21:0546(72)CA - SSA (Baltimore, Md.) And OHA, Region II (New York, N.Y.) And OHA (Syracuse and Buffalo, N.Y.) and AFGE, Local 1760 -- 1986 FLRAdec CA
[ v21 p546 ]
21:0546(72)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
21 FLRA No. 72
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
(BALTIMORE, MARYLAND) AND OFFICE
OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS, REGION II
(NEW YORK, NEW YORK) AND OFFICE
OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS (SYRACUSE AND
BUFFALO, NEW YORK)
Respondents
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF G0VERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760
Charging Party
Case No. 1-CA-20322
1-CA-20341
DECISION AND ORDER
I. Statement of Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority because of
exceptions filed by the Respondents to the attached Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge. The General Counsel filed a response in
opposition and cross exceptions. The issue concerns whether the
Respondents violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to bargain
concerning the procedures to be observed in implementing the relocations
of their Hearings and Appeals offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York,
and concerning appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected
by such relocations.
II. Background
These consolidated cases involved the displacement and relocation of
the entire office staffs in Respondents' Region II Hearings and Appeals
Offices in Syracuse and Buffalo, New York, a distance of some five and
four city blocks, respectively. The Union requested impact and
implementation bargaining and submitted a number of proposals.
Agreement was reached on several of the proposals but the Respondents
refused to bargain on others, claiming that those proposals involved
working conditions which were either unchanged or improved as a result
of the move.
III. Judge's Decision
The Judge concluded that the Respondent's improperly refused to
bargain over the impact and implementation of the office relocations and
thereby violated section 7116(1)(1) and (5) of the Statute. In reaching
such conclusion, the Judge found that the foreseeable impact of the
relocation of the Syracuse and Buffalo offices was "substantial." Once
the impact test was met, the Judge concluded that the Respondents were
obligated to bargain over the Union's proposals submitted in connection
with and relating to the office relocations which all concerned working
conditions, even if a particular proposal addressed a situation where no
change or an improvement in preexisting working conditions resulted from
the relocation of the offices.
IV. Positions of the Parties
The Respondents except to the Judge's Decision, asserting essentially
that the relocations had no substantial adverse impact on unit employees
as a whole. They further take issue with the Judge's finding that they
must bargain over specific proposals, contending that each proposal must
address substantial adverse impact. Finally, they assert that those
proposals involving issues under negotiation at the national level could
not be negotiated at the regional or local level. The General Counsel's
opposition to the Respondents' exceptions fully agrees with the Judge's
findings, conclusions and rationale.
V. Analysis
With respect to the Respondents' initial contention pertaining to the
impact of the relocations on unit employees, after the Judge issued his
Decision in this case, the Authority held that "where an agency in
exercising a management right under section 7106 of the Statute, changes
conditions of employment of unit employees . . . , the statutory duty to
negotiate comes into play if the change results in an impact upon unit
employees or such impact was reasonably foreseeable." (Footnote
omitted.) U.S. Government Printing Office, 13 FLRA 203, 204-05 (1083).
The Authority thereafter held that "no duty to bargain arises from the
exercise of a management right that results in an impact or a reasonably
foreseeable impact on bargaining unit employees which is no more than de
minimis." Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration, Chicago Region, 15 FLRA 922 (1984). Further, the
Authority looks to the totality of the facts and circumstances presented
in each case in determining whether the impact or reasonably foreseeable
impact of the exercise of a management right on bargaining unit
employees is more than de minimis. Thus, in Department of Health and
Human Services, Social Security Administration, Region V, Chicago,
Illinois, 19 FLRA No. 101 (1985), the Authority looked to such factors
as the nature of the change (e.g., the extent of the change in work
duties, location, office space, hours, loss of benefits or wages and the
like); the temporary, recurring or permanent nature of the change
(i.e., duration and frequency of the change affecting unit employees);
the number of employees affected or foreseeably affected by the change;
the size of the bargaining unit; and the extent to which the parties
may have established, through negotiations or past practice, procedures
and appropriate arrangements concerning analogous changes in the past.
The Authority also emphasized that the factors considered in the
circumstances of that case were not intended to constitute an
all-inclusive list or to be applied in a mechanistic fashion. Moreover,
where there is no indication that the nature and degree of impact is at
issue in the case, the Authority will not necessarily require in every
case a determination as to whether the exercise of the management right
results in a change in a condition of employment having an impact or a
reasonably foreseeable impact on bargaining unit employees which is more
than de minimis. However, in cases where it must be determined whether
the nature and degree of impact is more than de minimis, factors such as
those listed above will be considered.
In applying the above factors to this case, the Authority finds,
based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances presented, that
the relocation of the Syracuse and Buffalo offices did have an impact or
a reasonably forseeable impact on the conditions of employment of unit
employees and that such impact or reasonably foreseeable impact was more
than de minimis. Therefore, the Respondents were obligated to notify
the Union and bargain upon request over the procedures they would
observe in exercising its section 7106 rights and concerning appropriate
arrangements for adversely affected employees. In reaching this result,
the Authority notes that the nature of the change involved the movement
of the entire Syracuse and Buffalo offices a distance of some five and
four city blocks, respectively, from their former locations, and that
the moves brought about differences in such things as building
structures and office space. Further, the duration of the moves was
permanent. Although the employees are part of a consolidated unit, the
Authority notes in the particular circumstances of this case that the
moves involved the displacement and relocation of the entire office
staffs in two of the Respondents' Region II Hearings and Appeals
Offices. Accordingly, based on the totality of the facts and
circumstnaces presented, the Authority finds that the relocation of the
two offices imposed a duty upon the Respondent to bargain with the Union
concerning procedures and appropriate arrangements for adversely
affected employees.
Finally, for the reasons stated by the Judge, the Authority finds no
merit to the Respondents' other two contentions that they were relieved
of the duty to bargain because each Union proposal must meet the test of
substantial adverse impact and because those proposals involving issues
under negotiations at the national level could not be negotiated at the
regional or local levels. See Social Security Administration, Office of
Hearings and Appeals, Region II, New York, New York, 19 FLRA No. 47
(1985), which involved basically the same parties and similar issues and
arguments.
VI. Remedy
Having found that the Respondents' conduct violated section
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute, the remaining issue concerns the
appropriate remedial order. The Authority notes as to remedy that no
retroactive relief was sought by the General Counsel. The Judge, in
noting the same circumstances, chose to address the need for a status
quo ante remedy, and in keeping with our decision in Federal
Correctional Institution, 8 FLRA 604 (1982), determined that such a
remedy was not warranted. The Authority is in agreement with that
analysis by the Judge and determines that a prospective remedy is
warranted and will fully effectuate the purposes and policies of the
Statute in the circumstances of this case.
VII. Conclusion
Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
and Section 7118 of the Statute, the Authority has reviewed the rulings
of the Judge made at the hearing, finds that no prejudicial error was
committed, and thus affirms those rulings. The Authority has considered
the Judge's Decision, the exceptions to that Decision, the positions of
the parties and the entire record, and adopts the Judge's findings,
conclusions and recommended Order. We therefore find, in agreement with
the Judge, that the Respondents violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of
the Statute by implementing the Syracuse and Buffalo office relocations
without negotiating over the Union's negotiable proposals concerning
procedures and appropriate arrangements for unit employees adversely
affected by such relocations. /1/
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and Section 7118 of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
that the Social Security Administration (Baltimore, Maryland) and Office
of Hearings and Appeals, Region II (New York, New York) and Office of
Hearings and Appeals (Syracuse and Buffalo, New York), shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Relocating or moving their offices and employees, without
first notifying the American Federation of Government Employees,
Local 1760, the agent of the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees, and affording it the opportunity to negotiate
concerning the procedures to be observed in implementing the
relocations of the Hearings and Appeals offices in Buffalo and
Syracuse, New York, and concerning appropriate arrangements for
employees adversely affected by such relocations.
(b) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760, the agent of the
exclusive bargaining representative of their employees, concerning
the procedures to be observed in implementing the relocations of
the Hearings and Appeals offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New
York, and concerning appropriate arrangements for employees
adversely affected by such relocations.
(c) 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) Notify the American Federation of Government Employees
Local 1760, the agent of the exclusive bargaining representative
of their employees, of any intention to relocate or move any of
their offices and employees and, upon request, negotiate with such
representative concerning the procedures to be observed in
implementing the relocations of the Hearings and Appeals offices
in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, and concerning appropriate
arrangements for employees adversely affected by such relocations.
(b) Post at its Hearings and Appeals offices in Buffalo and
Syracuse, New York, 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 an appropriate official and
they shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards
and other places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken 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 I, Federal Labor
Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of
this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply with the
Order.
Issued, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1986.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier, III 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 relocate or move our offices and employees without first
notifying the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760,
the agent of the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees,
and affording it the opportunity to negotiate concerning the procedures
to be observed in implementing the relocations of the Hearings and
Appeals offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, and concerning
appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by such
relocations.
WE WILL NOT refuse to negotiate in good faith with the American
Federation Of Government Employees, Local 1760, the agent of the
exclusive bargaining representative of our employees, concerning the
procedures to be observed in implementing the relocations of the
Hearings and Appeals offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, and
concerning appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected by
such relocations.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
WE WILL notify the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1760, the agent of the exclusive bargaining representative of our
employees, of any intention to relocate or move any of our offices and
employees and, upon request, negotiate with such representative
concerning the procedures to be observed in implementing the relocations
of the Hearings and Appeals offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New Yrok,
and concerning appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected
by such relocations.
(Agency)
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 must communicate directly with the Regional
Director, Region I, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is:
441 Stuart Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02116, and whose telephone
number is: (617) 223-0920.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Case No. 1-CA-20322 and 1-CA-20341
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (BALTIMORE, MARYLAND) AND OFFICE
OF
HEARINGS AND APPEALS, REGION II (NEW YORK, NEW YORK) AND OFFICE
OF
HEARINGS AND APPEALS (SYRACUSE AND BUFFALO, NEW YORK
Respondents
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1760
Charging Party
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.
(Supp. V, 1981), commonly known as the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, and hereinafter referred to as the "Statute," and the
rules and regulations issued thereunder the published at 5 CFR 2411 et
seq.
Charges of an unfair labor practice under the Statute were filed in
Case No. 1-CA-20341 on August 10, 1982 and amended on November 29, 1982
by the Charging Party (hereinafter also referred to as the "union").
The General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority
("Authority") investigated and, on November 30,1982, served as the
complaint initiating Case No. 1-CA-20341.
In Case No. 1-CA-20322, charges of unfair labor practices under the
Statute were filed on July 14,1982, and amended on November 29, 1982.
The General Counsel investigated and, on November 30, 1982, served this
complaint initiating Case No. 1-CA-20322.
As amended at the hearing, /2/ each complaint in this proceeding
alleges that the Respondent has engaged, and is engaging in unfair labor
practices in violation of 5 U.S.C. 7116(a)(1) and (5). /3/ Each
complaint names the alleged violative act as being the relocation of a
hearing office without affording the Union an opportunity to negotiate
concerning the impact and implementation of the decision to relocate.
At the hearing, the two cases were consolidated.
The hearing was held on April 21, 1983, in New York City. The
parties appeared, adduced evidence and examined witnesses. Pursuant to
an order dated May 9, 1983, the briefing time was extended until June
23. Respondent filed its brief on June 21.
The General Counsel, on June 22, filed a memorandum, enclosing a copy
of a decision rendered on May 23 by Administrative Law Judge William
Naimark in Case Nos. 12-CA-20179 and 20355, entitled Social security
Administration, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Region II, New York, New
York, Respondent and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1760, Charging Party. That proceeding also involved, inter alia,
alleged violations of 5 U.S.C. 7116(a)(1) and (5) caused by an alleged
unilateral relocation of an office -- from Mineola to Hempstead New
York. In the memorandum filed in this proceeding, the General Counsel
asserts that there are "no material differences between the facts and
legal arguments raised in the proceeding before Judge Naimark from those
present in the instant case" and that the same legal conclusions should
be reached herein. Filed along with the memorandum and the decision was
the brief submitted on behalf of the General Counsel in Case No.
12-CA-20179 and 20355.
Judge Naimark concluded that it was "the change in location that
underlies a possible obligation to bargain in such a situation; and he
rejected Respondent's position that what controlled was "the extent of a
change in a particular condition." See his slip opinion, pages 10-11 in
OALJ-83-89. He concluded that if a decision to relocate involves
foreseeable impact and the specific union proposals relate to working
conditions encompassed by the move, an employer is required to bargain
regarding the impact and implementation of the relocation.
Judge Naimark noted that the foreseeable impact of a planned
relocation must be a substantial one and not "a mere possibility of some
impact" (slip op.12). In the case before him, the move was "from one
town to another, with attendant differences in building structures and
size, location, area, neighborhood facilities, transit routes and
security - to name a few considerations . . ." (slip op.12). These
factors led to Judge Naimark's conclusion "that it is a reasonable
likelihood such relocation will produce a substantial and adverse impact
upon Respondent's workers" (slip op.12). Accordingly, he concluded that
Respondent must bargain with the Union over any proposal which related
to working conditions, even though the particular proposal might
represent an improvement over that particular working condition at the
old location, or even no change. As examples, there was a water cooler
at both locations; and there were no day care centers or lounge areas
at either location. Nevertheless, Judge Naimark concluded that
Respondent must bargain over Union's proposals on water coolers, lounge
areas, and a space for a day care center.
Based upon the record made in this case, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and the brief and memorandum filed, I
enter the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended
order.
Findings of Fact /4/
1. It is admitted that Respondent is an "agency" and the Union is a
"labor organization", within the meaning of the Statute.
2. It is further admitted that the American Federation of Government
Employees ("AFGE") is the exclusive bargaining representative of a
consolidated nationwide unit of Respondent's employees, including ones
employed at Respondent's hearing offices located at Buffalo and
Syracuse, New Yrok.
3a. In Case No. 1-CA-20322, it is further admitted that, at all
times material herein, Respondent has recognized Local 1760 of AFGE, as
a representative of AFGE, "for the purposes of collective bargaining at
the Hearings Offices of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, New York
Region on matters involving changes in working conditions at the local
level." The New York Region is also referred to as "Region II."
3b. In Case No. 1-CA-20341, it is further admitted that, at all
times material herein, Local 1760 of AFGE "has been, and is now
recognized by Respondent Office of Hearings and Appeals, Region II, New
York, New York, and Respondent Office of Hearings and Appeals, Buffalo,
New York acting thereby as agents of Respondent Social Security
Administration, Baltimore, Maryland . . . as the agent of American
Federation of Government Employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining, at the Regional and local (Hearing Office) level, concerning
the impact and implementation of changes in conditions of employment
affecting employees employed by Respondent at its Hearing Office located
at Buffalo, New York."
4a. It is stipulated that Respondent has an obligation to bargain
with the Union over the impact and implementation of the relocation of
the Syracuse and Buffalo hearing offices of the Office Of Hearings and
Appeals("OHA"), of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 7106(b)(2) and (3). /5/
4b. It is undisputed that the Union submitted proposals on the
relocations and agreement was reached as to some items. As to the
rejected ones, management's basis response was that "there was no
adverse impact" and, as to a "few", that they were "on the table at the
national level" (TR 118).
5a. Effective June 11, 1982, AFGE and SSA are bound by a national
agreement applicable to the nationwide bargaining unit. The agreement
remains in effect for three (3) years from its effective date, and
automatically renews itself from year to year thereafter. At the time
of the relocations here at issue (May 3, 1982 for the Buffalo office and
February 20, 1982 for the Syracuse office) only memorandum of
understandings existed between AFGE and SSA; and they concerned
grievances, negotiations, and official time.
5b. Articles in the national agreement cover such items as health
and safety; parking; child care, including a study on a model child
care center at one facility; excused absences; and supplemental
agreements. The national contract provides for supplemental
negotiations over seven items, including health and safety; facilities,
parking, and flextime. See R 1.9, Section 3 of Article 5. As of the
time of the hearing in these cases, there had been no negotiations for
supplemental agreements. See TR 70.
6a. James Armet, Vice-President for Administration, Local 1760, is
responsible for negotiating with Respondent on matters dealing with a
change in physical location for any OHA office in New York and New
Jersey.
6b. Elliot Glassman served as Region II'S technical advisor on
management's team negotiating the relocations here at issue. He serves
as "labor relations coordinator" (TR 57). Specialists "at the central
office of OHA" advised him of what was "on the table at the national
negotiations" (TR 60).
Case No. 20322, the Syracuse relocation
7. Around 40 bargaining unit employees work in the Syracuse office
of OHA.
8. By letter dated October 27, 1981, the Deputy Regional Management
Office of OHA notified Mr. Armet that the Syracuse office of OHA would
be relocated. The letter stated that the move was to be made on or
about December 1 from the Federal Building at 100 South Clinton Steet to
the seventh floor of a building at 351 South Warren Street.
9. On October 30, 1981, Mr. Armet wrote a letter to Respondent in
which he demanded bargaining on the "plans to relocate" and the
"potential adverse impact of that decision on members of the bargaining
unit" (GC 3).
10. On November 12, 1981, Respondent replied to the October 30
demand to bargain. The letter stated that the move was to a building "a
distance of approximately 5 city blocks" and that "(s)ince both new and
old locations (were) in the same neighborhood with access to the same
transportation and both locations conform to GSA (General Services
Administration) requirements and regulations, the potential adverse
impact of this move is de minimis" (GC 4). The letter explained that
GSA was forcing the move upon Respondent. It also contained an offer to
meet with Mr Armet to "discuss any potential adverse impact that (he)
identified" (GC 4).
11. Approximately 12 meetings were held between the parties on the
impact and implementation of the Syracuse relocation, the first being on
December 15, 1981 and the last on June 16, 1982. The move took place on
February 20, 1982.
12. On December 17. 1981, the Union delivered its bargaining
proposals to management. At the time the proposals were submitted, the
negotiations on a national agreement were being mediated by an
arbitrator appointed by the Federal Service Impasses Panel ("FSIP").
Larry Kramer, the Chief of labor relations for the central office of
OHA, located in Arlington, Virginia, gave directions to the management
team negotiating over the relocation of the Syracuse office. Mr. Kramer
informed Mr. Glassman that "they did not want, under the guise of impact
implementation bargaining, any of their subordinate region offices to
reach an agreement which the union negotiating team then would use as a
precedence in its negotiations -- either the national unit or any
supplemental units have to negotiate on these things -- it's being on
the table, you do not have to negotiate on it" (TR 64). The central
office mentioned "certain areas" as being "on the negotiating table at
the national level" (TR 64).
13. As to some union proposals, agreement was reached smoking;
provision for a safe and healthy work environment and prompt action to
correct any unsafe or unhealthy ones; provision for an emergency
lighting system; provision for a security guard, subject to the
availability of funds; and the application of the agreement to the
Syracuse OHA office until specific provisions of a national agreement
superceded them. See R 4.
14. As to seven proposals, agreement was not reached.
14a. Flextime. Mr. Armet explained that he had received an
anonymous tip from an employee in the Syracuse OHA office that led to
the Union's proposal on this item. The tipster told Mr. Armet that
employees were "most upset about the relocation and that they were being
relocated from a Federal building in the center of Syracuse,
approximately six to eight blocks away in an area that was an urban
renewal area . . . that was undergoing construction, renovation . . .
that it wasn't a safe area, safe as the central location that they were
in presently, and there were people hanging around in the street corners
and things like that" (TR 19-20). The flextime proposal was to allow
employees to be dropped off at a mutually convenient time for spouses
and employees. This tip was not mentioned at the bargaining table.
Management responded that it would not consider the flextime
proposal; that it exceeded the scope of impact bargaining; that there
was no substantial adverse impact; and that it was on the table at
negotiations on the national agreement which were taking place in
Baltimore.
There is no article on flextime in the national agreement. Mention
of flextime appears only in the provision for supplemental agreements.
See finding 5b, supra. At Baltimore there was no discussion on the
topic in the context of impact and implementation bargaining upon the
relocation of offices.
14b. Day care center. The proposal on this topic was met with a
management response that there was no adverse impact. Also, at the last
negotiating session, on June 16, 1982, there was "general agreement"
that there were provisions covering day care in the national agreement
(TR 62.)
Article 20 of the national agreement provides for a "feasibility
study for a model child care center" at a mutually determined site or
for the Woodlawn complex (R 1.33).
14c. Parking. The proposal on this topic was met with the
management response that there was none "available previously, there's
none now and there was no adverse impact" (TR 62). Also, management
stated that "the matter was under discussion at the national level" (TR
23).
Article 13 of the national agreement deals with "parking;" and there
is also provision for supplemental agreements. See R 1.24 and finding
5b supra.
14d. Noise abatement. This topic was met with a management response
that there was "no adverse impact" because there would be "less noise
than there was previously" (TR 63) /6/ and that the matter was being
negotiated at the national level.
Article 9 of the national agreement deals with Health and Safety, but
in general terms (R 1.15-16). The provision for supplemental agreements
allows for further negotiations on "Health and Safety" (R 1.9 and see
finding 5b, supra).
14e. Lunchrooms. Management may have alleged this proposal was
contrary to a national law, rule, or regulation.
14f. Window coverings. This topic was met by a management response
that there were "drapes previously and there's drapes now and there's no
adverse impact" (TR 63). Management refused to sign off on a proposal
to provide drapes, which the Union felt it needed so that failure to
provide them would be grievable and to insure the protection of
employees' rights.
14g. Water coolers. This topic was met by a management response
that "the supply of water was even better than it was previously, so
there was no adverse impact" (TR 61).
15. While Mr. Glassman testified that management was prepared to
negotiate with the Union over proposals that had less adverse impact
(see TR 62-63), in fact management relied upon allegations of an absence
of adverse impact to justify refusal to bargain, as set forth in finding
14, supra.
16. Management consulted with the office manager of the OHA hearing
office in Syracuse throughout the negotiations on the relocation; and
she testified at the hearing on the impact of the relocation.
16a. She established that the space allotted to OHA in the
commercial building on Warren Street is not exactly the same as that
which had been provided at the Federal building located at Clinton
Street. At the Federal building the accomodations were "almost plush;"
and the reluctance to relocate was over concern about giving up "some of
the plushness" (TR 48).
16b. She established that the Warren Street location is
approximately four blocks from the Federal building, and one block off
the main drag of downtown Syracuse. It is closer to the shopping area
and is served by the same transportation facilities. To her knowledge,
the Warren Street building is not in an urban renewal area and the
neighborhoods appear to be trafficked by the same people. She testified
that there is presently no construction going on "in" the Warren Street
location, nor was there at the time of the move (TR 49). Another
witness testified that, on a visit to the Warren Street OHA office in
November 1982, the streets surrounding the Warren Street building in
which the OHA office is located were being torn up, and the noise from
the drilling and construction equipment could be heard inside the
building and was "disturbing and disconcerting" (TR 71). Both witnesses
appeared to give truthful testimony and their testimony can be
reconciled. One testified to construction in the building and the other
to construction outside, but nearby the building.
16c. The office manager affirmed that there had been no day care
center, flextime, or official parking at the Federal building.
16d. As to drapes, she established that there were open weave ones
at the Federal building and wool-lined ones at the Warren Street
location.
16e. As to the noise from office machines, she established that they
had been located "on the floor with the employees," at the Federal
building, and are now "housed in a separate room," with a resulting
"decrease in that noise" (TR 46).
16f. As to water coolers, she established that there had been one on
each floor, in the area of the elevators, at the Federal building, and
that they were shared with the general public. At the Warren Street
facility, there is one drinking fountain within the space allocated to
Respondent, which has the entire fourth floor.
16g. As to parking, private parking lots are located closer to the
Warren Street location than they were to the Federal building.
17. The union president, on a visit to the Warren Street location in
November 1982, was approached by a panhandler, which he felt to be
"unique in Syracuse" (TR 70-71). Employees told him that the OHA office
on Warren Street was "not as nice" as their former quarters in the
Federal building.
18. The reason for the relocation was that OHA wished to expand its
office. There was insufficient space in the Federal building to
accomodate the expansion, according to GSA, the Federal agency holding
control over space for governmental agencies. GSA planned the
relocation to Warren Street and promised the space occupied by OHA in
the Federal building to other agencies. The office facilities arm of
the OHA'S Region II, and its management operations specialist, tried to
stop the move and then to delay it, but could not control GSA, which
threatened to evict the OHA Syracuse office from the Federal building,
if it did not move on GSA'S schedule. These futile attempts by Region
II were communicated to Mr. Glassman.
19. On February 8, 1982, Respondent directed a letter to Herbert
Collender, President of Local 1760, to notify him that the move would
take place on February 20, 1982.
20. On February 12, 1982, Mr. Armet replied to the February 8
letter. He reminded Respondent that the move was "presently subject to
impact bargaining" (GC 6). Respondent did not reply, in writing.
21. The Union learned that the Syracuse move had taken place while
at a negotiation session on February 22, 1982.
Case No. 20341, the Buffalo relocation
22. About 21 bargaining-unit employees worked in the Buffalo office
of OHA, when it was located in the U.S. Courthouse. Within two weeks of
the office relocation here at issue, the number rose to around 28.
23. By letter dated February 8, 1982, Mr. Glassman the labor
relations coordinator for Region II of OHA, notified the president of
Local 1760 that the Buffalo OHA office, then located at the U.S.
Courhouse at 68 Court Street, would be moved to a building at 268 Main
Street, three to six blocks away.
24. On February 17, 1982, Mr. Armet requested impact and
implementation bargaining over the proposed relocation.
25. On March 18, 1982, Mr. Armet submitted the union proposals to
Mr. Glassman. They were motiviated by a telephone call from the union
steward at Buffalo. She complained that another relocation of the OHA
office was to take place, to a "less desirable . . . seedy" location
where the area was being reconstructed and to a building that was under
renovation (TR 81). Mention was made of "derelicts on the street" (TR
81). These concerns were expressed to management during negotiations.
Management checked them out and did not find them "believable" (TR
119-120).
26. The parties met in eight negotiation sessions, the first being
on March 22, 1982 and the last on July 21. The relocation took place on
May 3.
27. At the hearing, testimony was adduced on the items in the
Union's proposals upon which agreement was not reached.
27a. Flextime. On March 23, 1982, and at subsequent negotiation
sessions, management took the position that there had been no flextime
at the U.S. Courthouse location and so no adverse impact from the
relocation. Also, management responded that flextime was on the table
at the national negotiations. (See finding 14a, supra, for what was
negotiated in the national agreement).
27b. Day care center. On July 12, 1982, management's response was
that there had been none at the U.S. Courthouse and so no adverse
impact. Also, management "wouldn't discuss it" (TR 86) because it was
for "a benefit that was covered in the national agreement" (TR 126).
(See finding 14b, supra, for what was in the national agreement.)
27c. Parking. On July 12, 1982, management's response was that
there was none at either location and so no adverse impact, and also
that it was "on the table at a higher level of negotiations" (TR 86).
(See finding 14c, supra, as to what was negotiated in the national
agreement.)
27d. Health and Safety. On at least four occasions, the union's
proposal met with the response that it was "beyond the scope of adverse
impact and such conditions were being negotiated at the national level"
(TR 83). (See finding 14d, supra, as to what was negotiated in the
national agreement as to health and safety.) Included in the Union's
health and safety proposals were ones relating to emergency lighting,
smoke detectors, fire alarms, at least two water coolers, restrooms, a
lounge area, sufficient lighting, and transportation to a health unit.
See GC 12.3-5.
27e. Emergency lighting. Mr. Armet testified that management's
response to this topic was that there was none at either facility, and
thus no adverse impact. Mr. Glassman agreed that the response was no
adverse impact, that that it was based on emergency lighting being in
both locations. See TR 122. Mr. Glassman appeared more confident, on
this point, than Mr. Armet. Accordingly, I credit the testimony of Mr.
Glassman on this point.
27f. Smoke detectors. Again, Mr. Armet testified that management's
response was that there was none in either building, and so no adverse
impact. Mr. Glassman agreed that there were none and explained that
this was because the Buffalo GSA cose required sprinkler systems. Mr.
Glassman further explained that there was "either a sprinkler system
installed or there would be one installed at the Main Street location"
and, therefore, that there would be no adverse impact and no need to
bargain on smoke detectors (TR 122).
27g. Fire alarms. Management's response was that similar systems
existed in both buildings, and so there would be no adverse impact.
27h. Restrooms. As to this topic, management's response on June 21,
1982 was that the restrooms at the Main street builiding are "more
private" and "much cleaner" (TR 93 and 125). Thus, management felt that
the impact was "beneficial," and there was "no duty" to bargain (TR
125).
27i. Lounge area. On June 21, 1982, management responded that there
was none in either facility, and therefore no adverse impact.
27j. Water coolers. In July 1982, /7/ management responded that the
same or better conditions existed at the Main street location, and
therefore there was no adverse impact, and "they would not negotiate the
issue" (TR 85).
27k. Transportation to the health unit. On July 12, 1982,
management's response was that there was no adverse impact.
27l. Lighting to avoid eye fatigue. On July 12, 1982, the response
was that "the lighting would be equal or better," and so there would be
no adverse impact (TR 125) and they "would not bargain on it" (TR 85).
27m. Break and lunch room. On July 12, 1982, management responded
that there was none at either facility, and therefore there was no
adverse impact and "no duty to bargain" (TR 126). Management did
explain that it "could not authorize lunch rooms -- GSA -- officially,
"but would attempt to solve the problem by "just having spare space" (TR
126). Management has been able to provide such spare space for the
Buffalo OHA office.
27n. First aid kits. Management's response was that the kit they
used in the Courthouse was "portable" and the OHA office had the same
one at the Main Street facility (TR 128). Thus, there was "no adverse
impact" (TR 128). It was admitted that OHA Buffalo was getting more
employees in the Main Street building. According to Mr. Glassman, the
Union did not state that it wanted to bargain over more kits because one
was insufficient. See TR 128-129. The proposal was that: "Management
will provide each working unit with a GSA approved first aid kit" (GC
11.7).
27o. Administrative leave on paydays to cash checks. Management's
response was that the old and new location were in the same general
area, with the same banks available. Therefore, there was "no adverse
impact" (TR 129).
27p. Window coverings. Management's response was that there were
drapes in the OHA office at both locations, and so there was no adverse
impact, and thus "no need to bargain" (TR 127).
27q. Noisy office equipment. Management's response was that the new
office would be "much quieter," since the machines would not be
concentrated and were "off the floor and away from the office area" (TR
127), thus, no adverse impact.
28. Management consulted with the office manager of OHA office in
Buffalo throughout the negotiations on the relocation. The office
manager testified at the hearing on the impact of the relocation.
28a. He established that the distance between the former and present
offices is three and a half blocks and that the bargaining-unit
employees regard the U.S. Courthouse as "more prestigious" (TR 105).
28b. The office at Main Street was extensively remodeled to OHA'S
specifications before the move. It met GSA'S minimum specifications.
Approximately 60 days prior to the move, Mr. Allen inspected the
construction "to make sure they they were complying to our
specifications for (the) office needs" (TR 109.) More space was provided
for each employee.
28c. A GSA inspection of the Main Street location involved areas of
emergency lighting, fire alarms, and smoke detectors; and changes were
made pursuant thereto, some at prodding of the office manager.
28d. The Main Street location is "much closer to the central
transportation bus station which comes from all areas of western New
York" (TR 90). It is not in an urban renewal area.
28e. Parking is "much better and reasonable" at the Main Street
location (TR 99).
28f. Bargaining-unit employees had no windows at the U.S.
Courthouse. Now they have windows covered by "beautiful flowered
drapes." (TR 133).
28g. Noisy office machines are located further away from the work
area of employees, at the Main Street office; and a decrease in the
noise level has resulted.
28h. Within a three to four block area of the Main Street building,
there are eight banks. One is about 50 feet from the building. These
banks are located between the present and former buildings housing the
OHA office. Only one branch bank that would have been used by OHA
employees, when located in U.S. Courthouse, is not between it and the
Main Street building; and the main office of that bank is located in
the blocks between the two buildings.
28i. There was only one water cooler in the U.S. Courthouse. It was
located directly in front of the elevators and about a 114-foot walk
from the OHA office. At the Main Street building, a water cooler is
located centrally, within the OHA office area.
28j. The first aid kit is not used frequently and is replenished
before supplies are used up.
28k. At neither location have there been locked restrooms for the
exclusive use of OHA employees, as in the Union's proposal, but at Main
Street, they are shared with fewer people and are maintained in a "much
cleaner" condition (TR 93).
28l. At neither location has there been an employee lounge or a
health unit. The health unit used by employees at both locations is in
a Federal building, which is three and a half blocks further away from
the Main Street location, but is reached more comfortably (less windy)
due to the shelter provided by buildings along the route. On the route
between the health unit and the Main Street facility, one passes
"business type people, shoppers" (TR 109). The walk to the health unit
from the Main Street facility is "no different" than what was passed
going from the U.S. Courthouse (TR 108).
28m. There is more "light power" at the Main Street location, and
the light is "much better" because it is florescent (TR 96). Employees
at the Main Street location have not complained over the existing level
of lighting" (i)n the wroking areas" (TR 96).
28n. The lunch and break facilities at the U.S. Courthouse were in a
room about 12 by 14 feet which also served as a mail and supply room and
one in which to counsel SSA claimants. There were no vending or coffee
machines, hot plates, or refrigerators for the exclusive use of
bargaining-unit employees, as proposed by the Union for the Main Street
location. At Main Street, a room which is 10 by 10 feet is used
exclusively for break and lunch periods of the bargaining-unit
employees.
28o. There are no day care centers sponsored by the Federal
government in Buffalo.
29. The Buffalo OHA office relocation was occasioned by an OHA
request for more space to accomodate a projected staff increase. Other
agencies in the U.S. Courthouse also needed to expand. GSA decided to
relocate OHA, and was being pressed by the other agencies to expedite
the move. The office facilities arm of OHA'S Region II, and its
management operations specialist, tried to stop the move and then delay
it. GSA forced the move and specified the moving date.
30. By letter dated April 16, 1982 Mr. Glassman notified the union
president that the Buffalo OHA office would be moved on May 3-4.
31. At meetings of the parties on April 26 and 30, 1982, the Union
requested a delay in the implementation of the move. Management
replied, each time, that GSA wanted the office "out" and a delay was not
possible (TR 80).
Discussion and Conclusions
Respondent, at page 16 of its brief, correctly summarizes certain
well established principles of law which it deems to be controlling in
this proceeding. The first one is that:
Impact and implementation bargaining ("I & I" or "impact"
bargaining) is narrower in scope than other forms of midterm
bargaining or term negotiations. While other forms of midterm or
term bargaining may be concerned with substantive issues, impact
bargaining is limited to (a) procedures management will follow in
implementing its decision, and (b) appropriate arrangements for
employees adversely affected by the decision. 5 U.S.C. 7106(b)(2)
and (3). Intrinsically, the obligation to bargain over I & I can
only arise as the result of management initiative (sic).
Moreover, the management action must have or portend substantial
impact on the conditions of employment of bargaining unit
employees. Office of Program Operations Field Operations, Social
Security Administration, San Francisco Region and Council of
District Office Locals, American Federation of Government
Employees, San Francisco Region, 5 FLRA No. 45 (1980).
The second one is that:
It is also a generally accepted principle of Federal sector
labor relations that absent agreement otherwise, the obligation to
negotiate exists at the level of recognition, and not at the local
level. Social Security Administration and American Program
Service Center, Kansas City Missouri and American Federation of
Government Employees AFL-CIO Local 1336, 10 FLRA No. 4 (1982),
Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration and Local 1346, American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, 6 FLRA No. 33 (1981). (Emphasis added.)
While these statements of legal principles are correct, their
application, as urged by Respondent, is not.
A. As to the impact of the relocations, the preponderence of the
evidence indicates that the foreseeable impact was substantial. While
the moves were not far in distance, they required the relinquishment of
"plush" offices (at Syracuse) and a "prestigious" location (at Buffalo).
While a few conditions may have been better at the new locations, even
management recognized that they did not compensate for what was being
given up and, unsuccessfully, tried to stop the moves altogether.
B. Faced with the inevitability of a substantial change in working
conditions (having to give up the comfort and pleasure of working in
plush and prestigious quarters), the Union put together a set of
proposals, some of which may have resulted in particular working
conditions remaining the same, or being even better. Respondent refused
to bargain over such items.
In agreement with Judge Naimark, I conclude the Respondents
improperly refused to bargain on the ground that particular proposals
represented no change or an improvement in particular working
conditions. Using the union proposal on window coverings for the
Syracuse office as an example, it was established that there were drapes
at both the old and new locations, but management refused to enter into
a written agreement that there would be drapes at the new location. See
finding 14(f) supra. The Union correctly asserted that it needed a
written agreement to insure the matter and properly protect the
bargaining-unit employees. To have agreements in writing is a statutory
right. See 5 U.S.C. 7114(b)(5). Unions would probably not long retain
their exclusive representative status if they relied on verbal
statements from management.
Using the union proposal on lounge areas as another example, the
Union was within its rights in making such a proposal, even though there
had been none at the old location. Overall, the relocation had a
foreseeable substantial adverse impact. This item might alleviate that
impact somewhat.
c. All of the Union's proposals concerned working conditions.
(Indeed, Respondent does not argue to the contrary and admits that it
made no allegations of non-negotiability. See RBr 20.) See American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
2477, et al., and Library of Congress, 7 FLRA No. 89, 7 FLRA 578 (1982),
involving a relocation of employees to a new building and in which the
Authority delcared that inter alia, the following proposals by the
bargaining agent, as a result of the relocation, related to matters
affecting working conditions: file cabinet space; office size;
partitions to insure no noise; conformance to fire codes and
regulations to the extent the agency had discretion; and prohibiting
work in areas violating safety codes. See also American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and Air Force Logistics Command,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 2 FLRA No. 77, 2 FLRA 604 (1980),
involving day care facilities; and National Treasury Employees Union
and NTEU Chapter 80 and Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue
Service, Central Region, 8 FLRA No. 38, 8 FLRA (1982), involving
installation of drapes, and noise abatement items.
D. The fact that some items proposed by the Union were on the table
at national negotiations does not matter, in these cases, because of
Respondent's admission that Local changes in working conditions of unit
employees in New York offices, which would include these here at
Syracuse and Buffalo. See findings 3(a) and (b), supra. Agreements
reached at the national level would, of course, supercede any
conflicting ones arrived at regional or local levels. This would seem
to be the case as to Local 1760's prpopsals on a day care center. See
findings 5b, 14b, and 27b, supra.
Remedy
Counsel for the General Counsel did not ask for "a status quo ante
remedy" (TR 74, 9). She did ask for an affirmative order to bargain in
good faith on the previously submitted proposals and to require "any
agreements reached between the parties to be made retroactive to the
date of the move" (TR 9 and see also TR 75). She stated that she would
submit a brief and was requested to submit a psoposed order for relief
delineating "exactly what (she) meant by retroactively" as it related to
the proposals. She agreed. However, neither a brief nor a proposed
order has been submitted on behalf of the General Counsel. Instead,
reliance is placed solely on Judge Naimark's decision and the brief
filed on behalf of the General Counsel in Case Nos. 12-CA-20179 and
20355. Judge Naimark granted only prospective relief in those cases,
without discussing the statement on page 15 of the brief seeking relief
retroactive to the date of the relocations. The brief made no argument
in support of such relief.
It would be fair to assume, from the failure to submit a proposed
order and argument in support of it, that the General Counsel is not too
concerned about an order for retroactive relief. In any event, I do not
consider such relief appropriate here, under standards enunciated by the
Authority in such cases as Federal Correctional Institution, 8 FLRA No.
111, 8 FLRA 604, (1982). While Respondent did relocate the OHA offices
during the course of bargaining, it tried to stop and delay the move,
but to no avail. GSA was prepared to evict the OHA offices. Respondent
gave timely notices of its actions to the Union and timely responded to
the bargaining proposals of the Union. The responses, while rejected
here, were not totally lacking in merit. I find no bad faith in
Respondent's refusal to give the Union a written allegation of
non-negotiability of any proposal, in view of Respondent's stance that
it was not taking such a position. See RBr 20-22. While the evidence
demonstrated that employees in the bargaining unit have suffered
substantial adverse effects from their moves away from plush and
prestigious offices, there is no evidence that they are so dire as to
call for any but prospective relief, under all the circumstances of the
case. Just how disruptive retroactive relief would be, or how much it
would impair the efficiency and effectiveness of Respondents' operations
is unclear from the record. Counsel for the General Counsel suggested
only one specific type of retroactive relief -- correcting the records
of any employees who were marked as late on paydays in view of the
proposal to grant an extra one-half hour of administrative leave on
paydays so that employees might cash their checks. Since a number of
banks appear to be in close proximity to the new location, the impact
upon unit employees of the failure to bargain this proposal is not
sufficient to warrant the ordering of such relief. Under all the
circumstances here involved, retroactive relief is best left to
bargaining between the parties.
Ultimate Findings and Recommended Order
Respondent has engaged and is engaging in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaints, in violation of 5 USC 7116(a)(1) and (5).
Accordingly, and pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Rules and
Regulations of the Federal Labor Relations Authority and Section 7118 of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority
hereby orders that the Social Security Administration, Office of
Hearings and Appeals, Region II, New York, New York, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Relocating or moving its offices and employees, wihtout
first notifying the American Federation of Government Employees,
Local 1760, and affording it the opportunity to negotiate, to the
extent consonant with law and regulations, concerning the
procedures to be observed in such relocation or move and the
arrangements for employees adversely affected by such action.
(b) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760 to the extent
consonant with law and regulations, as to the procedures to be
observed in any further implementation of its relocation of OHA
offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, and the arrangements
for employees adversely affected by the relocation, including, but
not limited to proposals already made.
(c) 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) Notify the American Federation of Government employees,
Local 1760 of any intention to relocate or move any of its offices
and employees, and afford it the opportunity to negotiate, to the
extent consonant with law and regulations, concerning the
procedures to be observed in such relocation or move and
arrangements for employees adversely affected by such action.
(b) Upon request, negotiate in good faith with the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760 to the extent
consonant with law and regulations, as to the procedures to be
observed in any further implementation of its relocation of OHA
offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, and the arrangements
for employees adversely affected by the relocations, including,
but not limited to proposals already made.
(c) Post at its OHA offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York,
copies of the attached notice, marked "Appendix B", on forms to be
furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt
of such forms, they shall be signed by the head of Region II and
they shall be posted for 60 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 materials.
(d) Notify the Regional Director, Region I, 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.
/s/ Isabelle R. Capello
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: July 28, 1983
Washington, D.C.
FOOTNOTES$ -----------------
(1) As noted by the Judge at page 16 of her Decision, the Respondents
never alleged that such proposals were nonnegotiable.
(2) The amendment consisted of striking from the complaint in Case
No. 1-CA-20322, allegations concerning a failure to provide information.
(3) 5 U.S.C. 7116(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Section 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; . . .
or
(5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a
labor organization as required by this chapter . . .
(4) The following abbreviations will be used. "TR" refers to the
transcript in this proceeding. Corrections to it have been made
pursuant to 5 CFR 2423.19(r). See Appendix A hereto. Other
abbreviations to be used are as follows. "GC" refers to the exhibits of
the General Counsel. "R" refers to the exhibits of the Respondent.
Multipage exhibits will be referenced by the exhibit number followed by
the page or paragraph number. "GCM" refers to the memorandum submitted
by the General Counsel. "RBR" refers to the brief submitted by
Respondent.
Respondents will be referred to jointly as "Respondent," unless
otherwise specifically noted.
(5) 5 U.S.C. 7106 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Section 7106. Management rights . . .
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude any agency and any
labor organization from negotiating . . .
(2) procedures which management officials of the agency will
observe in exercising any authority under this section; or
(3) appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected
by the exercise of any authority under this section by such
management officials.
This is commonly called "impact and implementation" bargaining.
(6) There are two page 63's in the transcript. This citation is to
the first one.
(7) A witness believed the date was July 26 but did not seem sure.
See TR 85. It was probably before that, as the last bargaining session
was established to be on July 21. See finding 26, supra.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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 relocate or move our offices and employees, without first
notifying the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760,
the exclusive representative of our employees, and affording it the
opportunity to negotiate, to the extent consonant with law and
regulations. concerning the procedures to be observed in such relocation
or move and the arrangements for employees adversely affected by such
action.
WE WILL NOT refuse to negotiate with the American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 1760, the exclusive representative of our
employees to the extent consonant with law and regulations, as to the
procedures to be observed in any further implementation of the
relocation of OHA offices in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, and the
arrangements for employees adversely affected by the relocations,
including, but not limited to proposals already made.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights assured by the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
WE WILL notify the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1760, the exclusive representative of our employees, of any intention to
relocate or move our offices and employees, and afford it the
opportunity to negotiate, to the extent consonant with law and
regulations concerning the procedures to be observed in such relocations
or move and arrangements for employees adversely affected by such
action.
WE WILL, upon request, negotiate in good faith with the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760, the exclusive
representative of our employees, to the extent consonant with law and
regulations, as to the procedures to be observed in any further
implementation of the relocations of OHA offices in Buffalo and
Syracuse, New York, and the arrangements for employees adversely
affected by the relocation, including, but not limited to proposals
already made.
(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 I,
whose address is; 441 Stuart Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02116, and
whose telephone number is: (617) 223-0920.