23:0122(14)CA - VA Washington, DC and VA Medical Center and Regional Office, Sioux Falls, SD and AFGE Local 1509 -- 1986 FLRAdec CA



[ v23 p122 ]
23:0122(14)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 23 FLRA No. 14
 
 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION 
 WASHINGTON, D.C. AND VETERANS 
 ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER 
 AND REGIONAL OFFICE, SIOUX FALLS, 
 SOUTH DAKOTA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1509, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case Nos. 57-CA-50257
                                                      57-CA-50265
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This consolidated unfair labor practice case is before the Authority
 because of exceptions filed by the General Counsel to the attached
 Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, which are limited to the
 Judge's findings with respect to Case No. 57-CA-50265.  No exceptions
 were filed by any party with respect to the Decision of the
 Administrative Law Judge concerning Case No. 57-CA-50257.  The Issue
 raised in the General Counsel's exceptions is whether questioning by an
 agent of the Respondent during a Union representative's interview for a
 bargaining unit position constituted interrogation and thus interference
 restraint, or coercion in violation of section 7116(a)(1) of the Federal
 Service Labor-management Relations Statute (the Statute).
 
          II.  Background, Judge's Decision, and Adoption in Part
 
    The Judge concluded with respect to the allegations raised in Case
 No. 57-CA-50257, that the Respondent's refusal to bargain over its
 decision to change a bargaining unit employee's starting and quitting
 times constituted a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the
 Statute.  Noting the absence of exceptions, we adopt the Judge's
 conclusion and supporting rationale in Case No. 57-CA-50257.
 
    With regard to the allegations raised in Case No. 57-CA-50265, the
 Judge noted in his findings that during the interview, the agent of the
 Respondent asked the Union representative "if he was chief union steward
 and how much time he spent on union activities." Also, he was asked
 "what would happen if . . . (he) . . . was needed at the warehouse at
 the same time he was needed by the union . . . (and) . . . what he would
 do if a truck needed to be unloaded and he was on official time
 performing union duties." Finally, he was asked "if his position was an
 elected or an appointed one."
 
    The Judge viewed this questioning as permissible, concluding that it
 did not interfere with the employee's protected rights in violation of
 section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute.  In reaching this conclusion, the
 Judge relied upon the Authority's holding in Department of the Air
 Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 20 FLRA No. 89 (1985), petition
 for review filed sub nom. Federal Association of Government Employees,
 Local R7-23 v. FLRA, No. 86-1011 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 1, 1986).  He viewed
 that decision as standing for the proposition that when conflicts arise
 between an employee's entitlement to official time for representational
 functions under section 7131 of the Statute and the entitlement of
 management under section 7106 of the Statute to manage, consistent with
 effective and efficient Government, the parties must recognize the need
 for and seek reasonable accommodations.  In recognizing the need for
 accommodation, the Judge found that it was reasonable for an agency to
 "ask an employee the questions necessary to reasonably determine if a
 conflict exists and how accomodations can be achieved." The Judge
 concluded that the questioning by Respondent's agent here was directed
 at ascertaining whether there would be such a conflict concerning
 demands upon the employee's time in the warehouse position and was
 therefore relevant to reaching a permissible goal.
 
                      III.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The General Consel alleges that any statements or questions which
 suggest a relationship between an employee's protected activity and the
 employee's present or future employment status constitute interrogation
 and are violative of section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute.  The General
 Counsel also contends that the Judge's reliance on Department of the Air
 Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, is misplaced.  The General
 Counsel argues that the cited case, and the cases cited therein, all
 involve a specific problem with respect to the granting of official time
 or an employee's inability to perform certain duties, whereas the
 subject case involves the interrogation of a job applicant about his
 union duties prior to his selection.
 
                               IV.  Analysis
 
    As previously held by the Authority, conduct by an agency which may
 reasonably tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
 exercise of their rights under the Statute is violative of section
 7116(a)(1) of the Statute.  See Department of the Treasury, Internal
 Revenue Service, Louisville District, 20 FLRA No. 77 (1985), petition
 for review filed sub nom. National Treasury Union v. FLRA, No. 86-1015
 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 8, 1986), and the cases cited at n.2.  Contrary to the
 Judge, we find that this interrogation falls within that category.  The
 questions were asked of this labor organization representative during an
 employment interview.  The questions concerned his position in the
 Union, how many hours he spends in activities on behalf of the Union,
 and how he would resolve hypothetical conflicts between work and his
 protected activities on behalf of the Union.  The context of the
 questioning establishes a connection between the protected activity and
 the employee's chance to be selected for the position.  We conclude that
 this questioning reasonably tends to interfere with the employee's
 rights under the Statute by communicating that time spent engaging in
 protected activity could adversely affect his chance for future job
 selection.
 
    We agree with the General Counsel that the Judge's reliance on
 Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, was
 misplaced.  That case involved a specific ongoing conflict between an
 employee's right to use official time and the agency's right to manage
 effectively and efficiently, The Authority held that when such conflicts
 arise, the parties must recognize the need for and seek reasonable
 accommodation.  The Authority viewed the statements made by the agency
 representative to the employee as an attempt to seek accommodation and,
 in the circumstances, should have been understood to have been made in
 that context by a reasonable employee.  No such conflict has arisen in
 this case.
 
                              V.  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 recommendations, to the extent consistent with the
 above.  Thus, we adopt the Judge's conclusion in Case No. 57-CA-50257
 that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute
 by refusing to bargain over the change in starting and quitting times of
 a bargaining unit employee.  However, contrary to the Judge's finding in
 Case No. 57-CA-50265, we find that the interrogation of the bargaining
 unit employee during his interview for a bargaining unit position about
 his protected activity constitutes interference, restraint and coercion
 in violation of section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Federal service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute, the Authority hereby orders that the Veterans Administration,
 Washington, D.C. and Veterans Administration Medical Center and Regional
 Office, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, shall:
 
                        1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Instituting any change in the starting and quitting times of its
 employees without affording the American Federation of Government
 Employees, Local 1509, AFL-CIO, the exclusive bargaining representative
 of its employees, the opportunity to negotiate with respect to any
 proposal changes thereto.
 
    (b) Interrogating and bargaining unit employees concerning their
 protected right to represent the American Federation of Government
 Employees, Local 1509, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of its
 employees, during an interview for a bargaining unit position.
 
    (c) 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) Reestablish the previous starting and quitting times for employee
 Raymond Ellis and afford the American Federation of Government
 Employees, Local 1509, AFL-CIO, the opportunity to negotiate with
 respect to any proposal changes thereto.
 
    (b) Post at its facilities in the Veterans Administration Medical
 Center and Regional Office, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, copies of the
 attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the
 Medical Center Director, or a designee, 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 V. 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, Washing, D.C., August 14, 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 institute any change in the starting and quitting times
 of our employees without affording the American Federation of Government
 Employees, Local 1509, AFL-CIO, the exclusive bargaining representative
 of our employees, the opportunity to negotiate with respect to any
 proposal changes thereto.
 
    WE WILL NOT interrogate bargaining unit employees concerning their
 protected right to represent the American Federation of Government
 Employees, Local 1509, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of our
 employees, during an interview for a bargaining unit position.
 
    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 reestablish the previous starting and quitting times for
 employees Raymond Ellis and afford the American Federation of Government
 Employees, Local 1509, AFL-CIO, the opportunity to negotiate with
 respect to any proposed changes thereto.
 
    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, Region V, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is:
  Suite 1359-a, 175 Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and whose
 telephone number is:  (312) 353-6306.
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
   Case Nos. 57-CA-50257 57-CA-50265
 
    VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON D.C. AND 
    VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER AND REGIONAL 
    OFFICE, SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA
         Respondent
 
                                    and
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
    EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1509, AFL-CIO
         Charging Party
 
    William H. Ranney, Esq.
    For the Respondent
 
    Patricia Niemann
    For the Charging Party
 
    Sandra LeBold, Esq.
    For the General Counsel, FLRA
 
    Before:  SAMUAL A. CHAITOVITZ
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This is a proceeding 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., 92 Stat. 1191 (hereinafter referred to as the
 Statute), and the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority (FLRA), 5 C.F.R. Chapter XIV, Section 2410 et seq.
 
    A charge against Veterans Administration, Washington, D.C.
 (hereinafter called VA), and VA Medical Center and Regional Office,
 Sioux Falls, South Dakota, (hereinafter called VA Sioux Falls).  /1/ was
 filed by AMERICAN Federation of Government Employees, Local 1509,
 AFL-CIO, (herein called AFGE Local 1509), in January 21, 1985 in Case
 No. 57-CA-50257 and was amended on March 8, 1985.  Pursuant to the above
 described charge and amended charge on March 12, 1985, the General
 Counsel of the FLRA, by the Acting Regional Director for Region V,
 issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing alleging the Respondents
 violated Sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by unilaterally
 changing the duty hours of an employee.
 
    A charge against the Respondents was filed by AFGE Local 1509 on
 January 31, 1985 in Case No 57-CA-50265 and was amended on February 14,
 1985 and was amended a second time on March 13, 1985.  Pursuant to the
 above described charge, as twice amended, on March 13, 1985 the General
 Counsel of the FLRA, by the Regional Director for Region V, issued a
 Complaint and Notice of Hearing alleging that Respondents violated
 Section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute by interrogating an employee
 concerning his union activities.  By order dated March 13, 1985, Case
 Nos. 57-CA-50257 and 57-CA-50265 were consolidated for the purpose of
 hearing.  Respondents filed timely Answers denying that the Statute had
 been violated.
 
    A hearing was conducted before the undersigned in Sioux Falls, South
 Dakota.  Respondents, Charging Party and General Counsel of the FLRA
 were represented and afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
 and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce and to argue orally.
 Post-hearing briefs were filed and have been fully considered.
 
    Based upon the entire record in this matter, my observation of the
 witnesses and their demeanor, and from my evaluation of the evidence, I
 make the following:
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    At all times material herein American Federation of Government
 Employees (AFGE) has been recognized as the exclusive collective
 bargaining representative for an appropriate unit of VA employees,
 including the employees assigned to VA Sioux Falls that are the subject
 of this case.  AFGE Local 1509 has been AFGE's representative on behalf
 of the employees at VA Sioux Falls.
 
    At all times material VA and AFGE have been parties to a Master
 Collective Bargaining Agreement and VA Sioux Falls and AFGE Local 1509
 have been parties to a local Argreement.
 
    The laundry crew was staffed with 12 employees /2/ and, prior to
 December 23, 1984, all employees of the laundry worked from 7:00 AM to
 3:30 PM Monday through Friday, except for one employee in the linen room
 worked from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM.  These hours were in effect during the
 entire year except during the summer months when all employees commenced
 work at 6:00 AM and worked to 2:30 PM, because of the extreme heat in
 the laundry.
 
    By memorandum to "Patricia Niemann, President, AFGE 1509" dated
 November 15, 1984, VA Sioux Falls, proposed "a new tour of duty (6:00
 AM-2:30 PM) for employees in both the sanitation of the laundry
 sections.  Half of the employees in the sanitation would be affected,
 and Raymond Ellis, Laundry Machine Operator, would be the only laundry
 employee who would start this tour."
 
    On November 26, 1984, a meeting was held by representatives of VA
 Sioux Falls and AFGE Local 1509 to discuss the proposed change.  After
 discussion AFGE Local 1509 agreed to the change in duty hours in the
 sanitation section.  AFGE Local 1509 raised the problem that Ellis and
 his wife car pooled.  VA Sioux Falls pointed out that Ellis' wife was on
 sick leave and might not return, but if she did she could work the same
 hours as Ellis.  AFGE Local 1509 suggested that Ellis' hours of work,
 7:00 AM-3:00 PM, he maintained.  Chief of Personnel Elmer Richards
 stated the hours were non-negotiable.  The change in Ellis' hours was to
 be made so that Ellis could have a washing cycle completed so that the
 employees coming to work at 7:00 AM could immediately start drying,
 ironing, folding, etc.
 
    By memorandum dated November 28, 1984, to VA Sioux Falls, AFGE Local
 1509, stated that Ellis was happy with his existing hours (7:00 AM-3:30
 PM) and that the maintaining of two cars for car pooling was very
 expensive.  The memo also stated "Mr. Elmer Richards stated, In our
 negotiating session on 11/28/84 that "Raymond Ellis, new tour of duty 6
 AM-2:30 PM is non-negotiable." Please reply within (3) days with your
 written answer stating if this new tour of duty 6 AM-2:30 PM is
 non-negotiable."
 
    By memorandum dated December 3, 1984, VA Sioux Falls responded to
 AFGE Local 1509 that the new 6:00 AM-2:30 PM tour of duty for Ellis
 would commence pay period 26 and "management will not negotiate tours of
 duty." On December 23, 1984, the new duty hours for Ellis went into
 effect.
 
    Except for the change in Ellis' hours there has been no change in the
 number of employees in grades and in the types of employees working in
 the laundry section.
 
                           Case No. 57-CA-50265
 
    At all times material herein, Gail Alexander, Assistant Chief, Supply
 Service, and Carl Meyerhoff, Chief of Storage and Distribution section
 and Chief of the Warehouse, were management officials and agents of VA
 Sioux Falls.  Meyerhoff is Alexander's subordinate.
 
    On December 24, 1984, a vacant position in Storage and Distribution
 was announced.  In January 1985, Joe Turner, AFGE Local 1509 Chief
 Steward, applied for the vacant position, was one of five finalists and,
 as part of the promotional process, was interviewed.
 
    On or about January 16, 1985 Turner was interviewed for the vacancy
 by Alexander and Meyerhoff.  Alexander asked Turner if she could
 question him about his union activities.  Turner agreed.  During the
 interview Alexander asked Turner, inter alia, how Turner came to work at
 VA, what he thought the duties were of a warehouseman, etc.  Alexander
 asked Turner if he was chief union steward and how much time he spent on
 union activities.  Turner explained he was entitled to spend four hours
 of official time per week on union activities but that sometimes he was
 required to spend more than four hours per week on union business.
 Turner stated that he was occasionally called by personnel to discuss a
 problem or attend a meeting.  Alexander asked what would happen if
 Turner was needed at the warehouse at the same time he was needed by the
 union;  she asked what he would do if a truck needed to be unloaded and
 he was on official time performing union duties.  Alexander pointed out
 that there were only limited people working in the warehouse.  Turner
 answered it was no problem and that he had always been able to resolve
 such conflicts in his position in housekeeping.  Alexander asked Turner
 if his position was an elected or an appointed one.  Turner answered
 that he was appointed and had a right to keep the position as long as he
 wished.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
                           Case No. 57-CA-50257
 
    It is well settled that starting and quitting times of employees on
 an established shift is a condition of employment and an agency violates
 the Statute by not affording its employees' exclusive representative
 opportunity to negotiate fully on the decision to change the starting
 and quitting times.  U.S. Customs, 9 FLRA 116 (1982) and Internal
 Revenue Service, Los Angeles District, 10 FLRA 653 (1982);  See also
 Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 20 FLRA No.
 107 (1985).
 
    The FLRA has also concluded that the establishment of a new shift or
 tour of duty is negotiable only at the election of the agency because it
 involves "numbers, types and grades of employees or positions assigned
 to any organizational subdivision, work project or tour of duty" within
 the meaning of Section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute.  U.S. Customs, supra,
 and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1461 and Department
 of the Navy, U.S. Naval Observatory, 16 FLRA 995 (1984) and Department
 of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, supra.
 
    In the subject case, therefore, if the change in Ellis' hours
 constituted a change in Ellis' starting and quitting time, VA. Sioux
 Falls was obligated to negotiate with AFGE Local 1509 concerning the
 substance of such a change.  On the other hand, if the change in Ellis
 hours constituted the establishment of a new shift, it would have
 involved rights reserved to VA Sioux Falls by Section 7106(b)(1) of the
 Statute and would have been negotiable only at the election of the
 agency.  These distinctions drawn by the FLRA are very fine ones and
 somewhat arcane. Cf.  National Treasury Employees Union v. FLRA, 732 F2d
 703 (1984).
 
    In light of the distinctions drawn by the FLRA, I conclude that VA
 Sioux Falls changed Ellis' starting and quitting times and did not
 establish a new shift.  In so concluding, I note that Ellis continued to
 work with the existing shift and employees.  He was merely directed to
 come in earlier so that he could have a load of wash ready for the rest
 of his shift when it arrived an hour after Ellis.  Ellis continued his
 duties with the established shift.  /3/ Further, VA Sioux Falls was
 willing to let Ellis' wife, who also worked in the laundry, keep the
 same hours as Ellis.  Since she too worked on the same laundry shift, it
 is clear that VA Sioux Falls merely perceived this as involving a
 changing and adjusting of the starting and quitting times of Ellis, and
 his wife, and not the establishment of a new shift.
 
    In light of the foregoing conclusion VA Sioux Falls was obligated to
 negotiate with AFGE Local 1509 concerning the decision to changing
 Ellis' starting and quitting times.  Its refusal to do so therefore
 violated VA Sioux Falls' obligation as set forth in Section 7116(a)(1)
 and (5) of the Statute.  U.S. Customs, supra and Internal Revenue
 Service, Los Angeles District, Supra.
 
                           Case No. 57-CA-50265
 
    The FLRA has recognized conflicts between employees' entitlements to
 official time for representational functions under Section 7131 of the
 Statute and the entitlement of management under Section 7106 of the
 Statute to manage, consistent with effective and efficient Government.
 When such conflicts arise the FLRA has stated that the parties must
 recognize the need for and seek reasonable accommodations.  Department
 of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 20 FLRA No. 89 (1985)
 and the cases cited therein.
 
    Recognizing this need to seek accommodations it seems only reasonable
 that an agency can ask an employee the questions necessary to reasonably
 determine if a conflict exists and how accommodations can be achieved.
 In the subject case, Alexander's questioning of Turner seemed directed
 at ascertaining whether there would be such a conflict concerning
 demands upon Turner's time in the warehouse position, and how Turner
 would deal with such a conflict.  Such questioning, since it was
 relevant to reaching a permissible goal, and was clearly so stated,
 would not interfere with an employee's protected rights and would not
 violate Section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute.  /4/ Although Alexander's
 asking Turner how he was chosen as Steward seem unrelated to the rest of
 questions, and, although, by itself it might seem suspicious, it is not,
 in light of the total conversation, sufficient to constitute an
 interference with Turner's protected rights.  I conclude, in light of
 the foregoing, that Alexander's questioning of Turner did not violate
 Section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute.
 
    Having found and concluded that in Case No. 57-CA-50257 VA Sioux
 Falls violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute and that in
 Case No. 57-CA-50265 VA Sioux Falls did not violate the Statute, I
 recommend that the FLRA issue the following:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 57-CA-50265 be, and it
 hereby is, dismissed.
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the
 Authority hereby orders that the Veterans Administration, Washington,
 D.C. and Veterans Administration Medical Center and Regional Office,
 Sioux Falls, South Dakota, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Instituting any change in the starting and quitting times
       of employees without affording the American Federation of
       Government Employees, Local 1509, AFL-CIO, the exclusive
       bargaining representative of its employees, the opportunity to
       negotiate with respect to any proposed changes thereto.
 
          (b) 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) Reestablish the previous starting and quitting times for
       employee Raymond Ellis and afford the American Federation of
       Government Employees, Local 1509, AFL-CIO Union the opportunity to
       negotiate with respect to any proposed changes thereto.
 
          (b) Post at its facilities in the Veterans Administration
       Medical Center and Regional Office, Sioux Falls, South Dakota,
       copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the
       Federal Labor Relations Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms,
       they shall be signed by the Medical Center Director 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 insure that such Notices are not altered,
       defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
          (c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Federal Labor Relations
       Authority's Rules and Regulations, notify the Regional Director,
       Region V, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 175 W. Jackson
       Boulevard, Suite A-1359, Chicago, Illinois 60604, in writing,
       within 30 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have
       been taken to comply herewith.
 
                                       SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  January 30, 1986 Washington, D.C.
 
 
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    (1) Collectively referred to herein as Respondents.
 
    (2) Ten of these employees are WG-2 Laundry workers;  One is a WG-3
 Laundry Machine Operator;  and WG-5 Laundry Machine Operator, Mr.
 Raymond Ellis.  The WG-3 Laundry Machine Operator ran the dryers and
 Ellis ran the washers.
 
    (3) In this regard, it is further noted that another member of the
 shift had a starting time one hour after the bulk of the shift arrived.
 
    (4) In so concluding I do not rely upon the fact that Alexander asked
 Turner if she could question him about his union steward work.  Such a
 question to a job applicant could hardly be refused by the applicant.
 Had the questioning been impermissible, asking permission to ask such
 questions, in such circumstances, would hardly have cured the
 fundamental nature of the questioning.
 
 
 
 
                                 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 institute any change in the starting and quitting times
 of employees without affording the American Federation of Government
 Employees, Local 1509, AFL-CIO, the exclusive bargaining representative
 of its employees, the opportunity to negotiate with respect to any
 proposed changes thereto.
 
    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 reestablish the previous starting and qu