The respondent argues that it is not required to negotiate because the wage collection procedures and related wage fixations fall within the parties` collective agreements ( 2) that the Union has not submitted proposals under the local association`s Article XXXIII; 3) The respondent was not required to negotiate on mid-term negotiation proposals initiated by the Union without a change in the terms of employment, (4) the change in wage rates of January 12, 1992 did not change the terms of employment, given that the policy and procedures for setting these wages have remained unchanged since at least 1984 and that (5) VAMC Clarksburg has not engaged in unfair labour practices because the Director has committed an unfair labour practice only because the director has committed an unfair labor practice only because the director has not negotiated , because the director, VCS is allowed to set wages for VCS employees at VAMC Clarksburg or other facilities going. On September 13, 1994, Wright returned to the EEO office and met Baucom in the replacement office available to her. Wright gave Baucom the third version of the renunciation. Baucom accepted and signed his receipt in the bottom left corner. At that meeting, Baucom Wright gave another settlement agreement that was in the bipartisan format of the VAMC EEO. In that agreement, point 2a provided that the five-day suspension would be reviewed by the appropriate administrator. Once again, Wright signed this version of the transaction agreement, believing that it would have had the opportunity, at the September 19, 1996 meeting, to definitively approve or disapprove of a transaction agreement. No officials or representatives of AFGE Local 2241 were informed or present at this meeting. The formality applies to the september 13, 1994 meeting/discussion as follows: (1) Baucom, an agent or management representative, informed Wright, a unit employee, that she had to correct her September 12 waiver form to exclude her appointment of Emma Sneed, President of the Union, while Baucom valued the facilities and support staff of the VAMCEO program; (2) Although Rhodes, the manager of the EEO program, was not involved in Baucom`s discussion upon Wright`s return with the revised waiver and Baucom submitted a draft transaction agreement, Rhodes was immediately available, and then discussed with Baucom the acceptance of Wright`s transaction agreement; (3) Baucom had discussions with Wright in his temporary office at the EEO program office, not at Wright`s site; (4) Baucom convened the meeting by correcting its waiver to Wright on September 12 and, when it returned it to the EEO office, asked it to review the transaction agreement it had revised. (5) the transaction agreement itself was the “agenda” for the rest of the discussion; (6) Wright`s participation was mandatory insofar as the development of a waiver memorandum acceptable to Baucom was necessary for him to continue his investigation. and (7) Baucom`s interview with Wright was recalled as it verified and signed the transaction agreement it had reviewed and prepared. 4.

Both Baucom and Rhodes took advantage of this contact to push Wright back to the EEO office to discuss another transaction agreement, as revised in The Human Resources Department and/or in the Director`s office. Regardless of the scenario, the statements of all participants in the September 19 meeting are consistent in that Wright was invited to return to the EEO program office to review the transaction agreement after its initial signing of a document that is neither the september 12 or September 13 version of the transaction agreement. This discussion was not an informal discussion between Wright and Baucom, during which the EEO case has just come into play. Rather, the purpose of the meeting, held in the VAMC EEO offices, was to discuss the EEO complaint, resolve the exemption issue, and then discuss the transaction contract developed and revised by Baucom.