General Services Administration, National Capital Region (Respondent) and National Federation of Federal Employees (Charging Party)



[ v04 p502 ]
04:0502(69)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 4 FLRA No. 69
 
 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 3-CA-229
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND
 ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING FINDING THAT RESPONDENT HAD
 ENGAGED IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, 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.
 THEREAFTER, THE GENERAL COUNSEL FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, BUT NO EXCEPTIONS THERETO
 WERE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (5 CFR 2423.29) AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101-7135), 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.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY
 HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL CAPITAL
 SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE BY CONVEYING THE
 IMPRESSION THAT THEIR CONDUCT WILL BE MORE CLOSELY MONITORED AS A RESULT
 OF FILING AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE UNDER THE STATUTE.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED
 NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX." COPIES OF SAID NOTICE, TO BE FURNISHED BY THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION 3, AFTER BEING SIGNED BY AN AUTHORIZED
 REPRESENTATIVE, SHALL BE POSTED BY IT IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT THEREOF,
 AND BE MAINTAINED BY IT FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN TO INSURE THAT SAID
 NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (B) NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION 3, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30
 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER WHAT STEPS IT HAS TAKEN TO COMPLY
 HEREWITH.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 23, 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 INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE BY CONVEYING THE
 IMPRESSION THAT THEIR CONDUCT WILL BE MORE CLOSELY MONITORED AS A RESULT
 OF FILING AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE UNDER THE STATUTE.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 STATUTE.
 
                                  . . .
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    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, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  1133 15TH STREET, N.W., SUITE 300, WASHINGTON, D.C.  20005
 AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (202) 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    EDWARD P. DENNEY
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    ANA DE LA TORRE, ESQUIRE
    PETER B. ROBB, ESQUIRE
                          FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    BEFORE:  SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE U.S. CODE, 5 U.S.C. 7101
 ET SEQ.
 
    UPON AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE FILED BY THE NATIONAL FEDERATION
 OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES (THE UNION) ON MAY 17, 1979, AGAINST GENERAL
 SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, /1/ THE GENERAL
 COUNSEL OF THE AUTHORITY, BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION 3, ISSUED
 A COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON JANUARY 31, 1980, ALLEGING THAT
 RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN AND IS ENGAGING IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (4) OF THE STATUTE.  THE
 COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT ON MAY 7, 1979, RESPONDENT THROUGH ITS AGENT
 PETER BOULAY INSTRUCTED SUPERVISORS AMON COMFORT AND WILLIAM KORNEGAY TO
 KEEP A CLOSE SURVEILLANCE ON ROBERT REESE BECAUSE REESE WAS NAMED AS A
 DISCRIMINATEE IN A PRIOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE FILED AGAINST
 RESPONDENT AND HAD FULLY PARTICIPATED IN THE AUTHORITY'S INVESTIGATION
 OF THAT CHARGE.  RESPONDENT DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS.
 
    A HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT HEREIN WAS CONDUCTED ON MARCH 4, 1980, IN
 WASHINGTON, D.C., AT WHICH TIME THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND RESPONDENT WERE
 REPRESENTED AND AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AND CALL,
 EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND ARGUE ORALLY.  BRIEFS WERE FILED
 BY COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND RESPONDENT.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS MATTER, MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM MY EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE, I
 MAKE THE FOLLOWING:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    ON MAY 2, 1979, THE UNION FILED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE
 AGAINST RESPONDENT ALLEGING THAT EMPLOYEE ROBERT REESE, A STEWARD IN THE
 UNION'S LOCAL 1800, WAS DENIED A PROMOTION BECAUSE OF HIS UNION
 ACTIVITIES.  /2/ REESE HAD BEEN THE LOCAL'S CHIEF STEWARD SINCE APRIL
 1978 AND WAS VERY ACTIVE IN PROCESSING GRIEVANCES AND ASSISTING OTHER
 UNION STEWARDS IN THEIR REPRESENTATIONAL ACTIVITIES.  REESE, A GS-11
 INVENTORY MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST WITH RESPONDENT, WAS ELIGIBLE FOR A
 PROMOTION IN FEBRUARY 1979 AND WHEN THE PROMOTION FAILED TO MATERIALIZE
 THE UNION FILED THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ON HIS BEHALF.
 
    THE CHARGE CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF PETER BOULAY, RESPONDENT'S
 ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR SUPPLY, AND ON MAY 7, 1979, BOULAY
 ASSEMBLED VARIOUS SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL INCLUDING AMON COMFORT, REESE'S
 SECOND-LINE SUPERVISOR AND WILLIAM KORNEGAY, REESE'S FIRST-LINE
 SUPERVISOR.  BOULAY CALLED THE MEETING TO ASCERTAIN WITHER THE UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE HAD ANY VALIDITY AND TO DETERMINE THE
 CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED UP TO THE CHARGE.  DURING THE DISCUSSION WHICH
 ENSUED COMFORT DENIED THAT REESE FAILED TO RECEIVE THE PROMOTION BECAUSE
 OF UNION ACTIVITIES, EXPLAINING THAT REESE WAS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR
 PROMOTION BASICALLY BECAUSE OF HIS LACK OF DEPENDABILITY.  COMFORT
 EXPLAINED THAT REESE HABITUALLY LEFT HIS DUTY STATION WITHOUT ANNOUNCING
 HIS WHEREABOUTS AND HIS SUPERVISORS WOULD NOT KNOW WHERE HE WAS FOR
 LONG
 PERIODS OF TIME.  FURTHER, COMFORT COMPLAINED THAT REESE TOOK EXTENDED
 LUNCH AND RELIEF BREAKS AND EVERY YEAR WENT INTO A NEGATIVE SICK AND
 ANNUAL LEAVE STATUS.  COMFORT ALSO EXPLAINED THAT REESE WAS SOMETIMES
 LOUD AND BOISTEROUS AND A PROBLEM ALSO EXISTED WITH REESE NOT COMPLETING
 HIS WORK ASSIGNMENTS IN A TIMELY FASHION.  COMFORT ADDED THAT HE WAS
 ATTEMPTING TO CORRECT REESE'S NEGATIVE WORK HABITS AND THAT REESE HAD
 THE POTENTIAL TO BE A GOOD EMPLOYEE WHO WOULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR
 PROMOTION WHEN REESE RECTIFIED HIS DEFICITS.  /3/ BOULAY HAD PREVIOUSLY
 DISCUSSED REESE'S DEFICIENCIES WITH COMFORT AND KORNEGAY AND BECAME
 AWARE THAT REESE WAS A "PROBLEM EMPLOYEE" SHORTLY AFTER BOULAY BECAME
 ASSOCIATED WITH REESE'S WORK AREA IN OCTOBER 1978.  DURING THOSE PRIOR
 OCCASIONS BOULAY ENCOURAGED REESE'S SUPERVISORS TO DOCUMENT THE
 SPECIFICS OF REESE'S UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT.  AT THE MAY 7, 1979, MEETING
 BOULAY INSTRUCTED HIS SUPERVISORS, AS HE HAD DONE PREVIOUSLY, THAT
 WHENEVER THEY HAD COMPLAINTS ABOUT AN EMPLOYEE, INFRACTIONS WERE TO BE
 ADEQUATELY DOCUMENTED IN ORDER TO SUPPORT TAKING DISCIPLINARY ACTION
 AGAINST THAT EMPLOYEE.  BOULAY INSISTED HE WANTED "THESE THINGS
 DOCUMENTED." ANOTHER SUPERVISOR AT THE MEETING INTERJECTED THAT REESE
 COULD NOT BE SINGLED OUT FOR THIS TREATMENT AND BOULAY AGREED.  COMFORT
 ADDED THAT THEY HAD BEEN DOCUMENTING REESE'S NEGATIVE WORK HABITS AND
 SUGGESTED THAT THIS INFORMATION SIMPLY HADN'T REACHED BOULAY'S LEVEL OF
 MANAGEMENT.
 
    ON THAT SAME DAY OR THE FOLLOWING DAY REESE WAS CALLED TO A MEETING
 WITH COMFORT AND KORNEGAY.  /4/ COMFORT TOLD REESE THAT HE AND KORNEGAY
 HAD MET WITH BOULAY REGARDING REESE'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE AND
 DISCUSSED HIS UNACCEPTABLE WORK HABITS.  COMFORT TOLD REESE THAT BOULAY
 INSTRUCTED THEM TO WATCH REESE AND TO DOCUMENT HIS MOVEMENTS.  COMFORT
 SAID HE WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF DOING THIS BUT WOULD IF BOULAY INSISTED.
 REESE WAS TOLD THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO LET HIS SUPERVISORS KNOW EXACTLY
 WHERE HE WAS GOING WHEN HE LEFT THE WORK AREA.  REESE ASKED IF THAT
 INCLUDED GOING TO THE MEN'S ROOM AND THE REPLY WAS "YES." COMFORT THEN
 ADVISED REESE THAT IF HE DIDN'T "WATCH HIS STEP" THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY
 THAT HE MIGHT BE FIRED.  COMFORT ADDED THAT HE THOUGHT "THEY" WERE
 TRYING TO FIRE REESE.  WHEN ASKED BY REESE IF HE WAS GOING TO KEEP A
 "BOOK" ON HIM, COMFORT REPLIED THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW.  REESE ASKED IF HE
 HAD BEEN "SINGLED OUT" AND COMFORT REPLIED IN THE NEGATIVE.
 
    REESE AND KORNEGAY LEFT COMFORT'S OFFICE TOGETHER.  REESE ASKED
 KORNEGAY WHAT HIS FEELINGS WERE IN THE MATTER AND KORNEGAY INDICATED
 THAT WHILE IT WASN'T HIS IDEA, HE WOULD DO WHAT WAS REQUIRED OF HIM.
 
    SOMETIME AFTER THE FILING OF THE INSTANT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE
 ON MAY 17, 1979, WHICH SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED THAT BOULAY DIRECTED COMFORT
 TO "DOCUMENT EVERY MOVE . . . REESE . . . MADE," COMFORT MENTIONED TO
 REESE THAT HE HAD BEEN "CHEWED OUT" BY BOULAY FOR GIVING REESE "TOO MUCH
 INFORMATION."
 
    PRIOR TO THE MEETING BETWEEN REESE, COMFORT AND KORNEGAY, DESCRIBED
 ABOVE, WHEN REESE LEFT HIS WORK PLACE TO PURSUE UNION REPRESENTATIONAL
 BUSINESS REESE FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE OF INFORMING KORNEGAY WHERE HE
 WAS
 GOING AND WHEN HE EXPECTED TO RETURN.  ALTHOUGH BEING COUNSELLED FROM
 TIME TO TIME FOR EXCESSIVE USE OF OFFICIAL TIME TO ENGAGE IN
 REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES, NORMALLY LITTLE CONCERN WAS EXPRESSED IF REESE
 OVERSTAYED HIS ANTICIPATED TIME OF RETURN FROM THESE TRIPS.  HOWEVER,
 AFTER THE MEETING WHEN REESE WOULD INDICATE HE WAS NEEDED OUT OF THE
 OFFICE FOR UNION BUSINESS, HE WAS MORE CLOSELY QUESTIONED AS TO WHERE HE
 WAS GOING AND HOW LONG HE EXPECTED TO BE AWAY.  FURTHER, HE WAS
 THEREAFTER FREQUENTLY REMINDED OF THE 30 MINUTE LIMITATION PLACED ON ALL
 UNION REPRESENTATIVES' ACTIVITIES ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT STRICTLY HELD TO
 SUCH TIME AND UPON RETURNING TO HIS WORK STATION REESE WAS QUESTIONED BY
 KORNEGAY MORE CLOSELY THAN PREVIOUSLY ABOUT HIS WHEREABOUTS WHEN
 EXCEEDING THE TIME HE ESTIMATED HE WOULD BE GONE FROM THE WORK PLACE.
 
    IN ADDITION, AFTER THE MEETING WITH HIS SUPERVISORS, REESE'S WORK WAS
 CHECKED SOMEWHAT MORE FREQUENTLY AND THE INSPECTIONS OF HIS WORK FILES
 NOW OCCURRED AT HIS DESK AS OPPOSED TO THE PRIOR PROCEDURE OF HAVING HIS
 WORK REVIEWED IN COMFORT'S OFFICE.
 
                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES AND RESPONDENT DENIES THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED
 THE STATUTE BY ORDERING ITS SUPERVISORS TO KEEP A CLOSE SURVEILLANCE ON
 EMPLOYEE REESE BECAUSE REESE HAD FILED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE
 AGAINST RESPONDENT.  I CONCLUDE THAT COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL HAS
 NOT ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT ANY REPRISAL WAS
 TAKEN AGAINST REESE FOR HIS HAVING FILED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 CHARGE.
 
    IT IS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT RESPONDENT'S SUPERVISORS MET ON MAY 7, 1979,
 TO CONSIDER REESE'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE, REGARDING HIS FAILURE
 TO RECEIVE A PROMOTION.  IT IS ALSO ADMITTED THAT REESE'S ACTIONS AS AN
 EMPLOYEE WERE REVIEWED AT THAT MEETING.  HOWEVER, OTHER THAN BEING THE
 OCCASION FOR THE MEETING THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE CHARGE WAS DISCUSSED FURTHER OR PLAYED ANY PART IN THE
 DISCUSSION WHICH ENSUED CONCERNING REESE'S WORK HABITS, A NATURAL
 OUTGROWTH OF COMFORT'S STATEMENTS TO BOULAY AS TO WHY HE HAD NOT
 RECOMMENDED REESE FOR PROMOTION.  BOULAY, ALREADY AWARE THAT REESE WAS A
 "PROBLEM EMPLOYEE," WAS OBVIOUSLY DISMAYED THAT HIS SUBORDINATES HAD
 ALLOWED REESE TO CONTINUE ON WITH HIS POOR WORK HABITS AND EXCESSES.
 THUS, BOULAY INSISTED HIS SUPERVISORS CONFORM TO HIS PAST INSTRUCTIONS
 TO DOCUMENT INFRACTIONS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND, IN
 EFFECT, CARRY OUT THEIR SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES.  BOULAY'S
 INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING DOCUMENTATION WERE NO DOUBT UTTERED WITH SOME
 DEGREE OF ENTHUSIASM.  INDEED, BOULAY ACKNOWLEDGED AT THE HEARING THAT
 WHILE HE DID NOT UTTER THE PRECISE WORDS, KEEPING A "CLOSE SURVEILLANCE"
 ON REESE COULD HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED FROM HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO REESE'S
 SUPERVISORS.
 
    TRUE, AFTER REESE FILED HIS CHARGE MANAGEMENT DISCUSSED HIS ON THE
 JOB CONDUCT AND THE DISCUSSION RESULTED IN MORE STRINGENT CONTROLS BEING
 PLACED ON HIS ACTIONS.  THE TIMING, OF COURSE, GIVES RISE TO THE
 SUSPICION THAT A REPRISAL WAS TAKEN AGAINST REESE BECAUSE HE FILED THE
 CHARGE.  HOWEVER, SUSPICION IS NOT PROOF.  RESPONDENT'S REASONABLE
 EXPLANATION OF EVENTS, WHEN VIEWED IN THE CONTEXT OF ALL THE
 CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING REESE'S WORK HISTORY AND THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
 OF GENERAL UNION ANIMUS OR PRIOR HOSTILITY TOWARDS REESE BASED ON HIS
 UNION ACTIVITIES, LEADS ME TO FIND THAT BOULAY'S ORDERS FOR
 DOCUMENTATION WERE NOT GIVEN AS A REPRISAL AGAINST REESE FOR FILING THE
 CHARGE.  ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE THAT THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO
 ESTABLISH THAT BOULAY'S CONDUCT CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF SECTION
 7116(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    NEVERTHELESS, I CONCLUDE THAT COMFORT'S STATEMENT TO REESE DURING HIS
 MEETING WITH REESE AND KORNEGAY SHORTLY AFTER MAY 7 VIOLATED THE
 STATUTE.  CLEARLY MANAGEMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE THAT EMPLOYEES
 FULFILL THEIR WORK OBLIGATIONS AND COMPLY WITH STANDARDS OF JOB
 PERFORMANCE.  PRIOR TO THE BOULAY MEETING REESE WAS ABUSING THE GROUND
 RULES FOR ABSENCES IN PERFORMING HIS UNION REPRESENTATIONAL DUTIES AND
 WAS COUNSELLED FOR SUCH CONDUCT BUT APPARENTLY WITHOUT SUCCESS.
 MANAGEMENT WAS THEREFORE PRIVILEGED TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION TO ASSURE
 COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACCEPTED UNIFORM POLICY IN THIS REGARD.
 
    HOWEVER, WHEN COMFORT INFORMED REESE OF THE MEETING WITH BOULAY HE
 LINKED, PERHAPS INADVERTENTLY, REESE'S FILING OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE CHARGE WITH BOULAY'S INSTRUCTION TO DOCUMENT REESE'S FUTURE
 MOVEMENTS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES REESE COULD FAIRLY INTERPRET THAT
 RESPONDENT'S PRESENT CONCERN WITH HIS MOVEMENTS RESULTED FROM HIS FILING
 THE CHARGE.  THUS, DUE TO THE MANNER IN WHICH COMFORT CONVEYED
 MANAGEMENT'S DISPLEASURE WITH REESE'S CONDUCT, COMFORT CREATED THE
 IMPRESSION THAT REESE'S FILING THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE WAS THE
 REASON FOR HIS SUPERVISORS NOW GIVING CLOSE ATTENTION TO HIS ACTIVITIES.
  THIS IN MY VIEW CONSTITUTED INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT AND COERCION UPON
 REESE IN THE GENERAL EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHT TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES AS
 UNION STEWARD, A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, I
 CONCLUDE THAT BY THIS CONDUCT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF
 THE STATUTE.  /5/
 
    HAVING FOUND AND CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION
 7116(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE, I RECOMMEND THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THE
 FOLLOWING:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118(A)(7) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE AND SECTION 2423.29 OF THE FINAL
 RULES AND REGULATIONS, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT GENERAL SERVICES
 ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE BY CONVEYING THE
 IMPRESSION THAT THEIR CONDUCT WILL BE MORE CLOSELY MONITORED AS A RESULT
 OF FILING AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE UNDER THE STATUTE.
 
    2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DESIGNED AND FOUND NECESSARY
 TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED
 NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX." COPIES OF SAID NOTICE, TO BE FURNISHED BY THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION 3, AFTER BEING SIGNED BY AN AUTHORIZED
 REPRESENTATIVE, SHALL BE POSTED BY IT IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT THEREOF,
 AND BE MAINTAINED BY IT FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN TO INSURE THAT SAID
 NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (B) NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION 3, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30
 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, WHAT STEPS IT HAS TAKEN TO COMPLY
 HEREWITH.
 
                        SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
                        ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  MAY 30, 1980
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                 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 INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE BY CONVEYING THE
 IMPRESSION THAT THEIR CONDUCT WILL BE MORE CLOSELY MONITORED AS A RESULT
 OF FILING AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE UNDER THE STATUTE.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE
 
    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, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:
 1133 15TH STREET, N.W., SUITE 300, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (202) 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ THE NAME OF RESPONDENT APPEARS AS AMENDED AT THE HEARING.
 
    /2/ CASE NO. 3-CA-186, THE MERITS OF WHICH ARE NOT AT ISSUE HEREIN.
 
    /3/ FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME PRIOR TO THIS MEETING REESE HAD
 BEEN COUNSELLED BY COMFORT OR KORNEGAY ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.  THE
 TOPICS FOR THE COUNSELLINGS PRIMARILY INCLUDED EXCESSES IN THE USE OF
 OFFICIAL TIME FOR UNION REPRESENTATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND, TO A LESSER
 EXTENT, NOT KEEPING UP WITH HIS WORK.
 
    /4/ THIS VERSION IS TAKEN LARGELY FROM THE TESTIMONY OF REESE WHICH I
 CREDIT TO A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE ALTHOUGH HE SEEMED INCLINED TO EMPHASIZE
 AND DE-EMPHASIZE EVENTS ACCORDING TO WHAT APPEARED MOST BENEFICIAL TO
 HIMSELF AND PRESENTED HIS TESTIMONY IN A SOMEWHAT DISJOINTED FASHION.
 IN SO FINDI