[ v26 p814 ]
26:0814(97)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
26 FLRA No. 97
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, REGION II
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Respondent
and
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
AND NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES
UNION, CHAPTER 218
Charging Party
CASE NO. 2-CA-60162
DECISION AND ORDER
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the
above entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint, and
recommending that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
those practices and to take certain affirmative actions. The Respondent
filed exceptions to the Judge's decision and the General Counsel filed
an opposition to the exceptions.
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), we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge at the
hearing and find that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed. Upon consideration of the Judge's decision, the
exceptions, opposition and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's
findings and conclusions. We also adopt the Judge's recommended
remedial Order and shall further order the Respondent to bargain on
request with the Charging Party concerning timekeeping procedures.
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
and section 7118 of the Statute, we order that the United States
Department of Health and Human Services, Region II, New York, New York
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to negotiate with National Treasury
Employees Union, Chapter 218, the authorized collective bargaining
representative of employees in the Office for Civil Rights, Region II,
with regard to changes in timekeeping procedures for unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Statute:
(a) Upon request, bargain with National Treasury Employees Union,
Chapter 218, concerning the change in timekeeping procedures for unit
employees instituted in January 1986.
(b) Post at its New York Regional 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 Director and shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards
and other places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure 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 II, Federal Labor
Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply therewith.
Issued, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1987.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ Jean, McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS
AUTHORITY AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE
5 OF THE
UNITED STATES CODE
FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to negotiate with National Treasury
Employees Union, Chapter 218, the authorized bargaining representative
of employees in the Office for Civil Rights, Region II, with regard to
changing timekeeping procedures for those employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights assured them by
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with National Treasury Employees
Union, Chapter 218, the authorized collective bargaining representative
of employees in the Office for Civil Rights, Region II, concerning the
change in timekeeping procedures instituted in January 1986.
(Agency/Activity)
Dated: . . . By: . . . (Signature)
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
of posting and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other
material.
If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
with any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region II,
whose address is: 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3700, New York, New York 10278
and whose telephone number is: (212) 264-4934.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Case No.: 2-CA-60162
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, REGION II, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Respondent
and
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION AND
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, CHAPTER 218
Charging Party
Stephen A. Sunshine, Esq. and
Andrew Rudyk, Esq. on the supplemental brief
For the Respondent
Todd C. Park, Esq. with Philip J. Kellett, Esq. and
Myrna Ocasio, Esq. on the briefs
For the Charging Party
Susan M. Roche, Esq.
For the General Counsel
Before: SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
This case arose under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C. section 7101
et. seq.
Upon an unfair labor practice charge filed by the above captioned
Charging Party against the above captioned Respondent, the General
Counsel of the Authority, by the Regional Director for Region II, issued
a Complaint and Notice of Hearing alleging Respondent violated section
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by failing and refusing to negotiate
with the Charging Party concerning a change in employee sign-in/sign-out
procedures at Respondent's New York Office for Civil Rights.
A hearing on the Complaint was conducted in New York, New York at
which all parties were represented by counsel and afforded full
opprotunity to adduce evidence, call, examine and cross-examine
witnesses and argue orally. Briefs and supplemental briefs were filed
by all parties and have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, my observation of the witnesses
and their demeanor and from my evaluation of the evidence, I make the
following:
Findings of Fact
At all times material herein the National Treasury Employees Union
(NTEU) has been the exclusive collective bargaining representative of
various of Respondent's employees including employees located in
Respondent's New York Regional Office working in its Office for Civil
Rights. NTEU Chapter 218 (herein referred to as the Union) has at all
material times been a constituent entity within NTEU and an agent of
NTEU acting on its behalf in representing Respondent's New York Regional
Office employees.
At least since sometime in 1982 employees in Respondent's New York
Office for Civil Rights have worked on a flextime basis arriving between
7:00-9:30 a.m. and leaving work between 3:30-6:00 p.m. From 1982 until
April 1984 these employees were required to sign in and sign out
sequentially each day on a time sheet which was kept approximately 50
feet from the office entrance door on a table next to the secretary to
the Regional Manager of the Office for Civil Rights, David A. Coronado.
At the end of each work day the time sheet was given to the office
timekeeper for recording. Regional Manager Coronado was assigned a
training detail in October 1983. When he left the Office for Civil
Rights for the training detail Walter Patterson was made Acting Regional
Manager until April 1984 during which time Patterson retained the
timekeeping system then in effect.
In April 1984 Patterson was replaced by Carmen Rockwell as Acting
Regional Manager. Rockwell changed the timekeeping procedure by
allowing all employees to keep a daily attendance record at their desks,
indicating the time in and time out each day for a two week period and
then turning over the attendance records to the supervisor for review
and approval. The supervisor would then give the attendance records to
the timekeeper for transcription onto timecards.
In July 1984 Coronado returned to the office for two and one-half
weeks and discovered Rockwell had implemented a different timekeeping
system. /1/ Accordingly, on August 3 as he was about to return to his
detail, Coronado sent a memorandum to Rockwell regarding the matter,
stating, in relevant part: /2/
"While reviewing the time records I immediately became aware
that the sign-in method used by the rest of the Department in the
Region was no longer being used in OCR.
"After further research, I was able to discover some
documentation on the implementation of the change, but nothing
giving a rationale for changing a system that functioned perfectly
well, which complied with OPM requirements for a time accounting
method and which kept us in conformance with the rest of the
Department in the Region on an important labor-relations matter.
/3/ Neither was I able to determine why you seemingly ignored the
advice of the Region's Labor Relations staff, whom I have always
found to be quite knowledgeable and helpful and whose advice
always turned out to be in our best interest.
"I would strongly urge that you follow the advice given you by
Labor Relations and return immediately to the sign-in system that
was utilized here when you arrived. Again, the system has always
worked well. Also, since employees are required to sign in
sequentially based on their time of arrival, it does provide the
"affirmative evidence" required by OPM in 5 CFR 610.404, /4/ while
the individual sign-in system that exists here now clearly does
not, since each employee turns in this sheet on a biweekly basis
and since the time sheets really constitute nothing more than
self-serving statements which, as you know, under the rules of
evidence, can never be accepted as evidence. Furthermore, OCR is
a part of the Department and to the extent possible, we should do
everything we can to work with the other OP DIVS and STAFF DIVS in
the Region to demonstrate that we are, especially in such
important areas as labor relations. Finally, the Labor Relations
staff in this region is excellent and they have served us well and
I can not imagine a situation in which they would give us advice
that would ever prove anything but beneficial to us. Asking for
their advice after the fact and then ignoring it once it has been
given without even determining their rationale for having given
it, is not sound practice and not at all like you . . ."
The memorandum indicated that a copy was sent to Coronado's
supervisor Nathan Dick, Director of the Office for Program Operations
for the Office for Civil Rights and Deputy Director of the Office for
Civil Rights.
Regional Manager Corando returned from his detail on September 6,
1985 and found Rockwell had not complied with his memorandum and the
timekeeping method she implemented was still in effect. According to
Coronado, since he felt the Rockwell system did not comply with the
requirements of 5 CFR 610.404, on December 12, 1985 he issued the
following memorandum to his staff:
"Effective January 2, 1986, all employees, including
supervisory staff, will be required to sign in and out on a
central sign in sheet on a daily basis as a means for recording
the time of their arrival and departure from work. The system of
individuals monitoring their own time and attendance records and
turning them into supervisors on a biweekly basis, will no longer
be valid.
"This return to the system used nationwide by OCR and by our
sister Agencies in the Region, will bring us into conformance with
OPM regulations. It will also make it easier for the timekeeper
to post time and attendance on a daily basis, as she is required
to do by Departmental regulations.
"The sign in sheet will be located on the small cabinet
immediately to the left of Ms. Cropper's desk."
Coronado's memorandum indicated a copy was sent to Shop Steward
Khaleel. Although Khaleel testified he did not receive a copy of the
memorandum from Coronado, /5/ he nevertheness was shown a copy of the
document by a unit employee on December 12. By letter dated December
23, 1985, Khaleel made a demand to Coronado that Respondent bargain with
the Union on the matter. The letter read:
"Your memo of December 12 has been brought to my attention. My
name appears as a c.c. on the copy in my possession; however, I
have yet to receive such a c.c. through official channels.
"The Union invokes its rights under Article 61 of the
negotiated agreement to negotiate the proposed change in the sign
in/out procedure. Until such time that negotiations have been
completed, the proposed change will not be considered as
implemented per provisions of Article 61.
"Please contact me at extension 2672 in order to arrange and
appropriate negotiation schedule."
By memorandum to Khaleel dated December 30, Coronado refused to
bargain on the matter, stating:
"By your memo to me dated December 23, 1985 you requested
negotiations on the signing of sign in/out sheets.
"As noted in my December 12 memo, the change involves only that
all employees sign a single sheet rather than individual sheets.
The nature of employees' work remained the same. The requirement
to sign in and out did not change. The mechanics of signing in or
out did not change. The time needed to sign in or out did not
change in any measurable way. Therefore, the change in sign
in/out sheets is de minimus (sic) and does not give rise to duty
to bargain over impact and implementation."
The change in employee timekeeping as set forth in Coronado's
December 12 memorandum was put into effect on January 2, 1986 without
further communication with the Union.
Other Regulations.
OPM Bulletin No. 610.35 (item 12 and 13)
"12. Because employees working flexible schedules will arrive
and depart at varying times, it is important that a system exist
within each agency for providing accountability for hours worked
to ensure the credibility of the program from the perspective of
the employees, management, and the public.
"13. Agencies are advised to review each program to determine
the most appropriate time accounting system. One procedure that
is recommended for consideration by agencies is seriatim, or
sequential, sign-in/sign-out sheets. Under seriatim timesheets,
each employee records his or her time of arrival and, separately,
departure in order, one following the other. This seriatim
procedure is a simple method of assuring accountability for those
employees that work under flexitime schedules."
GAO Policies and Procedures Manual, Title 6, (selected portions of
section 17.2 and 17.3)
Section 17.2
"For each civilian employee, a record of time in pay and nonpay
status or piecework completed shall be maintained daily by one of
the following time accounting methods:
1. Time and attendance recording by designated employees (time
and attendance clerks) who take no part in preparing the payroll
or distributing the paychecks.
2. Electromechanical devices, e.g., time clocks.
3. Sign-in/sign-out sheets showing times of arrival and
departure. If the sign-in/sign-out method is used, it must be
seriatim recording. Under the seriatim sign-in/sign-out method,
employees sign their name and record their time of arrival in
order, one right after the other. When departing from work,
employees again sign their name and record their time of departure
in order, one right after the other. Sign-in/sign-out sheets with
the employees name preprinted on the sheet are not acceptable.
"In all cases adequate surveillance shall be maintained to
assure proper and accurate time accounting. Also, adequate steps
must be taken to assure that time and attendance data are
accurately reflected on the time and attendance reports sent to
the payroll office."
Section 17.3
"For agencies whose employees are on a flexible or compressed
work schedule, there are several time accounting methods that, if
properly administered and controlled, will satisfy the
requirements of subsection 17.2. Use of one of the following
methods is recommended to meet those requirements: time and
attendance clerks and supervisors who closely monitor arrival and
departure, sign-in/sign-out sheets by time of arrival and
departure (seriatim time accounting), time clocks or
mini-computers with plastic employee identification cards and
turnstiles. Agencies have the latitude to select the method that
suits them best. However, if the conventional time and attendance
recording method by a timekeeper is selected in a flexible or
compressed work schedule environment, stricter management control
must be implemented to insure coverage throughout the day as
described in the preceeding (sic) paragraph. In audits and
reviews of payroll systems, auditors will evaluate the method
selected to assure proper usage."
Discussion and Conclusions
Counsel for the General Counsel contends Respondent violated the
Statute by failing to notify the Union about its intention to change
timekeeping procedures and failing and refusing to bargain with the
Union on the change. Counsel for Respondent contends Respondent was
under no obligation to negotiate with the Union over the change since
timekeeping procedures are specifically provided for by Federal statute
and therefore not within Respondent's duty to bargain. /6/ Respondent
essentially argues that it was privileged to effectuate the change
without bargaining with the Union since the timekeeping procedure
existing immediately prior to the change was not in compliance with law
because, in its view, that system did not constitute a time-accounting
method which would provide affirmative evidence that each employee
subject to flextime worked the proper number of hours as required by 5
CFR section 610.404, supra. In his brief counsel for Respondent,
relying on Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Personnel Manual
Bulletin No. 610.35, items 12 and 13 (August 19, 1982) and General
Accounting Office (GAO) Policies and Procedures Manual, Title 6,
sections 17.2 and 17.3 (dated December 30, 1982), asserts section
610.404 requires that sign-in/sign-out time recording be in the form of
a single sheet seriatim recording. Counsel cites the OPM and GAO
provisions in his brief, although neither was raised, relied upon or
even mentioned at the hearing, thus depriving counsel for the General
Counsel or counsel for the Union the opportunity to address the
applicability of these documents to the situation herein. In order to
provide the parties an opprotunity to address such argument, on November
17, 1986 I issued an Order permitting the filing of supplemental briefs
limited to the affect of the above cited regulations on the issues
herein including whether such regulations were in effect at material
times and the impact they may have upon 5 CRF 610.404 and upon granting
a status quo ante remedy if a violation of the Statute should be
ultimately determined to have occurred. Thereafter all parties filed
supplemental briefs.
With regard to the question of notice to the Union, although Khaleel
did not receive a personal copy of Regional Manager Coronado's December
12, 1985 memorandum announcing changing the system of employee time
recording on January 2, 1986 back to the pre-April 1984 procedure,
Khaleel was shown a copy of the announcement on December 12 by a unit
employee. Thereafter on December 23 Khaleel made a timely request to
bargain on the matter. In these circumstances I conclude no violation
of section 7116(a) (1) and (5) regarding failure to provide timely and
adequate notice of the change has been established. See U.S. Department
of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20 FLRA 148
(1985) and Veterans Administration, Veterans Administration Medical
Center, Muskogee, Oklahoma, 19 FLRA 1054 (1985) citing United States Air
Force v. FLRA, 681 F.2d 466 (6th Cir. 1982).
Nevertheless, I conclude Respondent violated the Statute when it
refused to negotiage on the change of employee timekeeping. Regional
Manager Coronado's refusal of December 30, 1985 was based upon his
evaluation that the change involved had only a de minimis impact on
employees and accordingly no obligation to bargain existed. However,
the Authority has previously found that management policies regarding
recording of employee time and attendance constitutes a condition of
employment the substance of which is a negotiable matter. American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1603 and Department
of the Navy, Navy Commissary Store, Patuxent River, Maryland, 16 FLRA 96
(1984) and Planners, Estimators and Progressmen Association, Local No. 8
and Department of the Navy , Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston,
South Carolina, 13 FLRA 455 (1983). The Authority has also held that
where, as here, the decision to make a change was itself negotiable, the
extent of the impact of the change in conditions of employment on unit
employees is not relevant. Department of Defense Dependents Schools,
Mediterranean Region (Madrid, Spain); and Zaragoza High School,
(Zaragoza, Spain), 19 FLRA 395 (1985) and U.S. Army Reserve Components
Personnel and Administration Center, St. Louis, Missouri, 19 FLRA 290
(1985). Thus Respondent was obligated to bargain with the Union before
changing the timekeeping system, a condition of employment in effect for
18 months under Acting Regional Manager Rockwell and for 3 months under
Regional Manager Coronado, unless somehow otherwise privileged to take
such unilateral action.
Respondent argues that the system in effect prior to January 1986 was
not in compliance with law and accordingly it was compelled to change
the system and the procedure it implemented did comply with law.
Assuming arguendo that the timekeeping system instituted by Acting
Regional Manager Rockwell was not in compliance with law, this did not
privilege Coronado to simply revert to the prior timekeeping system
without bargaining with the Union. 5 CFR section 610.404 merely
requires that the time-accounting method established will provide
"affirmative evidence" of hours worked. Coronado's system was not the
only timekeeping procedures which could have conceivably complied with
these regulations.
It is well settled that to the extent that an agency has discretion
regarding a condition of employment, that matter is whether the agency's
duty to bargain. National Treasury Employees Union and Internal Revenue
Service, 21 FLRA 730 (1986); National Treasury Employees Union and
Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, 21 FLRA 6 (1986); and
Boston District Recruiting Command, 15 FLRA 720 (1984). It is entirely
possible that if given the opportunity to negotiate, the Union might
have proposed some system other than the Rockwell procedure or the
matter ultimately resolved by adoption of a system other than Coronado's
sequential sign-in procedure. Indeed, even the regulations referred to
by Respondent do not compel use of only the seriatim sign-in, sign-out
system. Thus, OPM Bulletin No. 610.35, items 12 and 13, only recommends
the use of a seriatim sheet, supra. /7/ The GAO Policies and Procedures
Manual, Title 6 sections 17.2 and 17.3, clearly indicates that any of
several time accounting methods are acceptable and although various
procedures are recommended, the regulation specifically provides for
agency latitude in selecting which method to adopt, supra.
In my view the question of which time recording method to use was
negotiable within the limits of the GAO regulation and Coronado was not
compelled to put into effect his preference without regard to the
Union's right to negotiate before the change was made. However, when
Coronado refused to bargain on the matter on December 30 the Union was
not given an opportunity to make a proposal prior to the change being
effectuated. Accordingly, I conclude Respondent's refusal to negotiate
with the Union on changing employee timekeeping procedures and the
unilateral implementation of the seriatim system on January 24, 1986
violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. /8/
As to a remedy, I shall not require Respondent to restore the status
quo ante since to do so would place into effect a system of time
recording which on its face would not comply with the provisions of GAO
Policies and Procedures Manual, Title 6, section 17.2, a Government-wide
rule or regulation within the meaning of the Statute. /9/ Cf.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C., 20 FLRA 486 (1985). Accordingly, in view of the
entire foregoing I recommend the Authority issue the following:
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 United States Department of Health and Human
Services, Region II, New York, New York shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to negotiate with National Treasury
Employees Union, Chapter 218, the employees authorized collective
bargaining representative, with regard to changing unit employees'
timekeeping procedures.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining
or coercing employees in the exercise of rights assured by the
Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute:
(a) Post at its New York, New York Regional 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 Director or a designee and shall be posted
and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all bulletin boards and other places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that such Notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region II, Federal
Labor Relations Authority, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3700, New York,
New York 10278, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
/s/ SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
Administrative Law Judge
Dates: January 14, 1987
Washington, D.C.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(1) Apparently Rockwell continued to serve as Acting Regional Manager
during this period.
(2) In the memorandum Coronado also pointed out to Rockwell some
other practices related to employee time and attendance which appeared
to him to be "contrary to Departmental and OPM policy."
(3) Manley Khaleel, President of Chapter 218 and Shop Steward for the
Office for Civil Rights, was employed by Respondent's Public Health
Service as a Public Health Service Advisor. He testified that where he
is located employees are on flextime and the timekeeping method followed
at that location for the past four years was for employees to write in
the time of arrival and the time of departure on a paper which lists the
10 to 15 employees in his unit alphabetically. The document is not
located adjacent to a secretarial station and is collected daily by a
timekeeper.
(4) 5 C.F.R. section 610.404, 48 FR 44060 (September 27, 1983),
entitled "Requirement for time-accounting method", provides:
"An agency that authorizes a flexible work schedule or a
compressed work schedule under this subpart shall establish a
time-accounting method that will provide affirmative evidence that
each employee subject to the schedule has worked the proper number
of hours in a biweekly pay period."
(5) Coronado testified that the matter of distribution of copies of
the memorandum was left to his secretary who did not testify in these
proceedings.
(6) Section 7103(a) (14) (c) of the Statute provides:
"(a) For the purpose of this chapter . . . (14) 'condition of
employment' means personnel policies, practices, and matters,
whether established by rule, regulation or otherwise, affecting
working conditions, except that such term does not include
policies, practices, and matters . . . (c) to the extent such
matters are specifically covered by Federal statute . . . "
(7) Although my Order permitting supplemental briefs specifically
asked that the question of whether the regulations were still in effect
be addressed, only counsel for the General Counsel complied indicating
OPM Bulletin No. 610.35 was no longer in effect when the conduct herein
occurred.
(8) As stated previously, counsel for Respondent raised the question
of the applicability of the OPM and GAO regulations for the first time
in his brief thus requiring, in the interest of due process, that I
allow supplemental briefs be filed by the parties limited to this issue.
However, Respondent in its supplemental briefs raised another new issue
by contending for the first time that a proposal for non-seriatim time
sheets would be nonnegotiable under section 7106(b)(1) of the Statute.
I view the raising of such issue at this stage of the proceedings to be
inappropriate and an abuse of orderly administrative processes which
must be followed so as to avoid interminable litigation and therefore
need not be addressed. Cf. American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO, Local 2000, 4 FLRA 601 (1980), fn. 2 at 608. In any event, the
Union by its December 22, 1985 letter, supra, did not propose that
non-seriatim time sheets be used. Rather it sought to negotiate
generally on the change, albeit requesting that the status quo be
maintained during negotiations.
(9) Although the Charging Party requests a return to the status quo
ante, in her supplemental brief counsel for the General Counsel
indicated that a status quo ante remedy was no longer being sought by
the General Counsel.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS
AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
OF TITLE
5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to negotiate with National Treasury
Employees Union, Chapter 218, the employees authorized collective
bargaining representative, with regard to changing unit employees'
timekeeping procedures.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
(Agency or Activity)
Dated: . . . By: . . . (Signature)
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
of posting and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other
material.
If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
with any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region II,
whose address is: 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3700, New York, New York
10278, and whose telephone number is: (212) 264-4934.