[ v20 p233 ]
20:0233(31)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
20 FLRA No. 31
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, COLUMBIA AREA OFFICE
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3654, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case No. 4-CA-30630
DECISION AND ORDER
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that
it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's
Decision and the General Counsel filed an opposition thereto.
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 only to the extent
consistent herewith.
The Judge concluded, in essence, that the Respondent's failure to
notify the Charging Party and afford it an opportunity to negotiate
concerning the procedures to be used in the reassignments of two unit
employees and any appropriate arrangements for employees adversely
affected thereby violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. He
determined that the reassignments resulted in more than a de minimis
impact on the two reassigned employees because their work duties,
performance standards and supervision were changed. He further found
that the reassignments had a reasonably foreseeable impact on other
employees. In its exceptions, the Respondent argues that the Judge
erred in finding a violation and excepts to his conclusion that the
reassignments resulted in an impact which was more than de minimis.
Since 1978, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
has represented a nationwide consolidated unit of approximately 200
professional employees and a nationwide consolidated unit of
approximately 8,000 nonprofessional employees at the central and field
offices of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. /1/
Both units, however, are governed by one master collective bargaining
agreement. The record is not clear as to the professional or
nonprofessional status of the two employees reassigned herein.
Pursuant to a national field reorganization and a reduction in staff,
the Columbia Area Office was facing a loss of 17 employees. Prior to
the reorganization, the Respondent, without notice to the Charging
Party, reassigned two employees from positions slated to be transferred
to Atlanta, Georgia, into positions which would remain in Columbia,
South Carolina. The Charging Party thereafter requested bargaining over
the procedures to be observed and concerning appropriate arrangements
for employees adversely affected by the reassignments, but the
Respondent never replied.
The Authority has held that "where an agency in exercising a
management right under section 7106 of the Statute, changes conditions
of employment . . . , the statutory duty to negotiate comes into play if
the change results in an impact upon unit employees or such impact was
reasonably foreseeable." See U.S. Government Printing Office, 13 FLRA
203, 204-05(1983). 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." See Department of Health
and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Chicago Region, 15
FLRA No. 174(1984). The Authority has also held that 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,
the totality of the facts and circumstances presented in each case must
be carefully examined. 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. /2/
The Authority also emphasized therein 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,
the Authority noted that a determination as to whether the exercise of a
management right under section 7106(a) of the Statute gives rise to a
duty to bargain under section 7106(b)(2) and (3) 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, especially where there is no
indication that the nature and degree of impact is at issue in the case.
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.
Applying the above factors to the instant case, the Authority finds,
in disagreement with the Judge's conclusion, and based upon the totality
of the facts and circumstances presented, that the impact or reasonably
foreseeable impact of the change on the conditions of employment of unit
employees was no more than de minimis. Therefore, the Respondent was
not obligated to bargain with the Charging Party over the procedures it
would observe in exercising its section 7106 rights and concerning
appropriate arrangements for adversely affected employees. In reaching
this result, the Authority notes with respect to the nature of the
change that although the work positions and duties of the two employees
were changed, these employees remained in the Columbia Area Office,
their pay and grade were not affected, and their reassignments did not
result in any change in promotion potential. Additionally, in the
circumstances of this case, any foreseeable adverse impact arising from
the employees' change in job positions in speculative. As to the
foreseeable impact on other employees, the record does not establish
that other employees were qualified for the two positions involved in
the reassignments, notwithstanding the fact that no other employee was
permitted to compete for the positions. Further, notwithstanding the
permanent nature of the change, it had a specific and immediate impact
on only two employees /3/ in a nationwide unit comprised of
approximately 200 professional employees or, in the alternative, of a
nationwide unit comprised of approximately 8,000 nonprofessional
employees. Finally, the record does not show any past bargaining
history or past practice where the parties had handled analogous
changes.
Based on the totality of the facts and circumstances presented, and
noting particularly that the nature of the change did not alter the two
employees' work location, pay, grade or promotion potential, and that
only two employees in a unit of approximately 200 employees, or in the
alternative, of 8,000 employees, were affected, the Authority concludes
that the impact or reasonably foreseeable impact of the reassignments on
unit employees' conditions of employment herein was no more than de
minimis. Accordingly, the Respondent was under no obligation to notify
the Charging Party and afford it an opportunity to request bargaining
pursuant to section 7106(b)(2) and (3) of the Statute, and its refusal
to negotiate therefore was not violative of section 7116(a)(1) and (5)
of the Statute.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 4-CA-30630 be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., September 24, 1985
(s) HENRY B. FRAZIER III
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
(s) WILLIAM J. MCGINNIS JR.
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
John Kosloske, Esq.
Linda B. Backus
For the Respondent
Pamela B. Jackson, Esq.
For the General Counsel
Before: WILLIAM NAIMARK
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Pursuant to a Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued on December 31,
1983 by the Regional Director for the Federal Labor Relations Authority,
Atlanta, Georgia Region, a hearing was held before the undersigned on
January 19, 1984 at Columbia, South Carolina.
This proceeding arises under the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. (herein called the Statute).
The charge herein was filed on September 19, 1983 by American Federation
of Government Employees, Local 3654, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union)
against Department of Housing and Urban Development, Columbia Area
office, Columbia, South Carolina (herein called Respondent).
The Complaint alleged, in substance, that in and about May, 1983
Respondent reassigned unit employees Leon Babridge and Lance Folsom;
that, despite requests by the Union that management bargain re the
impact and implementation of such reassignment, Respondent failed and
refused to bargain with the Union-- all in violation of Section
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
Respondent's Answer, dated November 16, 1983, denied the commission
of any unfair labor practice. It admitted that: (a) the Union
requested negotiation on April 15, 1983 as to the impact and
implementation of the reassignments; (b) Babridge was reassigned
effective April 17, 1983, and Folsom was reassigned effective May 1,
1983; (c) Respondent did not bargain re the impact and implementation
of the said reassignments.
All parties were represented at the hearing. Each was afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to adduce evidence, and to examine as well as
cross-examine witnesses. Thereafter, briefs were filed which have been
duly considered by the undersigned. /4/
Upon the entire record herein, from my observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor, and from all of the testimony and evidence adduced
at the hearing, I make the following findings and conclusions:
Findings of Fact
1. At all times material herein, the Union has been and still is the
exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's professional and
non-professional employees.
2. The Union and Respondent were parties to a written collective
bargaining agreement which, by its terms, was effective from November
10, 1979, for a period of three years. The said agreement contained an
automatic renewal clause providing for yearly renewals after the
termination date. It was in effect at the time of the reorganization
and reassignments. /5/
3. At all times relevant herein Respondent was composed of
subdivisions, two of which were Community Planning and Development and
Housing. Included within the Housing Division were the Loan Management
Branch and the Assisted Housing Management Branch.
4. In February, 1983 the Department of Housing and Urban Development
announced that it proposed a field reorganization and a reduction in
staff personnel. As part of the reorganized plan, the Community
Development Division, along with the Labor Relations Staff and the
Environmental Staff in the Columbia Area office, were to be relocated
from Columbia, South Carolina to Atlanta, Georgia. The reorganization
called for reducing the staff of the Columbia Area office by 17
employees. Moreover, some of those affected thereby were part of the
Community Development Division.
5. The reorganization of the Columbia Area office resulted in
management's reassigning two of its employees: Leon Babridge and G.
Lance Folsom. No notification was given by Respondent to the Union of
the intended reassignments, nor did management seek to confer or
negotiate with the bargaining agent in regard thereto.
6. Prior to the implementation of the reassignment of Babridge and
Folsom, the Union learned of the intended action concerning these
employees. In a letter dated April 15, 1983 /6/ Alice C. Taylor, the
Union's Executive vice-president, requested that Respondent bargain re
the impact and implementation of the reassignment of employees. No
reply was made thereto by Respondent, nor has management consented to
bargain re the reassignment as requested by the Union.
7. Effective as of April 17 Babridge was transferred within the
Columbia Area office from the position of Loan Specialist (Realty), /7/
Community Planning and Development Division (CPD), Program Management
Team to Maintenance Engineer, Housing Division, Assisted Housing
Management Branch. The action was taken to correct a work load
imbalance, since the work load in CPD was diminishing whereas the work
load in Assisted Housing was increasing.
8. Prior to his reassignment and as Loan Specialist (Realty) or
Rehabilitation Specialist, Babridge was responsible for rehabilitation
management. He performed functions relating to multi-family,
single-family, commercial and non-residential rehabilitation loans. His
duties required giving technical assistance and advice to cities in the
Community Development Block Grant Program in South Carolina relative to
rehabilitation, conservation and maintenance of existing buildings and
structures. Babridge also rendered assistance re rehabilitation
financing methods, as well as standards and local code enforcement. He
monitored and evaluated performance of local rehabilitation loan and
grants under several programs; participated in training conferences
involving rehabilitation programs. (Respondent's Exhibit 8).
9. The position to which Babridge was reassigned-- Maintenance
Engineer, Housing Division-- entailed duties in connection with the
technical and engineering aspects of maintenance, rehabilitation and
modernization of HUD assisted housing projects and properties. In his
capacity as Maintenance Engineer, Babridge was responsible for selecting
utilities in planning projects, as well as utility cost and controls in
project operations. The position description calls for the review of
bill and contract documents for maintenance, repair, alterations,
replacement and conversion-- as well as post development improvement to
structures, roads, grounds, equipment, heating systems and underground
systems of housing projects.
10. Prior to Babridge's reassignment, there were two Maintenance
Engineers in the Assisted Housing Management Branch-- Roy Blades and
James B. McCullough. /8/ Blades was responsible for surveys of HUD
housing projects-- visiting sites, making inspections, and submitting
reports to housing authorities. McCullough was responsible for the
engineering aspect of the modernization program, the Comprehensive
Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP). Upon his transfer, Babridge was
assigned to CIAP.
11. Record facts show that the Loan Specialist Realty position,
which Babridge occupied before his reassignment was later abolished.
This was a foreseeable affect of the reassignment. However, an
individual who was a multi-family representative in the Housing Division
was transferred into the Rehabilitation Specialist position from which
Babridge was reassigned. The transfer of Babridge did not result in any
change in pay or grade. Neither position (GS-12) had any promotion
potential.
12. Effective as of May 1, employee Folsom was reassigned within the
Columbia Area office from the position of Relocation Specialist, CPD,
Program Support Branch, to Loan Specialist (Realty), Housing Division,
Loan Management Branch. This transfer occurred as a result of the
promotion of a GS-12 Loan Specialist into a Deputy Branch Manager
position. Folsom was transferred to fill the vacancy of Loan Specialist
in the Housing Division. The Relocation Specialist position was
transferred to Atlanta.
13. The Program Support Branch, to which Folsom was assigned before
his transfer, provided technical support to the Program Management
Branch. This involved financial analysis, relocation, real estate,
automatic data processing, and non-automated record-keeping. Folsom, as
a Relocation and Real Estate Specialist, provided technical assistance
to communities and states concerning relocation and real estate. He
also monitored community development projects throughout South Carolina.
14. The Loan Management Branch, to which Folsom was reassigned in
May, monitors assisted and unassisted housing. This Branch is
responsible for servicing insured and Secretary-held multi-family
mortgages, defaulted Title I and Sections 312 loans, as well as Housing
for the Elderly and College Housing Loans. It checks to see that rents
were charged in accordance with government regulations; monitors the
payment of assistance on behalf of tenants to project owners where
housing was built by private developers and loans insured by HUD;
assures that loan payments are made on time to mortgagees. In general,
this branch protects the government's interest as guarantor.
15. Folsom, as a Loan Specialist (Realty), performed the following
duties: reviewed rent increases on Section 8 housing projects;
conducted supervisory review of annual financial statements; monitored
expenditures of travel monies; obtain flexible subsidy loan for a
housing project; monitored 23 troubled housing projects.
16. Record facts reflect there were five other Loan Specialists in
the Loan Management Branch. Each such specialist had been handling a
workload of 60-65 projects. Upon Folsom's transfer thereto, about 4-5
projects were reassigned from each specialist to Folsom. Respondent
deems that 50-55 projects for each Loan Specialist is a full workload.
In regard to the 23 troubled projects reassigned to Folsom, the other
Loan Specialists spent less than 5% of their time thereon. The
reassignment of Folsom did not result in any loss of pay or grade.
17. None of the employees transferred to the Atlanta Regional office
as part of the reorganization was qualified for either position to which
Babridge or Folsom were reassigned. Likewise, none of the employees who
were downgraded within the Columbia Area office as a result of the
reorganization was qualified for either position to which Babridge and
Folsom were reassigned. /9/ However, no other employee in the Columbia
office was permitted to compete for the positions to which the aforesaid
individuals were transferred.
18. The reorganization of HUD became effective on September 9, 1983.
At the last moment the functions of the Rehabilitation Specialist
position were not regionalized to Atlanta.
Conclusions
While not denying that an agency is obliged to bargain over the
impact and implementation of changes in employment conditions,
Respondent maintains no such obligation existed herein. It predicates
this contention on the prior holdings in the public sector that such
changes must have a reasonably foreseeable or substantial impact flowed
from the reassignments of Babridge and Folsom; that any possible impact
at the time was not reasonably foreseeable. Hence, it maintains, no
violation occurred by virtue of its failure to notify the Union in
advance of the changes and to bargain re the impact and implementation
thereof.
Earlier cases in the public sector stressed the fact that no duty to
bargain arose unless a substantial impact existed, or was reasonably
foreseeable, when management rights were exercised by an agency.
Department of Defense, Air National Guard, Texas Air National Guard,
Camp Mabry, Austin, Texas, 6 A/SLMR 591. The "substantial impact"
standard, however, is no longer followed by the Authority. In U.S.
Government Printing Office, 13 FLRA No. 39 it was concluded that " . . .
the statutory duty to negotiate comes into play if the change results in
an impact upon unit employees or such impact is reasonably foreseeable."
A recent decision by the Authority, however, makes it evident that a
change in working conditions does not necessarily impose a bargaining
obligation upon the employer. Thus, where the resultant effect, as well
as the reasonably foreseeable impact of a change in working conditions
on bargaining unit employees was de minimis, no statutory duty may be
imposed upon an agency to notify the union in advance and afford it an
opportunity to bargain in regard thereto. Department of Health and
Human Services, Social Security Administration, Chicago Region, 15 FLRA
No. 179.
The central issue posed for determination herein may be stated as
follows: whether the reassignments by Respondent of Babridge and Folsom
within the Columbia Area office resulted in an impact, or a reasonably
foreseeable impact, upon bargaining unit employees which was more than
de minimis - all of which required Respondent to notify the Union herein
and afford it an opportunity to negotiate re such impact and
implementation.
In support of its position that no "substantial" impact flowed from
the reassignments, Respondent adverts to several factors. Thus, it
maintains, inter alia, that neither Babridge nor Folsom objected to the
transfer; that the reassignments did not alter the pay or grade of
either employee, that their workload was not appreciably increased.
Further, Respondent argues that any possible effects of the
reorganization, i.e. those employees who would be either transferred to
Atlanta or demoted, was not reasonably foreseeable in April, 1983.
Upon due consideration of the entire record herein, I am satisfied
that a resultant impact flowed from the reassignment of employees
Babridge and Folsom. Further, I conclude that the unilateral conduct by
management created a foreseeable impact upon unit employees. Moreover,
I am persuaded that the impact, in either case, was not de minimis so as
to relieve Respondent of any obligation to notify the Union of its
action and negotiate in respect thereto.
(1) It is noteworthy to the undersigned that the reorganization and
the accompanied reassignments effected marked changes in the work
positions and duties of both Babridge and Folsom. Prior to the change
and transfer Babridge was concerned with rehabilitation management of
housing in the Community Planning and Development Division. To this
end, he rendered assistance re financing, and monitored local
rehabilitation loans and grants. The position to which he was assigned
called for technical and engineering expertise in respect to the
rehabilitation and modernization of HUD projects. Babridge dealt with
improvements to structures, roads, equipment and housing systems.
Likewise, while Folsom's functions pertained to relocation as a real
estate specialist before the transfer, his new position as Loan
Specialist (Realty) required servicing mortgages and dealing with
mortgages and/or mortgages. He also reviews requests for rental
increases and releases of security.
The Authority has determined that changing the duties performed by
employees constitutes a change in conditions of employment which could
reasonably be foreseen to have a substantial impact upon employees.
Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration,
Field Assessment Office, Atlanta, Georgia, 11 FLRA No. 78. In the cited
case it was concluded that additional duties could affect appraisals of
their work as to how well the employees performed. This conclusion was
reasonably to be foreseen by the change. In much the same vein, I am
constrained to conclude that the change in job positions of both
Babridge and Folsom must necessarily result in an impact upon those
employees. Not only has the nature of their work been altered, but
their responsibilities are of a different character. Further, each
employee is subject to rating and appraisal by a supervisor attached to
a different Division and Branch. The standards for performance may well
vary and affect the rating of each individual.
It is argued by Respondent that the two employees did not object to
the reassignments; moreover, no promotion potential existed in any
event, and there was no change in their pay or grade. These factors,
however, do not, in my opinion, militate against finding a significant
impact by reason of the transfers. Numerous considerations may prompt
employees to consent-- or not voice objection-- to a reassignment. In
particular, they may fear being "riffed" by virtue of a reorganization,
or they may hesitate to confront management for fear of retaliation. In
any event, the duty is imposed upon management to notify the union with
respect to changed conditions, and the obligation to bargain runs toward
the bargaining representative.
(2) In respect to the foreseeability of any impact upon bargaining
unit employees by reason of the reorganization and reassignment,
Respondent suggests that management did not know in April, 1983 which
employees would be either transferred to Atlanta, downgraded, or be part
of a reduction in force. Moreover, it insists that post-reorganization
staffing-- which might involve filling a vacancy created by Babridge's
reassignment or the elimination of one of three Maintenance Engineers--
was not foreseeable at the time of the reassignments of Babridge and
Folsom.
While it may be true that Respondent did not know in April, 1983
which employees would be affected by the reorganization and
reassignments, it seems difficult to gainsay that an impact upon unit
employees was reasonably foreseeable. The reorganization called for
reducing the staff by 17 employees. Such plan included Babridge and
Folsom since there positions were to be regionalized to Atlanta.
However, inasmuch as both employees were retained in the Columbia Area
office, any reduction in force would have required letting go two other
employees. Note is taken that, as of the time when the plan was
proposed, Respondent encouraged employees to retire in order to help
fulfill the quota of 17 "riffed" individuals. The fact that it was not
ultimately necessary to RIF 17 employees does not, in my opinion, negate
the foreseeability of an impact. One must view the likelihood of a
result at the time of proposed action, and the contemplated reduction in
force could reasonably be expected to affect other employees if Babridge
and Folsom were not included in the reduction in force.
Moreover, since Babridge's former position in Community Development
was filled by another employee and the position is to be abolished, such
abolitions will necessarily affect said employees who could be "riffed".
I agree with General Counsel's contention that this result was
reasonably foreseeable in view of the fact that the workload in
Community Development was known by management to be diminishing and that
the Division was winding up its operations. The record also reflects
that there were employees - apart from those downgraded or to be
transferred to Atlanta - who could have qualified for the positions to
which Babridge and Folsom were reassigned.
I am persuaded that the reorganization and reassignments herein
resulted in an impact upon bargaining unit employees which were
reasonably foreseeable. See U.S. Government Printing Office, supra.
Thus, it was incumbent upon management to bargain concerning the impact
and implementation thereof. Having failed to do so, I conclude that
Respondent violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. /10/
Accordingly, I recommend that the Authority issue the following order
designed to effectuate the purposes of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute.
ORDER
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 Department of Housing and Urban Development, Columbia Area
office, Columbia, South Carolina, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Instituting a reassignment of employees represented
exclusively by the American Federation of Government Employees,
Local 3654, AFL-CIO, without first notifying the exclusive
representative and affording it the opportunity to negotiate the
procedures which management will observe in implementing such
reassignment as well as the appropriate arrangements for employees
adversely affected thereby.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute.
2. Take the following action in order to effectuate the purposes and
policies of the Statute:
(a) Notify the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
3454, AFL-CIO, of any intended reassignment of employees and, upon
request, negotiate the procedures which management will observe in
implementing such reassignment as well as the appropriate arrangements
for employees adversely affected thereby.
(b) Post at its facility at the Columbia Are office, Columbia, South
Carolina, copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the
Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they
shall be signed by the Area Manager and shall be posted and maintained
by him for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. The Area Manager shall take
reasonable steps to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced or
covered by any other material.
(c) Pursuant to Section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region IV, in writing, within
30 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to
comply herewith.
(s) WILLIAM NAIMARK
WILLIAM NAIMARK
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: September 28, 1984
Washington, DC
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 LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS STATUTE
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT institute any reassignment of employees represented
exclusively by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
3654, AFL-CIO, without first notifying the exclusive representative and
affording it the opportunity to negotiate the procedures which
management will observe in implementing such reassignment as well as the
appropriate arrangements for employees adversely affected thereby.
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
3454, AFL-CIO, of any intended reassignment of employees and, upon
request, negotiate the procedures which management will observe in
implementing such reassignment as well as the appropriate arrangements
for employees adversely affected thereby.
(Agency or Activity)
Dated: By: (Signature)
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
of posting and must 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 4,
whose address is: 1776 Peachtree Street, NW., Suite 501, North Wing,
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 and whose telephone number is: (404) 881-2324.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ See Union Recognition in the Federal Government, published by the
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, at 391 (Jan. 1983).
/2/ Additionally, Member McGinnis indicated in a separate concurring
opinion that he would also consider, in determining de minimis issues,
when the implementation of a change would involve or adversely affect
unit employees in assessing the totality of the facts and circumstances
presented.
/3/ The Authority notes, however, that the duty to bargain concerning
the reorganization, as distinguished from the two reassignments, was not
at issue herein.
/4/ Respondent filed a Motion to Correct Transcript with the
undersigned subsequent to the hearing. No objection was interposed
thereto. The motion is granted and the transcript is corrected as
follows: (TABLE OMITTED)
/5/ Article 13 of said agreement provided for Merit Promotions and
Internal Placement. The procedures for such promotions and placements
must follow guidelines mentioned therein. However, under Section
13.03(5) of the Article reassignments between positions of the same
promotion potential are excepted from such procedures or guidelines.
/6/ Unless otherwise specified, all dates hereinafter mentioned occur
in 1983.
/7/ This position is also referred to, at times, as Rehabilitation
Specialist.
/8/ This branch did not plan to continue having three Maintenance
Engineers after Babridge's transfer thereto. The third position was
scheduled for elimination.
/9/ Record testimony reflects, however, that employees other than
those downgraded would possibly have qualified for the position to which
Babridge and Folsom were reassigned.
/10/ I reject Respondent's argument that, under Article 13, Section
13.03(5) of the bargaining agreement, the Union waived its opportunity
to bargain. The language of that provision does not clearly and
expressly waive the Union's right to bargain over impact and transfers
upon unit employees. Rather does it relate to procedures for filling
merit promotions and excepted categories.