23:0278(37)CA - VA, West Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA and AFGE Local 1061 -- 1986 FLRAdec CA
[ v23 p278 ]
23:0278(37)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
23 FLRA No. 37
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
WEST LOS ANGELES MEDICAL CENTER
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1061, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case Nos. 8-CA-40223
8-CA-40224
DECISION AND ORDER
I. Statement of the Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on limited
exceptions to the attached Administrative Law Judge's Decision filed by
the Veterans Administration, West Los Angeles Medical Center
(Respondent). The Judge found that the Respondent violated section
7116ba)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (the Statute) by unilaterally changing the duty hours and dress
code of certain employees without bargaining with the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1061, AFL-CIO (Union). The
Respondent's exceptions were limited to the Judge's status quo ante
remedy with regard to both duty hours and dress code.
II. Facts
The facts, more fully set forth in the Judge's Decision, indicate
that on March 1, 1984, the Respondent's Building Management Service
Chief (Chief) implemented a new dress code for its housekeeping aides
that eliminated a past practice of wearing, among other things, sweaters
and jackets without first notifying the Union and bargaining on the
matter. Also, on April 29, 1984, the Respondent's Chief implemented a
change in the work hours of its housekeeping aides by changing their
duty hours from a 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. shift to a 7:00 a.m. to 3:30
p.m. shift. This change was made despite the Union's request to
bargain.
III. Administrative Law Judge's Decision
The Judge found that the Respondent changed established conditions of
employment by unilaterally implementing a new dress code and
unilaterally changing duty hours of unit employees without providing the
Union with notice and the opportunity to bargain, thereby violating
section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. In making his finding that
the change in duty hours was negotiable, the Judge found no evidence
that such change was determinative of the numbers, types or grades of
employees assigned to the tours of duty, so as to be negotiable solely
at the election of the agency.
The Judge found that a status quo ante remedy was appropriate with
regard to both duty hours and the dress code and ordered the Respondent
to rescind such changes, including the prohibition against wearing
jackets and sweaters. He further ordered a recision of any disciplinary
actions initiated as a result of the dress code, including removal of
all reference to such disciplinary actions from the personnel files of
the employees involved.
IV. Positions of the Parties
The Respondent excepts to the Judge's status quo ante remedy that
would rescind disciplinary actions initiated as a result of the dress
code. It argues that the MSPB decision in Roger Howard v. Veterans
Administration, Dec. No. SF07528411043 (December 11, 1984), rejects the
contention that disciplinary actions must be rescinded because they are
based on policy later determined to be invalid. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that despite a disagreement over
the dress code, the unit employee was not free of his duty to follow his
superiors' orders. /1/ To find otherwise, the Respondent argues, could
unreasonably prevent agencies from carrying out their missions. The
Respondent also notes that three unit employees were disciplined based
in part on the employees' insubordination over their refusal to obey
their supervisors' orders to comply with the dress code, and requests
that the Judge's remedy to rescind disciplinary action initiated as a
result of the dress code be deleted.
Additionally, the Respondent excepts to the Judge's status quo ante
remedy to restore duty hours, which it argues is meaningless due to
substantial turnover in personnel who were affected by the change in
hours.
The General Counsel filed an answering brief to the Respondent's
exceptions in which it agreed with the Judge's findings and recommended
remedy.
V. Analysis
A. The Judge's Findings that the Respondent violated
section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
We have reviewed the findings and conclusions of the Judge with
regard to the violations of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute
alleged in the complaint and adopt his findings, conclusions and
recommendations for the reasons he stated. In so finding, we note that
no exceptions were filed as to the Judge's finding of a violation.
B. The Judge's Recommended Remedy
With regard to Respondent's argument concerning the impact of the
MSPB decision, we previously found with regard to a possible remedial
conflict between actions taken by the MSPB and the Authority that "when
an issue is properly raised as an unfair labor practice under section
7116, nothing therein would prevent the Authority from remedying any
violation found." Department of the Air Force, Air Force Systems
Command, Electronic Systems Division, 14 FLRA 390 (1984).
While we are not bound by the MSPB decision, we conclude that in the
circumstances of this case it is relevant to the determination of an
appropriate remedy. The discipline at issue was based, in part, on
insubordination. While the Respondent's unilateral implementation of
the dress code was unlawful, a refusal by an agency to negotiate in good
faith does not excuse an employee's insubordination in these
circumstances. Procedures exist to remedy breaches of bargaining
obligations, and the Union pursued them in this case. Self help -- that
is, disobeying supervisory instructions -- cannot be condoned if the
purposes and policies of the Statute are to be met. Accordingly, the
order is modified to rescind all disciplinary actions initiated as a
result of the dress code, except for those actions involving
insubordination.
As to that part of the remedy pertaining to the change in duty hours,
we have previously found that the decision to change starting and
quitting times constitutes a negotiable condition of employment. /2/
Therefore, agency management was obligated to bargain concerning the
decision to change the starting and quitting times of the duty hours in
question prior to making any change. The Authority has previously
determined in similar cases where management made a unilateral change
regarding a negotiable term and condition of employment, such as duty
hours, that effectuation of the purposes and policies of the Statute
requires the imposition of status quo ante remedies, absent special
circumstances, in order not to render meaningless the mutual obligation
under the Statute to negotiate concerning changes in conditions of
employment. /3/
The Respondent excepts to this part of the remedy on the basis that
only nine of the affected employees are still with the portion of the
agency affected by the change, and that, therefore, a status quo ante
remedy would disrupt agency operations. The Respondent does not argue,
however, that the number of positions in the unit changed, but only that
there was a turnover in personnel. In these circumstances we find no
merit to the Respondent's argument that a status quo ante remedy is
unwarranted.
VI. 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 and the entire record, and adopts the Judge's
findings, conclusions and recommended Order as modified above.
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 Veterans Administration, West Los Angeles Medical Center, Los
Angeles, California shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unilaterally instituting changes in duty hours and dress code in
the Building Management Service without first notifying the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1061, AFL-CIO, the exclusive
representative of its employees, and providing it with an opportunity to
negotiate concerning the above changes.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute:
(a) Rescind the change in duty hours implemented on April 29, 1984,
and restore the previously existing duty hours of 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
(b) Rescind the dress code, including the prohibition against wearing
jackets and sweaters, implemented on March 1, 1984, and rescind all
disciplinary actions initiated as a result of the dress code, except
those actions involving insubordination, and remove all reference to
such disciplinary actions, except those involving insubordination, from
the personnel files of those employees involved.
(c) Notify and, upon request, negotiate with the American Federation
of Government Employees, Local 1061, AFL-CIO, or any other exclusive
representative of the employees in the Building Management Service,
concerning any further change in duty hours and dress code.
(d) Post at its facility at the Veterans Administration, West Los
Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California 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
Director of the Veterans Administration, West Los Angeles Medical
Center, 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.
(e) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region
VIII, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order, as to what
steps have been taken to comply.
Issued, Washington, D.C., August 19, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III
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 unilaterally institute changes in duty hours and dress
code in the Building Management Service without first notifying the
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1061, AFL-CIO, the
exclusive representative of our employees, and providing it with an
opportunity to negotiate concerning the above changes.
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 rescind the change in duty hours implemented on April 29,
1984, and restore the previously existing duty hours of 6 a.m. to 2:30
p.m.
WE WILL rescind the dress code, including the prohibition against the
wearing of sweaters and jackets, which was implemented on March 1, 1984,
and rescind all disciplinary actions initiated as a result of the dress
code, except those actions involving insubordination, and remove all
reference to such disciplinary actions, except those involving
insubordination, from the personnel files of those employees involved.
WE WILL notify and, upon request, negotiate with the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1061, AFL-CIO, or any other
exclusive representative of the employees in the Building Management
Service, concerning any further change in duty hours and dress code.
(Activity)
Dated: . . .
By: (Signature) (Title)
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional
Director, Region VIII, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address
is: 350 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 and
whose telephone number is: (818) 894-3805.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Case Nos. 8-CA-40223
8-CA-40224
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
WEST LOS ANGELES MEDICAL CENTER
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1061, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Marco Gomez, Esq.
and
Jean Parson
For the Respondent
Cecile O'Conner, Esq.
For the General Counsel
Before: ELI NASH, JR.
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
The Consolidated Complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (herein called the
Statute) by unilaterally changing the duty hours of certain day shift
personnel and by unilaterally implementing changes in the employees'
dress code, including a prohibition against wearing sweaters. The
Consolidated Complaint also alleges that the Veterans Administration
West Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California (herein called
Respondent) unilaterally instituted the above changes without first
notifying the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1061,
AFL-CIO (herein called the Union) and providing it an opportunity to
bargain over the changes or their impact and implementation.
Respondent filed an Answer denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
All parties were represented at the hearing. Each was afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to adduce evidence, and to examine as well as
cross-examine witnesses. Thereafter, briefs were filed with the
undersigned which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record herein, from my observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, and from all of the testimony and evidence adduced
at the hearing, I make the following findings and conclusions:
Findings of Fact
A. Background
Respondent's West Los Angeles facility, is made up of several
divisions including the General Medical Hospital, also known as
Wadsworth, and the Brentwood facility, also known as North of Wilshire,
where neuropsychiatric patients are housed.
In operating the facility, forty to fifty different services are
utilized, and each service has a chief. The service involved in this
matter is Building Management Service (herein called the Service). It
employs, among others, male and female housekeeping aides who clean,
service, and maintain the hospital. The Service employees were, at all
times material herein, represented by the Union.
At all times material in this matter, John F. Fitzgerald was the
chief of the Service. In that position he was management's point of
contact for negotiations in that particular service. Fitzgerald's
newness in the position is shown by his having joined Respondent, in
that capacity, only in December 1983. However, Fitzgerald served in a
similar position at the Long Beach V.A. Hospital and was experienced in
dealing with unions. Despite assertions to the contrary, the Union
traditionally bargained directly with the various service chiefs
concerning changes in working conditions and the personnel staff's
attendance at those negotiations is the sole responsibility of
management. Rhea Butler, Union President, Edward Farrell, Union
Treasurer and Nathaniel Scott, the Union Chief Steward and the only one
of these three actively employed by Respondent participated in meetings
or negotiations in this matter. Butler without dispute had authority to
negotiate and enter agreements on the Union's behalf.
B. Uniforms
Respondent supplies its female housekeeping aides with uniforms which
are short sleeved, linen-type, aqua dress uniforms or aqua tops and
trousers. Similarly, its male housekeeping aides are supplied with and
wear lightweight uniforms which consist of light grey shirts and dark
grey trousers. Inasmuch as Respondent issues only one type of
lightweight fabric uniform there is no winter or wool uniform. It
undisputed that for anywhere from 7 to 14 years the housekeeping aides,
both male and female, have worn personal attire together with the
regular uniform. Such apparel was particularly worn during the Southern
California winter months, which loosely termed are November to February.
This extra apparel consisted of many different styles and hues of
sweaters and jackets, either over or under their uniforms. Some
individuals even wore jackets on a year round basis. In addition,
employees wore hats such as baseball-type caps with bills and knit caps.
With regard to how the uniforms were worn, male employees uniform
shirts was worn either inside or outside of the dark grey trousers.
Besides caps the aides wore hairnets, headbands and sweatbands while
they worked.
Testimony reveals that the caps and other headgear protected the
employees' skin, hair, and eyes from workplace dust, debris, powerful
cleaning solutions such as strippers, and the elements in general.
Likewise sweaters and jackets protected the employees from the chill of
early morning and from cold winter days and an alleged inefficient
hospital heating system. The housekeeping aides duties often require
that they travel between buildings in order to perform their work and
consequently they are exposed to weather conditions. In such
circumstances, it appears sensible for aides to wear some outer garments
in order to protect themselves from outside weather conditions.
Respondent, however, did not issue jackets, sweaters, hats or any other
outer garments for weather protection. Instead, the aides supplied
their own outer garments. It is uncontroverted that this practice of
supplying their own sweaters, caps and other garments to keep warm was
regular, open, notorious and condoned by Respondent over a lengthy
period of years. Prior to March 1, 1984, there is no evidence that
employees were subject to discipline because they wore items of their
own apparel such as sweaters or caps. Furthermore, the record is void
of any evidence which would establish that any of this personal clothing
impeded any individual's job performance. Finally, the record does not
suggest that the running of the Service was interfered with or disrupted
because the employees wore jackets, sweaters, hats, headbands,
sweatbands, or the square tail of a males shirt was worn outside of his
trousers. It suggests only that the cosmetics of Service personnel did
not meet the approval of its new Chief, Mr. Fitzgerald.
C. Change of Shift
While the majority of the employees work a regularly scheduled 7 a.m.
to 3:30 p.m. shift, the househkeeping aides at the Brentwood psychiatric
patient facility worked a 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. schedule. The Brentwood
hours had been in effect for a number of years prior to April 29, 1984.
A change in the Brentwood tour of duty had been previously proposed by a
prior Service Chief, Sara Hammond. Allegedly because it is easier for
the housekeeping aides to clean when the full staff is not on board at 6
a.m. the Union was able to throttle that proposal and the tour remained
at 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. when Fitzgerald arrived on the scene.
D. Arrival of New Building Management Chief
As already noted, in December 1983 Mr. Fitzgerald assumed the Chiefs'
position and decided to initiate some changes in his service by imposing
a dress code and instituting task lists. Again it is noted that while
Fitzgerald was new in this position, he was an experienced Service Chief
who had previously dealt with unions, including some of the Union
officials involved herein. In view of this, I find much of Fitzgerald's
testimony hard to believe. Consistent with his decision he distributed
lists, which were minute increment breakdowns of tasks such as: mop
hallway "A" - 8:10 to 8:15; empty trash in hallway "B" - 8:20 to 8:25,
without prior notice to or bargaining with the Union. As the record
disclosed, the lists generated controversy and complaints because of
employees fears of negative evaluations and disciplinary actions based
on what might be considered arbitrary time standards if the lists were
enforced.
Employee Patty Burr sent a copy of the task list to the Union.
Butler called Fitzgerald and raised the point that disciplinary actions
and poor evaluations might occur as a result of the lists. Fitzgerald
allegedly insisted that the lists were only guidelines. Fitzgerald's
assurance did not alleviate the Union's concerns and, as a result, Union
representatives Butler, Scott and Farrell, met with him in his office on
January 10, 1984. Again, Butler and Farrell asserted that the task
lists were negotiable because of their potential disciplinary use.
Fitzgerald insisted that he would not negotiate because the lists were
only guidelines.
During the meeting, the three Union officials also raised an issue
concerning Fitzgerald's denying Scott leave to attend physical therapy
sessions which were a course of treatment necessary to correct an
on-the-job injury. Subsequent to Fitzgerald's arrival, the chief
steward received, in swift succession, an admonishment, a reprimand and
a proposed suspension because of his requests for leave without pay, on
Friday, in order to see his doctor. Fitzgerald claimed that the
physician's statement, regarding Scott's injury, was not sufficient.
According to Butler and Farrell, Fitzgerald took the initiative in
stating that he also wanted to change the tour of duty for the
twenty-nine Brentwood facility housekeepers from 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and
conform it to the 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. dayshift. The Union informed him
that it had previously negotiated the Brentwood tour with other Service
Chiefs and the shift had remained at 6 a.m. 8to 2:30 p.m. Fitzgerald,
therefore raised another topic by discussing the possi0ility of a dress
code which would ban hats. He stated it was his idea and privilege.
The Union argued that if the dress code was to become a fact, it wanted
to negotiate.
Fitzgerald claims that the parties did not meet in January 1984 and
discuss the dress code, the tour of duty or the task list. However, he
admits that he distributed the task lists in December 1983, without
negotiating the impact and that the lists caused controversy and
employee complaints. Since the Union filed an unfair labor practice
charge regarding those lists and Fitzgerald was Chief, his testimony
that the Union never met with him on the subject, or in January 1984
creates consistencies which must be resolved against him.
Fitzgerald also asserts that the dress code was never discussed.
However, Fitzgerald testified that shortly after his arrival he decided
to implement a dress code. In fact, an original dress code memorandum
was distributed to the Union which was dated December 27, 1983. In
addition, Butler and Farrell testified that even prior to January 10,
1984, there were rumors that Fitzgerald was going to implement a dress
code. Clearly the dress code had by early January 1984 became an issue
which it would not be unreasonable to assume that the Union would raise
at its first opportunity. Based on the record inconsistencies, I do not
credit Fitzgerald.
Shortly thereafter, on February 1, 1984, Butler received a January
30, 1984, route slip from Nina Jean Parson, Labor-Management Relations
Specialist. The memorandum stated, "(a)ttached is the proposed
memorandum to all Building Management Service Employees regarding
adherence to the prescribed uniform. This is being forwarded in
accordance with Article VI of the negotiated agreement." The memorandum
was a dress code for Service employees which prohibited the wearing of
headbands, hats, nets, and sweatbands, unless required. It recommended
replacing tennis or other soft sole shoes with oxford shoes. The dress
code also mandated that male employees wear their shirts buttoned and
tucked into their trousers. The memorandum was dated December 27, 1983,
and signed by Fitzgerald. There had never been a similar dress code in
the Service. Neither the route slip nor the memorandum set forth an
implementation date for the code. Similarly, the dress code memorandum
made no mention of any prohibition on either jackets or sweaters.
On February 9, 1984, the Union received a route slip dated February
7, 1984, from Labor Relations Specialist Parson which indicated that the
attached proposal to change an existing tour of duty was forwarded in
accordance with Article VI of the local negotiated agreement. Parson
admitted however, that the notices which the Personnel office forwards
to the Union do not specify Article 6 of either the Master Agreement or
the Local Agreement. The notice does not indicate there is a 15 day
response time. Further, there is no indication as to whom the Union
should contact. Butler testified that the Master Agreement supercedes
the Local Agreement. /4/ The route slip covers two attachments. The
first was a January 26, 1984 memorandum, signed by Fitzgerald, which
stated that Service employees on the 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. shift would be
changed to the 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. shift effective February 10, 1984.
The second was a roster of some of the twenty-five affected employees
including Nathaniel Scott and Roger Howard who are assigned to the
Brentwood facility.
Upon receipt of the tour of duty change on February 9, 1984, Butler
stated that she immediately contacted Fitzgerald and requested to
negotiate. Both mutually agreed to a meeting on February 28, 1984, at
11 a.m. According to Butler, who I credit, she informed Fitzgerald that
the appointment was to negotiate three items; the tour, the task list
and the dress code. Fitzgerald testified that Butler called and asked
for an appointment in order to have an "informal discussion". I credit
Butler. The February 28, 1984, meeting was moved to an earlier date,
February 23, 1984, and Butler, Farrell and Scott met with Fitzgerald.
At the meeting, Butler requested negotiations concerning the dress code,
but Fitzgerald replied that negotiation was not indicated. Fitzgerald
did not inform the Union either that the dress code was to be
implemented March 1, 1984, or that sweaters and jackets were prohibited.
The Union team continued proposing that the headgear be retained
because it served health and safety purposes. According to them, the
caps protected the hair, skin, and eyes from dust, debris and cleaning
solvents. Fitzgerald insisted that the employees would not be allowed
to wear hats, "it was his thing," because he wanted people to be
uniform. Butler replied "that the Union would buy union hats" for all
the building maintenance employees who wear hats while performing their
duties. Fitzgerald snickered and laughed. Butler also pointed out that
the code was not in accordance with V.A. central office rules and
regulations. Clearly no agreement was reached, Fitzgerald who is not
credited denies that the dress code was mentioned during this meeting.
During this same meeting the proposed tour of duty change was also
discussed. Butler, requested to negotiate the subject again.
Additionally, the Union requested time to poll the employees on the
issue. Fitzgerald agreed to the poll but indicated that the results
would not necessarily change his mind. Fitzgerald recalls that Farrell
asked to poll employees to see how they felt about the change. The
meeting ended with the parties agreeing to meet again in March 1984.
Subsequent to the meeting, Scott, who is a Service employee and affected
by the tour of duty change, polled the other Service employees.
On March 12, 1984, the parties met again. This time the Union
repeated its proposal that the tour of duty remain the same. According
to Fitzgerald, he was not meeting with the Union to bargain and, indeed,
he did not bargain when the Union asked him to do so. At the hearing,
Fitzgerald denied that he even has authority to bargain. His colleague
Parson however, testified that Fitzgerald does have such authority.
Fitzgerald basically asserted that labor relations encompassed his
ability, to sit down and discuss changes in working conditions with the
Union knowing all the while that he does not have authority to bargain.
Such a result was not, in my view intended by the Statute.
When the meeting began Scott attempted to tell Fitzgerald the results
of the poll but Fitzgerald waved him off and turned to Farrell. Scott,
however, persisted in explaining that the employees wanted the 6:30 a.m.
to 2:30 p.m. tour to remain the same because it was a safe and efficient
tour. Fitzgerald replied that he didn't want to talk to him. According
to Fitzgerald, he asked that Farrell release the results of the poll.
He claims that Farrell refused to tell him the results. I do not credit
Fitzgerald. Farrell heatedly interjected a demand that Fitzgerald
negotiate concerning the tour. Fitzgerald replied that he would not
negotiate. Frustrated, Farrell asked Fitzgerald if he could conceive of
a situation where he would have to negotiate with the Union. Fitzgerald
allegedly replied, "that's another issue." Farrell rose out of his seat;
Butler told Farrell to wait a minute because there were two more issues
to discuss, the task lists and dress code. Fitzgerald responded that he
had already surveyed the nurses regarding the tour. He indicated at the
hearing, that he wanted to bring some one from personnel or labor
relations in to negotiate. None of the Union witnesses mentioned any
reference to bringing in others to negotiate. Butler, broke in at this
point and uttered some profanity either shit, hell or damn, regarding
Fitzgerald consulting with the nurses and not the Union. At that point,
Butler who is black, perceived that she was being confronted with
bigotry and racism. Fitzgerald stated that he didn't have to negotiate
and he wouldn't negotiate until personnel told him to. Fitzgerald then
stated, he didn't want profanity in his office and he told the Union
team to leave. Fitzgerald's view was that nothing was being
accomplished. Butler, Farrell and Scott stormed out and either during
their exit through the doorway, or poised just outside in the corridor,
Butler, a wisp of a woman stated, "Fuck you."
Farrell, Scott and Butler immediately proceeded to the office Chief
of Personnel Jesse Raymond. It is uncontroverted that once there Butler
told Raymond that Fitzgerald was impossible and that he was adamantly
insisting that he did not have to negotiate concerning the tour, the
dress code or the task lists. Butler's statements reveal no clue that
Fitzgerald wanted to bring in personnel or labor relations help in the
matter. Butler by way of apology explained that she had cursed out
Fitzgerald. Butler and Farrell then requested Raymond to give them
someone who knew how to negotiate, so they could resolve the issues for
the good of the employees. Raymond replied that he would take care of
that. Interestingly, Fitzgerald's inability or lack of authorization to
negotiate for the service was never raised.
Several days passed without Raymond, Fitzgerald, or any management
representative contacting the Union regarding bargaining. By that time
Butler and Farrell decided no one was going to do anything about
"enlightening" Fitzgerald regarding the negotiability of changes in work
hours so the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge on March 16,
1984. The charge alleged that Fitzgerald had refused to bargain in good
faith concerning the tour of duty on March 12, 1984. /5/ Fitzgerald
knew that an unfair labor practice charge had been filed because of the
March 12, 1984 meeting, however, no action was taken. Instead, on April
16, 1984, the Union received a second memorandum from Fitzgerald
regarding the identical shift change which they had already requested to
negotiate on and proposed status quo. Fitzgerald's second memorandum
referenced his January 23, 1984 correspondence wherein he had determined
to transfer the remaining day shift personnel, North of Wilshire, to the
7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. shift.
In the subsequent communication Fitzgerald declared that he had met
with Butler, Farrell and Scott on two occasions regarding the proposed
change but, to date, the Union had failed to offer any counterproposals
or meaningful discussions. Fitzgerald's missive concluded that he was
proceeding with the shift change effective April 29, 1984. All this
despite clear evidence that at the February 23, 1984, meeting the Union
proposed that the tour of duty remain at 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Further,
Fitzgerald on cross-examination stated that although Farrell declared
that the Union wanted the 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. tour, in Fitzgerald's
opinion, no proposals were offered at the second meeting. His opinion
was that Farrell's proposal was not a proposal at all and could not,
therefore, be the subject of negotiations. I find that the Union
clearly requested negotiations concerning the change in tour of duty at
that meeting.
Around April 19, 1984, 3 days after receiving Fitzgerald's second
memorandum the Union filed the instant unfair labor practice charge
alleging that Fitzgerald had again refused to negotiate concerning the
shift change. Respondent's Personnel department also took no action.
Thereafter, Fitzgerald implemented a negotiable change in work hours on
April 29, 1984. On that date the employees were changed by 1 hour, from
a 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. tour to 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. shift.
In the meantime, but prior to completing bargaining on the issue,
Fitzgerald implemented the proposed dress code. A few days before March
1, 1984, Fitzgerald spoke at unit meetings of Service housekeeping aides
and explained the new dress code. According to him, the hats would have
to come off and the code would be enforced beginning March 1, 1984.
Supervisors distributed the dress code to employees and enforced it
through disciplinary action beginning March 1, 1984. Supervisor Pearl
Harrington "wrote up" housekeeping aide Roger Howard because he came to
work with his hat on. Prior to March 1, 1984, in 17 years, Howard had
never been disciplined for wearing a hat on the job. Other employees
were also disciplined due to the unilateral enforcement of the dress
code. It appears that terminations also were part of the discipline.
Following her unit meeting, housekeeping aide Theresa Phillips spoke
to her supervisor Ms. Metcalf and the Assistant Chief Alva Bonds.
Phillips was wearing a long sleeved sweater under her short sleeved aqua
tunic. Bond noticed the sweater and told Phillips that she could be
disciplined. Phillips pointed out that first, sweaters were not
included in the dress code and second, it was freezing outside. There
had been no mention of any prohibition against sweaters during the unit
meeting and the published dress code itself is silent in that respect.
Phillips went home and cut the sleeves off of her sweaters. A few days
later, Metcalf told her that she could still be written up.
Discussion and Conclusions
Respondent contends that the issue here is solely one of notice and
chicanery on the part of the Union. It further asserts that the case
involves only a refusal of the exclusive representative to deal with
Respondent's designated representative and its attempts to make
decisions as to whom it will deal with in management. Despite inference
and rumor that Mr. Fitzgerald was intent on making certain changes
earlier in his term as chief of the Service and despite the fact that
Fitzgerald met with the Union well prior to any official notification of
changes Respondent seeks to create an illusion that the Union was not
dealing with the proper management representative and for that reason
assumes that it has in this matter "attempted to deal with the Union in
good faith, but due to the relative lack of labor expertise of the
management 'representative' the Union had to deal with, and a consequent
failure to at the time understand the reality of Labor-management
relations with this Union, that good faith has not as of yet brought
about the sought after results."
The General Counsel does not see this as such a simple matter, but
maintains that a past practice of wearing certain clothing in addition
to the issued uniform existed; that notification of implementation of
the dress code was defective; that there was no notification that
certain items such as sweaters and jackets were prohibited by the dress
code; that Respondent failed to complete substantive bargaining of the
dress code; that there was no waiver of bargaining on the dress code;
that Fitzgerald the Chief of Service indeed had authority to bargain
over the dress code; and, as well that the change in work hours without
completing bargaining constituted a violation of the Statute.
It has long been established that parties may create conditions of
employment by practice and such practices may not be altered without
bargaining thereon. Internal Revenue Service and Brookhaven Service
Center, 6 FLRA 713 (1981). Respondent supplies female housekeeping
aides with an aqua dress or an aqua tunic top and pants. Similarly, the
male housekeeping aides receive charcoal grey trousers and light grey
shirts. It is undisputed that for over 7 years housekeeping aides have
worn their own personal outerwear and apparel in addition to the issued
uniforms while on duty. Also undisputed is the fact that employees wore
their own sweaters, jackets, hats, caps, headbands, and sweatbands with
the knowledge of and acquiescence of Service management. In addition to
outer apparel the male employees wore their shirts either tucked into
their trousers or on the outside of their pants. These practices were
consistently exercised for an extended period of time, unchallenged, and
acquiesced in by Respondent thereby ripening into conditions of
employment. Accordingly, if Respondent desires to change this
established condition of employment, it must give proper notification
and bargain. Failure to do so violates the Statute.
The law is clear that an activity must specifically notify the
exclusive representative of any intended change and a passing reference
to a general subject is "neither specific nor clear enough to provide
adequate notice" of changes in conditions of employment as are
anticipated by the Statute. Department of the Army, Harry Diamond
Laboratories, Adelphi, Maryland, 9 FLRA 575 (1982); U.S. Department of
Air Force, Air Force Systems Command, Electronic Systems Division,
Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts, 5 FLRA 637 (1981). In January 1984, rumors
were circulating in the bargaining unit that Fitzgerald was going to
impose a dress code. On January 10, the Union met with Fitzgerald to
discuss the task lists that he had already unilaterally implemented
where he mentioned a possible dress code. At that time the Union
requested to bargain even though it did not have the specifics of the
plan. Approximately one month later, Butler received formal notice of
the dress code, but no implementation date was indicated. Later, on
February 9, 1984, Butler requested that Fitzgerald negotiate concerning
the code, the tour of duty, and the task lists. In my view, the Union
did all it could to perfect its right to bargain about the dress code.
Although, it did not receive proper notice, pursuant to suggestions it
contacted the responsible official in an attempt to start negotiations
over the matter.
The record is clear that Respondent never, at any time from December
1983 to March 1, 1984, notified the Union of the March 1, 1984,
implementation date. Failure to adequately notify the Union and
surprise implementation of a condition of employment, in my view,
constitutes a failure to bargain in good faith which is violative of the
Statute.
While the Authority has not decided whether or not dress codes are
substantively negotiable, in American Federation of Government
Employees, Meat Graders' Council, AFL-CIO, and Department of
Agriculture, Food Safety and Quality Service, Meat Grading Branch,
Washington, D.C., 8 FLRA 118 (1982), it found a union proposal that the
employer furnish protective clothing such as a cooler coat and gloves to
employees was negotiable. /6/ The Authority there noted that the
statutory and regulatory provisions placed the decision as to whether to
provide protective clothing within the discretion of the agency. That a
discretionary past practice of dress existed in this case is
unquestioned. In this regard, changes in the practice should be
negotiated to the full extent of that discretion. With or without a
dress code, the housekeeping aides still perform their assigned cleaning
and maintenance duties with their respective tools.
Around February 23, 1984, the Union made oral proposals regarding the
wearing of caps or hats. Whether or not such proposals were negotiable,
Respondent was obligated to give the Union an opportunity to revise its
proposals, pursuant to any non-negotiability argument raised by
Respondent, and continue to bargain on those proposals which were
negotiable as well as the remaining issues surrounding the dress code.
Adjutant General's Office, Puerto Rico Air National Guard, 3 FLRA 343
(1980). Respondent did not provide such an opportunity because it
failed to state an implementation date during the course of bargaining.
In the instant case the Union acted with reasonable dispatch and should
not be penalized because new proposals were not submitted between
February 23 and March 1, 1984. Department of the Treasury, Internal
Revenue Service, Midwest Regional Office, Chicago, Illinois, 16 FLRA 141
(1984). Furthermore, no overriding exigency which required a dress code
was shown on this record.
The record does disclose that Respondent eliminated the past practice
of wearing sweaters and jackets without first notifying the Union or
bargaining on the matter. The dress code did not contain a prohibition
against either item and the issues were not raised prior to
implementation. On March 1, 1984, Respondent imposed the prohibitions,
but the Union did not discover that the change was in effect until
several days later when employees began complaining to the Union. Such
a change without first properly notifying an exclusive representative
and affording it an opportunity to bargain is violative of the Statute.
See Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, 6 FLRA 74 (1981).
The corroborated testimony reveals that on January 10, February 9,
February 23, and March 12, 1984, the Union requested to negotiate
concerning the dress code. Respondent implemented the dress code on
March 1, 1984 or during the course of what should have been continued
bargaining. The record shows that at the February 23 meeting, the
subject of hats was discussed extensively. At that time the Union
proposed that the hat practice continue or alternatively, it would buy
hats. However, the parties failed to agree and did not even reach the
other dress code issues such as sweatbands or whether or not shirts
could be worn outside one's trousers.
Sweaters and jackets while part of the new dress code were not
discussed during any of these meetings. Notwithstanding no discussion
Fitzgerald walked out of the February 23 meeting and implemented the
dress code several days later on March 1, 1984.
There is no direct relation between the extra apparel such as
sweaters, jackets and caps which the employees concerned herein wore and
the duties they performed. The principal reasons the outer garments
were worn appears to be to protect employees from cold weather, which
indeed does occur in Southern California, and against some health
hazards found on the job. The evidence does not reveal any hazard
presented by wearing these outer garments and hats. Furthermore, there
is no showing that the outer garments and hats worn by these employees
interfered with their work performance in any way.
Cases such as, Division of Military and Naval Affairs, State of New
York, Albany, New York, 15 FLRA No. 65 (1984), concerning uniforms are
distinguishable on their facts. The uniforms of the civilian
technicians in such cases constitute a method and means of performing
work because the employees belong to a military organization which is
theoretically subject to mobilization at any time. Because of the
necessity to be prepared to act immediately the Guard uniforms are
clearly a military symbol of that preparedness. They are therefore not
aids to the comfort, health or safety of the guard employees. The issue
here is not whether or not a uniform will be worn, but is whether an
agency which has allowed certain items of dress to become permissible
apparel can change that practice without negotiations with the exclusive
representative. Even assuming, arguendo, that dress constitutes a
"method and means" of performing cleaning work as Respondent earlier
suggested, it still has failed to meet its obligation to bargain
concerning the impact of the change.
Respondent through Fitzgerald also makes a meretricious argument that
Fitzgerald had no authority to negotiate "as I understand negotiations."
First, Respondent's Labor-Relations Specialist testified that Fitzgerald
did have authority to negotiate. Second, the record shows negotiations
with past Services chiefs on a variety of topics. Third, there were
three separate meetings held between Fitzgerald and high level union
personnel without a mention of lack of authority or ability to
negotiate. Following this the Union complained to the chief of
personnel and still there was no mention of any lack of authority to
negotiate. Thus, all of Respondent's actions appear inconsistent with
its contention that Fitzgerald could not negotiate or was the wrong
individual for the Union to seek out for attempted negotiations. I
find, therefore, that Fitzgerald had authority to negotiate the items
concerned.
Moving to Respondent's assertion that it was free to implement the
dress code because the Union never requested to bargain. And, if it did
request to bargain, the request was untimely because of the 15 day
response parameter contained in the Local Agreement. In discrediting
Fitzgerald, it is found that the Union requested and met with a
management official capable of negotiations covering both the dress code
and the tour of duty, in a timely fashion. Butler made one request in
January, two in February and a final one in March 1984. Respondent
denies that the Union requested to negotiate concerning the dress code,
thus, an argument that Butler's request was too late is impossible to
prove. /7/ Respondent must, however, acknowledge that it never told
Butler she was untimely, since in its view the request never occurred.
Similarly, timeliness according to the provisions of Article 6 of the
Local Agreement was not raised prior to the hearing. Further, the Union
did not receive any notification that the Respondent was enforcing the
15 day provision which the Local Agreement contains. Butler maintained
at the hearing, that in her view the Master Agreement superceded the
Local's provision with regard to notice and bargaining. The Master
Agreement's language at Article 5, Section 1, and Article 6, Section 6,
supports that argument. Obviously, Respondent disagrees with Butler's
construction of the Agreement and maintained at the hearing that the
Local Agreement was in effect. The parties are essentially differing
over the interpretation of Article 5, Section 1, in the Master Agreement
and its effect on Article 6, Section 2, of the Local Agreement. The
status of that provision of the Local Agreement is arguable and unclear
and therefore clearly not suitable for resolution in the unfair labor
practice forum.
With regard to the change in starting and quitting times, the cases
are legion which state that "the decision to change starting and
quitting times is subject to the duty to bargain unless it can be
demonstrated that such a change directly or integrally relates to the
numbers, types or grades of employees or positions assigned to a work
project or tour of duty so as to be determinative of such numbers, types
or grades and therefore negotiable solely at the election of the agency
under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute." Department of the Treasury,
U.S. Customs Service and U.S. Customs Service, Region IX, Chicago,
Illinois, 17 FLRA 221 (1985); Department of the Air Force, Lowry Air
Force Base, Colorado, 16 FLRA 1104 (1985); National Federation of
Federal Employees, Local 1461 and Department of the Navy, U.S. Naval
Observatory, 16 FLRA 995 (1985); Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 16 FLRA
674 (1985); Veterans Administration, Hines Hospital, Hines, Illinois,
16 FLRA 3 (1984). See also, Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., 16 FLRA 479 (1984); U.S.
Customs Service, Region V, New Orleans, Louisiana, 9 FLRA 116 (1982);
and National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 66 and Internal Revenue
Service, Kansas City Service Center, 1 FLRA 926 (1979); Department of
the Treasury, United States Customs Service, Region I, Boston,
Massachusetts, and St. Albans, Vermont District Office, 10 FLRA 566
(1982).
There is no evidence to suggest that the instant change directly or
integrally related to the numbers, types or grades of employees or
positions assigned to a work project or tour of duty so as to be
determinative of such numbers, types or grades and negotiable solely at
the election of the agency. Establishing such elements would of course
be incumbent on Respondent who admittedly was prepared only to bargain
the impact of the change in starting and quitting times herein. Since
the change which occurred herein only changed an existing tour of duty,
and there is no evidence to indicate that the change was in any manner
determinative of the numbers, types or grades of employees assigned to
the tours of duty, it is found that Respondent was obligated to bargain.
Its failure to do so constitutes a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and
(5) of the Statute.
Based on all of the foregoing, it is concluded that Respondent
violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by changing the dress
code of its housekeeping aides and by changing the duty hours of certain
of its housekeeping aides without good faith negotiations with the
exclusive representative of those employees.
Considering the criteria set out in Federal Correctional Institution,
8 FLRA 604 (1982) and noting that Respondent was not exercising any
reserved rights under Section 7106 of the Statute, I agree with the
General Counsel that a status quo ante remedy is appropriate in this
matter in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Authority adopt the following:
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations of section 7118 of the Statute, it is
hereby ordered that the Veterans Administration, West Los Angeles
Medical Center, Los Angeles, California shall:
1. Cease and desisit from:
(a) Unilaterally instituting changes in duty hours and dress
code in the Building Management Service without first notifying
the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1061,
AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of the employees involved
herein, and providing it with an opportunity to negotiate
concerning the above changes and the impact and implementation of
those changes.
(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) Rescind the change in duty hours implemented on April 29,
1984 and restore the previously existing duty hours of 6:00 a.m.
to 2:30 p.m.
(b) Rescind the dress code, including the prohibition against
wearing jackets and sweaters implemented on March 1, 1984 and
rescind any disciplinary actions initiated as a result of the
dress code and remove all reference to such disciplinary actions
from the personnel files of those employees involved.
(c) Notify and upon request, negotiate with the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1061, AFL-CIO, or any
other exclusive representative of the employees in Building
Management Service concerning the change in duty hours and dress
code and the impact and implementation of such changes.
(d) Post at its Veterans Administration, West Los Angeles
Medical Center, Los Angeles, California the attached Notice marked
"Appendix A" on forms to be furnished by the Authority. Upon
receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the Director, and
shall be posted and maintained by him for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards
and other places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. The District Director shall take reasonable steps to
insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Pursuant to Section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VIII, 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/ Eli Nash, Jr.
ELI NASH, JR.
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: December 4, 1985
Washington, D.C.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(1) Howard v. Veterans Administration, No. 85-2128 (Fed. Cir. Nov.
19, 1985), slip op. at 2.
(2) United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 19 FLRA No. 89 (1985); Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, 16 FLRA
674 (1984) and Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Washington, D.C., and its Chicago Airways Facilities
Sector, 16 FLRA 479 (1984).
(3) See, for example, Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach,
California, 17 FLRA 511 (1985). More generally, the Authority has wide
discretion to fashion remedies under section 7105(g)(3) and section
7118(a)(7) of the Statute, including status quo ante remedies where
appropriate. See also United States Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, 19 FLRA No. 89 (1985) and U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service, 16 FLRA 1007 (1984), in which
stated status quo ante remedies are generally found appropriate in
circumstances where agency decisions to change conditions of employment
were within the duty to bargain.
(4) According to Respondent the applicable provisions are Article 6,
section 6 of the Master Agreement, and Article VI, section 2 of the
Local Agreement. Article 6, section 6 of the Master Agreement read as
follows:
Section 6 -- Notification of Changes in Conditions of
Employment
The Agency shall notify the appropriate union official prior to
changing conditions of employment which affect bargaining unit
employees. The notification will be adequate with sufficient
information to provide the Union an opportunity to exercise their
full rights to bargain as appropriate prior to implementation.
Notification will be in writing when the changes are significant.
Article VI, section 2 of the Local Agreement reads:
Section 2. The Employer agrees to refer any proposed changes
in personnel policies, practices or other policies, programs or
procedures affecting the working conditions of unit employees to
the Union at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to anticipated
implementation. The Union agrees that it will respond as soon as
practicable and if it does not respond within fifteen (15)
calendar days, the Employer will be free to proceed with
implementation. This time limit may be extended upon request and
mutual agreement of the parties. If the Union notifies the
Employer within fifteen (15) calendar days that it does not concur
in the proposed change(s), the parties agree to meet promptly and
bargain concerning the matter. (emphasis added).
Based on these articles Respondent asserts that it is the obligation
of the Union to respond to management's notice if the Union desires to
negotiate over the change. It sees no conflict with the Master
Agreement, inasmuch as the Master Agreement is silent on the issue of
the Union's obligation to respond. Thus, where the Master Agreement is
silent, the Local Agreement prevails.
(5) The charges was later withdrawn when the instant unfair labor
practice, Case No. 8-CA-40223, was filed because the instant charge
included the alleged violative conduct.
(6) The establishment of minimum dress standards altering existing
past practices of dress have been found by my colleague Administrative
Law Judge Garvin Lee Oliver to be substantively bargainable. See, Army
and Air Force Exchange Service, Fort Carson, Colorado, 7-CA-30581, 39
ALJDR (1984); United States Department of the Treasury, Internal
Revenue Service, Austin Service Center, 6-CA-20356, 31 ALJDR (1983).
(7) Respondent does not directly raise nor does it appear necessary
to resolve in this matter the effect of conduct of Union President
Butler in using profanity, during and at the conclusion of one of the
bargaining sessions.
APPENDIX A
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 unilaterally institute changes in working conditions for
bargaining unit employees by inaugurating changes in duty hours and a
dress code in the Building Management Service without first notifying
the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1061, AFL-CIO,
the exclusive representative of those employees or any other exclusive
representative and provide it with an opportunity to negotiate
concerning such changes and the impact and implementation of those
changes.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interefere with, restrain,
or coerce any employee in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
WE WILL rescind the change in duty hours which was implemented on
April 29, 1984, and restore the previously existing duty hours of 6 a.m.
to 2:30 p.m.
WE WILL rescind the dress code, including the prohibition against the
wearing of sweaters and jackets, which was implemented on March 1, 1984,
and will rescind any disciplinary actions which were initiated as a
result of the dress code, and will remove all reference to such
disciplinary actions from personnel files.
WE WILL notify the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1061, AFL-CIO, of any intention to change the duty hours or dress code
in the Building Management Service and, upon request, negotiate with the
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1061, AFL-CIO,
concerning such changes and the impact and implementation of those
changes.
(Agency or Activity)
Dated: . . .
By: (Signature)
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
of posting and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other
material.
If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
with any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region VIII,
whose address is: 350 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles,
California 90071 and whose telephone number is: (213) 688-3805.