23:0774(100)CA - Treasury, IRS and IRS Austin District and IRS Houston District and NTEU and NTEU Chapter 52 and NTEU Chapter 222 -- 1986 FLRAdec CA



[ v23 p774 ]
23:0774(100)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 23 FLRA No. 100
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE 
 TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 
 AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AUSTIN 
 DISTRICT, AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 
 HOUSTON DISTRICT
 Respondents
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 
 AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 
 CHAPTER 52 AND NATIONAL TREASURY 
 EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 222
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case Nos. 6-CA-20127
                                                      6-CA-20128
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This consolidated unfair labor practice case is before the Authority
 as a result of the Regional Director's transfer of the stipulated record
 directly to the Authority for decision pursuant to section 2429.1(a) of
 the Authority's Rules and Regulations.  The consolidated complaint
 alleges that the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service
 (IRS), the IRS Austin District and the IRS Houston District, referred to
 jointly as Respondents, violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the
 Statute by their refusal to pay travel and per diem expenses and allow
 official time for travel to two employees representing the employees'
 exclusive representative in negotiations as required by section 7131(a)
 of the Statute.
 
                                II.  Facts
 
    On November 23 and 24, 1981, representatives of the Respondents and
 the National Treasury Employees Union (the Union), engaged in
 negotiations concerning procedures and appropriate arrangements for unit
 employees adversely affected by a reorganization of Respondents'
 facilities which resulted in the formation of Respondents' Houston
 District.  These negotiations took place in Austin, Texas.  Two employee
 representatives of the Union traveled to Austin, Texas from Houston and
 San Antonio, Texas.  Respondents rejected the employees' requests for
 reimbursement of travel and per diem expenses and refused to grant
 official time for travel to and from the negotiations.  Respondents did
 authorize official time for time actually spent by the employees in
 negotiations.
 
    Prior to the negotiations referred to above, IRS and the Union had
 engaged in negotiatioins for a new national agreement.  During these
 negotiations, the Union introduced certain proposals dealing with
 official time and the payment of union representatives' travel and per
 diem expenses.  These proposals resulted in an impasse which was
 submitted to the Federal Service Impasses Panel (the Panel) for
 resolution.  The Panel subsequently issued an order directing the
 inclusion of the Union's proposals in the parties' agreement.  The IRS
 subsequently declared these proposals to be nonnegotiable and thereafter
 did not comply with the Panel's Order.  The IRS' failure to comply with
 the Decision and Order of the Panel was the subject of a separate unfair
 labor practice charge.  See Department of the Treasury and Internal
 Revenue Service, 22 FLRA No. 89 (1986).
 
    The Authority specifically notes that there are no facts in the
 stipulated record of this case which explain the background or the
 reasons for IRS' determination that the Union's proposals are
 nonnegotiable or its subsequent decision not to comply with the Panel's
 Order.  Thus the Authority will take administrative notice that in
 Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Servsice cited above,
 the Authority found that Respondent Treasury violated section
 71176(a)(1) and (6) of the Statute when it disapproved contract language
 directed by the Panel's Order and directed Respondent IRS not to
 incorporate such language in its collective bargaining agreement.
 
    The provisions which the Panel directed the parties to include in
 their national agreement provide as follows:
 
                    Section 3 -- Mid-Term Negotiations
                                       .  .  .  .  .  .  .
 
          C.  If the parties enter into mid-contract negotiations during
       the life of this agreement, the following ground rules will apply:
 
          1.  For nationally implemented changes referred to in Section
       2A above:
                                       .  .  .  .  .  .  .
 
          c.  a number of bargaining unit employees equal to the number
       of management's representatives shall be given administrative time
       and paid travel and per diem to attend all mid-term bargaining
       sessions;  provided, however, the union shall be allowed no more
       than four bargaining unit employees.
                                       .  .  .  .  .  .  .
 
          2.  For locally negotiated changes referred to in Section 4B1
       above:
                                       .  .  .  .  .  .  .
 
          b.  a number of bargaining unit employees equal to the number
       of management's representatives shall be given administrative time
       and paid travel and per diem to attend all mid-term bargaining
       sessions;  provided, however, the union shall be allowed no more
       than four bargaining unit employees.
                                       .  .  .  .  .  .  .
 
    In the matter of Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue
 Service, Washington, D.C. and National Treasury Employees Union, Case
 No. 80 FSIP 68 (1980).  /1/
 
                      III.  Positions of the Parties
 
                            A.  The Respondents
 
    The Respondents contend that they have not violated section
 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute as alleged in the complaint for the
 following reasons:  (1) The Authority's Interpretation and Guidance in 2
 FLRA 265 (1979), on which the complaint is based, is without support
 either in the wording of the Statute or its legislative history;  (2)
 The Respondents are without authority to expend appropriated funds for
 the payment of employee representatives' travel and per diem expenses;
 (3) Official time, as defined in section 7131(a) of the Statute, does
 not cover travel to and from bargaining sessions;  and (4) Official time
 does not include travel and per diem expenses at local negotiations.
 Respondents' brief was filed prior to the Supreme Court's decision in
 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89 (1983),
 which rejected the Authority's interpretation of the Statute in its
 Interpretation and Guidance, 2 FLRA 265.
 
                          B.  The General Counsel
 
    The General Counsel contends that Respondents violated section
 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute when they refused to pay travel and
 per diem expenses and allow official time for travel to employees
 representing the Union in negotiations as provided for in section
 7131(a) of the Statute.  Essentially the General Counsel argues that the
 Authority's Interpretation and Guidance in 2 FLRA 265 is applicable to
 the facts presented in this case.  /2/
 
                          C.  The Charging Party
 
    The Charging Party also contends that the Respondents violated
 section 7131(a) in refusing to provide official time for travel, and in
 denying travel and per diem expenses, for union representatives engaged
 in mid-term negotiations.  The Charging Party, as part of the remedy,
 requests that it be awarded attorney fees under the Equal Access to
 Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 504, and the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C.
 Section 5596, and that the two employees who were denied official time
 for travel and travel and per diem expenses be made whole and otherwise
 fully reimbursed for the denial of such expenses.
 
                               IV.  Analysis
 
         A.  Issues Connected with the Internal Revenue Service's
 
                Disapproval of the Panel-Directed Contract Language
 
    The Authority has consistently held that an agency's refusal to
 implement a Decision and Order of the Federal Service Impasses Panel
 requiring the parties to adopt language in their collective bargaining
 agreement violates section 7116(a)(1) and (6) of the Statute unless the
 Authority finds that the failure to comply with the Panel's Order was
 justified because the provisions are contrary to the Statute or other
 applicable law, rule or regulation.  Department of Defense, National
 Guard Bureau, Indiana Air National Guard, Indianapolis, Indiana, 17 FLRA
 23 (1985) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
 Headquarters, Washington, D.C., 12 FLRA 480 (1983).  In its decision in
 Interpretation and Guidance, 15 FLRA 564 (1984), aff'd. sub nom.
 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. FLRA, 778 F.2d
 850 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the Authority determined that the unfair labor
 practice mechanism is available for the purpose of obtaining review of
 an agency head's action in refusing to approve a provision of a
 collective bargaining agreement imposed on the parties by a final order
 of the Panel in resolving an impasse.  When this occurs, the head of the
 agency acts at risk and a union challenging the agency head's
 disapproval may file a charge alleging that such conduct violated the
 Statute.
 
    Since the provisions imposed by the Panel in this case are not
 materially different from the proposal recently found to be negotiable
 by the Authority in National Treasury Employees Union and Department of
 the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, 21 FLRA No. 2 (1986), petition for
 review filed sub nom. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service
 v. FLRA, No. 86-1198 (D.C. Cir. March 27, 1986), the determination by
 the IRS not to comply with the lawful order of the Panel constituted a
 failure or refusal to cooperate in impasse decisions.  Since the
 complaint fails to allege a violation of section 77116(a)(6) of the
 Statute for failure to cooperate in impasse procedures or decisions, the
 Authority is limited to finding that conduct of Respondent IRS violated
 section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute in that such conduct inherently
 interfered with the exercise by employees of their right under section
 7102 of the Statute to engage in collective bargaining through their
 chosen representatives, which right includes the utilization of the
 processes of the Federal Service Impasses Panel. It is well established
 that the impasse resolution procedures of the Panel operate as one
 aspect of the collective bargaining process. International Brotherhood
 of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 121, 10 FLRA 198, 199 (1982).
 Under these circumstances, Respondent IRS clearly interfered with
 employees' rights guaranteed by the Statute.  Department of the Treasury
 and Internal Revenue Service, 22 FLRA No. 89 (1985).
 
    In finding that the Respondent IRS violated the Statute in these
 circumstances, the Authority notes the relationship between this case
 and the Authority's decision in Department of the Treasury and Internal
 Revenue Service, 22 FLRA No. 89 (1986).  The allegations against the IRS
 in that case were dismissed because the IRS had merely engaged in the
 ministerial act of forwarding contractual language directed by the Panel
 to Treasury for agency head review and thereafter failing to incorporate
 the Panel directed language because of the determination by Treasury to
 disapprove such language.  Under those circumstances, where the
 complaint alleged and the Authority found that Treasury had committed an
 unfair labor practice by disapproving the Panel-directed language and
 the Authority was able to issue an order against Treasury which
 effectively remedied the unfair labor practice found, the Authority --
 consistent with precedent -- dismissed the complaint against IRS because
 it would not effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute to find
 an additional cumulative violation against subordinate level management.
  U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Justice, Bureau of
 Prisons, Washsington, D.C. and Federal Correctional Institution,
 Danbury, Connecticut, 20 FLRA No. 5 (1985), enf'd, 792 F.2d 25 (2d Cir.
 1986).  In this case, however, where the complaint did not charge
 Treasury with a violation but named only IRS and its subordinate
 activities as Respondents, the Authority concludes that it would
 effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute to find a violation
 against IRS.  That is, such a finding here would not be merely
 cumulative but is essential if the unfair labor practice committed is to
 be effectively remedied.  A conclusion that the complaint against IRS
 must be dismissed because Treasury was not named as a Respondent would
 preclude a remedy for the violation of statutory rights which occurred
 here, a result which we conclude would be inconsistent with
 Congressional intent.  Therefore, we find that Respondent IRS violated
 section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute and shall order it to remedy the
 violation found.
 
         B.  Determinations Regarding the Allegations Against the
 
                Austin
                                       District and Houston District of
                                       the Internal Revenue
                                       Service
 
    The Authority concludes that the allegations against the Austin and
 Houston Districts of the Internal Revenue Service should be dismissed
 since their denial of official time for travel and the refusal to pay
 travel and per diem expenses for union negotiators was made pursuant to
 a national policy determination by the Internal Revenue Service.  There
 is no evidence in the record that such offices had the discretion to
 approve official time for travel purposes or that they were authorized
 to pay the travel and per diem expenses at issue herein.  This result is
 consistent with the Authority's determination in other cases that
 subordinate activities do not additionally violate the Statute by their
 ministerial actions in implementing the directives of higher level
 management, where higher level management is found to have violated the
 Statute.  Departments of the Army and the Air Force National Guard
 Bureau and Montana Air National Guard, 10 FLRA 553 (1982), rev'd. on
 other grounds, sub nom. Montana Air National Guard v. FLRA, 703 F.2d 577
 (9th Cir. 1984).
 
           C.  Issues Regarding the Alleged Violation of Section
 
                7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute
 
    The Authority turns next to the allegation of the complaint that
 Respondents violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute by
 failing to grant official time for travel and to pay travel and per diem
 expenses to union negotiators because such payments are required by
 section 7131(a) of the Statute.  In its Supplemental Decision and Order
 in United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service
 and United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service
 Austin District, 14 FLRA 818 (1984), the Authority modified the decision
 it had issued in that case prior to the United States Supreme Court's
 decision in Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89
 (1983).  Based on the Supreme Court's decision, the Authority dismissed
 the allegations of the complaint pertaining to the Respondent's failure
 and refusal to reimburse its employees for their travel and per diem
 expenses.  However, the Authority left intact those portions of the
 decision finding that the entitlement to official time by employees
 involved in representing the exclusive representative included necessary
 travel time to and from negotiations as occurred during the employees'
 regular work hours and when they would otherwise have been in a work or
 paid leave status.  The Authority's order directed the agency to make
 such employees whole for any annual leave utilized.  Respondent IRS
 herein likewise violated section 7116(a)(1) land (8) of the Statute when
 it denied employees official time for travel in violation of section
 7131(a) of the Statute.  Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision
 overturned the Authority's determination that an employee's right to
 official time to participate in negotiations under section 7131(a) of
 the Statute includes official time for travel to and from such
 negotiations.
 
                                V.  Remedy
 
    To remedy the unfair labor practice conduct, the Authority will order
 the Respondent IRS to comply with the Panel's Opinion and Decision, and
 to give it retroactive effect.  See Interpretation and Guidance, 15 FLRA
 564 (1984), affirmed sub nom. American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO v. FLRA, 778 F.2d 850 (D.C. Cir. 1985).  Consistent
 with the Authority's decisions in Department of the Treasury, Internal
 Revenue Service, Columbia District, Columbia, South Carolina, 22 FLRA
 No. 28 (1986) and Office of the General Counsel, National Labor
 Relations Board, 22 FLRA No. 25 (1986), the Authority will further order
 the Respondent IRS to make whole the Charging Party for the expenses it
 incurred, if any, in paying the travel and per diem expenses of those
 bargaining unit employees who attended mid-term bargaining sessions
 during the period at issue, which payments otherwise would have been
 made by the Respondent IRS under the Panel-imposed agreement provisions.
  Additionally, if there are any bargaining unit employees who either did
 not receive payments to which they were entitled or were not compensated
 fully for such expenses, the Respondent IRS also will be ordered to
 reimburse them for the travel and per diem expenses they incurred upon
 their submission of properly documented claims for such payments.  In
 ordering such payments, the Authority notes that by not complying with
 the Panel's decision, the Respondent IRS assumed a risk that, if its
 position did not prevail, it would be found to have committed an unfair
 labor practice and be subject to such a remedy.  /3/ Of course, the
 payments that are here being ordered must be consistent with law and
 regulations, including the Federal Travel Regulations.
 
                       VI.  Payment of Attorney Fees
 
    In its brief to the Authority, the Charging Party requests that it be
 granted attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act and the Back
 Pay Act.  These requests are denied.  With regard to the granting of
 attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), the
 Authority's regulations provide that awards under the EAJA are available
 only to a respondent, other than the United States, who prevails against
 the General Counsel in an unfair labor practice proceeding.  /4/
 Therefore, the Union, as a charging party, is not entitled to an award
 of attorney fees under that Act.  Internal Revenue Service (District,
 Region, National Office Units), 16 FLRA 904 (1984).
 
    The Authority also concludes that the Charging Party's request for
 attorney fees under the Back Pay Act is ill-founded.  It is well
 established that an award of attorney fees under the Back Pay Act must
 be based upon a finding that an unjustified or unwarranted personnel
 action has been committed which has deprived an aggrieved employee of
 "pay, allowances, or differentials" that the employee would have earned
 or received if that action had not occurred.  In other words, the award
 of fees must be in conjunction with an award of backpay to the
 employee(s) on correction of the unwarranted personnel action.  See, for
 example, Naval Air Development Center, Department of the Navy and
 American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1928, AFL-CIO, 21
 FLRA No. 25 (1986) and cases cited therein.  While the refusal of
 Respondent IRS to comply with a lawful Panel order may have constituted
 an unwarranted personnel action which resulted in the denial of travel
 and per diem expenses to certain employees, travel and per diem expenses
 are not "pay, allowances, or differentials" within the meaning of the
 Back Pay Act and therefore an order requiring reimbursement of those
 expenses does not amount to an award of backpay.  Rather, as the
 Authority has previously held, the "pay, allowances, or differentials"
 encompassed by the Back Pay Act constitute "normal legitimate employee
 benefits" in the nature of employee compensation or emoluments which do
 not extend to reimbursement payments such as per diem.  Community
 Services Administration and National Council of CSA Locals, AFGE,
 AFL-CIO, 7 FLRA 206, 208-209 (1981).  In the Authority's view, the
 reimbursement of travel expenses in this context similarly cannot be
 equated with backpay so as to justify an award of attorney fees.
 
                             VII.  Conclusion
 
    Based on the stipulated record, the analysis of the facts and the
 precedent cited above, the Authority concludes that Respondent Internal
 Revenue Service violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute when
 it failed to provide official time for travel purposes to union
 representatives and when it failed to include in its national agreement
 and thereafter implement Panel-imposed provisions which provided for the
 granting of official time for travel, and travel and per diem expenses
 to employees participating on behalf of the employees' exclusive
 representative in collective bargaining negotiations.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    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 Internal Revenue Service shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
 exercise of their rights assured by the Statute by failing and refusing
 to cooperate in and comply with the Decision and Order of the Federal
 Service Impasses Panel issued on December 24, 1980, Case No. 80 FSIP 68,
 by failing to implement the provisions directed by the Panel.
 
    (b) Failing and refusing to provide official time, including
 necessary travel time as occurs during the employees' regular work hours
 and when the employees would otherwise be in a work or paid leave
 status, to Antonio Ovalle and Frank Robinson, or any other bargaining
 unit employees, while engaged in representing the National Trerasury
 Employees Union, the employees' exclusive representative, in collective
 bargaining negotiations.
 
    (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute:
 
    (a) Comply with the Decision and Order of the Federal Service
 Impasses Panel issued in December 24, 1980, in Case No. 80 FSIP 68,
 which contained contractual provisions to be included in the negotiated
 agreement between the Internal Revenue Service and the National Treasury
 Employees Union, and notify the Union of such compliance in writing.
 
    (b) Make the National Treasury Employees Union whole for the cost, if
 any, incurred in paying travedl expenses and per diem allowances to all
 bargaining unit employees who have submitted appropriate claims for such
 payments under the terms of the contract provisions which the Federal
 Service Impasses Panel ordered incorporated into the parties' agreement,
 for which the employees otherwise would have been reimbursed by the
 Internal Revenue Service.
 
    (c) Pay travel expenses and per diem allowances consistent with law
 and regulation, including the Federal Travel Regulations, to all
 bargaining unit employees who submit or previously submitted appropriate
 claims for such payments under the terms of the contract provisions
 which the Federal Service Impasses Panel ordered incorporated into the
 parties' agreement, to the extent that such expenses have not been
 reimbursed by the National Treasury Employees Union.
 
    (d) Provide Union representatives Antonio Ovalle and Frank Robinson
 official time while they were engaged in representing the National
 Treasury Employees Union, the employees' exclusive representative, in
 collective bargaining negotiations between November 23 and 24, 1981,
 including necessary travel time as occurred during the employees'
 regular work hours and when they would otherwise have been in a work or
 paid leave status, and make them whole for any annual leave they may
 have utilized for this purpose.
 
    (e) Post at its Austin and Houston District Offices a copy 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
 Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, or Deputy Commissioner,
 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 said Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
 by any other material.
 
    (f) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VI, 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.
 
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges a
 violation of section 7716(a)(1) and (8) by the Internal Revenue Service
 for denying travel and per diem expenses under section 7131(a) of the
 Statute, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
 
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges a
 violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute by the Austin and
 Houston District Offices of the Internal Revenue Service, be, and it
 hereby is, dismissed.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C. October 31, 1986.
 
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       /s/ Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    (1) The Authority has taken administrative notice of the Decision and
 Order of the Panel cited above since the parties' stipulation failed to
 incorporate the language of the Panel's Order.
 
    (2) As was true of Respondents, the General Counsel's brief was
 submitted before the Authority's interpretation of the Statute was
 rejected by the Supreme Court in Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
 v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89 (1983).
 
    (3) If the Respondent Internal Revenue Service's position ultimately
 had been sustained, however, it would not have been found in violation
 of the Statute.  See Office of Personnel Management, Washington, D.C.,
 17 FLRA 302 (1985).
 
    (4) Section 2430.2(b) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 provides:
 
          (b) A respondent in an unfair labor proceeding which has
       prevailed in the proceeding, or in a significant and discrete
       portion of the proceeding, and who otherwise meets the eligibility
       requirements of this section, is eligible to apply for an award of
       attorneys fees and other expenses allowable under the provisions
       of Section 2430.4 of these rules.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                 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
 WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT;
 
    WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
 exercise of their rights assured by the Statute by failing and refusing
 to cooperate in and comply with the Decision and Order of the Federal
 Service Impasses Panel issued on December 24, 1980, Case No. 80 FSIP 68,
 by failing to implement the provisions directed by the Panel.
 
    WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide official time, including
 necessary travel time as occurs during the employees' regular work hours
 and when the employees would otherwise be in a work or paid leave
 status, to Antonio Ovalle and Frank Robinson, or any other bargaining
 unit employees, while engaged in representing the National Treasury
 Employees Union, the employees' exclusive representative, in collective
 bargaining negotiations.
 
    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
 Statute.
 
    WE WILL comply with the Decision and Order of the Federal Service
 Impasses Panel issued on December 24, 1980, in Case No. 80 FSIP 68,
 which contained contractual provisions to be included in our negotiated
 agreement with the National Treasury Employees Union, and will notify
 the Union of such compliance in writing.
 
    WE WILL make the National Treasury Employees Union whole for the
 cost, if any, incurred in paying travel expenses and per diem allowances
 to all bargaining unit employees who have submitted appropriate claims
 for such payments under the terms of the contract provisions which the
 Federal Service Impasses Panel ordered incorporated into the parties'
 agreement for which the employees otherwise would have been reimbursed
 by the Internal Revenue Service.
 
    WE WILL pay travel expenses and per diem allowances consistent with
 law and regulation, including the Federal Travel Regulations, to all
 bargaining unit employees who submit or previously submitted appropriate
 claims for such payments under the terms of the contract provisions
 which the Federal Service Impasses Panel ordered incorp