25:1090(92)CA - Energy, Washington, DC and Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Golden, CO and IBEW, Government Coordinating Council # 1 (Locals 640, 1759, 1959, 2159 and 1245) -- 1987 FLRAdec CA



[ v25 p1090 ]
25:1090(92)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 25 FLRA No. 92
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
 WASHINGTON, D.C. AND 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
 WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 
 GOLDEN, COLORADO
 Respondents
 
 and
 
 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
 ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, 
 GOVERNMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL #1 
 (LOCALS 640, 1759, 1959, 2159 and 1245)
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 7-CA-50281
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority based on the
 Regional Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Federal Labor
 Relations Authority" in accordance with section 2429.1 of the
 Authority's Rules and Regulations.  The complaint alleges that the
 Respondents violated section 7116(a)(1) and (6) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by failing and refusing
 to comply with a Decision and Order of the Federal Service Impasses
 Panel (the Panel) in Case No. 84 FSIP 29.
 
                              II.  Background
 
    The Charging Party and Respondent U.S. Department of Energy, Western
 Area Power Administration, Golden, Colorado (Respondent Golden or WAPA)
 were parties to a three-year collective bargaining agreement negotiated
 in 1981, which provided for periodic reopeners for the purpose of
 amending or modifying the agreement or any part of it.  In April 1983,
 the parties commenced mid-term negotiations.  Article 17 of the
 collective bargaining agreement governed negotiations and established in
 Section 17.7 a procedure for the parties to utilize when direct
 negotiations do not result in agreement.  That Section provided as
 follows:
 
          When agreement is not reached in direct negotiation on rates of
       pay or working conditions affecting employees covered by this
       agreement, either party may invoke the services of a mediator to
       be selected jointly by the parties.  The mediator shall use his
       best efforts to bring the parties to agreement.
 
          If such efforts to bring about an agreement through mediation
       are not successful, the Union and the Employer shall submit their
       disagreement to arbitration.  The parties shall, through the
       negative selection process, select an arbitrator from a panel of
       five (5) arbitrators supplied by the Federal Mediation and
       Conciliation Service.  The decision of the arbitrator shall be
       reviewed by the Administrator of Western for conformity to this
       agreement, and shall be final and binding on both parties upon
       approval by the Administrator.
 
          The expenses of mediation and arbitration, including the
       compensation and expenses of any mediator or arbitrator shall be
       borne equally by the Union and the Employer.
 
    During their mid-term negotiations, the parties sought the assistance
 of mediators to assist with the negotiations and ultimately engaged the
 service of an arbitrator as provided for in Section 17.7.  The
 arbitrator ruled on a number of outstanding issues.  Among the issues
 that were the subject of negotiations, and are involved in this case,
 are the following:  the Charging Party's proposal to delete the portion
 of Article 17, Section 17.7 which allows the Administrator of WAPA to
 review the arbitrator's decision, thereby in essence making the decision
 of the arbitrator final and binding;  and whether a wage adjustment for
 certain employees should be given retroactive effect.  On September 15,
 1983, the arbitrator issued his decision in which he determined, based
 on an interpretation of the agreement and the parties' bargaining
 history, that the arbitration procedure provided for in Article 17,
 Section 17.7 was advisory in nature.  Therefore, his decision would be
 advisory in nature, with one exception not relevant to this case, and
 would be subject to approval by the Administrator of WAPA.  However, the
 arbitrator strongly recommended that Section 17.7 be amended, as the
 Charging Party had requested, to provide for binding interest
 arbitration in future negotiations between the parties.  As to the wage
 adjustment issue, again based on an interpretation of the agreement as
 well as relevant statutes, the arbitrator agreed with the Charging
 Party's position that the adjustment be given retroactive effect to a
 date in June 1983.
 
    The Administrator of WAPA reviewed the arbitrator's decision in
 accordance with Section 17.7 and, on September 29, 1983, disapproved the
 recommendations as to the two issues involved in this case.  On November
 25, 1983, Respondent U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.,
 (Respondent Washington) performed a review under section 7114(c) of the
 Statute of "the 1983 modifications to the negotiated agreement between
 (WAPA and the Charging Party)." No review however was conducted of those
 provisions of the arbitrator's decision which had previously been
 disapproved by the Administrator of WAPA.  Respondent Golden
 subsequently implemented other provisions which had been reviewed and
 approved by Respondent Washington, effective on November 25, 1983.
 
    Thereafter, on or about December 5, 1983, the Charging Party filed a
 request for assistance with the Panel.  The Charging Party argued that
 the parties were still at impasse over the issues of Article 17, Section
 17.7 and the retroactivity of the wage adjustment since the
 recommendation and decision of the arbitrator on these issues had been
 disapproved.  /1/ The Respondents argued that no impasse existed and
 therefore the Panel lacked jurisdiction over the matter.  Contrary to
 the Respondents' assertion, the Panel determined that it did in fact
 have jurisdiction and proceeded to resolve the issues on their merits.
 As to Article 17, Section 17.7, the Panel directed the parties to adopt
 the Charging Party's proposal with an amendment to provide that the
 arbitrator's decision is final and binding unless either party timely
 files exceptions under section 7122 of the Statute.  The Panel likewise
 ordered the parties to adopt the Charging Party's proposal that the wage
 adjustment be made retroactive to the first pay period in June 1983.
 The Panel's Decision and Order was issued on October 3, 1984.
 
    Upon receipt of the Panel's Decision and Order, Respondent Golden
 transmitted the Decision and Order to Respondent Washington for review
 pursuant to section 7114(c) of the Statute.  On October 30, 1984,
 Respondent Washington disapproved the Panel's Order.  Respondent Golden
 then notified the Charging Party that the Panel's Decision and Order "is
 without consequence and has no effect on our current labor-management
 agreement." Also since that date, the Respondents have refused to
 implement and have not complied with the Panel's Decision and Order.
 
                      III.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Charging Party argues that the Panel properly asserted
 jurisdiction over the impasse and correctly decided the merits of the
 dispute.  Accordingly, the Respondents' conceded failure to comply with
 the Panel's Decision and Order is a violation of the Statute.  To remedy
 this conduct, the Charging Party has requested that the Respondents be
 ordered to comply with the Decision and Order and to pay "expenses and
 attorney's fees and costs, and costs of litigation" to the Charging
 Party.  /2/
 
    The General Counsel's position was limited to arguments that the
 Respondents' admitted failure and refusal to comply with the Panel's
 Decision and Order was a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (6) of the
 Statute.  The General Counsel specifically did not address whether or
 not the Panel properly exercised jurisdiction over the matter in the
 first instance and did not address the question of payment of attorney's
 fees and expenses.  The General Counsel did request, however, that the
 Panel's Decision and Order be made retroactive to October 30, 1984, and
 that the wage increase be made retroactive to the first pay period in
 June 1983.
 
    The Respondents argue that the Panel should not have asserted
 jurisdiction over the matter in the first instance.  They contend that
 Article 17, Section 17.7 constituted a procedure for resolving the
 parties' impasse, that the impasse was resolved pursuant to this
 procedure and that by agreeing to the terms of Article 17, Section 17.7,
 the Charging Party had waived its right to seek the assistance of the
 Panel in resolving the dispute.  The Respondents argue more particularly
 that under 5 U.S.C. Section 5343 (Amendments) (1982) (Section 704 of the
 Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) and prior decisions of the
 Panel, /3/ the type of procedure contained in Article 17, Section 17.7
 was a lawful procedure to be used in lieu of the procedures set forth in
 section 7119(c) of the Statute.  The Respondents further argue, for
 various reasons, that the Panel's Decision and Order conflicts with the
 Statute and the parties' collective bargaining agreement.  Finally, the
 Respondents object to the Charging Party's request for payment of legal
 expenses.
 
                               IV.  Analysis
 
    The question before us is whether the Panel properly ruled on the
 merits of the dispute.  If it did, then the Respondents' conceded
 failure to comply with the Panel's decision is a violation of section
 7116(a)(1) and (6) of the Statute.  For the reasons which follow, we
 find the Respondents' conduct was violative of section 7116(a)(1) and
 (6) of the Statute.
 
    First, we agree with the Panel that the parties were at an impasse in
 their negotiations.  We also agree with the Panel's finding that the
 Charging Party had not clearly and unmistakably waived its right to seek
 Panel assistance in resolving the dispute.
 
    The Respondents now argue in addition to their assertion that the
 Panel improperly asserted jurisdiction, that the Panel's Decision and
 Order conflicts with the Statute and/or provisions of the parties'
 agreement.  Before addressing these arguments and the Panel's decision
 on the merits, two of our recent decisions, which involve negotiations
 concerning "prevailing rate employees," such as are involved in this
 case and who, by law, have certain unique bargaining rights in the
 Federal sector, warrant discussion.
 
                       A.  Prior Authority Decisions
 
    In Columbia Power Trades Council and United States Department of
 Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, 22 FLRA No. 100 (1986), the
 Authority discussed the interpretation and application of section 704 of
 the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92
 Stat. 1111, 1218, codified at 5 U.S.C. Section 5343 (Amendments) (1982).
  /4/ Essentially, that section provides that matters pertaining to terms
 and conditions of employment and pay and pay practices which were
 subject to bargaining by prevailing rate employees covered under section
 9(b) of Pub. L. No. 92-392, codified at 5 U.S.C. Section 5343
 (Amendments) (1982), /5/ prior to August 19, 1972, shall continue to be
 subject to bargaining without regard for the provisions of chapter 71
 (the Statute), subchapter IV of chapter 53 (prevailing wage rate
 systems), and subchapter V of chapter 55 (premium pay), of title 5 of
 the United States Code.  In that case, the Authority found that
 particular matters which had been the subject of bargaining prior to
 August 19, 1972, continued to be within the scope of bargaining and were
 protected by section 704 from limitations on the scope of bargaining.
 
    In the second case, U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power
 Administration, Golden, Colorado, 22 FLRA No. 86 (1986), petition for
 review filed, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Western Area Power Administration,
 Golden, Colorado v. FLRA, No. 86-2414 (10th Cir. Sept. 25, 1986), and
 cases cited therein as WAPA 1 and WAPA 2, /6/ which all involve the same
 parties as are involved in this case, the Authority found the employees
 represented by the Charging Party had been included in bargaining units
 which historically had bargained over rates of pay.  Therefore, the
 unlawful exclusion of certain employees from the bargaining unit and the
 failure to negotiate with respect to their rates of pay were found to be
 violative of the Statute.  The respondent, WAPA, was ordered to bargain
 concerning the rates of pay and retroactively apply whatever agreement
 was reached.
 
    We will now address the merits of the Panel's Decision and Order on
 the two issues that were at impasse in this case.
 
                B.  Binding Interest Arbitration Procedure
 
    The Panel directed the parties to adopt the Charging Party's
 proposal, as amended by the Panel, providing for the use of binding
 interest arbitration for the resolution of negotiation impasses.  In so
 directing, the Panel noted first that parties negotiating pursuant to
 section 704 of the CSRA may request Panel assistance in resolving
 negotiation impasses, but they need not do so.  The Panel then
 determined that ordering a binding interest arbitration procedure for
 the resolution of future negotiation impasses should promote and
 strengthen the parties' labor-management relationship.  Finally, the
 Panel found that the comparability data before it supported the Charging
 Party's desire for direct access to binding interest arbitration without
 the need for Panel approval.
 
    The Respondents argue that the Panel's Decision and Order with
 respect to this issue violated various provisions of section 7119 of the
 Statute.  Specifically, they argue that binding interest arbitration may
 be ordered only if both parties agree to the procedure and the Panel has
 approved it on a case-by-case basis.  The Respondents also argue that
 the Panel must first assist the parties before it can order final and
 binding arbitration.
 
    As found in Columbia Power Trades Council, supra, matters which were
 subject to bargaining prior to August 19, 1972, are protected by section
 704 from any possible limitations on bargaining contained in the
 Statute.  Here, the record indicates that dispute resolution procedures
 for negotiation impasses had been negotiated on behalf of certain
 prevailing rate employees represented by the Charging Party prior to
 August 19, 1972.  Thus, the Charging Party states without contravention
 that contractually required interest arbitration, without prior resort
 to the Panel, has been in effect for many years involving certain of its
 constituent locals and the Bureau of Reclamation, functions of which
 were transferred in 1977 to create the Department of Energy.  Further,
 the bargaining unit employees involved in Department of the Interior,
 Bureau of Reclamation, Regional Office, Lower Missouri Region, Denver,
 Colorado (78 FSIP 41), supra, n.3 (wherein it was noted that a history
 of outside arbitration for certain disputes existed since 1960),
 includes employees who are currently in the bargaining unit involved in
 this case.  /7/ The Respondents also concede that section 704 of the
 CSRA permits the parties in this case to negotiate provisions which may
 be in conflict with the Statute, /8/ and in fact rely on the decisions
 of the Panel in 78 FSIP 41 and 79 FSIP 38, both cited at n.3, to support
 their position that procedures for resolving negotiation disputes do not
 require resort to the Panel.
 
    Based on the record as a whole, therefore, we find that the Panel
 properly directed the parties to adopt a procedure for binding interest
 arbitration.
 
                      C. Retroactive Wage Adjustment
 
    The Panel directed the parties to adopt the Charging Party's proposal
 that a wage increase for bargaining unit employees be made retroactive
 to the first pay period in June 1983.  The Panel found that this was
 consistent with the interest arbitrator's decision as to this matter and
 also that the Respondents had essentially agreed with the arbitrator's
 decision and reasoning although ultimately rejecting the recommendation.
 
    The Respondents now argue as they had in submissions to the Panel
 that the retroactive wage increase is contrary to the parties'
 agreement.  More particularly, they argue that a wage adjustment
 requires the approval by the Administrator of WAPA and that such
 approval did not occur until September 29, 1983.  Therefore, any wage
 adjustment could only become effective following this date and could not
 be made retroactive to a date in June.
 
    There is no dispute that the parties were obligated to bargain
 concerning the wage adjustment.  As stated in U.S. Department of Energy,
 Western Area Power Administration, supra, the employees involved, who
 are the same as in this case, had historically been included in a unit
 which negotiated over wages and continued to enjoy the protection of
 section 704 of the CSRA.  The question with which the interest
 arbitrator was presented was whether the adjustment could be made
 effective on a certain date.  The arbitrator interpreted provisions of
 the parties' agreement before concluding that certain conditions set
 forth in the agreement had been met and therefore the adjustment could
 appropriately be made effective in June 1983.  After this recommendation
 was rejected by the Respondents and the Charging Party sought the
 Panel's assistance in resolving the dispute over this matter, the Panel
 likewise weighed all the arguments and concluded that the Charging
 Party's position provided a reasonable basis for the resolution of the
 dispute.
 
    We find no basis on which to conclude that the Panel improperly ruled
 on this issue.  We note particularly that both the interest arbitrator
 and the Panel examined the Respondents' arguments concerning the effect
 of relevant agreement provisions and found them unpersuasive.  No
 additional arguments have been raised here which warrant a finding that
 the Panel improperly decided this issue.
 
                              V.  Conclusion
 
    We find that the Respondents' conceded failure to comply with the
 Panel's Decision and Order in Case No. 84 FSIP 29 is a violation of
 section 7116(a)(1) and (6) of the Statute.  More particularly as to
 Respondent Washington, the Authority has previously held that an
 improper agency head disapproval of a Panel-imposed provision, as
 occurred in this case when Respondent Washington disapproved the Panel's
 decision, constitutes a failure or refusal "to cooperate in . . .
 impasse decisions" in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (6).  See, for
 example, Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, 22
 FLRA No. 89 (1986), petition for review filed, Department of the
 Treasury, Internal Revenue Service v. FLRA, No. 86-1475 (D.C. Cir. Aug.
 25, 1986).  As for Respondent Golden, we find that its conduct in
 failing to comply with the Panel's Decision and Order was also violative
 of section 7116(a)(1) and (6).  Unlike the factual situation presented
 in the Department of the Treasury case, in which we found that it would
 not effectuate the purposes of the Statute to find a violation against
 the party that had simply engaged in the ministerial act of forwarding
 the Panel's decision to the agency head for review and thereafter failed
 to implement the decision, we view Respondent' Golden's actions as being
 more than ministerial in this case.  The General Counsel has also so
 argued.  The facts in this case indicate that Respondent Golden's
 Administrator initially rejected the interest arbitrator's
 recommendation and decision, then Respondent Golden argued against the
 Charging Party's attempt to seek a Panel-imposed resolution, and argued
 too that the Panel had no jurisdiction in the matter.  In view of
 Respondent Golden's conceded failure to comply with the Panel's Decision
 and Order and its actions as a whole, we conclude that its conduct was
 more than ministerial and constituted a violation of the Statute in its
 own regard.
 
                                VI.  Remedy
 
    To remedy the unlawful conduct, the Authority will order the
 Respondents to comply with the Panel's Decision and Order in 84 FSIP 29
 by granting the wage increase to bargaining unit employees retroactive
 to the first pay period in June 1983 and by adopting a procedure for
 binding interest arbitration.  In ordering adoption of the binding
 arbitration procedure, we recognize the possibility that in subsequent
 negotiations the parties may have mutually agreed to some other
 procedure or to no procedure at all.  An order requiring the parties to
 adopt a particular procedure at this time might upset whatever different
 agreement has been reached.  Since we do not view this result as
 desirable or helpful to the parties, we will order adoption of the
 binding interest arbitration procedure, as directed by the Panel, except
 to the extent that the parties have mutually agreed otherwise.
 Additionally, and as previously noted, the General Counsel has requested
 that we order the Panel's decision to be implemented retroactive to
 October 30, 1984.  We do not view this request as feasible in this case.
  The effect of the General Counsel's request would be to make binding
 any interest arbitrations that may have occurred subsequent to October
 30, 1984.  If there were any interest arbitrations after that date and
 the parties, including any interest arbitrators, proceeded on the
 assumption that the arbitration was not binding, an order that would now
 impose binding effect on such arbitration would be unjust and
 inconsistent with the Statute.  Conceivably, if the parties had
 approached any such intervening interest arbitration proceeding with the
 knowledge that the award would be binding, their positions might well
 have been different.  Also, parties have the statutory right to file
 exceptions to interest arbitration awards with the Authority under
 section 7122 of the Statute, but they must do so in a timely manner.
 /9/ By making binding any interest arbitration award issued subsequent
 to October 30, 1984, in effect we would be denying parties the right to
 file exceptions to all but the most recent arbitration decisions to
 which timely exceptions could be filed.  We do not view such a result as
 fair or warranted.  Rather, requiring the parties to adopt a binding
 interest arbitration procedure that will apply to future negotiation
 disputes will best effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute.
 
    As for the Charging Party's request for attorney's fees and various
 other expenses, we note that the Charging Party has neither indicated
 under what authority it is seeking such an award nor in any other manner
 demonstrated a basis under law and regulation by which such an award can
 be granted.  Therefore, the Charging Party's request in its current form
 is denied.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    The U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. and U.S. Department
 of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Golden, Colorado shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Failing and refusing to comply with the Decision and Order of the
 Federal Service Impasses Panel in Case No. 84 FSIP 29 by failing to
 implement the provisions directed by the Panel.
 
    (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing its 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 and the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute:
 
    (a) Comply with the Decision and Order of the Federal Service
 Impasses Panel in Case No. 84 FSIP 29 by adopting a procedure providing
 for binding interest arbitration of negotiation disputes, unless mutual
 agreement otherwise has been reached with the International Brotherhood
 of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Government Coordinating Council #1
 (Locals 640, 1759, 1959, 2159 and 1245).
 
    (b) Comply with the Decision and Order of the Federal Service
 Impasses Panel in Case No. 84 FSIP 29 by granting a wage increase for
 bargaining unit employees retroactive to the first pay period in June
 1983.
 
    (c) Post at the facilities within the U.S. Department of Energy,
 Western Area Power Administration, Golden, Colorado, 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
 Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., or a
 designee, and the Administrator of the Western Area Power
 Administration, Golden, Colorado, and shall be posted and maintained for
 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
 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.
 
    (d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director of Region VII, 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 it.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., February 27, 1987.
 
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       /s/ Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (1) Additionally, the Charging Party sought assistance with respect
 to the issue of pay rates for certain Foreman classifications.  However,
 this issue is not before us in this proceeding.
 
    (2) Subsequent to the filing of briefs in this case, the Charging
 Party filed an unopposed Motion to Supplement the Record.  The Authority
 was requested to take notice of an arbitration award involving Article
 17, Section17.7.  Such notice has been taken.
 
    (3) 5 U.S.C. Section 5343 (Amendments) (1982) will be discussed
 infra.  The Panel decisions referred to are Department of the Interior,
 Bureau of Reclamation, Regional Office, Lower Missouri Region, Denver,
 Colorado and Local 1759, International Brotherhood of Electrical
 Workers, AFL-CIO, Case No. 78 FSIP 41 (1978) (in which the parties had a
 negotiated provision since 1960 calling for outside arbitration of wage
 disputes), and Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources
 Service, Upper Colorado Region, Colorado River Storage Project, Page,
 Arizona and Local 2159, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
 AFL-CIO, Case No. 79 FSIP 38 (1980) wherein the Panel directed the
 parties to negotiate a provision for the use of binding arbitration,
 without Panel approval, for the resolution of negotiation impasses).
 
    (4) For the text of section 704 of the CSRA, see the Appendix at 1,
 attached to this decision.
 
    (5) For the text of section 9(b), see the Appendix, id.
 
    (6) Respectively, WAPA 1 and WAPA 2 are identified as Department of
 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, 3 FLRA 76 (1980), and
 Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Golden,
 Colorado, Case No. 7-CU-24 (February 17, 1981).
 
    (7) See Brief of the Charging Party at 15, 17-18.
 
    (8) See Agency Brief at 5.
 
    (9) See, for example, United States Air Force, Air Force Logistics
 Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 15 FLRA 151 (1984),
 aff'd sub nom.  Department of the Air Force v. Federal Labor Relations
 Authority, 775 F.2d 727 (6th Cir. 1985).
 
 
 
 
 
 
                          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 fail or refuse to comply with the Decision and Order of
 the Federal Service Impasses Panel in Case No. 84 FSIP 29 by failing to
 implement the provisions directed by the Panel.
 
    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 comply with the Decision and Order of the Federal Service
 Impasses Panel in Case No. 84 FSIP 29 by adopting a procedure providing
 for binding interest arbitration of negotiation disputes, unless we have
 mutually agreed otherwise with the International Brotherhood of
 Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Government Coordinating Council #1 (Locals
 640, 1759, 1959, 2159 and 1245).
 
    WE WILL comply with the Decision and Order of the Federal Service
 Impasses Panel in Case No. 84 FSIP 29 by granting a wage increase for
 bargaining unit employees retroactive to the first pay period in June
 1983.
                                       U.S. Department of Energy
 
    Dated:  . . .  By:  (Signature) (Title)
                                       Western Area Power Administration,
                                       Golden, Colorado
 
    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 VII, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address
 is:  535 16th Street, Suite 310, Denver, Colorado, 80202 and whose
 telephone number is:  (303) 837-5224.
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
    /4/ Section 704 of the CSRA provides as follows:
 
          Sec. 704.  (a) Those terms and conditions of employment and
       other employment benefits with respect to Government prevailing
       rate employees to whom section 9(b) of Public Law 92-392 applies
       which were the subject of negotiation in accordance with
       prevailing rates and practices prior to August 19, 1972, shall be
       negotiated on and after the date of the enactment of this Act in
       accordance with the provisions of section 9(b) of Public Law
       92-392 without regard to any provision of chapter 71 of title 5,
       United States Code (as amended by this title), to the extent that
       any such provision is inconsistent with this paragraph.
 
          (b) The pay and pay practices relating to employees referred to
       in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be negotiated in
       accordance with prevailing rates and pay practices without regard
       to any provision of --
 
          (A) chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code (as amended by
       this title), to the extent that any such provision is inconsistent
       with this paragraph;
 
          (B) subchapter IV of chapter 53 and subchapter V of chapter 55
       of title 5, United States Code;  or
 
          (C) any rule, regulation, decision, or order relating to rates
       of pay or pay practices under subchapter IV of chapter 53 or
       subchapter V of chapter 55 of title 5, United States Code.
 
    /5/ Section 9(b) of Pub. L. 92-392 provides:
 
          The amendments made by this Act . . . shall not be construed to
       --
 
          (1) abrogate, modify, or otherwise affect in any way the
       provisions of any contract in effect on the date of enactment of
       this Act pertaining to the wages, the terms and conditions of
       employment, and other employment benefits, or any of the foregoing
       matters, for Government prevailing rate employees and resulting
       from negotiations between Government agencies and organizations of
       Government employees;
 
          (2) nullify, curtail, or otherwise impair in any way the right
       of any party to such contract to enter into negotiations after the
       date of enactment of this Act for the renewal, extension,
       modification, or improvement of the provisions of such contract or
       for the replacement of such contract with a new contract;  or
 
          (3) nullify, change, or otherwise affect in any way after such
       date of enact