Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (Respondent) and Philadelphia Metal Trades Council (Complainant)



[ v04 p255 ]
04:0255(38)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 4 FLRA No. 38
 
 PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL
 Complainant
 
                                            Case Nos. 3-CA-29 
                                                      3-CA-57 
                                                      3-CA-300
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING, FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
 ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
 AMENDED, AND THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5
 U.S.C. 7101-7135) AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT
 CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS SET
 FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION
 AND ORDER.  THE GENERAL COUNSEL FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, BUT NO EXCEPTIONS THERETO
 WERE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
 
    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
 STATUTE.
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 2400.2 AND 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S
 RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTIONS 7118 AND 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 GENERAL COUNSEL'S EXCEPTIONS, AND NOTING
 PARTICULARLY THAT NO EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS,
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS MODIFIED BELOW.
 
    WHILE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT
 THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
 11491, AS AMENDED, AND SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, BY REFUSING TO MEET WITH THE
 COMPLAINANT OFF THE BASE SO THAT COMPLAINANT'S CHIEF NEGOTIATOR COULD
 ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH MANAGEMENT, HIS RECOMMENDED ORDER DID NOT
 INCLUDE A SPECIFIC REMEDY FOR SUCH VIOLATION.  ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER IS
 AMENDED HEREIN TO SO PROVIDE.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 2400.2 AND 2423.29 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS AND SECTIONS 7118 AND 7135 OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY ORDERS THAT THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD,
 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA SHALL:
 
    1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REFUSING OR DENYING JOSEPH P. CARSON, OR ANY OTHER DULY
 AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, ACCESS AND ENTRY TO THE PHILADELPHIA
 NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA, IN ORDER TO
 CONFER WITH AND REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR GRIEVANCES, AND TO
 CONDUCT BUSINESS OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    (B) REFUSING TO MEET, CONFER AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL BY DENYING ACCESS AND ENTRY TO JOSEPH P. CARSON TO
 THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL
 AREA, IN ORDER TO REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR GRIEVANCES, AND
 TO CONDUCT BUSINESS OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
 PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    (C) REFUSING TO MEET, CONFER AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL OFF THE BASE SO THAT NEGOTIATOR JOSEPH P. CARSON,
 OR ANY OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, MAY ENTER INTO
 NEGOTIATIONS WITH MANAGEMENT.
 
    (D) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AND THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE 11491, AS AMENDED, AND THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE:
 
    (A) ALLOW AND PERMIT JOSEPH P. CARSON, OR ANY OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED
 UNION REPRESENTATIVE, TO ENTER, AND GAIN ACCESS TO THE PHILADELPHIA
 NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA, IN ORDER TO
 REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR GRIEVANCES, AND TO CONDUCT
 BUSINESS, OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    (B) UPON REQUEST MEET, CONFER AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADE COUNCIL BY ALLOWING REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH P. CARSON, OR ANY
 OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, TO ENTER AND GAIN ACCESS TO
 THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL
 AREA, IN ORDER TO CONFER WITH AND REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR
 GRIEVANCES, AND TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF
 OF THE PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    (C) UPON REQUEST MEET, CONFER AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL OFF THE BASE SO THAT NEGOTIATOR JOSEPH P. CARSON,
 OR ANY OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, MAY ENTER INTO
 NEGOTIATIONS WITH MANAGEMENT.
 
    (D) POST AT ITS FACILITY AT THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD,
 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, 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
 COMMANDANT OF THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL BASE, AND THEY SHALL BE POSTED FOR
 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE
 COMMANDANT SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE
 NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (E) 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., SEPTEMBER 26, 1980
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                 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
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE OR DENY JOSEPH P. CARSON, OR ANY OTHER DULY
 AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, ACCESS AND ENTRY TO THE PHILADELPHIA
 NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA, IN ORDER TO
 CONFER WITH AND REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR GRIEVANCES, AND TO
 CONDUCT BUSINESS, OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO MEET, CONFER AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE
 PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL BY REFUSING OR DENYING JOSEPH P.
 CARSON, OR ANY OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, ACCESS AND
 ENTRY TO THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED
 INDUSTRIAL AREA, IN ORDER TO CONFER WITH AND REPRESENT EMPLOYEES
 CONCERNING THEIR GRIEVANCES, AND TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, OR MEET WITH
 MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO MEET, CONFER AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE
 PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL OFF THE BASE SO THAT NEGOTIATOR JOSEPH
 P. CARSON, OR ANY OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, MAY ENTER
 INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH MANAGEMENT.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AND THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL ALLOW AND PERMIT JOSEPH P. CARSON, OR ANY OTHER DULY
 AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, TO ENTER AND GAIN ACCESS TO THE
 PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA,
 IN ORDER TO CONFER WITH AND REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR
 GRIEVANCES, AND TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF
 OF THE PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    WE WILL UPON REQUEST MEET, CONFER AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL BY ALLOWING AND PERMITTING JOSEPH P. CARSON, OR ANY
 OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, TO ENTER AND GAIN ACCESS TO THE
 PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA,
 IN ORDER TO CONFER WITH AND REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR
 GRIEVANCES, AND TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF
 OF THE PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    WE WILL UPON REQUEST MEET, CONFER AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL OFF THE BASE SO THAT NEGOTIATOR JOSEPH P. CARSON,
 OR ANY OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, MAY ENTER INTO
 NEGOTIATIONS WITH MANAGEMENT.
 
                        PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:
 
                             (BASE COMMANDER)
 
    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, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 3, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  1133 15TH STREET, NW., ROOM 300, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005,
 AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (202) 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    JOSEPH J. DALLAS
    LABOR RELATIONS ADVISOR
    NAVAL CIVILIAN PERSONNEL COMMAND
    NORTHERN FIELD DISTRICT, BLDG. 75
    NAVAL BASE
    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19112
 
    STEWART FAWST, ESQUIRE
    ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LABOR RELATIONS
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
                            FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 
    PETER B. ROBB, ESQUIRE
    HEATHER B. GOTTS, ESQUIRE
    COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
    1730 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 401
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM NAIMARK
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    PURSUANT TO AN ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, COMPLAINT AND A NOTICE OF
 HEARING ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY, REGION III, ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1979, A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE
 THE UNDERSIGNED ON NOVEMBER 13 & 14, 1979 AT PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.
 
    CASES 3-CA-29 AND 3-CA-57 AROSE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
 AMENDED (HEREIN CALLED THE ORDER) BASED UPON RESPECTIVE COMPLAINTS FILED
 ON FEBRUARY 2 AND MARCH 9, 1979.  BOTH COMPLAINTS WERE FILED UNDER THE
 ORDER BY THE PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL (MTC) AGAINST THE
 PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD (HEREIN CALLED THE RESPONDENT).  IT WAS
 ALLEGED THAT, SINCE DECEMBER 5, 1978, RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS
 19(A)(1)(5) AND (6) OF THE ORDER BY:  (A) DETAINING JOSEPH P. CARSON
 WHILE ON UNION BUSINESS;  (B) HARASSING THE SAID CARSON BECAUSE OF HIS
 UNION ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF MTC;  (C) ENGAGING IN SURVEILLANCE OF
 CARSON WHILE THE SAID UNION OFFICIAL WAS ENGAGED IN UNION BUSINESS.  IT
 WAS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SAID SECTIONS OF THE ORDER
 BY BANNING CARSON FROM THE PREMISES SINCE DECEMBER 7, 1978 DUE TO HIS
 UNIONISM, AS WELL AS DENYING CARSON'S REQUEST FOR A PERMANENT VISITOR'S
 PASS DUE TO HIS UNION ACTIVITIES. /1/
 
    CASE NO. 3-CA-300 AROSE UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, 92 STAT. 1215, (HEREIN CALLED THE ACT).  IN THIS CASE
 MTC FILED A CHARGE ON JUNE 22, 1979 AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF NAVY
 ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1)(5) AND (8) OF THE ACT BY
 REFUSING TO BARGAIN WITH MTC.  IT WAS ALLEGED, IN THIS RESPECT, THAT
 RESPONDENT BANNED MTC CHIEF NEGOTIATOR, CARSON, FROM THE PREMISES DURING
 CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN MTC AND RESPONDENT.
 
    THE COMPLAINT HEREIN, UPON WHICH THIS PROCEEDING IS BASED, ALLEGED
 THAT THE NAVAL SHIPYARD, SINCE ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 11, 1978, REFUSED TO
 BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL (HEREIN
 CALLED MTC OR THE UNION) BY:  (A) REFUSING JOSEPH P.  CARSON, SHOP
 STEWARD AND CHIEF NEGOTIATOR FOR MTC, ACCESS TO RESPONDENT'S CONTROLLED
 INDUSTRIAL AREA SINCE ABOUT DECEMBER 11, 1978;  (B) REFUSING TO GRANT
 THE SAID CARSON A PERMANENT VISITOR'S BADGE TO THE PHILADELPHIA, PA
 LOCATION SINCE JANUARY 12, 1979;  (C) REFUSING TO GRANT CARSON ACCESS TO
 SUCH LOCATION SINCE JUNE 6, 1979-- ALL IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1)
 AND (6) OF THE ORDER AND SECTIONS 7116(A)(1), (5) AND (8) OF THE ACT.
 
    RESPONDENT DULY FILED AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WHICH, IN SUBSTANCE,
 DENIED THAT IT REFUSED TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH WITH MTC AND ALLEGED
 THAT CARSON WAS BARRED ACCESS TO THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA, AS WELL
 AS THE SHIPYARD, BECAUSE HE VIOLATED SECURITY REGULATIONS.
 
    BOTH PARTIES 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, A BRIEF WAS FILED BY THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL WHICH HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN, FROM MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES
 AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM ALL OF THE TESTIMONY ADDUCED AT THE
 HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    1.  AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN, THE PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES
 COUNCIL (MTC) HAS BEEN, AND STILL IS, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL NON-SUPERVISORY UNGRADED EMPLOYEES OF THE
 RESPONDENT PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD.  MTC IS COMPOSED OF 17
 AFFILIATES FROM VARIOUS INTERNATIONAL UNIONS.  THE PRESIDENT OF EACH
 AFFILIATE IS A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF MTC.
 
    2.  BOTH THE RESPONDENT AND MTC WERE PARTIES TO A COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH COVERED THE UNIT EMPLOYEES AND BECAME
 EFFECTIVE, BY ITS TERMS, ON FEBRUARY 8, 1974 FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS.
 THE PARTIES HAVE CONTINUED TO OPERATE UNDER AND ABIDE BY, THE PROVISIONS
 OF SAID AGREEMENT SINCE ITS EXPIRATION.
 
    3.  SINCE 1977 MTC AND RESPONDENT HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN
 NEGOTIATIONS TOWARD A NEW AGREEMENT.  THE PRINCIPAL NEGOTIATORS FOR MTC
 WERE JOSEPH P. CARSON, FRANK MCHALE, PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 97 SHEET METAL
 WORKERS, JOHN BERGEN, PRESIDENT OF MTC, AND SID SIMONS, FORMER
 VICE-PRESIDENT OF MTC AND A RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF THE SHIPYARD.
 
    4.  CARSON WAS EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT FROM 1965 UNTIL ABOUT MAY 1,
 1978 WHEN HE RETIRED FROM EMPLOYMENT.  UNTIL JANUARY 1, 1979 CARSON WAS
 PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 687, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS.  AT THE
 PRESENT TIME HE IS VICE-PRESIDENT AND CHIEF STEWARD THEREOF.  IN
 ADDITION TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH
 RESPONDENT, THIS UNION REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED AND CONTINUES TO
 REPRESENT, EMPLOYEES IN CONNECTION WITH MANY GRIEVANCES AGAINST
 MANAGEMENT AS WELL AS EEO COMPLAINTS LODGED AGAINST THE SHIPYARD.
 
    5.  DURING 1978 MTC AND RESPONDENT REACHED A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT
 SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION BY THE UNION MEMBERSHIP.  THE NEGOTIATING
 COMMITTEE REPRESENTING MTC SPLIT IN THEIR ENDORSEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT:
 MCHALE AND CARSON RECOMMENDED THAT THE MEMBERSHIP DISAPPROVE IT,
 WHEREAS
 THE OTHER TWO MTC REPRESENTATIVES FAVORED ITS ADOPTION.  CARSON SPOKE TO
 SEVERAL GROUPS, AND AT VARIOUS SESSIONS, WHEREAT HE EXPRESSED
 DISAPPROVAL THEREOF.  IN OCTOBER, 1978, THE UNION MEMBERSHIP VOTED TO
 REJECT THE PROPOSED CONTRACT.
 
    6.  THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIES AREA (CIA) WITHIN THE SHIPYARD IS A
 HIGH SECURITY AREA WHICH REQUIRES EMPLOYEES WORKING THEREIN TO DISPLAY A
 RED OR YELLOW BADGE.  THE FOUNDRY, BUILDING 20, IS LOCATED WITHIN SUCH
 AREA.  IT IS A CLASSIFIED SECURITY AREA AND ITS EMPLOYEES ARE REQUIRED
 TO HAVE A RED BADGE.
 
    7.  VISITORS WHO APPEAR AT THE SHIPYARD ARE, IF ACKNOWLEDGED, ISSUED
 DAILY PASSES BEFORE GOING TO VARIOUS AREAS ON THE BASE.  THE PASS OFFICE
 IS LOCATED IN BUILDING 501 OUTSIDE THE MAIN GATE OF THE BASE.  A VISITOR
 FILLS OUT A PASS, CONSISTING OF THE ORIGINAL AND A CARBON COPY, WITH
 DETAILS SUCH AS HIS NAME AND ADDRESS, THE DATE, DESTINATION, ETC.  THE
 CLERK INITIALS THE PASS AND STAMPS THE ORIGINAL WITH THE WORK
 "INDUSTRIAL" OR "ESCORTED" IF A SECURITY AREA IS BEING ATTENDED, AND HE
 RETURNS THE ORIGINAL PASS TO THE VISITOR.  HE RETAINS THE COPY, AND THE
 ORIGINAL SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE OFFICE BY THE VISITOR AFTER IT IS
 USED AT THE COMPLETION OF THE VISIT.  THE CLERK USUALLY ANNOUNCES THE
 ARRIVAL OF THE VISITOR AND ARRANGES AN ESCORT IF ONE IS REQUIRED.
 
    8.  RESPONDENTS INSTRUCTION 5512.8, CH 2, CONSISTS OF REGULATIONS AS
 TO THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA.  PARAGRAPH 8 ON PAGE 9 PROVIDES,
 INTER ALIA, AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "ESCORTS.  UNBADGED PERSONS MAY ENTER THE CIA PROVIDED THEY ARE ON
 OFFICIAL BUSINESS, HAVE
 
    A LEGITIMATE NEED TO ENTER OR ARE BONA FIDE GUESTS AND ARE CONSTANTLY
 ESCORTED BY ANY
 
    'CIA' BADGED MILITARY OR SHIPYARD CIVILIAN PERSONNEL AUTHORIZED BY
 DEPARTMENT/OFFICE AND
 
    DIVISION HEADS. ESCORTS MUST BE MAINTAINED UNTIL THE VISITOR EXISTS
 THE CIA . . . "
 
    9.  SEVERAL MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS TESTIFIED THAT A VISITOR WHO OBTAINS
 A PASS TO VISIT THE CIA MUST STILL BE ESCORTED.  JOSEPH H. BOWEN,
 CAPTAIN OF DETECTIVES AT THE SHIPYARD, TESTIFIED THAT IF A PASS IS
 STAMPED "INDUSTRIAL" THE BEARER MAY VISIT THE CIA WITHOUT AN ESCORT.
 CARSON TESTIFIED THAT, IN THE PAST, WHEN HIS PASS WAS STAMPED
 "INDUSTRIAL" HE ATTENDED TO DUTIES WITH THE CIA MANY TIMES WITHOUT
 BENEFIT OR NEED OF AN ESCORT.  IN THE EVENT THE PASS WAS STAMPED
 "ESCORTED," CARSON MAINTAINS HE OBTAINED THE SERVICES OF SOMEONE FROM
 THE MTC OFFICE TO ESCORT HIM AT THE CIA.  MCHALE, WHO WORKS IN A RED
 BADGE AREA, TESTIFIED THAT HE HAS OBSERVED INDIVIDUALS IN SAID AREA
 WITHOUT SUCH A BADGE AND THEY WERE NOT CHALLENGED.  RICHARD BRADLEY,
 SUPERINTENDENT OF SHOP 81, TESTIFIED THAT SEVERAL YEARS AGO HE REMOVED A
 SALESMAN FROM THE SECURITY AREA FOR NOT HAVING A BADGE.  CAPTAIN PIERCE,
 COMMANDER OF THE SHIPYARD, TESTIFIED THAT IN APRIL, 1979 HE EXCLUDED AN
 INDIVIDUAL FROM THE CIA WHO PRETENDED TO BE A SHOP WORKER BUT WAS, IN
 FACT, A CONTRACT JANITORIAL EMPLOYEE WITHOUT IDENTIFICATION.
 
    10.  CARSON TESTIFIED, AND I FIND THAT, IN ACCORD WITH PREVIOUS
 ARRANGEMENTS, HE VISITED THE SHIPYARD ON DECEMBER 5, 1978 TO REPRESENT
 EMPLOYEE GORDON EMBERGER WHO WORKS IN BUILDING 20 (CIA) AS A METAL
 INSPECTOR.  A GRIEVANCE MEETING WAS SCHEDULED FOR THAT MORNING.  CARSON
 ARRIVED ABOUT 7:00 A.M., WENT TO THE PASS OFFICE, AND FILLED OUT A PASS
 WHICH WAS STAMPED "INDUSTRIAL" /2/ BY THE CLERK. THE UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDED TO THE MTC OFFICE.  HE MET WITH MCHALE WHO
 DROVE CARSON TO THE FOUNDRY IN BUILDING 20.  A GRIEVANCE MEETING WAS
 HELD WITH SUPERVISORS SKERILLO AND DOBROWALSKI AS WELL AS EMPLOYEE
 EMBERGER.
 
    11.  SUBSEQUENT TO THE AFORESAID GRIEVANCE DISCUSSION, CARSON AND
 EMBERGER WALKED THROUGH THE FOUNDRY EN ROUTE TO THE MTC OFFICE.  CARSON
 STOPPED TO USE AN AIR HOSE TO BLOW OFF MUD FROM HIS SHOES AND EMBERGER
 CONTINUED ONWARD.  AT THIS POINT IN TIME SUPERINTENDENT BRADLEY
 CONFRONTED CARSON AND ASKED TO SEE HIS PASS.  /3/ THE SUPERVISOR STATED
 HE WAS TOLD TO CHALLENGE CARSON WHENEVER THE LATTER APPEARED BEFORE HIM.
  UPON BEING SHOWN THE PASS, BRADLEY INQUIRED AS TO THE WHEREABOUTS OF
 THE REPRESENTATIVE'S ESCORT.  CARSON REPLIED HE DIDN'T NEED AN ESCORT
 SINCE THE PASS WAS STAMPED "INDUSTRIAL." HE ADDED, HOWEVER, THAT HIS
 ESCORT WAS "OVER THERE GOING OUT," AND AT THE SAME TIME CARSON POINTED
 TO EMBERGER WHO WAS POSITIONED ABOUT 20-50 FEET AHEAD.  BRADLEY TOOK
 CARSON INTO THE OFFICE WHERE SUPERINTENDENT GALLONE REMARKED THAT THE
 UNION OFFICIAL NEEDED AN ESCORT.  CARSON REPEATED HIS REMARK THAT HE HAD
 AN ESCORT, AND INFORMED GALLONE THEY HAD BEEN EN ROUTE TO THE MTC
 OFFICE.  THE SUPERINTENDENT REPLIED HE COULDN'T HAVE CARSON WANDERING
 AROUND.  HE THEN DISPATCHED A CLERK TO ACCOMPANY CARSON TO THE UNION
 BUILDING.  NO MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL CONTACTED EMBERGER IN RE THE INCIDENT.
  THE EMPLOYEE TESTIFIED HE WAS ESCORTING CARSON, ALTHOUGH NOBODY
 DESIGNATED EMBERGER AS AN OFFICIAL ESCORT.
 
    12.  ON DECEMBER 7 RICHARD R. BRITT, HEAD OF EMPLOYER RELATIONS AT
 THE SHIPYARD, WROTE A MEMO TO THE YARD POLICE WHICH STATED THAT CARSON
 WAS NOT TO BE ADMITTED TO THE SHIPYARD UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  /4/
 THIS INSTRUCTION WAS BASED ON A REPORT RECEIVED FROM GALLONE THAT CARSON
 HAD BEEN FOUND IN A RED BADGE AREA WITHOUT AN ESCORT.
 
    13.  BETWEEN DECEMBER 8, 1978 AND MAY 8, 1979 CARSON WAS PERMITTED TO
 ENTER THE BASE, BUT HE WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE CIA.  HIS EFFORTS TO MEET
 WITH THE WORKERS' COMMITTEE WERE HAMPERED SINCE MEETINGS HAD TO BE HELD
 BEFORE OR AFTER WORKING HOURS, OR AT LUNCH.  MOREOVER, HIS EXCLUSION
 REDUCED THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES CARSON WOULD EFFECTIVELY REPRESENT AT
 GRIEVANCE SESSIONS.
 
    14.  SUBSEQUENT TO BANNING CARSON FROM CIA, BRITT ORDERED AN
 INVESTIGATION TO BE CONDUCTED AS TO THE DECEMBER 5, 1978 INCIDENT.  A
 REPORT WAS ISSUED BY DETECTIVE CAPTAIN JOSEPH H. BOWEN ON JANUARY 15,
 1979 FINDING THAT CARSON HAD NO PASS ON DECEMBER 5 AND THUS VIOLATED
 SECURITY REGULATIONS.  THE REPORT CONTAINS NO STATEMENTS FROM EITHER
 CARSON OR EMBERGER, NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT BOWEN SPOKE TO EITHER
 INDIVIDUAL.
 
    15.  FOLLOWING HIS BEING BARRED FROM CIA, CARSON WROTE SEVERAL
 LETTERS TO CAPTAIN PIERCE REQUESTING A VISITOR'S PASS TO THE CIA IN
 ORDER TO CARRY OUT HIS DUTIES AS A CHIEF NEGOTIATOR FOR MTC.  NONE OF
 THESE REQUESTS WAS HONORED AND CARSON WAS REFUSED ENTRY TO THE CIA.
 
    16.  IN ABOUT LATE APRIL, 1979 CARSON ATTENDED A GRIEVANCE MEETING ON
 BEHALF OF A YARD EMPLOYEE.  HE LEFT HIS BRIEFCASE ON THE PREMISES UPON
 DEPARTURE, AND THE ITEM WAS FOUND BY SARA MORVANT, SUPERVISOR OF
 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS.  UPON OPENING THE CASE, MORVANT DISCOVERED IT
 CONTAINED A BOOK OF BLANK PASSES.  THE BRIEFCASE AND ITS CONTENTS WERE
 RETURNED TO CARSON.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE LATTER INDIVIDUAL WAS INTERROGATED
 WITH RESPECT THERETO BY DETECTIVE BOWEN.  CARSON ADMITTED THE PASSES HAD
 BEEN IN HIS POSSESSION, THOUGHT HE DID NOT HAVE THEM AT THAT MOMENT.
 /5/
 
    17.  RECORD FACTS DISCLOSE THAT THE BOOK OF PASSES HAD BEEN GIVEN TO
 CARSON BY A CLERK IN THE PASS OFFICE;  THAT CARSON USED THEM SO AS TO
 AVOID STANDING IN LINE AND THUS SAVE TIME;  THAT HE TYPED IN THE BLANK
 SPACES THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND THEN XEROXED COPIES TO HAVE ON HAND
 FOR FUTURE VISITS TO THE BASE.
 
    18.  ON MAY 8, 1979 DETECTIVE BOWEN HANDED CARSON A NOTICE EXPELLING
 THE LATTER FROM THE ENTIRE NAVAL BASE.  CAPTAIN JOSEPHSON, COMMANDANT OF
 THE NAVAL BASE ALSO WROTE A LETTER, DATED MAY 9, 1979, TO MTC PRESIDENT
 REIL NOTIFYING HIM THAT CARSON WAS SO EXPELLED UNTIL CARSON AGREED TO
 CONFORM TO BASE REGULATIONS AND UNTIL CAPTAIN PIERCE REQUESTED THE
 EXPULSION ORDER TO RESCINDED. /6/
 
    19.  SUBSEQUENT TO MAY 9, 1979 CARSON HAS REQUESTED PERMISSION TO
 VISIT THE BASE IN ORDER TO REPRESENT EMPLOYEES AND CARRY ON HIS DUTIES
 AS A UNION REPRESENTATIVE.  ALL SUCH REQUESTS HAVE BEEN DENIED BY
 MANAGEMENT. CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN STALLED SINCE THAT DATE, AND
 RESPONDENT HAS REFUSED TO HONOR THE UNION REQUEST TO MEET OUTSIDE THE
 SHIPYARD AND CONDUCT BARGAINING SESSIONS THEREAT.
 
    20.  RECORD FACTS DISCLOSE THAT RESPONDENT HAD, IN PAST YEARS, ISSUED
 SEVERAL PERMANENT VISITOR'S PASSES TO RETIRED INDIVIDUALS.  IN JUNE,
 1969 MTC REPRESENTATIVE SIMONS, WHO HAD RECEIVED SUCH A PASS AND
 CONTINUED TO KEEP SUCH WHEN HE RETIRED IN 1972, WAS TOLD BY CHIEF OF
 POLICE THOM THAT HIS PASS WAS ILLEGALLY RETAINED.  THOMS MENTIONED THAT
 ALL PASSES HELD BY RETIREES WERE BEING WITHDRAWN;  THAT A UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE CHARGE WHICH INVOLVED CARSON HAD BEEN FILED;  THAT NO SUCH
 PASSES COULD BE HELD BY THE RETIREES UNTIL THE CHARGE WAS RESOLVED;  AND
 THAT, THEREAFTER, SUCH A PASS WOULD BE REISSUED TO SIMONS.  WHEN THE
 LATTER ASKED THOM IF HE WOULD RETAIN THE PASS FOR SEVERAL DAYS PENDING A
 DISCUSSION WITH CAPTAIN PIERCE, THE CHIEF OF POLICE REPLIED HE HAD TO
 TAKE THE PASS AT THAT TIME SINCE "IT WAS A HOT POTATO."
 
    21.  THEREAFTER SIMONS SPOKE TO BRITT AND ADVISED THE LATTER HE WOULD
 NOT SERVICE THE UNIONS "WITHOUT GOING THROU8H," THAT HE NEEDED A PASS TO
 PERFORM HIS DUTIES AS AN INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND BUSINESS
 AGENT.  BRITT REPLIED HE COULD NOT HONOR SIMONS' REQUEST IN THIS REGARD.
 
                                CONCLUSIONS
 
    THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION HEREIN ARE AS FOLLOWS:  (1)
 WHETHER THE REFUSAL BY RESPONDENT TO GRANT ACCESS TO CARSON TO THE
 CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA BETWEEN DECEMBER 11, 1978 AND JANUARY 11,
 1979 VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER - AND WHETHER SUCH CONDUCT,
 INCLUDING DENIAL BY RESPONDENT TO CARSON OF ACCESS TO THE NAVAL BASE
 AFTER JANUARY 11, 1979, VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE ACT;  (2)
 WHETHER BY THE AFORESAID, AND OTHER CONDUCT, RESPONDENT REFUSED TO
 BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH IN VIOLATION OF 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER, AND
 SINCE ITS EFFECTIVE DATE, IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF
 THE ACT.
 
    (1) IT IS ELEMENTARY, AND WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF BOTH THE ORDER AND
 THE ACT, THAT UNION ACTIVITY ENGAGED IN BY EMPLOYEES OR THEIR
 REPRESENTATIVE IS PROTECTED FROM INTERFERENCE BY THE EMPLOYER.  THUS, A
 UNION OFFICIAL MUST BE GRANTED FREEDOM TO PROCESS GRIEVANCES OR
 OTHERWISE REPRESENT EMPLOYEES, AND HE MAY NOT BE HARASSED IN THE PURSUIT
 OF THESE ENDEAVORS.  MOREOVER, UNLESS OTHERWISE WARRANTED, A UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE MAY NOT BE DENIED ACCESS TO THE PREMISES.  IN THE PRIVATE
 SECTOR SUCH A DENIAL IS DEEMED INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS OF
 EMPLOYEES.  GENERAL MACHINE CO., 174 NLRB 1023, 1030. ON THE OTHER HAND,
 THIS RIGHT IS NOT ABSOLUTE.  A SERIOUS ABRIDGEMENT OF PLANT RULES OR
 REGULATIONS MAY CURTAIL THIS RIGHT WITH AN ATTENDANT LOSS OF PROTECTION.
  IN THE CASE AT BAR, RESPONDENT MAINTAINS THAT CARSON'S CONDUCT ON
 DECEMBER 5, 1978 AND IN APRIL-MAY, 1979, WAS A BREACH OF SECURITY
 REGULATIONS JUSTIFYING HIS EXCLUSION FROM THE CIA OR THE BASE ITSELF.
 ACCORDINGLY, IT ARGUES, SUCH MISCONDUCT REMOVES THE PROTECTION SO
 AFFORDED THE UNION OFFICIAL.  /7/
 
    IN THE RELATIVELY RECENT CASE OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 HEADQUARTERS, MILITARY TRAFFIC, MANAGEMENT COMMAND, 2 FLRA NO. 72, THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY DEALT WITH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.  AN
 ORAL REPRIMAND WAS GIVEN TO AN EMPLOYEE, WHO WAS ALSO A UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE, FOR HAVING UTTERED DEROGATORY STATEMENTS IN A LOUD
 MANNER WHILE SERVING ON A MERIT PROMOTION AND RANKING PANEL.  RESPONDENT
 DEEMED THE INDIVIDUAL'S BEHAVIOR TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE MORALS AND
 DISCIPLINE OF THE ORGANIZATION.  THE AUTHORITY NOTED THAT NOT EVERY
 ALLEGED IMPROPRIETY COMMITTED BY AN EMPLOYEE WHILE ENGAGED IN PROTECTED
 ACTIVITY RESULTS IN THE LOSS OF THIS PROTECTION.  IT CONCLUDED, FURTHER,
 THAT TO REMOVE AN EMPLOYEE'S CONDUCT FROM THE AMBIT OF PROTECTION, THE
 EMPLOYEE MUST HAVE ENGAGED IN FLAGRANT MISCONDUCT.  THE CONDUCT OF THE
 EMPLOYEE, THROUGH NOT CONDONED BY IT, WAS HELD BY THE AUTHORITY NOT TO
 REPRESENT THE KIND OF FLAGRANT ACTION WHICH IS BEYOND THE AMBIT OF
 PROTECTION.  ACCORDINGLY, IT HELD THAT THE EMPLOYER VIOLATED SECTIONS
 19(A)(1) AND (2) BY THE ASSURANCE OF THE REPRIMAND TO THE EMPLOYEE.  /8/
 SEE ALSO DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, 2 FLRA NO.
 7.
 
    UPON REVIEWING THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN I AM NOT PERSUADED THAT
 CARSON'S CONDUCT, EITHER ON DECEMBER 5, 1979 OR IN MAY, 1979, WAS SO
 FLAGRANT OR SERIOUSLY VIOLATIVE OF SECURITY REGULATIONS AS TO JUSTIFY
 THE ACTION TAKEN BY RESPONDENT.  WHILE THEY MAY HAVE BEEN IMPROPER OR
 BEYOND ACCEPTABLE CONDUCT, CARSON'S ACTIONS AT THESE TIMES WERE NOT SO
 EGREGIOUS AS TO JUSTIFY HIS EXCLUSION FROM THE CIA OR THE BASE ITSELF
 AND FORECLOSE HIS REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES.
 
    IN RESPECT TO THE INCIDENT ON DECEMBER 5, 1978, THERE IS, AT LEASE,
 SOME DISAGREEMENT AMONG MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS AS TO WHETHER AN ESCORT
 WAS
 REQUIRED WHEN A PASS WAS OBTAINED TO VISIT THE CIA.  DETECTIVE BOWEN, IN
 CONTRAST TO OTHER WITNESSES FOR RESPONDENT, TESTIFIED NO SUCH ESCORT WAS
 REQUIRED UNLESS THE PASS IS STAMPED "INDUSTRIAL." /9/ BE THAT AS IT MAY,
 SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PREVAILS TO SUPPORT CARSON'S INSISTENCE THAT HE WAS,
 IN FACT, ESCORTED FROM THE FOUNDRY AT THE TIME HE WAS CONFRONTED BY
 BRADLEY.  INSPECTOR EMBERGER, WHOM CARSON REPRESENTED AT THE GRIEVANCE
 MEETING, MAINTAINED HE WAS ESCORTING CARSON FROM BUILDING 20.  WHILE
 THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE WHICH REFLECTS THAT AN ESCORT SHOULD BE A DULY
 APPOINTED INDIVIDUAL, IT ALSO APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT VARIOUS
 EMPLOYEES HAVE ACTED IN THAT CAPACITY WITHOUT BEING OFFICIALLY
 DESIGNATED.  IN ANY EVENT, NO MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE CHECKED WITH
 EMBERGER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER HE WAS INDEED CARSON'S ESCORT.  FAILURE TO
 DO SO, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT CARSON POINTED /10/ OUT EMBERGER TO
 BRADLEY AS THE ESCORT, RAISES SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO THE GRAVITY OF
 CARSON'S CONDUCT UPON LEAVING THE BUILDING.  ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE
 UNION OFFICER WAS UNESCORTED AT THAT TIME, I DO NOT CONSIDER SUCH
 FAILING TO BE SO FLAGRANT AS TO WARRANT THE LOSS OF PROTECTION OTHERWISE
 ACCORDED CARSON.  EXCEPT FOR EJECTING A COMPLETE STRANGER, WHO WAS
 TRESPASSING IN THAT AREA, RESPONDENT HAS RARELY, IF AT ALL, BARRED
 EITHER ITS EMPLOYEES OR UNION OFFICIALS FROM A SECURITY LOCATION BASED
 ON A FAILURE TO HAVE AN ESCORT ON A PARTICULAR OCCASION.
 
    IN RESPECT TO THE BOOK OF PASSES RETAINED BY CARSON, I AM LIKEWISE
 CONSTRAINED TO FIND THAT SUCH CONDUCT WOULD NOT REACH THE BOUNDS OF
 IMPROPRIETY WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED FLAGRANT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
 IT APPEARS THAT THE PASSES WERE GIVEN CARSON BY ONE OF MANAGEMENT'S
 REPRESENTATIVES - THE PASS CLERK - AND THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE
 UNION OFFICER OBTAINED THEM THROUGH IMPROPER MEANS.  MOREOVER, NO
 EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED WHICH INDICATED THAT CARSON FORGED THE CLERK'S
 INITIALS OR SIGNATURE ON THE PASS, NOR DOES IT APPEAR THAT HE
 CIRCUMVENTED AN INITIALLING OF THE PASS BY SAID CLERK.  UTILIZATION OF
 THE BOOK BY CARSON, BY MEANS OF TYPING IN DETAILS ON THE PASS
 BEFOREHAND, WAS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAVING TIME AND ELIMINATING
 THE NEED TO STAND IN LINE AT THE PASS OFFICE.  WHILE THIS CONDUCT MAY
 VIOLATE RESPONDENT'S REGULATIONS, I CAN SCARCELY CONCLUDE IT IS SO
 SERIOUS OR SUBSTANTIAL AS TO WARRANT BARRING CARSON FROM THE ENTIRE
 BASE.  /11/
 
    ACCORDINGLY, I AM CONSTRAINED TO CONCLUDE THAT CARSON WAS ENGAGED IN
 PROTECTED ACTIVITY WHILE REPRESENTING EMPLOYEE EMBER8ER ON DECEMBER 5,
 1978 DURING THE GRIEVANCE SESSION AND THROUGHOUT HIS VISITATION AT THE
 CIA ON THAT DATE;  THAT THEREAFTER AND UNTIL MAY 9, 1979, CARSON WAS
 ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITY AS A UNION OFFICIAL AND CHIEF NEGOTIATOR
 FOR THE MTC;  AND THAT HIS CONDUCT ON THE AFORESAID DATES AS MENTIONED,
 WAS NOT SO FLAGRANT AS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE AMBIT OF PROTECTION.
 THEREFORE, I FIND THAT THE DENIAL OF ACCESS TO HIM TO THE CIA TO PERFORM
 HIS DUTIES AS A UNION OFFICIAL ON DECEMBER 5, 1978 AND THEREAFTER, AND
 HIS EXPULSION FROM THE ENTIRE BASE ON MAY 9, 1979 WERE ACTS OF
 INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT AND COERSION AND VIOLATIVE OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1)
 OF THE ORDER AND SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY.  /12/
 
    (2) IN IMPOSING AN OBLIGATION UPON AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH THE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, BOTH THE ORDER AND THE ACT ALSO IMPOSE
 A CORRELATIVE DUTY UPON MANAGEMENT TO DEAL WITH THE INDIVIDUALS SELECTED
 TO ACT FOR THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT.  THE EMPLOYER MUST NEGOTIATE
 WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES CHOSEN BY THE UNION.  MINNESOTA MINING MFG.
 CO., 173 NLRB NO. 47.  A REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE A CHIEF REPRESENTATIVE OF
 THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE WAS HELD IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, TO
 CONSTITUTE AN ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE IN THE UNION'S INTERNAL AFFAIRS.  AS
 SUCH, IT IS AN ACT OF INTERFERENCE UNDER SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER,
 AS WELL AS AN IMPROPER REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE UNDER SECTION 19(A)(6)
 THEREOF.  UTAH ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, A/SLMR NO.
 966.
 
    RESPONDENT HEREIN HAS, IN MY OPINION, RUN AFOWL OF ITS OBLIGATION TO
 MEET AND CONFER WITH MTC, THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS
 EMPLOYEES.  BY IMPROPERLY DENYING ONE OF ITS CHIEF NEGOTIATORS, CARSON,
 ACCESS TO THE CIA, AND THEREAFTER EXCLUDING HIM FROM THE ENTIRE NAVAL
 BASE, THE EMPLOYER HEREIN HAS, IN EFFECT, THWARTED THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING PROCESS.  IT HAS, BY THIS MEANS, CHOSEN TO HAVE A VOICE IN
 WHICH INDIVIDUALS SHALL, OR SHALL NOT, NEGOTIATE ON BEHALF OF THE UNION
 WITH MANAGEMENT.  SUCH INTRUSION INTO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE MTC,
 OR ANY BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, IS AN ACT OF IMPROPER INTERFERENCE.
 MOREOVER, RESPONDENT HAS REFUSED TO MEET WITH THE MTC OFF THE BASE SO
 THAT NEGOTIATOR CARSON COULD ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH MANAGEMENT.
 THUS, BY REASON OF THE EMPLOYER'S EXPELLING A CHIEF UNION REPRESENTATIVE
 FROM THE SHIPYARD, AND ITS INTRANSIGENCE RE RESUMING BARGAINING
 ELSEWHERE, NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN STALLED.  THE
 FOREGOING PERSUADES ME THAT, BY SUCH CONDUCT, RESPONDENT HAS REFUSED TO
 MEET AND CONFER IN GOOD FAITH WITH MTC SINCE DECEMBER 11, 1978;  THAT BY
 DENYING CARSON ACCESS ON THAT DATE TO THE CONTROLLED SECURITY AREA, AS
 WELL AS EXPELLING HIM FROM THE NAVAL BASE ON MAY 9, 1979, THE EMPLOYER
 HAS VIOLATED SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER AND SECTIONS
 7116(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE ACT.
 
                              RECOMMENDATIONS
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT VIOLATIVE OF
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (6) OF THE ORDER, AND SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (5)
 OF THE ACT, I RECOMMEND THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY ADOPT THE
 FOLLOWING ORDER DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
 11491, AS AMENDED AND THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE.
 
                          RECOMMENDED ORDER /13/
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AND
 SECTION 203.26(B) OF THE REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7105(G)(3) OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, AND SECTION 2400.2
 OF THE REGULATIONS, THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY ORDERS THE
 PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REFUSING OR DENYING JOSEPH P. CARSON, OR ANY OTHER DULY
 AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, ACCESS AND ENTRY TO THE PHILADELPHIA
 NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA, IN ORDER TO
 CONFER WITH AND REPRESENT EMPLOYEE CONCERNING THEIR GRIEVANCES, AND TO
 CONDUCT BUSINESS OR MEET WITH MANA8EMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    (B) REFUSING TO MEET, CONFER AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL BY DENYING ACCESS AND ENTRY TO JOSEPH P. CARSON TO
 THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL
 AREA, IN ORDER TO REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR GRIEVANCES, AND
 TO CONDUCT BUSINESS OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
 PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AND THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE ORDER AND THE ACT:
 
    (A) ALLOW AND PERMIT JOSEPH P. CARSON, OR ANY OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED
 UNION REPRESENTATIVE, TO ENTER, AND GAIN ACCESS TO THE PHILADELPHIA
 NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA, IN ORDER TO
 REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR GRIEVANCES, AND TO CONDUCT
 BUSINESS, OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    (B) UPON REQUEST MEET, CONFER, AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL BY ALLOWING REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH P. CARSON, OR ANY
 OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, TO ENTER AND GAIN ACCESS TO
 THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL
 AREA, IN ORDER TO CONFER WITH AND REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR
 GRIEVANCES, AND TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF
 OF THE PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    (C) POST AS ITS FACILITY AT THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD,
 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, 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
 COMMANDANT OF THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL BASE, AND THEY SHALL BE POSTED FOR
 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE
 COMMANDANT SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE
 NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) 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 THEREWITH.
 
                         WILLIAM NAIMARK
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  FEBRUARY 12, 1980
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
 
 
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
        NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF
 
           THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATION AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO
 
           EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS
 
             AMENDED AND THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 
                             RELATIONS STATUTE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE OR DENY JOSEPH P. CARSON, OR ANY OTHER DULY
 AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, ACCESS AND ENTRY TO THE PHILADELPHIA
 NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA, IN ORDER TO
 CONFER WITH AND REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR GRIEVANCES, AND TO
 CONDUCT BUSINESS, OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    WE WILL NOT REFUSE TO MEET, CONFER, AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE
 PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL BY REFUSING OR DENYING JOSEPH P.
 CARSON, OR ANY OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, ACCESS AND
 ENTRY TO THE PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED
 INDUSTRIAL AREA, IN ORDER TO CONFER WITH AND REPRESENT EMPLOYEES
 CONCERNING THEIR GRIEVANCES, AND TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, OR MEET WITH
 MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED AND THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL ALLOW AND PERMIT JOSEPH P. CARSON, OR ANY OTHER DULY
 AUTHORIZED UNION REPRESENTATIVE, TO ENTER AND GAIN ACCESS TO THE
 PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA,
 IN ORDER TO CONFER WITH AND REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR
 GRIEVANCES, AND TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF
 OF THE PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
    WE WILL UPON REQUEST MEET, CONFER AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE PHILADELPHIA
 METAL TRADES COUNCIL BY ALLOWING AND PERMITTING JOSEPH P. CARSON, OR ANY
 OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, TO ENTER AND GAIN ACCESS TO THE
 PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL AREA,
 IN ORDER TO CONFER WITH AND REPRESENT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR
 GRIEVANCES, AND TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, OR MEET WITH MANAGEMENT, ON BEHALF
 OF THE PHILADELPHIA METAL TRADES COUNCIL.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ MTC LATER AMENDED ITS COMPLAINT (DESIGNATED AS "CHARGE") ON MARCH
 22, 1979 TO ALLEGE THAT SUCH ACTIONS, ENGAGED IN SINCE JANUARY 12, 1979,
 ALSO VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (2) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    /2/ STAMPINGS WERE MADE ON THE ORIGINAL BUT DID NOT APPEAR OR COME
 THROUGH ON THE CARBON COPY.
 
    /3/ THE PASS OBTAINED BY CARSON ON DECEMBER 5, 1978 WAS, IN FACT,
 STAMPED DECEMBER 4, 1978.  RECORD FACTS ATTEST TO A FREQUENT MIX-UP ON
 THE TIME CLOCK.  IN ANY EVENT, SINCE CARSON WAS BANNED FROM THE CIA FOR
 LACK OF AN ESCORT - AND NO OTHER REASON - I MAKE NO FINDINGS AS TO THE
 VALIDITY OF HIS PASS DESPITE MANAGEMENT'S INSISTENCE THAT CARSON DID NOT
 HAVE A BONA FIDE PASS FOR DECEMBER 5.
 
    /4/ THE DATE WAS CHANGED BY BRITT TO DECEMBER 11 AT WHICH TIME THE
 EXCLUSION OF CARSON WAS MADE EFFECTIVE.
 
    /5/ THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE DISPOSED OF THEM FOR FEAR HE MIGHT GET
 INTO DIFFICULTY SINCE MANAGEMENT HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE AN ISSUE OF THE
 DECEMBER 5,INCIDENT.
 
    /6/ THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT IN THE SPRING OF 1978 BOWEN HAD TALKED
 TO CARSON CONCERNING THE XEROXING OF PASSES.  THE DETECTIVE ADVISED
 CARSON IT WAS A VIOLATION OF SECURITY REGULATIONS, AND THE LATTER
 DISCONTINUED THE PRACTICE AS REQUESTED.
 
    /7/ CARSON TESTIFIED TO SEVERAL INSTANCES, PRIOR TO DECEMBER, 1978,
 WHERE RESPONDENT'S GUARDS CHECKED HIS PASS DURING SCHEDULED UNION
 MEETINGS.  GENERAL COUNSEL ADVERTS TO THESE INCIDENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS
 CONTENTION THAT RESPONDENT'S EXPULSION OF CARSON FROM THE SHIPYARD WAS
 BASED ON HIS REFUSAL TO RATIFY THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT, AS WELL AS HIS
 ADVOCATING IT BE REJECTED.  SINCE MY CONCLUSIONS HEREIN ARE BASED ON HIS
 RETENTION OF PROTECTED ACTIVITY, AND NOT PREDICATED ON ANTI-UNION ANIMUS
 IN ANY REGARD, I MAKE NO FINDINGS AS TO THESE INSTANCES.
 
    /8/ IT IS NOTED THAT THE CITED CASE INVOLVES PROTECTION AFFORDED AN
 EMPLOYEE DESPITE HIS ALLEGED MISCONDUCT.  WHILE THE CASE AT BAR INVOLVES
 A NON-EMPLOYEE, WHO IS A UNION NEGOTIATOR AND OFFICER, THE SAME
 PROTECTION WOULD BE AFFORDED SUCH AN INDIVIDUAL WHILE ENGAGED IN UNION
 BUSINESS.  THUS, EJECTING A UNION PRESIDENT (NON-EMPLOYEE) FROM A
 MEETING FOR HAVING USED ABUSIVE LANGUAGE WAS HELD TO CONSTITUTE
 INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES ASSURED UNDER THE ORDER.  SEE
 U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
 A/SLMR NO.  631.
 
    /9/ SECURITY REGULATION 5512.8 DOES, BY ITS LANGUAGE, REQUIRE AN
 ESCORT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTENT ON DECEMBER 5.  NEVERTHELESS,
 RECORD FACTS REFLECT THAT CARSON WAS PERMITTED TO CARRY OUT HIS UNION
 BUSINESS ON PAST OCCASIONS WITHOUT BENEFIT OF AN ESCORT.  FURTHER, THIS
 PRACTICE WAS ALSO FOLLOWED BY OTHERS WHO VISITED THE CONTROLLED SECURITY
 AREA.
 
    /10/ I CREDIT CARSON'S VERSION OF WHAT OCCURRED WHEN HE WAS
 CONFRONTED BY BRADELY ON DECEMBER 5.  MOREOVER, BRADLEY TESTIFIED THAT
 CARSON MAY HAVE POINTED OUT EMBERGER AS HIS ESCORT.  HIS INABILITY TO
 RECALL DID NOT CONTROVERT CARSON'S TESTIMONY IN THIS REGARD.
 
    /11/ NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE UNDERSIGNED TO
 RESPONDENT'S CLAI