09:0060(10)CA - Navy, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WA and Federal Employees MTC -- 1982 FLRAdec CA



[ v09 p60 ]
09:0060(10)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 9 FLRA No. 10
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD
 BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES
 COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case Nos. 9-CA-750
                                                      9-CA-762
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED DECISION AND ORDER
 IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING, FINDING THAT RESPONDENT HAD NOT
 ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UNDER SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND
 (2) OF THE STATUTE AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED.  NO
 EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED BY EITHER PARTY.
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 (5 CFR 2423.29) AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL 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
 CONSOLIDATED CASES, AND NOTING PARTICULARLY THE ABSENCE OF EXCEPTIONS,
 THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT IN CASE NOS.
 9-CA-750 AND 9-CA-762 BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 11, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
  A. S. CALCAGNO, ESQ.
                    FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
  STEPHANIE ARTHUR, ESQ.
                    FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
  BEFORE:  ALAN W. HEIFETZ
                    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                            CASE NOS. 9-CA-750
                                 9-CA-762
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS PROCEEDING AROSE PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. 7101 ET SEQ., AS A RESULT
 OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGES FILED NOVEMBER 10 AND NOVEMBER 17,
 1980, WITH THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  AMENDED CHARGES WERE
 FILED ON JANUARY 23, 1981, AND CONSEQUENTLY, ON JANUARY 28, 1981, THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE AUTHORITY ISSUED AN ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE TWO
 CASES, A COMPLAINT AND A NOTICE OF HEARING.  THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
 ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (2) OF THE
 STATUTE WHEN, (1) ON OCTOBER 28, 1980, IT ISSUED UNIT EMPLOYEE RICHARD
 SLOVER A LETTER OF CAUTION;  (2) ON OCTOBER 29, 1980, IT TERMINATED MR.
 SLOVER BECAUSE HE HAD ENGAGED IN PROTECTED ACTIVITIES;  AND (3) ON
 OCTOBER 29, 1980, IT TERMINATED UNIT EMPLOYEE JAMES BANASIAK BECAUSE HE
 SOUGHT THE ASSISTANCE OF A UNION REPRESENTATIVE IN PRESENTING A
 GRIEVANCE.  RESPONDENT DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS AND CONTENDS THAT THE
 ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST THE TWO EMPLOYEES WERE THE CULMINATION OF A LONG
 HISTORY OF UNSATISFACTORY BEHAVIOR AND WORK PERFORMANCE.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD ON MARCH 26 AND 27, 1981, IN BREMERTON,
 WASHINGTON.  ALL PARTIES WERE AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE
 WITNESSES AND TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE.  POST HEARING BRIEFS HAVE BEEN
 FILED AND CONSIDERED.  UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION
 OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS,
 CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION:
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    BACKGROUND
 
    THE MESSENGER SECTION, CORRESPONDENCE BRANCH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
 DIVISION, ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT OF RESPONDENT ACTIVITY IS ASSIGNED
 THE SORTING AND DELIVERING OF ALL MAIL WITHIN THE ACTIVITY, INCLUDING
 SORTING AND DELIVERY OF MAIL BY MOTOR VEHICLE MESSENGER SERVICE TO ALL
 ACTIVITY SHOPS AND OFFICES.  FAILURE TO PROCESS THE MAIL CORRECTLY AND
 IN A TIMELY MANNER CAN DIRECTLY AFFECT THE ACTIVITY'S PRODUCTIVE
 EFFORTS.  DELAYS AND ERRORS ARE NOTICED IMMEDIATELY AND TRIGGER
 COMPLAINTS FROM VARIOUS LEVELS IN OTHER ACTIVITY ORGANIZATIONAL UNITS.
 
    AT BEST, WORKING CONDITIONS IN THE MESSENGER SECTION ARE DIFFICULT
 AND PRESENT SPECIAL SUPERVISORY CONTROL PROBLEMS.  SINCE TIMELY DELIVERY
 OF THE MAIL IS CRITICAL, EMPLOYEES IN THE MESSENGER SECTION WORK IN A
 PRESSURE COOKER ATMOSPHERE WHERE SPEED AND ACCURACY ARE EXPECTED WHILE
 THEY WORK INDOORS IN CRAMPED CONDITIONS.  OUTDOOR WORK MUST BE PERFORMED
 REGARDLESS OF WEATHER CONDITIONS.
 
    THE WORKFORCE IS MADE UP PRIMARILY OF VETERAN'S READJUSTMENT
 APPOINTMENTS.  AS THE NAME IMPLIES, THESE APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE FOR THE
 PURPOSE OF READJUSTING VETERANS TO CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT AND, AS A RESULT,
 ACTION TO TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE BECAUSE OF POOR PERFORMANCE OR CONDUCT
 IS NOT TAKEN AS SOON AS IT MIGHT BE WITH OTHER NEW EMPLOYEES.  THE
 EMPLOYEES TEND TO BE SOMEWHAT OLDER AND THE PAY IS VERY LOW.  WORKING IN
 THE MESSENGER SECTION GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADJUST AND IS
 GENERALLY SEEN AS A STEPPING STONE TO OTHER HIGHER PAYING JOBS.  THE
 SECTION IS ALSO A TEMPORARY REPOSITORY FOR REGULAR EMPLOYEES WHO, FOR
 VARIOUS REASONS SUCH AS INJURY, CANNOT CONTINUE TO PERFORM MORE ARDUOUS
 DUTIES.
 
    THE VEHICLE DELIVERY SERVICE IS ACCOMPLISHED BY USING TWO VANS.  THE
 LARGER ONE IS DRIVEN BY AN EMPLOYEE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SHOP, PUBLIC
 WORKS DEPARTMENT OF RESPONDENT ACTIVITY.  THE LARGER VAN MAKES
 APPROXIMATELY 100 STOPS COVERING 35 TO 40 BUILDINGS ONCE EACH MORNING
 AND ONCE EACH AFTERNOON.  THE MAIL DELIVERED AND SORTED INCLUDES ALL
 UNITED STATES MAIL, INTERNAL MAIL, AND BOXES OF COMPUTER PRINTOUTS.  IT
 IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT THAT THE LARGER VAN COMPLETE ITS ROUNDS
 BECAUSE IT PROVIDES SERVICE TO THE PRODUCTION SHOPS.  COMPLETION OF THE
 ROUTE IS REFERRED TO AS "GOING OVER THE HILL" AND ALL EMPLOYEES INVOLVED
 ARE INSTRUCTED THAT THEY ARE TO INFORM THE SECTION SUPERVISORY
 IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE IT "OVER THE
 HILL".  ON SOME MONDAYS AND SOME HEAVY THURSDAYS THE VAN DOES NOT MAKE
 IT.
 
    IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE FIVE OF THE PARTIES' NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT,
 UNION STEWARDS ARE ASSIGNED BY AREA AND RESPONDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO
 RESTRICT THOSE STEWARDS TO THOSE AREAS.  THE UNION PERIODICALLY INFORMS
 RESPONDENT WHO THE STEWARDS ARE AND RESPONDENT, IN TURN, POSTS THE
 INFORMATION ON BULLETIN BOARDS.  IN THOSE CASES WHERE THERE IS NO
 STEWARD FOR AN AREA, THE SUPERVISOR MAKES ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE EMPLOYEE
 TO SEE A STEWARD WHO HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE CHIEF STEWARD.  THIS IS
 GENERALLY THE STEWARD LOCATED CLOSEST TO THE WORKSITE OF THE EMPLOYEE.
 
    RICHARD SLOVER
 
    RICHARD SLOVER BEGAN EMPLOYMENT IN THE MESSENGER SECTION IN FEBRUARY
 1980 AS A CAREER-CONDITIONAL VETERAN'S READJUSTMENT ACT APPOINTMENT.  AS
 IS THE CASE WITH SUCH NEW EMPLOYEES, HE WAS ASSIGNED TO WORK WITH A MORE
 EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEE TO LEARN THE CODING SYSTEM, SORTING, AND THE
 BUILDING MAIL RUNS.  AT THE END OF THREE WEEKS, HE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATING
 THE PROGRESS NORMALLY EXPECTED OF A NEW EMPLOYEE AND LOREE "REE" BAYNE,
 THE SECTION SUPERVISOR, BROUGHT HIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES TO
 HIS ATTENTION.  SHE DISCUSSED HIS SORTING ERRORS AND INFORMED HIM THAT
 HE COULD NOT STOP SORTING FOR UP TO 15 MINUTES WHILE HE TALKED.  SHE
 INFORMED HER SUPERVISOR, JAN HUGHES, OF THIS DISCUSSION AND, THEREAFTER,
 SHE DISCUSSED HIS PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS WITH MS. HUGHES ON A FREQUENT
 BASIS.  SINCE HIS PERFORMANCE DID NOT IMPROVE AFTER THE INITIAL
 DISCUSSION, MS. BAYNE INFORMED MS. HUGHES THAT SHE THOUGHT SHE WOULD TRY
 MR. SLOVER ON THE BIG VAN SINCE SHE HAD HAD SUCCESS IN OTHER PROBLEM
 CASES WHEN MEN WERE MOVED FROM INSIDE TO OUTSIDE WORK.  HOWEVER, AFTER
 THREE WEEKS ON THE VAN, MR. SLOVER WAS STILL HAVING HIS PROBLEMS WITH
 MEMORIZING CODES AND SORTING MAIL.  HE TOLD MS. BAYNE THAT HE HAD A
 PERSONAL PROBLEM AND SHE SUGGESTED THAT, LIKE OTHER VETERAN'S
 REHABILITATION APPOINTEES, HE MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR COUNSELING SERVICE
 AT RESPONDENT'S FACILITY.  HE SAID THAT HE HAD STUDIED PSYCHIATRY AND
 KNEW MORE THAN THE COUNSELOR.  RAISING HIS VOICE, HE ACCUSED MS. BAYNE
 OF PICKING ON HIM.  SHE TOLD HIM THAT SHE WANTED HIM TO APPLY HIMSELF
 AND LEARN THE CODES WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.
 
    WHILE ON THE VAN, MR. SLOVER CONTINUED TO MAKE ERRORS IN SORTING AND,
 ON A DAILY OR TWICE DAILY BASIS, WOULD LEAVE BEHIND THREE OR FOUR LARGE
 BAGS OF MAIL.  THE PRODUCTION AREAS BEGAN TO COMPLAIN DAILY ABOUT ERRORS
 IN MAIL DELIVERY.  ALTHOUGH OTHER EMPLOYEES MADE OCCASIONAL ERRORS, MR.
 SLOVER'S ERROR RATE WAS EXCEPTIONAL.  NOTWITHSTANDING, IN THE SUMMER MS.
 BAYNE DECIDED TO PUT HIM IN CHARGE OF THE VAN IN ORDER TO BOLSTER HIS
 CONFIDENCE.  APPARENTLY HER DECISION HAD INITIAL SUCCESS BECAUSE SHE DID
 NOT RECEIVE COMPLAINT CALLS FOR TWO DAYS AT A TIME AND SHE COMPLIMENTED
 MR. SLOVER ON THE REDUCTION OF COMPLAINTS.  /1/ AT THIS TIME, JAMES
 BANASIAK WAS ASSIGNED TO THE VAN AND RAYMOND LEE WAS ASSIGNED FROM THE
 TRANSPORTATION SHOP TO BE THE DRIVER.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER, LESTER
 CHRISTIANSEN WAS ASSIGNED TO THE VAN.
 
    ONE WEEK AFTER MR. SLOVER WAS PUT IN CHARGE OF THE VAN, MS. BAYNE
 AGAIN BEGAN TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS ON MAIL DELIVERY AND FOUND THAT THE
 VAN WAS NOT COMPLETING ITS FULL RUN.  MISDELIVERY OF MAIL TO THE
 WATERFRONT OCCURRED BECAUSE AS SHIPS PROGRESSED THROUGH REPAIRS, THE
 CODES CONSTANTLY CHANGED AND THIS REQUIRED SPOT CHECKING OF THOSE CODES.
  MS. BAYNE ASKED MR. SLOVER ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS.  HE RESPONDED BY
 WAVING HIS ARMS AND SHOUTING AT HER THAT HE DID NOT HAVE TIME TO SPOT
 CHECK THE CODES AND THAT THE ERRORS OCCURRED IN THE MAILROOM AND NOT IN
 THE VAN.  /2/ MR. SLOVER THEN YELLED TO MR. BANASIAK THAT MS. BAYNE
 WANTED THEM TO SPOT CHECK THE CODES.  MR. BANASIAK CAME OVER TO HER DESK
 AND HE AND MR. SLOVER THEN SCREAMED AT HER THAT SHE HAD NO RIGHT TO GIVE
 THEM SUCH AN ORDER.  AT THAT TIME, ANOTHER EMPLOYEE CAME OVER AND TOLD
 THEM THAT HE HAD BEEN ON THE VAN FOR A YEAR AND THAT, FOR A NUMBER OF
 REASONS, HE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SPOT CHECK THE CODES AND THAT THEY
 SHOULD ALSO DO IT.  HOWEVER, NEITHER BEGAN TO SPOT CHECK.
 
    MS. BAYNE WAS STILL CONCERNED THAT THE VAN WAS NOT MAKING IT "OVER
 THE HILL".  UPON INQUIRING OF OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED ON THE VAN, SHE
 DISCOVERED THAT MR. SLOVER, MR. BANASIAK, AND MR. LEE WERE ATTEMPTING TO
 ENLIST PEOPLE TO ATTEND A RALLY FOR THE AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN.  THEY
 WERE PASSING OUT LITERATURE AND ENGAGING IN CONVERSATIONS OF 20 TO 30
 MINUTES DURING WORKING HOURS.  IN EARLY SEPTEMBER, MR. SLOVER WAS
 SUMMONED TO TALK TO MS. BAYNE AND MS.  HUGHES ABOUT THESE ACTIVITIES.
 AS A RESULT OF THIS DISCUSSION AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL
 RELATIONS OFFICE, MS. HUGHES AND MS. BAYNE DECIDED TO TAKE MR. SLOVER
 OFF THE VAN.  MR. SLOVER THEN REQUESTED A MEETING WITH A UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE TO DISCUSS HIS BEING TAKEN OFF THE VAN.  /3/ SUCH A
 MEETING WAS HELD IN MS. HUGHES' OFFICE WITH UNION REPRESENTATIVES
 PRESENT.  ALTHOUGH MR. SLOVER WAS NOT RETURNED TO THE VAN, A COOLING OFF
 PERIOD FOR A WEEK WAS SUGGESTED BY THE UNION'S CHIEF STEWARD.  HIS
 SUGGESTION WAS TAKEN AND THINGS WERE QUIET FOR THE NEXT WEEK.
 
    SOON THEREAFTER, MR. SLOVER RAN INTO FURTHER DIFFICULTIES ON A
 CONTINUAL BASIS.  HE GOT INTO ARGUMENTS WITH OTHER EMPLOYEES.  HIS
 SORTING WAS DEFICIENT.  HE WAS ABSENT FROM THE WORKPLACE.  HE DID NOT
 DELIVER SOME PACKAGES ON A DUMB WAITER AND, WHEN ASKED TO DO SO A SECOND
 TIME, WAITED 18 MINUTES BEFORE COMPLYING.  HE BECAME THE OBJECT OF OTHER
 EMPLOYEES' COMPLAINTS.  HE LEFT EARLY FOR LUNCH.  HE STOPPED SORTING 10
 MINUTES BEFORE QUITTING TIME.  THIS LATTER INCIDENT PROMPTED ANOTHER
 MEETING IN MS. HUGHES' OFFICE.  MR. SLOVER ASKED FOR AND WAS GRANTED
 UNION REPRESENTATION FOR THAT MEETING.  ALTHOUGH MS. BAYNE RECOMMENDED A
 LETTER OF CAUTION, MR.  HUGHES SAID THAT IF HE STRAIGHTENED OUT, NONE
 WOULD ISSUE, AND NONE DID.  MR. SLOVER EXPRESSED CONCERN TO HIS UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE THAT MS. BAYNE MIGHT HOLD HIM BACK BECAUSE OF THIS
 INCIDENT.  SHE ASSURED HIM THAT, AS SHE HAD DONE IN SIMILAR CASES, IF HE
 DID HIS JOB, MS. BAYNE WOULD NOT LIE AND WOULD NOT HOLD HIM BACK.  /4/
 
    THE PRACTICE IN THE MAILROOM HAS BEEN FOR THE MESSENGERS TO SHARE THE
 WORK EQUALLY AND TO WRITE THEIR NAMES ON A GLASS COVERED SCHEDULE
 INDICATING WHICH FLOOR RUNS THEY WERE GOING TO COMPLETE.  ON THE MORNING
 FOLLOWING THE MEETING IN MS. HUGHES' OFFICE, MR. SLOVER WROTE HIS NAME
 IN FOR EVERY RUN.  THIS CAUSED DISRUPTION AMONG THE WORK FORCE AND LED
 TO AN ALTERCATION BETWEEN MR. SLOVER AND ANOTHER EMPLOYEE DURING WHICH
 HE STATED TO THAT EMPLOYEE (REFERENCING MS. BAYNE), "I'M NOT OUT TO GET
 YOU.  IF I WANT TO GET ANYONE, IT'S HER." /5/
 
    ON OCTOBER 28, 1980, MS. BAYNE CALLED MR. SLOVER INTO MS. HUGHES'
 OFFICE WHERE SHE ATTEMPTED TO GIVE HIM A "LETTER OF CAUTION AND
 REQUIREMENT" FOR ABSENCE FROM THE WORKPLACE, INATTENTION TO DUTY AND
 CARELESS WORK PERFORMANCE.  HE BECAME EXTREMELY UPSET, REFUSED TO ACCEPT
 THE LETTER, AND GRAPHICALLY DESCRIBED WHERE HE THOUGHT THE LETTER SHOULD
 BE SHOVED.  HE THEN DEMANDED A UNION REPRESENTATIVE AND STORMED OUT OF
 THE OFFICE.  SINCE THE FLOOR WAS WITHOUT A DESIGNATED STEWARD AT THAT
 TIME, MS. BAYNE CALLED THE CHIEF STEWARD, DUANE MILLER.  WHILE SHE WAS
 WAITING FOR HIM TO RETURN HER CALL, MR. SLOVER RETURNED SHOUTING FOR
 UNION REPRESENTATION.  MS. BAYNE TOLD HIM THAT SHE WOULD GET BACK TO HIM
 AFTER MR. MILLER CALLED.  MR. SLOVER SLAMMED THE DOOR AND LEFT.
 
    AFTER HEARING FROM THE CHIEF STEWARD, MS. BAYNE GAVE MR. SLOVER A
 NOTE CONTAINING THE NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF ROSEMARY BROWN, THE
 STEWARD
 ASSIGNED TO REPRESENT HIM.  MR. SLOVER BEGAN TO POUND MS. BAYNE'S DESK
 AND BEGAN A TORRENT OF VERBAL ABUSE DURING WHICH HE SWUNG HIS ARMS AND
 CALLED HER, AMONG OTHER THINGS, A "FUCKING BITCH".  BELIEVING HIM TO BE
 OUT OF CONTROL, MS. BAYNE WENT TO MS. HUGHES' OFFICE AND TOLD HER TO
 CALL THE POLICE.  MS. HUGHES WENT BACK TO THE MAILROOM WHERE MR. SLOVER
 HAD, IN THE MEANTIME, DAMAGED A HEAVY MAIL BASKET.  SHE ASKED HIM TO
 CALM DOWN.  AS A RESULT OF THIS INCIDENT MS. BAYNE ASKED TO HAVE HIS
 EMPLOYMENT TERMINATED.
 
    BASED ON HER PERSONAL EFFORTS TO GIVE MR. SLOVER EVERY CHANCE TO
 IMPROVE HIS PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT, AND THE CULMINATION OF THAT EFFORT
 WHICH SHE PERCEIVED TO BE MR. SLOVER'S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE LETTER OF
 CAUTION AND HIS EXHORTATION TO "SHOVE IT", MS. HUGHES RECOMMENDED TO
 GWEN F. BROWN, HEAD OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION, THAT MR.
 SLOVER'S EMPLOYMENT BE TERMINATED.  THE ACTUAL DECISION TO TERMINATE HIS
 EMPLOYMENT WAS MADE BY MS. BROWN BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF MS.
 HUGHES AND MS. BAYNE AND THEIR CONTINUAL REPORTS TO HER OF MR.  SLOVER'S
 EMPLOYMENT DEFICIENCIES.
 
    ON THE MORNING OF OCTOBER 29, 1980, ROSEMARY BROWN MET WITH MR.
 SLOVER PURSUANT TO AN APPOINTMENT PROPERLY MADE THROUGH SUPERVISORS.  AT
 THAT TIME SHE DID NOT KNOW THAT A DECISION TO TERMINATE MR. SLOVER HAD
 BEEN MADE AND SHE MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO RETURN IN THE AFTERNOON TO
 INVESTIGATE THE MATTER FURTHER.  HOWEVER, SHE HAD ASKED FOR A MEETING,
 OR WAS SUMMONED TO A MEETING IN GWEN BROWN'S OFFICE, TO DISCUSS MR.
 SLOVER.  SHE WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE MEETING WOULD TAKE PLACE THAT
 AFTERNOON.  IN ATTENDANCE AT THAT MEETING WERE ROSEMARY BROWN, CHIEF
 STEWARD MILLER, MR. SLOVER, MR. BANASIAK, GWEN BROWN, MS. HUGHES, AND
 MS. BAYNE.  DURING THIS MEETING, TERMINATION NOTICES WERE HANDED TO MR.
 SLOVER AND MR. BANASIAK.
 
    JAMES BANASIAK
 
    JAMES BANASIAK BEGAN HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD
 ON A TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT WHICH BEGAN MAY 27, 1980.  HE WAS HIRED UNDER
 THE VETERAN'S REEMPLOYMENT ACT.  INITIALLY, HE WAS ASSIGNED TO AN
 EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEE IN THE MAILROOM TO LEARN THE WORK WHICH WOULD BE
 REQUIRED OF HIM.  AT THE END OF THE FIRST TWO WEEKS, MS. BAYNE FOUND
 THAT HE WAS NOT LEARNING HOW TO SORT MAIL PROPERLY.  SHE ALSO KNEW THAT
 HE WAS GETTING ALMOST HOURLY CALLS FROM HIS WIFE DURING WORKING HOURS.
 SHE DISCUSSED HIS LESS THAN ADEQUATE PERFORMANCE WITH HIM AND TOLD HIM
 TO INFORM HIS WIFE TO RESTRICT HER PHONE CALLS.  DURING THESE
 DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. BANASIAK, MS. BAYNE LEARNED THAT HE WAS HAVING BAD
 MARITAL AND FINANCIAL PROBLEMS.  SHE SUGGESTED COUNSELING HELP AND,
 ALTHOUGH HE DECLINED THE SUGGESTION AT FIRST, HE LATER CHANGED HIS MIND
 AND MS. BAYNE MADE AN APPOINTMENT FOR HIM.  IN THE MEANTIME, SHE
 DISCUSSED HIS SITUATION WITH MS. HUGHES.
 
    AT ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER 1980, MS. BAYNE FOUND NO
 IMPROVEMENT IN HIS SORTING AND SHE DECIDED TO TRY HIM ON THE BIG VAN TO
 SEE IF THAT KIND OF CHANGE WOULD HELP HIS PERFORMANCE.
 
    WITHIN A WEEK OF HIS ASSIGNMENT TO THE VAN, /6/ MR. BANASIAK BEGAN TO
 REACT IN A HOSTILE MANNER AND WOULD SHOUT AT MS. BAYNE WHENEVER HE WAS
 GIVEN AN ORDER OR INFORMED THAT HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE OR FORGOT MAIL.
 DURING ONE DISCUSSION WITH MS. BAYNE CONCERNING HIS DEFICIENCIES, HE
 EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS BEING PRESSURED BY HIS DIVORCE.
 
    MS. BAYNE HAD TO DISCUSS HIS PERFORMANCE WITH HIM ONCE EVERY 10 DAYS.
  WHEN ORDERED TO CHANGE A PRACTICE INITIATED ON THE VAN WITHOUT HER
 APPROVAL, MR. BANASIAK FAILED TO DO SO.  SHE REPORTED HER PROBLEMS WITH
 HIM TO MS. HUGHES AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK AND MS. HUGHES, IN TURN,
 DISCUSSED THEM WITH GWEN BROWN.
 
    IN EARLY TO MID-OCTOBER, AN INCIDENT OCCURRED WHICH INVOLVED PLAYING
 BACKGAMMON ON THE VAN.  MR. BANASIAK, MR. CHRISTIANSEN AND WAYNE BRAGGER
 WERE THE PLAYERS WHO WERE SEEN FROM THE DENTAL BUILDING WHILE THE VAN
 WAS STOPPED FOR SOME 20 MINUTES OR SO.  APPARENTLY RAYMOND LEE WAS THE
 DRIVER AT THE TIME ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT A PARTICIPATING PLAYER ON THAT
 PARTICULAR DAY.  /7/ MR. BRAGGER AND MR. CHRISTIANSEN APOLOGIZED FOR THE
 INFRACTION BUT MR. BANASIAK DIDN'T THINK PLAYING THE GAME MADE ANY
 DIFFERENCE SINCE THEY WERE DONE FOR THE DAY AND, THEREFORE, HAD NO
 REASON TO HURRY BACK.
 
    ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, MR. BANASIAK COMPLAINED TO AN EMPLOYEE, WHO
 WAS MONITORING PERFORMANCE ON THE VAN, THAT HE RECEIVED INADEQUATE
 TRAINING FROM TERRY BRYANT.  THE MONITOR ASKED MR. BANASIAK TO REPEAT
 THAT CHARGE TO MS. BAYNE, WHICH HE DID.  MR. BANASIAK THEN COMPLAINED
 ABOUT AN INCIDENT WITH MR. BRYANT THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE MORE THAN A MONTH
 BEFORE.  HE BEGAN SCREAMING AND HOLLERING AT MS. BAYNE AND ASKED WHAT
 SHE WAS GOING TO DO TO MR. BRYANT.  SHE TALKED TO HIM AND SUCCEEDED IN
 CALMING HIM DOWN AND SENDING HIM BACK TO WORK.  HE RETURNED TO THE VAN
 BUT HE WAS STILL UPSET AND DISCUSSED THE INCIDENT WITH MR. CHRISTIANSEN
 AND MR. LEE.  ON DIRECT EXAMINATION HE WAS ASKED WHAT HE SAID TO MR. LEE
 AND HE RESPONDED:
 
    . . . I ALSO GOT TO THE FACT THAT I WAS A LITTLE BIT TIRED OF THE
 FACT OR THE WAY REE HAD
 
    BEEN ACTING TOWARDS ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL.  I WAS JUST THOROUGHLY UPSET
 AND DISGUSTED AT BEING
 
    CALLED A CHILD AND BEING TREATED LIKE ONE.
 
    MR. LEE THEREUPON SUGGESTED THAT MR. BANASIAK RETURNED TO MS. BAYNE
 AND ASK TO SEE A UNION STEWARD.  MR. LEE HAD RECENTLY BEEN APPOINTED A
 UNION STEWARD AND HE TOLD MR. BANASIAK THAT HE WOULD REPRESENT HIM.  AT
 THE TIME, MR. BANASIAK WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE UNION BUT MR. LEE GOT HIM
 THE APPROPRIATE PAPERWORK AND MR. BANASIAK JOINED THAT AFTERNOON.
 
    UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, MR.
 LEE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT MR. BANASIAK AS HIS UNION STEWARD.
 
    ON MONDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 27, MR. BANASIAK ASKED MS. BAYNE FOR A
 WALKING CHIT TO SEE "A SHOP STEWARD".  SHE SAID THAT SHE WOULD MAKE AN
 APPOINTMENT FOR HIM TO SEE A STEWARD BUT THAT HE COULD NOT SEE A "SHOP
 STEWARD", WHICH TERM SHE TOOK TO MEAN A STEWARD WHO WAS ASSIGNED TO ONE
 OF THE VARIOUS SHOPS LOCATED IN THE SHIPYARD.  HE DECLINED TO SPECIFY
 WHERE HE WISHED TO GO OR WHOM HE WISHED TO SEE.  SHE SAID SHE WOULD NOT
 GIVE HIM A WALKING CHIT BECAUSE IT WAS MONDAY, THEIR HEAVIEST WORKING
 DAY, AND BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT FILL IT OUT WITHOUT THE INFORMATION HE
 FAILED TO PROVIDE.  SHE OFFERED TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR HIM TO SEE A
 UNION STEWARD BUT HE SAID THAT HE WOULD DO SO HIMSELF.  HE THEN WENT TO
 MS. HUGHES' OFFICE AND LEFT A MESSAGE WITH MR. LEE'S DISPATCHER.
 
    AT APPROXIMATELY 9:00 THAT MORNING, MR. LEE APPROACHED MS. BAYNE AND
 STATED IN AN UGLY TONE THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT MR. BANASIAK HAD ASKED TO
 SEE HIM.  MS. BAYNE INFORMED HIM THAT MR. BANASIAK HAD NOT ASKED TO SEE
 HIM AND SHE REFUSED TO CALL MR. BANASIAK BACK TO HER OFFICE, TELLING MR.
 LEE THAT IT WAS MONDAY MORNING AND THAT HE KNEW FULL WELL THAT HE WAS
 THE WRONG STEWARD AND COULD NOT REPRESENT ANY OF HER PEOPLE.
 
    IN THE AFTERNOON, MR. BANASIAK AND MR. LEE RETURNED TO MS. BAYNE TO
 REQUEST A MEETING TO DISCUSS MR. BANASIAK'S COMPLAINT.  MS. BAYNE
 REITERATED THAT MR. LEE WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE STEWARD AND THAT HE
 COULD ARRANGE A PROPER APPOINTMENT.  AT THAT POINT, MS. BAYNE DIRECTED
 MR. BANASIAK TO RETURN TO WORK.  HE SHOOK HIS HEAD TO INDICATE "NO".
 /8/ SHE TOLD HIM TO RETURN TO THE TRUCK AGAIN AND MR. LEE SAID, "DON'T
 DO IT." SHE AGAIN TOLD HIM TO GET BACK TO THE TRUCK AND THAT IT WAS A
 DIRECT ORDER.  HE AGAIN SHOOK HIS HEAD IN THE NEGATIVE.  MR. BANASIAK,
 WITHOUT AND EXPRESSLY AGAINST MS. BAYNE'S PERMISSION, AND MR. LEE WENT
 TO DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH MS. HUGHES.  MR. BANASIAK SHORTLY THEREAFTER
 LEFT MR. LEE IN MS. HUGHES' OFFICE AND RETURNED TO WORK.
 
    SHORTLY BEFORE THE MEETING IN GWEN BROWN'S OFFICE DURING WHICH
 TERMINATION PAPERS WERE PRESENTED TO THE TWO EMPLOYEES, ROSEMARY BROWN
 WAS TOLD THAT MR. BANASIAK WAS INVOLVED.  SHE SPOKE WITH HIM FOR A FEW
 MINUTES BEFORE THE MEETING.  MR. BANASIAK'S TERMINATION NOTICE STATED,
 "EMPLOYEE HAD POOR WORK PERFORMANCE AND UNCOOPERATIVE ATTITUDE." AT THE
 MEETING, MR.  BANASIAK AND ROSEMARY BROWN ATTEMPTED TO LEARN MORE
 SPECIFIC REASONS FOR HIS TERMINATION.  OTHER THAT REFERENCE TO THE
 BACKGAMMON INCIDENT, THE RESPONSES WERE GENERAL.  ACCORDING TO ROSEMARY
 BROWN, GWEN BROWN MADE A COMMENT THAT MR. BANASIAK'S WORK WAS GOOD.  /9/
 INSUBORDINATION WAS NEVER MENTIONED.
 
                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IN THESE CASES IS WHETHER THE ACTIONS TAKEN
 AGAINST MR. SLOVER AND MR. BANASIAK WERE MOTIVATED IN ANY RESPECT BY
 ANTI-UNION CONSIDERATIONS.  THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS A
 RESOUNDING NO.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE ULTIMATE DECISION TO TERMINATE
 THEIR EMPLOYMENT WAS MADE BY GWEN BROWN.  THERE IS NOT THE PROVERBIAL
 SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE THAT HER ACTIONS WERE BASED ON ANY CONSIDERATIONS
 OTHER THAN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF HER SUBORDINATES, MS. HUGHES AND MS.
 BAYNE.  AND AS TO THOSE TWO SUPERVISORS, THE ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE OF
 ANTI-UNION ANIMUS WAS PRESENTED THROUGH A WITNESS IN WHOSE TESTIMONY I
 CAN GIVE NO CREDENCE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, EVIDENCE GIVEN BY UNION
 STEWARDS, OTHER THAN RAYMOND LEE, INDICATES THAT THE TWO SUPERVISORS IN
 QUESTION HAVE, IN THE PAST, BEEN NOTHING BUT COOPERATIVE WITH UNION
 OFFICIALS IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THE
 CONTEXT OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS.
 
    AS FAR AS THE SUBJECT EMPLOYEES THEMSELVES ARE CONCERNED, THERE IS
 LITTLE, IF ANY, EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THEIR UNION ACTIVITIES WERE KNOWN
 TO MANAGEMENT ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THEY SOUGHT ASSISTANCE FROM A
 COLLEAGUE WHO HAPPENED TO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED AS A UNION STEWARD
 CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THEIR EMPLOYMENT DIFFICULTIES.  RICHARD SLOVER
 WAS FAR FROM A UNION ACTIVIST ALTHOUGH IT WAS CLEAR TO MANAGEMENT THAT
 HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE UNION.  HIS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE
 AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN WERE WELL KNOWN BECAUSE OF THE EXTENT THOSE
 ACTIVITIES INTERFERED WITH HIS EMPLOYMENT RESPONSIBILITIES.  BUT IT IS
 CLEAR THAT HIS POLITICAL CONCERNS ONLY BECAME AN ISSUE TO THE
 SUPERVISORS WHEN HIS ACTIVITIES IN THAT REGARD INTERFERED WITH HIS
 OFFICIAL DUTIES.  MR. BANASIAK BECAME A MEMBER OF THE UNION ONLY AFTER
 HIS EMPLOYMENT DIFFICULTIES CAME TO A HEAD.  AND EVEN AT THAT POINT, HE
 BECAME INVOLVED WITH A UNION STEWARD WHO WAS ACTING OUTSIDE OF HIS
 OFFICIAL AUTHORITY.  BOTH MR. BANASIAK AND MR. LEE WERE TOLD BY THE TWO
 SUPERVISORS THAT MR. LEE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ACT IN BEHALF OF MR.
 BANASIAK AND THE RECORD CAN SUPPORT NO OTHER CONCLUSION.  UNDER THESE
 CIRCUMSTANCES ONE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT MR. BANASIAK WAS ENGAGED IN
 PROTECTED ACTIVITY WHEN HE AND MR. LEE CONFRONTED MS. BAYNE AND MS.
 HUGHES.
 
    AS TO MR. LEE, HE CAN BE DESCRIBED AS NOTHING MORE THAN AN UNGUIDED
 MISSILE, LAUNCHED IN AN EFFORT TO ASSIST TWO FRIENDS IN THEIR CAMPAIGN
 TO DISCREDIT A COMMON ENEMY.  TO QUOTE MR. BANASIAK, HE AND MR. SLOVER
 WERE "ALWAYS AT ODDS WITH MS. BAYNE." IT IS CLEAR FROM OTHER TESTIMONY
 THAT THEY TOOK PERSONALLY ALL CRITICISM OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT
 DEFICIENCIES.  NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS
 THAT THEY WERE TREATED UNFAIRLY OR THAT THEIR TREATMENT DERIVED FROM
 OTHER THAN A CONCERN THAT THEIR DUTIES BE PERFORMED IN A MANNER
 CONSISTENT WITH THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE.
 
    ON THE OTHER HAND, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT CONDITIONS IN THE
 MESSENGER SECTION WERE DIFFICULT AT BEST AND THAT BOTH SUPERVISORS BENT
 OVER BACKWARDS IN AN ATTEMPT TO SALVAGE WHATEVER EMPLOYMENT POTENTIAL
 ANY EMPLOYEE MIGHT DEMONSTRATE.  THEIR HISTORY INDICATED THAT THEY BOTH
 WOULD ENDURE FAR MORE DIFFICULTIES THAN OTHER SUPERVISORS WOULD BECAUSE
 OF THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THEIR PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES.  IN THIS PARTICULAR
 CASE, THE TWO EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION WERE GIVEN AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF
 LATITUDE AND THEY MANAGED TO EXCEED IT.  GRANTED THAT NEITHER MS.  BAYNE
 NOR MS. HUGHES, NOR MS. BROWN FOR THE MATTER, ARTICULATED WITH ANY
 PRECISION THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THEIR DECISION TO TERMINATE THE TWO
 MEN.  HOWEVER, IT IS BEYOND CAVIL THAT THOSE REASONS WERE GROUNDED IN
 THEIR EMPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE AND THAT THOSE REASONS HAD ABSOLUTELY
 NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THE UNION OR THAT
 THEY MADE ATTEMPTS TO HAVE THE UNION REPRESENT THEM.  /10/ GIVING
 CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS RAISED IN THIS CASE, I AM
 CERTAIN THAT THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION AND THEIR ENLISTMENT OF UNION
 REPRESENTATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION TO TERMINATE THEIR
 EMPLOYMENT.
 
    HAVING FOUND AND CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT VIOLATE THE
 STATUTE AS ALLEGED, I RECOMMEND THAT THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING ORDER PURSUANT TO 5 C.F.R. 2423.29(C):
 
                                   ORDER
 
    ORDERED, THAT THE COMPLAINTS IN CASE NOS. 9-CA-750 AND 9-CA-762 ARE
 DISMISSED.
 
                         ALAN W. HEIFETZ
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  JULY 24, 1981
    WASHINGTON, DC
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME MR. SLOVER RECEIVED HIS SIX MONTHS
 EVALUATION WHICH WAS SATISFACTORY.  IN VIEW OF THE EFFORTS BEING MADE BY
 HIS SUPERVISOR TO ASSIST HIM IN HIS READJUSTMENT TO CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT,
 I AM NOT SURPRISED AT THAT RATING DESPITE THE LITANY OF PERFORMANCE
 PROBLEMS SHE HAD WITH HIM.  I CREDIT MS. BAYNE'S TESTIMONY BASED ON HER
 DEMEANOR AND THE CONSISTENCY OF OTHER CREDITED TESTIMONY.  RAYMOND LEE,
 WHO FOR A TIME DROVE THE VAN, TESTIFIED THAT MR. SLOVER WAS "ORGANIZED"
 AND THAT OTHER EMPLOYEES LOOKED UP TO AND ASKED QUESTIONS OF MR. SLOVER.
  I DO NOT CREDIT HIS TESTIMONY.  HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTACT WITH MR. SLOVER
 WAS CONFINED TO A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME ON THE VAN AND, AS WILL BE
 DISCUSSED INFRA, HIS ROLE IN THIS WHOLE DRAMA IS SUSPECT.
 
    /2/ MS. BAYNE AGREED THAT NOT ALL ERRORS OCCURRED ON THE VAN.
 
    /3/ I CREDIT MS. HUGHES' TESTIMONY THAT THE REQUEST FOR UNION
 REPRESENTATION CAME AFTER MR. SLOVER WAS REMOVED FROM THE VAN AND NOT
 BEFORE.  I DO SO ON THE BASIS OF HER DEMEANOR AND OTHER CONSISTENT
 TESTIMONY.  I DO NOT CREDIT MR. SLOVER'S VERSION TO THE CONTRARY.  HIS
 TESTIMONY WAS CONTRADICTED NOT ONLY BY MS. HUGHES AND MS. BAYNE, BUT
 ALSO BY HIS UNION REPRESENTATIVE WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE COMPLAINED THAT
 HE WAS TAKEN OFF THE VAN FOR HIS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, NOT BECAUSE HE
 ASKED FOR UNION REPRESENTATION.  MR. SLOVER'S CREDIBILITY WAS ALSO
 IMPAIRED WHEN, ON THE ONE HAND, HE TESTIFIED THAT LESTER CHRISTIANSEN
 TOLD HIM THAT HE WAS CAUTIONED BY MS. BAYNE NOT TO ASSOCIATE WITH MR.
 SLOVER.  MR. CHRISTIANSEN, ON THE OTHER HAND, DENIED THAT SUCH A
 STATEMENT HAD BEEN MADE AND FURTHER, HE STATED THAT HE REFUSED TO SIGN A
 STATEMENT WHICH HAD BEEN PREPARED TO BOLSTER MR. SLOVER'S POSITION IN
 THIS CASE.
 
    /4/ THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE WAS SARANN SANDNESS.  HER TESTIMONY
 GIVES SHORT SHRIFT TO ANY CLAIM OF ANTI-UNION REMARKS ON THE PART OF MS.
 BAYNE OR MS. HUGHES.  IN FACT, SHE SPECIFICALLY TOLD MR. SLOVER THAT HE
 SHOULD HAVE NO FEAR OF HAVING UNION REPRESENTATION BECAUSE SHE HAD NEVER
 FELT ANY PROBLEM IN THAT REGARD WITH EITHER OF THOSE TWO SUPERVISORS.
 ANOTHER UNION REPRESENTATIVE, ROSEMARY BROWN, TESTIFIED THAT MANAGEMENT
 NEVER REFUSED TO HAVE HER PRESENT AS A STEWARD WHEN HER PRESENCE WAS
 REQUESTED BY A UNION MEMBER.  THUS, I CANNOT CREDIT MR. SLOVER'S CLAIM
 THAT MS. HUGHES ADVISED HIM TO "STAY AWAY FROM THE UNION BECAUSE YOU ARE
 GOING TO BE MARKED AS A TROUBLE MAKER." IN LIGHT OF THE QUESTION OF HIS
 CREDIBILITY AS RAISED IN FOOTNOTE 3, I CANNOT ACCEPT HIS UNCORROBORATED,
 SELF-SERVING ASSERTION OF SUCH A CONVERSATION WITH MS. HUGHES.  ALTHOUGH
 SHE WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO DENY THAT SHE MADE SUCH A STATEMENT,
 SHE DID TESTIFY THAT THE NEXT CONVERSATION SHE HAD WITH MR. SLOVER WAS
 WHEN HE WAS PRESENTED WITH A LETTER OF CAUTION, DISCUSSED INFRA, AT A
 MEETING ATTENDED BY MS. BAYNE.  I ALSO DO NOT CREDIT THE TESTIMONY OF
 STEVEN CARUTHERS WHO CLAIMED THAT, AFTER MR. SLOVER WAS TERMINATED, HE
 OVERHEARD MS. BAYNE TELL "TERRY", A FORMER EMPLOYEE, THAT IF MR. SLOVER
 AND MR. BANASIAK HAD LEFT THE UNION OUT OF IT, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
 FIRED.  "TERRY" WAS NEVER CALLED TO CORROBORATE THIS TESTIMONY NOR WAS
 ANY EXPLANATION OF HIS ABSENCE OFFERED.  MOREOVER, RAY KOZEL, A FRIEND
 OF MR. CARUTHERS AND A LABOR RELATIONS SPECIALIST AT THE SHIPYARD,
 TESTIFIED THAT HE SPOKE TO MR. CARUTHERS THE MORNING BEFORE THE HEARING
 AND THAT MR. CARUTHERS SAID THAT HE WAS ANXIOUS TO TESTIFY IN THIS
 PROCEEDING, THAT HE WAS A FRIEND OF MR. SLOVER, AND THAT HE DID NOT LIKE
 MS. BAYNE.
 
    /5/ MR. SLOVER'S CONTENTION THAT HE SIGNED UP FOR ALL THE FLOOR RUNS
 TO DEMONSTRATE HIS CAPABILITIES IS PLAINLY LUDICROUS.  THE EVIDENCE
 BELIES THE PHYSICAL POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A PERFORMANCE.
 
    /6/ AT THE TIME, MR. SLOVER WAS IN CHARGE OF THE VAN.  MR.
 CHRISTIANSEN WAS SOON THEREAFTER ASSIGNED TO THE VAN.  RAYMOND LEE WAS
 THE DRIVER OF THE VAN.  APPARENTLY AFTER MR. SLOVER WAS TAKEN OFF THE
 VAN (SOMETIME SHORTLY AFTER MR. BANASIAK WAS ASSIGNED TO IT), WAYNE
 BRAGGER JOINED THE CREW.
 
    /7/ OTHER TESTIMONY INDICATED THAT MR. LEE WAS AT LEAST A SOMETIME
 PLAYER OF BACKGAMMON DURING MAIL RUNS.  ALSO, HE SEEMS TO BE THE COMMON
 THREAD WHICH UNITED BOTH MR. SLOVER AND MR. BANASIAK AGAINST MS. BAYNE.
 HE WAS DESCRIBED AS AN "INSTIGATOR" BY MR.  CHRISTIANSEN WHO BELIEVED
 THAT BECAUSE OF HIS POSITION AS A UNION STEWARD, HE COULD HELP THEM
 "GET" MS. BAYNE.  MR. CHRISTIANSEN WAS A CREDIBLE WITNESS.  HE HAD
 HELPED MR. SLOVER IN HIS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
 HOSTAGES IN IRAN AND I FIND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PERSONAL ANIMOSITY
 BETWEEN THEM OR BETWEEN MR. BANASIAK AND HIM.  MR. LEE'S TESTIMONY
 CONTRADICTS MR.  CHRISTIANSEN'S AND BASED ON DEMEANOR, I DO NOT CREDIT
 MR. LEE.
 
    /8/ MR. BANASIAK'S TESTIMONY IS THAT HE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING TO MS.
 BAYNE.  THIS DOES NOT CONTRADICT HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE MERELY SHOOK HIS
 HEAD.  NO TESTIMONY WAS OFFERED TO REBUT MS. BAYNE'S AND, IN ANY EVENT,
 I CREDIT HER VERSION OF THE FACTS.
 
    /9/ ALTHOUGH I CREDIT ROSEMARY BROWN'S TESTIMONY THAT THIS REMARK WAS
 MADE, I DON'T GIVE ANY WEIGHT TO THE SUBSTANCE OF GWEN BROWN'S REMARK.
 I ATTRIBUTE IT TO NERVOUSNESS UNDER THE PRESSURE OF AN EXIT INTERVIEW.
 THE REMARK, OTHERWISE, DOES NOT FIT IN WITH THE OTHER FACTS FOUND TO
 HAVE TAKEN PLACE.  MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO ROSEMARY BROWN, GWEN BROWN
 THEN SAID, IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION "WHAT REALLY IS THE PROBLEM?",
 "WELL, THINGS JUST AREN'T GOING WELL.  HE DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL.  I
 DON'T LIKE HIS ATTITUDE VERY WELL."
 
    /10/ THE DECISION ON APPEAL BY THE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT OF
 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, FINDING THAT MR. BANASIAK WA