 5b, supra.  At Baltimore there was no discussion on the
 topic in the context of impact and implementation bargaining upon the
 relocation of offices.
 
    14b.  Day care center.  The proposal on this topic was met with a
 management response that there was no adverse impact.  Also, at the last
 negotiating session, on June 16, 1982, there was "general agreement"
 that there were provisions covering day care in the national agreement
 (TR 62.)
 
    Article 20 of the national agreement provides for a "feasibility
 study for a model child care center" at a mutually determined site or
 for the Woodlawn complex (R 1.33).
 
    14c.  Parking.  The proposal on this topic was met with the
 management response that there was none "available previously, there's
 none now and there was no adverse impact" (TR 62).  Also, management
 stated that "the matter was under discussion at the national level" (TR
 23).
 
    Article 13 of the national agreement deals with "parking;" and there
 is also provision for supplemental agreements.  See R 1.24 and finding
 5b supra.
 
    14d.  Noise abatement.  This topic was met with a management response
 that there was "no adverse impact" because there would be "less noise
 than there was previously" (TR 63) /6/ and that the matter was being
 negotiated at the national level.
 
    Article 9 of the national agreement deals with Health and Safety, but
 in general terms (R 1.15-16).  The provision for supplemental agreements
 allows for further negotiations on "Health and Safety" (R 1.9 and see
 finding 5b, supra).
 
    14e.  Lunchrooms.  Management may have alleged this proposal was
 contrary to a national law, rule, or regulation.
 
    14f.  Window coverings.  This topic was met by a management response
 that there were "drapes previously and there's drapes now and there's no
 adverse impact" (TR 63).  Management refused to sign off on a proposal
 to provide drapes, which the Union felt it needed so that failure to
 provide them would be grievable and to insure the protection of
 employees' rights.
 
    14g.  Water coolers.  This topic was met by a management response
 that "the supply of water was even better than it was previously, so
 there was no adverse impact" (TR 61).
 
    15.  While Mr. Glassman testified that management was prepared to
 negotiate with the Union over proposals that had less adverse impact
 (see TR 62-63), in fact management relied upon allegations of an absence
 of adverse impact to justify refusal to bargain, as set forth in finding
 14, supra.
 
    16.  Management consulted with the office manager of the OHA hearing
 office in Syracuse throughout the negotiations on the relocation;  and
 she testified at the hearing on the impact of the relocation.
 
    16a.  She established that the space allotted to OHA in the
 commercial building on Warren Street is not exactly the same as that
 which had been provided at the Federal building located at Clinton
 Street.  At the Federal building the accomodations were "almost plush;"
 and the reluctance to relocate was over concern about giving up "some of
 the plushness" (TR 48).
 
    16b.  She established that the Warren Street location is
 approximately four blocks from the Federal building, and one block off
 the main drag of downtown Syracuse.  It is closer to the shopping area
 and is served by the same transportation facilities.  To her knowledge,
 the Warren Street building is not in an urban renewal area and the
 neighborhoods appear to be trafficked by the same people.  She testified
 that there is presently no construction going on "in" the Warren Street
 location, nor was there at the time of the move (TR 49).  Another
 witness testified that, on a visit to the Warren Street OHA office in
 November 1982, the streets surrounding the Warren Street building in
 which the OHA office is located were being torn up, and the noise from
 the drilling and construction equipment could be heard inside the
 building and was "disturbing and disconcerting" (TR 71).  Both witnesses
 appeared to give truthful testimony and their testimony can be
 reconciled.  One testified to construction in the building and the other
 to construction outside, but nearby the building.
 
    16c.  The office manager affirmed that there had been no day care
 center, flextime, or official parking at the Federal building.
 
    16d.  As to drapes, she established that there were open weave ones
 at the Federal building and wool-lined ones at the Warren Street
 location.
 
    16e.  As to the noise from office machines, she established that they
 had been located "on the floor with the employees," at the Federal
 building, and are now "housed in a separate room," with a resulting
 "decrease in that noise" (TR 46).
 
    16f.  As to water coolers, she established that there had been one on
 each floor, in the area of the elevators, at the Federal building, and
 that they were shared with the general public.  At the Warren Street
 facility, there is one drinking fountain within the space allocated to
 Respondent, which has the entire fourth floor.
 
    16g.  As to parking, private parking lots are located closer to the
 Warren Street location than they were to the Federal building.
 
    17.  The union president, on a visit to the Warren Street location in
 November 1982, was approached by a panhandler, which he felt to be
 "unique in Syracuse" (TR 70-71).  Employees told him that the OHA office
 on Warren Street was "not as nice" as their former quarters in the
 Federal building.
 
    18.  The reason for the relocation was that OHA wished to expand its
 office.  There was insufficient space in the Federal building to
 accomodate the expansion, according to GSA, the Federal agency holding
 control over space for governmental agencies.  GSA planned the
 relocation to Warren Street and promised the space occupied by OHA in
 the Federal building to other agencies.  The office facilities arm of
 the OHA'S Region II, and its management operations specialist, tried to
 stop the move and then to delay it, but could not control GSA, which
 threatened to evict the OHA Syracuse office from the Federal building,
 if it did not move on GSA'S schedule.  These futile attempts by Region
 II were communicated to Mr. Glassman.
 
    19.  On February 8, 1982, Respondent directed a letter to Herbert
 Collender, President of Local 1760, to notify him that the move would
 take place on February 20, 1982.
 
    20.  On February 12, 1982, Mr. Armet replied to the February 8
 letter.  He reminded Respondent that the move was "presently subject to
 impact bargaining" (GC 6).  Respondent did not reply, in writing.
 
    21.  The Union learned that the Syracuse move had taken place while
 at a negotiation session on February 22, 1982.
 
                  Case No. 20341, the Buffalo relocation
 
    22.  About 21 bargaining-unit employees worked in the Buffalo office
 of OHA, when it was located in the U.S. Courthouse.  Within two weeks of
 the office relocation here at issue, the number rose to around 28.
 
    23.  By letter dated February 8, 1982, Mr. Glassman the labor
 relations coordinator for Region II of OHA, notified the president of
 Local 1760 that the Buffalo OHA office, then located at the U.S.
 Courhouse at 68 Court Street, would be moved to a building at 268 Main
 Street, three to six blocks away.
 
    24.  On February 17, 1982, Mr. Armet requested impact and
 implementation bargaining over the proposed relocation.
 
    25.  On March 18, 1982, Mr. Armet submitted the union proposals to
 Mr. Glassman.  They were motiviated by a telephone call from the union
 steward at Buffalo.  She complained that another relocation of the OHA
 office was to take place, to a "less desirable . . . seedy" location
 where the area was being reconstructed and to a building that was under
 renovation (TR 81).  Mention was made of "derelicts on the street" (TR
 81).  These concerns were expressed to management during negotiations.
 Management checked them out and did not find them "believable" (TR
 119-120).
 
    26.  The parties met in eight negotiation sessions, the first being
 on March 22, 1982 and the last on July 21.  The relocation took place on
 May 3.
 
    27.  At the hearing, testimony was adduced on the items in the
 Union's proposals upon which agreement was not reached.
 
    27a.  Flextime.  On March 23, 1982, and at subsequent negotiation
 sessions, management took the position that there had been no flextime
 at the U.S. Courthouse location and so no adverse impact from the
 relocation.  Also, management responded that flextime was on the table
 at the national negotiations.  (See finding 14a, supra, for what was
 negotiated in the national agreement).
 
    27b.  Day care center.  On July 12, 1982, management's response was
 that there had been none at the U.S. Courthouse and so no adverse
 impact.  Also, management "wouldn't discuss it" (TR 86) because it was
 for "a benefit that was covered in the national agreement" (TR 126).
 (See finding 14b, supra, for what was in the national agreement.)
 
    27c.  Parking.  On July 12, 1982, management's response was that
 there was none at either location and so no adverse impact, and also
 that it was "on the table at a higher level of negotiations" (TR 86).
 (See finding 14c, supra, as to what was negotiated in the national
 agreement.)
 
    27d.  Health and Safety.  On at least four occasions, the union's
 proposal met with the response that it was "beyond the scope of adverse
 impact and such conditions were being negotiated at the national level"
 (TR 83).  (See finding 14d, supra, as to what was negotiated in the
 national agreement as to health and safety.) Included in the Union's
 health and safety proposals were ones relating to emergency lighting,
 smoke detectors, fire alarms, at least two water coolers, restrooms, a
 lounge area, sufficient lighting, and transportation to a health unit.
 See GC 12.3-5.
 
    27e.  Emergency lighting.  Mr. Armet testified that management's
 response to this topic was that there was none at either facility, and
 thus no adverse impact.  Mr. Glassman agreed that the response was no
 adverse impact, that that it was based on emergency lighting being in
 both locations.  See TR 122.  Mr. Glassman appeared more confident, on
 this point, than Mr. Armet.  Accordingly, I credit the testimony of Mr.
 Glassman on this point.
 
    27f.  Smoke detectors.  Again, Mr. Armet testified that management's
 response was that there was none in either building, and so no adverse
 impact.  Mr. Glassman agreed that there were none and explained that
 this was because the Buffalo GSA cose required sprinkler systems.  Mr.
 Glassman further explained that there was "either a sprinkler system
 installed or there would be one installed at the Main Street location"
 and, therefore, that there would be no adverse impact and no need to
 bargain on smoke detectors (TR 122).
 
    27g.  Fire alarms.  Management's response was that similar systems
 existed in both buildings, and so there would be no adverse impact.
 
    27h.  Restrooms.  As to this topic, management's response on June 21,
 1982 was that the restrooms at the Main street builiding are "more
 private" and "much cleaner" (TR 93 and 125).  Thus, management felt that
 the impact was "beneficial," and there was "no duty" to bargain (TR
 125).
 
    27i.  Lounge area.  On June 21, 1982, management responded that there
 was none in either facility, and therefore no adverse impact.
 
    27j.  Water coolers.  In July 1982, /7/ management responded that the
 same or better conditions existed at the Main street location, and
 therefore there was no adverse impact, and "they would not negotiate the
 issue" (TR 85).
 
    27k.  Transportation to the health unit.  On July 12, 1982,
 management's response was that there was no adverse impact.
 
    27l.  Lighting to avoid eye fatigue.  On July 12, 1982, the response
 was that "the lighting would be equal or better," and so there would be
 no adverse impact (TR 125) and they "would not bargain on it" (TR 85).
 
    27m.  Break and lunch room.  On July 12, 1982, management responded
 that there was none at either facility, and therefore there was no
 adverse impact and "no duty to bargain" (TR 126).  Management did
 explain that it "could not authorize lunch rooms -- GSA -- officially,
 "but would attempt to solve the problem by "just having spare space" (TR
 126).  Management has been able to provide such spare space for the
 Buffalo OHA office.
 
    27n.  First aid kits.  Management's response was that the kit they
 used in the Courthouse was "portable" and the OHA office had the same
 one at the Main Street facility (TR 128).  Thus, there was "no adverse
 impact" (TR 128).  It was admitted that OHA Buffalo was getting more
 employees in the Main Street building.  According to Mr. Glassman, the
 Union did not state that it wanted to bargain over more kits because one
 was insufficient.  See TR 128-129.  The proposal was that:  "Management
 will provide each working unit with a GSA approved first aid kit" (GC
 11.7).
 
    27o.  Administrative leave on paydays to cash checks.  Management's
 response was that the old and new location were in the same general
 area, with the same banks available.  Therefore, there was "no adverse
 impact" (TR 129).
 
    27p.  Window coverings.  Management's response was that there were
 drapes in the OHA office at both locations, and so there was no adverse
 impact, and thus "no need to bargain" (TR 127).
 
    27q.  Noisy office equipment.  Management's response was that the new
 office would be "much quieter," since the machines would not be
 concentrated and were "off the floor and away from the office area" (TR
 127), thus, no adverse impact.
 
    28.  Management consulted with the office manager of OHA office in
 Buffalo throughout the negotiations on the relocation.  The office
 manager testified at the hearing on the impact of the relocation.
 
    28a.  He established that the distance between the former and present
 offices is three and a half blocks and that the bargaining-unit
 employees regard the U.S. Courthouse as "more prestigious" (TR 105).
 
    28b.  The office at Main Street was extensively remodeled to OHA'S
 specifications before the move.  It met GSA'S minimum specifications.
 Approximately 60 days prior to the move, Mr. Allen inspected the
 construction "to make sure they they were complying to our
 specifications for (the) office needs" (TR 109.) More space was provided
 for each employee.
 
    28c.  A GSA inspection of the Main Street location involved areas of
 emergency lighting, fire alarms, and smoke detectors;  and changes were
 made pursuant thereto, some at prodding of the office manager.
 
    28d.  The Main Street location is "much closer to the central
 transportation bus station which comes from all areas of western New
 York" (TR 90).  It is not in an urban renewal area.
 
    28e.  Parking is "much better and reasonable" at the Main Street
 location (TR 99).
 
    28f.  Bargaining-unit employees had no windows at the U.S.
 Courthouse.  Now they have windows covered by "beautiful flowered
 drapes." (TR 133).
 
    28g.  Noisy office machines are located further away from the work
 area of employees, at the Main Street office;  and a decrease in the
 noise level has resulted.
 
    28h.  Within a three to four block area of the Main Street building,
 there are eight banks.  One is about 50 feet from the building.  These
 banks are located between the present and former buildings housing the
 OHA office.  Only one branch bank that would have been used by OHA
 employees, when located in U.S. Courthouse, is not between it and the
 Main Street building;  and the main office of that bank is located in
 the blocks between the two buildings.
 
    28i.  There was only one water cooler in the U.S. Courthouse.  It was
 located directly in front of the elevators and about a 114-foot walk
 from the OHA office.  At the Main Street building, a water cooler is
 located centrally, within the OHA office area.
 
    28j.  The first aid kit is not used frequently and is replenished
 before supplies are used up.
 
    28k.  At neither location have there been locked restrooms for the
 exclusive use of OHA employees, as in the Union's proposal, but at Main
 Street, they are shared with fewer people and are maintained in a "much
 cleaner" condition (TR 93).
 
    28l.  At neither location has there been an employee lounge or a
 health unit.  The health unit used by employees at both locations is in
 a Federal building, which is three and a half blocks further away from
 the Main Street location, but is reached more comfortably (less windy)
 due to the shelter provided by buildings along the route.  On the route
 between the health unit and the Main Street facility, one passes
 "business type people, shoppers" (TR 109).  The walk to the health unit
 from the Main Street facility is "no different" than what was passed
 going from the U.S. Courthouse (TR 108).
 
    28m.  There is more "light power" at the Main Street location, and
 the light is "much better" because it is florescent (TR 96).  Employees
 at the Main Street location have not complained over the existing level
 of lighting" (i)n the wroking areas" (TR 96).
 
    28n.  The lunch and break facilities at the U.S. Courthouse were in a
 room about 12 by 14 feet which also served as a mail and supply room and
 one in which to counsel SSA claimants.  There were no vending or coffee
 machines, hot plates, or refrigerators for the exclusive use of
 bargaining-unit employees, as proposed by the Union for the Main Street
 location.  At Main Street, a room which is 10 by 10 feet is used
 exclusively for break and lunch periods of the bargaining-unit
 employees.
 
    28o.  There are no day care centers sponsored by the Federal
 government in Buffalo.
 
    29.  The Buffalo OHA office relocation was occasioned by an OHA
 request for more space to accomodate a projected staff increase.  Other
 agencies in the U.S. Courthouse also needed to expand.  GSA decided to
 relocate OHA, and was being pressed by the other agencies to expedite
 the move.  The office facilities arm of OHA'S Region II, and its
 management operations specialist, tried to stop the move and then delay
 it.  GSA forced the move and specified the moving date.
 
    30.  By letter dated April 16, 1982 Mr. Glassman notified the union
 president that the Buffalo OHA office would be moved on May 3-4.
 
    31.  At meetings of the parties on April 26 and 30, 1982, the Union
 requested a delay in the implementation of the move.  Management
 replied, each time, that GSA wanted the office "out" and a delay was not
 possible (TR 80).
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    Respondent, at page 16 of its brief, correctly summarizes certain
 well established principles of law which it deems to be controlling in
 this proceeding.  The first one is that:
 
          Impact and implementation bargaining ("I & I" or "impact"
       bargaining) is narrower in scope than other forms of midterm
       bargaining or term negotiations.  While other forms of midterm or
       term bargaining may be concerned with substantive issues, impact
       bargaining is limited to (a) procedures management will follow in
       implementing its decision, and (b) appropriate arrangements for
       employees adversely affected by the decision. 5 U.S.C. 7106(b)(2)
       and (3).  Intrinsically, the obligation to bargain over I & I can
       only arise as the result of management initiative (sic).
       Moreover, the management action must have or portend substantial
       impact on the conditions of employment of bargaining unit
       employees.  Office of Program Operations Field Operations, Social
       Security Administration, San Francisco Region and Council of
       District Office Locals, American Federation of Government
       Employees, San Francisco Region, 5 FLRA No. 45 (1980).
 
    The second one is that:
 
          It is also a generally accepted principle of Federal sector
       labor relations that absent agreement otherwise, the obligation to
       negotiate exists at the level of recognition, and not at the local
       level.  Social Security Administration and American Program
       Service Center, Kansas City Missouri and American Federation of
       Government Employees AFL-CIO Local 1336, 10 FLRA No. 4 (1982),
       Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
       Administration and Local 1346, American Federation of Government
       Employees, AFL-CIO, 6 FLRA No. 33 (1981).  (Emphasis added.)
 
    While these statements of legal principles are correct, their
 application, as urged by Respondent, is not.
 
    A.  As to the impact of the relocations, the preponderence of the
 evidence indicates that the foreseeable impact was substantial.  While
 the moves were not far in distance, they required the relinquishment of
 "plush" offices (at Syracuse) and a "prestigious" location (at Buffalo).
  While a few conditions may have been better at the new locations, even
 management recognized that they did not compensate for what was being
 given up and, unsuccessfully, tried to stop the moves altogether.
 
    B.  Faced with the inevitability of a substantial change in working
 conditions (having to give up the comfort and pleasure of working in
 plush and prestigious quarters), the Union put together a set of
 proposals, some of which may have resulted in particular working
 conditions remaining the same, or being even better.  Respondent refused
 to bargain over such items.
 
    In agreement with Judge Naimark, I conclude the Respondents
 improperly refused to bargain on the ground that particular proposals
 represented no change or an improvement in particular working
 conditions.  Using the union proposal on window coverings for the
 Syracuse office as an example, it was established that there were drapes
 at both the old and new locations, but management refused to enter into
 a written agreement that there would be drapes at the new location.  See
 finding 14(f) supra.  The Union correctly asserted that it needed a
 written agreement to insure the matter and properly protect the
 bargaining-unit employees.  To have agreements in writing is a statutory
 right.  See 5 U.S.C. 7114(b)(5).  Unions would probably not long retain
 their exclusive representative status if they relied on verbal
 statements from management.
 
    Using the union proposal on lounge areas as another example, the
 Union was within its rights in making such a proposal, even though there
 had been none at the old location.  Overall, the relocation had a
 foreseeable substantial adverse impact.  This item might alleviate that
 impact somewhat.
 
    c.  All of the Union's proposals concerned working conditions.
 (Indeed, Respondent does not argue to the contrary and admits that it
 made no allegations of non-negotiability.  See RBr 20.) See American
 Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
 2477, et al., and Library of Congress, 7 FLRA No. 89, 7 FLRA 578 (1982),
 involving a relocation of employees to a new building and in which the
 Authority delcared that inter alia, the following proposals by the
 bargaining agent, as a result of the relocation, related to matters
 affecting working conditions:  file cabinet space;  office size;
 partitions to insure no noise;  conformance to fire codes and
 regulations to the extent the agency had discretion;  and prohibiting
 work in areas violating safety codes.  See also American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and Air Force Logistics Command,
 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 2 FLRA No. 77, 2 FLRA 604 (1980),
 involving day care facilities;  and National Treasury Employees Union
 and NTEU Chapter 80 and Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue
 Service, Central Region, 8 FLRA No. 38, 8 FLRA (1982), involving
 installation of drapes, and noise abatement items.
 
    D.  The fact that some items proposed by the Union were on the table
 at national negotiations does not matter, in these cases, because of
 Respondent's admission that Local changes in working conditions of unit
 employees in New York offices, which would include these here at
 Syracuse and Buffalo.  See findings 3(a) and (b), supra.  Agreements
 reached at the national level would, of course, supercede any
 conflicting ones arrived at regional or local levels.  This would seem
 to be the case as to Local 1760's prpopsals on a day care center.  See
 findings 5b, 14b, and 27b, supra.
 
                                  Remedy
 
    Counsel for the General Counsel did not ask for "a status quo ante
 remedy" (TR 74, 9).  She did ask for an affirmative order to bargain in
 good faith on the previously submitted proposals and to require "any
 agreements reached between the parties to be made retroactive to the
 date of the move" (TR 9 and see also TR 75).  She stated that she would
 submit a brief and was requested to submit a psoposed order for relief
 delineating "exactly what (she) meant by retroactively" as it related to
 the proposals.  She agreed.  However, neither a brief nor a proposed
 order has been submitted on behalf of the General Counsel.  Instead,
 reliance is placed solely on Judge Naimark's decision and the brief
 filed on behalf of the General Counsel in Case Nos. 12-CA-20179 and
 20355.  Judge Naimark granted only prospective relief in those cases,
 without discussing the statement on page 15 of the brief seeking relief
 retroactive to the date of the relocations.  The brief made no argument
 in support of such relief.
 
    It would be fair to assume, from the failure to submit a proposed
 order and argument in support of it, that the General Counsel is not too
 concerned about an order for retroactive relief.  In any event, I do not
 consider such relief appropriate here, under standards enunciated by the
 Authority in such cases as Federal Correctional Institution, 8 FLRA No.
 111, 8 FLRA 604, (1982).  While Respondent did relocate the OHA offices
 during the course of bargaining, it tried to stop and delay the move,
 but to no avail.  GSA was prepared to evict the OHA offices.  Respondent
 gave timely notices of its actions to the Union and timely responded to
 the bargaining proposals of the Union.  The responses, while rejected
 here, were not totally lacking in merit.  I find no bad faith in
 Respondent's refusal to give the Union a written allegation of
 non-negotiability of any proposal, in view of Respondent's stance that
 it was not taking such a position.  See RBr 20-22.  While the evidence
 demonstrated that employees in the bargaining unit have suffered
 substantial adverse effects from their moves away from plush and
 prestigious offices, there is no evidence that they are so dire as to
 call for any but prospective relief, under all the circumstances of the
 case.  Just how disruptive retroactive relief would be, or how much it
 would impair the efficiency and effectiveness of Respondents' operations
 is unclear from the record.  Counsel for the General Counsel suggested
 only one specific type of retroactive relief -- correcting the records
 of any employees who were marked as late on paydays in view of the
 proposal to grant an extra one-half hour of administrative leave on
 paydays so that employees might cash their checks.  Since a number of
 banks appear to be in close proximity to the new location, the impact
 upon unit employees of the failure to bargain this proposal is not
 sufficient to warrant the ordering of such relief.  Under all the
 circumstances here involved, retroactive relief is best left to
 bargaining between the parties.
 
                  Ultimate Findings and Recommended Order
 
    Respondent has engaged and is engaging in the unfair labor practices
 alleged in the complaints, in violation of 5 USC 7116(a)(1) and (5).
 
    Accordingly, and pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Rules and
 Regulations of the Federal Labor Relations Authority and Section 7118 of
 the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority
 hereby orders that the Social Security Administration, Office of
 Hearings and Appeals, Region II, New York, New York, shall:
 
                        1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Relocating or moving its offices and employees, wihtout
       first notifying the American Federation of Government Employees,
       Local 1760, and affording it the opportunity to negotiate, to the
       extent consonant with law and regulations, concerning the
       procedures to be observed in such relocation or move and the
       arrangements for employees adversely affected by such action.
 
          (b) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with the American
       Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760 to the extent
       consonant with law and regulations, as to the procedures to be
       observed in any further implementation of its relocation of OHA
       offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, and the arrangements
       for employees adversely affected by the relocation, including, but
       not limited to proposals already made.
 
          (c) 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 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
          (a) Notify the American Federation of Government employees,
       Local 1760 of any intention to relocate or move any of its offices
       and employees, and afford it the opportunity to negotiate, to the
       extent consonant with law and regulations, concerning the
       procedures to be observed in such relocation or move and
       arrangements for employees adversely affected by such action.
 
          (b) Upon request, negotiate in good faith with the American
       Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760 to the extent
       consonant with law and regulations, as to the procedures to be
       observed in any further implementation of its relocation of OHA
       offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, and the arrangements
       for employees adversely affected by the relocations, including,
       but not limited to proposals already made.
 
          (c) Post at its OHA offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York,
       copies of the attached notice, marked "Appendix B", on forms to be
       furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority.  Upon receipt
       of such forms, they shall be signed by the head of Region II and
       they shall be posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
       conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees
       are customarily posted.  Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure
       that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
       other materials.
 
          (d) Notify the Regional Director, Region I, Federal Labor
       Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of
       this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
 
                                       /s/ Isabelle R. Capello
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  July 28, 1983
    Washington, D.C.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                 FOOTNOTES$ -----------------
 
    (1) As noted by the Judge at page 16 of her Decision, the Respondents
 never alleged that such proposals were nonnegotiable.
 
    (2) The amendment consisted of striking from the complaint in Case
 No. 1-CA-20322, allegations concerning a failure to provide information.
 
    (3) 5 U.S.C. 7116(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
 
          Section 7116.  Unfair Labor practices
 
          (a) For the purpose of this chapter, it shall be an unfair
       labor practice for an agency --
 
          (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the
       exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter;  . . .
       or
 
          (5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a
       labor organization as required by this chapter . . .
 
    (4) The following abbreviations will be used.  "TR" refers to the
 transcript in this proceeding.  Corrections to it have been made
 pursuant to 5 CFR 2423.19(r).  See Appendix A hereto.  Other
 abbreviations to be used are as follows.  "GC" refers to the exhibits of
 the General Counsel.  "R" refers to the exhibits of the Respondent.
 Multipage exhibits will be referenced by the exhibit number followed by
 the page or paragraph number.  "GCM" refers to the memorandum submitted
 by the General Counsel.  "RBR" refers to the brief submitted by
 Respondent.
 
    Respondents will be referred to jointly as "Respondent," unless
 otherwise specifically noted.
 
    (5) 5 U.S.C. 7106 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
 
          Section 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.
 
    This is commonly called "impact and implementation" bargaining.
 
    (6) There are two page 63's in the transcript.  This citation is to
 the first one.
 
    (7) A witness believed the date was July 26 but did not seem sure.
 See TR 85.  It was probably before that, as the last bargaining session
 was established to be on July 21.  See finding 26, supra.
 
 
                                APPENDIX B
 
  NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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 relocate or move our offices and employees, without first
 notifying the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760,
 the exclusive representative of our employees, and affording it the
 opportunity to negotiate, to the extent consonant with law and
 regulations. concerning the procedures to be observed in such relocation
 or move and the arrangements for employees adversely affected by such
 action.
 
    WE WILL NOT refuse to negotiate with the American Federation of
 Government Employees, Local 1760, the exclusive representative of our
 employees to the extent consonant with law and regulations, as to the
 procedures to be observed in any further implementation of the
 relocation of OHA offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, and the
 arrangements for employees adversely affected by the relocations,
 including, but not limited to proposals already made.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights assured by the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL notify the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
 1760, the exclusive representative of our employees, of any intention to
 relocate or move our offices and employees, and afford it the
 opportunity to negotiate, to the extent consonant