New York-New Jersey Council, Local 3369, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Respondent) and Social Security Administration, Office of Program Operations, Baltimore, Maryland (Complainant)



[ v04 p126 ]
04:0126(22)CO
The decision of the Authority follows:


 4 FLRA No. 22
 
 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY COUNSEL
 LOCAL 3369, AMERICAN FEDERATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS
 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
 Complainant
 
                                         Assistant Secretary
                                         Case No. 30-8907(CO)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING, ISSUED
 HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
 ENGAGED IN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND
 RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED TO THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION
 PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
 IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 (5 CFR 2400.2).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
 PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7135(B) OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HAS
 REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING
 AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE
 HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE SUBJECT
 CASE, INCLUDING THE EXCEPTIONS, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN.
 
    THE INSTANT DISPUTE AROSE ON THE AFTERNOON OF MAY 25, 1978, WHEN, AS
 A RESULT OF A UNION MEETING HELD THAT MORNING, APPROXIMATELY SIXTY
 EMPLOYEES OF COMPLAINANT'S FLATBUSH DISTRICT OFFICE, LED BY TWO UNION
 REPRESENTATIVES, LEFT THEIR WORK STATIONS TO GATHER BEFORE THE OFFICE
 DIRECTOR IN ORDER TO PROTEST AND ORALLY GRIEVE THE POOR PHYSICAL
 CONDITIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE OFFICE.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 CONCLUDED THAT THE INCIDENT WAS AN ILLEGAL WORK STOPPAGE IN VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 19(B)(4) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    IN ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 LAW JUDGE, THE AUTHORITY NOTES PARTICULARLY HIS CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS
 OF THE TOTAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT THE "CONFRONTATION WITH COMPLAINANT BY
 THE EMPLOYEES, AND THEIR UNION LEADERS" WAS A WORK STOPPAGE WITHIN THE
 CONTEMPLATION OF SECTION 19(B)(4), RATHER THAN THE PRESENTING OF A
 GRIEVANCE.  IN THIS REGARD, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE NOTED THAT THE
 CONTRACT SET FORTH SPECIFIC STEPS TO FOLLOW WHEN INITIATING AND
 PRESENTING A GRIEVANCE, NONE OF SUCH PROCEDURES ENCOMPASSING THE ACTIONS
 RESORTED TO BY THE EMPLOYEES.  MOREOVER, THE AUTHORITY CONCURS WITH THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S CONCLUSION THAT HE COULD NOT AGREE THAT A
 CESSATION OF WORK BY SIXTY EMPLOYEES TO ORALLY GRIEVE IS AN ACCEPTABLE
 METHOD OF PRESENTING A GRIEVANCE, OR THAT SUCH WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE
 AGREEMENT, SO AS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF WORK STOPPAGE
 UNDER THE ORDER.
 
    IN REGARD TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED ORDER, THE
 AUTHORITY AGREES THAT POSTING OF THE NOTICE SHOULD TAKE PLACE AT ALL
 LOCATIONS WHERE THE RESPONDENT REPRESENTS EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPLAINANT,
 BUT CONCLUDES THAT, IN THE TOTAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT IS
 UNNECESSARY FOR THE RESPONDENT TO MAIL A COPY OF THE NOTICE TO EACH OF
 ITS MEMBERS HOME ADDRESS.  /1/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7135 OF THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS
 THAT THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY COUNCIL, LOCAL 3369, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) ENCOURAGING OR ENGAGING IN A WORK STOPPAGE AGAINST THE SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
 
    FLATBUSH, NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE, OR ANY OTHER AGENCY OF THE
 GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
 
    STATES, OR ASSISTING OR PARTICIPATING IN SUCH ACTIVITY.
 
    (B) CONDONING ANY SUCH ACTIVITY BY THE FAILURE TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE
 ACTION TO PREVENT OR
 
    STOP IT.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS LOCAL BUSINESS OFFICE, AT ITS NORMAL MEETING PLACES,
 AND AT ALL OTHER
 
    PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO MEMBERS AND TO EMPLOYEES OF THE SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
 
    FLATBUSH, NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED, INCLUDING
 SPACES ON BULLETIN BOARDS
 
    MADE AVAILABLE TO NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY COUNCIL, LOCAL 3369, AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH,
 NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE,
 
    COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE, MARKED "APPENDIX", ON FORMS TO BE
 FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL
 
    LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE
 SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT
 
    OF NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY COUNCIL, LOCAL 3369, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 
    AFL-CIO, AND SHALL BE POSTED FOR A PERIOD OF 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS.
 REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE
 
    TAKEN BY THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY COUNCIL, LOCAL 3369, AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, TO ENSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
 DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 
    OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (B) FURNISH SUFFICIENT COPIES OF SAID NOTICE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE
 DATE OF THIS DECISION TO
 
    THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH, NEW YORK DISTRICT
 OFFICE FOR POSTING IN
 
    CONSPICUOUS PLACES WHERE IT CUSTOMARILY POSTS INFORMATION TO ITS
 EMPLOYEES.  THE SOCIAL
 
    SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH, NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE SHALL
 MAINTAIN SUCH NOTICES FOR A
 
    PERIOD OF 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN
 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE
 
    OF THIS ORDER, AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 29, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
   
 
 
 
                               APPENDIX
 
        NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND 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
 
    WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR MEMBERS AND ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH, NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT ENCOURAGE OR ENGAGE IN A WORK STOPPAGE AGAINST THE SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH, NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE, OR ANY
 OTHER AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ASSIST OR
 PARTICIPATE IN SUCH ACTIVITY.
 
    WE WILL NOT CONDONE ANY OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CONDUCT AND WE WILL
 TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO PREVENT OR STOP IT, IN THE EVENT IT OCCURS.
 
                        NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY COUNCIL
 
                    LOCAL 3369, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 
                       GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .  PRESIDENT
 
    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 MEMBERS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
 NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE
 DIRECTLY WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY, NEW YORK REGION, WHOSE ADDRESS IS 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, ROOM 241,
 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10278, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (212) 264-4934.
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ Decision Follows -----------------           
 
 
    PETER BROIDA, ESQUIRE
    1325 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W.
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    WILSON E. SCHUERHOLZ, ESQUIRE
    ROOM 2218, WEST HIGH RUN
    6401 SECURITY BOULEVARD
    BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21235
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    JAMES E. PETROCCI, ESQUIRE
    REGIONAL ATTORNEY
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
    1515 BROADWAY
    NEW YORK, NEW YORK
         FOR THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NEW YORK REGION, FEDERAL LABOR
         RELATIONS AUTHORITY (PARTY IN INTEREST)
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM NAIMARK
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                      RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED (HEREIN
 CALLED THE ORDER).  A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON JULY
 31, 1979 AT NEW YORK, NEW YORK PURSUANT TO A NOTICE OF HEARING ON
 COMPLAINT ISSUED ON JUNE 21, 1979 BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.
 
    A COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON NOVEMBER 20, 1978 BY SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
 (HEREIN CALLED THE COMPLAINANT) AGAINST NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY COUNCIL,
 LOCAL 3369, AFGE, AFL-CIO (HEREIN CALLED THE RESPONDENT).  IT ALLEGED
 THAT ON MAY 25, 1978 THE RESPONDENT, THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE
 KEARON AND ELIOT TOW, LED 60 EMPLOYEES IN A WORK STOPPAGE TO PROTEST
 WORKING CONDITIONS;  THAT THE EMPLOYEE LEFT THEIR WORK STATIONS WITHOUT
 AUTHORIZATION-- ALL IN VIOLATION OF 19(B)(4) OF THE ORDER.
 
    RESPONDENT FILED A RESPONSE ON NOVEMBER 27, 1978 WHEREIN IT AVERRED
 THAT THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES DID NOT LEAD A WORK STOPPAGE, BUT WERE
 MERELY ATTEMPTING TO BRING TO MANAGEMENT'S ATTENTION THE EXTREMELY BAD
 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF THE PREMISES.
 
    ALL PARTIES /2/ WERE REPRESENTED AT THE HEARING.  THEY WERE AFFORDED
 FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AND TO EXAMINE AS WELL
 AS CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.  THEREAFTER ALL PARTIES FILED BRIEFS /3/
 WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, FROM MY OBSERVATIONS OF THE
 WITNESSES, AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM ALL OF THE TESTIMONY AND
 EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS,
 CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    1.  AT ALL TIME MATERIAL HEREIN RESPONDENT HAS BEEN, AND STILL IS,
 THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE /4/ OF THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
 EMPLOYED AT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH, NEW YORK
 DISTRICT OFFICE AND WHO ARE CLASSIFIED AS CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVES, DESK
 TYPISTS SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES AND RECEPTIONISTS.  BOTH COMPLAINANT AND
 RESPONDENT ARE PARTIES TO A WRITTEN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
 WHICH IS EFFECTIVE, BY ITS TERMS FROM JANUARY 15, 1976 FOR A PERIOD OF
 TWO YEARS AND WAS AUTOMATICALLY RENEWED AT ITS EXPIRATION.  THE SAID
 AGREEMENT CONTAINED A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND A PROVISION FOR ULTIMATE
 ARBITRATION UNDER ARTICLE XXXIV THEREOF.
 
    2.  AT ALL TIME SINCE FEBRUARY 1975, WHEN THIS DISTRICT OFFICE
 OCCUPIED ITS PRESENT SITE, THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF THE PREMISES HAVE
 BEEN VERY BAD AS WELL AS SOMEWHAT HAZARDOUS.  THE DISTRICT MANAGER,
 SIMON DUBLIRER, WROTE MORE THAN 40 LETTERS TO OFFICIALS OF GSA AND
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMPLAINING OF VARIOUS DEFECTS AND THE
 LACK OF SAFETY CAUSED THEREBY.  SOME OF THE UNSANITARY AND UNHEALTHFUL
 CONDITIONS INCLUDED:  LACK OF HEAT, COCKROACH INFESTATION, CIRCUIT
 BREAKER SPARKING, LADIES' ROOMS FLOODING WITH WATER AND URINE, GARBAGE
 PILE-UPS, COLLAPSE OF TILE IN LADIES ROOM, LACK OF PROPER VENTILATION,
 AND ROOF LEAKAGE WHICH SPOILED SUPPLIES.
 
    3.  ON MAY 24, 1978, GEORGE KEARON, ON-SITE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 RESPONDENT UNION, ASKED DISTRICT MANAGER DUBLIRER IF THE UNION COULD
 HOLD A MEETING THE FOLLOWING MORNING ON THE PREMISES.  DUBLIRER
 CONSENTED TO THE REQUEST AND THE UNION POSTED A NOTICE ON THE BULLETIN
 BOARD.
 
    4.  IN ACCORDANCE THERETO, A UNION MEETING WAS HELD AT 8:00 A.M. ON
 MAY 25TH ATTENDED BY OVER 40 EMPLOYEES.  THE MEETING, PRESIDED OVER BY
 KEARON, WAS HELD TO DISCUSS THE ADVERSE WORKING CONDITIONS.  HAVING
 DECIDED IT WAS UNHEALTHY TO WORK IN THE OFFICE, THE EMPLOYEES AGREED
 THAT AT 2:00 P.M. THEY WOULD FILE A GRIEVANCE IN AN UNORTHODOX MANNER,
 TO WIT:  THE EMPLOYEES WOULD GO TO THE MANAGER'S OFFICE AND TELL HIM
 THEY WERE GRIEVED BY THE TERRIBLE CONDITIONS.  THEY FURTHER DECIDED TO
 SEND A LETTER TO THEIR CONGRESSWOMAN IN WHICH THEY WOULD REGISTER THEIR
 COMPLAINT, AND ALL THE EMPLOYEES AGREED TO SIGN THE LETTER.
 
    5.  IN THE AFTERNOON OF MAY 25, AT 2:00 P.M. AT LEAST 60 EMPLOYEES,
 IN PURSUANCE OF THE PRIOR PLAN, LEFT THEIR DESKS AND PROCEEDED TO THE
 DISTRICT MANAGER'S OFFICE.  /5/ THERE WERE BETWEEN 20-40 CLAIMANTS IN
 THE OFFICE AT THE TIME WHO WERE BEING ATTENDED TO BY THE CLAIM'S
 REPRESENTATIVES.  UPON LEAVING THE CLAIMANTS, OR THE DESKS, THE
 EMPLOYEES WALKED DOWN THE CENTER AISLE OF THE FLOOR AND CONFRONTED
 DUBLIRER WHO JUST LEFT HIS OFFICE AFTER MEETING WITH OTHER MANAGEMENT
 OFFICIALS.  ON SITE REPRESENTATIVE KEARON AND SHOP STEWARD TOW WERE IN
 THE FOREFRONT OF THE GROUP AND TOW ACTED AS SPOKESMAN.
 
    6.  WHEN THE EMPLOYEES REACHED THE DISTRICT MANAGER'S OFFICER, TOW
 STATED TO DUBLIRER THAT IT WAS A FORMAL PROTEST OF THE CONDITIONS
 EXISTENT AT THE PREMISES;  THAT THE EMPLOYEES WERE UNHAPPY BECAUSE OF
 SUCH CONDITIONS, AND THE SITUATION MUST BE CORRECTED.  WHEREUPON
 DUBLIRER TOLD THE EMPLOYEES THEY WOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR
 ACTIONS AND THAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN.  HE THEN DIRECTED
 THEM TO RETURN TO THEIR DESKS.  THE UNION OFFICIALS TOLD THE EMPLOYEES
 TO GO BACK TO WORK AND MOTIONED THEM TO DO SO.  THE ENTIRE INCIDENT,
 BETWEEN THE TIME THE EMPLOYEES LEFT THEIR WORK STATIONS AND RETURNED TO
 WORK, TOO ABOUT 3-6 MINUTES.
 
    7.  BOTH KEARON AND TOW WERE ISSUED A FORMAL REPRIMAND BY DUBLIRER
 WHICH, AFTER ONE YEAR, WAS REMOVED FROM THEIR FILES BY THE EMPLOYER.
 
    8.  RECORD FACTS SHOW THAT IT WAS CUSTOMARY FOR THE UNION
 REPRESENTATIVES TO MEET WITH MANAGEMENT CONCERNING WORKING CONDITIONS
 OR
 PERSONNEL PROBLEMS WHICH EXISTED AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.  SUCH MEETINGS
 WERE USUALLY FORMAL IN NATURE AND ANNOUNCED IN ADVANCE THEREOF.
 
                                CONCLUSIONS
 
    COMPLAINANT AND THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR MAINTAIN THAT RESPONDENT WAS
 RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND LED, A STRIKE OR WORK STOPPAGE OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN
 VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(B)(4) OF THE ORDER.  THEY INSIST THAT WHEN THE
 EMPLOYEES LEFT THEIR DESKS ON MAY 25, 1978 TO PROTEST THEIR WORKING
 CONDITIONS TO MANAGEMENT, SUCH CONDUCT CONSTITUTED A STRIKE OR WORK
 STOPPAGE WHICH IS OUTLAWED IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.
 
    CONTRARIWISE, RESPONDENT CONTENDS THERE WAS NO WORK STOPPAGE ON SAID
 DATE WHICH RAN AFOUL OF THE ORDER.  FURTHER, IT INSISTS THAT, ASSUMING
 ARGUENDO, SUCH A STOPPAGE OCCURRED, THE UNION IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
 THEREFOR SINCE IT HAD NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT NOR DID IT
 ENCOURAGE THE ACTIVITY.  THE UNION ALSO CLAIMS THAT ABNORMAL AND UNSAFE
 WORKING CONDITIONS EXIST AT THE FLATBUSH OFFICE WHICH JUSTIFIED THE
 CESSATION OF WORK UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  /6/ MOREOVER, IT MAINTAINS
 THAT ANY STOPPAGE WAS DE MINIMUS AND THUS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE
 DISMISSED.
 
    THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES THUS PRESENTED FOR DETERMINATION ARE:  (1)
 WHETHER THE RESPONDENT UNION WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STOPPAGE OR
 CESSATION OF WORK BY THE EMPLOYEES WHICH OCCURRED ON MAY 25, 1978;  (2)
 WHETHER SUCH CESSATION OF WORK BY EMPLOYEES CONSTITUTED A STRIKE OR WORK
 STOPPAGE UNDER 19(B)(4) OF THE ORDER;  (3) WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS SO
 SLIGHT AS TO JUSTIFY INVOKING THE DE MINIMUS DOCTRINE AND A DISMISSAL
 HEREIN.
 
    (1) RECORD FACTS BELIEVE AN ATTEMPT BY RESPONDENT TO DISCLAIM
 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTS OF THE EMPLOYEES ON MAY 25.  IT CALLED A
 "UNION" MEETING THAT MORNING TO DISCUSS PLANS FOR THE PROTEST BY THE
 WORKERS TO MANAGEMENT.  KEARON PRESIDED THREAT, AND ARRANGEMENTS WERE
 MADE TO APPROACH DUBLIRER EN MASSE AT 2:00 P.M.  FURTHER, THE UNION
 OFFICERS NOT ONLY WERE IN THE LEAD OF THE GROUP, BUT THEY ACTED AS
 SPOKESMEN IN ADVISING THE EMPLOYER OF THE REASON FOR THE PROTEST.
 
    THE FOREGOING LEAVES LITTLE DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT RESPONDENT UNION
 SPONSORED AND LED THE EMPLOYEES IN THEIR ACTIVITY ON MAY 25.  THAT THE
 BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLANNED CONFRONTATION IS
 SCARCELY REFUTABLE IN VIEW OF THE MEETINGS CALLED BY IT AND THE
 DISCUSSIONS THEREAT.  MOREOVER, IT ACTUALLY LED THE WORKERS WHEN THEY
 APPROACHED MANAGEMENT.  RESPONDENT'S SUPPORT OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY
 EMPLOYEES IN LEAVING THEIR DESKS TO SPEAK WITH DUBLIRER IS APPARENT FROM
 THE FACT THAT THE SHOP STEWARD, AS SPOKESMAN FOR THE GROUP, ADVISED THE
 DIRECTOR THAT THEY WANTED TO PROTEST THE WORKING CONDITIONS.  FURTHER,
 IT IS INCUMBENT UPON A UNION TO TAKE EFFECTIVE ACTION TO PREVENT A
 CESSATION OR STOPPAGE OF WORK IN ORDER TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY THEREFOR.
  OTHERWISE, THE INFERENCE IS INESCAPABLE THAT THE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE CONDONED SAID ACTION BY THE WORKERS.  SEE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3486, AFL-CIO, A/SLMR NO. 864;
  PROFESSIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION, INC., ET AL, SUPRA.
 RESPONDENT DID NOT DO SO HERE, BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, IT ENCOURAGED AND
 ASSISTED THE EMPLOYEES IN THEIR LEAVING WORK AND CONFRONTING DUBLIRER RE
 THEIR WORKING CONDITIONS.  ACCORDINGLY, I REJECT THE ARGUMENT THAT
 RESPONDENT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WORK STOPPAGE ON MAY 25, 1978.
 
    (2) WHILE RESPONDENT CONCEDES THE EMPLOYEES CEASED WORK TO PROTEST
 EXISTENT WORKING CONDITIONS, IT INSISTS THAT SUCH CONDUCT WAS NOT A
 STRIKE OR WORK STOPPAGE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 19(B)(4) OF THE
 ORDER.  IT TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE STOPPAGE IS NOT EQUITABLE WITH A
 STRIKE;  THAT THE LATTER TERM CONNOTES REFUSAL TO PROVIDE SERVICES,
 WHICH WAS NOT THE INTENT OF THE EMPLOYEES HEREIN.  RATHER WAS IT THE
 INTENTION OF THE WORKERS TO PRESENT A GRIEVANCE TO MANAGEMENT, AND THIS
 RIGHT WAS AFFORDED THEM UNDER THE CONTRACT.  (ARTICLE XXXIV, SECTION 3)
 
    THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WHERE
 A STRIKE, OTHER THAN ONE OCCURRING IN FACE OF A NO-STRIKE CLAUSE, IS
 GENERALLY PROTECTED ACTIVITY.  HOWEVER, IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR THIS
 CONSTITUTES A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION.  NEITHER THE ORDER NOR THE STUDY
 COMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH LED TO EXECUTIVE ORDER
 11491, IS PARTICULARLY HELP IN DETERMINING TO WHAT INTENT A CESSATION OF
 WORK SHALL BE DEEMED A STRIKE OR WORK STOPPAGE WHICH IS OUTLAWED HEREIN.
  SECTION 19(B)(4) OF THE ORDER MERELY PROVIDES THAT A LABOR ORGANIZATION
 SHALL NOT "CALL OR ENGAGE IN A STRIKE, WORK STOPPAGE, OR SLOW DOWN . . .
 OR CONDONE ANY SUCH ACTIVITY BY FAILING TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO
 PREVENT OR STOP IT." THE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION, AFTER SPECIFICALLY
 DECLARING THAT A LABOR ORGANIZATION MUST NOT CONDONE A STRIKE /7/ BY ANY
 GROUP IT REPRESENTS, DOES STATE AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "OFFICIALS OF THE ORGANIZATION HAVE THE DUTY, IN VIEW OF THE
 PROCEDURES PROVIDED FOR
 
    PEACEFUL AND ORDERLY RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
 EMPLOYEES AND MANAGEMENT,
 
    TO EXERCISE ALL ORGANIZATIONAL AUTHORITY AVAILABLE TO THEM TO PREVENT
 OR STOP ANY SUCH ACTION
 
    BY THE ORGANIZATIONS OR ANY OF ITS LOCALS, AFFILIATES, OR MEMBERS."
 
    TURNING TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR FOR GUIDANCE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE
 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAS HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
 CERTAIN WORK STOPPAGES RAN COUNTER TO NO-STRIKE CLAUSES CONTAINED IN
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  THUS, IN ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., 239
 NLRB NO. 23, SEVERAL EMPLOYEES REFUSED TO REPORT TO THEIR ASSIGNED
 DUTIES SINCE WELDING OPERATIONS WERE BEING PERFORMED IN THE BUILDING AND
 THEY VIEWED CONDITIONS AS BEING HAZARDOUS.  IT WAS FOUND BY THE BOARD
 THAT THE WORK STOPPAGE WAS NOT THE TYPE CONTEMPLATED BY THE NO-STRIKE
 PROVISIONS IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION.  THIS
 CONCLUSION WAS REACHED BECAUSE THE STOPPAGE WAS OF BRIEF DURATION, DID
 NOT INTERFERE WITH PRODUCTION, AND THE EMPLOYEES HAD NO INTENTION OF
 PRESSURING THE COMPANY TO GRANT CONCESSIONS OR TO PROTEST THE FIRM'S
 PROCEDURES.  ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD CONCLUDED THE REFUSAL TO REPORT THE
 BE ASSIGNED DUTIES WAS NOT A STRIKE.  MOREOVER, IN NEWPORT NEWS
 SHIPBUILDING, 236 NLRB NO. 197 A WORK STOPPAGE WAS NOT DEEMED A STRIKE
 IN VIOLATION OF A NO-STRIKE CLAUSE WHERE 20 EMPLOYEES, WHILE WAITING TO
 LEARN IF THEY COULD BE SENT HOME DUE TO THE COLD, WERE NOT PERFORMING
 THEIR WORK TASKS.  THEIR CONCERTED ACTIVITY WAS DEEMED PROTECTED SO THAT
 A DISCHARGE OF THE LEADER AND A REPRIMAND OF OTHERS WERE HELD UNLAWFUL.
 THE BOARD FOUND IT SIGNIFICANT THAT THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO SUBVERT THE
 GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURES, AND, MOREOVER, THE EMPLOYEES WERE
 NOT ATTEMPTING TO EXERT PRESSURE UPON THE EMPLOYER TO SEND THEM HOME.
 THE WORK STOPPAGE WAS NOT DEEMED TO BE THE TYPE OF CONDUCT CONTEMPLATED
 BY THE NO-STRIKE CLAUSE IN THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT.
 
    THUS IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR THERE IS A
 RELUCTANCE TO CHARACTERIZE A CESSATION OF WORK AS A STRIKE ABSENT AN
 ATTEMPT TO BRING PRESSURE UPON AN EMPLOYER, OR TO PROTEST WORKING
 CONDITIONS.  IN MASONIC & EASTERN STAR HOME OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
 206 NLRB NO. 127 THE EMPLOYEES AND THEIR UNION REPRESENTATIVE CONFRONTED
 BY MANAGEMENT TO GRIEVE RE THE EMPLOYER'S USE OF DOGS AND A SPEECH MADE
 BY THE LABOR RELATIONS ADVISOR.  THE ABSENCE OF THE WORKERS FROM THEIR
 DUTIES DID NOT, IN THE BOARD'S MIND, REACH THE LEVEL OF A STRIKE.  IT
 WAS, HOWEVER, DEEMED A WORK STOPPAGE DESIGNED TO PRESENT A GRIEVANCE
 COLLECTIVELY TO THE EMPLOYER.  SUCH A STOPPAGE TO GRIEVE RE CONDITIONS
 OF EMPLOYMENT WAS PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
 ACT.
 
    WHILE WE ARE NOT BOUND BY THE DECISIONAL LAW IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, I
 CONCLUDE THAT THE RATIONALE EXPRESSED IN THE CITED CASES SHOULD BE
 EQUALLY APPLICABLE HEREIN.  THUS THE TOUCHSTONE OF WHETHER ABSENCE FROM
 DUTIES CONSTITUTES A WORK STOPPAGE, WHICH TRANSGRESSES THE ORDER, MUST
 REST ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE CESSATION.  IF THE STOPPAGE IS
 ENGAGED IN TO PROTEST EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS OR GRIEVE ABOUT THEM, SUCH
 ACTIVITY WOULD, IN MY OPINION, FLOUT THE ORDER.  FURTHER, SUCH CONDUCT,
 IF TO BE DESIGNED TO BRING PRESSURE TO BEAR UPON MANAGEMENT, MUST FALL
 WITHIN THE PROSCRIPTION OF 19(B)(4).
 
    IN THE CASE AT BAR I AM PERSUADED THAT THE CONFRONTATION WITH
 COMPLAINANT BY THE EMPLOYEES, AND THEIR UNION LEADERS, ON MAY 25, 1978
 WAS A WORK STOPPAGE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF SECTION 19(B)(4).  THE
 WORKERS CEASED WORKING TO PROTEST THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AT THE
 PREMISES.  THEIR CONVERTED CONDUCT, WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF THEIR
 BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES, WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THEIR EMPLOYMENT.
 MOREOVER, WHEN 60 EMPLOYEES LEAVE THEIR STATION AND APPROACH AN EMPLOYER
 TO GRIEVE RE WORKING CONDITIONS, ALBEIT THE LATTER ARE DEPLORABLE, SUCH
 ACTION MAY BE PROPERLY TERMED A PRESSURE TACTIC.  AS SUCH, IT IS A
 CONCERTED WORK STOPPAGE.  SEE MASONIC EASTERN STAR HOME OF D.C., SUPRA.
 RESPONDENT ARGUES IN THIS RESPECT, THAT THE WORKERS WERE DOING WHAT IS
 PERMITTED UNDER THE CONTRACT, I.E., PRESENTING A GRIEVANCE TO DUBLIRER.
 HOWEVER, THE CONTRACT HEREIN SET FORTH SPECIFIC STEPS TO FOLLOW WHEN
 INITIATING AND PRESENTING A GRIEVANCE.  NONE OF SUCH PROCEDURES
 ENCOMPASSES THE ACTION RESORTED TO HERE BY THE EMPLOYEES.  I CANNOT
 AGREE THAT A CESSATION OF WORK BY 60 EMPLOYEES TO ORALLY GRIEVE IS AN
 ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF PRESENTING A GRIEVANCE, OR THAT SUCH WAS
 CONTEMPLATED BY ARTICLE XXXIV OF THE AGREEMENT, SO AS TO BE EXCLUDED
 FROM THE DEFINITION OF WORK STOPPAGE UNDER THE ORDER.
 
    RESPONDENT STRESSES THE ARGUMENT THAT THE WORKERS HEREIN DID NOT
 REFUSE TO PROVIDE SERVICES, AND THAT SUCH A REFUSAL IS THE SINE QUA NON
 OF A STRIKE.  IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE INDIVIDUALS WERE CONCERNED
 PRIMARILY WITH PROTESTING TO MANAGEMENT, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THEY
 WITHHELD SERVICES IN THE COURSE THEREOF.  DESPITE THE BRIEF TERM OF THE
 CESSATION, THIS CONCERTED ACTION WAS UTILIZED AS A MEANS OF BRINGING
 PRESSURE TO BEAR UPON MANAGEMENT.  IN MY OPINION THE ORDER INTENDED TO
 OUTLAW ANY WORK STOPPAGE OF THIS NATURE, AND, ACCORDINGLY I FIND IT RAN
 AFOUL OF 19(B)(4) THEREOF.
 
    (3) IN CONTENDING THAT THE WORK STOPPAGE WAS OF BRIEF DURATION AND
 THUS IS PROPERLY DEEMED DE MINIMUS, RESPONDENT CITES VARIOUS CASES IN
 THE PUBLIC SECTOR IN SUPPORT THEREOF.  IT APPEARS, HOWEVER, THAT THESE
 CASES DEAL WITH BRIEF INTERRUPTIONS DURING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHERE
 NEGOTIATIONS ARE CONTINUED THEREAFTER.  I CONSIDER THESE INSTANCES AS
 INAPPOSITE IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE STOPPAGE HEREIN WAS, IN FACT, DE
 MINIMUS IN NATURE.  THE BRIEF INTERRUPTION DURING NEGOTIATIONS IS VIEWED
 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TOTALITY OF THE EMPLOYER'S BARGAINING CONDUCT.  IN
 SUCH AN INSTANCE, THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CESSATION HAS LITTLE EFFECT
 UPON THE TOTAL CONDUCT IS QUITE JUSTIFIABLE.  CF. VANDENBERG AIR FORCE
 BASE, ET. AL, FLBC NO. 74A-77.  A STRIKE OR WORK STOPPAGE, HOWEVER, OF
 AT LEAST 60 EMPLOYEES, IN THE PRESENCE OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE
 CUSTOMERS, IS MORE THAN A BRIEF INTERRUPTION.  IT IS ALSO A SHOW OF
 FORCE, AND NOT A MINOR OCCURRENCE.  BY ITS VERY NATURE A WORK STOPPAGE
 UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES RUNS COUNTER TO A DE MINIMUS ACTION, AND I
 REJECT RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT UNION ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY WHICH VIOLATED
 SECTION 19(B)(4).  I SHALL RECOMMEND THAT THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY ADOPT THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ORDER DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE
 THE POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
                             RECOMMENDED ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AND
 SECTION 203.26(B) OF THE REGULATIONS, THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY COUNCIL, LOCAL 3369,
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) ENCOURAGING OR ENGAGING IN A WORK STOPPAGE AGAINST THE SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH, NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE, OR ANY
 OTHER AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ASSISTING OR
 PARTICIPATING IN SUCH ACTIVITY.
 
    (B) CONDONING ANY SUCH ACTIVITY BY THE FAILURE TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE
 ACTION TO PREVENT OR STOP IT.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS LOCAL BUSINESS OFFICE, AT ITS NORMAL MEETING PLACES,
 AND AT ALL OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO MEMBERS AND TO EMPLOYEES OF THE
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH, NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED, INCLUDING SPACES ON BULLETIN BOARDS MADE AVAILABLE
 TO NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY COUNCIL, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3369 BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH,
 NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE, MARKED
 "APPENDIX", ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE
 PRESIDENT OF NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY COUNCIL, LOCAL 3369 AMERICAN FEDERATION
 OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, AND SHALL BE POSTED FOR A PERIOD OF 60
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE NEW YORK-NEW
 JERSEY COUNCIL, LOCAL 3369, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO TO ENSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED
 BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (B) MAIL A COPY OF SAID NOTICE TO EACH OF ITS MEMBERS AT HIS OR HER
 LAST KNOWN HOME ADDRESS.
 
    (C) FURNISH SUFFICIENT COPIES OF SAID NOTICE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE
 DATE OF HIS DECISION TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH,
 NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE FOR POSTING IN CONSPICUOUS PLACE WHERE IT
 CUSTOMARILY POSTS INFORMATION TO ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH, NEW YORK DISTRICT OFFICE SHALL MAINTAIN SUCH
 NOTICES FOR A PERIOD OF 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING.
 
    (D) PURSUANT TO SECTION 203.37 OF THE REGULATIONS NOTIFY THE FEDERAL
 LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
 THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                         WILLIAM NAIMARK
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  OCTOBER 23, 1979
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
 
 
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
         NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE SOCIAL
 
            SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FLATBUSH, NEW YORK DISTRICT
 
           PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 
            RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 
               POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED
 
             LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 
           WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR MEMBERS AND ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE
 
            SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH, NEW YORK
 
                              DISTRICT THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT ENCOURAGE OR ENGAGE IN A WORK STOPPAGE AGAINST THE SOCIAL
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, FLATBUSH, NEW YORK DISTRICT, OR ANY OTHER
 AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ASSIST OR PARTICIPATE
 IN SUCH ACTIVITY.
 
    WE WILL NOT CONDONE ANY OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CONDUCT AND WE WILL
 TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO PREVENT OR STOP IT, IN THE EVENT IT OCCURS.
 
                        NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY COUNCIL
 
                    LOCAL 3369, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 
                       GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 
    DATED:  BY:
 
    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, FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, NEW YORK
 REGION, WHOSE ADDRESS IS 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, ROOM 1751, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
 10007.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
 OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS
 OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
  THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
 MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE
 RESULT WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN
 UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
 
    /2/ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT OBJECTED AT THE HEARING TO THE APPEARANCE
 OF THE REGIONAL ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE NEW
 YORK REGION.  THIS OBJECTION WAS OVERRULED SINCE UNDER SECTION 203.7 OF
 THE REGULATIONS THE DIRECTOR IS A PARTY TO PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING ALLEGED
 VIOLATIONS OF 19(B)(4).  I FIND NO REASON TO CHANGE MY RULING
 NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT EXPEDITED UNDER SAID
 SECTIONS.  SEE AFGE, LOCAL 3486, AFL-CIO, A/SLMR NO. 864.
 
    /3/ COUNSEL FOR THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FILED WITH HIS BRIEF A MOTION
 TO CORRECT THE TRANSCRIPT HEREIN.  THE MOTION, WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO,
 IS GRANTED AND THE TRANSCRIPT IS CORRECTED ACCORDINGLY.
 
    /4/ LOCAL 3369 REPRESENTS EMPLOYEES AT 50 DISTRICT OFFICES.
 
    /5/ WHILE THE RECORD REFLECTS SLIGHT VARIATIONS IN THE RESPECTIVE
 VERSIONS OF WHAT OCCURRED, AS WELL AS THE SPECIFIC STATEMENTS MADE AT
 THE CONFRONTATION, THE ESSENTIAL FACTS RE THE CONFRONTATION AT THE
 OFFICE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.
 
    /6/ RESPONDENT URGES THAT SECTION 502 OF THE NLRA SHOULD BE
 APPLICABLE HEREIN.  THE CITED SECTION PROVIDES THAT QUITTING WORK DUE TO
 ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AT WORK IS NOT DEEMED A STRIKE.  WHILE
 IMMINENT DANGER TO LIFE OR HEALTH MIGHT EXCUSE EMPLOYEES WHO LEAVE THEIR
 WORK, I CONCLUDE NO SUCH CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER EXISTED AT THIS
 DISTRICT OFFICE.
 
    /7/ THE USE OF THIS TERM IS TAKEN TO INCL