Veterans Administration, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Shreveport, Louisiana (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Interdepartmental Local Union 2000, AFL-CIO (Charging Party) 



[ v05 p216 ]
05:0216(27)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 5 FLRA No. 27
 
 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
 CENTER, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, INTERDEPARTMENTAL
 LOCAL UNION 2000, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 6-CA-261
 
                            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 PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND
 RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.  NO EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED TO THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDG'ES RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.
 
    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, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS MODIFIED BELOW.
 
    IN REACHING ITS DETERMINATION HEREIN THE AUTHORITY ADOPTS THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENT'S REPRIMAND OF
 LUCAS WAS IN RETALIATION FOR HER ACTIVITY AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
 UNION AND THAT THE EXPRESSED REASON FOR SUCH DISCIPLINE WAS PRETEXTUAL.
 UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE AUTHORITY FINDS IT IS UNNECESSARY TO PASS
 UPON, AND SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT ADOPT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 CONCLUSION AT P. 7 OF HIS DECISION THAT THE LANGUAGE "OTHER APPROPRIATE
 AUTHORITIES" IN SECTION 7102(1) OF THE STATUTE APPLIES TO REPORTERS.
 ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE RESPONDENT'S REPRIMAND OF
 LUCAS INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED AND COERCED HER IN VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE AND SUCH DISCIPLINE CONSTITUTED
 DISCRIMINATION IN CONNECTION WITH HER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN
 VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(2) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, VETERANS
 ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING MS. GEORGIE P.  LUCAS,
 OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE,
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIST THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 
    INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 2000, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY
 
    OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (B) DISCIPLINING OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MS.  GEORGIE P.
 LUCAS, OR ANY OTHER
 
    EMPLOYEE, WITH REGARD TO HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER
 
    TO DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN, OR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES, INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 2000, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER LABOR
 ORGANIZATION.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
 
    THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY SECTION 7102 OF THE STATUTE;
 OR IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED
 
    MANNER ENCOURAGING OR DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION
 BY DISCRIMINATING IN
 
    CONNECTION WITH HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) RESCIND AB INITIO, AND EXPUNGE FROM ALL PERSONNEL RECORDS, THE
 REPRIMAND OF MS. GEORGIE
 
    P. LUCAS, DATED JUNE 8, 1979.
 
    (B) POST AT ITS MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA,
 COPIES OF THE ATTACHED
 
    NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORITY.
 UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH
 
    FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
 MEDICAL CENTER,
 
    SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE
 DIRECTOR FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE
 
    DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS
 AND OTHER PLACES WHERE
 
    NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE
 REASONABLE STEPS TO
 
    INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION 6, 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., FEBRUARY 23, 1981
 
                       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 MS. GEORGIE P.
 LUCAS, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIST THE
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL
 2000, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY
 OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    WE WILL NOT DISCIPLINE OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MS.  GEORGIE
 P. LUCAS, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, WITH REGARD TO HIRING, TENURE,
 PROMOTION, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE
 MEMBERSHIP IN, OR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 2000, AFL-CIO, OR ANY
 OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY SECTION
 7102 OF THE STATUTE;  OR IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER ENCOURAGE OR
 DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION BY DISCRIMINATION IN
 CONNECTION WITH HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND AB INITIO, AND EXPUNGE FROM ALL PERSONNEL RECORDS,
 THE REPRIMAND OF MS. GEORGIE P. LUCAS DATED JUNE 8, 1979.
 
                                (ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  BY:  (SIGNATURE) (TITLE)
 
    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 6, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  ROOM 450, OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING, BRYAN & ERVAY STREETS,
 DALLAS, TEXAS 75221, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (214) 767-4996.
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
 IRENE JACKSON, ESQUIRE
                  FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    MARK GALLINGHOUSE, ESQUIRE
                  FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    BEFORE:  WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
                 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. CHAPTER 71, /1/ AND THE FINAL RULES AND
 REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER, FED. REG., VOL. 45, NO. 12, JANUARY 17,
 1980, 5 C.F.R. SEC. 2415.1, ET SEQ.  THE CHARGE HEREIN WAS FILED ON
 SEPTEMBER 29, 1979, AND A COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED ON
 FEBRUARY 4, 1980, PURSUANT TO WHICH A HEARING WAS DULY HELD BEFORE THE
 UNDERSIGNED ON APRIL 15, 1980, IN SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.  EACH PARTY WAS
 REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, WAS AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE AND
 CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND TO PRESENT EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE ISSUES
 INVOLVED HEREIN.  AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY, THE PARTIES WERE
 AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT;  MAY 15, 1980, WAS
 FIXED AS THE DATE FOR MAILING POST HEARING BRIEFS, WHICH TIME WAS
 SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED, AT THE REQUEST OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL WITH THE
 CONCURRENCE OF COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN AND
 SPECIFICALLY DELAY IN RECEIPT OF THE TRANSCRIPT, TO MAY 29, 1980;  AND
 BRIEFS, TIMELY MAILED, HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND BY
 RESPONDENT AND HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.  UPON THE BASIS OF THE
 ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR
 DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
 
                         FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 16(A)(1) AND (2) OF THE
 STATUTE AS THE RESULT OF THE WRITTEN REPRIMAND OF MS. GEORGIE P. LUCAS
 ON, OR ABOUT, JUNE 8, 1979.  THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE FACT OF THE
 REPRIMAND OR THAT MS. LUCAS WAS THEN CHIEF STEWARD OF AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL UNION 2000,
 AFL-CIO (HEREINAFTER ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE "UNION").  THE REPRIMAND
 WAS FOR THE PURPORTED REASON THAT MS. LUCAS, ON MAY 25, 1979, "PROVIDED
 AID AND ASSISTANCE TO A NEWSCASTER IN TAKING TELEVISION FILMS IN THE 1
 EAST AND 4 WEST SECTIONS OF THE MEDICAL CENTER." (G.C. EXH. 2);  THAT
 "THESE FILMS SHOWED PATIENTS AND EMPLOYEES WITHOUT OBTAINING THEIR
 PERMISSION," ALL OF WHICH WAS IN VIOLATION OF RESPONDENT'S REGULATIONS.
 FOR REASONS SET FORTH HEREINAFTER, THE SELECTION OF MS. LUCAS FOR
 DISCIPLINE, AND NO OTHER EMPLOYEE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE,
 BORDERS ON THE ABSURD AND WAS CLEARLY PRETEXTURAL IN NATURE.
 
            A.  EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE MAY 25, 1980, INCIDENT
 
    1.  MS. LUCAS IS A GS-6 PURCHASING AGENT AND, AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL,
 WAS CHIEF STEWARD OF THE UNION.  MS. LUCAS TESTIFIED, WITHOUT
 CONTRADICTION, THAT A DISPUTE HAD ARISEN CONCERNING RADIOLOGY
 TECHNICIANS AND, MORE SPECIFICALLY, STAFFING OF RADIOLOGY.  BECAUSE OF
 APPARENT UNDERSTAFFING, TECHNICIANS WERE REGULARLY "CALLED BACK" FOR
 DUTY OUTSIDE THEIR NORMAL WORKING HOURS, INCLUDING THE EXTENSION OF
 SHIFTS AS WELL AS BEING CALLED BACK FOR DUTY AFTER THEY HAD LEFT THE
 MEDICAL CENTER.  EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCTIVE
 AND, ABOUT APRIL, 1979, THE TECHNICIANS REFUSED TO ACCEPT FURTHER CALL
 BACKS AND GRIEVANCES THEREAFTER FOLLOWED.  MS. LUCAS WAS DESIGNATED TO
 REPRESENT THE GRIEVANTS AND MET WITH RESPONDENT TO DISCUSS THE
 GRIEVANCES.  WITH THE PROSPECT OF FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL CUTS IN THE
 BUDGET, MS. LUCAS CALLED MR. CALVIN WRAY POST, A REPORTER FOR KSLA-TV
 AND SUGGESTED THAT HE DO A STORY ON THE STAFFING PROBLEM AT THE MEDICAL
 CENTER.
 
                     B.  THE INCIDENTS OF MAY 25, 1980
 
    2.  MS. JOYCE NAUTEL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE MEDICAL CENTER,
 TESTIFIED THAT ON MAY 25, 1980, SHE RECEIVED A CALL FROM MR. POST IN
 WHICH HE TOLD HER HE INTENDED TO DO A STORY AND WANTED TO INTERVIEW
 CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING MS. LUCAS.  MS. NAUTEL TESTIFIED THAT SHE
 CALLED THE VA PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICE IN DALLAS AND WASHINGTON AND
 CALLED MR. POST BACK BUT, IN THE MEANTIME, MR. POST HAD ALREADY ARRIVED
 AT THE MEDICAL CENTER, WITH A TV CAMERAMAN, AND HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THE
 OFFICE OF MR. KERMIT K. WESTMORELAND, HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR AND PUBLIC
 RELATIONS OFFICER.
 
    3.  WHEN MR. POST ARRIVED WITH HIS TV CAMERAMAN, MR. DONALD GOODNER,
 CHIEF OF RESPONDENT'S HOSPITAL POLICE, TOLD MR. POST HE COULD NOT TAKE
 PICTURES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION AND TOOK MR. POST TO MR. WESTMORELAND'S
 OFFICE.  THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT MR. POST TOLD MR.  WESTMORELAND HE
 WANTED TO INTERVIEW CERTAIN EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING MS. LUCAS, OUTSIDE THE
 HOSPITAL;  THAT MR. WESTMORELAND TOLD MR. POST HE COULD TAKE PICTURES
 OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL, PROVIDED ONLY THAT NO PATIENTS WERE PHOTOGRAPHED.
 MR. WESTMORELAND DID NOT TELL MR. POST HE COULD NOT TAKE PICTURES INSIDE
 THE HOSPITAL.  MR. POST HAD BEEN TOLD THAT MS. LUCAS WOULD NOT BE
 GRANTED OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE INTERVIEW AND MR. WESTMORELAND ALLOWED MR.
 POST TO CALL MS. LUCAS' SUPERVISOR, OR MR. WESTMORELAND HAD HIS
 SECRETARY CALL.  IN ANY EVENT, MS. LUCAS' SUPERVISOR ADVISED MS. LUCAS
 THAT MR. POST WAS PRESENT;  THAT HE WANTED TO INTERVIEW HER;  AND THAT
 SHE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ANNUAL LEAVE.  ONE HOUR ANNUAL LEAVE WAS
 REQUESTED BY MS. LUCAS AND APPROVED BY MS. NAUTEL.
 
    4.  MR. WESTMORELAND TESTIFIED THAT CHIEF GOODNER WAS PRESENT DURING
 HIS DISCUSSION WITH MR. POST;  BUT CHIEF GOODNER PROFESSED TOLD
 IGNORANCE OF ANY STATEMENT BY MR. WESTMORELAND THAT MR. POST COULD FILM
 OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL.
 
    5.  MR. POST THEN INTERVIEWED A MS. FAY THURMOND, A RADIOLOGY
 TECHNICIAN, OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL, WITH THE HOSPITAL AS A BACKDROP;  AND
 THEN INTERVIEWED MS. LUCAS.  WHEN THE INTERVIEW OF MS. LUCAS WAS
 COMPLETED, MR. POST TOLD MS. LUCAS HE WAS GOING TO GET SOME PICTURES
 INSIDE THE HOSPITAL AND ASKED MS. LUCAS TO GO WITH HIM.
 
    6.  CHIEF GOODNER SAW MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY MS.
 LUCAS, ENTER THE HOSPITAL AND SAW THEM TAKING PICTURES INSIDE THE
 HOSPITAL BUT DID NOTHING BECAUSE HE "ASSUMED" MR. POST WAS AUTHORIZED TO
 DO SO BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN TO MR. WESTMORELAND'S OFFICE.
 
    7.  SOME SECURITY OFFICER, APPARENTLY NOT CHIEF GOODNER, CALLED MS.
 NAUTEL AND INFORMED HER THAT A TV CAMERAMAN WAS TAKING PICTURES INSIDE
 THE HOSPITAL AND MS. NAUTEL TESTIFIED THAT SHE INSTRUCTED HIM NOT TO
 INTERFERE BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T WANT A CONFRONTATION WITH THE PRESS.  MS.
 NAUTEL'S TESTIMONY THAT SHE WAS TOLD THAT THE TV CAMERAMAN WAS FILMING
 PICTURES ON THE WALLS IS IMPLAUSIBLE TO SAY THE LEAST.  FROM MS. LUCAS'
 TESTIMONY, WHICH WAS WHOLLY CREDIBLE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE POINT OF
 INTEREST TO MR. POST WAS THE FIRST FLOOR RADIOLOGY FACILITY WHICH WAS
 CLOSED AND THE "PICTURE" BEING FILMED WAS THE NOTICE THAT PATIENTS GO TO
 THE 4TH FLOOR FOR ALL RADIOLOGY.  MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN;
 ACCOMPANIED BY MS. LUCAS, THEN WENT TO THE 4TH FLOOR AND PICTURES WERE
 TAKEN OF THE 4TH FLOOR RADIOLOGY SECTION.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT BOTH
 EMPLOYEES AND PATIENTS APPEARED IN SHOTS TAKEN AND SUBSEQUENTLY
 TELEVISED;  HOWEVER, MR. POST CREDIBLY TESTIFIED THAT, WITH FULL
 AWARENESS OF THE POLICY AGAINST PICTURES OF PATIENTS OR EMPLOYEES
 WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, THEY HAD NOT INTENDED TO PHOTOGRAPH PATIENTS OR
 EMPLOYEES AND THAT THEY APPEARED ONLY SOMEWHAT INDISTINCTLY IN PICTURES
 OF OTHER SPECIFIC SUBJECTS.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY THAT MS.
 LUCAS PLAYED ANY PART WHATEVER IN THE FILMING BEYOND BEING PRESENT.
 
    8.  MS. NAUTEL WAS ALSO ADVISED BY A SECURITY GUARD THAT MR. POST AND
 HIS CAMERAMAN WERE ON THE 4TH FLOOR.
 
    9.  AFTER MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN LEFT THE 4TH FLOOR, THEY
 RETURNED TO MS. NAUTEL'S OFFICE.
 
    10.  ON THE AFTERNOON OF MAY 25, MS. NAUTEL TESTIFIED THAT SHE BEGAN
 TO SEARCH THE REGULATIONS TO SEE IF MS. LUCAS COULD BE CHARGED WITH ANY
 VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS.  SHE ASSERTED, HOWEVER, THAT MS. LUCAS WAS
 GIVEN A REPRIMAND BECAUSE PICTURES HAD BEEN TAKEN OF PATIENTS AND
 EMPLOYEES WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, A CONSIDERATION SHE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
 AWARE OF WHEN SHE UNDERTOOK HER SEARCH OF THE REGULATIONS ON THE
 AFTERNOON OF MAY 25 AS THE TELECAST WAS NOT MADE UNTIL THE EVENING OF
 MAY 25.
 
    11.  MR. JOHN E. MALONE, THEN CHIEF OF PERSONNEL AT THE MEDICAL
 CENTER, TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS ANXIOUS TO SEE THE TELECAST TO SEE WHAT
 WAS SAID ABOUT THE STAFFING PROBLEM.
 
                              C.  CONCLUSIONS
 
    MS. LUCAS CALLED TV REPORTER POST AND SUGGESTED THAT HE DO A STORY ON
 THE STAFFING OF THE MEDICAL CENTER.  WHEN MR. POST CALLED MS. NAUTEL ON
 MAY 25, 1979, AND TOLD HER HE INTENDED TO DO A STORY ON THE HOSPITAL AND
 WANTED TO INTERVIEW MS. LUCAS, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT MS. NAUTEL SURMISED
 THAT MS. LUCAS WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MR. POST'S INTEREST;  BUT WHETHER SHE
 DREW THIS INFERENCE, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT SHE VERY CORRECTLY ASSUMED
 THAT MR. POST WAS COMING TO DO A STORY ON THE STAFFING PROBLEM OF THE
 HOSPITAL.  FIRST, SHE KNEW OF MS. LUCAS' INVOLVEMENT IN THE GRIEVANCES
 OF THE RADIOLOGY TECHNICIANS.  SECOND, SHE KNEW MS. LUCAS WAS CHIEF
 STEWARD.  THIRD, SHE, IN CONSULTATION WITH MR. MALONE, DETERMINED THAT
 MS. LUCAS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE INTERVIEW BECAUSE
 MR. POST HAD DECLINED TO DISCLOSE THE REASON FOR INTERVIEWING MS.  LUCAS
 (THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE WHETHER MS. THURMOND WAS ON DUTY WHEN
 INTERVIEWED;  WHETHER SHE WAS ALLOWED OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE INTERVIEW;
 OR WHETHER RESPONDENT KNEW THAT SHE WAS TO BE INTERVIEWED), AND,
 THEREFORE, NO "REPRESENTATIONAL" PURPOSE HAD BEEN SHOWN.  FOURTH, I
 FULLY CREDIT THE TESTIMONY OF MS. LUCAS THAT FILMING ON THE FIRST FLOOR
 HAD BEEN TO SHOW THAT THE FIRST FLOOR RADIOLOGY SECTION WAS CLOSED AND
 THAT THE SIGN POSTED ON THE DOOR DIRECTED PATIENTS TO THE FOURTH FLOOR
 FOR ALL RADIOLOGY.  FIFTH, MR. MALONE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS FULLY AWARE
 THAT MS. LUCAS' INTERVIEW CONCERNED THE STAFFING ISSUE.  THUS, HE
 TESTIFIED THAT,
 
    "WELL, I KNEW THAT PRIOR TO THAT TIME THERE HAD BEEN A GRIEVANCE
 AMONGST THE X-RAY
 
    EMPLOYEES IN WHICH MISS LUCAS WAS THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE.  I
 NATURALLY WITH A LOT OF
 
    GREAT INTEREST WENT HOME TO WATCH TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING TO BE ON
 TELEVISION NEWS THAT
 
    NIGHT." (TR. 182).
 
    SIXTH, PRIOR TO ANY POSSIBLE KNOWLEDGE THAT ANY EMPLOYEE OR PATIENT
 HAD BEEN PHOTOGRAPHED, MS. NAUTEL ADMITTED THAT SHE HAD SEARCHED THE
 REGULATIONS TO SEE IF MS. LUCAS COULD BE CHARGED WITH SOME VIOLATION.
 
    OF COURSE, MS. LUCAS HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECURITY AND NO DIRECT
 RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RESPONDENT'S POLICIES CONCERNING THE
 TAKING OF PICTURES.  ALTHOUGH THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT MS. LUCAS
 INVITED MR. POST TO TAKE PICTURES INSIDE THE HOSPITAL, INDEED, THE
 WHOLLY CREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF MR. POST AND MS. LUCAS IS TO THE CONTRARY,
 EVEN IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT SHE DID, SHE, OBVIOUSLY, WAS WITHOUT
 AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE ENTRY OF MR.  POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN TO THE
 HOSPITAL.  EVEN CHIEF GOODNER RECOGNIZED THAT AUTHORIZATION FOR TAKING
 PICTURES MUST BE GIVEN BY MR. WESTMORELAND.
 
    BY CONTRAST, THE ARRAY OF PERSONS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURITY
 AND FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RESPONDENT'S POLICIES CONCERNING THE TAKING OF
 PICTURES, SHOWS EITHER TOTAL ACQUIESCENCE OR A STUDIED INDIFFERENCE.
 BEYOND HIS INITIAL ACTS OF TELLING MR. POST THAT NO PICTURES COULD BE
 TAKEN WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION BY MR. WESTMORELAND AND HIS TAKING MR. POST
 TO MR. WESTMORELAND'S OFFICE, CHIEF GOODNER WHOLLY ABDICATED HIS
 RESPONSIBILITY;  DID NOT BOTHER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER MR. WESTMORELAND
 HAD GRANTED ANY AUTHORIZATION AND/OR, IF HE HAD, THE PRECISE
 AUTHORIZATION GRANTED;  AND ASSUMED, BECAUSE MR. POST HAD GONE TO MR.
 WESTMORELAND'S OFFICE, HE MUST HAVE BEEN GIVEN AUTHORIZATION.  MR.
 WESTMORELAND, WHILE THE LEAST CULPABLE, AND, WHO, I AM FULLY CONVINCED,
 ACTED IN COMPLETE GOOD FAITH, NEVERTHELESS, TOLD MR. POST ONLY THAT HE
 COULD FILM OUTSIDE AND DID NOT TELL MR. POST THAT HE COULD NOT FILM
 INSIDE THE HOSPITAL.  AS A RESULT, MR. POST CONCLUDED, AS HE TESTIFIED,
 THAT MR. WESTMORELAND AUTHORIZED FILMING ANYWHERE, PROVIDED THAT NEITHER
 PATIENTS NOR EMPLOYEES BE PHOTOGRAPHED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.  SOME
 SECURITY EMPLOYEE HAD THE PRESENCE OF THE HOSPITAL.  FINALLY, MS.
 NAUTEL, WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT TV PICTURES WERE BEING TAKEN ON THE FIRST
 FLOOR, OF PICTURES ON THE WALL, AS SHE TESTIFIED, NEVERTHELESS, TOLD THE
 EMPLOYEE NOT TO INTERFERE BECAUSE SHE DID NOT WANT A CONFRONTATION WITH
 THE PRESS.
 
    IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESENCE OF MS. LUCAS PLAYED NO PART WHATEVER IN
 MR. POST'S ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL WITH HIS CAMERAMAN.  THUS, CHIEF
 GOODNER TESTIFIED THAT, WHEN HE SAW MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN ENTER THE
 HOSPITAL, HE DID NOTHING BECAUSE HE ASSUMED MR.  POST HAD BEEN GIVEN
 AUTHORIZATION TO FILM INSIDE THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE HE HAD GONE TO MR.
 WESTMORELAND'S OFFICE.  OBVIOUSLY, THE PRESENCE OF MS. LUCAS WAS
 IMMATERIAL.  NOR WAS THE PRESENCE OF MS. LUCAS A FACTOR IN MS. NAUTEL'S
 ACQUIESCENCE IN THE FILMING INSIDE THE HOSPITAL.  SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE
 TOLD THE SECURITY EMPLOYEE WHO CALLED HER NOT TO INTERFERE BECAUSE SHE
 DID NOT WANT A CONFRONTATION WITH THE PRESS.  AGAIN, THE PRESENCE OF MS.
 LUCAS WAS IMMATERIAL.  NOR, OF COURSE, CAN IT POSSIBLY BE CONTENDED THAT
 MS. LUCAS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH MR. WESTMORELAND'S STATEMENT TO MR.
 POST SINCE SHE WAS NOT PRESENT.
 
    TO HAVE SELECTED MS. LUCAS FOR ANY DISCIPLINE, MUCH LESS THE SEVERITY
 OF THE REPRIMAND GIVEN, AND NO OTHER PERSON, FOR THE ALLEGED REASON THAT
 SHE "AIDED AND ABETED" THE PHOTOGRAPHING OF PATIENTS AND EMPLOYEES
 WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT WAS, OBVIOUSLY, PRETEXTURAL.  MS.  LUCAS:  A) WAS
 PRESENT;  AND B) DID TAKE MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN TO THE FIRST FLOOR
 RADIOLOGY FACILITY, WHICH WAS CLOSED, AND, I HAVE NO DOUBT, POINTED TO
 THE SIGN ON THE DOOR;  AND C) DID ACCOMPANY MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN
 TO THE FOURTH FLOOR RADIOLOGY SECTION.  SHE PLAYED NO MORE PART IN THE
 FILMING THAN MR. WESTMORELAND, CHIEF GOODNER OR MS. NAUTEL.  BY
 CONTRAST, THE PERSONS WHO DIRECTLY "AIDED AND ABETED" THE PHOTOGRAPHING
 OF PATIENTS AND EMPLOYEES WERE:  A) MR. WESTMORELAND WHO COMMITTED TWO
 CARDINAL SINS.  FIRST, HE MADE THE VERY HUMAN ASSUMPTION THAT CHIEF
 GOODNER HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD THE KING'S ENGLISH;  SECOND, HE ASSUMED
 THAT HIS AFFIRMATIVE AUTHORIZATION TO MR.  POST TO FILM INTERVIEWS
 OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL IMPLIED A DENIAL OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILM INSIDE
 THE HOSPITAL.  B) CHIEF GOODNER, WHOSE HOSPITAL POLICE WERE DIRECTLY
 RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT RESPONDENT'S POLICY CONCERNING FILMING, WAS
 GUILTY OF GROSS DERELICTION OF DUTY.  IF HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND, OR HEAR,
 MR. WESTMORELAND'S STATEMENT TO MR. POST, MOST ASSUREDLY, IN ORDER TO
 CARRY OUT HIS RESPONSIBILITY, HE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO INQUIRE.  FOR HIM
 MERELY TO ASSUME THAT MR.  POST HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED TO FILM ANYWHERE
 SIMPLY BECAUSE MR. POST HAD GONE TO MR. WESTMORELAND'S OFFICE WAS
 ASTOUNDING;  BUT FOR RESPONDENT TO BLANDLY ASSERT THAT CHIEF GOODNER HAD
 FULFILLED HIS RESPONSIBILITY AND WAS WHOLLY WITHOUT FAULT IS A PATENT
 ABSURDITY.  C) MS. NAUTEL WHO, WHEN INFORMED THAT FILMING WAS TAKING
 PLACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, ORDERED THAT THERE BE NO INTERFERENCE BECAUSE
 SHE DID NOT WANT A CONFRONTATION WITH THE PRESS.
 
    MR. POST WAS TOLD BY MR. WESTMORELAND, AND MR. POST ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
 HE WAS FULLY AWARE, THAT NEITHER PATIENTS NOR EMPLOYEES WERE TO BE
 PHOTOGRAPHED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.  MR. WESTMORELAND, CHIEF GOODNER,
 THE HOSPITAL POLICE IN GENERAL, AND MS. NAUTEL TOOK NO ACTION TO SEE
 THAT MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN DID NOT PHOTOGRAPH PATIENTS OR
 EMPLOYEES.  TO PRESUME THAT MS. LUCAS, WHO HAD NO AUTHORITY, MUCH LESS
 RESPONSIBILITY, TO DO WHAT RESPONDENT'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES
 FAILED OR REFUSED TO DO IS ABSURD.  INDEED, WHAT WOULD RESPONDENT HAVE
 HAD MS.  LUCAS DO?  NOTIFY SOMEONE THAT MR. POST WAS FILMING INSIDE?  AS
 MS. NAUTEL, ACTING DIRECTOR, HAD, WHEN NOTIFIED BY A SECURITY EMPLOYEE,
 ORDERED "NO INTERFERENCE" WHAT POSSIBLE EFFECT WOULD THIS HAVE HAD?
 
    THE MERE RECITATION OF CONTENTIONS THAT MIGHT BE ASSERTED IN SUPPORT
 OF RESPONDENT'S DECISION TO DISCIPLINE OF MS. LUCAS EXPOSES THE
 ABSURDITY OF EACH.  TRUE, HAD MS.  LUCAS NOT BEEN PRESENT, RESPONDENT
 WOULD NOT HAVE HAD EVEN A PRETEXTUAL JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS ACTION.  WAS
 THERE SOME OTHER REASON FOR THE DISCIPLINING OF MS. LUCAS?  VERY
 DEFINITELY.  THE RECORD, DESPITE RESPONDENT'S DENIALS, SHOWS THAT
 RESPONDENT'S TRUE MOTIVE WAS TO PUNISH MS. LUCAS FOR INSTIGATING THE TV
 STORY.  AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, FROM THE MOMENT MR. POST INDICATED THAT HE
 WANTED TO INTERVIEW MS. LUCAS, MS. NAUTEL KNEW THAT THE STAFFING MATTER
 WAS INVOLVED.  THE FILMING OF THE CLOSED RADIOLOGY FACILITY ON THE FIRST
 FLOOR, WHICH MS. NAUTEL DISINGENUOUSLY SOUGHT TO OBSCURE BY STATING THAT
 PICTURES ON THE WALL OF THE HOSPITAL WERE BEING FILMED, AGAIN SHOWED
 THAT THE FOCAL POINT OF MR. POST'S STORY WAS STAFFING OF RADIOLOGY.
 THIS WAS FURTHER EMPHASIZED BY THE FILMING ON THE FOURTH FLOOR OF THE
 RADIOLOGY SECTION.  FINALLY, MR. MALONE ADMITTED THAT, WITH FULL
 KNOWLEDGE OF THE GRIEVANCE "AMONGST X-RAY EMPLOYEES IN WHICH MISS LUCAS
 WAS THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE . . . WITH A LOT OF GREAT INTEREST
 WENT HOME TO WATCH TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING TO BE ON TELEVISION NEWS THAT
 NIGHT" AND, AS HE ANTICIPATED, "MR. POST PRESENTED A STORY INDICATING
 SOME DIFFICULTIES SEEN BY THE EMPLOYEES REGARDING TREATMENT OF THE
 PATIENTS IN THE RADIOLOGY DEPARTMENT." ALTHOUGH THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW
 THAT MS. NAUTEL WAS INFORMED AT THE TIME THAT MR. POST ALSO INTERVIEWED
 A RADIOLOGY TECHNICIAN, THE INFERENCE IS INESCAPABLE THAT SHE WAS
 INFORMED AT SOME POINT.
 
    NEVERTHELESS, THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER MS. LUCAS' ACTIVITY
 IN CALLING MR. POST AND BEING INTERVIEWED WITH REGARD TO THE STAFFING
 MATTER WAS ENGAGING IN ACTIVITY PROTECTED BY THE STATUTE.  SECTION 2 OF
 THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PART, THAT,
 
    "EACH EMPLOYEE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST ANY
 LABOR ORGANIZATION
 
    . . . FREELY AND WITHOUT FEAR OF PENALTY OR REPRISAL, AND EACH
 EMPLOYEE SHALL BE PROTECTED IN
 
    THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHT.  EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED UNDER THIS
 CHAPTER, SUCH RIGHT
 
    INCLUDES THE RIGHT-
 
    "(1) TO ACT FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION IN THE CAPACITY OF A
 REPRESENTATIVE AND THE RIGHT, IN
 
    THAT CAPACITY, TO PRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION TO
 HEADS OF AGENCIES AND OTHER
 
    OFFICIALS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE CONGRESS, OR
 OTHER APPROPRIATE
 
    AUTHORITIES . . . ."
 
    THE TERM "OTHER APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES" IS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT,
 BUT I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT SUCH TERM INCLUDES REPORTERS, WHATEVER THE
 MEDIUM.  OTHERWISE EMPLOYEES ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF A REPRESENTATIVE
 OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION WOULD BE DENIED PROTECTION UNDER THE STATUTE
 WHEN PRESENTING THE VIEWS OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION TO THE PRESS, A
 RESULT CLEARLY NOT CONTEMPLATED BY CONGRESS.  MS. LUCAS WAS CHIEF
 STEWARD OF THE UNION AND SHE CONTACTED MR. POST IN HER CAPACITY AS CHIEF
 STEWARD.  RESPONDENT DENIED MS. LUCAS OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE INTERVIEW
 BUT APPROVED AN HOUR OF ANNUAL LEAVE.  AS MS. LUCAS WAS, ACCORDINGLY, ON
 HER OWN TIME, SHE QUITE PROPERLY ASSERTED THAT SHE WAS ACTING AS A
 "PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL";  BUT SHE DID NOT CEASE TO BE A UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE AND HER ACTIVITY DID NOT CEASE TO BE PROTECTED ACTIVITY
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 OF THE STATUTE.  VETERANS
 ADMINISTRATION, NORTH CHICAGO VETERANS HOSPITAL, NORTH CHICAGO,
 ILLINOIS, A/SLMR NO. 1024, 8 A/SLMR 430(1978) (SEE, IN PARTICULAR ALJ
 DECISION 8 A/SLMR AT 440-441).  CF., DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 HEADQUARTERS, MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT COMMAND, 2 FLRA NO. 72(1980);
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, BREMERTON,
 WASHINGTON, 2 FLRA NO. 7(1979).  ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE THAT
 RESPONDENT'S ACT OF DISCIPLINING MS. LUCAS IN RETALIATION FOR HER
 ACTIVITY, AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION, IN CONTACTING A TELEVISION
 REPORTER AND GIVING A TELEVISION INTERVIEW VIOLATED SEC. 16(A)(1).
 FURTHER, THE DISCRIMINATORY AND DISPARATE TREATMENT OF THE UNION'S CHIEF
 STEWARD, MS. LUCAS, CONSTITUTED ACTION WHICH INHERENTLY TENDED TO
 ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION BY
 DISCRIMINATION IN CONNECTION WITH HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 16(A)(2) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED AND IS ENGAGING IN CERTAIN
 CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 16(A)(1) AND (2) OF THE STATUTE, IT IS
 RECOMMENDED THAT THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 18(A)(7) OF THE STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7), AND
 SECTION 2423.26 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. CHAPTER
 XIV;  SEC. 2423.26, FED.  REG., VOL. 45, NO. 12, JANUARY 17, 1980, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, VETERANS
 ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING MS. GEORGIE P.  LUCAS,
 OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE,
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIST AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 
    INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 2000, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
 OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY
 
    OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    (B) DISCIPLINING OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MS.  GEORGIE P.
 LUCAS, OR ANY OTHER
 
    EMPLOYEE, WITH REGARD TO HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER
 
    TO DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN, OR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF,
 INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 2000,
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER
 LABOR ORGANIZATION.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
 
    THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY SEC. 2 OF THE STATUTE;  OR IN
 ANY LIKE OR RELATED
 
    MANNER ENCOURAGING OR DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION
 BY DISCRIMINATING IN
 
    CONNECTION WITH HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER CONDITION OF
 EMPLOYMENT.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) RESCIND AB INITIO, AND EXPUNGE FROM ALL PERSONNEL RECORDS, THE
 REPRIMAND OF MS. GEORGE
 
    P. LUCAS, DATED JUNE 8, 1979.
 
    (B) POST AT ITS MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA,
 COPIES OF THE ATTACHED
 
    NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORITY.
 UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH
 
    FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
 MEDICAL CENTER,
 
    SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE
 DIRECTOR FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE
 
    DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS
 AND OTHER PLACES WHERE
 
    NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE
 REASONABLE STEPS TO
 
    INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) PURSUANT TO SEC. 2423.30 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS,
 NOTIFY THE REGIONAL
 
    DIRECTOR OF REGION 6, ROOM 450, OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING, BRYAN &
 ERVAY STREETS, DALLAS, TEXAS
 
    75221, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO
 WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN
 
    TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                       WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
                       ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  JUNE 29, 1980
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
 
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
        NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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 RESCIND AB INITIO, AND EXPUNGE FROM ALL PERSONNEL RECORDS,
 THE REPRIMAND OF MS. GEORGIE P. LUCAS DATED JUNE 8, 1979.
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE MS. GEORGIE P.
 LUCAS, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIST
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL
 2000, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY
 OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 
    WE WILL NOT DISCIPLINE OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MS.  GEORGIE
 P. LUCAS, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, WITH REGARD TO HIRING, TENURE,
 PROMOTION, OR OTHER CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE
 MEMBERSHIP IN, OR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF, INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 2000,
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER LABOR
 ORGANIZATION.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY SEC. 2 OF
 THE STATUTE;  OR IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE
 MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION BY DISCRIMINATION IN CONNECTION
 WITH HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  BY:  (SIGNATURE) (TITLE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST R