National Labor Relations Board, Region I, Boston, Massachusetts (Respondent) and Ronald Lasky (Charging Party)



[ v05 p622 ]
05:0622(87)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 5 FLRA No. 87
 
 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
 REGION I
 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 RONALD LASKY
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 1-CA-28
 
                            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 CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE
 AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS SET FORTH IN
 THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ALSO FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
 NOT ENGAGED IN CERTAIN OTHER ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
 RECOMMENDED THAT THOSE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED.
 THEREAFTER THE RESPONDENT AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL FILED EXCEPTIONS TO
 THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER,
 ACCOMPANIED BY BRIEFS.  ADDITIONALLY, BOTH PARTIES FILED AN OPPOSITION
 TO THE OTHER PARTY'S EXCEPTIONS.
 
    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 2423.1 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 (5 CFR 2423.1).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
 PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7135(B) OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED THE
 RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING AND FINDS
 THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY
 AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS,
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.  /1/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7135 OF THE STATUTE, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, REGION
 I, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 BY THREATENING RONALD LASKY, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE WITH A POSSIBLE
 INVESTIGATION FOR ASSERTING THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT TO FILE CLAIMS FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE COPIES OF THE ATTACHED
 NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED
 BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION I, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
 AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
 THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN BY RESPONDENT TO
 INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (B) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION I, FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS
 ORDER, AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 15, 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 OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 BY THREATENING RONALD LASKY, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, WITH A POSSIBLE
 INVESTIGATION FOR ASSERTING THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT TO FILE CLAIMS FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR
 COERCE OUT EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
                            AGENCY OR 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 ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WHOSE ADDRESS IS:
 441 STUART STREET, 9TH FLOOR, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, 02116, AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (617) 223-0920.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    PAUL K. TAMAROFF, ESQUIRE
                   FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    PETER F. DOW, ESQUIRE
    CAROL A. WALLER, ESQUIRE
                   FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    WILLIAM G. KOCOL, ESQUIRE
                   FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
 
    BEFORE:  BURTON S. STERNBURG
                   ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS MATTER COMES BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 PURSUANT TO A COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 1,
 1979, BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION I, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY.  SAID COMPLAINT IS BASED UPON A CHARGE FILED ON APRIL 18,
 1979, BY RONALD LASKY, AN INDIVIDUAL, AGAINST THE NATIONAL LABOR
 RELATIONS BOARD, REGION I, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, HEREINAFTER CALLED THE
 RESPONDENT OR ACTIVITY.
 
    THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED
 SECTION 19(A)(1) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, BY VIRTUE OF ITS
 ACTIONS IN THREATENING RONALD LASKY ON OCTOBER 12, 1978, WITH AN
 INVESTIGATION AND THREATENING ROBERT KIEL ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 13, 1978,
 WITH DISCIPLINE BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIONS IN ASSERTING AND/OR UTILIZING
 CERTAIN RIGHTS ACCORDED THEM BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
 CURRENTLY IN EFFECT.  /2/
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN THE CAPTIONED MATTER ON MARCH 5, 1980, IN
 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.  ALL PARTIES WERE AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
 BEARING ON THE ISSUE HEREIN.  ALL PARTIES SUBMITTED BRIEFS WHICH HAVE
 BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    UPON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT,
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
                            PROCEDURAL MATTERS
 
    AT THE OPENING OF THE HEARING, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT MOVED FOR
 DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:  (1) THAT ALLEGED
 VIOLATIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, WHICH WERE NOT IN
 PROCESS AS ON JANUARY 11, 9179, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS STATUTE,, ARE NOT ACTIONABLE;  (2) THE GENERAL COUNSEL DOES
 NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE
 ORDER;  AND (3) THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING RONALD
 LASKY OCCURRED MORE THAN SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE CHARGE
 WITH THE AUTHORITY.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO GROUNDS (1) AND (2) SET FORTH ABOVE, I FIND LITTLE IF
 ANY SUPPORT IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FOR THE POSITION OF COUNSEL FOR
 THE RESPONDENT.  MOREOVER, IN ANY EVENT, INASMUCH AS THE AUTHORITY, AS
 EVIDENCED BY ITS INTERIM AND FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, HAS CONCLUDED
 THAT IT DOES HAVE THE POWER TO PROCESS, THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF THE
 GENERAL COUNSEL, EXECUTIVE ORDER CASES FILED AFTER JANUARY 11, 1979, I
 AM CONSTRAINED TO FOLLOW SUCH INTERPRETATION UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE
 AUTHORITY IS OVERRULED BY A HIGHER TRIBUNAL.  ACCORDINGLY, RESPONDENT'S
 MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUNDS SET FORTH IN (1) AND (2) ABOVE IS
 DENIED.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO RESPONDENT'S THIRD GROUND FOR DISMISSAL, I.E.
 EXPIRATION OF MORE THAN SIX MONTHS BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED
 ILLEGAL CONDUCT AGAINST MR. LASKY (OCTOBER 12, 1#78) AND THE FILING OF
 THE CHARGE (APRIL 18, 1979), THE RECORD REVEALS THAT MR. LASKY FIRST
 VISITED THE BOSTON REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE AUTHORITY IN FEBRUARY 1979, TO
 DETERMINE THE PROCEDURE FOR THE FILING OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 COMPLAINT.  HE WAS INFORMED AT THAT TIME BY AN AGENT OF THE AUTHORITY
 THAT PURSUANT TO THE TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE
 AUTHORITY ON DECEMBER 26, 1978, AND PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ON
 JANUARY 2, 1979 (FED. REG. VOL. 4, NO.1) HE MUST FIRST FILE A CHARGE IN
 WRITING WITH THE RESPONDENT AND THEN ALLOW THIRTY DAYS FOR INFORMAL
 RESOLUTION.  FAILING RESOLUTION, HE MUST THEN FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE
 AUTHORITY WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO THE CHARGE.  /3/
 PURSUANT TO THE ADVICE FROM THE AUTHORITY, MR. LASKY FILED A COPY OF THE
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE WITH RESPONDENT'S BOSTON REGIONAL OFFICE ON
 MARCH 9, 1979.  /4/
 
    IN THE INTERIM, ON MARCH 7, 1979, THE AUTHORITY ISSUED A NOTICE
 WHEREIN IT DID AWAY WITH THE PRACTICE OF REQUIRING THE FILING OF A
 CHARGE WITH RESPONDENT PRIOR TO THE FILING OF A OF A FORMAL CHARGE OR
 COMPLAINT WITH THE AUTHORITY.  THE NOTICE, HOWEVER, WAS SILENT WITH
 RESPECT TO THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ALLOWED FOR THE PERFECTION OF A
 COMPLAINT UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  THE NOTICE WAS FORMALLY PUBLISHED
 IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ON MARCH 13, 1979.  (FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 44,
 NO. 50).  THE RECORD IS BARREN OF ANY EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT MR.
 LASKY HAD BEEN INFORMED OF THE CHANGE IN THE REGULATIONS PRIOR TO MARCH
 13, 1979, THE DATE THE CHANGE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.
 
    CITING THE MARCH 7, 1979, NOTICE OF THE AUTHORITY AND ITS CONTENT,
 COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT INASMUCH AS MR. LASKY'S FORMAL
 CHARGES WERE NOT FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE
 DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, SUCH
 CHARGES ARE UNTIMELY AND MUST BE DISMISSED.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, INASMUCH AS MR. LASKY HAD MET THE TIME LIMITS SET FORTH
 IN THE INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS WHEN HE FILED THE PRE-COMPLAINT
 CHARGE ON MARCH 9, 1979, WITH THE RESPONDENT, I FIND THAT HIS CHARGES
 WERE TIMELY FILED.
 
    ADDITIONALLY, IT IS NOTED THAT WHILE THE MARCH 7, 1979, NOTICE DID
 AWAY WITH THE PRE-CHARGE ASPECT OF THE INTERIM RULES AND REGULATIONS, IT
 IS SILENT WITH RESPECT TO THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ALLOWED FOR THE FILING
 OF THE FORMAL COMPLAINT.  LASTLY, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT
 HEREIN, PARTICULARLY THE FACT THAT MR. LASKY HAD MADE A TIMELY
 APPEARANCE AT THE AUTHORITY'S BOSTON OFFICE IN FEBRUARY AND WAS ADVISED
 TO FILE A PRE-COMPLAINT CHARGE WITH RESPONDENT PRIOR TO FILING A FORMAL
 CHARGE WITH THE AUTHORITY, AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING OF PREJUDICIAL
 HARM TO RESPONDENT, I FIND RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS TO BE WITHOUT
 MERIT AND HEREBY DENY IT.
 
                              FINDING OF FACT
 
    THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UNION IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
 AGENT OF ALL PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED IN THE NATIONAL LABOR
 RELATIONS BOARD'S REGIONAL, SUB-REGIONAL AND RESIDENT OFFICES.  THE
 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND THE UNION ARE PARTIES TO A COLLECTIVE
 BARGAINING AGREEMENT COVERING THE AFOREMENTIONED OFFICES OF THE BOARD.
 LOCAL ONE OF THE NLRB UNION IS A PARTY TO A LOCAL SUPPLEMENTARY
 AGREEMENT WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE NLRB'S BOSTON REGIONAL
 OFFICE WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSABLE OVERTIME SERVICES.
 THE PAYMENT OF SUCH OVERTIME SERVICES MAY BE IN THE FORM OF LEAVE
 CREDITS OR MONEY, TO THE EXTENT THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE.  THE
 SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT CONTAINS THE FORM WHICH THE EMPLOYEES ARE TO
 USE
 WHEN SUBMITTING THEIR OVERTIME CLAIMS.
 
    ROBERT KIEL HAS BEEN A FIELD ATTORNEY WITH THE RESPONDENT SINCE 1974.
  IN AUGUST OF 1978, MR. KIEL BEGAN WORKING UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MS.
 HELAINE SIMMONDS, A NEWLY APPOINTED SUPERVISOR.  MR. KIEL WAS UNHAPPY
 WITH BEING UNDER MS. SIMMONDS SUPERVISION FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE
 RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE HE RESENTED HER "CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE" AND HER
 INSISTENCE ON BEING INFORMED OF MR. KIEL'S METHOD OF OPERATION IN EACH
 CASE ASSIGNED TO HIM FOR INVESTIGATION.  FURTHER, ACCORDING TO MR. KIEL,
 MS. SIMMONDS AND HE FOUGHT OVER LEGAL OPINIONS AND WHEN THEY DISAGREED
 SHE LEFT HIM WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT SHE THOUGHT HE WAS A MORON.
 
    IN NOVEMBER OF 1978, MR. KIEL AND MS. SIMMONDS HAD A DISCUSSION
 CONCERNING AN OVERTIME VOUCHER SUBMITTED BY MR. KIEL.  ACCORDING TO MR.
 KIEL, THE DISCUSSION CONCERNED WHETHER OR NOT AN ATTORNEY HAD TO ASK FOR
 PERMISSION TO WORK OVERTIME OR JUST INFORM THE RESPECTIVE SUPERVISOR
 INVOLVED THAT HE WAS GOING TO WORK OVERTIME.  MS. SIMMONDS TOOK THE
 POSITION THAT THE FORMER WAS CORRECT AND MR. KIEL TOOK THE LATTER VIEW.
 THE DISAGREEMENT WAS NEVER RESOLVED.
 
    ON DECEMBER 12, 1978, MR. KIEL ALONG WITH ATTORNEY KIEVAL SUBMITTED
 OVERTIME CLAIMS UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR WORK PERFORMED
 TOGETHER THAT EVENING.  THE CLAIMS WERE LEFT ON MS. SIMMONDS DESK.  THE
 NEXT MORNING, DECEMBER 13, 1978, MR. KIEL RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM
 MS. SIMMONDS WHEREIN SHE TOLD HIM THAT SHE HAD A QUESTION CONCERNING HIS
 OVERTIME CLAIM AND REQUESTED THAT HE COME TO HER OFFICE TO DISCUSS SAME.
  /5/ MR. KIEL WENT TO MS. SIMMONDS OFFICE AS REQUESTED AND THEY ENGAGED
 IN A CONVERSATION CONCERNING HIS OVERTIME CLAIM.  WHEN MS. SIMMONDS
 ASKED FOR A COMPLETE BREAKDOWN WITH RESPECT TO THE WORK THAT MR. KIEL
 HAD PERFORMED ON OVERTIME AND INDICATED THAT SHE INTENDED TO DEDUCT THE
 TIME SPENT ON WRITING OUT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, MR. KIEL RESPONDED
 THAT IT WAS A PROPER CLAIM AND THAT IF IT WAS DENIED HE WOULD FILE A
 GRIEVANCE.  MR. KIEL WENT ON TO SAY THAT HER STATEMENT RELATIVE TO
 DEDUCTING MINUTES FROM THE OVERTIME CLAIM WAS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HER
 CONDESCENDING AND BUREAUCRATIC TREATMENT OF HIM AND OTHER MEMBERS OF
 THE
 TEAM.  MR. KIEL THEN ENUMERATED THE COMPLAINTS TO HIM FROM OTHER TEAM
 MEMBERS ABOUT SIMILAR CONDUCT FROM MS. SIMMONDS THAT WAS UPSETTING THE
 WHOLE TEAM.  BOTH MR. KIEL AND MS. SIMMONDS BECAME ANGRY AND MS.
 SIMMONDS STATED THAT "THESE ARE THE RULES." HE RESPONDED THAT THEY WERE
 NOT THE RULES BUT ONLY HER INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES." MS. SIMMONDS
 TOLD MR. KIEL THAT IF HE DID NOT LIKE THE RULES MAYBE HE SHOULD NOT BE
 WORKING AT THE NLRB.  MR. KIEL REPLIED, MAYBE SHE SHOULD NOT BE WORKING
 AS AN NLRB SUPERVISOR BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT GOOD AT HANDLING PEOPLE.  THE
 CONVERSATION WENT ON FOR SOME FIFTEEN MINUTES WITH MR. KIEL SPEAKING IN
 A LOUD VOICE AND POINTING OUT MS. SIMMONDS GENERAL VIOLATION OF THE
 EMPLOYEES CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS, HER PAST ACTIONS IN REGARD TO HIM, HER
 PAST UNREASONABLE CONDUCT, AND THE FACT THAT ALL THE OTHER TEAM MEMBERS
 HAD SIMILAR COMPLAINTS.  ACCORDING TO MR. KIEL, BOTH SPOKE IN LOUD
 VOICES, BUT HIS VOICE WAS PROBABLY LOUDER SINCE HIS VOICE PROJECTS MORE.
  THERE WAS NO PROFANITY OR THREATENING GESTURES.  THE CONVERSATION ENDED
 WITH MS. SIMMONDS STATING THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT.
 MR. KIEL RESPONDED BY SAYING THAT HE DID NOT SEE HOW IT COULD BE WORKED
 OUT BECAUSE SHE WAS STICKING ADAMANTLY TO HER METHOD OF HANDLING THE
 TEAM.
 
    SEVERAL HOURS LATER MS. SIMMONDS SUMMONED MR. KIEL TO HER OFFICE AND
 TOLD HIM THAT SHE HAD BEEN THINKING OVER THEIR EARLIER CONVERSATION AND
 THAT IT WAS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.  SHE THEN INFORMED MR. KIEL THAT IF HE
 EVER SPOKE TO HER AGAIN LIKE THAT HE WOULD BE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE.  HE
 REPLIED THAT SHE HAD SPOKEN TO HIM IN IDENTICAL TERMS AND THAT HE
 THOUGHT IT VERY HYPOCRITICAL THAT THEY WERE BOTH WORKING FOR AN AGENCY
 DESIGNED TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES RIGHTS AND HE WAS BEING THREATENED FOR
 ASSERTING SAME.
 
    RONALD LASKY HAS BEEN EMPLOYED AS AN ATTORNEY WITH THE RESPONDENT
 SINCE 1977.  HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR WAS MS. SIMMONDS.
 
    MR. LASKY WAS NOT HAPPY WORKING UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MS.
 SIMMONDS AND HAD IN THE PAST UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED TO ACHIEVE A
 TRANSFER TO ANOTHER TEAM.  HE RESENTED THE FACT THAT MS. SIMMONDS
 CLOSELY MONITORED HIS WHEREABOUTS AND HIS WORKING HOURS.  IN THIS LATTER
 RESPECT, HE HAD BEEN UNABLE TO CONVINCE MS. SIMMONDS THAT THE SET HOURS
 OF WORK SHOULD BE LOOSELY ADHERED TO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT A LOT OF
 THE AGENCY'S WORK WAS PERFORMED AT HOME BY THE ATTORNEYS ON THEIR OWN
 TIME.
 
    IN EARLY OCTOBER 1978, MR. LASKY RECEIVED A VERBAL INTERIM APPRAISAL
 FROM MS. SIMMONDS.  BEING CONCERNED ABOUT SUCH APPRAISAL AND WHAT WAS
 NECESSARY TO CURE THE DEFECTS THEREIN PRIOR TO RECEIVING HIS FINAL
 WRITTEN APPRAISAL, MR. LASKY APPROACHED THE LOCAL UNION PRESIDENT,
 BARBARA DEINHARDT, AND THE DISTRICT VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL
 UNION, JOSEPH FEASTER, AND REQUESTED THAT THEY SET UP A MEETING WITH
 MANAGEMENT TO DISCUSS ALL HIS PROBLEMS AND SEEK A TRANSFER FOR HIM FROM
 MS. SIMMONDS' TEAM.
 
    ON OCTOBER 12, 1978, MR. LASKY, MR. FEASTER AND MS. DEINHARDT MET
 WITH MS. SIMMONDS, MR. GARNER, THE ASSISTANT TO THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
 AND SUPERVISORY ATTORNEY JOEL GARDINER.  AT THE START OF THE MEETING MS.
 DEINHARDT MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE MEETING WAS NOT A NEGOTIATING OR
 GRIEVANCE SESSION AND THAT THEY WERE THERE ONLY TO DISCUSS A FEW OF MR.
 LASKY'S PROBLEMS, NAMELY HIS HOURS OF WORK, HOW WORK WAS TO BE PERFORMED
 AND A POSSIBLE TRANSFER FROM MS. SIMMONDS TEAM.
 
    WHILE THEY WERE DISCUSSING THE HOURS OF WORK AND THE FACT THAT OTHER
 SUPERVISORS WERE MORE LIBERAL WITH RESPECT TO STARTING AND QUITTING
 TIMES, MR. GARNER STATED, ACCORDING TO MR. LASKY, /6/ YOU ARE NUMBER ONE
 ON THE HIT PARADE, YOU ARE NUMBER ONE IN OVERTIME IN THE OFFICE.  MR.
 GARNER FURTHER STATED THAT HE KEPT RECORDS ON PRODUCTIVITY AND THAT MR.
 LASKY WAS NOT IN THE TOP HALF OF THE OFFICE IN PRODUCTIVITY.  IN
 RESPONSE TO MR. LASKY WAS NOT IN THE TOP HALF OF THE OFFICE IN
 PRODUCTIVITY.  IN RESPONSE TO MR. GARNER'S STATEMENT, MS. DEINHARDT
 ASKED MR. GARNER IF HE WAS ALLEGING FRAUDULENT OVERTIME CLAIMS BY MR.
 LASKY OR IF MR. LASKY WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION.  MR. GARNER REPLIED THAT
 THEY WERE NOT ALLEGING FRAUDULENT OVERTIME CLAIMS AND THAT MR. LASKY WAS
 NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION, "NOT YET." MR. GARNER THEN TURNED TO MS.
 SIMMONDS AND SAID "WOULDN'T IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT IF YOU WERE WRITING
 RON'S APPRAISAL TODAY, OVERTIME WOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERATION IN THAT
 EVALUATION." MS. SIMMONDS REPLIED "THAT WOULD BE A FAIR STATEMENT IF WE
 WERE WRITING IT TODAY." THE MEETING ENDED SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
 
    FOLLOWING THE MEETING, MR. LASKY WENT TO MR. GARNER'S OFFICE AND TOLD
 HIM THAT HE "HOPED THE AIR WAS CLEARED" AND INQUIRED IF RECORDS WERE
 BEING KEPT WITH RESPECT TO PRODUCTIVITY.  MR. GARNER LAUGHED AND SAID
 "NO SUCH RECORDS EXIST, I MADE IT UP."
 
    THE NEXT DAY MR. LASKY WENT TO SEE MS. DEINHARDT AND TOLD HER THAT HE
 WAS CONCERNED ABOUT MR. GARNER'S REMARK THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT MR.
 GARNER'S REMARK THAT HE WAS NUMBER ONE IN OVERTIME CLAIMS /7/ AND THAT
 HE HAD NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED AS YET.  HE ASKED MS. DEINHARDT TO SPEAK TO
 MR. GARNER.  MS. DEINHARDT WENT TO SEE MR. GARNER AND RELATED MR.
 LASKY'S CONCERNS.  MR. GARNER STATED THAT HE WAS NOT ALLEGING FRAUDULENT
 OVERTIME CLAIMS AND THAT "HIS REASON FOR MAKING THE STATEMENT WAS THAT
 IT WAS HIS WAY OF BEING AN ASS HOLE." /8/
 
                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    BOTH THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND COUNSEL FOR THE CHARGING PARTY TAKE THE
 POSITION THAT THE THREAT TO MR. KIEL BY MS. SIMMONDS WAS VIOLATIVE OF
 SECTION 19(A)(1) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, SINCE IT OCCURRED
 AT A TIME WHEN MR. KIEL WAS ASSERTING A CONTRACTUAL RIGHT AND/OR
 PRESENTING, IN HIS CAPACITY AS UNION STEWARD, THE GRIEVANCES OF HIS
 FELLOW TEAM MEMBERS.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS POSITION THEY CITE A NUMBER OF
 CASES BY THE COURTS, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY AND THE NLRB WHEREIN ROBUST
 DEBATE AND DEROGATORY ACTIONS BY UNION REPRESENTATIVES WERE FOUND NOT TO
 EXCEED THE BOUNDS OF PROPRIETY.
 
    COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING
 THAT THE ASSERTION OF A CONTRACTUAL RIGHT AND/OR THE PRESENTATION OF
 GRIEVANCES BY A UNION STEWARD IS PROTECTED ACTIVITY, TAKES THE POSITION
 THAT THE THREAT TO MR. KIEL WAS UNRELATED TO MR.  KIEL'S ACTIVITIES IN
 THE AFOREMENTIONED RESPECTS, AND HENCE WAS UNPROTECTED.
 
    AS MORE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE FACTUAL PORTION OF THE INSTANT
 DECISION, THE MEETING OR DISCUSSION BETWEEN MR. SIMMONDS AND MR. KIEL
 WAS NEITHER A GRIEVANCE SESSION NOR A MEETING CALLED TO DISCUSS MR.
 KIEL'S RIGHT TO SUBMIT AN OVERTIME CLAIM UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTARY
 AGREEMENT.  THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING INVOLVED THE VALIDITY OF MR.
 KIEL'S OVERTIME CLAIM.  HIS RIGHT TO FILE SUCH A CLAIM WAS NEVER IN
 DISPUTE.  THE ONLY THING IN DISPUTE WAS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM.
 UPON BEING INFORMED BY MS. SIMMONDS THAT, PURSUANT TO THE
 RESPONSIBILITIES IMPOSED UPON HER, SHE INTENDED TO DISALLOW A PORTION OF
 THE OVERTIME CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER UNDERSTANDING OF THE
 SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT, MR. KIEL TOOK EXCEPTION AND PROCEEDED, WITHOUT
 INVITATION, TO RECITE CHAPTER AND VERSE OF BOTH HIS AND HIS FELLOW
 TEAMMATES' GRIPES ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH MS.  SIMMONDS CHOSE TO
 CONDUCT OR CARRY OUT HER DUTIES AS A TEAM SUPERVISOR.  SUCH CRITICISM
 WAS MADE IN A LOUD AND INSUBORDINATE MANNER.
 
    IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE REMARKS, ETC. WERE MADE,
 I.E. DISCUSSION WITH AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF
 THE EMPLOYEE'S OVERTIME CLAIM, I FIND THAT MS. SIMMONDS' ADMONITION TO
 MR. KIEL ABOUT THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF A REPETITION OF HIS CONDUCT
 AT THE EARLIER MEETING NOT TO BE VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 19(A)(1) OF
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.  ALTHOUGH MR. KIEL WAS A UNION
 STEWARD, HE WAS NOT APPEARING IN SUCH CAPACITY AT THE DECEMBER 13, 1978,
 MEETING.  HE WAS THERE SOLELY IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN EMPLOYEE TO DISCUSS
 THE MERITS OF HIS OVERTIME CLAIM AND NOT THE RIGHT TO FILE SAME.  THE
 FACT THAT HE UNILATERALLY DECIDED TO BRING UP BOTH HIS OWN AND FELLOW
 TEAM MEMBERS' GRIPES DOES NOT ALTER THIS CONCLUSION.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE
 WOULD ALLOW A UNION STEWARD OR ANY OTHER UNION OFFICIAL TO INSULATE
 THEMSELVES FROM POSSIBLE DISCIPLINE FOR INSUBORDINATION BY MERELY
 INSERTING VARIOUS COMPLAINTS ABOUT WORKING CONDITIONS INTO THEIR
 DEROGATORY REMARKS UTTERED IN RESPONSE TO A SUPERVISOR'S ACTION WHICH
 MET WITH THEIR PERSONAL DISPLEASURE.
 
    HAD MS. SIMMONDS INVITED THE DISCUSSION OF THE GRIEVANCES I MIGHT
 WELL REACH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  HOWEVER, SUCH IS NOT THE CASE.
 
    MS. SIMMONDS WAS CARRYING OUT HER FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS A
 SUPERVISOR WHEN SHE CALLED MR. KIEL IN AND INFORMED HIM THAT BASED UPON
 HER INTERPRETATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT, SHE WAS DISALLOWING A
 PORTION OF HIS OVERTIME CLAIM.  TO THE EXTENT THAT MR. KIEL DISAGREED
 WITH HER ACTIONS OR INTERPRETATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT, HE
 WAS FREE TO FILE A GRIEVANCE THEREON.  HE WAS NOT, HOWEVER, FREE TO
 DISAGREE IN AN INSUBORDINATE AND DEROGATORY MANNER.  AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS
 ALSO A UNION OFFICIAL DOES NOT ENJOY ANY GREATER RIGHTS THAN OTHER
 RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEES DURING HIS NORMAL DAY TO DAY WORK ACTIVITIES.
 IT IS ONLY WHEN HE IS ACTING IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY THAT HE IS
 ENTITLED TO GREATER LATITUDE IN SPEECH AND ACTION.  ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW
 OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, I SHALL RECOMMEND THAT THE PORTION OF
 THE COMPLAINT PREDICATED UPON THE THREAT TO MR. KIEL BE DISMISSED.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MR. LASKY, GENERAL COUNSEL
 AND COUNSEL FOR THE CHARGING PARTY CONTEND THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED
 SECTION 19(A)(1) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, BY VIRTUE OF MR.
 GARNER'S ACTION IN REPLYING "NOT YET" TO MS.  DEINHARDT'S INQUIRY
 CONCERNING WHETHER MR. LASKY WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR FRAUDULENT
 OVERTIME CLAIMS.  THUS, THEY ARGUE THAT THE "NOT YET" REMARK TENDED TO
 RESTRAIN AND COERCE MR.  LASKY IN THE ASSERTION OF HIS CONTRACTUAL
 RIGHTS.
 
    COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT TAKES THE POSITION THAT INASMUCH AS
 RESPONDENT HAS A RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE OVERTIME CLAIMS, AND INDEED IS
 UNDER A RESPONSIBILITY TO DO SO, THE "NOT YET" REMARK IS NOT VIOLATIVE
 OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  ADDITIONALLY RESPONDENT TAKES THE POSITION THAT
 EVEN IF THE REMARK IS CONSIDERED A THREAT, SUCH THREAT IS NOT UNLAWFUL
 IN VIEW OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS MADE, DISCUSSION OF MR. LASKY'S
 PRODUCTIVITY IN RELATION TO HIS REQUEST FOR MORE LIBERAL HOURS OF WORK.
 LASTLY, RESPONDENT TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE THREAT WAS DISSIPATED BY
 THE SUBSEQUENT ACTION OF MR. GARNER IN ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT WAS A
 STUPID REMARK AND THAT HE WAS NOT ALLEGING FRAUDULENT OVERTIME.
 
    THE EXECUTIVE ORDER GIVES EMPLOYEES THE RIGHT TO JOIN, FORM AND
 REPRESENT A UNION.  THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY HAS INTERPRETED THE
 FOREGOING TO INCLUDE THE ASSERTION OF THE BENEFITS FLOWING FROM ANY
 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT REACHED AS A RESULT OF SUCH ACTIVITY.
 IN THIS LATTER REGARD, THREATS OR ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSERTION
 OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE VIOLATIVE OF THE EXECUTIVE
 ORDER.  THUS, IN DEPARTMENT OF NAVY, PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD,
 BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, A/SLMR NO. 582, THREATS FOR INCORRECTLY INVOKING
 THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT WERE FOUND
 TO BE A VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1).  ALTHOUGH NOT CONTROLLING,
 SIMILAR RESULTS HAVE BEEN REACHED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR BY THE NATIONAL
 LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  IN BUNNY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 139 NLRB 1516,
 THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE DISCHARGE OF AN EMPLOYEE FOR FILING A CLAIM FOR
 SHOW UP TIME UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT TO BE VIOLATIVE
 OF SECTION 8(A)(1) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  IN LANE
 TRENCHING INC., 247 NLRB NO. 183, A CASE DIRECTLY IN POINT, THE BOARD
 FOUND THAT A THREAT TO DISCHARGE AN EMPLOYEE IF HE CONTINUED TO FILE
 OVERTIME CLAIMS PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS A
 VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  A SUBSEQUENT DISCHARGE PREDICATED UPON THE FILING
 OF OVERTIME CLAIMS WAS FOUND VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 8(A)(3) OF THE ACT.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE SOLE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
 IS WHETHER OR NOT MR. GARNER'S REMARKS CONSTITUTED A THREAT TO MR. LASKY
 AND THEREBY COERCED AND RESTRAINED HIM IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS
 ACCORDED TO HIM BY THE ORDER, NAMELY THE RIGHT TO FILE OVERTIME CLAIMS
 UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT
 HEREIN, I FIND MR. GARNER'S REMARK TO BE VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 19(A)(1)
 OF THE ORDER.
 
    IN REACHING THE ABOVE CONCLUSION, IT IS NOTED THAT MR. LASKY WAS
 SEEKING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO REACH SOME SORT OF UNDERSTANDING WITH
 HIS SUPERVISOR CONCERNING A MORE LIBERAL APPLICATION OF THE STARTING AND
 QUITTING TIMES WHEN AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMED NON-COMPENSABLE OVERTIME.
 SUCH NON-COMPENSABLE OVERTIME APPEARS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM
 THE COMPENSABLE OVERTIME COVERED BY THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT SINCE
 THE LATTER APPLIES TO OVERTIME WORK OVER WHICH THE ATTORNEY INVOLVED HAS
 NO CONTROL, SUCH AS THE UNAVAILABILITY OF WITNESSES DURING NORMAL
 WORKING TIME.  WHILE THERE MIGHT WELL BE A CONNECTION BETWEEN PRODUCTION
 AND VOLUNTARY OVERTIME, NO SUCH NEXUS IS APPARENT WITH RESPECT TO
 INVOLUNTARY COMPENSABLE OVERTIME.  A LOW PRODUCER MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN
 ASSIGNED CASES WHICH CONSISTENTLY INVOLVED WITNESS INTERVIEWS OR
 ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHICH COULD NOT BE PERFORMED DURING
 WORKING HOURS.  ACCORDINGLY, CONTRARY TO THE CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT, I
 FIND THAT MR. GARNER'S COMMENTS AND/OR ACTIONS IN COUPLING MR. LASKY'S
 PRODUCTION WITH HIS OVERTIME CLAIMS TO BE UNRELATED TO MR. LASKY'S
 REQUEST FOR A MORE LIBERAL APPLICATION OF THE STARTING AND QUITTING
 HOURS.  MOREOVER, AND IN ANY EVENT, I FIND THAT THE "NOT YET" QUALIFYING
 REMARK TO BE A SUPERFLUOUS COMMENT.  COUPLING THE REMARK WITH THE
 QUESTION PUT TO MS. SIMMONDS, I.E. WHETHER OR NOT HIS OVERTIME CLAIMS
 WOULD BE CONSIDERED IF AN EVALUATION OF MR. LASKY WAS MADE "TODAY,"
 INDICATES MANAGEMENT'S INTENT TO TAKE SOME FUTURE ACTION AGAINST MR.
 LASKY IF HE CONTINUES TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT ACCORDED HIM UNDER THE
 SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT.  IF AN EMPLOYEE HAS TO THINK TWICE BEFORE
 PUTTING IN AN OVERTIME CLAIM IRRESPECTIVE OF THE VALIDITY OF SUCH CLAIM,
 THE EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO FILE FOR THE CLAIM HAS BEEN INTERFERED WITH.
 
    IN REACHING THE ABOVE CONCLUSION, I AM NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE
 OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED UPON MANAGEMENT TO PROTECT U.S. TREASURY FUNDS FROM
 FRAUDULENT CLAIMS AND MONITOR THEIR NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT.  HOWEVER, SUCH
 OBLIGATION MUST ACCOMMODATE THE EMPLOYEES RIGHTS TO FILE FOR, OR ENJOY
 THE BENEFITS OF, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS NEGOTIATED ON THEIR
 BEHALF.  THREATS TO INVESTIGATE A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE FOR FRAUDULENT
 CLAIMS WITHOUT ANY PRIOR BASIS THEREFORE EXCEEDS THE RIGHTS AND
 RESPONSIBILITIES ACCORDED MANAGEMENT TO POLICE THE OVERTIME CLAIMS OF
 ITS EMPLOYEES.
 
    FINALLY, CONTRARY TO THE CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT, I FIND THAT A
 REMEDY FOR THE THREAT TO MR. LASKY IS IN ORDER.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) OF EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, I RECOMMEND THAT THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THE
 FOLLOWING:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 2400.1 AND 2400.2 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS
 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7135 OF THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS
 THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, REGION I, BOSTON,
 MASSACHUSETTS, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INTERFERING, RESTRAINING OR COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 1(A) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
 11491, AS AMENDED, BY THREATENING RONALD LASKY, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE
 WITH A POSSIBLE INVESTIGATION FOR ASSERTING THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS
 UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT TO FILE CLAIMS FOR OVERTIME
 COMPENSATION.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING, RESTRAINING OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN
 SECTION 1(A) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE 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 REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR FOR REGION I, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AND SHALL BE
 POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.
 THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE
 NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (B) 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.
 
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE 19(A)(1) ALLEGATION OF THE COMPLAINT
 INVOLVING MR. ROBERT KIEL, WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND SUPRA NOT BE BE
 VIOLATIVE OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, BE, AND HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
                         BURTON S. STERNBURG
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  MAY 14, 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, RESTRAIN OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 1(A) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
 11491, AS AMENDED, BY THREATENING RONALD LASKY, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE,
 WITH A POSSIBLE INVESTIGATION FOR ASSERTING THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS
 UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT TO FILE CLAIMS FOR OVERTIME
 COMPENSATION.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE, RESTRAIN OR
 COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION
 1(A) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  BY:
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR SIXTY (60) CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM
 THE DATE OF POSTING, AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACE, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  441
 STUART STREET, 8TH FLOOR, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE
 NUMBER IS (617) 223-0920.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
 OF 1978(92 STAT.1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS
 OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
  THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
 MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE
 RESULT WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN
 UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
 
    /2/ ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
 11491, AS AMENDED, IT WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 7104(F) AND 7134
 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT.1196,
 1215), IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARTS 2423 AND 2429 OF THE RULES AND
 REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY (44 FR 44740) WHICH
 PROVIDES THAT ALL CHARGES OF ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UNDER
 SECTION 19 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, WHICH ARE FILED WITH
 THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER JANUARY 11, 1979,
 SHALL BE PROCESSED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE AUTHORITY.
 
    /3/ THE TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS ADOPTED THE THEN EXISTING
 RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY WITH RESPECT TO THE
 TIME LIMITS FOR FILING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGES AND COMPLAINTS
 UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.  THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY'S
 RULES AND REGULATIONS PROVIDED THAT CHARGES OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
 WERE TO BE FILED WITH A RESPONDENT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE OCCURRENCE.
 FAILING RESOLUT