18:0490(66)CA - SSA and Northeastern Program Service Center and AFGE Local 1760 -- 1985 FLRAdec CA
[ v18 p490 ]
18:0490(66)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
18 FLRA No. 66
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
AND NORTHEASTERN PROGRAM SERVICE
CENTER
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case No. 2-CA-30368
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.
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 as modified below.
The Judge found that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5)
and (8) of the Statute by failing to comply with the provisions of
section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, when it refused to provide the
Charging Party with information regarding the types and frequencies of
details for Reconsideration (Recon) Reviewers, sanitized copies of all
Recon employees' leave records, and the number of Recon employees denied
leave and the reasons for such denials. The Judge determined that the
information requested by the Charging Party was "necessary," within the
meaning of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, in order for the Charging
Party to process a unit employee's grievance. The grievance concerned
an employee's request for compensatory time off in lieu of overtime
wages which was denied by her supervisor because of the heavy workload
in the Reconsideration Branch.
The Respondent excepted to the Judge's decision insofar as her order
pertained to the furnishing of leave records of supervisors. The
Authority agrees with the Judge's conclusion that the information
requested with regard to bargaining unit employees was "necessary" for
the Charging Party's processing of the grievance and that the
Respondent's failure to provide such information to the Charging Party
was violative of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
However, the Authority disagrees with the Judge's conclusion that the
data was "necessary and relevant to an intelligent processing of the
grievance by the Union" and, thus that the Respondent was obligated to
furnish such records of its supervisors. In this regard, the Authority
notes that the Judge concluded that if supervisors were allowed to take
large amounts of leave during the period when the grievant was denied
compensatory time off, such evidence would be of help in demonstrating
that the workload was not sufficient to justify the denial of the
employee's leave request. Conversely, the Judge noted, if supervisors
were on extended sick leave, the Charging Party might be convinced of
the validity of the heavy workload excuse. The Authority does not find
this rationale or surmise by the Judge persuasive in determining whether
the Charging Party's request for information regarding the Respondent's
supervisors was for "necessary" data within the meaning of the Statute.
In the Authority's view, as supervisors perform different functions and
have different duties from those of unit employees, the Respondent would
be governed by different considerations in deciding whether to grant or
deny leave to such personnel. Thus, information regarding leave usage
of supervisors would not ordinarily be necessary for the Union's
performance of its responsibilities "to act for, and negotiate
collective bargaining agreements covering, all employees in the unit" as
provided in section 7114(a)(1) of the Statute. In this regard,
supervisors would ordinarily not be "similarly situated employees" for
the purposes of showing disparity of treatment among employees in
grievance administration. See Department of the Air Force, Scott Air
Force Base, Illinois, 18 FLRA No. 75 (1985). As there is nothing in the
record to establish, by reference to the particular circumstances of
this case, that the General Counsel affirmatively demonstrated the
necessity for the requested data regarding supervisors, the Authority
concludes that the General Counsel has not established that the
Respondent failed to comply with section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, in
violation of the Statute, by refusing to provide information regarding
supervisors to the Charging Party. The Order is therefore limited to
require only that data regarding bargaining unit employees be furnished.
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 Social Security Administration and Northeastern
Program Service Center shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to furnish requested information concerning bargaining
unit employees to the exclusive representative, American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 1760, AFL-CIO, which is necessary to
effectuate the processing of grievances over denial of compensatory time
in lieu of overtime wages to bargaining unit employees who perform work
on overtime.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights assured by the Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Statute:
(a) Provide to the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1760, AFL-CIO, the following information with regard only to bargaining
unit employees which was requested in connection with the grievance
filed on January 25, 1983 on behalf of a bargaining unit employee who
was denied compensatory time in lieu of overtime wages for work she
performed on overtime, and which is necessary to the processing of said
grievance: (1) types and frequencies of details for Reconsideration
Reviewers for the period October 1, 1982 to January 28, 1983; (2)
sanitized copies of all Reconsideration employees' leave records for the
period October 1, 1982 to January 28, 1983; and (3) the number of
Reconsideration employees denied leave and the reasons for such denials
during the period of October 1, 1982 to January 28, 1983.
(b) Post in the Reconsideration Branch of the Northeastern Program
Service Center, 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 Chief of the Reconsideration Branch, or a
designee, and shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including bulletin boards and other
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.
(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.
Issued, Washington, D.C., June 21, 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 refuse to furnish requested information regarding
bargaining unit employees to the exclusive representative, American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760, AFL-CIO, which is
necessary to effectuate the processing of grievances over denial of
compensatory time in lieu of overtime wages to bargaining unit employees
who perform work on overtime.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of rights assured by the Statute.
WE WILL provide to the American Federation of Government Employees,
Local 1760, AFL-CIO, the following information with regard only to
bargaining unit employees, requested in connection with the grievance
filed on January 25, 1983 on behalf of a bargaining unit employee who
was denied compensatory time in lieu of overtime wages for work she
performed on overtime, and which is necessary to the processing of said
grievance: (1) types and frequencies of details for Reconsideration
Reviewers for the period October 1, 1982 to January 28, 1983; (2)
sanitized copies of all Reconsideration employees' leave records for the
period October 1, 1982 to January 28, 1983; and (3) the number of
Reconsideration employees denied leave and the reasons for such denials
during the period of October 1, 1982 to January 28, 1983.
(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 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 2237, New York, New York
10278, and whose telephone number is: (212) 264-4934.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Daniel H. Green,
Representative for Respondent
Herbert Collender,
President, Local 1760
Robert J. Fabii,
Counsel for the General Counsel
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Before: ISABELLE R. CAPPELLO, Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
This is a proceeding under Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act
of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1192, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.
(1982), commonly known as the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute, and hereinafter referred to as the "Statute," and the rules and
regulations issued thereunder and published at 5 CFR 2411 et seq.
Pursuant to a charge of an unfair labor practice filed on April 6,
1983, the General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority
(hereinafter, the "Authority") investigated and, on June 30, 1983,
issued the complaint initiating this action.
The complaint alleges that Respondent has violated Sections
7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute by its refusal to furnish
certain information requested by Local 1760 in connection with its
processing of a grievance. /1/ Respondent denies violating the Statute.
A hearing was held on August 16, 1983, in New York City. The parties
appeared and submitted a stipulation of facts in lieu of testimony. The
stipulation was accepted into evidence as Joint Exhibit 1. Briefs were
filed on October 28, in compliance with an order dated September 8,
which so extended the briefing time, upon a showing of good cause by
Respondent, and without objection.
Findings of Fact
1. The original charge herein was filed by the Charging Party on
April 6, 1983, and a copy thereof was served upon the Respondent, by
certified mail on April 8, 1983.
2. On June 30, 1983, the Acting Regional Director for the Authority,
Region II, issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing which was served on
all parties by certified mail on the same date.
3. On July 20, 1983, the Respondent filed its Answer to the above
Complaint, seeking dismissal thereof.
4. At all times material herein, the Charging Party is and has been
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 7103(a)(4) of the
Statute.
5a. At all times material herein, the Social Security
Administration, is and has been an agency with the meaning of Section
7103(a)(3) of the Statute.
5b. At all times material herein, Northeastern Program Service
Center is and has been a constituent entity within Social Security
Administration and an agent acting on its behalf.
6. At all times material herein, the following named person has
occupied the position set forth below, opposite this name:
Geore Shainswit-- Chief Reconsideration Branch, Northeastern
Program Service Center
7. At all times material herein, the person named above in paragraph
6, has been and is now a supervisor or management official within the
meaning of Section 7103(a)(10) and (11), respectively, of the Statute
and has been, and is now an agent of Respondent acting on its behalf.
8a. At all times material herein, American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, has been the exclusive representative of employees
in a unit consisting of all nonsupervisory employees (including
professionals) in the Social Security Administration Program Service
Centers, excluding all management officials and employees engaged in
federal personnel work in other than a purely clerical capacity.
8b. At all times material herein, American Federation of Government
Employees has delegated to the National Council of SSA Payment Centers
("Council") authority to act as its representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining for certain of Respondent's employees, including
employees at the Northeastern Program Service Center, and has been
recognized by Respondent as such.
8c. At all times material herein, American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 1760, AFL-CIO, has acted as agent for the Council for
the purpose of collective bargaining for certain of Respondent's
employees, including employees at the Northeastern Program Service
Center, and has been recognized by Respondent as such.
9. On January 25, 1983, a bargaining unit employee, a
"Reconsideration Reviewer" in "Sec. 2" in the Reconsideration Branch of
Respondent's Northeastern Program Service Center, filed a grievance
under the parties' negotiated grievance procedure over management's
denial, on January 19, of the employee's request for compensatory time
in lieu of overtime wages for work performed by the employee on
overtime. See Exhibit 5 to Joint Exhibit 1. The employee's request was
denied by her supervisor because of the heavy workload situation in the
Reconsideration Branch.
10. On January 28, 1983, Herbert Collender, President of Local 1760,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and the above said
employee's union representative, sent a memorandum to George Shainswit,
Chief of Respondent's Reconsideration Branch, wherein he requested
certain information in connection with the above grievance.
Specifically, in his January 28 memorandum, Mr. Collender requested that
management furnish him with:
(1) "Recon Pacer" reports for October 1, 1982 to the present;
(2) Demand Listings in Recon for the same period of time;
Types and frequencies of details for Reconsideration Reviewers
during the above cited period of time;
(4) Sanitized copies of all Recon employees' leave records for
the period referenced above;
(5) the number of Recon employees denied leave and the reasons
for such denials during the period described above.
See Exhibit 6 to Joint Exhibit 1.
11. On January 31, 1983, Mr. Shainswit sent a memorandum to Mr.
Collender in response to Mr. Collender's January 28 request for
information. Mr. Shainswit agreed to furnish the Recon "Pacer" reports;
denied Mr. Collender's request in regard to the remainder of the
information (Items 2, 4 and 5) on the basis that the information
requested was not relevant to the grievance; and, in regard to Item 3,
the assumption was that it referred to details away from the Branch and
that there were no such details.
12. On February 1, Mr. Collender sent a memorandum to Mr. Shainswit,
explaining the reasons why the denied information was necessary to the
Union, and further requested a response from Mr. Shainswit by close of
business February 4. Mr. Collender explained that:
The request for information under Item 3 covers "details"
within the Branch. Requests for relevant and necessary data
embraced by Items 2 through 5 would be in order so that I may
assess the alleged high workloads, the sole reason for denying the
grievant's request for compensatory time.
Leave information will be used to determine if any employees
were denied leave because of alleged high workloads or for other
reasons. This data will assist the union in its presentation and
argument that it is feasible to grant compensatory time.
13. Mr. Shainswit responded with a memo to Mr. Collender on or about
February 1, 1983, again affirming that the Recon "Pacer" reports would
be furnished, but that the remainder of the information requested would
not be furnished, on the basis that it was not relevant to the
grievance. Mr. Shainswit stated, as to the leave records:
You have requested leave record information which would entail
sanitized copies of all Branch employee leave records, the number
of employees denied leave and the reason for such denials. I
assume that this request covers annual leave, sick leave and
religious comp. time. You are now asking for information
regarding leave which can be considered a "right" of an employee,
assuming the basis for request was valid. SSA policy and the
Union Management Agreement require liberal consideration in
granting annual leave and to ensure balanced schedule of vacation
leave. Major usage of leave in the Branch involves annual leave,
particularly since we have a large number of employees in the
excess leave category. I see no reasonable basis to expend the
amount of time necessary to accommodate your request for data
relative to all leave granting and denials from October 1, 1982 to
the present, when the policies for granting this leave are not
similar to the granting of compensatory time. I see no relevancy
in your request.
14. The Charging Party has been furnished with the Recon "Pacer"
reports as requested. The "Demand Listings in Recon . . ." (item 2 of
Mr. Collender's request) did not exist at the time Charging Party made
its request for information, and currently do not exist. It is
stipulated that the remainder of the information requested by the
Charging Party is normally maintained by the Respondent in the regular
course of business and is reasonably available, but has not been
furnished to Charging Party by management to date.
15. On June 11, 1982, the parties executed a National Master
Collective Bargaining Agreement. Article 10, Section 2E provides that:
Employees covered by Title 5 CFR, when approved by management,
can accrue and use compensatory time. When feasible, the employer
shall grant such an employee's request for compensatory time
rather than payment for overtime.
See page 19 of Exhibit 4 to Joint Exhibit 1.
Article 31, Time and Leave, provides, inter alia, that:
The use of accrued annual leave is the right of the employee,
subject to the right of the employer to approve the time at which
leave may be taken . . . . Normally, leave requested in advance
will be granted except where conflicts of scheduling or undue
interference with the work of the Administration would preclude
it.
See pages 89-90 of Exhibit 4 to Joint Exhibit 1.
Article 31 also provides that leave without pay "is a right which
accrues to an employee and may not be demanded by an employee." See page
92 of Exhibit 4 to Joint Exhibit 1. Article 3, Section 2, provides
that: "All employees shall be treated fairly and equitably in all
aspects of personnel management . . . ." See page 4 of Exhibit 4 to
Joint Exhibit 4.
16. At all times material herein, the Respondent has continuously
taken the position that the information requested by the Charging Party
is not relevant or necessary to the grievance, and thus it is under no
obligation to furnish said information to the Charging Party pursuant to
Section 7115(b)(4) of the Statute.
Issues
Was the information requested by Local 1760 (details within the
branch, leave records for all employees, and number of denials of leave
and reasons therefore) relevant and necessary information within the
meaning of Section 7114(b)(4)(B) of the Statute for the purpose of
processing a grievance filed on January 25, 1983.
Was Respondent obligated by Section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute to
provide the information requested.
Did Respondent, by its denial of the requested information, violate
Sections 7116(a)(1)(5) and (8) of the Statute.
If a violation of the Statute occurred, how wide should any posting
order be.
Discussion and Conclusions
The General Counsel has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the
evidence, /2/ that Respondent has violated the Statute, as alleged, by
its failure to furnish the requested data on details and leave, within
the Reconsideration Branch, in connection with the processing of a
grievance over a denial of compensatory time off to an employee in that
Branch, on the sole ground of a heavy workload situation in that Branch.
It is stipulated that the data requested is normally maintained by
the agency in the regular course of business, and that the data at issue
has not been furnished pursuant to the Union's request and explanation
of why it needs the data. There is no claim or proof that the data
requested falls into the statutory exemption for data that constitutes
guidance, advice, or counsel relating to collective bargaining.
The only reason given by Respondent for denying the requested data is
one of relevancy. The explanation offered for the need for the data is
"to assess the alleged high workloads" in the branch where the grievant
worked; to enable the Union to determine "if employees were denied
leave because of high workloads or for other reasons;" and to assist the
Union "in its presentation and argument that it is feasible to grant
compensatory time." See finding 12, supra.
Superficially, at least, it would seem relevant to the grievance at
issue to make a study of the pattern of detailing employees and granting
and denying leave requests. For example, if the data showed that
Respondent was being very liberal in its grants of leave, including
annual leave and leave without pay, this would be an indication that the
workload was not unduly heavy.
Respondent argues, at pages 4 and 5 of its brief, that different
criteria apply to annual leave and leave-without-pay situations.
Granting that some differences exist, such differences nevertheless do
not render data on those types of leave irrelevant to the issue at hand.
After all, under the collective bargaining agreement, annual leave may
not be granted if "undue interference with the work of the
(Reconsideration Branch) would preclude it;" and leave without pay "may
not be demanded by an employee." See finding 15, supra. In view of
these provisions, the Union would find support for the grievance, if
evidence showed that many unit employees, in the Branch, were enjoying
grants of annual leave and leave without pay, which could have been
denied had the workload been unduly heavy.
On the other hand, if the information requested showed that employees
had been taking unusually large amounts of sick leave, during the period
involved, the Union would have grounds for believing that a heavy
workload situation did exist to justify the denial of a request for
compensatory time off; and it might withdraw from the grievance.
Respondent's argument, of page 4 of its brief, that no relevance was
shown as to leave records for nonbargaining unit employees (the
supervisors), is also rejected. If supervisors were allowed to take
large amounts of annual leave and leave without pay, during the period
when the grievant was denied compensatory time off, such evidence would
be of help in demonstrating that the workload was not so heavy as to
justify the denial on that ground. Conversely, if supervisors were on
extended sick leave, the Union might be convinced of the validity of the
heavy-workload excuse.
As to the data sought on the types and frequencies of details for
Reconsideration Reviewers (the type of job held by the grievant), within
the Branch, this information too would shed light on the grievance. For
example, if the data showed that Reconsideration Reviewers were
constantly being detailed into the section where the grievant worked,
the heavy-workload excuse for the denial of the grievant's request for
time off might appear to be fully justified by the Union, and justify a
decision by it to withdraw from the grievance.
Therefore it is concluded that all the data at issue is necessary and
relevant to an intelligent processing of the grievance by the Union;
and that denial of it constituted a violation of Section 7116(a)(1),
(5), and (8) of the Statute. See, e.g., Veterans Administration
Regional Office, Denver, Colorado, 7 FLRA 629 (January 15, 1982).
The remaining issue to be resolved is the scope of the remedy. The
General Counsel seeks a posting of a notice to all employees, concerning
the violation, throughout the Northeastern Program Service Center. See
the proposed order attached to his brief. Respondent, at page 6 of its
brief, urges that any posting be limited to the office where the
violation occurred and cites NTEU and U.S. Customs Service, 10 FLRA 579
(Nov. 23, 1982). Since the managerial decision which constitutes the
violation was made by the Chief of the Reconsideration Branch, on a
particular set of facts, and there is no evidence that other Chiefs in
the Center have made similar misjudgements, a posting by the
Reconsideration Chief, in his Branch, will sufficiently effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Statute.
Ultimate Findings and Order
Respondent has committed and is committing the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
Accordingly, and pursuant to 5 CFR 2423.29 and 5 U.S.C. 7118, it is
hereby ORDERED that Respondent shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to furnish information to the exclusive
representative, American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1760, AFL-CIO, which is relevant and necessary to effectuate
processing of grievances over denial of compensatory time in lieu
of overtime wages to bargaining unit employees who perform work on
overtime.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining
or coercing employees in the exercise of rights assured by the
Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Statute:
(a) Provide to American Federation of Government Employees,
Local 1760, AFL-CIO, the following information which was requested
in connection with the grievance filed on January 25, 1983 on
behalf of a bargaining unit employee who was denied compensatory
time in lieu of overtime wages for work she performed on overtime,
and which is relevant and necessary to the processing of said
grievance: (1) types and frequencies of details for
Reconsideration Reviewers for the period October 1, 1982 to
January 28, 1983; (2) sanitized copies of all Recon employees'
leave records for the period October 1, 1982 to January 28, 1983;
and (3) the number of Recon employees denied leave and the reasons
for such denials during the period of October 1, 1982 to January
28, 1983.
(b) Post in the Reconsideration Branch of the Northeastern
Program Service Center, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 2, after being signed by the Chief of the
Reconsideration Branch, shall be posted by him immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by him 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.
(c) Pursuant to 5 CFR 2423.30 notify that Regional Director,
Region 2, Federal Labor Relations Authority, New York, New York,
in writing within 30 days from the date of this order, as to what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
ISABELLE R. CAPPELLO
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: December 15, 1983
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 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 refuse to furnish information to the exclusive
representative, American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760,
AFL-CIO, which is relevant and necessary to effectuate processing of
grievances over denial of compensatory time in lieu of overtime wages.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of rights assured by the Statute.
WE WILL provide to American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1760, AFL-CIO, the following information which was requested in
connection with the grievance filed on January 25, 1983 on behalf of a
bargaining unit employee who was denied compensatory time in lieu of
overtime wages for work she performed on overtime, and which is relevant
and necessary to the processing of said grievance: (1) types and
frequencies of details for Reconsideration Reviewers for the period
October 1, 1982 to January 28, 1983; (2) sanitized copies of all Recon
employees' leave records for the period October 1, 1982 to January 28,
1983; and (3) the number of Recon employees denied leave and the
reasons for such denials during this period.
(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 2,
whose address is: 26 Federal Plaza, Room 24-102, New York, New York
10278, and whose telephone number is: (212) 264-4934.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Section 7116 of the Statute provides, in pertinent part, that:
(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; (or) .
. .
(5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a
labor organization as required by this chapter; (or) . . .
(8) to otherwise fail or refuse to comply with any provision of
this chapter.
Section 7114 of the Statute provides, in pertinent part, that:
(b) the duty of an agency and an exclusive representative
to negotiate in good faith under subsection (a) of this section shall
include the obligation-- . . .
(4) in the case of an agency, to furnish to the exclusive
representative involved, or its authorized representative, upon
request and, to the extent not prohibited by law, data--
(A) which is normally maintained by the agency in the regular
course of business;
(B) which is reasonably available and necessary for full and
proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation of subjects
within the scope of collective bargaining; and
(C) which does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or
training provided for management officials or supervisors,
relating to collective bargaining . . . .
/2/ This is the statutory burden of proof. See Section 7118(a)(7)
and (8) of the Statute.