[ v15 p22 ]
15:0022(6)AR
The decision of the Authority follows:
15 FLRA No. 6
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case No. 8-CA-1121
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Regional
Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Federal Labor Relations
Authority" in accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules
and Regulations.
Upon consideration of the entire record, including the stipulation of
facts, accompanying exhibits, and the parties' contentions, /1/ the
Authority finds:
The complaint alleges that on or about May 1, 1981, the General
Services Administration (the Respondent) unilaterally implemented a
change in working conditions affecting unit employees in its Phoenix and
Las Vegas Field Zones without first providing adequate notice to the
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), the
employees' exclusive representative, and an opportunity to bargain
concerning the impact and implementation of such change in employee
working conditions in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the
Statute. /2/
The stipulated record indicates that since September 10, 1980, the
AFGE has been certified as the exclusive representative of two
consolidated units of professional and non-professional employees,
respectively, of the General Services Administration, including
employees located in Phoenix, Arizona, and the Las Vegas Field Office,
Las Vegas, Nevada. At all times relevant herein, there existed no
negotiated agreement between the parties with respect to the national
consolidated units.
By cover letter dated April 6, 1981, the Respondent transmitted to
AFGE a document known as Transmittal Letter No. 23, entitled "Special
Operations Response Teams." The stipulated record further indicates that
Transmittal Letter No. 23, which established procedures and guidelines
relative to special operations response teams, had a substantial impact
on the Federal Protective Officers in the AFGE's exclusive unit located
in the Phoenix and Las Vegas Field Zones. The April 6, 1981 letter
indicated that any response AFGE wished to make should be individual to
be contacted, but did not indicate whether or when implementation of
Transmittal Letter No. 23 would actually take place.
The April 6, 1981 letter was received by AFGE on or about April 14,
1981, and thereafter, by letter dated April 29, 1981, AFGE requested
that the parties discuss and bargain over, inter alia, the impact and
implementation of Transmittal Letter No. 23. Also on April 29, 1981,
the Director of the Federal Protective Service for the Respondent's
Region 9 notified employees at the Phoenix and Las Vegas Field Zones by
letter that Transmittal Letter No. 23 would be implemented on May 1,
1981. The record further indicates that implementation did in fact
occur on that date.
The General Counsel takes the position that the Respondent's April 6,
1981 letter attached to Transmittal Letter No. 23 did not provide
adequate notice to AFGE of an intended change in working conditions,
since it did not indicate either that the transmittal letter was in fact
to be implemented or the specific date of implementation. The General
Counsel further argues that, even if the April 6, 1981 letter
constituted sufficient notice of the Respondent's intent to implement,
AFGE was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to bargain prior to
actual implementation. The Respondent contends that the April 6, 1981
letter was sufficient notice to AFGE of its intended change in working
conditions, and clearly set a response deadline of April 21, 1981, with
the address, telephone number and name of the person to whom AFGE's
response should be directed, thereby providing sufficient time for AFGE
to request bargaining.
It is well-established that a union must be given adequate notice by
agency management and an opportunity to request bargaining over the
impact and implementation of changes in working conditions affecting
unit employees. /3/ The question here presented is whether the
Respondent's notification on April 6, 1981, of an intended change in the
terms and conditions of employment of unit employees constituted
adequate notice under the Statute to have enabled AFGE to request
bargaining.
For the reasons which follow, the Authority finds that AFGE was
provided adequate notice and an opportunity to request bargaining prior
to the implementation of Transmittal Letter No. 23, and that the
Respondent's conduct in implementing the changes contained therein was
not violative of the Statute.
As previously stated, AFGE was notified of an intended change in
terms and conditions of employment of unit employees at two of the
Respondent's facilities. In the Authority's view, these changes which
were drafted as a complete plan and which were accompanied by a letter
setting forth a deadline by which AFGE's response was to be made,
clearly demonstrated the Respondent's intention to implement such
changes. While the General Counsel argues that the failure to specify
an implementation date constituted a failure to provide adequate notice,
the Authority concludes to the contrary since it could clearly be
ascertained that implementation was forthcoming, and the period of time
given for a response was reasonable. It was then incumbent upon AFGE to
request bargaining, if it so desired, or to at least request more time
to respond, if necessary. Under these circumstances, the Respondent's
April 29, 1981 directive that Transmittal Letter No. 23 be implemented
at the Phoenix and Las Vegas Field Zones effective May 1, 1981, and its
implementation on that date, cannot be found to have violated the
Statute. Accordingly, the Authority shall order that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety. /4/
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 8-CA-1121 be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., June 6, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ The General Counsel moved to strike portions of the Respondent's
brief on the ground that it contains factual material not included in
the stipulation. In reaching its decision in the instant case, the
Authority has, of course, considered only facts contained in the
stipulation, and therefore the motion to strike is denied.
/2/ Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) provides:
Sec. 7116. Unfair labor practices
(a) For the purpose of this chapter, it shall be an unfair
labor practice for an agency--
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the
exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter;
. . . .
(5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a
labor organization as required by this chapter(.)
/3/ See, e.g., Internal Revenue Service (District, Region and
National Office Unit and Service Center Unit), 10 FLRA 326 (1982).
/4/ See United States Department of Defense, Department of the Army,
Headquarters, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, 8 FLRA 623 (1982) and U.S.
Department of the Air Force, Air Force Systems Command, Electronic
Systems Division, Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts, 5 FLRA 637 (1981).