National Army and Air Technicians Association, Local 371 (Respondent) and New Jersey Department of Defense (Charging Party)

 



[ v07 p154 ]
07:0154(22)CO
The decision of the Authority follows:


 7 FLRA No. 22
 
 NATIONAL ARMY AND AIR TECHNICIANS
 ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 371
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 2-CO-16
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED DECISION AND ORDER
 IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING 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.
 THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENT FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND
 ORDER, AND THE CHARGING PARTY FILED A REPLY TO THE RESPONDENT'S
 EXCEPTIONS.
 
    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.  /1/ UPON CONSIDERATION OF
 THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND ORDER, AND THE ENTIRE RECORD, THE AUTHORITY
 HEREBY ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
 /2/
 
                                   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 NATIONAL ARMY AND AIR TECHNICIANS
 ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 371, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING JOSEPH BONAR, OR ANY
 OTHER UNIT EMPLOYEE, BY THREATENING TO IMPLICATE THE EMPLOYEE IN AN
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE RETRACTED HIS DECISION
 TO TERMINATE DUES DEDUCTIONS FROM HIS PAY AND REMAINED A MEMBER OF THE
 UNION.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING UNIT EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED 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 ALL OFFICES OF THE NATIONAL ARMY AND AIR TECHNICIANS
 ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 371, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON FORMS TO BE
 FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE
 SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 371 AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED
 BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES,
 INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO MEMBERS
 ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE PRESIDENT SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO
 INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (B) SUBMIT SIGNED COPIES OF SAID NOTICE TO THE SENIOR TECHNICIAN
 PERSONNEL OFFICER OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR POSTING IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES, WHERE UNIT EMPLOYEES ARE LOCATED, WHERE THEY SHALL
 BE MAINTAINED FOR A PERIOD OF 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
 POSTING.
 
    (C) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION II, ROOM 241, 26
 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10278, 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., OCTOBER 30, 1981
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                    NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES
 
                                PURSUANT TO
 
                        A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
                AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLCIIES OF
 
                       CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE
 
                            UNITED STATES CODE
 
                FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
           WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR MEMBERS AND ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE
 
                  NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE JOSEPH BOGNAR, OR ANY
 OTHER UNIT EMPLOYEE, BY THREATENING TO IMPLICATE HIM IN AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE PROCEEDING UNLESS SAID EMPLOYEE RETRACTED HIS DECISION TO
 TERMINATE DUES DEDUCTIONS FROM HIS PAY AND REMAIN A MEMBER OF THE
 NATIONAL ARMY AND AIR TECHNICIANS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 371.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE UNIT EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
                     NATIONAL ARMY AND AIR TECHNICIANS
 
                          ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 371
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . . PRESIDENT
 
    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 ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY
 WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION II, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  ROOM 241, 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NEW
 YORK 19278.
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    LEONARD SPEAR, ESQUIRE
    FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    MAJOR WILLIAM S. GREENBURG, ESQUIRE
    FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
 
    RONI SCHNITZER, ESQUIRE AND
    ROBERT J. WARNER, ESQUIRE
    FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    BEFORE:  RANDOLPH D. MASON
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS CASE AROSE PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, 92 STAT. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101, ET SEQ., AS A RESULT OF
 AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT FILED ON MAY 29, 1980, BY THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION II, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, NEW
 YORK, NEW YORK, AGAINST THE NATIONAL ARMY AND AIR TECHNICIANS
 ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 371 ("RESPONDENT" OR "UNION").
 
    THIS PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED BY THE FILING OF A CHARGE DATED JANUARY
 15, 1980 BY THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.  RESPONDENT MOVES TO
 DISMISS THE INSTANT ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE AGGRIEVED PARTY IN
 THIS CASE IS ONE OF THE CHARGING PARTY'S EMPLOYEES RATHER THAN THE
 CHARGING PARTY ITSELF.  THIS MOTION MUST BE DENIED IN VIEW OF SECTION
 2423.3 OF THE AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDES THAT A CHARGE MAY
 BE FILED BY "ANY PERSON." THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE RULE IN THE PRIVATE
 SECTOR WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE CHARGING PARTY NEED NOT BE AN
 "AGGRIEVED" PERSON.  BROPHY ENGRAVING COMPANY, 94 NLRB 719(1951).
 
    THE ONLY ISSUE PRESENTED FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE UNION THREATENED
 TO IMPLICATE ITS MEMBER, JOSEPH J. BOGNAR, JR., IN AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE CHARGE AGAINST THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE UNLESS SAID
 EMPLOYEE RETRACTED HIS DECISION TO TERMINATE DUES DEDUCTIONS FROM HIS
 PAY AND REMAINED A MEMBER OF THE UNION.  THE GENERAL COUNSEL ALLEGES
 THAT, BY DOING SO, THE UNION INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED, AND COERCED AN
 EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATUTE IN VIOLATION OF
 5 U.S.C. 7116(B)(1).
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN THIS MATTER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AT NEW YORK
 CITY, NEW YORK ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1980.  ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED BY
 COUNSEL AND AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, ADDUCE RELEVANT
 EVIDENCE, AND EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.  THE PARTIES FILED
 BRIEFS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.  BASED ON THE ENTIRE RECORD
 HEREIN, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR,
 THE EXHIBITS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, I MAKE
 THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDED
 ORDER:
 
                         FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN, THE NATIONAL ARMY AND AIR TECHNICIANS
 ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 371, THE RESPONDENT HEREIN, HAS BEEN A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(4) OF THE STATUTE AND
 HAS BEEN THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF AN APPROPRIATE UNIT OF
 EMPLOYEES OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.  THE LATTER IS AND
 HAS BEEN AN AGENCY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(3) OF THE
 STATUTE.
 
    ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1979 JOSEPH J. BOGNAR, A FIRST SERGEANT AT THE
 CHARGING PARTY'S HACKETTSTOWN, NEW JERSEY, ARMORY, EXECUTED A FORM 1188
 FOR THE PURPOSE OF TERMINATING THE WITHDRAWAL OF UNION DUES FROM HIS
 PAY.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE, THE UNION WAS PROMPTLY
 NOTIFIED OF BOGNAR'S ACTION.  WITHIN A FEW DAYS, BOGNAR RECEIVED A
 TELEPHONE CALL FROM ROBERT SPONBURG, AN OFFICER OF THE UNION WHO HAD
 PREVIOUSLY BEEN A FRIEND OF BOGNAR.  SPONBURG AND OTHER UNION OFFICERS
 SUSPECTED THAT THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WAS ATTEMPTING TO
 "UNION BUST" BY TELLING THE EMPLOYEES THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE PROMOTED
 UNLESS THEY LEFT THE UNION.  IN HIS CONVERSATION WITH BOGNAR, SPONBURG
 ASKED HIM WHY HE WAS LEAVING THE UNION AND SPECIFICALLY ASKED IF HIS
 COMMAND ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT (CAA), CAPT. PIEKLIK, HAD PUT PRESSURE
 ON BOGNAR TO CANCEL HIS MEMBERSHIP.  BOGNAR'S RESPONSE PERMITTED
 SPONBURG TO HARBOR HIS PREVIOUS SUSPICION THAT PIEKLIK HAD, IN FACT, PUT
 PRESSURE ON BOGNAR TO RESIGN FROM THE UNION.  /3/
 
    SPONBURG IMMEDIATELY CALLED RICHARD W. SPENCER, THE BUSINESS
 REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE UNION, TO INFORM HIM OF HIS CONVERSATION WITH
 BOGNAR.  ALSO, DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD, SPONBURG CALLED EDWARD
 SNOOK, A UNION STEWARD.  SNOOK TOLD SPONBURG THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF
 ANY PROBLEMS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND THE EMPLOYEE BUT THAT HE WOULD LOOK
 INTO THE MATTER.  SNOOK THEN CALLED BOGNAR AND ASKED IF THE LATTER WAS
 IN FACT BEING PRESSURED BY THE AGENCY.  BOGNAR TOLD HIM THAT HE HAD NOT
 HAD ANY PRESSURE OR PROBLEMS WITH MANAGEMENT, AND THAT HIS REASONS FOR
 LEAVING THE UNION WERE PERSONAL IN NATURE.  THEN SNOOK RELAYED THIS
 INFORMATION TO SPONBURG;  THE LATTER WAS UPSET BY SNOOK'S REPORT BECAUSE
 BOGNAR WAS APPARENTLY "BACKING OFF" FROM HIS PREVIOUS POSITION.
 
    SPONBURG THEN CALLED BOGNAR AGAIN AND TOLD HIM THAT HE HAD A RIGHT TO
 BELONG TO THE UNION AND THAT BOGNAR SHOULD NOT LET MANAGEMENT PUT
 PRESSURE ON HIM TO RESIGN.  BOGNAR THEN INDICATED THAT HE DID NOT WANT
 TO BE "BOTHERED" BY THE UNION IN THE FUTURE CONCERNING THIS MATTER.  HE
 STATED THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO REJOIN THE UNION.
 
    SHORTLY AFTER RECEIVING THE ABOVE CALL FROM SPONBURG, SPENCER CALLED
 PIEKLIK AND CONFRONTED HIM WITH BOGNAR'S PURPORTED ACCUSATION.  /4/
 SPENCER TOLD PIEKLIK THAT BOGNAR HAD "CHARGED" PIEKLIK WITH FORCING
 BOGNAR TO RESIGN FROM THE UNION AND THAT THE UNION INTENDED TO BRING AN
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING AGAINST PIEKLIK.  PIEKLIK DENIED ANY
 WRONGDOING, AND AGREED WITH SPENCER THAT A MEETING BETWEEN SPENCER,
 BOGNAR, AND PIEKLIK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.  THE MEETING WAS SCHEDULED FOR
 OCTOBER 31, 1979, AND BOGNAR WAS ASKED TO ATTEND.
 
    AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, BOGNAR RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM AN
 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON WHO YELLED AT HIM AND ACCUSED BOGNAR OF NOT BEING
 "MAN ENOUGH TO STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS," AND THAT NO ONE COULD FORCE
 BOGNAR TO GET OUT OF THE UNION.  WHEN BOGNAR ASKED WHO WAS CALLING, THE
 SPEAKER SAID "YOU KNOW WHO THIS IS." AT THAT POINT, BOGNAR HUNG UP.  A
 FEW MINUTES LATER, SPENCER CALLED BOGNAR AND IDENTIFIED HIMSELF BY NAME.
  BOGNAR REALIZED THAT THIS WAS THE SAME PERSON WHO HAD CALLED HIM A FEW
 MINUTES BEFORE.  SPENCER REITERATED THE UNION'S SUSPICIONS REGARDING
 ALLEGED "UNION-BUSTING" ACTIVITIES BY MANAGEMENT AND TOLD BOGNAR THAT
 MANAGEMENT COULD NOT FORCE HIM TO RESIGN FROM THE UNION.  BOGNAR AGAIN
 DENIED HAVING ACCUSED PIEKLIK OF THREATENING HIM AND DENIED THAT THERE
 WAS ANY PRESSURE ON HIM.
 
    SUBSEQUENTLY BOGNAR MET WITH PIEKLIK AND DENIED THAT HE HAD ACCUSED
 PIEKLIK OF PUTTING PRESSURE ON HIM.  SINCE PIEKLIK WAS STILL SUSPICIOUS
 OF BOGNAR, THE LATTER MADE A TELEPHONE CALL IN PIEKLIK'S PRESENCE TO A
 SENIOR MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL AND ASKED IF HE HAD TO "TAKE VERBAL ABUSE" OR
 TALK TO ANYONE FROM THE UNION.  BOGNAR WAS TOLD THAT MANAGEMENT WOULD
 ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM.
 
    ON OCTOBER 31, 1979 SPENCER FLEW UP TO THE DESIGNATED MEETING PLACE
 IN HIS PRIVATE PLANE.  HE WAS MET BY ROBERT MAGNO, PRESIDENT OF THE
 LOCAL UNION, WHO ACCOMPANIED SPENCER TO THE PREARRANGED MEETING WITH
 PIEKLIK.  WHEN THEY ARRIVED, THEY WERE INFORMED BY PIEKLIK THAT BOGNAR
 WOULD NOT BE ATTENDING THE MEETING.  AFTER WAITING A FEW MINUTES,
 SPENCER AND MAGNO WALKED OVER TO AN EMPLOYEE WORK AREA AND BEGAN TO
 DISCUSS THIS MATTER WITH THE EMPLOYEES.
 
    SPENCER WAS ANGRY THAT BOGNAR HAD FAILED TO ATTEND THE MEETING.  AT
 THAT POINT, EDWARD SNOOK, A UNION STEWARD, HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
 WITH BOGNAR, WHO WAS HOME ON LEAVE.  SNOOK TOLD HIM THAT SPENCER AND THE
 EMPLOYEES AT THE SHOP WERE UPSET BECAUSE BOGNAR HAD FAILED TO ATTEND THE
 MEETING AND BECAUSE HE WAS TRYING TO RESIGN FROM THE UNION.  SNOOK ALSO
 STATED THAT THEY WERE ANGRY BECAUSE BOGNAR WAS NOT THERE TO ANSWER
 QUESTIONS REGARDING THE "CHARGES" THAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE REGARDING
 PIEKLIK.  SENSING THAT THE UNION INTENDED TO PURSUE THIS MATTER, BOGNAR
 ASKED SNOOK IF THE UNION WOULD DROP THE ENTIRE MATTER IF BOGNAR REJOINED
 THE UNION.  SNOOK STATED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW, BUT THAT HE WOULD ASK
 SPENCER, WHO WAS STANDING NEARBY.
 
    AT THIS POINT SPENCER CAME TO THE TELEPHONE AND ANGRILY TOLD BOGNAR
 THAT HE WAS NOT "MAN ENOUGH TO COME DOWN AND ANSWER THE CHARGES." HE LED
 BOGNAR TO BELIEVE THAT "CHARGES" WERE BEING BROUGHT AGAINST BOTH BOGNAR
 AND PIEKLIK.  SPENCER KNEW THAT THE ONLY "CHARGE" THAT HE COULD EVER
 HAVE HOPED TO BRING WOULD HAVE BEEN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE
 AGAINST THE AGENCY FOR FORCING BOGNAR OUT OF THE UNION;  HOWEVER, IT
 WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY TO GET BOGNAR TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF THE
 UNION.  SINCE SPENCER KNEW THAT BOGNAR HAD PERSISTED IN DENYING THAT
 PIEKLIK HAD EVER THREATENED HIM IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS OBVIOUS TO
 SPENCER THAT HE COULD NOT PROVE THIS "CASE" AGAINST PIEKLIK.  HOWEVER,
 SPENCER CONTINUED TO THREATEN TO ENTANGLE BOGNAR IN THE UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE PROCEEDING EVEN THOUGH HE KNEW THAT BOGNAR DESPERATELY DESIRED
 TO EXTRICATE HIMSELF FROM HIS DILEMMA.  SPENCER THEN TOOK ADVANTAGE OF
 BOGNAR'S FEAR AND IGNORANCE OF THE LAW, AND TOLD BOGNAR THAT HE WOULD
 DROP THE "CHARGES" AGAINST HIM AND PIEKLIK IF BOGNAR WOULD FILL OUT
 ANOTHER FORM 1188 AND GET BACK INTO THE UNION.  IT IS THE LATTER
 STATEMENT THAT IS ALLEGED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO CONSTITUTE A
 VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(B)(1) OF THE STATUTE.  I AGREE.  /5/
 
    SECTION 7116(B)(1) PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
 FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY
 EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF ANY RIGHT UNDER THE STATUTE.
  SECTION 7102 PROVIDES THAT EACH EMPLOYEE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORM,
 JOIN, OR ASSIST ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION, OR TO REFRAIN FROM ANY SUCH
 ACTIVITY, FREELY AND WITHOUT FEAR OF PENALTY OR REPRISAL.  IN THE
 INSTANT CASE, BOGNAR MADE IT CLEAR TO THE UNION THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO
 BE A MEMBER OF THE UNION.  SPENCER VIOLATED BOGNAR'S RIGHT TO REFRAIN
 FROM JOINING THE UNION BY THREATENING TO BRING VAGUE "CHARGES" AGAINST
 HIM UNLESS HE REJOINED.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES SPENCER MADE IT
 IMPOSSIBLE FOR BOGNAR TO REFRAIN FROM JOINING THE UNION "FREELY AND
 WITHOUT FEAR OF PENALTY OR REPRISAL." MOREOVER, SPENCER'S THREAT TO CALL
 BOGNAR AS A WITNESS IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING AGAINST
 PIEKLIK, WHEN HE KNEW HE COULD NEVER BRING SUCH A CHARGE UNLESS BOGNAR
 CHANGED HIS TESTIMONY TO SUPPORT THE UNION'S POSITION, CONSTITUTED UNDUE
 COERCION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FORCING BOGNAR TO RETAIN HIS MEMBERSHIP IN
 THE UNION.
 
    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, I RECOMMEND THAT THE AUTHORITY ADOPT THE
 FOLLOWING:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7) AND SECTION 2423.26 OF THE FINAL
 RULES AND REGULATIONS, 45 FED.REG. 3482, 3510(1980), IT IS HEREBY
 ORDERED THAT THE NATIONAL ARMY AND AIR TECHNICIANS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL
 371, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING JOSEPH BOGNAR, OR ANY
 OTHER UNIT EMPLOYEE, BY THREATENING TO IMPLICATE THE EMPLOYEE IN AN
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE RETRACTED HIS DECISION
 TO TERMINATE DUES DEDUCTIONS FROM HIS PAY AND REMAINED A MEMBER OF THE
 UNION.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING UNIT EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED 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 ALL OFFICES OF THE NATIONAL ARMY AND AIR TECHNICIANS
 ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 371, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX"
 ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED
 BY THE PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 371 AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM
 FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO MEMBERS ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE PRESIDENT SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE
 THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    (B) SUBMIT SIGNED COPIES OF SAID NOTICE TO THE SENIOR TECHNICIAN
 PERSONNEL OFFICER OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR POSTING IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES, WHERE UNIT EMPLOYEES ARE LOCATED, WHERE THEY SHALL
 BE MAINTAINED FOR A PERIOD OF 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
 POSTING.
 
    (C) NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION II, ROOM 241, 26 FEDERAL
 PLAZA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10278, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE
 DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                         RANDOLPH D. MASON
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  DECEMBER 18, 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 MEMBERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES
 
              AT THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE JOSEPH BOGNAR, OR ANY
 OTHER UNIT EMPLOYEE, BY THREATENING TO IMPLICATE HIM IN AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE PROCEEDING UNLESS SAID EMPLOYEE RETRACTED HIS DECISION TO
 TERMINATE DUES DEDUCTIONS FROM HIS PAY AND REMAINED A MEMBER OF THE
 NATIONAL ARMY AND AIR TECHNICIANS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 371.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR
 COERCE UNIT EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
                     NATIONAL ARMY AND AIR TECHNICIANS
 
                          ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 371
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . . PRESIDENT
 
    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 ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY
 WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION II, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY, WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  ROOM 241, 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, NEW YORK, NEW
 YORK 10278.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ THE RESPONDENT EXCEPTED TO CERTAIN CREDIBILITY FINDINGS MADE BY
 THE JUDGE.  THE DEMEANOR OF WITNESSES IS A FACTOR OF CONSEQUENCE IN
 RESOLVING ISSUES OF CREDIBILITY, AND THE JUDGE HAS HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF
 OBSERVING THE WITNESSES WHILE THEY TESTIFIED.  THE AUTHORITY WILL NOT
 OVERRULE A JUDGE'S RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO CREDIBILITY UNLESS A CLEAR
 PREPONDERANCE OF ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES SUCH RESOLUTION
 WAS INCORRECT.  THE AUTHORITY HAS EXAMINED THE RECORD CAREFULLY, AND
 FINDS NO BASIS FOR REVERSING THE JUDGE'S CREDIBILITY FINDINGS.