18:0105(22)CA - Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division and Local 644, National Council of Field Labor Locals, AFGE -- 1985 FLRAdec CA
[ v18 p105 ]
18:0105(22)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
18 FLRA No. 22
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION
WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION
Respondent
and
LOCAL 644, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIELD
LABOR LOCALS, AFGE, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case No. 2-CA-40050
DECISION AND ORDER
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices as 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 a supporting brief and the General Counsel
filed an opposition.
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), the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the
Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon consideration of the
Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts the
Judge's findings, conclusions and recommended Order.
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 the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards
Administration, Wage and Hour Division shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish information to the agent of the
exclusive representative, Local 644, National Council of Field Labor
Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, which is
reasonably available and necessary to enable it to perform its
representational duties in connection with an employee grievance.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing 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 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute:
(a) Post at its Pittsburgh Area Office 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 Area Director, or a
designee, and shall be posted and maintained for sixty consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that said Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region II, 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.
Issued, Washington, D.C., May 24, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
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 fail or refuse to furnish information to the agent of the
exclusive representative, Local 644, National Council of Field Labor
Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, which is
necessary and reasonably available to enable it to perform its
representational duties in connection with the processing of an employee
grievance.
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.
(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 for the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region II whose
address is: 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2237, New York, New York 10278, and
whose telephone number is: (212) 264-4934.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Arlean Leland, Esq.
For the Respondent
Barbara Liggett, Esq.
For the General Counsel
Before: ELI NASH, JR., Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Pursuant to a Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued on December 30,
1983, by the Regional Director for the Federal Labor Relations
Authority, New York, New York Region, a hearing was held before the
undersigned on April 18, 1984.
This proceeding arose under the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute (herein called the Statute). It resulted from a
charge filed on November 7, 1983, by Local 644, National Council of
Field Labor Locals, American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO, (herein called the Union) against the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, (herein
called Respondent).
The Complaint alleges that Respondent failed and refused to comply
with the provisions of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, by failing to
furnish the union with certain information requested in connection with
the processing of a pending employee grievance, which is normally
maintained by Respondent in the regular course of business; which is
reasonably available and necessary for full and proper discussion,
understanding and negotiation of a subject within the scope of
collective bargaining; and which does not constitute guidance, advice,
counsel or training concerning collective bargaining. Such action was
alleged to constitute a violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of
the Statute. Respondent's Answer denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
All parties were represented at the hearing. Each was afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to adduce evidence, and to examine as well as
cross-examine witnesses. Thereafter, briefs were filed with the
undersigned which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record herein, from my observations of the witnesses
and their demeanor, and from all of the testimony and evidence adduced
at the hearing, I make the following findings and conclusions:
Findings of Fact
At all times material, the Union has been an agent of the National
Council of Field Labor Locals for the purpose of representing employees
at Respondent's Pittsburgh Area Office.
At all times material, Mr. John Lechman was a Wage Hour Compliance
Officer in Respondent's Pittsburgh Area Office. Mr. Lechman, according
to the record, has been active in filing and pursuing grievances in that
office.
The parties are signatories to a collective bargaining agreement
which became effective on or around August 17, 1978, and which was in
effect at all times material herein.
Sometime around August 19, 1983, a first step grievance meeting was
held pursuant to Article 15 of the collective bargaining agreement, /1/
concerning alleged harassment and discrimination against Mr. Lechman
based on his filing of prior union grievances and complaints. The
participants at the meeting were the Grievant, Mr. Lechman, Union
steward Gary Daniels, and Respondent's Area Director, John O'Brien. The
substance of the grievance concerned Mr. Lechman's belief that certain
comments on his case review sheets concerning his handling of cases were
negative and that he was being unduly criticized about his work.
The case review sheet in question is prepared by either the Area
Director or the Assistant Area Director and is then given to the
individual employee who handled the case as feed back to that employee.
A case review sheet is apparently prepared in each case showing not only
the opening and closing dates, but how much time and the manner in which
a compliance officer handled a particular case. Mr. Lechman desired to
examine and compare the "failures" listed on his review sheets with
other compliance officers in the Pittsburgh office to determine whether
his "failures" and the reasons therefor were standard. It is undisputed
that the sheets are also used by the Area Director or Assistant Area
Director in preparing employee performance appraisals.
Mr. Lechman was primarily concerned that negative comments contained
on his case review sheets could lead to a poor performance rating, which
could in turn subject him to a performance improvement plan and possible
eventual discharge. During the meeting, Mr. Lechman and steward Daniels
requested certain information for their use in further evaluating and
processing his grievance. They requested copies of certain position
descriptions and copies of case review sheets for the approximately ten
(10) fellow compliance officers in the Pittsburgh office, for the period
November 1980 to the date of the request for the information.
Subsequently, Mr. O'Brien provided the requested position descriptions,
but did not provide the case review sheets sought by Mr. Lechman.
Later, on August 22 and 31, 1983, respectively the Union renewed its
request for case review sheets. Although Respondent agreed to provide
the requested position descriptions, Area Director O'Brien responded on
August 31, that:
"You have also requested, "All case file review sheets . . . "
"The request will not be satisfied at this time. Case review
sheets are used to advise employees of their performance. They
relate solely to the individual's case performance. Further, your
request does not state how the information regarding other
employees' performance as related by their individual case
feedback sheets could possibly establish harassment of CO Lechman.
Accordingly, this information you have requested will not be
provided."
Sometime later, Daniels resigned as steward and was replaced by Union
President Richard J. Clougherty. On September 9, 1983, Mr. Clougherty
informed Respondent that he was replacing Daniels as Lechman's
representative in the matter. Thereafter, Clougherty telephoned Mr.
O'Brien and asked for the information which had been requested earlier
by the Union. According to Mr. Clougherty, "I explained that I thought
it was necessary in order to process the grievance . . . ." Mr. O'Brien
informed Clougherty that, "he had been instructed that he was not to
provide the information."
The following week, Mr. Clougherty met with Bill Hoffman, a labor
relations specialist for Respondent, and discussed the Union's need for
the case review sheets in the Lechman matter. Mr. Clougherty again
attempted to explain that he needed the case review sheets to determine
whether or not Lechman was being discriminated against-- to see whether
Lechman was being "picked upon." Hoffman referred Clougherty to his
supervisor, Labor Relations Officer, Charles Taylor. The next day, Mr.
Clougherty telephoned Mr. Taylor and discussed at length the Union's
request for information. Mr. Clougherty reiterated the Union's need for
the case review sheets to determine whether Lechman was being
discriminated against, and if so, the Union's need for the case review
sheets to document this discrimination. Mr. Taylor suggested that
Clougherty ask O'Brien about the information. Mr. Clougherty protested
that he had already spoken to O'Brien who had referred him to Hoffman,
who had in turn referred him to Taylor. Mr. Taylor again suggested
talking to O'Brien. Mr. Clougherty immediately telephoned Mr. O'Brien
and related his conversation with Taylor. Mr. O'Brien said he had been
instructed not to provide the information, and therefore could not
release it.
On September 19, 1983, the Union filed a second step grievance on
behalf of Mr. Lechman. In the grievance, Mr. Clougherty once again
requested the case review sheets from November, 1980 to the date of the
request, and explained the reason why the sheets were needed. The
Respondent issued a response to the grievance at the second step on
September 28, 1983, denying the grievance. On October 3, 1983, Mr.
Clougherty submitted the grievance at the third step of the grievance
procedure. In the third step grievance submission, Mr. Clougherty again
raised the issue of Respondent's refusal to furnish the needed case
review sheets. Mr. Clougherty's letter to the third step official,
Secretary of Labor, Raymond Donovan, set forth the reasons why the
documents were necessary, and how the Union intended to use the
information. Mr. Clougherty's letter states, in pertinent part:
We are at a distinct disadvantage in moving this grievance to
your level. There are documents in the hands of local management
that we have requested so that we can provide documentary evidence
to support our contention that management in the Pittsburgh
Wage/Hour Area Office is singling out the grievant by
"overzealously" reviewing his work-products, but local management
has refused to provide them (see attached letter to A. D. O'Brien
dated 8/31/83-- only the PD's were provided).
When the requested case review sheets of the grievant are
compared with the case review sheets of the other CO's in the
office, the results will show that local management is
"nit-picking" the grievant's work-products-- to punish him for
past grievances he has filed.
Thereafter in late January, 1984, Mr. Clougherty received by mail a
package of case review sheets with a letter from Mr. Taylor contending
that the material was "the available information in connection with the
Lechman grievance." Mr. Clougherty reviewed the sheets briefly, and
noted that the material appeared to be incomplete. Mr. Clougherty then
spoke with Mr. O'Brien about the incompleteness of the case review
sheets. Mr. O'Brien told Mr. Clougherty that the sheets were all
O'Brien had, because as performance evaluations were prepared, the case
review sheets were discarded. Mr. Clougherty pointed out to Mr. O'Brien
that sheets were provided for some employees which went back more than a
year, the usual appraisal period. Mr. O'Brien acknowledged that he had
retained case review sheets for Mr. Lechman in case they were needed in
processing a grievance over Lechman's performance appraisal, and that
case review sheets for another employee had been retained because the
employee's appraisal had been delayed. In most cases, however, there
were very few case review sheets for employees allegedly because the
appraisals had been done shortly before the case review sheets were
provided to the Union.
The record reveals that at the time of the Union's initial request
for information in August 1983, only one employee's performance
appraisal had been completed. After the request and prior to the
release of the information in January of 1984, Mr. O'Brien completed
performance appraisals for most employees and discarded the case review
sheets upon which the appraisals were based, so that, according to Mr.
O'Brien, "there was little in the pipeline for the current year," and
there "was a whole bunch of them with little or nothing." Accordingly,
the information provided was inadequate to compare Lechman's case review
sheets with the review sheets of other employees.
Around February 24, 1984, Respondent denied Mr. Lechman's grievance
at the third step. The Union has not invoked arbitration of the
grievance.
Discussion and Conclusions
Respondent argues that it was under no obligation to provide the
information requested by the Union because a significant part of the
information sought did not exist and was no longer in managements' sole
possession and that the information which did exist was readily
accessible to the Union through its own bargaining unit members and,
therefore the Union had independent access to the requested information.
In addition, Respondent asserts that the requested information was not
normally maintained by the agency in the regular course of business
prior to 1982. Here Respondent alludes to Article 37, Secs. 2 of the
collective bargaining agreement. /2/
Section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute requires agency management to
furnish upon request and to the extent not prohibited by law, data which
is normally maintained by the agency in the regular course of business,
which is reasonable available and necessary for full and proper
discussion, understanding and negotiation of subjects within the scope
of collective bargaining, which do not constitute guidance, advice,
counsel or training provided for supervisors relating to collective
bargaining.
To date the Authority's interpretation of section 7114(b)(4) has made
it clear that an agency's duty to provide information includes the duty
to provide information necessary to enable the requesting exclusive
representative to effectively carry out its statutory obligation to
represent employees in the processing of grievances and to provide
information relevant and necessary to allow the exclusive representative
to determine whether or not to pursue or file a grievance. Veterans
Administration, Iron Mountain, Michigan, 10 FLRA 468 (1982); Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, National Office and Western Region, 8
FLRA 547 (1982); Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, 4
FLRA 619 (1980).
In the case at bar it was established that the information requested
by the exclusive representative is "normally maintained by the agency in
the regular course of business." The record demonstrates that the case
review sheets are kept by agency supervisors at least until employee
appraisals have been completed since they form the basis for such
appraisals. Furthermore, case review sheets are kept after an appraisal
has been made, if the supervisor anticipates difficulty arising from the
individual appraisal. While one copy of the case review sheet is given
to the individual employee, a carbon or photocopy is normally retained
by the supervisor or Area Director.
Here Respondent maintains that the case review sheets are similar to
supervisors' personal notes to be used as "memory joggers." It is clear
from the record that case review sheets form the basis for employee
evaluations and were demonstrated to be more than mere references to
employee performances. The case review sheets reveal that they are
prepared for the purpose of assessing and evaluating employee
performance and are to be used for employee appraisals. Under such
circumstances, Respondent's argument that the review sheet is merely a
supervisor's note or "memory jogger" must be rejected. Accordingly, it
is found that the case review sheets constitute a basis for employee
appraisals and as such are relevant documents needed by the Union to
make a determination of whether or not to proceed with a pending
grievance concerning performance evaluation such as filed by Lechman.
Respondent suggests that the requested case review sheets were
discarded or purged and that the information sought by the exclusive
representative could be readily obtained from bargaining unit members.
In this regard, there is no evidence that the files had been purged at
the time the grievance was filed in 1983, at which time the request was
made. It is reasonable, based on the instant record, to infer as argued
by the General Counsel, that the information existed at the time the
Union made its request. Consequently, Respondent's argument that the
case review sheets could not be supplied since they had been discarded
or purged at the end of an appraisal period must be rejected.
Furthermore, as the Union asserts, the review sheets supplied in January
1984, were incomplete since there were review sheets for only three (3)
compliance officers out of approximately ten (10) in the Pittsburgh
office. In all, the review sheets supplied were merely a portion of
those which existed at the time of the Union's initial request. Failure
to supply all of the sheets available at the time of the Union's request
if they were relevant and necessary would indeed be a refusal to comply
with 7114(b)(4). Likewise, Respondent's argument that the exclusive
representative could readily have obtained the information from
bargaining unit members lacks merit. This is certainly not a viable
option, since even if retained, employees have no obligation to and
indeed may be unwilling to supply the Union with their case review
sheets. Bargaining unit members have no obligation to retain such data
and even if they were willing to supply the information they might well
not have preserved sufficient sheets to be of assistance. The place to
obtain the complete information is at its source not through alternate
methods. Accordingly, Respondent's argument in this regard must be
rejected.
That the information was reasonable available and necessary is
clearly revealed by the instant record. The grievance herein alleges
that an employee was being discriminated against based upon his filing
of grievances, as shown by comments on his case review sheets. The
rationale of the grievance was that the review given to Lechman's work
was overzealous and the comments "nitpicking." The Union sought to
establish disparity between Lechman's reviews and those of other
similarly situated compliance officers, in essence a simple
discrimination matter. Since the core of most discrimination cases is
comparative data, it can readily be seen that the case review sheets
might be necessary and relevant for comparison to allow the Union to
evaluate possible action on the grievance. Although, as Respondent
suggested at the hearing, it may not be possible to determine from a
case review sheet whether the comments on it are justified, general
matters such as the degree of scrutiny given different employees' cases
and the categories of criticisms noted could or could not persuade the
Union to go forward with the matter. Therefore, the review sheets were
necessary for the Union to make any intelligent assessment of Lechman's
claim. It is found therefore, that the case review sheets were
necessary for the exclusive representative to properly process the
Lechman grievance.
Respondent further asserts that it did not commit an unfair labor
practice since the information which was requested was not in existence.
Respondent's reliance on Internal Revenue Service, 1 FLRA 796, 797
(1980) is entirely misplaced. There the Authority in agreement with the
Administrative Law Judge stated:
" . . . the Authority is deeply concerned with Respondent's
failure to indicate, either at the time of the request for
information by the Union or during the investigation of the unfair
labor practice charge, that the information sought did not exist.
This failure may have caused unnecessary litigation which hinders
the effective administration of the federal labor-management
relations program."
In searching the instant record, it is found that Respondent did not
assert the non-existence of the records when originally requested in
August 1983, nor did it raise such a defense in its Answer to the
complaint herein. It is clear that at the time of the request for the
case review sheets Respondent was under an obligation to supply all the
necessary information in its possession. Although the Union received
some case review sheets in January 1984, Respondent does not contend
that these sheets completely satisfied its obligation. Respondent also
offers no satisfactory explanation for the missing review sheets. In
fact, Respondent's chief concern until late in the game was whether or
not the information was relevant to the processing of Lechman's
grievance. It is, therefore, concluded that the records were reasonably
available at the time they were originally requested and Respondent's
defense that the records did not exist is found to lack merit.
In support of its claim that the Union never clearly demonstrated its
need for the requested information, Respondent depends on Internal
Revenue Service, Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York, 7 FLRA 654 (1982).
That case is inapposite. Unlike here, it was found that the data
requested had no impact upon the subject of the grievance, and the data
was not necessary to the pursuit of the grievance. In this matter, the
allegations of the grievance were discussed countless times with
management officials and the necessity for the information was precisely
explained. Since management was no doubt aware through these
discussions of the nature of the grievance i.e. comparison of the level
of scrutiny of Lechman's work as compared to that of his co-workers in
the Pittsburgh Area Office, the relevancy or necessity of the
information should have become absolutely clear. As seemingly it was,
since Lechman was supplied with some, but not all of the case review
sheets requested notwithstanding that they were supplied in an untimely
fashion.
Based on all of the foregoing, it is concluded that Respondent's
refusal to supply the requested information herein was a refusal to
comply with section 7116(b)(4) of the Statute, and constituted a
violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Authority issue the following:
/3/
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations of section 7118 of the Statute, it is
hereby ordered that the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards
Administration, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Local 644, National Council of
Field Labor Locals, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to provide, Local 644, National
Council of Field Labor Locals, American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, the employees exclusive representative,
requested information which is reasonably available and necessary
to enable it to perform its representational duties in connection
with an employee grievance.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing 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 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute:
(a) Provide, upon request to the Local 644, National Council of
Field Labor Locals, American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO, the employees exclusive representative requested
information which is reasonably available and necessary to enable
it to perform its representational duties in connection with an
employee grievance.
(b) Post at its Pittsburgh Area Office copies of the attached
Notice marked "Appendix A" on forms to be furnished by the
Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by
the Area Director, 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 Area Director shall take reasonable
steps to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Pursuant to Section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region II, 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.
ELI NASH, JR.
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: November 20, 1984
Washington, D.C.
APPENDIX A
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 furnish, upon request by Local 644,
National Council of Field Labor Locals, American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, all information which is reasonable
available and necessary to enable, it to perform its representational
duties in connection with an employee grievance.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of rights assured by the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
WE WILL upon request, make available to Local 644, National Council
of Field Labor Locals, American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO, all information which is reasonably available and necessary to
enable it to perform its representational duties in connection with an
employee grievance.
(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 of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region II,
whose address is: 26 Federal Plaza, Room 24-102, New York, New York
10278 and whose telephone number is: (212) 264-4934.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Article 15, Section 8(2), provides that:
A grievance shall be discussed informally with the immediate
supervisor (who prepared the aggrieved employee's performance
evaluation) . . . .
/2/ Article 37, Secs. 2 provides, in pertinent part as follows:
Section 2-- Working Files
(A) Working files, if maintained by supervisors, shall be
limited to dated documents and records of immediate concern to the
supervisor and the employee.
(B) The working file maintained by a supervisor on an employee
shall be made available at reasonable times upon request to that
employee for review. Working files shall not be made available to
merit staffing panels or qualification rating examiners.
(C) Material will not be maintained in an employee's working
file indefinitely. Working files should be reviewed at least once
a year for disposal of noncurrent material. In the event material
in the employee's working file is used as backup for a proposed
adverse action or is the subject of a grievance or adjective
performance rating review or appeal, that material shall be placed
in the appropriate official file and retained for the time
required by Civil Service Commission regulations.
/3/ The General Counsel's unopposed Motion To Correct Transcript is
granted and attached as Appendix "B".