Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Notice Requirements

Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2 Step One: Notice Before moving forward with an intended change that will alter the COE of bargaining unit employees, agency management must provide notice to the exclusive representative.

Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2 Proper Notice To constitute proper notice, the agency’s announcement must: a.Notify the union reasonably in advance of the intended implementation date. b.State in sufficient detail what actions/changes the agency intends to effectuate. c.State precisely when the change(s) shall be implemented.

Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2 Reasonable Advance Notice The statute, as interpreted by the FLRA and courts, requires “reasonable” advance notice of intended changes that will affect COE. It does not provide a specific number of days notice that meet the “reasonable” standard, however. Case law suggests that the number of days that will be deemed “reasonable” depends on the scope and complexity of the intended change. If the parties have negotiated specific time limits for such notice, the FLRA will defer to them in making such determinations. INS, Washington, D.C., 52 FLRA 256. Check the Toolbox for INS, Washington.

Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2 Additional Notice Requirements In order to pass muster, notice of an intended change must also be: 1. Provided in written form. 2. Delivered to the appropriate union official. 3. Stated in definite terms; i.e., not conditional as to when — or if — the intended change(s) will take place.

Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2 Written Form Although the statute does not specify that notice must be provided in written format, prudence — to say nothing of professionalism — dictates that you place notice of impending changes to COE in writing. Failure to do so can lead to a multitude of problems, including: 1.Disputes as to whether notice was actually provided. 2.Disputes as to the specific wording or content of the notice. 3.Disputes as to whether additional, written notice was required.

Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2 Specificity of Notice Notice of an intended change must be sufficiently specific to permit a union to determine whether it should request bargaining. To meet this requirement, the notice must apprise the exclusive representative of the nature and scope of the proposed change, as well as the intended timing of it; i.e., implementation date. Odgen Air Logistics Center, 41 FLRA 690. Check the Toolbox for Odgen Air Logistics Center.

Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2 Specificity Requirements Common problems with the specificity of notices of intended changes include: 1.Failure to state the full scope of the change; e.g., several hospitals, rather than just one. 2.Failure to state that the change will definitely take place or become effective as of a particular date. 3.Failure to state all the changes that will actually occur; e.g., not only relocation of certain employees, but also termination of free parking in the new location. Indian Health Service, Oklahoma City, 31 FLRA 498 and SSA, Region I, 47 FLRA 322. Check the Toolbox for Indian Health Service and SSA, Region I.

Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2 Specificity: What’s NOT Required The statute does not require that notice of an intended change include: 1.An invitation to submit bargaining proposals. 2.An opinion as to what proposals, if any, the union might wish to consider submitting. 3.The limits of what is negotiable in connection with the intended change. 4.An indication as to the potential — or futility — of seeking bargaining in connection with the intended change. Indeed, this could constitute a ULP. Air Force Logistics Command, 38 FLRA 887. Check the Toolbox for Air Force Logistics Command.

Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2

Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Summary Agencies are required to provide notice of intended management actions that will have the foreseeable effect of altering, to more than a de minimis extent, the COE of bargaining unit employees. Such notice must be provided: – Reasonably in advance of the intended change. –With sufficient specificity to permit the union to determine whether it wishes to request bargaining. – With a specific implementation/effective date of the intended change.

Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Summary Proper notice of an intended management action does not require: 1.An invitation to submit bargaining proposals. 2.An opinion as to what proposals, if any, the union might wish to consider submitting. 3.The limits of what is negotiable in connection with the intended change. 4.An indication as to the potential — or futility — of seeking bargaining in connection with the intended change.

Copyright 2007 © LRP Publications Impact and Implementation Bargaining – Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Assessment Click on Assessments in the cyberFEDS® eLearning navigation bar above to take the assessment.