Social Security Administration (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923, AFL-CIO (Charging Party)



[ v07 p823 ]
07:0823(140)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 7 FLRA No. 140
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case Nos. 3-CA-486 
                                                      3-CA-990
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED DECISION AND ORDER
 FINDING THAT RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
 ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST
 THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS.  THE RESPONDENT FILED
 EXCEPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION AND ORDER.
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 (5 CFR 2423.29) AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE (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, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY
 ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND 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 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
 BALTIMORE MARYLAND SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) THREATENING TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR ASSISTANCE TO
 AND ACTIVITIES ON
 
    BEHALF OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923,
 AFL-CIO.
 
    (B) INTERFERING WITH UNION MEETINGS BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 
    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO, AND UNIT EMPLOYEES
 CONCERNING MATTERS RELATED TO
 
    EMPLOYEES' CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MATTER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR
 COERCING ITS 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
 PURPOSE AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS FACILITIES LOCATED IN SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINSTRATION,
 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND,
 
    COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE
 AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH
 
    FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR, AT SAID ACTIVITY AND
 SHALL BE POSTED AND
 
    MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR SIXTY CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN
 CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 
    BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE
 
    DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT 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 OF REGION III, 1111 18TH ST., NW., WASHINGTON,
 D.C., 20036, 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., JANUARY 29, 1982
 
                       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 THREATEN TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR
 ASSISTANCE TO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923,
 AFL-CIO.
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH MEETINGS BETWEEN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO, AND UNIT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING
 MATTERS RELATED TO EMPLOYEES' CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
                                (ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:(13)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, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  1111 18TH
 ST., NW., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS:  (202)
 653-8452.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    MR. FRANCIS X. DIPPEL
    FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    PATRICIA EANET AND
    SUSAN SHINKMAN, ESQS,
    FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    BEFORE:  ELI NASH, JR.
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS MATTER AROSE PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, 92 STAT. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101, ET SEQ., HEREIN CALLED
 THE STATUTE AS THE RESULT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINTS
 CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING ON JULY 29, 1979.  THE COMPLAINTS WERE BASED
 UPON CHARGES FILED BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO, HEREIN CALLED THE UNION, ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1979 AND
 MARCH 3, 1980, RESPECTIVELY.
 
    THE COMPLAINTS AND AMENDMENTS ALLEGE THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY
 ADMINISTRATION, HEREIN CALLED RESPONDENT, VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF
 THE STATUTE BY THREATENING TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR
 ASSISTANCE TO AND ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE UNION;  BY ENGAGING IN
 SURVEILLANCE OF, AND INTERFERING WITH A MEETING BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES
 OF THE UNION AND EMPLOYEES CONCERNING MATTERS RELATED TO EMPLOYEE'S
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT;  AND, BY CERTAIN CONDUCT WHICH OCCURRED AT THE
 ABOVE MENTIONED MEETING.
 
    RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT DENIED THE COMMISSION OF ANY
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN THIS MATTER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON OCTOBER
 29, 1980.  ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND AFFORDED FULL
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, ADDUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND EXAMINE AND
 CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.
 
    BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, THE EXHIBITS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE
 ADDUCED AT THE HARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT,
 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER.
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    A.  PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW
 
    AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN, RESPONDENT AND THE UNION WERE PARTIES
 TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
 
    MRS. ANNA MORTON, A PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATOR, HAD BEEN EMPLOYED
 BY RESPONDENT SINCE APPROXIMATELY 1970.  AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENTS
 ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED HEREIN, MR. MORTON WAS UNDER THE DIRECT
 SUPERVISION OF MR. PATRICK FINNERTY, A SUPERVISORY COMPUTER OPERATOR.
 
    MRS. MORTON FIRST BECAME A UNION STEWARD IN OCTOBER 1978, SHORTLY
 THEREAFTER MRS. MORTON'S TESTIFIED THAT MR. FINNERTY ASKED HER, "WHO
 WERE ALL THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES WN THE UNIT." MRS. MORTON FURTHER
 TESTIFIED THAT MR. FINNERTY TOLD HER, "I DIDN'T NEED THE HASSLE, THAT
 THE UNION JUST MADE PROBLEMS FOR PEOPLE, I SHOULD BE AT HOME WITH MY KID
 AND NOT BEING WORRIED WITH EVERYBODY ELSE'S PROBLEMS." ACCORDING TO MRS.
 MORTON HE ALSO TOLD HER THAT, "YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ON THE SYSTEM.
 THAT MEANS THAT YOUR RATING IS GOING TO GO DOWN AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO
 BE AVAILABLE TO US IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEMS ROOMS."
 
    IN MARCH 1979, MR. FINNERTY GAVE MRS. MORTON HER FIRST INFORMAL
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW.  AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT MEETING MRS.
 MORTON TESTIFIED THAT MR. FINNERTY GAVE HER A MEMORANDUM FROM MR. HERB
 DOGGETTE, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER AND ASKED HER TO READ THE UNDERLINED
 PORTION, WHICH STATED:
 
    IN THE MEANTIME, IN ORDER TO TAKE ACTION BASED ON NEW REGULATIONS,
 SUPERVISORS SHOULD
 
    DEVELOP INTERIM CRITICAL ELEMENTS ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS TO IMPLEMENT
 THE UNACCEPTABLE
 
    PERFORMANCE PROVISION OF THE LAW.  ONCE THESE CRITICAL ELEMENTS HAVE
 BEEN ESTABLISHED (AND
 
    REVIEWED BY A HIGHER LEVEL OF MANAGEMENT) THE EMPLOYEE MUST RECEIVE
 THE REQUIRED 30-DAY NOTICE
 
    TO IMPROVE BEFORE TAKING ADVERSE ACTION.
 
    MR. FINNERTY ASKED HER IF SHE UNDERSTOOD THE MEMORANDUM AND ADDED:
 
    WELL, IT JUST SHOWS YOU HERB DOGGETTE PAVED THE WAY FOR US TO GET YOU
 OUT OF GOVERNMENT
 
    SERVICE.  WE'RE GOING TO GET RID OF YOU ANYWAY.  NOW SEE WHAT THE
 UNION CAN DO ABOUT THIS.
 
    MR. FINNERTY DID NOT RECALL ANY CONVERSATION CENTERED AROUND THE
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW.  MR. FINNERTY ALSO DENIED THAT HE EVER
 ADDRESSED MRS.  MORTON'S UNION MEMBERSHIP, PARTICIPATION OR THE FACT
 THAT SHE WAS A STEWARD DURING HER ENTIRE STAY IN HER UNIT.
 
    RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT MRS. MORTON WAS AN UNSATISFACTORY EMPLOYEE
 FROM THE OUTSET.  MR. BART BLAIR, WHO WAS MRS. MORTON'S SUPERVISOR FROM
 1972 UNTIL 1978 TESTIFIED FOR RESPONDENT THAT WHILE MRS. MORTON WAS A
 GOOD EMPLOYEE AND "KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING AND DIT IT VERY WELL", THERE
 WAS A PERSONALITY CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM.  MR. BLAIR'S CHIEF
 COMPLAINT WAS THAT MRS. MORTON WAS ABSENT FROM HER WORK TOO OFTEN. HE
 ALSO TESTIFIED THAT, "(W)HEN WE PUT HER IN PLACES, THERE WAS TROUBLE."
 
    MR. LOUIS J. RUZICKA, WHO WAS MRS. MORTON'S SUPERVISOR, AFTER HER
 TRANSFER FROM MR. FINNERTY'S SUPERVISION, TESTIFIED THAT MRS. MORTON WAS
 OFTEN MISSING FROM HER ASSIGNED AREA.  HE ALSO TESTIFIED AS TO SOME
 PERSONAL DIFFICULTIES BETWEEN MRS. MORTON AND ANOTHER EMPLOYEE.  HIS
 ASSESSMENT OF MRS. MORTON'S EMPLOYMENT WAS THAT SHE WAS "A DISRUPTIVE
 INFLUENCE ON THE UNIT."
 
    RESPONDENT ALSO PRESENTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT
 DIFFICULTIES OF MRS. MORTON.  HOWEVER, ALL OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
 CONCERNED EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED SUBSEQUENT TO THE INCIDENT GIVING RISE
 TO THE INITIAL UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE FILED IN THIS MATTER.
 
    WITH REGARD TO MRS. MORTON'S USE OF TIME FOR UNION FUNCTIONS THE
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FORM DATED MARCH 15, 1979 INDICATED A CONCERN WITH
 MRS. MORTON'S USE OF HER "UNION" TIME.  THE FORM STATED:
 
    I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU AND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE THE
 PROCEDURES FOR REPORTING TIME
 
    SPENT ON "UNION" ACTIVITY.  I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE MEETING ON
 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1979.
 
    THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT SUCH A MEETING WAS EVER
 HELD.  HOWEVER, MR. FINNERTY TESTIFIED THAT HE THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A
 COMMENT CONCERNING A MEETING TO CLARIFY "TIME FRAMES FOR UNION
 ACTIVITY".  MR. FINNERTY ALSO TESTIFIED TO AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITH MRS.
 MORTON CONCERNING HER SIGNING IN AND OUT ON A REGULAR BASIS WHEN ON
 UNION ACTIVITY.  /2/ MR. FINNERTY STATES THAT HE HAD ESTABLISHED A
 FORMULA WITH MR. CHRISTIAN, THE SECOND UNION REPRESENTATIVE IN HIS UNIT,
 WHICH DICTATED THAT HE WOULD BE TOLD WHEN MR. CHRISTIAN WAS GOING ON
 UNION BUSINESS OR THAT MR. CHRISTIAN WOULD PLACE THE TIME FRAMES ON
 FINNERTY'S CALENDAR.  ACCORDING TO MR.  FINNERTY, MRS. MORTON DECLINED
 TO DO THIS.  HOWEVER, MRS. MORTON TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAD AGREED TO
 INFORM HIM THROUGH HIS CALENDAR OR SECRETARY WHEN SHE WAS GOING ON OR
 RETURNING FROM UNION BUSINESS.  HOWEVER, SHE DID NOT FOLLOW THIS
 PROCEDURE TOO OFTEN.
 
    B.  MARCH 6, 1980 INCIDENT
 
    ABOUT MARCH 6, 1980, MRS. MORTON MET WITH AN EMPLOYEE, DORTHEA
 PARKER, AT THE UNION OFFICE TO DISCUSS A LEAVE PROBLEM.  ALTHOUGH
 RESPONDENT WOULD CHARACTERIZE THE MEETING AS A LUNCH IT IS FOUND THAT
 THE MEETING WAS FOR LEGITIMATE UNION DUTIES.  THE UNION OFFICE IS A
 PARTITIONED OFF AREA ON THE WORK FLOOR.  SOMETIME DURING THE DISCUSSION
 BETWEEN MORTON AND PARKER, MR. FINNERTY ENTERED THE UNION OFFICE AND
 STATED THAT HE WANTED TO SEE MR. MORTON.  ACCORDING TO MRS. MORTON, SHE
 TOLD FINNERTY THAT SHE WAS BUSY AND WOULD SEE HIM LATER.  HOWEVER, MR.
 FINNERTY WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER SHE WAS ON UNION CODE OR BUSINESS.  MRS.
 MORTON REPLIED THAT HE SHOULD CHECK HIS CALENDAR AND CHECK WITH HIS
 SECRETARY, SINCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PAST PRACTICE, SHE HAD RECORDED HER
 TIME ON HIS CALENDAR AND TOLD HIS SECRETARY WHERE SHE WOULD BE. MR.
 FINNERTY THEN WALKED OUT OF THE OFFICE, BUT RETURNED IN A FEW MINUTES.
 UPON RETURNING MR. FINNERTY STATED THAT HE WANTED TO SEE HER RIGHT AWAY,
 TO WHICH MRS. MORTON AGAIN RESPONDED THAT SHE WAS ON UNION CODE AND HE
 COULD CHECK WITH THE CALENDAR AND WITH THE SECRETARY.  FINNERTY THEN
 TOLD MORTON THAT SHE DID NOT WORK FOR HIS SECRETARY, THAT SHE WORKED FOR
 HIM.  MRS. MORTON REPLIED THAT SHE WORKED FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  FINNERTY
 RESTATED HIS REQUEST THAT MORTON SPEAK WITH HIM AND SHE AGAIN REFUSED,
 ASKING HIM TO LEAVE THE UNION OFFICE. AT THIS POINT, THE CONVERSATION
 HAD BECOME RATHER HEATED, AND CLEARLY MRS. MORTON ASKED MR. FINNERTY TO
 LEAVE BECAUSE HE WAS UPSETTING HER, AS WELL AS, MRS. PARKER.  MR.
 FINNERTY BEGAN SHAKING HIS FINGER AT MRS. MORTON.  MRS. PARKER BECAME
 FRIGHTENED AND GATHERED HER BELONGINGS, PREPARING TO LEAVE.  MRS. MORTON
 AT SOME POINT PICKED UP A FLOOR MODEL ASH TRAY WHEN MR. FINNERTY MOVED
 TOWARDS HER, STILL DEMANDING THAT MORTON LEAVE THE UNION OFFICE.
 MORTON'S ACCOUNT IS SUBSTANTIALLY CORROBORATED BY MRS. PARKER.  WHILE
 MRS. MORTON AND MR. FINNERTY RECALL A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF PROFANITY
 BEING USED DURING THIS CONVERSATION, MRS. PARKER RECALLS ONLY THAT MRS.
 MORTON USED PROFANITY.  FURTHERMORE, MR. CHARLES WILLIAMS, WHO WAS
 WORKING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE UNION OFFICE OVERHEARD THE SAME
 STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MRS. MORTON BY MRS.  PARKER.  WHILE BOTH MRS.
 MORTON AND MR. FINNERTY STATE THAT THE EXCHANGE WAS MUCH MORE HEATED, I
 CREDIT PARKER AND WILLIAMS THAT MRS. MORTON DID INDEED TELL MR. FINNERTY
 TO, "KISS MY ASS AND GET OUT OF THIS OFFICE." FINALLY, I CREDIT THE
 TESTIMONY OF MR. BLAIR, THAT MRS.  MORTON HAD NOT USED PROFANITY IN HIS
 PRESENCE DURING AN APPROXIMATE SIX YEAR PERIOD THAT SHE HAD WORKED UNDER
 HIS SUPERVISION.
 
                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    A.  PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW
 
    THE TESTIMONY OF MRS. MORTON CONCERNING THE MARCH 16, 1979
 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW STANDS UNCONTRADICTED ON THE RECORD.
 FURTHERMORE, MR. FINNERTY HAD ALREADY TOLD MORTON THAT HER RATINGS WOULD
 GO DOWN BECAUSE SHE WOULD NOT BE ON THE COMPUTER.  MR. FINNERTY DOES NOT
 RECALL NOR DID HE DENY THAT SUCH A STATEMENT WAS MADE.  THUS, IT IS
 CONCLUDED THAT MR.  FINNERTY'S STATEMENT DURING THE INTERVIEW THAT HERB
 DOGGETTE HAS "PAVED THE WAY FOR US TO GET YOU OUT OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE.
  NOW SEE WHAT THE UNION CAN DO ABOUT THIS", STANDING ALONE CLEARLY AND
 UNMISTAKENLY CONSTITUTED A THREAT AND INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED AND
 COERCED MRS. MORTON IN THE EXERCISE OF HER RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE
 VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 7116(A)(1).
 
    B.  THE MARCH 6, 1980 INCIDENT
 
    RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT MRS. MORTON WAS A DISRUPTIVE INFLUENCE ON
 UNIT EMPLOYEES.  ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THAT MRS. MORTON WAS
 NOT A MODEL EMPLOYEE, IT DOES NOT SHOW THAT HER ACTIONS WERE DIRECTED AT
 MANAGEMENT PER SE BUT HER DIFFICULTIES WERE WITH OTHER EMPLOYEES.  THUS,
 THE EXAMPLES PRESENTED BY RESPONDENT TO ILLUSTRATE THAT SHE WAS A
 DISRUPTIVE EMPLOYEE INDICATED ONLY THAT SHE HAD PERSONAL PROBLEMS WITH
 OTHER EMPLOYEES AND NTO THAT SHE WAS A PROFANE OR CONTENTIOUS PERSON.
 
    WHILE I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL THAT MR. FINNERTY'S
 ACTIONS CONSTITUTED SURVEILLANCE OF UNION ACTIVITY, I FIND THAT MR.
 FINNERTY'S PRESENCE IN THE UNION OFFICE WHILE REPRESENTATIONAL FUNCTIONS
 WERE BEING CONDUCTED, ONCE HE WAS INFORMED THAT MRS. MORTON WAS ON UNION
 CODE, WAS THREATENING AND HAD A CHILLING EFFECT ON EMPLOYEES OF THE
 UNIT.
 
    THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT REQUIRES UNION REPRESENTATIVES TO REPORT TO
 THEIR VARIOUS SUPERVISORS WHEN LEAVING WORK TO PERFORM UNION FUNCTIONS.
 FURTHER, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MRS. MORTON HAD SOME PROBLEMS WITH TIME
 AND REPORTING ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT SHE ACTUALLY ABUSED THE SIGN
 IN - SIGN OUT REQUIREMENTS OF MR. FINNERTY.  /3/ IT IS MY VIEW, HOWEVER,
 THAT MR. FINNERTY COULD LAWFULLY INQUIRE INTO MORTON'S STATUS EVEN
 THOUGH SHE WAS IN THE UNION OFFICE ON UNION BUSINESS. HOWEVER, MORTON
 TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAD FOLLOWED FINNERTY'S PROCEDURE ON MARCH 6, 1980
 AND THAT SHE TOLD FINNERTY THAT SHE HAD SIGNED HIS CALENDAR AND TOLD HIS
 SECRETARY OF HER WHEREABOUTS.  ONCE HAVING TOLD FINNERTY THAT SHE HAD
 FOLLOWED THE STANDARD PROCEDURE, I BELIEVE THAT THE MATTER SOULD HAVE
 BEEN RESOLVED.
 
    WHEN FINNERTY RETURNED TO THE UNION OFFICE FOR THE SECOND TIME THE
 CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE TWO BECAME VERY HEATED AND BOTH ACTED IN AN
 INDECOROUS FASHION.  I NOTE THAT MORTON'S PREVIOUS SUPERVISOR MR. BLAIR
 TESTIFIED THAT MORTON HAD NOT USED PROFANITY IN HIS PRESENCE DURING THE
 SIX OR SO YEARS THAT SHE WORKED UNDER HIS SUPERVISION.  I MUST
 THEREFORE, ATTRIBUTE MORTON'S HOSTILE BEHAVIOR, AT LEAST IN PART, TO
 FINNERTY'S RETURN TO THE UNION OFFICE.  IN ANY EVENT, I FIND THAT ONCE
 FINNERTY WAS INFORMED THAT MORTON WAS ON UNION CODE, THERE WAS A SIMPLE
 WAY TO ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS, AND THAT HIS RETURN TO THE
 OFFICE TO PURSUE THE ISSUE SHOWED DISDAIN FOR THE PROCESS.  WITHOUT
 QUESTION, FINNERTY HAD BECOME FRUSTRATED WITH MORTON AND THIS
 FRUSTRATION APPARENTLY PROMPTED HIS RETURN TO THE OFFICE AND EFFECTIVELY
 ENDED THE MEETING BETWEEN MORTON AND PARKER.  IN MY VIEW, THE
 CONTROVERSY COULD VERY EASILY HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BY MEANS OTHER THAN
 THOSE EMPLOYED BY FINNERTY.  FURTHERMORE, FRUSTRATIONS CANNOT EXCUSE
 CONDUCT WHICH INTERFERES WITH, RESTRAINS OR COERCES A STEWARD WHILE
 ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY PROTECTED BY THE STATUTE.
 
    I, THEREFORE, FIND THAT FINNERTY'S ACTIONS IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHER
 EMPLOYEES CONSTITUTED INTERFERENCE WITH THE MEETING OF A UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE AN EMPLOYEE AND SINCE IT HAD A CHILLING EFFECT ON UNIT
 EMPLOYEES WAS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE, AND
 SHALL RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING ORDER.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7) AND SECTION 2423.26 OF THE FINAL
 RULES AND REGULATIONS U.S.FED.REG. 3482(1980) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
 THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) THREATENING TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR ASSISTANCE TO
 AND ACTIVITIES ON
 
    BEHALF OF AMERICAN FEDERATION GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923,
 AFL-CIO.
 
    (B) INTERFERING WITH MEETINGS BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO AND EMPLOYEES CONCERNING MATTERS
 RELATED TO
 
    EMPLOYEES' CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.
 
    (C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES
 
    IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS FACILITIES IN SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, COPIES OF
 
    THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE
 AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT
 
    OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR, 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 EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE
 DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE
 
    REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
 DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 
    MATERIAL.
 
    (B) PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.30 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS,
 45, FED.REG. 3511,
 
    NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION III, 1133 15TH STREET, N.W.,
 SUITE 300, WASHINGTON,
 
    D.C., IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO
 WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN
 
    TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                         ELI NASH, JR.
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  JANUARY 26, 1981
    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 THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 
          LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR
 
                             EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT THREATEN TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR
 ASSISTANCE TO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923,
 AFL-CIO.
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH MEETINGS BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1923, AFL-CIO AND
 UNIT EMPLOYEES CONCERNING MATTERS RELATED TO EMPLOYEES CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR
 COERCE ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF ANY RIGHT UNDER
 THE STATUTE.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . . BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THIS NOTICE, OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION III, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  1133 15TH STREET, N.W., SUITE 300, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------