Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Brooklyn District Office, IRS (Respondents) and National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and NTEU, Chapter 53 (Complainants)  

 2 FLRA No. 76
 
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS)
 AND BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE, IRS
 Respondents
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION (NTEU)
 AND NTEU, CHAPTER 53
 Complainants
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 30-08634(CA)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    ON MAY 10, 1979, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GARVIN LEE OLIVER ISSUED
 HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING
 FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT, BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE, IRS, HAD ENGAGED
 IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND
 DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS SET FORTH IN THE
 ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.  /1/
 THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENTS FILED EXCEPTIONS AND A SUPPORTING BRIEF TO
 THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE
 COMPLAINANTS (UNION) FILED A RESPONSE THERETO.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION
 PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
 IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 (44 F.R. 44741,JULY 30, 1979).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE
 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN
 SECTION 7135(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HAS
 REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING
 AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE
 HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE SUBJECT
 CASE, INCLUDING THE RESPONDENTS' EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTING BRIEF AND THE
 UNION'S RESPONSE THERETO, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, EXCEPT AS
 MODIFIED HEREIN.
 
    THE COMPLAINT HEREIN ALLEGED, IN ESSENCE, THAT THE RESPONDENTS
 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY TRANSFERRING THE
 MAINTENANCE OF MANUAL PART PAYMENT JOB FUNCTION AND THE ROUTINE
 MICROFILM SEARCHES JOB FUNCTION FROM THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE TO THE
 BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER, WITHOUT PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO THE UNION AND
 AFFORDING IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST NEGOTIATION OVER THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS.  /2/
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT DID IN FACT
 TRANSFER THE JOB FUNCTIONS IN ISSUE, AND THAT THE TRANSFERS DID EFFECT A
 CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES AND THUS HAD AN IMPACT ON
 THEIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  HE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE
 UNION WAS FIRST NOTIFIED OF THE JOB FUNCTION TRANSFERS AFTER THE
 MICROFILM SEARCHES FUNCTION HAD IN FACT BEEN TRANSFERRED, AND, WITH
 RESPECT TO THE MAINTENANCE OF MANUAL PART PAYMENT FUNCTION, THAT THE
 MANNER OF NOTICE GIVEN TO THE UNION DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE TYPE OF
 PRECISE NOTIFICATION ENVISAGED BY THE ORDER.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE FOUND THAT SUCH NOTIFICATION WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE UNION
 TO NEGOTIATE IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER, PRIOR TO THE CHANGES, CONCERNING
 THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT'S DECISIONS.  FINALLY, HE
 CONCLUDED THAT WHERE IT HAD NOT BEEN AFFORDED REASONABLE NOTICE, THE
 UNION DID NOT HAVE TO REQUEST BARGAINING IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A
 VIOLATION OF THE ORDER BY THE RESPONDENT.  ACCORDINGLY THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENT BY UNILATERALLY
 IMPLEMENTING THE TRANSFER OF THE MICROFILM SEARCHES FUNCTION AND THE
 MAINTENANCE OF MANUAL PART FUNCTION FROM THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE TO
 THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE
 ORDER.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO NOTIFICATION TO THE UNION OF THE JOB FUNCTION
 TRANSFERS, THE FACTS, AS FOUND BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, ARE
 CLEAR.  HAVING MADE ITS DECISION TO TRANSFER A NUMBER OF JOB FUNCTIONS
 FROM THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE TO THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER, THE
 RESPONDENT TRANSFERRED THE MICROFILM SEARCHES FUNCTION DURING THE FIRST
 WEEK IN JANUARY 1978, AND THE MAINTENANCE OF MANUAL PART PAYMENT
 FUNCTION ON EITHER FEBRUARY 12 OR 13, 1978.  BETWEEN THOSE DATES, ON
 JANUARY 17, 1978, GARGANO, ONE OF RESPONDENT'S BRANCH CHIEFS, TOLD UNION
 VICE-PRESIDENT MODIN OF RESPONDENT'S PLANS INVOLVING THE TWO TRANSFERS
 IN ISSUE, ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT KNOW AT THAT TIME WHETHER THE TRANSFERS
 HAD TAKEN PLACE.  AS CREDITED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SHORTLY
 THEREAFTER, MODIN RELAYED THAT INFORMATION TO UNION PRESIDENT BRAVERMAN.
  THE RECORD REVEALS NO EARLIER NOTIFICATION TO THE UNION.  THUS, THE
 UNION HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESPONDENT'S PLAN TO TRANSFER THE
 MICROFILM SEARCHES FUNCTION UNTIL AFTER THAT TRANSFER WAS A FAIT
 ACCOMPLI.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS,
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, THE
 AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF
 THE ORDER BY TRANSFERRING THE MICROFILM SEARCHES FUNCTION WITHOUT
 NOTIFYING THE UNION AND AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER
 ON THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WOULD OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH
 TRANSFER AND ON THE IMPACT OF SUCH TRANSFER ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT
 EMPLOYEES.
 
    HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO THE MAINTENANCE OF MANUAL PART PAYMENT
 FUNCTION, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE UNION HAD ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF
 THE RESPONDENT'S DECISION ALMOST A MONTH PRIOR TO THE ACTION TAKEN.
 THUS, AS NOTED ABOVE, BOTH THE UNION PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT WERE
 MADE AWARE OF RESPONDENT'S PLANS IN MID-JANUARY, PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL
 TRANSFER WHICH TOOK PLACE ON FEBRUARY 12 OR 13.  CONTRARY TO
 COMPLAINANT'S ARGUMENTS, IN THE AUTHORITY'S VIEW IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT,
 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THAT THE USUAL MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS
 DID NOT EFFECTUATE THE NOTIFICATION AND THAT GARGANO DID NOT KNOW THE
 STATUS OF THE IMPENDING TRANSFERS WHEN HE INFORMED MODIN OF THEIR
 EXISTENCE.  WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT, IN THE VIEW OF THE AUTHORITY, IS THAT
 RESPONSIBLE UNION OFFICIALS HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE IMPENDING
 TRANSFER IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO DEMAND BARGAINING CONCERNING ITS IMPACT
 AND IMPLEMENTATION.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE UNION WAS OBLIGED TO
 REQUEST NEGOTIATIONS IN ORDER TO GIVE RISE TO THE RESPONDENT'S
 OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN.  /3/ THE RECORD SHOWS NO SUCH REQUEST OR DEMAND
 BY THE UNION PRIOR TO THE FILING OF ITS CHARGE IN THE INSTANT CASE.
 ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY WILL ORDER THAT THIS ALLEGATION OF THE
 COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED.  /4/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7135 OF THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS
 THAT BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE, IRS, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INSTITUTING A TRANSFER OF THE MICROFILM SEARCHES FUNCTION FROM
 THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT
 
    OFFICE, IRS, TO THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER, IRS, INVOLVING
 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED
 
    EXCLUSIVELY BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU,
 CHAPTER 53, OR ANY OTHER
 
    EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING
 THE EXCLUSIVE
 
    REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER,
 TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT
 
    WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL
 OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH
 
    A TRANSFER AND ON THE IMPACT SUCH TRANSFER WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
 AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU
 
    CHAPTER 53, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH
 
    MANAGEMENT OBSERVED IN TRANSFERRING THE MICROFILM SEARCHES FUNCTION
 AND THE IMPACT SUCH
 
    TRANSFER HAD ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN THE EXCLUSIVELY
 RECOGNIZED UNIT.
 
    (B) POST AT ALL INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE
 FACILITIES AND
 
    INSTALLATIONS COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON
 FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE
 
    AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE
 DIRECTOR OF THE BROOKLYN
 
    DISTRICT OFFICE AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER,
 
    IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES
 WHERE NOTICES TO
 
    EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE
 REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE
 
    THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN
 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE
 
    OF THIS ORDER, AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT FOUND NOT TO
 BE VIOLATIVE OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE NO.
 30-08634(CA) BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 25, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                                 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 INSTITUTE A TRANSFER OF THE MICROFILM SEARCHES FUNCTION
 FROM THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE, IRS, TO THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE
 CENTER, IRS, INVOLVING EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE NATIONAL
 TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU, CHAPTER 53, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO
 THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE PROCEDURES WHICH
 MANAGEMENT WILL OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH A TRANSFER AND ON THE
 IMPACT SUCH TRANSFER WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    WE WILL UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 53, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW
 AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT OBSERVED IN
 TRANSFERRING THE MICROFILM SEARCHES FUNCTION FROM THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT
 OFFICE, IRS, TO THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER, IRS, AND THE IMPACT SUCH
 TRANSFER HAD ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN THE EXCLUSIVELY
 RECOGNIZED UNIT.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  BY:  (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:
 ROOM 241, 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007, AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (212) 264-4934.
 
    ALLAN B. HORN, ESQUIRE
 
    ROBERT F. HERMANN, ASSISTANT
 
    REGIONAL COUNSEL
 
    OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COUNSEL
 
    INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
 
    NORTH-ATLANTIC REGION
 
    26 FEDERAL PLAZA, 12TH FLOOR
 
    NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 
    MR. FRANK D. FERRIS
 
    DIRECTOR OF TRAINING
 
    NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 
    1730 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 1101
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
 
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    BEFORE:  GARVIN LEE OLIVER
 
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                      RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS CASE AROSE PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AS A
 RESULT OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT FILED ON AUGUST 17, 1978
 AND AN AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1978 BY THE NATIONAL
 TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION (NTEU), CHAPTER 53 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE
 COMPLAINANT OR UNION), AGAINST THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) AND
 BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE, IRS (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE RESPONDENTS OR
 ACTIVITY).
 
    THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE RESPONDENTS VIOLATED SECTIONS
 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BY THE TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS,
 SPECIFICALLY, MAINTENANCE OF MANUAL PART PAYMENT AND ROUTINE MICROFILM
 SEARCHES FROM THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT TO THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER,
 SOMETIME AFTER FEBRUARY 15, 1978, WITHOUT PRIOR NEGOTIATION OVER IMPACT
 AND IMPLEMENTATION WITH THE UNION.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN THIS MATTER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED IN NEW YORK,
 NEW YORK.  BOTH PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED AND AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY
 TO BE HEARD, TO ADDUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND TO EXAMINE AND
 CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.  POST-HEARING BRIEFS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM
 BOTH PARTIES AND DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    BASED ON THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, THE EXHIBITS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE
 ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, AND THE BRIEFS, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF
 FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    COMPLAINANT IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR A UNIT
 COMPRISED OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES OF THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT, IRS.
 
    ON DECEMBER 5, 1977, A MEETING ATTENDED BY ALL INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, NORTH-ATLANTIC REGIONAL DISTRICT DIRECTORS AND
 COLLECTION/COLLECTION AND TAXPAYER SERVICE (CATS) DIVISION CHIEFS WAS
 CONDUCTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, NORTH-ATLANTIC REGION TO DISCUSS COLLECTION RESOURCES.  AMONG
 THE TOPICS DISCUSSED WAS THE FEASIBILITY OF CENTRALIZATION OF VARIOUS
 DISTRICT FUNCTIONS IN THE BROOKHAVEN AND ANDOVER SERVICE CENTERS TO
 CONSERVE RESOURCES.  THEREAFTER, STUDIES WERE UNDERTAKEN BY DISTRICT AND
 REGIONAL PERSONNEL IN CONNECTION WITH SUGGESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS AT THE
 DECEMBER 5 MEETING.  AS A RESULT OF THESE STUDIES, THE REGIONAL
 COMMISSIONER DECIDED TO TRANSFER THE MICROFILM RESEARCH AND MANUALLY
 MONITORED INSTALLMENT AGREEMENTS FUNCTIONS, AMONG OTHERS, FROM THE
 DISTRICTS, INCLUDING BROOKLYN, TO THE SERVICE CENTERS.  (R.A. EXH. ID:
 TR. 128).  THESE FUNCTIONS WERE PERFORMED IN THE BROOKLYN OFFICE BY THE
 OFFICE MANAGEMENT BRANCH.  (TR. 76).
 
    THE ROUTINE MICROFILM RESEARCH FUNCTION WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE
 BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY 1979.  (TR.
 94-95, 109, 128).  THERE WERE THREE INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING THE MICROFILM
 RESEARCH TASK PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER.  ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS PERFORMED
 MICROFILM RESEARCH ON A FULL-TIME BASIS, AND TWO CLERICAL EMPLOYEES DID
 THE RESEARCH APPROXIMATELY TWENTY PERCENT OF THEIR TIME.  AFTER THE
 TRANSFER, THE INDIVIDUAL DEVOTING FULL-TIME TO MICROFILM RESEARCH DUTIES
 CONTINUED TO PERFORM SPECIAL MICROFILM RESEARCH FULL-TIME, BUT, WITH THE
 LOSS OF THE ROUTINE RESEARCH, THE CLERICAL EMPLOYEES THEN DEVOTED
 FULL-TIME TO THEIR CLERICAL DUTIES.  (TR. 94-98;  111-112;  139-141).
 PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER IT TOOK REVENUE OFFICERS 4-7 DAYS TO OBTAIN A
 REPLY TO A ROUTINE MICROFILM RESEARCH REQUEST.  AFTER THE TRANSFER,
 10-12 DAYS WAS REQUIRED FOR A REPLY.  (TR. 99).
 
    ON JANUARY 11, 1978, CUBIE DAWSON, CHIEF, COLLECTIONS DIVISION,
 BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE, MET WITH HIS BRANCH CHIEFS.  HE ADVISED THEM
 OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S PLANS TO TRANSFER CERTAIN FUNCTIONS TO
 THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER.  (TR. 127).  HE TOOK NO STEPS AT THIS
 TIME TO NOTIFY THE UNION.  (TR. 130).  THE PRACTICE AT THIS TIME OF
 NOTIFYING THE UNION OF CHANGES IN PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES AND
 WORKING CONDITIONS WAS FOR MR. DAWSON OR HIS ASSISTANT, MR. ZARUCHES, TO
 NOTIFY GEORGE BRAVERMAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNION, OR, IF MR. BRAVERMAN
 WAS NOT AVAILABLE, TO NOTIFY HERMAN MODIN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
 COLLECTION, AND ASK THAT MR. MODIN NOTIFY MR. BRAVERMAN.  IN ADDITION,
 THE BRANCH CHIEFS NORMALLY NOTIFIED THE UNION STEWARDS IN THEIR
 RESPECTIVE BRANCHES.  (TR. 87-91;  116;  190-191).
 
    JOE A. GARGANO, FIELD BRANCH CHIEF, COLLECTION DIVISION, ATTENDED THE
 BRANCH CHIEFS MEETING ON JANUARY 11, 1978.  MR. GARGANO HAD NO
 MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE BRANCH, WHICH WAS PRIMARILY
 AFFECTED BY THE TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS, BUT DECIDED TO INFORM HERMAN
 MODIN, UNION VICE PRESIDENT FOR COLLECTIONS AND STEWARD FOR THE REVENUE
 OFFICERS IN HIS BRANCH, ON JANUARY 17, 1978, BECAUSE MR. MODIN HAD BEEN
 COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DETAILING OF REVENUE OFFICERS TO THE OFFICE
 BRANCH, AND MR. GARGANO BELIEVED THAT THE TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS WOULD
 REDUCE THE NUMBER OF HOURS REVENUE OFFICERS WERE SO DETAILED.  (TR.
 155-156;  161-162, 171;  REG. ADM. EXH.  1D-1).
 
    MR. GARGANO ADVISED MR. MODIN, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT, "ALL
 MICROFILM RESEARCH WAS BEING SCHEDULED TO BE HANDLED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE
 BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER," AND "MANUAL PART-PAYMENT AGREEMENTS WILL
 ALSO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE SERVICE CENTER." (REG.  ADM. EXH. 1D-1).  MR.
 GARGANO WAS NOT AWARE OF WHICH CHANGES HAD OR HAD NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED
 AT THIS TIME.  (TR. 164, 170).
 
    HERMAN MODIN TESTIFIED THAT SHORTLY AFTER HIS JANUARY 17, 1978
 CONVERSATION WITH MR. GARGANO, HE TELEPHONED GEORGE BRAVERMAN, PRESIDENT
 OF THE UNION, TO INFORM HIM OF THE TRANSFER OF THE TWO FUNCTIONS.  (TR.
 183).  MR. BRAVERMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE RECEIVED NO SUCH CALL.  (TR.
 200-201).  I CREDIT MR. MODIN'S TESTIMONY IN THIS REGARD.  MR. MODIN IS
 A KEY OFFICE HOLDER IN THE UNION, AND HIS TESTIMONY WAS, ARGUABLY,
 CONTRARY TO THE INTEREST OF THE UNION, WHILE MR. BRAVERMAN'S TESTIMONY
 IN THIS REGARD IS SUBSTANTIALLY SELF-SERVING.
 
    THE MAINTENANCE OF NON-IDES MONITORED INSTALLMENT AGREEMENTS, OR
 MANUAL PART PAYMENT FUNCTION, WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT
 TO THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER ON FEBRUARY 12 OR 13, 1978 (TR. 133).
 
    THE MANUAL PART PAYMENT FUNCTION IN THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT WAS
 PERFORMED BY RESEARCH ADJUSTMENT EXAMINERS AS A SMALL PORTION OF THEIR
 DUTIES PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER.  PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER, THIS FUNCTION
 ENTAILED EXAMINERS REVIEWING PART PAYMENT FILES APPROXIMATELY FOUR HOURS
 A MONTH TO ASSURE THAT INSTALLMENT OR PART PAYMENT AGREEMENTS WITH
 TAXPAYERS WERE CURRENT AND WERE NOT IN DEFAULT.  AFTER THE PRIMARY
 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FUNCTION WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE SERVICE CENTER,
 THESE SAME EXAMINERS IN THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT CONTINUED TO QUALITY
 REVIEW THE FILES TO MAKE SURE THAT PAYMENT PLANS WERE EQUITABLE AND IN
 KEEPING WITH INTERNAL REVENUE MANUAL PROVISIONS.  HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF
 FOUR HOURS, THEY SPENT APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR ON THE REVIEW FUNCTION.
 THE ONLY PORTION OF THE FUNCTION WHICH WAS NOT PERFORMED IN BROOKLYN
 AFTER THE TRANSFER WAS THE POSTING OF PAYMENTS IN FILES AND A MONTHLY
 REVIEW TO INSURE THAT PAYMENTS WERE UP TO DATE.  (TR. 113-114, 147-148).
 
    MR. NATHAN ZARUCHES, ASSISTANT CHIEF, COLLECTION DIVISION, TESTIFIED
 THAT AFTER THE MICROFILM RESEARCH AND MANUAL PART PAYMENT FUNCTION HAD
 BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER, HE HAD AN INFORMAL
 MEETING WITH GEORGE BRAVERMAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNION, SOMETIME BETWEEN
 THE FIRST AND THIRD WEEKS IN FEBRUARY 1978.  (TR. 69-70, 75, 77).  MR.
 BRAVERMAN TOLD MR. ZARUCHES THAT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME
 FUNCTIONS HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED.  MR.  ZARUCHES ACKNOWLEDGED THAT FOUR
 FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING MICROFILM RESEARCH AND MANUAL PART PAYMENT, HAD
 BEEN TRANSFERRED AND THAT EIGHT OTHERS WERE STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION.
 MR. ZARUCHES GAVE MR.  BRAVERMAN A COPY OF A MEMORANDUM DATED FEBRUARY
 2, 1978 WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
 AND WHICH LISTED THE VARIOUS FUNCTIONS WHICH WERE BEING CONSIDERED FOR
 CHANGE, OR ON WHICH SOME ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN (TR. 69;  REG. ADM. EXH.
 1=D-3).
 
    MR. BRAVERMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE RECALLED NO SUCH MEETING WITH MR.
 ZARUCHES IN FEBRUARY 1978, AND THAT HIS REVIEW OF HIS DAILY LOCATOR
 RECORDS AND APPOINTMENT BOOK REFLECTED NO SUCH MEETING.  (TR. 22-23).
 HOWEVER, I CREDIT MR. ZARUCHES' TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE MEETING,
 PRIMARILY ON THE BASIS OF HIS FIRM RECOLLECTION CONCERNING THE
 CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH HE GAVE THE FEBRUARY 2, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO MR.
 BRAVERMAN.
 
    MR. BRAVERMAN RECEIVED INQUIRIES ABOUT THE TRANSFERS FROM EMPLOYEES
 IN THE MINEOLA OFFICE.  THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR JOB OR POSITION
 DESCRIPTIONS BEING CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER.  (TR. 32-33,
 36).
 
    ON MARCH 7, 1978 MR. BRAVERMAN AND MR. MODIN MET WITH CUBIE DAWSON,
 CHIEF, COLLECTIONS DIVISION AND FRANK RAMAGITO, CHIEF OF PERSONNEL,
 CONCERNING ANOTHER MATTER.  AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING, MR.
 BRAVERMAN INQUIRIED ABOUT THE TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS TO THE BROOKHAVEN
 SERVICE CENTER.  MR. DAWSON REPLIED THAT MICROFILM RESEARCH HAD BEEN
 TRANSFERRED, BUT HE WAS NOT SURE AS TO THE EXACT DATES OF THE TRANSFER
 OF OTHER ITEMS, OR WHETHER, IN FACT, THEY WOULD BE TRANSFERRED.  MR.
 DAWSON WAS NOT AWARE AT THE TIME THAT THE MANUAL PART PAYMENTS FUNCTION
 HAD ALREADY BEEN TRANSFERRED.  MR. BRAVERMAN STATED THAT THIS MATTER
 SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE UNION BEFOREHAND AS HE MIGHT WANT TO
 NEGOTIATE THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT.  MR. DAWSON REPLIED THAT THE
 DECISION WAS MADE BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE AND, AS FAR AS HE WAS
 CONCERNED, IT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE OPERATION.
 ACCORDINGLY, HE DID NOT AGREE THAT THIS WAS A MATTER THEY NEEDED TO
 NEGOTIATE.  NO FURTHER DETAILS CONCERNING THE TRANSFERS WERE PROVIDED.
 (TR. 32-35;  134-137;  143-144).
 
    THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE WAS FILED APRIL 19, 1978.  THE
 RESPONDENT'S REPLY OF JUNE 20, 1978 NOTES THAT DURING THE PERTINENT
 PERIOD THE UNION "DID NOT PRESENT ANY INFORMATION TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS
 SOME NEGOTIABLE IMPACT OR TO PROVIDE IMPACT AREAS FOR US TO DISCUSS."
 THE REPLY ALSO STATED, "SHOULD NTEU SUBMIT NEGOTIABLE ITEMS, WE WILL, OF
 COURSE, DISCUSS THEM WITH YOU." (REG. ADM. EXH. 1B-2).
 
    THE ROUTINE MICROFILM RESEARCH AND MANUAL PART PAYMENT FUNCTIONS WERE
 RETURNED FROM THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER TO THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT
 OFFICE IN OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER, 1978.
 
               DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
    A.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS
 
    AT THE HEARING IN THIS MATTER, COMPLAINANT ATTEMPTED, FOR THE FIRST
 TIME, TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THEIR COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE THE TRANSFER OF
 THE TD1 INITIAL PROCESSING FUNCTION TO THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER.
 BOTH THE CHARGE AND COMPLAINT REFER "SPECIFICALLY" TO THE TRANSFER OF
 THE MICROFILM RESEARCH AND MANUAL PART PAYMENT FUNCTION.  THE AGENCY
 RESPONSE ALSO ADDRESSES ONLY THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE TRANSFER OF
 THE TWO FUNCTIONS.  AS FOUND ABOVE, COMPLAINANT WAS AWARE AT THE TIME
 THE CHARGE WAS FILED THAT OTHER FUNCTIONS WERE BEING TRANSFERRED.  THE
 AGENCY WAS NOT ON PROPER NOTICE OF, OR PREPARED, TO LITIGATE OTHER
 MATTERS AT THE HEARING.  SINCE OTHER MATTERS WERE NOT PROPERLY RAISED IN
 EITHER THE PRE-COMPLAINT CHARGE OR THE COMPLAINT, THEY WILL NOT BE
 CONSIDERED.  DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, A/SLMR NO.
 967(1978).
 
    B.  TRANSFER OF MICROFILM RESEARCH AND MANUAL PART PAYMENT FUNCTIONS
 
    NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR MANAGEMENT DECISION IS
 NONNEGOTIABLE BECAUSE IT FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 11(B) OR
 12(B) OF THE ORDER, THE AGENCY OR ACTIVITY MUST, NEVERTHELESS, AFFORD AN
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE REASONABLE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN
 WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH ACTION, PRIOR TO
 ITS IMPLEMENTATION, WHEN SUCH ACTION EFFECTS A CHANGE IN EXISTING
 PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES OR WORKING CONDITIONS OF UNIT
 EMPLOYEES, PROVIDED IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE
 RESERVED RIGHTS THEMSELVES.  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND
 WELFARE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM
 SERVICE CENTER, A/SLMR NO. 984(1978);  U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, REGION VII,
 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, A/SLMR NO. 1066(1978);  DEPARTMENT OF THE
 TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER, 7 A/SLMR
 255, A/SLMR NO. 814(1977).
 
    RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE TRANSFERS HAD NO "SIGNIFICANT" IMPACT;
 THUS, THEY WERE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY COMPLAINANT PRIOR TO
 IMPLEMENTATION, RELYING ON DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK NAVAL
 SHIPYARD, 7 A/SLMR 199, A/SLMR NO. 805(1977);  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
 AIR NATIONAL GUARD, TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD, CAMP MABRY, AUSTIN, TEXAS,
 6 A/SLMR 591, A/SLMR NO. 738(1976);  NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS AREA, MASTER
 STATION EASTPAC, HONOLULU, A/SLMR NO.  1035(1978);  AND DEPARTMENT OF
 THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER,
 SUPRA.  THESE CASES ARE INAPPOSITE.  AS THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY POINTED
 OUT IN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL TRAINING
 CENTER, GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS, A/SLMR NO. 1175, FN. 3(DEC. 29, 1978),
 THE TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD CASE INVOLVED PROHIBITING THE CONSUMPTION
 OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, AND THE NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS AREA CASE INVOLVED
 THE USE OF VOLUNTEER BARTENDERS, BOTH AREAS NOT TRADITIONALLY ASSOCIATED
 WITH PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS.
 FURTHER, IN THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD CASE, INVOLVING A CHANGE IN THE
 MANNER OF ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, IT WAS FOUND THAT NO
 CHANGE HAD OCCURRED IN THE PERSONNEL POLICIES, PRACTICES, OR GENERAL
 WORKING CONDITIONS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  LIKEWISE, IN BROOKHAVEN
 SERVICE CENTER IT WAS FOUND THAT ABSENT ANY EVIDENCE OF CHANGE IN THE
 ACTUAL DUTIES PERFORMED BY CONTROL CLERKS, THE AGENCY WAS UNDER NO
 OBLIGATION TO INFORM THE UNION PRIOR TO ISSUING A NEW STANDARD POSITION
 DESCRIPTION.
 
    RESPONDENT'S DECISION TO TRANSFER THE MICROFILM RESEARCH AND MANUAL
 PART PAYMENT FUNCTIONS FROM THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE TO THE
 BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER DID EFFECT A CHANGE IN THE WORKING CONDITIONS
 OF UNIT EMPLOYEES.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT TWO CLERICAL EMPLOYEES WHO
 PREVIOUSLY WORKED ON ROUTINE MICROFILM RESEARCH ABOUT TWENTY PERCENT OF
 THEIR TIME NO LONGER PERFORMED SUCH WORK AFTER THE TRANSFER.  THE
 EVIDENCE ALSO SHOWS THAT AFTER THE TRANSFER IT TOOK REVENUE OFFICERS
 FIVE OR SIX DAYS LONGER TO OBTAIN REPLIES TO ROUTINE MICROFILM RESEARCH
 REQUESTS AND, CONSEQUENTLY, IT TOOK THEM LONGER TO COMPLETE THEIR CASE
 ASSIGNMENTS.  SIMILARLY, AFTER THE TRANSFER OF THE MANUAL PART PAYMENT
 FUNCTION, EXAMINERS SPENT FOUR HOURS LESS PER MONTH ON THE REVIEW OF
 PART PAYMENT FILES AND THE POSTING OF SUCH PAYMENTS WAS NO LONGER
 PERFORMED AT THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE.  ONE MANAGER BELIEVED THAT
 THE TRANSFER OF THESE FUNCTIONS, TOGETHER WITH OTHERS, WOULD REDUCE THE
 NUMBER OF HOURS REVENUE OFFICERS WERE DETAILED FROM THE FIELD BRANCH TO
 THE OFFICE BRANCH, AND SOME EMPLOYEES WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR JOBS OR
 POSITION DESCRIPTIONS BEING CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFERS.
 
    THE CHANGE DIRECTLY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES DURING DUTY HOURS, WAS
 DIRECTLY JOB-RELATED, AND EMPLOYEES HAD REASONABLE JOB-RELATED CONCERNS
 ABOUT POSSIBLE TANGENTIAL CONSEQUENCES.  THUS, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT
 RESPONDENT BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE, IRS, WAS REQUIRED TO AFFORD THE
 COMPLAINT REASONABLE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN WITH RESPECT
 TO THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH ACTION PRIOR TO ITS
 IMPLEMENTATION.  CF. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BRSI, NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE CENTER,
 A/SLMR NO.  984(FEB. 6, 1978) AND A/SLMR NO. 1150(NOV. 17, 1978)
 (DECISION TO TRANSFER CLAIMS CASES EFFECTED A CHANGE IN EMPLOYEE TERMS
 AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT).  ABSENT SOME FORM OF NATIONAL RECOGNITION
 OR NATIONAL CONSULTATION RIGHTS, RESPONDENT IRS, AS OPPOSED TO
 RESPONDENT BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE, IRS, HAD NO OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN
 OR CONSULT WITH NTEU WITH RESPECT TO MATTERS CONCERNING LOCAL
 MANAGEMENT
 DECISIONS.  INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, SOUTH
 CAROLINA DISTRICT OFFICE, A/SLMR NO. 1027(1978).
 
    IT IS CLEAR THAT NO PRIOR NOTICE WAS AFFORDED COMPLAINANT WITH
 RESPECT TO THE TRANSFER OF THE MICROFILM RESEARCH FUNCTION.  RESPONDENTS
 CONTEND HOWEVER, THAT PRIOR NOTICE WAS AFFORDED TO COMPLAINANT WITH
 RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF THE MANUAL PART PAYMENT FUNCTION
 THROUGH FIELD BRANCH CHIEF GARGANO'S CONVERSATION WITH CHAPTER VICE
 PRESIDENT AND FIELD BRANCH STEWARD MODIN ON JANUARY 17, 1978 AND
 ASSISTANT COLLECTION DIVISION CHIEF ZARUCHES CONVERSATION WITH CHAPTER
 PRESIDENT BRAVERMAN SOMETIME AFTER FEBRUARY 2, 1978.  THE MANUAL PART
 PAYMENT FUNCTION WAS TRANSFERRED ON FEBRUARY 12 OR 13, 1978.
 
    MR. ZARUCHES TESTIFIED THAT BOTH FUNCTIONS HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED
 BEFORE HIS CONVERSATION WITH MR. BRAVERMAN SOMETIME AFTER FEBRUARY 2,
 1978.  I CREDIT HIS TESTIMONY.  THUS, THIS CONVERSATION WITH MR.
 BRAVERMAN DID NOT CONSTITUTE PRIOR NOTICE.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO MR. GARGANO'S CONVERSATION WITH MR. MODIN, IT WAS
 ESTABLISHED THAT A PAST PRACTICE EXISTED WHEREBY EITHER MR. DAWSON OR
 MR. ZARUCHES WOULD SOMETIMES NOTIFY MR. MODIN AND ASK HIM TO RELAY THE
 INFORMATION TO MR.BRAVERMAN.  THERE WAS, HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE THAT MR.
 GARGANO, WHO HAD NO MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE BRANCH, WAS
 USED BY MR. DAWSON OR MR. ZARUCHES TO NOTIFY THE UNION OF OFFICE BRANCH
 CHANGES THROUGH MR. MODIN.  MR.  GARGANO MERELY DISCUSSED MATTERS WITH
 MR. MODIN AS THE FIELD BRANCH STEWARD, AND HIS CONVERSATION ON JANUARY
 17, 1978 WAS REGARDED BY BOTH MR. GARGANO AND MR. DAWSON SIMPLY AS A
 CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE FIELD BRANCH CHIEF AND THE FIELD BRANCH
 STEWARD.  THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT HE SHOULD NOTIFY MR. MODIN, OR
 THAT MANAGEMENT WAS RECEPTIVE TO CONSULTATION ON THE ISSUE.  CF. GENERAL
 SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, REGION 3, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, CENTRAL
 SUPPORT FIELD OFFICE, A/SLMR 583(1975).  MR. GARGANO WAS NOT EVEN AWARE
 ON JANUARY 17, 1978 OF WHICH CHANGES HAD OR HAD NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
 THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH MR. MODIN MADE MR. BRAVERMAN AWARE OF HIS
 CONVERSATION WITH MR. GARGANO, THIS NOTICE TO MR. MODIN DID NOT
 CONSTITUTE THE TYPE OF PRECISE NOTIFICATION BY RESPONDENT ENVISAGED BY
 THE ORDER WHICH WOULD HAVE ENABLED THE COMPLAINANT TO BARGAIN IN A
 MEANINGFUL MANNER, PRIOR TO THE CHANGE, CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MANAGEMENT DECISION.  CF.  JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT,
 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, 7 A/SLMR 758, A/SLMR
 NO. 893(1977);  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, 7 A/SLMR 844, A/SLMR NO. 909(1977).
 
    THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE RECORD THAT PRIOR TO, OR EVEN ON, MARCH
 7, 1978, WHEN THE UNION SPECIFICALLY INQUIRED ABOUT THE TRANSFERS, THAT
 MANAGEMENT RECOGNIZED THE UNION'S RIGHT TO BARGAIN ON THE IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE.  RESPONDENTS POINT OUT THAT COMPLAINANT AT
 NO TIME SUBMITTED PROPOSALS FOR NEGOTIATION OVER IMPACT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION.  HOWEVER, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT AN EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE'S, REQUEST FOR IMPACT BARGAINING MUST SET FORTH OR
 INCLUDE ITS PROPOSALS THEREIN, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BUREAU OF
 HEARINGS AND APPEALS, A/SLMR NO. 1176(1978) OR, WHERE IT HAS NOT BEEN
 AFFORDED REASONABLE NOTICE, EVEN THAT A REQUEST BE MADE AFTER THE FACT
 TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION.  DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE
 SERVICE, AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER, AUSTIN, TEXAS, A/SLMR NO. 1142(1978).
 
    THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT SINCE THE CHARGE WAS FILED, RESPONDENT HAS
 INDICATED ITS WILLINGNESS TO DISCUSS ANY IMPACT ITEMS COMPLAINANT MAY
 RAISE.  HOWEVER, RESPONDENT DID NOT CONCEDE THAT IT HAD ANY OBLIGATION
 TO COMPLAINANT IN THIS RESPECT OR THAT THERE WAS ANY IMPACT.  UNDER THE
 PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, I DO NOT FIND THAT RESPONDENT'S
 SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT CURED THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION.  COMPARE VANDENBERG
 AFB, 4392D AEROSPACE SUPPORT GROUP, VANDENBURG AFB, CALIFORNIA, 3 FLRC
 491,FLRC NO. 74A-77(1975).
 
    ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT, BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE,
 IRS, BY UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTING THE TRANSFER OF THE MICROFILM RESEARCH
 FUNCTION AND THE MAINTENANCE OF MANUAL PART PAYMENT FUNCTION FROM THE
 BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE TO THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER VIOLATED
 SECTION 19(A)(6) OF THE ORDER BY FAILING TO AFFORD THE COMPLAINANT
 SPECIFIC NOTICE OF ITS INTENTIONS AND TO PROVIDE THE COMPLAINANT WITH A
 REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN OVER THE PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED IN
 IMPLEMENTING THE TRANSFERS AND ON THE IMPACT OF THE TRANSFERS ON
 ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.  SUCH FAILURE NECESSARILY TENDS TO
 INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS
 ASSURED BY THE ORDER, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER.
 
                              RECOMMENDATIONS
 
    UPON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND
 THE ENTIRE RECORD, I RECOMMEND THAT THE AUTHORITY ADOPT THE FOLLOWING
 ORDER:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, 29
 C.F.R.SECTION 203.26(B), AND SECTION 2400.2 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R.  SECTION 2400.2(1979), THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS
 THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INSTITUTING A TRANSFER OF THE ROUTINE MICROFILM RESEARCH FUNCTION
 AND/OR THE MANUAL
 
    PART PAYMENT FUNCTION FROM THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE, IRS, TO THE
 BROOKHAVEN SERVICE
 
    CENTER, IRS, INVOLVING EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
 
    UNION AND NTEU, CHAPTER 53, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 ITS EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT
 
    FIRST NOTIFYING THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDING IT THE
 OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND
 
    CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE
 PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT
 
    WILL OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH A TRANSFER AND ON THE IMPACT SUCH
 TRANSFER WILL HAVE ON
 
    ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
 AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:
 
    (A) UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU
 
    CHAPTER 53, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS,
 CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH
 
    MANAGEMENT OBSERVED IN TRANSFERRING THE ROUTINE MICROFILM RESEARCH
 FUNCTION AND/OR THE MANUAL
 
    PAST PAYMENT FUNCTION AND THE IMPACT SUCH TRANSFERS HAD ON ADVERSELY
 AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN THE
 
    EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED UNIT.
 
    (B) POST AT ALL INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE
 FACILITIES AND
 
    INSTALLATIONS COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON
 FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE
 
    AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE
 DIRECTOR OF THE BROOKLYN
 
    DISTRICT OFFICE AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER,
 
    IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES
 WHERE NOTICES TO
 
    EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE
 REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE
 
    THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    (C) PURSUANT TO SECTION 203.27 OF THE REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE
 AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN
 
    30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN
 TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                             GARVIN LEE OLIVER
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  MAY 10, 1979
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
                                 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 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
 
             AMENDED LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE FEDERAL
 
               SERVICE WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT INSTITUTE A TRANSFER OF THE ROUTINE MICROFILM RESEARCH
 FUNCTION AND/OR THE MANUAL PART PAYMENT FUNCTION FROM THE BROOKLYN
 DISTRICT OFFICE, IRS, TO THE BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER, IRS, INVOLVING
 EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
 UNION AND NTEU, CHAPTER 53, OR ANY OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR
 EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AND
 AFFORDING IT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT
 WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT WILL
 OBSERVE IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH A TRANSFER AND ON THE IMPACT SUCH TRANSFER
 WILL HAVE ON ADVERSELY AFFECTED UNIT EMPLOYEES.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    WE WILL, UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER WITH THE NATIONAL TREASURY
 EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 53, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW
 AND REGULATIONS, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES WHICH MANAGEMENT OBSERVED IN
 TRANSFERRING THE ROUTINE MICROFILM RESEARCH FUNCTION AND/OR THE MANUAL
 PART PAYMENT FUNCTION FROM THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE, IRS, TO THE
 BROOKHAVEN SERVICE CENTER, IRS, AND THE IMPACT SUCH TRANSFERS HAD ON
 ADVERSELY AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN THE EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED UNIT.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  BY:  (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, ROOM 1751, 26
 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007.
 
    /1/ THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND THERE WAS NO BASIS ON WHICH TO
 FIND RESPONDENT INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (AS OPPOSED TO RESPONDENT
 BROOKLYN DISTRICT OFFICE, IRS) HAD FAILED TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER
 THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  NO EXCEPTIONS WERE TAKEN TO THAT FINDING.
 
    /2/ DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE UNION ATTEMPTED TO EXPAND
 THE SCOPE OF THE COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE THE TRANSFER OF OTHER JOB
 FUNCTIONS WHICH WERE REFERRED TO IN NEITHER THE COMPLAINT, AS AMENDED,
 NOR THE RESPONDENTS' ANSWER THERETO.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND
 THAT THE UNION WAS AWARE OF THESE MATTERS AT THE TIME THE CHARGE WAS
 FILED AND CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THEY WERE NOT RAISED IN EITHER THE
 PRE-COMPLAINT CHARGE OR THE COMPLAINT, HE WOULD REFUSE TO CONSIDER THEM,
 RELYING ON DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, A/SLMR NO.
 967(1978).  NOTING THAT NO EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED CONCERNING THE FINDINGS
 AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN THIS RESPECT THEY ARE
 HEREBY AFFIRMED BY THE AUTHORITY.
 
    /3/ CF. SOUTHEAST EXCHANGE REGION OF ARMY AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE,
 ROSEWOOD WAREHOUSE, COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, 6 A/SLMR 237, A/SLMR NO.
 656(1976);  U.S.  DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE, NORTON AIR FORCE BASE, 3
 A/SLMR 175, A/SLMR NO. 261(1973).
 
    /4/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
 OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS
 OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
  THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
 MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE
 RESULT WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN
 UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.