Federal Election Commission (Respondent) and National Treasury Employees Union (Charging Party)

 



[ v06 p327 ]
06:0327(59)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 6 FLRA No. 59
 
 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 3-CA-929
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING ISSUED
 HIS DECISION AND ORDER FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN AN
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND RECOMMENDING THAT
 IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS AS
 SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED JUDGE'S DECISION AND ORDER.  NO EXCEPTIONS
 WERE FILED TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND ORDER.
 
    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 (THE STATUTE), THE AUTHORITY HAS
 REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING AND FINDS THAT NO
 PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON
 CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND ORDER, AND THE ENTIRE RECORD
 IN THE SUBJECT CASE, AND NOTING PARTICULARLY THE ABSENCE OF EXCEPTIONS,
 THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS.  /1/
 
                                   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 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,
 WASHINGTON, D.C., SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INTERFERING WITH, OR DISCOURAGING, BY IMPLIED THREATS OR OTHER
 MEANS, MICHAEL LEVIN, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHTS
 ACCORDED BY THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE TO
 FILE AND PROCESS GRIEVANCES UNDER THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
 FREELY AND WITHOUT FEAR OF PENALTY OR REPRISAL.
 
    (B) THREATENING MICHAEL LEVIN OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE THAT THEY MAY
 HAVE THEIR EMPLOYMENT ADVERSELY AFFECTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE FILED A
 GRIEVANCE UNDER THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) POST AT THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C., COPIES
 OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY
 THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION AND SHALL BE POSTED AND
 MAINTAINED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES,
 INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN TO INSURE THAT SAID
 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 III, 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., JULY 23, 1981
 
                        RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                        HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                        FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                          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, OR DISCOURAGE, BY IMPLIED THREATS OR
 OTHER MEANS, MICHAEL LEVIN, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, FROM EXERCISING THE
 RIGHTS ACCORDED BY THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE TO FILE AND PROCESS GRIEVANCES UNDER THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE
 PROCEDURE FREELY AND WITHOUT FEAR OF PENALTY OR REPRISAL.
 
    WE WILL NOT THREATEN OUR EMPLOYEES THAT THEY MAY HAVE THEIR
 EMPLOYMENT ADVERSELY AFFECTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE FILED A GRIEVANCE UNDER
 THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.
 
    WE WILL NOT, IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS 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 QUESTION 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:
 1133 15TH STREET, N.W., ROOM 300, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005, AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (202) 653-8452.
 
                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 
    COPIES OF THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY IN THE SUBJECT PROCEEDING HAVE THIS DAY BEEN MAILED TO THE
 PARTIES LISTED BELOW:
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    GARY D. SIMS
 
    SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE STAFF DIRECTOR
 
    FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
 
    1325 K STREET, N.W.
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463
 
    VINCENT L. CONNERY, PRESIDENT
 
    NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 
    1730 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 1101
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
 
    PATRICK F. SMITH
 
    ASSISTANT COUNSEL
 
    NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 
    1730 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 1101
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
 
    HONORABLE FRANCIS E. DOWD
 
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    1111 20TH STREET, N.W., SUITE 416
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
 
    NINA L. SCHWARTZ, ESQ.
 
    BRUCE D. ROSENSTEIN, ESQ.
 
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    1133 15TH STREET, N.W., SUITE 300
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
 
    ALEXANDER GRAHAM
 
    REGIONAL DIRECTOR
 
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    1133 15TH STREET, N.W., SUITE 300
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
 
    GARY D. SIMMS
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    NINA L. SCHWARTZ, ESQUIRE
 
    BRUCE D. ROSENSTEIN, ESQUIRE
 
                          FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    BEFORE:  FRANCIS E. DOWD
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE), 92 STAT. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101 ET SEQ.
 IT WAS INSTITUTED BY THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING
 ON MAY 28, 1980 BASED UPON A CHARGE FILED ON MARCH 5, 1980 AND AN
 AMENDED CHARGE DATED MAY 5,
 
    THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, (ALSO
 REFERRED TO HEREIN AS THE RESPONDENT), VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF
 THE STATUTE WHEN ITS AGENT KENNETH GROSS TOLD MICHAEL LEVIN THAT IF HE
 INSISTED ON PURSUING HIS GRIEVANCE THROUGH THE PARTIES' NEGOTIATED
 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, HE WOULD SEE TO IT THAT LEVIN DID NOT RECEIVE ANY
 MORE EXTENSIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE REQUIRES MAKING
 A CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION AS BETWEEN WITNESSES GROSS AND LEVIN.  AS
 FURTHER DEFENSES, RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT LEVIN WAS NOT AN "EMPLOYEE"
 AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES AND THAT SECTION 7116(D) BARS THE INSTANT CHARGE
 AND COMPLAINT.
 
    AT A HEARING IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ALL PARTIES WERE AFFORDED FULL
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, ADDUCE EVIDENCE, EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE
 WITNESSES, AND ARGUE ORALLY.  THEREAFTER, RESPONDENT, CHARGING PARTY,
 AND COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL FILED BRIEFS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY
 CONSIDERED.  TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE, THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED WITH
 APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION.  FURTHER, THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S MOTION TO
 CORRECT THE TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN CAREFULLY REVIEWED AND IS HEREBY
 GRANTED.  /2/
 
    UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, FROM MY
 OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM ALL OF THE
 TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    1.  MR. MICHAEL LEVIN WAS ORIGINALLY HIRED AS A "SUMMER INTERN" BY
 RESPONDENT DURING THE SPRING OF 1978, AND WAS EXTENDED IN THIS POSITION
 ON A PART-TIME (LESS THAN 40 HOURS PER WEEK) BASIS THROUGH THE SPRING OF
 1979 VIA A SERIES OF TIME-LIMITED EXTENSIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  MR. LEVIN
 WAS ATTENDING A LOCAL LAW SCHOOL IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
    2.  ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 2, 1979, A MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL CIRCULATED A
 MEMORANDUM ADVISING SUMMER INTERNS THAT LIMITED FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE TO
 EXTEND "A FEW" TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS AND REQUESTING ALL SUMMER INTERNS
 TO INDICATE WHETHER THEY HAD A DESIRE TO CONTINUE EMPLOYMENT WITH THE
 RESPONDENT DURING THE FALL OF 1979.  FOR REASONS KNOWN ONLY TO HIMSELF,
 MR. LEVIN CONSTRUED THIS MEMORANDUM TO BE AN OFFER OF CONTINUED
 EMPLOYMENT, AND RESPONDED SAYING THAT HE LOOKED FORWARD TO CONTINUING
 HIS EMPLOYMENT AFTER LABOR DAY.  /3/ IN HIS TESTIMONY, HOWEVER, HE
 CONCEDED THAT HE NEVER DID RECEIVE A FIRM OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT (TR.
 P.40).
 
    3.  ON AUGUST 18, LEVIN WENT ON VACATION.  AT THE END OF AUGUST, A
 PERSONNEL COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSELS MEET TO
 DISCUSS THE SUBJECT OF REEMPLOYMENT OF SUMMER INTERNS FOR THE FALL.
 APPARENTLY BUDGET CONSTRAINS WOULD ONLY PERMIT REHIRING TWO INTERNS.  IT
 WAS DECIDED NOT TO REHIRE LEVIN BECAUSE TWO OTHER INTERNS HAD
 CAPABILITIES AND POTENTIAL EXCEEDING THOSE OF LEVIN.  IT WAS DECIDED TO
 INFORM LEVIN IN PERSON RATHER THAN IN WRITING AND, SINCE LEVIN WAS OUT
 OF TOWN, THE NOTIFICATION HAD TO AWAIT HIS RETURN.
 
    4.  UPON HIS RETURN TO WORK ON SEPTEMBER 4, LEVIN WAS SUMMONED INTO
 KENNETH GROSS' OFFICE, THE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR PUBLIC
 FINANCING.  GROSS TOLD LEVIN THAT DUE TO BUDGETARY REASONS LEVIN WOULD
 NOT BE KEPT ON FOR THE FALL.  SINCE THERE HAD BEEN NO PRIOR WARNING TO
 LEVIN THAT HE MIGHT NOT BE REHIRED, THIS NEWS UNDERSTANDABLY WAS
 UPSETTING.  EVEN GROSS CONCEDES THAT IT WAS ABRUPT.  LEVIN'S IMMEDIATE
 REACTION CENTERED ON WHAT THIS MEANT TO HIM FINANCIALLY.  HE EXPLAINED
 TO GROSS THAT HE HAD GIVEN UP A JOB OFFER SEVERAL WEEKS AGO AND THAT HE
 NEEDED THE JOB AT LEAST UNTIL THE END OF THE SEMESTER IN ORDER TO
 CONTINUE ATTENDING LAW SCHOOL.  LEARNING OF MR. LEVIN'S FINANCIAL
 DIFFICULTIES, MR. GROSS INDICATED THAT HE WOULD TRY TO GET AN EXTENSION
 OF EMPLOYMENT FOR HIM, DURING WHICH TIME MR. LEVIN MIGHT FIND
 ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT.
 
    5.  IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE MEETING, LEVIN WENT TO SEE PHIL KELLETT,
 PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL NTEU CHAPTER, IN HIS OFFICE.  LEVIN RELATED TO
 KELLETT WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED IN GROSS'S OFFICE;  THAT HE WAS TO BE
 TERMINATED WITHOUT NOTICE AND ASKED KELLETT IF THE UNION WOULD BE ABLE
 TO DO ANYTHING FOR HIM.  KELLETT ADVISED LEVIN THAT THE UNION WOULD FILE
 A GRIEVANCE ON HIS BEHALF.  THE GRIEVANCE WAS FILED BY THE UNION ON
 SEPTEMBER 6 (G.C. EXH. NO. 5).
 
    6.  ACCORDING TO GROSS'S TESTIMONY, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SEPTEMBER 4
 CONVERSATION WITH LEVIN, HE WENT TO SPEAK TO VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE
 PERSONNEL COMMITTEE IN ORDER TO RECOMMEND AN EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT
 FOR
 LEVIN THROUGH THE END OF SEPTEMBER.  AS A RESULT OF GROSS'S EFFORTS,
 LEVIN WAS TELEPHONED AT HOME BY A MS. MAURA CONLEY ON SEPTEMBER 6, AND
 NOTIFIED THAT HE HAD BEEN GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT THROUGH
 SEPTEMBER 30 (TR. 22).  LEVIN TOLD MS.  CONLEY THAT HE APPRECIATED THE
 EXTENSION AND WOULD LET HER KNOW OF HIS DECISION.  MS. CONLEY DID NOT
 TESTIFY AT THE HEARING.
 
    7.  UPON HIS RETURN TO WORK ON SEPTEMBER 7, LEVIN IMMEDIATELY WENT TO
 SEE PHIL KELLETT.  HE TOLD KELLETT ABOUT HIS CONVERSATION WITH CONLEY
 AND ASKED KELLETT WHETHER HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXTENSION WOULD IN ANY
 WAY PREJUDICE HIS GRIEVANCE.  AFTER BEING ASSURED THAT IT WOULD NOT,
 LEVIN WROTE A MEMORANDUM ADDRESSED TO MAURA CONLEY, DATED SEPTEMBER 7,
 CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING HER "PROPOSAL" OF AN EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT
 (G.C. EXH. NO. 6;  TR. 23).  /4/ THE CONDITION WAS THAT LEVIN'S
 ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXTENSION WAS "NOT TO BE VIEWED AS EITHER AN EXPRESS
 OR IMPLIED WAIVER OR MODIFICATION OF AN ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO CONTINUE
 MY CURRENT POSITION . . . THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1979." (IN THE GRIEVANCE
 PROCEEDING, LEVIN WAS ADVANCING THE ARGUMENT THAT BACK IN AUGUST HE
 RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED AN "OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT" FROM STEPHANIE KATZ.)
 
    8.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME DESIGNATED IN THE
 NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, A FIRST LEVEL GRIEVANCE MEETING WAS HELD
 AND, ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1979, MR.  GROSS ISSUED A WRITTEN DECISION
 REJECTING THE GRIEVANCE BASED UPON THE FACT THAT MR. LEVIN WAS NOT A
 MEMBER OF THE OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BARGAINING UNIT AND THEREFORE WAS
 WITHOUT STANDING TO UTILIZE THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.
 THEREAFTER, ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 26, MR. PHILIP KELLETT, UNION
 PRESIDENT, ATTEMPTED TO SERVE A SECOND STEP GRIEVANCE.  A DISPUTE AROSE
 CONCERNING WHO WAS THE APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUAL TO RECEIVE THAT GRIEVANCE
 AND WHETHER THE GRIEVANCE HAD IN FACT BEEN PROPERLY FILED.  MR. GROSS
 WAS AWARD OF THIS DISPUTE (TR. PP. 80-81) CONCERNING THE APPEAL OF HIS
 FIRST LEVEL GRIEVANCE DETERMINATION.
 
    9.  IN THE CLOSING DAYS OF SEPTEMBER 1979, MR. GROSS AGAIN DISCUSSED
 THE MATTER WITH MEMBERS OF THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE, AND OBTAINED AN
 ADDITIONAL EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MR. LEVIN THROUGH THE END OF
 OCTOBER 1979 IN ORDER TO PROVIDE MR. LEVIN WITH ADDITIONAL TIME TO
 SECURE ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT.  ALTHOUGH THE DETERMINATION HAD BEEN MADE
 TO EXTEND LEVIN'S EMPLOYMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL MONTH, THE NECESSARY
 PAPERWORK HAD NOT YET BEEN INITIATED AND COMPLETED, AND AS OF THIS POINT
 IN TIME MR. LEVIN WAS UNAWARE OF THE DECISION.  ON SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 30,
 1979, MR. LEVIN'S ONE-MONTH EXTENSION WITH RESPONDENT WAS COMPLETED.
 
    10.  ON OCTOBER 2, 1979, MR. LEVIN APPEARED IN THE OFFICE OF GENERAL
 COUNSEL, AND SPOKE WITH MR. PHILIP KELLETT, UNION PRESIDENT (TR. 24).
 MR. KELLETT'S OFFICE WAS LOCATED ONLY 15 FEET FROM THE OFFICE OF KEN
 GROSS.  MR. LEVIN WAS NOT SURE WHETHER HE WAS WORKING OR WHETHER HE WAS
 BEING PAID.  HE INDICATED THAT HE WAS PRESENT TO "CLEAR THE FILES OFF"
 OF HIS DESK;  TO FIND OUT HIS STATUS, "IF I WAS WORKING OR WHAT WAS
 GOING ON." AS HE STATED, "I REALLY WASN'T SURE WHAT WAS GOING ON." HE
 WAS ALSO THERE TO CHECK ON THE STATUS OF HIS GRIEVANCE.
 
    11.  WHILE IN THIS UNCERTAIN STATUS, HE WAS CALLED INTO THE OFFICE OF
 MR. GROSS, WHO GAVE HIM THE GOOD NEWS THAT AN EXTENSION FOR THE MONTH OF
 OCTOBER HAS BEEN SECURED.  MR. LEVIN FURTHER INDICATED THAT THE
 DISCUSSION ATTENDANT THERETO WAS "FRIENDLY" (TR. P. 27).  /5/ MR. GROSS
 TESTIFIED, HOWEVER, THAT MR. LEVIN IMMEDIATELY ACCEPTED THE OFFER OF
 CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT.  /6/
 
    12.  LATER THAT AFTERNOON, LEVIN WROTE A MEMO TO THE UNION FILE
 REGARDING HIS OCTOBER 2 CONVERSATION WITH GROSS.  /7/ HE ALSO PREPARED
 ANOTHER CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE LETTER ADDRESSED TO KENNETH GROSS (G.C.
 EXH. NO. 8);  (TR. 26-27).  LEVIN THEN WENT TO SPEAK TO KELLETT AND
 PRESENTED BOTH DOCUMENTS TO KELLETT AND FILLER, CHIEF STEWARD AND VICE
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNION (TR. 31, 59).  LEVIN RELATED TO THEM WHAT HAD
 JUST TRANSPIRED WITH GROSS AND TOLD THEM THAT HE WAS GOING TO GIVE GROSS
 HIS OCTOBER 2 CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE LETTER.  LEVIN'S TESTIMONY IS THAT
 ON THE SAME DAY, AT APPROXIMATELY 4:00 OR 4:30 P.M., HE HANDED HIS
 OCTOBER 2 CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE LETTER TO GROSS'S SECRETARY, CLARA
 KISHER, AND TOLD HER TO GIVE THE LETTER TO GROSS AS IT WAS IMPORTANT
 (TR. 31).  MR. GROSS TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NO SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION OF
 RECEIVING THE DOCUMENT, NOR DID A SEARCH OF OFFICIAL LOGS WITHIN THE
 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL INDICATE WHETHER IT HAD, IN FACT, BEEN
 RECEIVED BY HIS SECRETARY, AS ALLEGED BY MR. LEVIN (TR. 82).  RESPONDENT
 DID NOT OFFER THE LOGS IN EVIDENCE AND MS. KISHER WAS NOT CALLED AS A
 WITNESS.  CONSIDERING LEVIN'S PENCHANT FOR PREPARING MEMORANDA AND
 LETTERS OF A SELF-SERVING NATURE, I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT HE
 WOULD HAVE PREPARED THIS MEMO, DISCUSSED IT WITH THE UNION
 REPRESENTATIVES AND NOT DELIVERED IT AS HE TESTIFIED.  I CREDIT LEVIN'S
 VERSION.
 
    13.  LEVIN'S CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE MEMORANDUM ADDRESSED TO MR.
 GROSS STATED AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR EXTENDING MY TERM OF EMPLOYMENT THROUGH 31
 OCTOBER 1979.  I WILL
 
    CONTINUE TO WORK 25 HOURS PER WEEK DURING THIS TIME;  HOWEVER, AS
 BEFORE, THIS DOES NOT
 
    CONSTITUTE A WAIVER EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED OF MY RIGHT TO CONTEST
 THE PERSONNEL ACTION IN
 
    DISPUTE NOR DOES IT CONSTITUTE A MODIFICATION OF WHAT I CONSIDERED
 THE ORIGINAL OFFER OF
 
    EMPLOYMENT."
 
    IN PREPARING THE "CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE" LEVIN AND THE UNION WERE
 ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE OBJECTIVE THEY WERE SEEKING.  NO CONSIDERATION
 WAS APPARENTLY GIVEN TO THE REACTION IT MIGHT INVOKE IN MR. GROSS.
 AFTER ALL, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THIS MEMO WAS BEING SENT TO THE
 ONE PERSON IN MANAGEMENT WHO HAD BEFRIENDED LEVIN AND WHO WAS SINGULARLY
 RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING TWO EXTENSIONS OF ONE MONTH EACH.
 FURTHERMORE, THE MEMO WAS GRATUITOUS;  IT HAD NOT BEEN REQUESTED BY
 GROSS.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT, AS OF OCTOBER 2, GROSS HAD SUGGESTED
 OR EVEN HINTED THAT LEVIN SHOULD DROP HIS GRIEVANCE.  NEVERTHELESS, THE
 MEMO JOINS TOGETHER TWO SEPARATE THOUGHTS-- ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXTENSION
 AND REFUSAL TO WAIVE THE RIGHTS TO GRIEVE.  BUT, AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY,
 THE OCTOBER 2 MEETING ONLY INVOLVED THE EXTENSION;  THERE WAS NO MENTION
 OF THE PENDING GRIEVANCE.
 
    14.  THE NEXT DAY, OCTOBER 3, LEVIN WAS AGAIN SUMMONED INTO GROSS'
 OFFICE.  GROSS BEGAN WAVING A PIECE OF PAPER IN FRONT OF LEVIN SAYING,
 "WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?" MR.  LEVIN IDENTIFIED THE PIECE OF PAPER AS HIS
 OCTOBER 2 MEMORANDUM TO GROSS, DESCRIBED ABOVE.  MR.  LEVIN ASKED MR.
 GROSS WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS AND MR. GROSS STATED AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "'YOU KNOW, YOU'RE THE MOST UNGRATEFUL SON OF A BITCH I EVER MET.  I,
 PERSONALLY, WENT OUT
 
    ON A LIMB TO GET YOU THIS EXTENSION AND I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE
 MAINTAINING THIS ACTION LIKE
 
    THIS.  IF I HAD TO DO IT OVER-- I AM REALLY SORRY I WENT AHEAD AND
 GOT YOU THE EXTENSION. IF
 
    IT'S UP TO ME, YOU WON'T GET ANOTHER.'" (TR. P. 32;  SEE ALSO PP. 54
 AND 55).
 
    AT THIS POINT, LEVIN RAISED A POINT WHICH I IMAGINE HAD BEEN
 BOTHERING HIM FOR SOME TIME.  HE ASKED GROSS WHY OTHER LESS EXPERIENCED
 INTERNS WERE BEING KEPT ON IF THERE WAS A BUDGET PROBLEM (TR. 32).
 GROSS TOLD LEVIN THAT IT WAS A MATTER OF COMPETENCE.  WHEN ASKED WHO
 MADE THE DETERMINATION WITH REGARD TO COMPETENCE, GROSS TOLD LEVIN THAT
 IT WAS A "MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE" (TR. 33).
 
    (A) THE FOREGOING IS MR. LEVIN'S VERSION OF WHAT WAS SAID AT THE
 OCTOBER 3 MEETING.  RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE IS SIMPLE;  THE MEETING NEVER
 TOOK PLACE.  MR. GROSS DOES NOT RECALL THE MEETING AT ALL.  WHEN
 CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THE STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY HIM, HE DENIED
 HAVING MADE THEM.
 
    (B) FROM A CREDIBILITY STANDPOINT, THE QUESTION IS WHICH VERSION IS
 MORE BELIEVABLE:  LEVIN'S DETAILED POINT-BY-POINT RECITAL OF A
 CONVERSATION DURING WHICH SEVERAL MATTERS WERE DISCUSSED OR GROSS'
 DENIAL THAT THE MEETING EVER TOOK PLACE AND HIS SPECIFIC DENIAL OF THE
 STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM.
 
    I CREDIT LEVIN'S VERSION ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE WHAT HE RELATED IS MORE
 PLAUSIBLE AND HAS A DISTINCT RING OF TRUTH TO IT.  I BELIEVE THAT GROSS
 LOST HIS TEMPER WHEN HE RECEIVED LEVIN'S GRATUITOUS MEMORANDUM ACCEPTING
 THE EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE PROVISO THAT HE WOULDN'T DROP HIS
 GRIEVANCE.  GROSS, NOT HAVING SUGGESTED THAT THE GRIEVANCE BE DROPPED,
 WAS INSULTED BY THE IMPLICATION THAT HIS OBTAINING THE EXTENSION WAS IN
 ANY WAY RELATED TO THE GRIEVANCE.  GROSS' MOTIVES IN OBTAINING THE
 EXTENSIONS WERE SOLELY BASED UPON SYMPATHY.  ACCORDINGLY, HE CALLED
 LEVIN TO HIS OFFICE AND THE CONVERSATION OCCURRED PRECISELY AS RELATED
 BY LEVIN.  I AM UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT LEVIN LIED WHEN HE TESTIFIED
 THAT THE MEETING OCCURRED OR THAT HE COMPLETELY FABRICATED THE ENTIRE
 CONVERSATION.  THIS IS A SIMPLE CASE OF A SUPERVISOR LOSING HIS TEMPER
 AND SAYING SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER LEFT UNSAID.
 
    15.  ACCORDING TO MR. LEVIN, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE MEETING WITH
 MR. GROSS IN WHICH MR. GROSS MADE THE REMARKS CITED ABOVE, HE LEFT MR.
 GROSS' OFFICE AND WALKED TO THE OFFICE OF THE UNION PRESIDENT PHILIP
 KELLETT TO DISCUSS THE PRECEDING CONVERSATION WITH MR. GROSS.  MR. LEVIN
 FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT MR. KELLETT WAS NOT IN HIS OFFICE, AND THAT HE,
 MR.  LEVIN, THEN PROCEEDED DOWN TO THE 4TH FLOOR AND THERE WROTE A
 HANDWRITTEN MEMORANDUM WHICH HAS BEEN INTRODUCED OVER RESPONDENT'S
 OBJECTION AS GENERAL COUNSEL'S EXHIBIT #9 (TR. P. 34).  HE STATED THAT
 AFTER HAVING WRITTEN THIS MEMORANDUM, HE RETURNED TO THE 7TH FLOOR
 OFFICE OF MR. KELLETT, AND RELATED TO HIM THE ALLEGED CONVERSATION WITH
 MR. GROSS.  HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT MR. FILLER, UNION CHIEF STEWARD,
 WAS CALLED INTO THE MEETING.  MR. FILLER TESTIFIED THAT A TYPEWRITTEN
 COPY OF GENERAL COUNSEL'S EXHIBIT #9 WAS PREPARED BY MR. FILLER.  MR.
 FILLER ALSO TESTIFIED, CONCERNING HIS OWN RECOLLECTION OF WHAT MR. LEVIN
 HAD TOLD HIM ABOUT THE CONVERSATION WITH GROSS.  /8/
 
    16.  ON OCTOBER 4, 1979, MR. ROBERT BAKER SIGNED A DOCUMENT
 EFFECTUATING THE EXTENSION OF MR. LEVIN THROUGH THE MONTH OF OCTOBER
 1979.  HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT THE "EFFECTIVE DATE" THEREOF WAS
 OCTOBER 1, 1979 (RESP. EXH. NO. 2, TR. 100).
 
    17.  ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 19, 1979, A MEETING WAS HELD AS A LAST LEVEL
 DETERMINATION OF THE GRIEVANCE (G.C. EXH. NO. 2, P. 3).  MR. LEVIN
 TESTIFIED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THAT MEETING, HE RELATED TO THE
 STAFF DIRECTOR THAT MR. GROSS HAD BEEN UPSET AND ANGRY AT THE ALLEGED
 OCTOBER 3 MEETING (TR. 53).  THE STAFF DIRECTOR, ORLANDO POTTER, ISSUED
 THE FINAL LEVEL GRIEVANCE DETERMINATION ON OCTOBER 31, 1979.  (TR. 10,
 G.C. EXH. NO. 2).
 
                     DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
 
    A.  MICHAEL LEVIN WAS AN "EMPLOYEE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
 7103(2)(A) OF THE
 
    STATUTE.
 
    IN THE LAST FEW DAYS OF SEPTEMBER, RESPONDENT DECIDED TO GRANT
 ANOTHER EXTENSION TO LEVIN AND THIS DECISION WAS COMMUNICATED TO LEVIN
 BY GROSS ON OCTOBER 2.  ON THE FOLLOWING DAY, OCTOBER 3, THE ALLEGED
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OCCURRED.  BECAUSE THE PAPERWORK TO EXTEND LEVIN'S
 EMPLOYMENT WAS NOT COMPLETED UNTIL THE NEXT DAY, OCTOBER 4, RESPONDENT
 CONTENDS THAT LEVIN WAS NOT AN "EMPLOYEE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
 STATUTE WHEN THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OCCURRED.  IT WAS ALSO
 CONTENDED THAT LEVIN WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE BARGAINING UNIT.  IN A
 THIRD STEP GRIEVANCE DETERMINATION, ORLANDO POTTER, FORMER STAFF
 DIRECTOR FOR THE RESPONDENT, ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF WHETHER LEVIN WAS A
 MEMBER OF THE BARGAINING UNIT AND AFFIRMATIVELY FOUND THAT HE WAS A
 MEMBER OF THE BARGAINING UNIT (G.C. EXH. NO. 2).  I FIND IT UNNECESSARY
 TO DECIDE WHETHER LEVIN WAS IN THE UNIT;  HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATUTE
 DEPENDS ON WHETHER HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE RESPONDENT AT ALL TIMES
 MATERIAL HEREIN.  SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE MAKES IT AN UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN AGENCY "TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY
 EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF ANY RIGHT UNDER THIS
 CHAPTER".  SECTION 7103(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE DEFINES EMPLOYEE AS AN
 INDIVIDUAL "EMPLOYED IN AN AGENCY." RESPONDENT, THROUGH ITS WITNESS
 ROBERT BARKER, ASSISTANT STAFF DIRECTOR FOR ADMINISTRATION, ATTEMPTED TO
 SHOW THAT LEVIN WAS NOT OFFICIALLY ON THE PAYROLL AS AN EMPLOYEE ON
 OCTOBER 2 AND/OR OCTOBER 3.  HOWEVER, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, BARKER
 ADMITTED THAT LEVIN WAS FOR PAYROLL PURPOSES, AN EMPLOYEE ON OCTOBER 2
 AND/OR OCTOBER 3 (TR.  103-104).  AS NOTED ABOVE, THE DECISION TO EXTEND
 HIS EMPLOYMENT WAS MADE BEFORE HIS SEPTEMBER APPOINTMENT EXPIRED, AND
 GROSS ORALLY "HIRED" HIM ON OCTOBER 2.  BASED ON THE FOREGOING, I FIND
 AND CONCLUDE THAT LEVIN WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE RESPONDENT WITHIN THE
 MEANING OF THE STATUTE AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES HEREIN.
 
    B.  SECTION 7116(D) DOES NOT BAR THE INSTANT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 CHARGE.
 
    RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT BECAUSE LEVIN MADE REFERENCE TO THE OCTOBER 3
 CONVERSATION WITH GROSS DURING THE STEP 3 GRIEVANCE MEETING ON OCTOBER
 31, THE INSTANT CHARGE IS BARRED BY SECTION 7116(D) OF THE STATUTE WHICH
 PROVIDES THAT "ISSUES WHICH CAN BE RAISED UNDER THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
 OR AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER THIS SECTION, BUT NOT UNDER BOTH
 PROCEDURES."
 
    THE FACTS REFLECT THAT THE ORIGINAL GRIEVANCE FILED ON SEPTEMBER 6
 CLEARLY PREDATES THE OCTOBER 3 CONVERSATION WITH GROSS (G.C. EXH. NO.
 5).  THUS, THE GRIEVANCE COULD NOT HAVE RAISED AS AN ISSUE THE OCTOBER 3
 CONVERSATION.  MOREOVER, IT WAS NOT RAISED NOR WAS IT ADDRESSED AS AN
 ISSUE IN POTTER'S STEP 3 GRIEVANCE DETERMINATION (G.C. EXH. NO. 2).
 
    FURTHER, ARTICLE 61, SECTION 5 OF THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
 AGREEMENT PROVIDES IN RELEVANT PART THAT "A GRIEVANCE MUST BE FILED
 WITHIN TEN (10) WORK DAYS AFTER THE OCCURRENCE OF THE MATTER OUT OF
 WHICH THE GRIEVANCE AROSE, OR TEN (10) WORK DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE
 AGGRIEVED SHOULD REASONABLY HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE
 MATTER OUT OF WHICH THE GRIEVANCE AROSE." (JT. EXH. NO. 1).  THUS, UNDER
 THIS ARTICLE, THE ISSUE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PART OF THE
 ORIGINAL SEPTEMBER 6 GRIEVANCE (JT. EXH. NO. 1).
 
    IT IS UNCONTROVERTED THAT LEVIN MERELY ALLUDED TO THE OCTOBER 3
 MEETING DURING THE STEP 3 GRIEVANCE MEETING.  FURTHER, LEVIN'S BRIEF
 DISCUSSION OF THE MEETING WAS THE RESULT OF A QUESTION POSED TO HIM BY
 POTTER (TR. 51, 68).  THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE OCTOBER 3 MEETING WAS
 NOT RAISED BY THE UNION OR BY LEVIN AS AN ISSUE DURING THE STEP 3
 GRIEVANCE MEETING.  BASED ON THE FOREGOING, I FIND AND CONCLUDE THAT
 SECTION 7116(D) OF THE STATUTE DOES NOT BAR THE INSTANT UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE CHARGE.
 
    C.  RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE WHEN ITS
 AGENT, GROSS, TOLD
 
    MICHAEL LEVIN THAT IF HE INSISTED ON PURSUING HIS GRIEVANCE THROUGH
 THE PARTIES' NEGOTIATED
 
    GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, HE WOULD SEE TO IT THAT LEVIN DID NOT RECEIVE
 ANY MORE EXTENSIONS OF
 
    EMPLOYMENT.
 
    IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT PROTECTED ACTIVITY FLOWING FROM EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATION BY A UNION INCLUDES THE PROCESSING OF A GRIEVANCE.  /9/
 UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, IT WAS EQUALLY WELL ESTABLISHED THAT ANY
 INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT TO FILE AND/OR PURSUE A GRIEVANCE TENDS TO
 DISCOURAGE EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO FORM, ASSIST OR JOIN A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION, RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SECTION 1(A) OF THE ORDER.  /10/
 
    LIKE SECTION 1(A) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, SECTION 2 OF THE STATUTE
 PROVIDES 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. . . . " (5 U.S.C.SECTION 7102).  THE RIGHT TO FILE AND
 PROCESS GRIEVANCES UNDER A NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE CLEARLY FALLS
 WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 2 OF THE STATUTE.  /11/
 
    I FIND AND CONCLUDE THAT GROSS' STATEMENTS ON OCTOBER 3 TO LEVIN--
 THAT HE WAS AN UNGRATEFUL SON-OF-A-BITCH FOR MAINTAINING HIS GRIEVANCE,
 AND THAT IF IT WERE LEFT UP TO HIM (GROSS), HE WOULD SEE TO IT THAT
 LEVIN DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF EMPLOYMENT-- INTERFERED
 WITH, RESTRAINED, AND COERCED LEVIN IN HIS RIGHT TO PURSUE HIS
 GRIEVANCE.
 
    THE STATEMENTS CLEARLY CONSTITUTE AN IMPLIED THREAT TO WITHHOLD
 FURTHER EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT FROM LEVIN AND THUS PUNISH HIM FOR THE
 EXERCISE OF HIS STATUTORILY PROTECTED RIGHT-- NAMELY THE RIGHT TO PURSUE
 HIS GRIEVANCE UNDER THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.  /11/ THEREFORE,
 RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT WAS VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE
 STATUTE, I RECOMMEND THAT THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY ISSUE
 THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
 
                                   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 FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION,
 WASHINGTON, D.C., SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INTERFERING WITH, OR DISCOURAGING, BY IMPLIED THREATS OR OTHER
 MEANS, MICHAEL LEVIN OR
 
    ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHTS ACCORDED BY THE
 STATUTE TO FILE AND PROCESS
 
    GRIEVANCES UNDER THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE FREELY AND
 WITHOUT FEAR OF PENALTY OR
 
    REPRISAL.
 
    (B) THREATENING MICHAEL LEVIN OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE THAT THEY MAY
 HAVE THEIR EMPLOYMENT
 
    ADVERSELY AFFECTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE FILED A GRIEVANCE UNDER THE
 NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE
 
    PROCEDURE.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
    STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) POST AT THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C.,
 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
 CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL
 
    ELECTIONS COMMISSION AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED FOR 60
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN
 
    CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES
 WHERE NOTICES 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 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.
 
                              FRANCIS E. DOWD
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  DECEMBER 31, 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:
 
    THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE GIVES
 EMPLOYEES THE RIGHT TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION,
 INCLUDING THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, OR TO REFRAIN FROM ANY
 SUCH ACTIVITY, FREELY AND WITHOUT FEAR OF PENALTY OR REPRISAL, AND EACH
 EMPLOYEE SHALL BE PROTECTED IN THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHT.
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, OR DISCOURAGE, BY IMPLIED THREATS OR
 OTHER MEANS, MICHAEL LEVIN OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, FROM EXERCISING THE
 RIGHTS ACCORDED BY THE STATUTE TO FILE AND PROCESS GRIEVANCES UNDER THE
 NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE FREELY AND WITHOUT FEAR OF PENALTY OR
 REPRISAL.
 
    WE WILL NOT THREATEN OUR EMPLOYEES THAT THEY MAY HAVE THEIR
 EMPLOYMENT ADVERSELY AFFECTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE FILED A GRIEVANCE UNDER
 THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.
 
    WE WILL NOT, IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS 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 QUESTION 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:
 1133 15TH STREET, NW., SUITE 300, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (TELEPHONE NO.
 (202) 653-8452).
 
                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 
    I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THE DECISION ISSUED BY FRANCIS E.
 DOWD, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, WAS SENT TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES IN THE
 MANNER INDICATED:
 
                             /S/BECKY FORREST
 
    CERTIFIED MAIL:
 
    NINA L. SCHWARTZ, ESQUIRE
 
    BRUCE D. ROSENSTEIN, ESQUIRE
 
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    1133 15TH STREET, NW., SUITE 300
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
 
    GARY D. SIMS
 
    SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE STAFF DIRECTOR
 
    FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
 
    1325 K STREET, NW
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463
 
    REGULAR MAIL:
 
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    1900 E. STREET, NW., ROOM 7469
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20424
 
    OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    1900 E STREET, NW., ROOM 7469
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20424
 
    ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
 
    LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
    U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
 
    1900 E STREET, NW
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415
 
    VINCENT L. CONNERY, PRESIDENT
 
    NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
 
    1730 K STREET, NW., SUITE 1101
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
 
    (1) COPY TO EACH FLRA REGIONAL DIRECTORS
 
    DATED:  DECEMBER 31, 1980
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ THE AUTHORITY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, DOES NOT ADOPT
 THE JUDGE'S DICTA TO THE EFFECT THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER
 THE GRIEVANT WAS IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.  IN THIS CONNECTION, THE JUDGE
 NOTED THAT RESPONDENT HAD, IN A THIRD STEP GRIEVANCE DETERMINATION,
 AFFIRMATIVELY FOUND GRIEVANT TO HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE UNIT.
 
    /2/ IN ADDITION, THE WORDS "ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ON PAGE 94A,
 LINE 7, IS HEREBY CORRECTED TO READ "THE WITNESS."
 
    /3/ THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF LEVIN'S PENCHANT FOR PREPARING WHAT I
 REGARD AS SELF-SERVING MEMORANDA.
 
    /4/ THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CAREFULLY PREPARED MEMORANDUM OF A
 SELF-SERVING NATURE.
 
    /5/ LEVIN TESTIFIED THAT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS MEETING HE
 PREPARED A MEMORANDUM OF THE CONVERSATION.  IN REACHING MY DECISION IN
 THIS CASE, I RELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF LEVIN AND ACCORD NO WEIGHT TO THIS
 DOCUMENT.
 
    /6/ CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL, I BELIEVE GROSS ON THIS POINT
 AND CAN'T IMAGINE WHY HE WOULD LIE ABOUT IT.  I AM NOT PERSUADED BY
 LEVIN'S TESTIMONY THAT HE RESPONDED TO RECEIVING THE GOOD NEWS OF
 ANOTHER MONTH'S EXTENSION WITH A REPLY TO THE EFFECT THAT HE WOULD LET
 GROSS KNOW LATER IN THE DAY IF HE WAS GOING TO ACCEPT IT.  SUCH A REPLY
 WOULD HARDLY HAVE GONE UNNOTICED BY GROSS.  AS MUCH NERVE AS LEVIN
 APPARENTLY HAD, HE WASN'T FOOLISH ENOUGH TO SAY SOMETHING WHICH WOULD
 ANGER GROSS AND POSSIBLY JEOPARDIZE RECEIVING ANOTHER MONTH'S
 EMPLOYMENT.
 
    /7/ THIS IS A FURTHER EXAMPLE OF LEVIN'S PENCHANT FOR PREPARING
 ME