[ v02 p769 ]
02:0769(97)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
2 FLRA No.97 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER Respondent and NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 72 Complainant Assistant Secretary Case No. 63-8897(CA) DECISION AND ORDER THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY OF REGIONAL DIRECTOR GABRIEL PERALES, JR. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 206.5 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY. THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (44 F.R. 44741, JULY 30, 1979). THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7135(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215). UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE SUBJECT CASE, INCLUDING THE PARTIES' STIPULATION OF FACTS, ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS, AND THE BRIEFS SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THE COMPLAINANT, THE AUTHORITY FINDS: THE COMPLAINT HEREIN ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY CHANGING THE HOURS OF DUTY OF THREE BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING COMPLAINANT, AND AFFORDING IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE. THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE CHANGE OF HOURS OF DUTY FOR THE THREE BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES WAS INSUBSTANTIAL AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE A CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS. AS A RESULT, THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO BARGAIN WITH THE COMPLAINANT OVER THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS ACTION. THE RESPONDENT ALSO ARGUES THAT ITS ACTIONS WERE MERELY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS AND AS A RESULT THERE WAS NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE WITH COMPLAINANT. THE RESPONDENT FURTHER ARGUES THAT IF IT WAS OBLIGATED TO NEGOTIATE THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS DECISION, ITS FAILURE TO DO SO WAS DE MINIMIS AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS, AS STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES, ARE AS FOLLOWS: AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, IS ONE OF THE TEN SERVICE CENTERS IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 72 (NTEU) IS, AND WAS AT ALL TIME PERTINENT TO THE COMPLAINT, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES IN THE AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER. ON MAY 2, 1978, THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES APPEALS AUTHORITY (FEAA) OF THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CONDUCTED A HEARING PURSUANT TO 5 C.F.R. 772,307 AT THE AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER IN THE MATTER OF THE ADVERSE ACTION APPEAL OF RICHARD COX, A BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEE. COX WAS REPRESENTED PRIVATE COUNSEL. PRIOR TO THE HEARING, COX REQUESTED THAT CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT APPEAR AS WITNESSES IN HIS BEHALF. IN ACCORDANCE WITH 5 C.F.R. 772.307(C)(2), THE FEAA REQUESTED RESPONDENT TO MAKE THESE EMPLOYEES AVAILABLE TO APPEAR AS WITNESSES AT THE HEARING. /1/ THE FEAA REQUEST TO RESPONDENT WAS CONVEYED BY LETTER DATED APRIL 14, 1978, AND RESPONDENT RECEIVED THIS LETTER ON APRIL 19, 1978. AMONG THOSE WHOM RESPONDENT WAS REQUESTED TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO APPEAR AS WITNESSES WERE THREE BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES-- FREDERICK OBERDORF, MARK TUREK, AND LORNA BOECK-- WHO WORKED ON THE 5:00 P.M. TO 1:30 A.M. SHIFT IN THE ERROR CORRECTION SECTION. BECAUSE THE HEARING WAS SCHEDULED TO COMMENCE AT 8:30 A.M., MAY 2, 1978, RESPONDENT CHANGED THESE EMPLOYEES' HOURS OF DUTY TO THE 7:30 A.M. TO 4:00 P.M. SHIFT FOR THE DAY OF THE HEARING ONLY. EMPLOYEES OBERDORF AND BOECK WERE NOTIFIED OF THEIR HOURS OF DUTY CHANGE AT APPROXIMATELY 6:00 P.M., MAY 1, 1978, THE EVENING BEFORE THE FEAA HEARING. AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE TOLD BY THEIR SUPERVISOR THAT IF THEY WISHED, THEY COULD TAKE ANNUAL LEAVE FOR THE REMAINING SEVEN HOURS OF THEIR SHIFT TO GO HOME AND REST BEFORE THE HEARING. THE TWO EMPLOYEES DECLINED, AND REMAINED AT WORK. BOECK WENT HOME AT 1:30 A.M. ON MAY 2, 1978, UPON THE CONCLUSION OF HER NORMAL SHIFT. OBERDORF VOLUNTARILY WORKED OVERTIME UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 3:00 A.M., MAY 2, 1978. TUREK, WHO WORKED IN ANOTHER UNIT, ALSO WAS ADVISED OF THE CHANGE IN HIS HOURS OF DUTY AT APPROXIMATELY 6:00 P.M. ON MAY 1, 1978. HE WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPTION OF USING ANNUAL LEAVE THAT EVENING, AND HE WORKED UNTIL 1:30 A.M. ON MAY 2, 1978, HIS NORMAL QUITTING TIME. OBERDORF, BOECK, AND TUREK REPORTED BACK TO WORK AT 7:30 A.M. ON MAY 2, 1978, AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGE IN THEIR HOURS OF DUTY. THE FEAA HEARING BEGAN AT 8:30 A.M., AS SCHEDULED. LATER THAT MORNING ALL THREE EMPLOYEES TESTIFIED AT THE HEARING. BECAUSE OF FATIGUE, OBERDORF FAILED TO COMPLETE HIS SHIFT ON MAY 2, 1978, AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HIS TESTIMONY. USING FOUR HOURS OF SICK LEAVE, HE WENT HOME AT 11:30 A.M. BOECK ALSO WENT HOME AT 11:30 A.M. BECAUSE OF FATIGUE, BUT SHE HAD TO ACCEPT FOUR HOURS LEAVE WITHOUT PAY IN ORDER TO DO SO. BOECK RETURNED TO WORK LATER THAT EVENING (MAY 2, 1978), AND MADE UP THE FOUR HOURS LEAVE WITHOUT PAY BY WORKING FROM 5:00 P.M. TO 9:00 P.M. SHE ALSO RECEIVED TEN PERCENT ADDITIONAL NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL PAY FOR THREE HOURS WORK THAT EVENING FROM 6:00P.M. TO 9:00 P.M. AFTER TUREK TESTIFIED, HE COMPLETED HIS SHIFT AND WENT HOME AT 4:00 P.M. RESPONDENT DID NOT NOTIFY COMPLAINANT OF THE CHANGE IN THE THREE EMPLOYEES' HOURS OF DUTY. COMPLAINANT LEARNED OF THE CHANGE AFTER THE FEAA HEARING WAS COMPLETED. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS THE FINDING IS THE RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO GIVE COMPLAINANT ADVANCE NOTICE OF ITS INTENT TO CHANGE THE THREE BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES' HOURS OF DUTY FOR THE DAY OF THE FEAA HEARING, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE VIOLATES SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SHIFT CHANGE WAS MADE IN ORDER TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH 5 C.F.R. 772.307(C)(2), AND HENCE, THE BASIC DECISION TO MAKE THE SHIFT CHANGE WAS NONNEGOTIABLE. HOWEVER, IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT EVEN WHEN AN ACTIVITY IS PRIVILEGED TO TAKE SUCH AN ACTION WITHOUT FIRST BARGAINING ABOUT THE BASIC DECISION, IT IS OBLIGATED TO NOTIFY AND BARGAIN, UPON REQUEST, WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THE PROCEDURE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE DECISION AND THE IMPACT OF THE DECISION ON THE EMPLOYEES. /2/ THE AUTHORITY CAN NOT ACCEPT THE RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS THAT ITS ACTION WAS NOT A MATTER AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 11(A) OF THE ORDER BECAUSE THE CHANGE WAS INSUBSTANTIAL AND DID NOT EFFECT A CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS, OR THAT, IN ANY EVENT, ANY VIOLATION OF THE ORDER WHICH MAY HAVE OCCURRED WAS DE MINIMIS. IN THIS REGARD, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THE CHANGE WAS SIGNIFICANT IN ITS EFFECT ON THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES, NOTING PARTICULARLY THE FACT THAT THESE EMPLOYEES WERE COMPELLED TO WORK TWO CONSECUTIVE SHIFTS WITH ONLY A BRIEF INTERLUDE FOR REST. ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY FAILING TO NOTIFY THE COMPLAINANT OF ITS INTENT TO CHANGE THE WORKING HOURS OF UNIT EMPLOYEES AND AFFORD THE COMPLAINANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, UPON REQUEST, WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE. /3/ ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7135 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER SHALL: 1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM: (A) CHANGING THE HOURS OF DUTY OF EMPLOYEES WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 72, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AND AFFORDING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH CHANGES. (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED. 2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: (A) NOTIFY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 72 OF ANY INTENDED DECISION TO CHANGE THE HOURS OF DUTY OF EMPLOYEES AND UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH DECISION. (B) POST AT ITS AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER, IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY. UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED. THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. (C) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 29, 1980 RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS WE HEREBY NOTIFY EMPLOYEES OF THE AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER IN AUSTIN, TEXAS, THAT: WE WILL NOT CHANGE TOURS OF DUTY OF EMPLOYEES WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 72, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, AND AFFORDING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION TO EFFECTUATE SUCH A POLICY. WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED. WE WILL NOTIFY THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND NTEU CHAPTER 72 OF ANY INTENDED DECISION TO CHANGE THE HOURS OF DUTY OF EMPLOYEES AND, UPON REQUEST, MEET AND CONFER TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH DECISION. 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 FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS: DOWNTOWN POST OFFICE STATION, BRYAN AND ERVAY STREETS, P.O. BOX 2640, DALLAS, TEXAS 75221, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS: (214) 767-4996. /1/ IN PERTINENT PART, 5 C.F.R. 702.307 PROVIDES: (2) BOTH PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE WITNESSES AND TO INTRODUCE SIGNED SWORN STATEMENTS OR LETTERS OF INTERROGATORY. THE APPEALS AUTHORITY IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES. ANY AGENCY THAT HAS EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO APPEAL TO THE THE APPEAL AUTHORITY UNDER THIS PART SHALL MAKE ITS EMPLOYEES AVAILABLE TO FURNISH SWORN STATEMENTS OR TO APPEAR AS WITNESSES AT THE HEARING WHEN REQUESTED BY THE APPEALS AUTHORITY AFTER CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY EITHER PARTY TO THE APPEAL, UNLESS IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY IMPRACTICABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUEST OF THE APPEALS AUTHORITY. . . . FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SHALL BE IN AN OFFICIAL DUTY STATUS FOR ALL PURPOSES IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR PROVISION OF SWORN STATEMENT OR THEIR APPEARANCE AS WITNESSES AND SHALL BE FREE FROM RESTRAINT, INTERFERENCE, COERCION, DISCRIMINATION, OR REPRISAL IN PRESENTING THEIR TESTIMONY. /2/ FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, 4 A/SLMR 497, A/SLMR NO. 418 (1974). /3/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED. THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE RESULT WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.