[ v10 p26 ]
10:0026(9)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
10 FLRA No. 9 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, REGION VI, AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, GALVESTON, TEXAS DISTRICT Respondents and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823 Charging Party Case No. 6-CA-315 DECISION AND ORDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED DECISION IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING THAT THEY CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. THE JUDGE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT GALVESTON DISTRICT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION HAD NOT ENGAGED IN CERTAIN OTHER ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WITH RESPECT THERETO. EXCEPTIONS TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION WERE FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. 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 RECOMMENDATIONS, AS MODIFIED HEREIN. THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, REGION VI VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE /1/ BY UNILATERALLY ISSUING A MEMORANDUM TO ALL SUPERVISORS WITH INSTRUCTIONS THAT IT BE IMPLEMENTED UPON RECEIPT, WHICH CHANGED AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT (A SUBORDINATE ACTIVITY OF REGION VI) WITH REGARD TO THE MANNER OF REPORTING MILEAGE ON TRAVEL VOUCHERS. IN THIS REGARD, THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND REGIONAL OFFICIALS, WAS THAT EMPLOYEES WOULD RECORD MILEAGE AT A GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AS "IN AND AROUND" THE LOCATION, WITH APPROPRIATE SPEEDOMETER READINGS; THAT THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER UNILATERALLY CHANGED THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICE BY REQUIRING A MILEAGE READING FOR EACH LOCATION VISITED; AND THAT SUCH CHANGE WAS DIRECTED BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION, WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE CHARGING PARTY, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823 (NFFE), THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GALVESTON DISTRICT'S EMPLOYEES, AND WITHOUT AFFORDING NFFE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE CHANGE. RELYING UPON A NUMBER OF CASES DECIDED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ACTS AND CONDUCT OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT AT A LEVEL OF AN AGENCY'S ORGANIZATION HIGHER THAN THE LEVEL AT WHICH AN EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP EXISTS MAY CONSTITUTE A REFUSAL TO CONSULT OR NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH, THE JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT REGION VI VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE BY DIRECTING THE IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CHANGE IN AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, THE LEVEL OF EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION, WITHOUT NOTICE TO OR BARGAINING WITH NFFE. THE AUTHORITY AGREES THAT, UNDER THE STATUTE, WHEN THE OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE IS BREACHED BY THE ACTS AND CONDUCT OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT, SUCH A BREACH MAY PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR A SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) VIOLATION REGARDLESS OF THE LOCATION OF THAT AGENCY MANAGEMENT IN THE AGENCY CHAIN OF COMMAND. /2/ IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHERE AGENCY MANAGEMENT AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL DIRECTED THE IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF A POLICY WHICH ALTERED AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, SUCH ACT WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE. /3/ HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITY DISAGREES WITH THE JUDGE'S FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT GALVESTON DISTRICT ALSO VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5). AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM AND ACCOMPANYING INSTRUCTIONS TO SUPERVISORS REQUIRED THE REGION'S CHANGED POLICY WITH REGARD TO REPORTING MILEAGE TO BE IMPLEMENTED UPON RECEIPT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE GALVESTON DISTRICT ITSELF DID NOT INITIATE A CHANGE IN AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT BUT MERELY COMPLIED WITH A DIRECTION FROM AGENCY MANAGEMENT AT A HIGHER LEVEL BECAUSE IT HAD NO CHOICE EXCEPT TO DO SO, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE WOULD NOT BE EFFECTUATED BY FINDING A SEPARATE VIOLATION OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN SOLELY BASED UPON THE GALVESTON DISTRICT'S MINISTERIAL ACTIONS IN IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIVES FROM HIGHER LEVEL AGENCY MANAGEMENT. SEE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WATER AND POWER RESOURCES SERVICE, GRAND COULEE PROJECT, GRAND COULEE, WASHINGTON, 9 FLRA NO. 46(1982). /4/ IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE AUTHORITY SHALL MODIFY THE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED ORDER TO REQUIRE THE RESPONDENT REGION VI TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM CHANGING ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT CONCERNING THE MANNER OF REPORTING TRAVEL MILEAGE WITHOUT NOTIFYING NFFE OF SUCH INTENDED CHANGE AND AFFORDING NFFE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST BARGAINING WITH THE DISTRICT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING ANY SUCH PROPOSED CHANGE. 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 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, REGION VI, SHALL: 1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM: (A) UNILATERALLY CHANGING ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT CONCERNING THE MANNER OF REPORTING MILEAGE ON TRAVEL VOUCHERS AND DIRECTING THE GALVESTON DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT SUCH CHANGES UPON RECEIPT. (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING ANY EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE. 2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: (A) WITHDRAW AND RESCIND THE CHANGE CONCERNING REPORTING OF TRAVEL MILEAGE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, SET FORTH IN THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1979, AND REINSTATE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE REPORTING OF TRAVEL MILEAGE AS PRACTICED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 20, 1979. (B) NOTIFY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, OF ANY INTENDED CHANGE IN THE MANNER OF REPORTING TRAVEL MILEAGE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT AND PROVIDE SUCH EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE DISTRICT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES ON ANY SUCH PROPOSED CHANGE IN ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. (C) POST AT OFFICES OF REGION VI, DALLAS, TEXAS, AT THE GALVESTON, TEXAS, DISTRICT OFFICE, AND AT THE ANGLETON, TEXAS, BRANCH OFFICE, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY. UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, REGION VI, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES AT EACH OFFICE WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. (D) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION 6, 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. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 6-CA-315, INSOFAR AS IT ALLEGES A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE, BY RESPONDENT GALVESTON DISTRICT BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED. ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 15, 1982 RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN HENRY B. FRAZIER, III, MEMBER LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, 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 CHANGE ESTABLISHED CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE GALVESTON, TEXAS DISTRICT CONCERNING THE MANNER OF REPORTING MILEAGE ON TRAVEL VOUCHERS OR DIRECT THE GALVESTON DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT SUCH CHANGE WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF EMPLOYEES IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, AND PROVIDING THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE DISTRICT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING THE PROPOSED CHANGE. WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE. WE WILL WITHDRAW AND RESCIND THE CHANGE CONCERNING REPORTING OF TRAVEL MILEAGE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, WHICH WAS SET FORTH IN THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1979, AND WILL REINSTATE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE REPORTING OF TRAVEL MILEAGE AS PRACTICED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 20, 1979. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, REGION VI DATED: . . . BY: . . . REGIONAL COMMISSIONER 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, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 6, WHOSE ADDRESS IS: ROOM 450, DOWNTOWN POST OFFICE STATION, BRYAN AND ERVAY STREETS, DALLAS, TEXAS 75221, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS: (214) 767-4996. -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS -------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, REGION VI, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, REGION VI, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, GALVESTON, TEXAS, DISTRICT AND THE SUCCESSOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, REGION VI, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, REGION VI, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, GALVESTON, TEXAS DISTRICT /5/ RESPONDENTS AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823 CHARGING PARTY CASE NO.: 6-CA-315 STEVEN M. ANGEL, ESQUIRE FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL WILSON SCHUERHOLZ, ESQUIRE FOR THE RESPONDENT BEFORE: WILLIAM B. DEVANEY ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, 5 U.S.C. 7101, ET SEQ. /6/ AND THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER, 5 C.F.R. CHAPTER XIV, FED. REG., VOL. 45, JANUARY 17, 1980. THIS CASE CONCERNS RESPONDENT'S REQUIREMENT THAT VOUCHERS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES AS TO MILEAGE SHOW ALL INFORMATION ABOUT A TRIP, INCLUDING MILEAGE READINGS FOR EACH LOCATION VISITED. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SF-1012, TRAVEL VOUCHER, OR SF-1164, CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENDITURES ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS, ARE COVERED IN RESPONDENT'S ADS GUIDE SSA.G: 240-63 AND PROVIDE, IN RELEVANT PART, "SHOW POINT OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION AND SPEEDOMETER READING AT BEGINNING AND END OF EACH TRIP . . . ." THERE IS NO DISPUTE CONCERNING THIS REQUIREMENT. THE PRACTICE, FOR MANY YEARS, HAD BEEN THAT IF AN EMPLOYEE BEGAN HIS TRIP AT "A" HE SHOWED THE BEGINNING MILEAGE AND IF HE DROVE TO VARIOUS PLACES AT "A" HE SHOWED "A" BEGINNING MILEAGE; "A-- IN AND AROUND"; HE REPEATED THE BEGINNING MILEAGE AT "A" AND THE MILEAGE AT THE END OF THE TRIP; OR IF HE WENT FROM "A" TO "B" AND MADE VARIOUS TRIPS AT "B" HE WOULD SHOW BEGINNING MILEAGE AT "A"; MILEAGE UPON ARRIVAL AT "B"; "B"-- IN AND AROUND"; HE REPEATED THE ARRIVAL MILEAGE AT "B" AND THE MILEAGE AT THE END OF THE TRIP. IN SEPTEMBER, 1979, RESPONDENT'S REGIONAL COMMISSIONER ISSUED A MEMORANDUM WHICH DIRECTED THAT EACH LOCATION MUST BE SHOWN, INCLUDING MILEAGE READINGS FOR EACH LOCATION VISITED, WHICH, IN PRACTICAL TERMS, MEANT THAT "IN AND AROUND" WOULD NO LONGER SUFFICE. THE CHARGE, FILED NOVEMBER 12, 1979 (G.C. EXH. 1(A)) AND FIRST AMENDED CHARGE, FILED NOVEMBER 23, 1979 (G.C. EXH. 1(D)) HAD ALLEGED A VIOLATION OF SEC. 16(A)(1), (5) AND (7) OF THE STATUTE AS TO THE CHANGE; BUT THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGES A VIOLATION OF SEC. 16(A)(1) AND (5) (G.C. EXH. 1(G)), IN PARAGRAPH 5, ASSERTED AN UNILATERAL CHANGE WITHOUT AFFORDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN OVER THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHANGE. AT THE OPENING OF THE HEARING, GENERAL COUNSEL MOVED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT IN TWO RESPECTS: FIRST, TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE DISTRICT VIOLATED THE STATUTE AND, IN ADDITION, THAT THE REGION ALSO, INDEPENDENTLY, VIOLATED THE STATUTE; SECOND, TO REMOVE THE LIMITATION TO IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION AND TO ALLEGE A VIOLATION BOTH AS TO SUBSTANCE (DECISION) BARGAINING AND IMPACT AND/OR IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION. RESPONDENT DID NOT OBJECT TO EITHER AMENDMENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL'S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT IN BOTH RESPECTS WAS GRANTED. /7/ PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING (G.C. EXH. 1(G)), A HEARING WAS DULY HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED IN GALVESTON, TEXAS, ON MAY 14, 1980. ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED BY ABLE COUNSEL, WERE AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED. AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING, JUNE 16, 1970, WAS FIXED AS THE DATE FOR MAILING POST HEARING BRIEFS AND EACH PARTY HAS SUBMITTED A BRIEF, TIMELY MAILED, RECEIVED ON, OR BEFORE, JUNE 19, 1980, WHICH HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. UPON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 1. THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823 (HEREINAFTER, "LOCAL 1823" OR "UNION"), IS THE RECOGNIZED EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR UNIT EMPLOYEES OF THE GALVESTON, TEXAS, DISTRICT (SEE, RES. EXHS. 2 AND 3). GALVESTON DISTRICT CONSISTS OF TWO OFFICES, THE GALVESTON DISTRICT OFFICE AND THE ANGLETON BRANCH OFFICE, AND COVERS SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAMS IN GALVESTON, MATAGORDA AND BRAZORIA COUNTIES, TEXAS. REGION VI, DALLAS, TEXAS, INCLUDES SOME 47 DISTRICTS, ONE OF WHICH IS THE GALVESTON DISTRICT. 2. BY MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1979, TO SUPERVISORS, INCLUDING ALL AREA DIRECTORS AND ALL BRANCH MANAGERS, THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MARTHA A. MCSTEEN, DIRECTED, AS NOTED ABOVE, THAT "THE SSA-6026 MUST SHOW ALL INFORMATION ABOUT A TRIP, INCLUDING MILEAGE READINGS FOR EACH LOCATION VISITED." (G.C. EXH. 2). THE MEMORANDUM IS DIRECTIVE TO ALL SUPERVISORS AND MR. JAMES HENDRICKS, BRANCH MANAGER OF THE ANGLETON BRANCH OFFICE TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS "EFFECTIVE WHEN WE GOT IT." (TR. 30). MR. GORDON GONZALES, DISTRICT MANAGER FOR THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, TESTIFIED THAT HE AND MR. HENDRICKS FIRST LEARNED OF THE CHANGE ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1979, AT AN AREA MANAGER'S CONFERENCE WHEN MR. MAX ODHAM, DIVISION DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT, INFORMED THEM THAT THE MEMORANDUM "WAS COMING TO THE FIELD AND THAT WE WOULD BE RECEIVING IT SHORTLY" (TR. 107); THAT MR. ODHAM READ THE MEMORANDUM TO THEM, AND THAT MR. ODHAM "TOLD US THAT IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1979." (TR. 107). MR. GONZALES FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT, WHILE AT THE CONFERENCE, HE AND MR. HENDRICKS PRIVATELY DISCUSSED THE MATTER ON SEPTEMBER 25. MR. GONZALES TESTIFIED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS: " . . . I TOLD JIM THAT AS SOON AS WE GOT THE MEMORANDUM IN OUR RESPECTIVE OFFICES THAT WE WOULD SHARE IT WITH THE UNION. WE WOULD TELL THE UNION THAT THE DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1979, BUT THAT WE WOULD NEGOTIATE THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF IT, NOT THE NEW REQUIREMENT, BUT THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MEMO." (TR. 108). 3. MR. GONZALES STATED THAT HE WAS BACK IN HIS OFFICE ON SEPTEMBER 26 AND IMMEDIATELY UPON HIS ARRIVAL CALLED MR. KEITH FOLZMAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 1823, TO HIS OFFICE AND INFORMED HIM THAT "THERE WAS A MEMORANDUM COMING OUT AND THAT I WOULD GIVE HIM A COPY . . . AS SOON AS IT ARRIVED", THAT HE RECEIVED THE MEMORANDUM ON SEPTEMBER 27, AT WHICH TIME HE GAVE MR. FOLZMAN A COPY AND TOLD HIM, " . . . I WOULD BE GLAD TO DISCUSS THE MEMORANDUM AND IMPACT BARGAIN IF HE SO CHOSE." (TR. 109). MR. FOLZMAN DID NOT REQUEST BARGAINING. 4. THE PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 1823, MR. ROY SINCLAIR, WORKS IN THE ANGLETON BRANCH OFFICE. MR. HENDRICKS, BRANCH MANAGER, DID NOT INFORM MR. SINCLAIR OF THE COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM, OR OF THE CHANGE, PRIOR TO HIS RECEIPT OF THE MEMORANDUM ON, OR ABOUT, OCTOBER 1, 1979. MR. HENDRICKS TESTIFIED THAT BY THE TIME HE RECEIVED THE MEMORANDUM ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, MR. SINCLAIR HAD LEFT THE OFFICE TO GO TO HIS CONTACT STATION AND, ACCORDINGLY, HE DID NOT SEE MR. SINCLAIR UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY, TUESDAY, WHEN HE GAVE MR. SINCLAIR A COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM (G.C. EXH. 2) TOGETHER WITH MR. GONZALES' COVERING MEMO (WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED AS AN EXHIBIT); THAT AFTER LOOKING AT THEM MR. SINCLAIR "THREW IT BACK ON MY DESK" (TR. 31) AND LEFT FOR HIS NORMAL FIELD DUTIES; AND THE FIRST DISCUSSION HE HAD WITH MR. SINCLAIR WAS THE NEXT DAY, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, AT WHICH TIME MR. HENDRICKS STATED THAT HE TOLD MR. SINCLAIR, '"ROY, YOU HAD BETTER READ IT BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO IMPLEMENT FOR THIS MONTH."' (TR. 31). MR. HENDRICKS STATED THAT MR. SINCLAIR RAISED A GOOD POINT AS TO WHETHER A SERIES OF STARTS AND STOPS TO LOCATE A SINGLE PERSON MUST BE PUT DOWN AND SAID THAT HE TOLD MR. SINCLAIR THAT HE COULD ACCEPT THE "LAST POINT WHERE YOU FOUND THE PERSON . . . AS BEING YOUR STOP POINT RATHER THAN ALL OF THOSE OTHER STOPS IN BETWEEN." (TR. 35). MR. HENDRICKS FURTHER STATED THAT HE AND MR. SINCLAIR HAD A FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THURSDAY OR FRIDAY AT WHICH TIME HE INFORMED MR. SINCLAIR THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED THE "LAST POINT" QUESTION WITH MR. GONZALES WHO CONCURRED WITH MR. HENDRICKS' POSITION; THAT AFTER THEY HAD GONE OVER THE MEMORANDUM AGAIN, MR. SINCLAIR SAID HE "COULDN'T BUY IT, THAT HE WANTED TO NEGOTIATE" (TR. 36); THAT HE, HENDRICKS HAD RESPONDED THAT HE WAS WILLING TO NEGOTIATE THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION AND ASKED MR. SINCLAIR TO GIVE HIM "THE AREA OF THE IMPACT." (TR. 36). MR. HENDRICKS STATED THAT HE MET AGAIN WITH MR. SINCLAIR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 8, 1979, AT WHICH TIME HE TOLD MR. SINCLAIR THAT HE "COULDN'T AUTHORIZE HIS EXPENDITURES UNLESS IT CAME BACK ON A 6026 AND SHOWED THE STOP AND START POINTS." (TR. 36; TO LIKE EFFECT, SEE, ALSO, TR. 37). 5. MR. SINCLAIR'S TESTIMONY DIFFERED SHARPLY FROM MR. HENDRICKS' IN VARIOUS RESPECTS. MR. SINCLAIR TESTIFIED THAT HE FIRST SAW THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, WHEN HE FOUND IT ON HIS DESK WHEN HE RETURNED TO THE OFFICE AT 12:30 OR 1:00 PM; THAT HE HAD NO CONVERSATION WITH MR. HENDRICKS BETWEEN THE 1ST AND 5TH OF OCTOBER; THAT HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL THE 5TH (TR. 54). MR. SINCLAIR STATED THAT AFTER HE READ THE MEMORANDUM ON THE 5TH HE WENT TO MR. HENDRICKS' OFFICE AND ASKED "WHAT IS ALL OF THIS ABOUT?" AND MR. HENDRICKS RESPONDED "WELL, THIS IS A NEW WAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE OUT OUR TRAVEL VOUCHERS, OUR RECORD THAT WE KEEP FOR OUR TRAVEL" (TR. 55). AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, MR. SINCLAIR STATED THAT MR. HENDRICKS SAID, "WELL, THIS IS AN ORDER FROM THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND WE HAVE TO DO IT LIKE THIS" AND HE, SINCLAIR, HAD STATED, "WELL, I WANT TO NEGOTIATE THIS BEFORE THIS IS PUT INTO EFFECT." (TR. 55). HE SAID MR. HENDRICKS HAD SAID "ALL RIGHT, LET'S NEGOTIATE" AND MR. SINCLAIR SAID THAT BEFORE HE COULD NEGOTIATE HE NEEDED ANSWERS TO SOME QUESTIONS AND HAD GIVEN MR. HENDRICKS SEVERAL SITUATIONS TO WHICH MR. HENDRICKS HAD SAID "I WILL FIND OUT. I WILL CONTACT THE REGIONAL OFFICE AND FIND OUT." (TR. 57). MR. SINCLAIR STATED THAT THE FOLLOWING WEEK, OCTOBER 11 OR 12, HE HAD GONE TO MR. HENDRICKS' OFFICE AND ASKED "HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO ON THIS?" AND MR. HENDRICKS REPLIED "NO, BUT I WILL FIND OUT AND GET BACK TO YOU." (TR. 58). ABOUT A WEEK LATER, OCTOBER 18 OR 19, MR. SINCLAIR STATED THAT HE AGAIN WENT TO MR. HENDRICKS' OFFICE AND THAT THE TOTAL CONVERSATION CONSISTED OF MR. HENDRICKS' STATEMENT, "YES, WE HAVE JUST ABOUT GOT THIS WRAPPED UP AND YOU WILL GET A LETTER IN THE NEXT DAY OR SO." (TR. 59). 6. MR. SINCLAIR STATED THAT THE NEXT THING THAT OCCURRED WAS HIS RECEIPT OF MR. HENDRICKS' LETTER OF OCTOBER 25, 1979 (G.C. EXH. 7). IN HIS LETTER, MR. HENDRICKS STATED, INTER ALIA, THAT: " . . . THE DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT IS NOT NEW AND IS, THEREFORE, NOT SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATIONS . . . . . . . "I HAVE MET WITH YOU . . . AND HAVE ATTEMPTED TO BARGAIN IMPACT WITH YOU. YOU, HOWEVER, CONSISTENTLY HOLD (SIC) THAT . . . YOU WILL NOT AGREE TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE POLICY AND RESOLUTION OF ANY DIFFERENCES WE MAY HAVE ARISING FROM THE POLICY . . . "SINCE YOU AND I HAVE NO CHOICE IN THIS MATTER, I ADVISE YOU TO COMPLY IF YOU WANT TO BE REIMBURSED FOR YOUR LOCAL TRAVEL IN OCTOBER AND SUBSEQUENT MONTHS." (G.C. EXH 7). 7. UPON RECEIPT OF MR. HENDRICKS LETTER, MR. SINCLAIR MET WITH MR. HENDRICKS AND TESTIFIED THAT HE AGAIN STATED "THIS HAS TO BE NEGOTIABLE. IT IS A CHANGE AND I THINK WHAT WE HAD BETTER DO IS CALL IN A MEDIATOR . . . AND ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE THIS CHANGE" (TR. 60), BUT MR. HENDRICKS REFERRED HIM TO HIS LETTER AND SAID, "THE CHANGE IS NOT NEGOTIABLE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A CHANGE." (TR. 60). BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 31, 1979 (G.C. EXH. 8), MR. SINCLAIR SUBMITTED HIS OCTOBER TRAVEL REPORT TO MR. HENDRICKS AND STATED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS: "AS YOU ARE AWARE, I DID NOT RECEIVE THIS MEMORANDUM UNTIL OCTOBER 5, 1979 AT WHICH TIME I, FEELING THAT IT CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN PERSONNEL POLICY AND WORKING CONDITIONS, REQUESTED, IN MY CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 1823, NFFE, TO NEGOTIATE THE CHANGE. . . . . "ON OCTOBER 25, 1979 I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM YOU STATING THE MATTER WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE . . . ." (G.C. EXH. 8). BY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 5, 1979 (RES. EXH. 1), MR. HENDRICKS RETURNED MR. SINCLAIR'S OCTOBER TRAVEL REPORT. /8/ 8. THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF TRAVEL MANUAL WHICH MR. HENDRICKS REFERRED TO IN HIS LETTER OF OCTOBER 25, 1979, AND WHICH HE REPRESENTED WAS ISSUED NOVEMBER 30, 1959, WAS NOT SHOWN AND THE PORTION OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SF-1164'S, SET FORTH IN THE COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1979 ("SHOW POINT OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION AND SPEEDOMETER READING AT BEGINNING AND END OF EACH TRIP"), DOES NOT PURPORT TO REQUIRE DOCUMENTATION OF MILEAGE OF EVERY STOP, OR LOCATION-- INDEED, MERELY REQUIRED "SPEEDOMETER READING AT BEGINNING AND END OF EACH TRIP". BUT WHATEVER MIGHT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN RESPONDENT'S 1959 MANUAL AND ASSUMING THAT SUCH MANUAL PROVIDED FOR SUCH DOCUMENTATION, OR WAS SUBJECT TO SUCH INTERPRETATION, THE RECORD IS UNEQUIVOCAL THAT THE UNIFORM AND CONSISTENT PRACTICE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT /9/ FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS HAD BEEN TO SHOW, SIMPLY, TOTAL MILEAGE FOR "IN AND AROUND" DRIVING AND NOT TO SHOW SPEEDOMETER READINGS FOR EVERY STOP AND START. CONCLUSIONS RESPONDENT'S THRESHOLD POSITION, THAT, ALTHOUGH NOT ACTING PURSUANT TO SEC. 17 OF THE STATUTE, A REGION MAY, NEVERTHELESS, WITH IMPUNITY CHANGE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BY ISSUING REGULATIONS DIRECTIVE TO ITS SUBORDINATE DISTRICTS AND/OR THAT A REGIONAL POLICY DECISION RELIEVES A DISTRICT OF ITS OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN WITH AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE CONCERNING A CHANGE OF AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AND, SPECIFICALLY, THEREBY LIMIT THE DISTRICT'S BARGAINING OBLIGATION TO IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE CHANGE IS A RESERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT PURSUANT TO SEC. 6(A) OF THE STATUTE, IS CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE, SEE, FOR EXAMPLE SECS. 3(A)(12), 14, AND 16(A)(1) AND (5), CF., SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, HEADQUARTERS BUREAUS AND OFFICES, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, A/SLMR NO. 1116, 8 A/SLMR 1011 (1978); VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, 1 FLRA NO. 101, FLRA REPORT OF CASE DECISIONS NO. 15, SEPTEMBER 25, 1979, AND IS REJECTED. HOWEVER DISTASTEFUL IT MAY APPEAR TO RESPONDENT'S CONCEPT OF MANAGEMENT, THE STATUTE DOES, INDEED, REQUIRE NOTICE TO EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES OF PROPOSED CHANGES OF CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND, UPON REQUEST, GOOD FAITH BARGAINING; AND MOST ASSUREDLY RESPONDENT IS NOT FREE UNILATERALLY TO CHANGE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WHETHER IT CALLS ITS PRONOUNCEMENT A MEMORANDUM, AS IT DID IN THIS CASE, OR A REGULATION, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY SEC. 17 OF THE STATUTE. OBVIOUSLY, REGION VI IS NOT A PRIMARY NATIONAL SUBDIVISION OF AN AGENCY; THE MEMORANDUM OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER WAS NOT A RULE OR REGULATION ISSUED BY AN AGENCY OR BY ANY PRIMARY NATIONAL SUBDIVISION OF SUCH AGENCY; NOR, OF COURSE, WAS THE MEMORANDUM A GOVERNMENT-WIDE RULE OR REGULATION. ACCORDINGLY, EVEN IF THE MEMORANDUM WERE PROPERLY DENOMINATED A REGULATION, NOT AN INCONSIDERABLE HURDLE TO SURMOUNT, RESPONDENT, IN ANY EVENT, HAS FAILED UTTERLY TO ESTABLISH ITS EXEMPTION FROM THE DUTY TO BARGAIN PURSUANT TO SEC. 17 OF THE STATUTE. THE UNIFORM AND CONSISTENT PRACTICE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT OF RECORDING MILEAGE AT A GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AS "IN AND AROUND" THE LOCATION, WITH APPROPRIATE SPEEDOMETER READINGS, FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL OF RESPONDENT'S PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND REGIONAL OFFICIALS HAD BECOME AN ESTABLISHED TERM AND CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT WHICH, UNLESS A RESERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT, RESPONDENT WAS NOT AT LIBERTY, UNILATERALLY, TO CHANGE. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, A/SLMR NO. 1034, 8 A/SLMR 497(1978); INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, SOUTHEASTERN REGION, APPELLATE BRANCH OFFICE, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, A/SLMR NO. 1153, 8 A/SLMR 1254(1978); SEE, ALSO, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, NATIONAL OFFICE AND CENTRAL REGION, 2 FLRA NO. 67(1980). A PRACTICE WHICH HAS RIPENED INTO A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE BARGAINING UNIT MAY NOT BE CHANGED UNILATERALLY IN RELIANCE ON A LONG DORMANT REGULATION OR POLICY, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, A/SLMR NO. 246, 3 A/SLMR 88(1973). /10/ RESPONDENT ASSERTS THAT THE CHANGE OF PRACTICE OF REPORTING MILEAGE, ADMITTEDLY FOLLOWED FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS, WAS A RESERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT PURSUANT TO SEC. 6(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE IT RELATED TO: "INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE AGENCY" IT IS QUITE TRUE THAT, IN THE MAIN, SEC. 6(A), AND SPECIFICALLY "INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES" REFLECTS THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 11(B), OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED. I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE COUNCIL'S DECISION IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1592 AND ARMY-AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH, FLRC NO. 77A-123, 6 FLRC 612(1978) AND IN PARTICULAR TO THE PORTION OF THE COUNCIL'S DECISION CONCERNING UNION PROPOSAL III, 6 FLRC AT 617-621, WHEREIN THE COUNCIL STATED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS: "NO INTENT IS EVIDENCED IN THE ORDER, OR IN THE VARIOUS REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE ORDER AND ITS SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS, THAT THE PHRASE 'INTERNAL SECURITY' PRACTICES IS TO BE ACCORDED ANY MEANING OTHER THAN THE COMMON MEANING ASCRIBED TO IT . . . 'SECURITY' RELATES TO DEFENDING, PROTECTING, MAKING SAFE OR SECURE. HENCE, AS USED IN THE ORDER . . . THE TERM 'SECURITY' PRACTICES INCLUDE, INTER ALIA, THOSE POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND ACTIONS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED AND UNDERTAKEN TO DEFEND, PROTECT, MAKE SAFE OR SECURE (I.E., TO RENDER RELATIVELY LESS SUBJECT TO DANGER, RISK OR APPREHENSION) THE PROPERTY OF AN ORGANIZATION. "CLEARLY, THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE 'INTERNAL SECURITY' PRACTICES WHICH WOULD BEST ACCOMPLISH THESE OBJECTIVES FOR A PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION GENERALLY WILL DEPEND UPON THE FUNCTIONS OF THAT ORGANIZATION AND ITS DERIVATIVE GOALS, ACTIVITIES AND PROCESSES; THE CHARACTER AND VULNERABILITY OF WHAT IS BEING PROTECTED; AND WHETHER SECURITY IS SOUGHT AGAINST A RISK OR DANGER FROM WITHIN OR FROM OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION . . . . THUS, DEPENDING UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY MAY INVOLVE ONE OR A COMBINATION OF PRACTICES, FOR EXAMPLE, GUARD FORCES, BARRIERS, ALARMS AND SPECIAL LIGHTING. FURTHER, THEY MAY INVOLVE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY EMPLOYEES, WHICH PROCEDURES ARE DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE PARTICULAR RISKS TO THE PROPERTY OF AN ORGANIZATION FROM SUCH EMPLOYEES. "TURNING TO THE PRESENT CASE . . . AN AGENCY POLICY ESTABLISHING AS AN ASSERTED SECURITY PRACTICE A PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY AGENCY EMPLOYEES INTENDED TO ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE A PARTICULAR RISK FROM SUCH EMPLOYEES TO AGENCY PROPERTY . . . . IN PARTICULAR, THE PROPOSAL WOULD NEGATE THE AGENCY'S ADOPTION OF A PRACTICE DESIGNED TO PREVENT, OR TO RENDER THE EXCHANGE SERVICE RELATIVELY LESS SUBJECT TO THE RISK OF AN EMPLOYEE ABUSING HIS OR HER 'MARKDOWN AUTHORITY' WITH RESPECT TO AGENCY PROPERTY HELD FOR SALE, FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT OR THE ADVANTAGE OF A FELLOW EMPLOYEE. IN THIS REGARD . . . THE UNION AGREES THAT THE EXCHANGE SERVICE PRACTICE IS CONCERNED WITH 'INSURING EMPLOYEE HONESTY AND SAFEGUARDING AGAINST THEFTS OF THE EMPLOYER'S PROPERTY BY EMPLOYEES.' "WE, THEREFORE, FIND THAT THIS UNION PROPOSAL CONCERNS A MATTER WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE AGENCY WITHIN THE COMMON MEANING OF THE PHRASE AND, HENCE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ORDER . . . ." (6 FLRC AT 619-620) WEIGHING CAREFULLY THE COMMON MEANING OF THE PHRASE, "INTERNAL SECURITY", AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE COUNCIL, SET FORTH ABOVE, I SIMPLY DO NOT FIND THAT THE CHANGE IN REPORTING MILEAGE CONCERNED AN INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICE OF RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S INSTRUCTIONS, CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, HAD ALWAYS REQUIRED, INTER ALIA, " . . . POINT OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION AND SPEEDOMETER READING AT BEGINNING AND END OF EACH TRIP . . . ." THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS HAD BEEN TO DESIGNATE TRAVEL AT A PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AS "IN AND AROUND" AND, ALTHOUGH THE SPEEDOMETER READING WAS SHOWN AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF "IN AND AROUND", SPEEDOMETER READINGS FOR EVERY START AND STOP HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM SOUGHT PRECISELY SUCH INFORMATION. IT IS TRUE, OF COURSE, THAT IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT THIS, LIKE THE EXCHANGE SERVICE PROVISION DISCUSSED BY THE COUNCIL, CONCERNED "EMPLOYEE HONESTY" IF ADDITIONAL DETAIL OF THE SPEEDOMETER READING FOR EVERY START AND STOP TENDED TO DISCOURAGE INFLATED CLAIMS FOR MILEAGE. FOLLOWED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION, RESPONDENT'S POSTURE OF PROTECTING THE TREASURY, WHILE WHOLLY LAUDABLE, WOULD ARROGATE TO MANAGEMENT, UNDER THE GUISE OF "SECURITY", CONTROL OVER MOST, IF NOT ALL, CONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEES THAT INVOLVED PAYMENT OF MONEY. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE TERM "SECURITY" CAN BE SO EXPANSIVELY CONSTRUED. RATHER, AS THE COUNCIL EMPHASIZED, IT MUST BE ACCORDED THE MEANING COMMONLY ASCRIBED TO IT, AND, IN MY OPINION, THE CHANGE SOUGHT TO BE MADE BY RESPONDENT BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1979, DID NOT CONCERN "INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE AGENCY" AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, A RESERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT PURSUANT TO SEC. 6(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE. IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO UNITED STATES ARMY, ELECTRONICS COMMAND, FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY, A/SLMR NO. 653, 6 A/SLMR 228, 6 A/SLMR SUPP. 89(1976) WHICH, WHILE DISTINGUISHABLE, IS FULLY IN ACCORD IN PRINCIPLE. BECAUSE RESPONDENT CHANGED AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, IT WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE THE UNION NOTICE OF ITS PROPOSED CHANGE AND AFFORD THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN BEFORE IMPLEMENTING SUCH CHANGE. OBVIOUSLY, RESPONDENT DID NEITHER. THUS, THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM UNILATERALLY CHANGED A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, WAS EFFECTIVE WHEN RECEIVED, AND THE UNION'S REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE THE DECISION WAS REJECTED. THE CHANGE OF THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE OF REPORTING MILEAGE WAS SIGNIFICANT IN THAT SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DETAIL WAS REQUIRED WITH THE NECESSITY FOR SHOWING SPEEDOMETER READINGS FOR EVERY START AND STOP. CONTRARY TO RESPONDENT'S ASSERTION, SUCH CHANGE WAS NOT DE MINIMIS. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, MONTANA, 2 FLRA NO. 2(1979); 4392 AEROSPACE SUPPORT GROUP, VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 2 FLRA NO. 14(1979); INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AUSTIN SERVICE CENTER, 2 FLRA NO. 97(1980). NOT ONLY WAS MORE DETAIL REQUIRED, BUT THERE WAS A SHIFT FROM ACCOUNTABILITY FOR TOTAL MILEAGE TO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY START AND STOP WHICH DIRECTLY RESULTED IN REJECTION OF MR. SINCLAIR'S OCTOBER EXPENSE VOUCHER. BY ISSUANCE OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1979, WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE UNION AND WITH INSTRUCTIONS THAT IT BE IMPLEMENTED UPON RECEIPT, REGION VI VIOLATED SECTIONS 16(A)(5) AND (1) OF THE STATUTE, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, 1 FLRA NO. 101, FLRA REPORT OF CASE DECISIONS NO. 15, SEPTEMBER 25, 1979; NAVAL AIR REWORK FACILITY, PENSACOLA, FLORIDA AND SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, WASHINGTON, D.C., FLRC NO. 76A-57, 5 FLRC 303(1977), A/SLMR NO. 873, 7 A/SLMR 618(1977). IN VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, SUPRA, THE AUTHORITY STATED, IN PART, " . . . IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COUNCIL THAT THE ACTS AND CONDUCT OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT, AT A HIGHER LEVEL OF AN AGENCY'S ORGANIZATION, MAY PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR FINDING A VIOLATION OF ANY PART OF SECTION 19(A) OF THE ORDER, BUT, MAY NOT, STANDING ALONE, PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR FINDING A SEPARATE VIOLATION BY 'AGENCY MANAGEMENT' AT A LOWER ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL OF THE AGENCY SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ITS MINISTERIAL ACTIONS IN IMPLEMENTING THE DIRECTIONS FROM HIGHER AGENCY AUTHORITY. BASED ON THIS RATIONALE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION AT THE AGENCY LEVEL VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY, IN EFFECT, PROHIBITING THE LOCAL VA HOSPITAL FROM NEGOTIATING WITH AFGE, LOCAL 1739. FURTHER, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE VA HOSPITAL IN SALEM, VIRGINIA, BY FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS FROM HIGHER AGENCY MANAGEMENT, DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER." THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE STATUTE WHICH MAY WELL WARRANT ELIMINATION OF THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN LEVELS OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT ALTOGETHER /11/ FOR EXAMPLE SEC. 3(A)(13) OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS: "(12) 'COLLECTIVE BARGAINING' MEANS THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF AN AGENCY AND THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF EMPLOYEES IN AN APPROPRIATE UNIT IN THE AGENCY TO . . . BARGAIN IN A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO REACH AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES . . . ." IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT MESSRS. GONZALES AND HENDRICKS PRIVATELY CONCLUDED ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1979, THAT THE UNION WOULD BE PERMITTED TO BARGAIN ONLY ON IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, WHICH CONCLUSION WAS PLAINLY DICTATED BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM AS WELL AS BY THE INSTRUCTIONS THEY, AS SUPERVISORS, WERE GIVEN AT THE CONFERENCE. MR. GONZALES SO INFORMED LOCAL 1823'S EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 26. I CREDIT MR. SINCLAIR'S TESTIMONY THAT ON, OR ABOUT OCTOBER 5, HE TOLD MR. HENDRICKS HE WANTED TO NEGOTIATE RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED CHANGE BEFORE IT WAS IMPLEMENTED ("PUT INTO EFFECT"); THAT MR. HENDRICKS SAID ALL RIGHT, LET'S NEGOTIATE; THAT MR. SINCLAIR TOLD MR. HENDRICKS THAT BEFORE HE COULD NEGOTIATE HE NEEDED ANSWERS TO SOME QUESTIONS, WHICH HE STATED; AND THAT MR. HENDRICKS TOLD MR. SINCLAIR THAT HE WOULD FIND OUT ABOUT THE QUESTIONS MR. HENDRICKS HAD RAISED. I HAVE CREDITED MR. SINCLAIR'S TESTIMONY, IN PART BECAUSE, IN SUBSTANCE, HIS TESTIMONY WAS CORROBORATED BY MR. HENDRICKS LETTER OF OCTOBER 25, 1979, IN WHICH MR. HENDRICKS STATED, IN PART, "YOU, HOWEVER, CONSISTENTLY HOLD (SIC) THAT . . . YOU WILL NOT AGREE TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE POLICY . . . ." (G.C. EXH. 7); IN PART, BECAUSE MR. HENDRICKS TESTIFIED THAT MR. SINCLAIR RAISED A "GOOD POINT"; AND, IN PART, BECAUSE HIS TESTIMONY WAS INHERENTLY CONSISTENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, MR. HENDRICKS' TESTIMONY THAT HE DISCUSSED A QUESTION RAISED BY MR. SINCLAIR WITH MR. GONZALES IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH HIS HAVING TOLD MR. SINCLAIR INITIALLY THAT HE WOULD FIND OUT THEN WITH MR. HENDRICKS' TESTIMONY THAT HE TOLD MR. SINCLAIR HE COULD ACCEPT MR. SINCLAIR'S POSITION. ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE, AS MR. SINCLAIR TESTIFIED, THAT AT HIS INITIAL DISCUSSION WITH MR. HENDRICKS, ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 5, HE REQUESTED NEGOTIATION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE; THAT MR. HENDRICKS AGREED TO NEGOTIATE; THAT MR. SINCLAIR ASKED FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION IN ORDER TO NEGOTIATE; AND THAT MR. HENDRICKS PROMISED TO FIND OUT AND GET BACK TO HIM. WHILE IT IS CLEAR THAT MR. HENDRICKS TOLD MR. SINCLAIR, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT "THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO IMPLEMENT FOR THIS MONTH", AS MR. HENDRICKS TESTIFIED, OR "THIS IS A NEW WAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE OUT OUR TRAVEL VOUCHERS . . . THIS IS AN ORDER FROM THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND WE HAVE TO DO IT LIKE THIS", AS MR. SINCLAIR TESTIFIED; NEVERTHELESS, WHEN MR. SINCLAIR DEMANDED NEGOTIATIONS ON THE POLICY, MR. HENDRICKS AGREED TO NEGOTIATE AND AGREED TO OBTAIN THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BY MR. SINCLAIR. AT THEIR NEXT MEETING THE FOLLOWING WEEK, MR. HENDRICKS REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE THE POLICY, ALTHOUGH HE DID TELL MR. SINCLAIR HE WAS WILLING TO NEGOTIATE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION. IT IS UNNECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT IN TESTIMONY AS TO WHETHER MR. HENDRICKS EVER RESPONDED TO MR. SINCLAIR'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR THE REASON THAT MR. HENDRICKS REFUSED, AT ALL SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS WITH MR. SINCLAIR, TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE ASSERTED REASON THAT THE "REQUIREMENT IS NOT NEW AND IS, THEREFORE, NOT SUBJECT TO NEGOTIATIONS" (G.C. EXH. 7; TR. 60). IN FASHIONING THE REMEDY, INCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, SUPRA, ON THE THEORY THAT MR. HENDRICKS' STATED REASON FOR REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE WAS NOT, DIRECTLY, INSTRUCTIONS FROM HIGHER HEADQUARTERS AND, THEREFORE, THE ACTS AND CONDUCT OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT AT A HIGHER LEVEL DID NOT STAND ALONE; BUT, FOR REASONS WELL STATED BY JUDGE ARRIGO, IN BOSTON DISTRICT RECRUITING COMMAND, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, 94TH U.S. ARMY RESERVE COMMAND, HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMANDER, FORT DEVANS, FORT DEVANS, MASSACHUSETTS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, D.C., DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, D.C., CASE NOS 1-CA-206, 1-CA-207, 1-CA-208, 1-CA-209, 1-CA-303, AND 1-CA-304(1980), "ORGANIZATIONALLY THERE IS A COMMONALITY WHICH BINDS TOGETHER ALL THESE COMPONENTS OF DOD (DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE) . . . . IT WAS DOD'S REGULATIONS WHICH WERE ACTED UPON AND TRANSMITTED THROUGH DOA'S (DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY) REGULATIONS TO FORT DEVANS FOR IMPLEMENTATION . . . WHILE I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT FORT DEVANS VIOLATED THE STATUTE . . . ALL RELATED ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED ARE CHARGED TO COOPERATE IN THE EFFECTUATION OF THE ORDER RECOMMENDED HEREIN . . . ", MORE APPROPRIATELY, ALL RELATED LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT OF RESPONDENT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATION OF SECS. 16(A)(5) AND (1) SHOULD BE CHARGED TO COOPERATE IN THE EFFECTUATION OF THE ORDER RECOMMENDED. HAVING FOUND THAT REGION VI VIOLATED SEC. 16(A)(5) AND, DERIVATIVELY, SEC. 16(A)(1), OF THE STATUTE BY ITS UNILATERAL ISSUANCE OF ITS MEMORANDUM WHICH CHANGED THE MANNER OF REPORTING MILEAGE AND THAT THE GALVESTON DISTRICT VIOLATED SEC. 16(A)(5) AND, DERIVATIVELY, SEC. 16(A)(1), OF THE STATUTE BY ITS REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ON THE DECISION TO CHANGE AN ESTABLISHED CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, /12/ IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 18(A)(7) OF THE STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7), AND SECTION 2423.26 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. CHAPTER XIV, 2423.26, FED. REG., VOL. 45, NO. 12, JANUARY 17, 1980, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, REGION VI, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, GALVESTON, TEXAS, DISTRICT, SHALL: 1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM: (A) REFUSING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "LOCAL 1823"), THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, ON A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE MANNER OF REPORTING TRAVEL MILEAGE. (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERRING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE. 2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: (A) WITHDRAW THE CHANGE CONCERNING REPORTING OF TRAVEL MILEAGE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, SET FORTH IN THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1979, AND REINSTATE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT THE PROCEDURES AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE REPORTING OF TRAVEL MILEAGE AS PRACTICED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 20, 1979. (B) NOTIFY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823 OF ANY INTENDED DECISION TO CHANGE THE MANNER OF REPORTING TRAVEL MILEAGE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT AND UPON REQUEST OF LOCAL 1823, MEET AND CONFER TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON ANY SUCH PROPOSED CHANGE. (C) POST AT OFFICES OF REGION VI, DALLAS, TEXAS, AT THE GALVESTON, TEXAS, DISTRICT OFFICE, AND AT THE ANGLETON, TEXAS, BRANCH OFFICE, 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 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, REGION VI, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES AT EACH OFFICE WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. (D) PURSUANT TO SEC. 2423.30 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION 6, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, ROOM 450, DOWNTOWN POST OFFICE STATION, BRYAN AND ERVAY STREETS, DALLAS, TEXAS 75221, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH. WILLIAM B. DEVANEY ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DATED: JANUARY 29, 1981 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 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT: WE WILL WITHDRAW AND RESCIND THE CHANGE CONCERNING REPORTING OF TRAVEL MILEAGE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT WHICH WAS SET FORTH IN THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM DATE SEPTEMBER 20, 1979. WE WILL FORTHWITH REINITIATE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT THE PROCEDURE AND POLICIES RELATING TO THE REPORTING OF TRAVEL MILEAGE AS PRACTICED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 20, 1979. WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO NEGOTIATE WITH NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823 ON ANY DECISION TO CHANGE THE MANNER OF REPORTING TRAVEL MILEAGE. WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS BY SEC. 2 OF THE STATUTE. WE WILL NOTIFY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1823 OF ANY INTENDED DECISION TO CHANGE THE MANNER OF REPORTING TRAVEL MILEAGE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT AND UPON REQUEST BY LOCAL 1823, MEET AND CONFER, TO THE EXTENT CONSONANT WITH LAW AND REGULATIONS, ON ANY SUCH PROPOSED CHANGE. REGIONAL VI, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DATED: . . . BY: . . . REGIONAL COMMISSIONER 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, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 6, WHOSE ADDRESS IS: ROOM 450, DOWNTOWN POST OFFICE STATION, BRYAN AND ERVAY STREETS, DALLAS, TEXAS 75221 AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (214) 767-4996. --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) PROVIDES: SEC. 7116. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER, IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN AGENCY-- (1) TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF ANY RIGHT UNDER THIS CHAPTER; . . . . (5) TO REFUSE TO CONSULT OR NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION AS REQUIRED BY THIS CHAPTER(.) /2/ SEE, E.G., DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS AND FIELD OPERATIONS, SUTTER DISTRICT OFFICE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, 5 FLRA NO. 63(1981), WHEREIN THE AUTHORITY FOUND THAT AGENCY MANAGEMENT AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE LEVEL VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE STATUTE BY ANNOUNCING A UNILATERAL CHANGE IN POLICY AFFECTING THE EMPLOYEES' CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION AND THE CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT REMAINED AT THE HIGHER REGIONAL LEVEL WITHIN THE AGENCY. /3/ IN SO CONCLUDING, THE AUTHORITY, IN FURTHER AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGE, REJECTS THE AGENCY'S CONTENTION THAT THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER'S CONDUCT CONSTITUTED AN EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT'S RESERVED RIGHT UNDER SECTION 7106(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE "TO DETERMINE THE . . . INTERNAL SECURITY PRACTICES OF THE AGENCY(.)" SEE E.G., NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1363 AND HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY GARRISON, YONGSAN, KOREA, 4 FLRA NO. 23(1980), APPEAL DOCKETED, NO. 80-2341 (D.C. CIR. OCT. 23, 1980). MOREOVER, THE AUTHORITY REJECTS AS UNSUPPORTED THE AGENCY'S CONTENTION THAT THE JUDGE'S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH GOVERNMENT-WIDE GSA TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF TRAVEL VOUCHERS IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO PERMIT PROPER REVIEW BY AGENCIES. THUS, THE AGENCY HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT PREEXISTING INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRING "POINT OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION AND SPEEDOMETER READING AT BEGINNING AND END OF EACH TRIP" WERE INCONSISTENT WITH SUCH TRAVEL REGULATIONS. /4/ MOREOVER, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGE, THAT WHILE THE GALVESTON DISTRICT NOTIFIED NFFE OF THE CHANGE IN THE PRACTICE OF REPORTING MILEAGE AND REPEATEDLY OFFERED TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT CHANGE, THE RESPONDENT REGION WAS NOT THEREBY RELIEVED OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN REGARDING THE CHANGE ITSELF. /5/ AS AMENDED AT HEARING BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES. /6/ FOR CONVENIENCE OF REFERENCE, SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE ARE HEREINAFTER, ALSO, REFERRED TO WITHOUT INCLUSION OF THE INITIAL "71" PORTION OF THE STATUTE REFERENCE. FOR EXAMPLE, SECTION 7116(A)(1) SIMPLY AS "16(A)(1)". /7/ IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT, TO WHICH RESPONDENT DID NOT OBJECT, NO PROBLEM OF IDENTIFYING THE PROPER RESPONDENT REMAINS. CF., INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WASHINGTON D.C. AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, HARTFORD DISTRICT OFFICE, 4 FLRA NO. 37(1980). /8/ MR. SINCLAIR STATED AT THE HEARING THAT HIS TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR OCTOBER HAD NEVER BEEN PAID. /9/ WHILE NOT MATERIAL TO DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE AND, ACCORDINGLY, NOT DECIDED, MR. SINCLAIR'S TESTIMONY CONCERNING INSTRUCTIONS ON USE OF "IN AND AROUND" BY THE REGION STRONGLY INFERS THAT THE PRACTICE EXTENDED TO ALL OF REGION VI. /10/ BY CONTRAST, COMPLIANCE BY A PORTION OF THE BARGAINING UNIT WITH A REGULATION OR POLICY CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED THROUGHOUT THE MAJORITY OF THE BARGAINING UNIT MAY NOT CONSTITUTE A CHANGE IN A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES ARMY, FORT SAM HOUSTON, TEXAS, 1 FLRA NO. 68, FLRA REPORT OF CASE DECISIONS NO. 10, JULY 11, 1979. OBVIOUSLY, SUCH CONSIDERATION IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE IN VIEW OF THE CONSISTENT AND UNIFORM PRACTICE IN THE GALVESTON DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE SOLE UNIT OF RECOGNITION INVOLVED. /11/ IN ALL CANDOR, WHILE THE COUNCIL'S DECISION IN NAVAL AIR REWORK, SUPRA, GREATLY SIMPLIFIED THE PROBLEM OF IDENTIFYING THE PROPER RESPONDENT UNDER THE ORDER AND ITS CONTINUED APPLICATION TO EXECUTIVE ORDER CASES IS NOT QUESTIONED, PERPETRATION OF ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN LEVELS OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT UNDER THE STATUTE DOES NOT SEEM WARRANTED. SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, HARTFORD DISTRICT OFFICE, 4 FLRA NO. 37(1980), AND IN PARTICULAR THE DISCUSSION OF JUDGE ARRIGO AT PAGES 7-9 OF HIS DECISION IN 1-CA-77 WHICH THE AUTHORITY, WHILE ADOPTING HIS FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON. UNDER THE STATUTE, DISMISSAL OF SUCH 16(A)(5) AND (1) CHARGES AGAINST THE HOSPITAL, WHICH IN FACT HAD REFUSED TO BARGAIN ALBEIT AT DIRECTION OF HIGHER HEADQUARTERS, ACHIEVES NO DISCERNABLE PURPOSE. /12/ GENERAL COUNSEL'S ASSERTION THAT " . . . ASSUMING ARGUENDO, THAT THE BARGAINING OBLIGATION IN THE INSTANT CASE GOES ONLY TO THE IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION, OF THE DECISION, IT MUST BE NOTED THAT RESPONDENT HAS EVEN FAILED TO AFFORD THE UNION SUCH A BARGAINING OPPORTUNITY." (G.C. BRIEF PP. 7-8) IS WHOLLY UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORD. TO THE CONTRARY, THE RECORD SHOWS AFFIRMATIVELY AND WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT RESPONDENT REPEATEDLY OFFERED TO BARGAIN ON IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION AND THAT LOCAL 1823 FAILED AND REFUSED TO DO SO. IF THE DECISION TO CHANGE THE METHOD OF REPORTING TRAVEL MILEAGE WERE A RESERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT AND RESPONDENT WAS OBLIGATED TO BARGAIN ONLY ON IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS DECISION THE COMPLAINT WOULD, NECESSARILY, HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.