---

38 FLRA No. 108

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

WASHINGTON, D.C.

(Respondent)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIELD LABOR LOCALS, AFL-CIO

(Charging Party/Union)

5-CA-80121

DECISION AND ORDER

January 10, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority based on the parties' stipulation of facts under section 2429.1(a) of our Rules and Regulations. The General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs.

The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to bargain with the Union concerning the content of messages to employees displayed in their leave and earnings statements. For the reasons stated below, we find that the Respondent committed the unfair labor practices alleged.

II. Facts

The Union is the exclusive representative of "all employees stationed throughout the nation in field duty stations of the U.S. Department of Labor [Department or DOL], located outside of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, with the exception of the compliance officers employed at the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) in the field duty stations and other exclusions not material" to this case. Stipulation at 3. The Respondent and the Union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement.

With each biweekly paycheck, the Respondent issues to all nonunit and unit employees a leave and earnings statement for that biweekly pay period. The leave and earnings statement provides each employee with written verification of the employee's salary, number and types of hours worked, types and amounts of deductions, year-to-date totals for types and amounts of various deductions and accumulated retirement funds, leave used and earned during each biweekly period, and a balance for each type of leave. The leave and earnings statement also is used to send employees informational messages concerning, among other things, the exposing of waste, fraud, and abuse, the purchase of U.S. Savings Bonds, the completion of W-4 Forms, the availability of electronic funds transfer, the Thrift Savings Plans, and the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution.

By letter of April 8, 1987, the Respondent informed the Union that the Department of Labor was revising the format of the leave and earnings statement. The previous format contained one line which could be used to convey messages to employees. The revised format contains two lines to convey messages to employees.

By letter of May 6, 1987, the Union requested to bargain concerning the content of messages to employees displayed in the leave and earnings statements. The Union proposed that it "be permitted to determine the content of one-half of the messages (13 of 26)." Stipulation, Exhibit 6. The Union stated that "[w]e feel this would be a vehicle to improve employee morale and to provide useful information. We will be ready to discuss and/or negotiate any prohibitions or concerns the Department might have concerning the content of these messages at our July Quarterly Meeting." Id.

In the labor-management meeting of July 1987, the Respondent refused to bargain concerning the content of messages to employees displayed in the leave and earnings statements. By letter dated December 9, 1987, the Respondent reiterated that it would not bargain concerning the Union's May 6, 1987 proposal.

The parties stipulated that at no other time did the Union make any other written proposals concerning the content of messages to employees displayed in the leave and earnings statements. The parties also stipulated that there were no proposals or discussions concerning the content of messages on leave and earnings statements during any past contract negotiations between the parties.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. General Counsel

The General Counsel contends that the Union's proposal concerns a negotiable condition of employment because it focuses principally on unit employees and affects their working conditions. According to the General Counsel, the Union's proposal "merely represents an attempt by the Union to have contact with bargaining unit employees in addition to those means provided for in the parties['] negotiated Agreement, Article 9." General Counsel's Brief at 9. The General Counsel argues that "[j]ust as certain restrictions apply to the Union's use of bulletin boards on management's premises . . . and to management's distribution of material sponsored by the Union . . . [,] so, too, limitations/prohibitions could be placed on the content of Union messages in earnings and leave statements." Id.

The General Counsel contends that the fact that leave and earnings statements are issued to all of the Respondent's employees, including nonunit employees and employees represented by other labor organizations, does not make the Union's proposal nonnegotiable. The General Counsel also argues that "[a]s a payroll product that flows from the employee-employer relationship, earnings and leave statements and their contents are matters affecting conditions of employment." Id. at 13 (citation omitted).

The General Counsel contends that "[h]aving determined that the Union's May 6, 1987 proposal concerned a negotiable condition of employment, an obligation to bargain on management's part must be found. In addition . . . nothing relieved the Respondent of that duty to bargain in this instance." Id. at 13-14.

B. Respondent

The Respondent asserts that it has no duty to bargain over the Union's proposal to place messages on leave and earnings statements because the messages do not pertain to conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. The Respondent contends that there must be "'a direct link between the proposal and the work situation or employment relationship of the bargaining unit employees.'" Respondent's Brief at 5 (quoting American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2094 v. FLRA, 833 F.2d 1037, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). The Respondent argues that there is no link because the Union is actually seeking an institutional benefit for itself, that is, an additional vehicle for it to communicate with employees and to conduct Union business. Id. at 4-5.

The Respondent argues that "replacing Department messages of the most wide and general nature which are directed to all DOL employees with [Union] messages that pertain to the [U]nion as an institution" is an attempt by the Union to control a DOL document. Id. at 7. Citing American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 2022 and U.S. Army, Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell, 23 FLRA 59 (1986) and Fort Knox Teachers Association and Fort Knox Dependent Schools, 19 FLRA 878 (1985), the Respondent states that in similar circumstances the Authority found union "attempts to negotiate over means of communication of union related messages were non negotiable [sic] because they did not affect conditions of employment." Id. The Respondent argues that the Union has not shown that its "proposed use of the message lines on the earnings and leave statements will be for a permissible purpose." Id. at 9. Rather, according to the Respondent, it "is apparent" that the Union's proposal "is a matter that focuses on the interests of the [U]nion and not on bargaining unit employees, and is therefore not a condition of employment of those employees." Id. at 9-10.

The Respondent contends that even if the proposal is found to concern a condition of employment, the parties "fully negotiated and included within [their] agreement provisions for Department[-]provided means of communication between the [U]nion and bargaining unit employees[.]" Id. at 10. Therefore, the Respondent contends that "the [U]nion has waived any right to bargain over that subject, i.e.[,] distribution of [U]nion material, mid-term." Id. The Respondent argues that the parties' agreement provides the Union with extensive use of its facilities to communicate with unit employees. In this regard, the Respondent notes that Article 9 of the parties' agreement provides that Union communications such as notices and circulars will be distributed "to all bargaining unit employees through the [Respondent's] regular internal mail distribution system." Id. at 11. According to the Respondent, the agreement also provides Union access to space on all official bulletin boards for displaying Union literature and the right to distribute material on the Respondent's premises. The Respondent argues, therefore, that the Union "is precluded from reopening negotiation on the matter of [U]nion communication and has waived its right to bargain during the term of the [parties' agreement] with regard to the subject of use of [the Respondent's] facilities for the purpose of communicating with unit employees." Id. at 12 (footnote omitted).

The Respondent further argues that it has no duty to bargain because the change in the number of lines at the bottom of the statement from one line to two lines "has no more than a de minimis impact on [unit] employees." Id. at 12. The Respondent states that "the amount of information contained in the messages remains substantially the same despite the occasional use of two lines[]" and notes that "the new earnings and leave statements, like the prior statement, utilize only a single line for messages." Id. at 14 (emphasis in original). Therefore, the Respondent argues that there is no duty to bargain because of the minimal effect of the change from one message line to two lines on the working conditions of bargaining unit employees.

The Respondent also argues that if the Authority finds the proposal negotiable, the Respondent "would be in the position of committing an unfair labor practice [by favoring a particular union] in direct violation of section 7116(a)(2) [of the Statute]." Id. at 16. In this regard, the Respondent notes that the Union represents only one of the Respondent's three bargaining units.^(*) Thus, the Respondent argues that "[g]ranting the [Union] the right to control the content of messages on earnings and leave statements . . . would subject [it] to allegations of favoring the [Union] over the other [Respondent] exclusive representatives, and put [it] in the position of interfering in the internal affairs of the other organizations." Id. The Respondent contends, on this basis, that it did not violate the Statute by refusing to bargain over the Union's proposal.

Finally, the Respondent argues that because the leave and earnings statements are received by all of Respondent's employees nationwide, the Union's proposal would directly affect the working conditions of nonbargaining unit employees, and, therefore, the Respondent need not bargain over the proposal. In this regard, the Respondent cites the Authority's decisions in Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Region II, 17 FLRA 329 (1985); Service Employees' International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 556 and Department of the Army, Office of the Adjutant General, Hale Koa Hotel, Honolulu, Hawaii, 9 FLRA 687 (1982) and National Council of Field Labor Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., 3 FLRA 290 (1980).

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

For the reasons discussed below, we find that the Union's proposal as to the content of messages printed on leave and earnings statements of unit employees concerns a condition of employment as defined in section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute, and that the Union did not waive its right to bargain. We also reject the Respondent's other defenses to the unfair labor practice complaint. Consequently, we conclude that the Respondent has a duty to bargain with the Union over the Union's proposal offered during the term of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, we find that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by refusing to bargain with the Union over its proposal.

A. Conditions of Employment

An agency must negotiate with an exclusive representative over unit employees' conditions of employment, except as provided otherwise by Federal law, Government-wide rule or regulation, or agency regulations for which a compelling need exists. See United States Army Adjutant General Publication Center, St. Louis, Missouri, 35 FLRA 631, 634 (1990). In deciding whether a matter involves a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees, the Authority considers whether: (1) the matter pertains to bargaining unit employees; and (2) the record establishes that there is a direct connection between the matter and the work situation or employment relationship of bargaining unit employees. Antilles Consolidated Education Association and Antilles Consolidated School System, 22 FLRA 235, 237 (1986) (Antilles).

With respect to the first factor, there is no dispute that the proposal in this case pertains to bargaining unit employees. As to the second factor of the Antilles test--whether there is a "direct connection" between the matter at issue and "the work situation or employment relationship" of unit employees--we conclude that there is such a direct connection.

The Union requested to bargain concerning the content of messages to employees printed in the leave and earnings statements. As stipulated by the parties, the Union proposed that it be permitted to determine the content of one-half of the messages. The Union stated that its proposal was intended to be "a vehicle to improve employee morale and to provide useful information." Stipulation, Exhibit 6. The Union stated also that it would be "ready to discuss and/or negotiate any prohibitions or concerns the Department might have concerning the content of these messages" at the next quarterly labor-management meeting. Id.

In our view, it is clear that there is a direct connection between the subject matter of the proposal and the work situation or employment relationship of bargaining unit employees. See American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2761, AFL-CIO v. FLRA, 866 F.2d 1443 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (AFGE, Local 2761). The Union's proposal is intended to facilitate the Union's communications with bargaining unit employees. The Authority has found that "improved communication between unions and employees can effectuate employees' rights under section 7102 of the Statute to join or otherwise assist the labor organizations that represent them[] and "that the public interest is furthered by providing [unions] with an efficient method to communicate with unit employees [they] represent[.]" U.S. Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 37 FLRA 515, 528, 537 (1990) (Portsmouth), application for enforcement filed sub nom. FLRA v. U.S. Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, No. 90-1949 (1st Cir. Oct. 1, 1990). See also Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado, 29 FLRA 566 (1987) (union's use of respondent's telephone service is a condition of employment); Overseas Education Association, Inc. and Department of Defense, Office of Dependents Schools, 22 FLRA 351, 352-53 (1986) (mailing of orientation information to new bargaining unit employees is a matter affecting working conditions and hence a condition of employment), affirmed as to other matters sub nom. Overseas Education Association v. FLRA, 827 F.2d 814 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we find that the Union's proposal to use messages on leave and earnings statements to communicate with bargaining unit employees concerns a condition of employment.

The Respondent contends that the proposal does not concern conditions of employment because the proposal "focuses on the interests of the [U]nion, and not on bargaining unit employees," and the Union has not shown that the "proposed use of the message lines . . . will be for a permissible purpose." Id. at 9-10. We reject this contention as wholly without support in the record. The Union's statement of the intent of its proposal suggests that it is designed to provide information to unit employees and that the Union is willing to discuss or negotiate any prohibitions or concerns that the Respondent might have concerning the content of the messages. There is no indication that the messages would be used for internal Union business. As the General Counsel notes, "[j]ust as certain restrictions apply to the Union's use of bulletin boards on management's premises . . . and to management's distribution of material sponsored by the Union . . . [,] so, too, limitations/prohibitions could be placed on the content of Union messages in earnings and leave statements. Those could be negotiated between the parties as the Union suggested." General Counsel's Brief at 9 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we reject the Respondent's contention in this regard as speculative.

B. The Respondent Has a Duty to Bargain over the Proposal

1. The Parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement Does Not Preclude Bargaining Over the Proposal

In Internal Revenue Service, 29 FLRA 162 (1987), the Authority concluded that "the duty to bargain in good faith imposed by the Statute requires an agency to bargain during the term of a collective bargaining agreement on negotiable union proposals concerning matters which are not contained in the agreement unless the union has waived its right to bargain about the subject matter involved." 29 FLRA at 166 (emphasis added).

In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, Kansas City, Missouri, 31 FLRA 1231 (1988) (Kansas City District), the Authority discussed the standard to be applied in determining whether a matter proposed for mid-term bargaining is "contained in" the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Authority stated:

In . . . Internal Revenue Service, 29 FLRA at 167, we addressed the similarity which must exist between mid-term proposals and matters which are covered in a collective bargaining agreement in order to establish a waiver by bargaining history. We stated:

The particular words of proposals offered during contract and mid-term negotiations need not be identical for a waiver to exist. On the other hand, the fact that a mid-term proposal may relate to a general subject area covered in a collective bargaining agreement will not relieve an agency of its obligation to bargain. Rather, the determinative factor is whether the particular subject matter of the proposals offered during contract and mid-term negotiations is the same.

We find no reason to apply a different standard to determine whether a matter is covered by the parties' agreement than is applied to determine whether a waiver by bargaining history has been established. Accordingly, our examination of the sections of the parties' . . . agreement is limited to determining whether the agreement covers the particular subject matter of the [u]nion's bargaining request.

31 FLRA at 1235-36.

In determining whether the particular subject matter over which the Union seeks to negotiate in this case is contained in provisions of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, and whether, therefore, by virtue of bargaining history, the Union has waived its right to bargain over that subject matter, we first consider Article 9 of the parties' agreement. Article 9 is entitled "Use of Official Facilities." It provides, among other things, that:

(1) the Respondent "agrees to provide [the Union] the use of space on official bulletin boards which management has on its premises" (Section 1);

(2) the Union "may distribute material on the [Respondent's] premises" in specified circumstances (Section 2(A));

(3) the Respondent "agrees to distribute notices and circulars sponsored by the [Union] to all designated employees in the bargaining unit, to be sent along with regular, departmental distributions" (Section 2(B));

(4) on request of the Union, the Respondent "will provide meeting space for meetings of bargaining unit employees" (Section 4);

(5) the Union "shall have access to the Federal Telecommunications System . . . [or] the commercial telephone system for the conduct of labor-management relations business" (Section 5); and

(6) the Respondent agrees to provide the Union with file cabinets and office space (Sections 8 and 9).

See Stipulation, Exhibit 2. In sum, Article 9 of the parties' agreement details various ways in which the Union may use the Respondent's facilities and services to distribute information and otherwise communicate with bargaining unit employees. Article 9 does not address the use of leave and earnings statements, and the parties stipulated that they had not bargained in the past over the use of such statements to communicate messages to unit employees.

This case is similar to Kansas City District, in which the union sought to negotiate over appraisal procedures for unit employees who used extensive amounts of official time during the rating period. The Authority found that the particular subject matter of the union's proposal was not covered by the provisions of the parties' agreement dealing generally with performance appraisals. Accordingly, the Authority concluded that the respondent was obligated to bargain over the union's proposal.

In the instant case, we conclude that the above-described sections of the parties' collective agreement do not specifically address the particular subject matter of the Union's bargaining request. While the provisions in Article 9 deal with various communications with bargaining unit employees, Article 9 does not specifically address the subject matter of the Union's bargaining request, the ability of the Union to determine the content of the messages on 13 of 26 biweekly leave and earnings statements. Therefore, the matter as to which the Union sought to bargain was not contained in the parties' agreement.

We conclude, therefore, that the Union did not, either expressly or through bargaining history, waive its right to initiate bargaining over the disputed proposal. It is clear, in this regard, that a union may contractually agree to a waiver of its right to initiate mid-term bargaining, either in general or as to a specific subject matter or matters, during the term of an agreement. Internal Revenue Service at 166. Such a waiver of bargaining rights may be established by express agreement or bargaining history. Any such waiver must be clear and unmistakable. Id. and note 4. In determining whether a contract provision constitutes a clear and unmistakable waiver, we examine the wording of the provision as well as other relevant contractual provisions, bargaining history, and past practice. Id. As noted, a waiver may be evidenced by the parties' bargaining history. For example, where a union sought to bargain over a particular subject matter but withdrew its proposal in exchange for another provision, a waiver by bargaining history could be found. Id. at 167. See also U.S. Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps (MPL), Washington, D.C. and Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia, 38 FLRA 632 (1990).

In this case, there is no evidence in the record or argument by the Respondent that Article 9 of the parties' collective bargaining agreement constitutes a clear and unmistakable waiver of the Union's right to negotiate over the content of the messages printed on employee leave and earnings statements. Further, as noted above, the parties stipulated that "[w]ith respect to earnings and leave statements, there were no proposals or discussions concerning the content of messages to employees during any past contract negotiations between the parties." Stipulation, paragraph 18. Consistent with this stipulation, we find that the subject matter of the Union's bargaining request was not "fully discussed and explored at the bargaining table." Internal Revenue Service at 167. Accordingly, we find that the parties' bargaining history does not evidence a waiver of the Union's right to bargain over the proposal in this case. Therefore, the Union did not waive its right to bargain in this case.

2. The Respondent's Other Defenses

The Respondent contends that it does not have a duty to bargain over the Union's proposal because the change in the number of lines on the leave and earnings statement from one line to two lines "has no more than a de minimis impact" on unit employees. Respondent's Brief at 12. In our view, the Respondent's argument is inapplicable in this case. In the case before us, the Union is not requesting to bargain about the impact and implementation of the change in the number of lines for messages on the leave and earnings statement. Rather, it has initiated mid-term bargaining and is seeking to bargain over the content of the messages. Inasmuch as this case is not one in which a union is seeking to bargain over the impact and implementation of a change in conditions of employment, the Respondent's argument is not applicable.

The Respondent contends that if it granted the Union the right to control the content of messages on leave and earnings statements, it would violate section 7116(a)(2) of the Statute by favoring the Union over the other exclusive representatives that represent employees of the Respondent. In this regard, the Respondent contends that it would be put "in the position of interfering in the internal affairs of the other" exclusive representatives. Respondent's Brief at 16. This argument is without merit. Section 7116(a)(2) prohibits an agency from encouraging or discouraging membership in any labor organization by discrimination in connection with hiring, tenure, promotion, or other conditions of employment. The Respondent has failed to demonstrate how the Union's proposal would interfere with section 7116(a)(2) of the Statute. Requiring the Respondent to bargain with the Union over the Union's proposal in this case would not require the Respondent to interfere in the internal affairs of any exclusive representative and would not require the Respondent to violate section 7116(a)(2).

Finally, the Respondent argues that it need not bargain over the Union's proposal because the proposal "would directly affect the working conditions of non-bargaining unit employees[.]" Id. at 16. In American Federation of Government Employees, Local 32, AFL-CIO and Office of Personnel Management, 33 FLRA 335 (1988) (Office of Personnel Management), enforced sub nom. United States Office of Personnel Management v. FLRA, 905 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1990), the Authority established the test to be applied in deciding the negotiability of proposals concerning conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees when the proposals also affect employees or positions outside the bargaining unit.

The Authority concluded in Office of Personnel Management that a proposal concerning the conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees that also affects employees or positions outside the bargaining unit is negotiable under the Statute if it (1) vitally affects the working conditions of unit employees, and (2) is consistent with applicable law and regulations. The Authority additionally stated that the proposal's effect on nonunit employees or positions is not a factor in making the negotiability determination and that prior decisions inconsistent with the described approach would no longer be followed. Id. See also Federal Employees Metal Trades Council of Charleston and U.S. Department of the Navy, Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina, 36 FLRA 148 (1990).

Inasmuch as the proposal's effect on nonunit employees or positions is not a factor in making a negotiability determination, we reject the Respondent's argument that it need not bargain over the Union's proposal because the proposal would directly affect the working conditions of non-bargaining unit employees. Rather, consistent with our determinations stated above, we conclude that the proposal vitally affects the working conditions of unit employees in that it is intended to facilitate the Union's communications with unit employees and "improved communication between unions and employees can effectuate employees' rights under section 7102 of the Statute to join or otherwise assist the labor organizations that represent them." Portsmouth at 528. Furthermore, the proposal is consistent with applicable law and regulations. Accordingly, the proposal is negotiable.

V. Summary

The subject matter of the Union's proposal concerns unit employees' conditions of employment, within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute. Neither the parties' collective bargaining agreement nor the parties' bargaining history demonstrates that the Union waived its right to bargain over the subject matter of its proposal. The Respondent's other defenses are without merit. Therefore, we conclude that by refusing to bargain over the proposal, the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5), and we shall order an appropriate remedy.

VI. Order

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, Washington, D.C. shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Refusing to bargain with the American Federation of Government Employees, National Council of Field Labor Locals, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of certain of its employees, on a negotiable proposal submitted by the Union concerning the content of messages to employees displayed in their leave and earnings statements, where the Union did not waive its right to bargain on the subject matter of the proposal.

(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 actions in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute:

(a) Upon request, negotiate with the American Federation of Government Employees, National Council of Field Labor Locals, AFL-CIO on a negotiable proposal submitted by the Union concerning the content of messages to employees displayed in their leave and earnings statements, where the Union did not waive its right to bargain on the subject matter of the proposal.

(b) Post at its facilities covered by the agreement 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 Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, and shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the 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 V, Federal Labor Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order as to what steps have taken to comply.

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE

FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE

WE NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:

WE WILL NOT refuse to negotiate with the American Federation of Government Employees, National Council of Field Labor Locals, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of certain of our employees, on a negotiable proposal submitted by the Union concerning the content of messages to employees displayed in their leave and earnings statements, where the Union did not waive its right to bargain on the subject matter of the proposal.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain or coerce our employees represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, National Council of Field Labor Locals, AFL-CIO in the exercise of their rights assured by the Statute.

WE WILL, upon request, negotiate with the American Federation of Government Employees, National Council of Field Labor Locals, AFL-CIO on a negotiable proposal submitted by the Union concerning the content of messages to employees displayed in their leave and earnings statements, where the Union did not waive its right to bargain on the subject matter of the proposal.

______________________________
(Agency)

Dated:_________By:___________________________

(Signature) (Title)

This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional Director, Region V, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is: 175 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1359-A, Chicago, Illinois 60604, and whose telephone number is: (312) 353-6306.

---

---

---

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
 

*/ The two other bargaining units within the Department of Labor are the National Union of Compliance Officers (NUCO), which represents compliance officers in all OLMS field duty stations, and Local 12, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, which represents all unit employees in the Department of Labor in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area except those represented by NUCO.

---