25:0289(20)CA - 22d CSG (SAC), March AFB, CA and AFGE, Interdepartmental Local 3854 -- 1987 FLRAdec CA



[ v25 p289 ]
25:0289(20)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 25 FLRA No. 20
 
 22 COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (SAC)
 MARCH AIR FORCE BASE, 
 CALIFORNIA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 
 3854, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 8-CA-50132
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 22 Combat Support
 Group (SAC), March Air Force Base, California had engaged in certain
 unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that
 it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
 action.  Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's
 Decision, and the General Counsel filed an opposition to the exceptions.
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute), we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge made at
 the hearing and find that no prejudicial error was committed.  The
 rulings are affirmed.  Upon consideration of the Judge's decision and
 the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions, /1/ and
 recommended Order.  /2/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered that 22 Combat Support Group (SAC), March Air Force Base,
 California shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Instituting National Agency and Local Agency checks on employees
 represented exclusively by the American Federation of Government
 Employees, Interdepartmental Local 3854, AFL-CIO, without providing the
 exclusive representative a reasonable opportunity to complete bargaining
 concerning the procedures to be observed in implementing the checks and
 appropriate arrangements for any employee adversely affected by
 conducting such checks.
 
    (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 Statute:
 
    (a) Provide the American Federation of Government Employees,
 Interdepartmental Local 3854, AFL-CIO, with a reasonable opportunity to
 complete bargaining concerning appropriate arrangements for any employee
 adversely affected by the National Agency and Local Agency employee
 checks already implemented.
 
    (b) Provide the American Federation of Government Employees,
 Interdepartmental Local 3854, AFL-CIO, with a reasonable opportunity to
 complete bargaining concerning the procedures to be observed in
 implementing any future National Agency and Local Agency employee checks
 and appropriate arrangements for any employee adversely affected by
 conducting such checks.
 
    (c) Post at its March Air Force Base facility 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 Base
 Commander, 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 materials.
 
    (d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VIII, Federal Labor
 Relations Authority, 350 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles,
 California 90071, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
 Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., January 20, 1987.
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       /s/ Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                  Dissenting Opinion of Chairman Calhoun
 
    In disagreement with my colleagues, I conclude in the circumstances
 of this case that the Respondent provided the Union with adequate notice
 of its intent to implement changes in employment suitability checks.
 The Union received two weeks notice of the intent to implement and the
 Respondent stated orally and in writing that it was available to
 negotiate during that two-week period.  Further, the Respondent offered
 to negotiate with the Union after implementation and apply an agreement
 reached retroactively.  Finally, in my view, the subject matter involved
 was not so complex as to require more than two weeks' notice.  See, for
 example, Department of the Army, 12 FLRA 216 (1983) (approximately two
 weeks' notice of an intent to implement a paid parking program was
 sufficient to provide the union with a reasonable opportunity to
 negotiate).  Because I conclude that the notice was adequate and I find
 no evidence of any bad faith on the part of the Respondent, I would
 dismiss the complaint.
 
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., January 20, 1987.
 
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Clahoun, Chairman
 
 
 
 
 
  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 National Agency and Local Agency checks on
 employees represented exclusively by the American Federation of
 Government Employees, Interdepartmental Local 3854, AFL-CIO, without
 providing the exclusive representative reasonable opportunity to
 complete bargaining concerning the procedures to be observed in
 implementing the checks and appropriate arrangements for any employee
 adversely affected by conducting such checks.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Statute.
 
    WE WILL provide the American Federation of Government Employees,
 Interdepartmental Local 3854, AFL-CIO, with a reasonable opportunity to
 complete bargaining concerning appropriate arrangements for any employee
 adversely affected by the National Agency and Local Agency employee
 checks already implemented.
 
    WE WILL provide the American Federation of Government Employees,
 Interdepartmental Local 3854, AFL-CIO, with a reasonable opportunity to
 complete bargaining concerning the procedures to be observed in
 implementing any future National Agency and Local Agency employee checks
 and appropriate arrangements for any employee adversely affected by
 conducting such checks.
                                       (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, whose address is:  350 South Figueroa Street,
 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California, 90071 and whose telephone number is
 (213) 894-3805.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Case No. 8-CA-50132
 
    22 COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP
    (SAC), MARCH AIR FORCE
    BASE, CALIFORNIA
    Respondent
 
                                    and
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
    INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL
    3854, AFL-CIO
    Charging Party
 
    Lt. Col. Wade B. Morrison
    For the Respondent
 
    Jonathan S. Levine, Esq.
    For the General Counsel
 
    Before:  SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This case arose under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C. Section 7101,
 et seq.
 
    Upon an unfair labor practice charge filed by the American Federation
 of Government Employees, Interdepartmental Local Combat Support Group
 (SAC), March Air Force Base, California (herein sometimes referred to as
 Respondent), the General Counsel of the Authority, by the Regional
 Director for Region VIII, issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing
 alleging Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute
 by unilaterally changing working conditions of bargaining unit employees
 by implementing employment suitability checks without completing
 bargaining with the Union concerning the implementation of the change
 and its impact on unit employees.
 
    A hearing on the Complaint was conducted in Los Angeles, California
 at which Respondent and the General Counsel were represented by counsel
 and afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, call, examine and
 cross-examine witnesses and argue orally.  Briefs were filed by counsel
 for Respondent, and counsel for the General Counsel and have been
 carefully considered.
 
    Upon the entire record in this case, 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 the Union has been the exclusive collective
 bargaining representative of all nonappropriated fund (NAF) employees
 employed by Respondent, with the exception of various excluded
 employees.
 
    On December 4, 1984 Respondent received notification from its
 Headquarters of an amendment to Air Force regulations whereby all new
 employees holding positions of trust, including personnel whose duties
 involved association with youth and/or child care activities, would have
 to undergo National Agency and Local Agency suitability checks and
 investigations.  Respondent's NAF Coordinator Charles Rigsby, who was
 Respondent's representative responsible for bargaining with the Union on
 matters involving NAF employees, was out of the office between December
 4 and December 17.  The original instructions from Headquarters did not
 indicate an implementation date for the checks and no action was taken
 by Respondent on Headquarters' notification during this period.  Within
 two or three days after Rigsby returned on December 17 he contacted SAC
 Headquarters and was informed that the National Agency and Local Agency
 checks were also applicable to employees currently holding positions of
 trust.
 
    On Friday December 28, 1984 Rigsby delivered a letter from Respondent
 to the Union office, with an attached copy of the telegram from
 Headquarters it received on December 4 and a proposed memorandum of
 understanding concerning the matter.  The letter indicated that
 implementation of the requirements for employee checks would commence on
 January 13, 1985 (a Sunday).  /3/ Rigsby delivered the letter to the
 Union office at 4:30 p.m. and since the Union office was locked at the
 time, he put the letter under the door.  /4/ Respondent's letter to the
 Union also indicated that the employment checks would be applicable to
 both current and future employees and accordingly, current employees in
 such positions would be required to completed forms necessary for the
 checks.  The letter further stated that any comments the Union wished to
 make were to be provided to Rigsby by January 11, 1985.
 
    Local 3854 President DelMar Callaway observed Respondent's letter
 under the door when he arrived at the Union office at 9:00 a.m. on
 Monday December 31, 1984.  Sometime late January 2 or early January 3,
 1985 /5/ Callaway delivered to Respondent a letter wherein he, inter
 alia, stated that the Union wished to negotiate on the checks prior to
 implementation.  Callaway further stated:
 
          ". . . it is suggested that you change your implementation date
       of 13 January, 1985 until we have reached an agreement.  It is
       further requested that we meet on 31 January, 1985, at 0900 hours,
       in the Recreation Center and negotiate and come to an agreement."
 
    On Tuesday January 8, 1985 Respondent replied to the Union's prior
 correspondence.  In its letter to the Union Respondent refused to
 postpone the date of implementation "(b)ecause of the sensitivity of the
 positions involved (i.e. dealing with children/handling cash) and the
 length of time it takes to complete (the checks). . . ." The letter
 further stated:
 
          "As we had previously requested, if you have no
       counterproposals, please sign the agreement and return it to our
       office before 13 January 1985 implementation date.  If you do have
       counterproposals on the impact and implementation of IMC 84-2 that
       you wish to have considered, please submit them to our office as
       soon as possible.  If you do, Mr. Charles Rigsby of my office will
       be available to meet with you or a representative from the Union
       at 0900, 11 January 1985, in the Recreation Center, to negotiate
       over the impact and implementation of the IMC.  Because of the
       importance of the issues, your prompt reply is requested so we can
       effectively negotiate the implementation of IMC 84-2.  We
       appreciate your suggestion to delay the implementation date of IMC
       84-2, but because of the aforementioned reasons we cannot delay
       the implementation date.  If you have counterproposals you wish to
       have considered after the implementation date, please submit them
       to our office prior to 31 January 1985.  Mr. Rigsby will then be
       available to meet with you or your representative at 0900, 31
       January 1985, at the Recreation Center to negotiate on impact and
       implementation of IMC 84-2.  Any changes agreed to at that meeting
       can be retroactively applied."
 
    Union President Callaway replied to Respondent in a January 9, 1985
 letter and again took the position that a negotiated agreement on the
 matter should be reached before implementation.  Callaway submitted
 seven negotiation proposals at this time and indicated that the earliest
 available date to negotiate was January 31, stating:
 
          ". . . inasmuch as . . . some of the employees have been
       employed for a considerable length of time and the fact, as you
       are aware, that we have ongoing business day to day that requires
       our attention and your refusal to grant the Unit Vice President
       official time to negotiate on matters concerning Non-Appropriated
       Fund, a check of our calendar reveals that 31 January, 1985 was
       the closest date available to us to negotiate." /6/
 
    However, in a post script to that letter Callaway related that he
 cancelled appointments for January 24 ". . . so that we may meet and
 negotiate and come to an agreement, prior to implementation."
 
    The next communication between the parties occured on Friday January
 11 when Respondent's NAF Coordinator Rigsby telephone Union President
 Callaway around 7:30 a.m.  /7/ Rigsby asked Callaway if they could meet
 that morning to neogtiate on the National and Local Agency checks since
 the date set for implementation was January 13 and Respondent felt it
 was necessary to begin implementing the checks by having some meetings
 with employees.  Callaway replied that he had a prior commitment and if
 he would leave a message with his secretary as to the date, time and
 place of a meeting and make arrangements for him to get time, he would
 meet with Rigsby on the matter.  /8/ Rigsby also asked if they could
 agree to management's proposal which accompanied the December 28
 notification, supra, and Callaway said "No, we need to meet face to face
 and discuss it" and told Rigsby he would not negotiate with him on the
 phone on the subject.
 
    By letter to Callaway that same day Respondent, inter alia,
 announced:  it would implement on January 13;  meetings with employees
 on the matter were scheduled for January 16 and 17;  and it would meet
 with the Union on January 24 ". . . to continue to negotiate on the
 impact and implementation . . .," indicating that any changes agreed to
 at that time could be applied retroactively.
 
    By letter dated January 14, 1985 Respondent notified the Union that
 the National and Local Agency checks had been implemented.  Although
 meetings on January 24 and January 31 were scheduled, none were held.
 However, the parties did meet to negotiate on the matter on February 21
 but in mid-April Respondent discovered it was using incorrect forms to
 process employee checks and withdrew the old forms.  New forms were
 subsequently obtained and although some negotiations have occurred, it
 does not appear that the parties have ever concluded negotiations on the
 matter.  In any event, National and Local Agency checks were
 re-implemented on June 10, 1985.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    Counsel for the General Counsel contends that Respondent's
 implementation of the National and Local Agency checks on January 13,
 1985 without first completing bargaining with the Union on this change
 in working conditions violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the
 Statute.  Respondent denies violating the Statute and contends it gave
 the Union reasonable notice of implementation;  the Union did nothing
 more than "suggest" delay in implementation;  and, in any event the
 Union did not give management sufficient justification to delay
 implementation.
 
    In my view, Respondent did not provide the Union with sufficient
 notice to enable it to bargain effectively on the change.  The Union,
 because of management's action of delivering notice to the Union office
 after normal close of business on Friday December 28, 1984, did not
 receive notice of the change until Monday December 31.  This notice
 indicated, in effect, that the last day for negotiation on the matter
 would be January 11, January 12 being a Saturday.  January 1 was a
 holiday and on the very next day the Union clearly requested
 implementation be postponed until the culmination of negotiations
 although it attached negotiating proposals to the correspondence.
 Respondent then, with no explanation to the Union and no explanation in
 the record herein, took five days (three working days) to fashion a
 response before notifying the Union or the sixth day (January 8) that it
 would not postpone implementation.  Respondent's stated reasons for
 refusing to postpone the implementation date was "because of the
 sensitivity of the positions involved . . . and the length of time it
 takes to complete (the checks) . . ."
 
    While the matter was obviously important, I do not conclude it was so
 critical as to create an overriding exigency or other compelling reason
 which would justify adhering to the January 13 implementation date in
 the circumstances herein.  Respondent received notification from its
 Headquarters almost one month before it notified the Union of the need
 for new employee checks.  Further, after Respondent discovered it had
 issued incorrect forms to employees in mid-April 1984 and withdrew them,
 no checks were made until new forms were issued on June 10.  Cf. Bureau
 of Government Financial Headquarters, II FLRA 334 (1983) at 343-344 and
 Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California, 17 FLRA 511 (1985) at
 526.  Moreover, when on January 8 Respondent notified the Union of its
 refusal to postpone implementation it stated that if the Union wished to
 negotiate on the subject, management would meet with the Union on
 January 11, thereby giving the Union only one day to partake in actual
 face-to-face negotiations after Respondent rejected a postponement of
 implementation.  /9/ Thus, the facts disclose Respondent provided the
 Union with minimal time between notification and implementation of the
 change with no acceptable justification for its conduct.
 
    In its brief Respondent strongly urges that the Union failed to
 provide management with sufficient justification to delay implementation
 of the employment change.  However, Respondent initially had the
 responsibility to provide the Union with adequate opportunity to
 negotiate.  Here, due to the relatively short period available to
 complete negotiations before implementation and the lack of an
 overriding exigency, it was reasonable for the Union to request a delay
 in order to prepare and make available a knowledgeable representative.
 Thus, it was RespondentS justified conduct which placed the Union in the
 position of requiring a delay in implementation so it could proceed to
 negotiations in an effective manner.  /10/
 
    Accordingly, in all the circumstances herein, I conclude that
 Respondent implemented National and Local Agency checks without
 affording the Union a reasonable opportunity to complete bargaining over
 the change in conditions of employment thereby violating section
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. Id.
 
    In view of the entire foregoing I recommend, as requested by counsel
 for the General Counsel, that Respondent be required to afford the Union
 an opportunity to engage in post-implementation bargaining and the
 Authority issue the following:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered that 22 Combat Support Group (SAC), March Air Force Base,
 California shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Instituting National Agency and Local Agency checks on
       employees represented exclusively by the American Federation of
       Government Employees Interdepartmental Local 3854, AFL-CIO,
       without providing the exclusive representative a reasonable
       opportunity to complete bargaining concerning on the procedures to
       be observed in implementing the checks and appropriate
       arrangements for any employee adversely affected by conducting
       such checks
 
          (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 Statute:
 
          (a) Provide the American Federation of Government Employees,
       Interdepartmental Local 3854, AFL-CIO, with a reasonable
       opportunity to complete bargaining concerning appropriate
       arrangements for any employee adversely affected by the National
       Agency and Local Agency employee checks already implemented.
 
          (b) Provide the American Federation of Government Employees,
       Interdepartmental Local 3854, AFL-CIO, with a reasonable
       opportunity to complete bargaining concerning the procedures to be
       observed in implementing any future National Agency and Local
       Agency employees checks and appropriate arrangement for any
       employee adversely affected by conducting such checks.
 
          (c) Post at its March Air Force Base facility 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 Base Commander, 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 insure that such Notices are not altered,
       defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
          (d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
       Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VII, Federal
       Labor Relations Authority, 350 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor,
       Los Angeles, California 90071, in writing, within 30 days from the
       date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply
       herewith.
                                       /s/ SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  May 8, 1986
 
    Washington, D.C.
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (1) We conclude, contrary to the Respondent's exceptions, that the
 complaint was of sufficient breadth and clarity to constitute the basis
 for the Judge's findings and conclusions in this case.
 
    (2) In adopting the Judge's recommended Order, we reject the Agency's
 exception that the Union waived its right to bargain further concerning
 this matter by its conduct after January 13.  The Authority has held
 that a waiver will be found only if it can be shown that the exclusive
 representative clearly and unmistakably waived its right to negotiate.
 Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 5 FLRA 9
 (1981).  The record in this case does not establish that the Union
 clearly and unmistakably waived its right to bargain as asserted by the
 Agency.
 
    (3) When asked on direct examination why it took until December 28 to
 get this notice to the Union, Rigsby testified there were no specific
 reasons other than he had been away from the office for two weeks and he
 was faced with a backlog of work to accomplish when he returned.  Rigsby
 also testified it took "at least a couple of days" to get such notices
 through intra-management channels.
 
    (4) Normal work hours at the facility are from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
 
    (5) January 1 was a holiday.
 
    (6) Callaway and Union Vice President Tancrator are both appropriated
 fund employees and Respondent had followed a policy of not granting
 either of them official time to represent employees in the NAF unit
 since neither Callaway nor Tancrator belong to that unit although they
 were employees of Respondent at the time and were officers of Local 3854
 which represents those employees.  Indeed, Local 3854 also represents
 employees at Norton AFB, Edwards AFB, China Lake Navy Weapons Center, VA
 Cemetery, Riverdale, California, and Joshua Tree National Monument.
 Callaway testified he asked Tancrator to represent the Union in
 negotiations with Respondent in this matter but Tancrator refused to do
 so on a leave without pay or annual leave basis.  Callaway further
 testified that various Union stewards could have handled the
 negotiations if given official time but it was not Union's policy to
 permit stewards to represent the Union in such negotiations.
 
    (7) The following account is a composite of the credited testimony of
 Rigsby and Callaway.
 
    (8) Sometime in late December 1984 Callaway had obtained permission
 from Mr. Lyon, his immediate supervisor at March AFB, to take leave
 without pay on January 11 to negotiate on various issues at the VA
 Cemetery.  All leave taken by Callaway had to be approved beforehand by
 Lyon who frequently contacted Respondent's Labor Relations Office for
 instructions on the request.
 
    (9) Indeed if after receiving the Union's January 2 letter requesting
 January 31 as a date for negotiations Respondent timely informed the
 Union it would not delay negotiations, it is possible the Union would
 have made some arrangement to meet Respondent's time target.
 
    (10) In my view a union's difficulty in providing a representative
 for negotiations would not, standing alone, justify an inordinate delay
 in negotiations and a union must ordinarily be held responsible to have
 a negotiator available to participate in negotiations in a timely
 fashion.  Similarly, management is also responsible to have sufficient
 resources to meets its obligations.  Thus I find the fact that NAF
 Coordinator Rigsby was out of the office when the notice of the
 requirement for new National and Local Agency checks was received by
 Respondent from its Headquarters to be of little significance in
 explaining why, if the matter was so important, it took Respondent
 approximately one month to notify the Union of the change.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  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 National Agency and Local Agency checks on
 employees represented exclusively by the American Federation of
 Government Employees, Interdepartmental Local 3854, AFL-CIO, without
 providing the exclusive representative reasonable opportunity to
 complete bargaining concerning the procedures to be observed in
 implementing the checks and appropriate arrangements for any employee
 adversely affected by conducting such checks.
 
    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 provide the American Federation of Government Employees,
 Interdepartmental Local 3854, AFL-CIO, with a reasonable opportunity to
 complete bargaining concerning appropriate arrangements for any employee
 adversely affected by the National Agency and Local Agency employee
 checks already implemented.
 
    WE WILL provide the American Federation of Government Employees,
 Interdepartmental Local 3854, AFL-CIO, with a reasonable opportunity to
 complete bargaining