09:1046(149)CA - Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, CA and AFGE Local 1482 -- 1982 FLRAdec CA



[ v09 p1046 ]
09:1046(149)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 9 FLRA No. 149
 
 MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE,
 BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party/Petitioner
 
                                            Case Nos. 8-CA-891 
                                                             8-CA-1048 
                                                             8-RO-35
 
            DECISION AND ORDER AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS DECISION IN THE ABOVE
 ENTITLED PROCEEDING ON MARCH 12, 1982, FINDING THAT, IN CASE NOS.
 8-CA0891 AND 8-CA-1048, THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN THE ALLEGED UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE RESPONDENT CEASE AND DESIST
 THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.  IN ADDITION, THE JUDGE
 FOUND THAT AN OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION IN CASE NO. 8-RO-35 SHOULD BE
 SUSTAINED.
 
    SINCE NO TIMELY EXCEPTIONS TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION WERE FILED, AND IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, AS AMENDED, THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
 RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 8-CA-891 AND 8-CA-1048 CONSTITUTE,
 WITHOUT PRECEDENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE, THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, DECISION
 AND ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY, AND ALL OBJECTIONS THERETO ARE DEEMED WAIVED
 FOR ALL PURPOSES.  ACCORDINGLY, THE RESPONDENT SHALL CEASE AND DESIST
 FROM THE VIOLATIONS FOUND BY THE JUDGE AND TAKE THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS
 SET FORTH IN THE ORDER.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO CASE NO. 8-RO-35, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2422.20 OF THE
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7111 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 ENTIRE RECORD, AND NOTING PARTICULARLY THE
 ABSENCE OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY
 ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AS
 MODIFIED HEREIN.  /1/
 
    AS FOUND BY THE JUDGE, THE REPRESENTATION ELECTION IN CASE NO.
 8-RO-35 WAS HELD ON FEBRUARY 19, 1981, AND RESULTED IN 8 VOTES BEING
 CAST FOR THE PETITIONER, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO (THE UNION) AND 11 VOTES BEING CAST AGAINST
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION.  THE UNION FILED FOUR OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT
 ALLEGED TO HAVE AFFECTED THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION.  ON MAY 4, 1981,
 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ISSUED HIS REPORT AND FINDINGS WHEREIN HE
 OVERRULED THREE OF THE OBJECTIONS AS BEING WITHOUT MERIT.  WITH RESPECT
 TO THE FOURTH OBJECTION, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED
 THEREIN WERE IDENTICAL TO THOSE ALLEGED IN CASE NO. 8-CA-891 TO
 CONSTITUTE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  ACCORDINGLY, HE ORDERED A
 CONSOLIDATED HEARING.
 
    WITH REGARD TO CASE NO. 8-RO-35, THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THE
 RESPONDENT'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CONDUCT WHICH OCCURRED AFTER THE
 UNION FILED ITS REPRESENTATION PETITION BUT BEFORE THE ELECTION WAS HELD
 CONSTITUTED IMPROPER CONDUCT WHICH COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO HAVE
 AFFECTED THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION.  IN ACCORDANCE" WITH SECTION
 2422.20(G)(1) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, HOWEVER, THE
 JUDGE MADE NO RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO ANY REMEDIAL ACTION.
 
    AS THE AUTHORITY HAS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED, WHILE IT IS OFTEN
 DIFFICULT TO ASSESS HOW PERVASIVE THE IMPACT OF AN AGENCY'S IMPROPER
 ACTIONS MIGHT BE ON VOTERS, THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CONDUCT
 IS OF AN OBJECTIONA4LE NATURE SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT AN ELECTION BE SET
 ASIDE IS ITS POTENTIAL FOR INTERFERING WITH THE FREE CHOICE OF THE
 VOTERS.  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION
 AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, 9 FLRA NO.  36(1982).  ACCORDINGLY,
 MANAGEMENT'S CONDUCT WHICH INTERFERES WITH THE EMPLOYEES' FREEDOM OF
 CHOICE IN THE ELECTION REQUIRES THAT THE ELECTION BE SET ASIDE.  ID.
 SEE ALSO DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE PLANT REPRESENTATIVE
 OFFICE, DETACHMENT 27, FORT WORTH, TEXAS, 5 FLRA NO.  62(1981).
 
    THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT IN THIS CASE
 INTERFERED WITH THE EMPLOYEES' FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN THE ELECTION AND
 THEREFORE REQUIRES THAT THE ELECTION BE SET ASIDE.  THUS, THE RECORD
 INDICATES THAT THE RESPONDENT, DURING THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD,
 IMPROPERLY CHANGED THE STATUS, REDUCED THE HOURS OF WORK, REPRIMANDED,
 AND REVOKED THE "EXCELLENT" PERFORMANCE RATING OF AN EMPLOYEE, SUSAN
 MCGINNIS, WHO HAD BEEN EXTREMELY OPEN AND ACTIVE IN SUPPORTING THE UNION
 AND IN SOLICITING OTHER EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE UNION.  THE RECORD FURTHER
 INDICATES THAT MCGINNIS, WHO WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE UNION PRESIDENT,
 NOTIFIED THE LATTER OF THESE OCCURRENCES DURING THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD.
  GIVEN THE RELATIVELY SMALL SIZE OF THE UNIT (65 EMPLOYEES), THE
 CENTRALIZED WORK LOCATIONS OF THE UNIT EMPLOYEES, THE HIGH VISIBILITY OF
 MCGINNIS AS AN ACTIVE AND VOCAL SUPPORTER OF THE UNION, THE AUTHORITY
 CONCLUDES THAT THE RESPONDENT'S IMPROPER CONDUCT HAD A REASONABLY
 FORESEEABLE NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE VOTERS' ATTITUDE TOWARD THE UNION AND
 THUS INTERFERED WITH THE EMPLOYEES' FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN THE ELECTION.
 ACCORDINGLY, THE ELECTION MUST BE SET ASIDE AND THE EMPLOYEES GIVEN A
 SECOND OPPORTUNITY TO EXERCISE THEIR PROTECTED RIGHTS.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 2422.20(I) AND 2429.16 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES
 AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7105 OF THE STATUTE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
 THAT THE ELECTION CONDUCTED IN CASE NO. 8-RO-35 BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
 SET ASIDE, AND THAT A SECOND ELECTION BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE
 DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION SET FORTH BELOW.
 
                       DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
 
    AN ELECTION BY SECRET BALLOT SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN CASE NO. 8-RO-35
 IN THE UNIT SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENT FOR CONSENT OR DIRECTED ELECTION
 ALREADY EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION
 CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 19, 1981, AS SOON AS FEASIBLE, BUT NOT EARLIER
 THAN SIXTY (60) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING OF THE NOTICE TO ALL
 EMPLOYEES IN CASE NOS.  8-CA-891 AND 8-CA-1048.  THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
 SHALL SUPERVISE OR CONDUCT THE ELECTION, AS APPROPRIATE, SUBJECT TO THE
 AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS.  ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ARE THOSE IN THE
 UNIT WHO WERE EMPLOYED DURING THE PAYROLL PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING
 THE DATE BELOW, INCLUDING EMPLOYEES WHO DID NOT WORK DURING THE PERIOD
 BECAUSE THEY WERE OUT ILL, ON VACATION, OR ON FURLOUGH, INCLUDING THOSE
 IN THE MILITARY SERVICE WHO APPEAR IN PERSON AT THE POLLS.  INELIGIBLE
 TO VOTE ARE EMPLOYEES WHO QUIT OR WERE DISCHARGED FOR CAUSE SINCE THE
 DESIGNATED PAYROLL PERIOD AND WHO HAVE NOT BEEN REHIRED OR REINSTATED
 BEFORE THE ELECTION DATE.  THOSE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE SHALL VOTE WHETHER OR
 NOT THEY DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE
 RECOGNITION BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 1482, AFL-CIO.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 20, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    MITCHELL ARKIN, ESQUIRE
    MS. HELEN LEACH
                          FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    E. A. JONES, ESQUIRE
    DEBORAH S. WAGNER, ESQUIRE
                          FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
    MR. CHARLIE WARE
                          FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
                          AND PETITIONER
 
    BEFORE:  BURTON S. STERNBURG
                          ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                                 DECISION
 
    THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE, CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE U.S. CODE, 5 U.S.C.
 SECTION 7101, ET SEQ., AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER,
 FED. REG., VOL. 45, NO. 12, JANUARY 17, 1980 AND VOL. 46, NO. 154,
 AUGUST 11, 1981, 5 C.F.R. CHAPTER XIV, PART 2411, ET SEQ.
 
    PURSUANT TO CHARGES FIRST FILED ON JANUARY 28, 1981 IN CASE NO.
 8-CA-891, AND APRIL 23, 1981, IN CASE NO. 8-CA-1048, AND OBJECTIONS TO
 ELECTION FILED ON FEBRUARY 23, 1981 IN CASE NO. 8-RO-35, BY LOCAL 1482,
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, AFL-CIO (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AFGE OR
 THE UNION), AN "ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, CONSOLIDATED AMENDED
 COMPLAINT, AND AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING WITH OUTSTANDING REPRESENTATION
 HEARING" WAS ISSUED ON JUNE 11, 1981, BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR
 REGION VIII, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.
  THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS
 BASE, BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE RESPONDENT OR MARINE
 CORPS), VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1), (2) AND (4) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE STATUTE), BY
 VIRTUE OF ITS ACTIONS IN (1) REPRIMANDING EMPLOYEE SUSAN MCGINNIS
 BECAUSE OF HER UNION ACTIVITY, (2) REDUCING MS. MCGINNIS HOURS OF WORK
 BECAUSE OF HER UNION ACTIVITY, (3) REVOKING MS. MCGINNIS' EXCELLENT
 PERFORMANCE RATING BECAUSE OF HER UNION ACTIVITY AND INFORMING HER OF
 SAME, AND (4) FORCING MS.  MCGINNIS AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO
 OBTAINING WORK TO SIGN A STATEMENT IN WHICH SHE DENIED BOTH
 PARTICIPATING IN CERTAIN UNION ACTIVITY OR HAVING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE
 BASIS OF THE OUTSTANDING OBJECTIONS TO AN ELECTION.
 
    IN CONNECTION WITH THE OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION, THE RECORD
 INDICATES THAT AN ELECTION WAS HELD IN CASE NO. 8-RO-35 ON FEBRUARY 19,
 1981, WHICH RESULTED IN 8 VOTES BEING CASE FOR LOCAL 1482 AND 11 VOTES
 BEING CASE AGAINST EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION BY LOCAL 1482, AFGE.
 SUBSEQUENTLY, LOCAL 1482, AFGE, FILED FOUR TIMELY OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT
 AFFECTING RESULTS OF ELECTION.  ON MAY 4, 1981, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
 FOR REGION VIII ISSUED HIS "REPORT AND FINDINGS" ON THE OBJECTIONS
 WHEREIN HE CONCLUDED THAT THREE OF THE FOUR OBJECTIONS WERE WITHOUT
 MERIT AND OVERRULED SAME.  WITH RESPECT TO THE FOURTH OBJECTION, HE
 CONCLUDED THAT SUCH OBJECTION RAISED ISSUES AND/OR ALLEGATIONS IDENTICAL
 TO THOSE SET FORTH IN CASE NO. 8-CA-891 AS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  /2/
 ACCORDINGLY, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ISSUED AN "ORDER DIRECTING HEARING ON
 OBJECTION" AND LATER CONSOLIDATED THE MATTER WITH THE HEARING SET ON THE
 COMPLAINTS IN CASE NOS. 8-CA-891 AND 8-CA-1048.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN THE CAPTIONED MATTER ON OCTOBER 14, 1981, IN
 BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA.  ALL PARTIES WERE AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
 BEARING ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED HEREIN.  THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND THE
 RESPONDENT SUBMITTED POST HEARING BRIEFS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY
 CONSIDERED.
 
    UPON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, /3/ INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF
 THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT,
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    RESPONDENT OPERATES A COMBINED CLUB SYSTEM (COMMAND CLUBS MANAGEMENT
 SYSTEMS, CCMS) AT BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA, WHICH CONSISTS OF AN OFFICER'S
 CLUB (THE "O" CLUB), AND ENLISTED MEN'S CLUB (THE "E" CLUB) AND A
 NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER'S CLUB (THE "NCO" CLUB).  THE MANAGER OF THE
 CCMS REPORTS TO LT. COL. SPEVETZ, DIRECTOR, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
 DIVISION.  BENEATH THE CCMS MANAGER ARE THE SUB-MANAGERS OF THE THREE
 CLUBS.
 
    SUSAN MCGINNIS, THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATEE HEREIN, BEGAN WORKING IN
 THE CLUB SYSTEM IN 1975.  MS. MCGINNIS, AT LEAST UP TO EARLY 1980,
 WORKED IN THE CLUB SYSTEM AS A PERMANENT PART-TIME BARTENDER.  IN SUCH
 CAPACITY SHE WAS ENTITLED TO A MINIMUM OF 20 HOURS OF WORK PER WEEK IN
 ADDITION TO PRORATED SICK AND ANNUAL LEAVE ACCRUAL.  THE CLUB SYSTEM
 ALSO EMPLOYS INTERMITTENT EMPLOYEES WHO WORK AS BARTENDERS AND
 WAITRESSES.  SUCH INTERMITTENT EMPLOYEES, HOWEVER, WERE NOT GUARANTEED
 ANY MINIMUM HOURS OF WORK AND DID NOT ACCRUE SICK AND ANNUAL LEAVE.
 
    IN EARLY 1980, MS. MCGINNIS WAS WORKING IN THE "E" CLUB AS A
 BARTENDER.  AFTER TAKING TWO MONTHS' LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, SHE TRANSFERRED
 TO THE "O" CLUB UNDER THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION OF SERGEANT EVANS.  AT
 THE TIME OF HER TRANSFER TO THE "O" CLUB, MS.  MCGINNIS' STATUS,
 UNBEKNOWNST TO HER, WAS CHANGED FROM PERMANENT PART-TIME TO
 INTERMITTENT.  ACCORDING TO MS. MCGINNIS, SHE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION
 THAT SHE HAD AN UNDERSTANDING WITH SERGEANT EVANS, THE "O" CLUB MANAGER,
 THAT SHE WOULD BE WORKING AT LEAST 20 HOURS PER WEEK.  MR. BRYANT, WHO,
 AT THE TIME OF MS. MCGINNIS' RETURN, WAS ACTING AS BOTH THE "O" CLUB
 MANAGER AND CCMS MANAGER, TESTIFIED THAT SERGEANT EVANS WAS SUPPOSED TO
 HAVE EXPLAINED TO MS. MCGINNIS HER CHANGE IN STATUS.
 
    IN LATE AUGUST AND EARLY SEPTEMBER 1980, MS. MCGINNIS BEGAN
 EXPERIENCING PROBLEMS IN OBTAINING HER GUARANTEED 20 HOURS OF WORK PER
 WEEK TO WHICH SHE BELIEVED SHE WAS ENTITLED AS A PERMANENT PART-TIME
 EMPLOYEE.  MS. MCGINNIS THEN WROTE A GRIEVANCE WHICH WAS DIRECTED TO
 COLONEL SPEVETZ THROUGH CCMS MANAGER BRYANT, WHO IN HIS CAPACITY AS
 ACTING MANAGER OF THE "O" CLUB ALLOCATED THE THE BARTENDER ASSIGNMENTS.
 MS. MCGINNIS' GRIEVANCE REQUESTED REINSTATEMENT OF HER PERMANENT
 PART-TIME STATUS AND A TRANSFER TO ONE OF THE OTHER CLUBS ON THE BASE.
 
    ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1980, MS. MCGINNIS WENT TO THE UNION HALL FOR
 PURPOSES OF MAKING A COPY OF HER GRIEVANCE ON THE UNION'S DUPLICATING
 MACHINE.  WHILE AT THE UNION HALL MS. MCGINNIS SPOKE TO CHARLIE WARE,
 THE UNION PRESIDENT, AND RECEIVED PERMISSION TO USE THE UNION'S
 DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT.  DURING AN ENSUING DISCUSSION MS. MCGINNIS
 EXPLAINED HER PROBLEM TO MR. WARE, AGREED TO JOIN THE UNION AND WENT SO
 FAR AS TO SIGN A UNION DUES DEDUCTION FORM.  THEY ALSO DISCUSSED THE
 PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING THE UNION AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
 RESPONDENT'S NON-APPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES AND THE ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN
 WHICH WOULD BE NEEDED.  MS.  MCGINNIS VOLUNTEERED TO HELP IN THE
 ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN AND MR. WARE ARRANGED FOR MS. MCGINNIS TO ATTEND THE
 UNION'S WEEKLY STEWARD TRAINING CLASSES WHICH WERE HELD ON WEDNESDAY
 EVENINGS.  ACCORDING TO THE UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY OF MS. MCGINNIS SHE
 ANNOUNCED HER MEMBERSHIP IN THE STEWARD TRAINING CLASSES TO CLUB
 MANAGERS TOP LEWIS AND CHARLIE WATKINS.
 
    ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 9, 1981, MS. MCGINNIS' GRIEVANCE WAS FORWARDED
 THROUGH MR. BRYANT TO COL. SPEVETZ.  THE SIGNATURE PAGE OF THE GRIEVANCE
 CONTAINED THE NOTATION "CC AFGE".  SUBSEQUENTLY, FAILING TO RECEIVE A
 RESPONSE TO THE GRIEVANCE, MR. OSCAR CARR, A STEWARD AND ORGANIZER FOR
 THE UNION, MADE AN APPOINTMENT WITH COL. SPEVETZ TO DISCUSS THE
 GRIEVANCE.  DURING THE MEETING, MR. CARR, WHO WAS ACTING IN THE CAPACITY
 OF MS. MCGINNIS' PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, INFORMED COL. SPEVETZ OF THE
 AGREEMENT MS. MCGINNIS HAD MADE WITH "O" CLUB MANAGER SERGEANT EVANS
 BEFORE SERGEANT EVANS HAD RETIRED, NAMELY THAT MS. MCGINNIS WOULD BE
 RECEIVING AT LEAST 20 HOURS WORK PER WEEK AT THE "O" CLUB.  THE MEETING
 ENDED WITH COLONEL SPEVETZ AGREEING TO CONTACT SERGEANT EVANS AND CHECK
 OUT THE MATTER.
 
    ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1981, UNION PRESIDENT WARE SENT A LETTER TO COLONEL
 SPEVETZ WHEREIN HE REQUESTED A LIST OF "ALL EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY YOUR
 FACILITY WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REPRESENTATION BY AN EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE AND WHO ARE NOT NOW BEING REPRESENTED BY A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION WITH EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION RIGHTS".  BY LETTER DATED
 OCTOBER 8, 1980, COLONEL SPEVETZ FORWARDED THE ROSTERS OF EMPLOYEES
 EMPLOYED IN THE VARIOUS FACILITIES UNDER HIS COMMAND.  THEREAFTER, MS.
 MCGINNIS, UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF MR. CARR, DISTRIBUTED UNION LITERATURE
 AND SPOKE TO A NUMBER OF NAMED EMPLOYEES IN THE CLUB SYSTEM ABOUT THE
 MERITS OF THE UNION.  OF THE 65 NON-APPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED
 BY RESPONDENT, 30 WORKED IN THE CLUB SYSTEM.  THE REMAINING 35 EMPLOYEES
 WHO WORKED IN SUCH PLACES AS THE COMMISSARY STORE AND DAY-CARE CENTER,
 WERE CONTACTED BY MR. CARR.
 
    ACCORDING TO MR. CARR, WHOSE TESTIMONY IN THIS RESPECT IS
 UNCONTESTED, DURING THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER THROUGH NOVEMBER 1980 WHEN HE
 AND MS. MCGINNIS WERE CONDUCTING THEIR ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN, HE SPOKE TO
 COLONEL SPEVETZ SOME SIX TIMES ABOUT MS. MCGINNIS' GRIEVANCE AND ALSO
 INFORMED HIM OF MS. MCGINNIS' INVOLVEMENT IN THE UNION ORGANIZING
 CAMPAIGN.  IN THIS LATTER REGARD, COLONEL SPEVETZ ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE
 WAS AWARE THAT MS. MCGINNIS WAS A UNION ADVOCATE BUT STATED THAT HE DID
 NOT CONSIDER HER UNION ADVOCACY TO BE UNION ACTIVITY.
 
    ON NOVEMBER 26, 1980, COLONEL SPEVETZ MET WITH MS. MCGINNIS AND MR.
 CARR AND GAVE MS. MCGINNIS A LETTER WHICH STATED, IN PERTINENT PART AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    IT IS MY DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPER STEPS WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND
 THAT YOUR CHANGE OF
 
    STATUS IS, IN FACT, INVALID.  THE REFERENCE SETS FORTH THE
 REQUIREMENTS BEFORE AN ADVERSE
 
    ACTION MAY BE TAKEN.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, THE TREASURER/MANAGER, COMMAND CLUB MANAGEMENT SYSTEM,
 BARSTOW, IS DIRECTED TO
 
    REINSTATE YOU TO PERMANENT PART-TIME STATUS AND CREDIT YOUR SICK AND
 ANNUAL LEAVE ACCOUNT FOR
 
    THE HOURS WORKED SINCE YOUR INVALIDATED CHANGE WAS EFFECTED.  /4/
 
    ON DECEMBER 5, 1980, MS. MCGINNIS WORKED A CHRISTMAS PARTY AT THE "O"
 CLUB.  /5/ DURING THE COURSE OF THE EVENING, ACCORDING TO HER
 UNCONTROVERTED TESTIMONY, SHE CIRCULATED AN ELECTION PETITION FOR THE
 UNION AND SOLICITED SIGNATURES THEREON FROM THE EMPLOYEES WORKING THE
 PARTY.  AT THE END OF THE EVENING, WHILE SHE WAS IN MR. WATKINS' OFFICE
 COUNTING HER CASH DRAWER, SHE ASKED MR. WATKINS TO SIGN THE PETITION.
 MR. WATKINS INFORMED HER THAT HE WAS AWARE OF HER SOLICITATION
 ACTIVITIES BUT THAT HE COULD NOT SIGN THE PETITION BECAUSE HE WAS A
 MEMBER OF MANAGEMENT.
 
    DURING THE COURSE OF THE PARTY ON DECEMBER 5, 1980, MR. BRYANT GAVE
 MS. MCGINNIS A WARNING LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 26, 1980, FROM COLONEL
 SPEVETZ.  COLONEL SPEVETZ' LETTER INFORMED MS. MCGINNIS THAT DURING HIS
 INVESTIGATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONCERNING HER CHANGE IN STATUS FROM
 PERMANENT TO INTERMITTENT, HE BECAME AWARE OF SEVERAL INCIDENTS
 CONCERNING HER INABILITY TO KEEP AN ACCURATE CASH DRAW AND DRINKING
 WHILE ON THE JOB.  COLONEL SPEVETZ FURTHER INFORMED MS. MCGINNIS THAT
 INASMUCH AS SHE HAD NOT HAD ANY PRIOR COUNSELING CONCERNING SUCH
 INDISCRETIONS NO ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AT THE PRESENT TIME, BUT THAT THE
 LETTER WOULD REMAIN IN HER PERSONNEL FILE FOR SIX MONTHS.  IF NO OTHER
 SIMILAR INDISCRETIONS OCCURRED WITHIN THE 6-MONTH PERIOD, THE LETTER
 WOULD BE DESTROYED.  /6/ THE RECORD CONTAINS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE
 DELAY IN PRESENTING THE NOVEMBER 26TH LETTER TO MS. MCGINNIS.
 
    ON DECEMBER 15, 1980, UNION PRESIDENT WARE FILED A RO PETITION
 SEEKING A REPRESENTATION ELECTION FOR A UNIT OF RESPONDENT'S
 NON-APPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES.
 
    ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 7, 1981, MR. BRYANT GAVE MS. MCGINNIS TWO
 DOCUMENTS, A "LETTER OF REPRIMAND" DATED JANUARY 5, 1981, AND A "CHANGE
 IN EMPLOYMENT STATUS" FROM PERMANENT PART-TIME TO INTERMITTENT ON CALL.
 THE CHANGE IN STATUS WAS PREDICATED ON THE LACK OF PARTIES AND FUNCTIONS
 DURING THE UPCOMING MONTHS AND THE REDUCTION IN HOURS THAT THE VARIOUS
 CLUBS WOULD BE IN OPERATION.  IN THIS LATTER CONNECTION, MS. MCGINNIS
 TESTIFIED, AGAIN WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, THAT THERE WERE PARTIES
 SCHEDULED IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY AND THAT NEW EMPLOYEES WERE BEING
 HIRED AS INTERMITTENTS TO WORK IN THE VARIOUS CLUBS.  MS. MCGINNIS
 FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT OTHER PERMANENT PART-TIME EMPLOYEES WITH LESS
 SENIORITY THAN HER WERE RETAINED BY THE RESPONDENT DESPITE A POLICY OF
 LAYING OFF BY SENIORITY.  ADDITIONALLY, MS. MCGINNIS TESTIFIED, WITHOUT
 CONTRADICTION, THAT WHILE SHE WAS BEING DEMOTED TO INTERMITTENT ANOTHER
 EMPLOYEE WITH LESS SENIORITY WAS PROMOTED FROM INTERMITTENT TO PERMANENT
 PART-TIME STATUS.
 
    MR. BRYANT ACKNOWLEDGES BOTH THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH SENIORITY POLICY
 AND THE RETENTION OF LESS SENIOR PERMANENT PART-TIME EMPLOYEES, BUT
 JUSTIFIES HIS ACTION IN SELECTING MS. MCGINNIS FOR DEMOTION ON THE
 GROUND THAT THE CLUB MANAGERS HAD INDICATED DISSATISFACTION WITH MS.
 MCGINNIS' WORK AND HABITS, A REASON NOT SPELLED OUT OR RELIED UPON ON
 THE DATE NOTICE OF REDUCTION OF STATUS WAS PRESENTED TO MS. MCGINNIS.
 
    THE "LETTER OF REPRIMAND" WAS PREDICATED ON MS. MCGINNIS' ACTION IN
 (1) CHARGING DIFFERENT PRICES FOR THE SAME DRINK AND HAVING CASH DRAWER
 OVERAGE OF $1.75 ON DECEMBER 5;  (2) HAVING A CASH DRAWER SHORTAGE OF
 $1.10 ON DECEMBER 6, 1980;  (3) HAVING ARRIVED ONE HOUR LATE FOR WORK ON
 DECEMBER 7;  AND HAVING ARRIVED SOME THREE AND ONE-HALF HOURS LATE ON
 DECEMBER 12, 1980.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH SHORTAGES, MS. MCGINNIS, WHOSE TESTIMONY IN
 THIS REGARD IS SUPPORTED BY THE CLUB MANAGER SERGEANT JUNE, TESTIFIED
 THAT CASH SHORTAGES OR OVERAGES ARE NOT UNCOMMON AND THAT OTHER
 EMPLOYEES ALSO EXPERIENCED CASH SHORTAGES AND OVERAGES.  MR.  BRYANT
 CONCEDED IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT SHORTAGES AND OVERAGES WERE NOT UNCOMMON
 BUT CLAIMED THAT MS.  MCGINNIS EXPERIENCED MORE OF THE SHORTAGES AND
 OVERAGES THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES.  MR. BRYANT FURTHER CONCEDED THAT IN AN
 EARLIER AFFIDAVIT OR STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL HE HAD
 STATED THAT HE COULD NOT REMEMBER WHETHER MS. MCGINNIS HAD MORE OR LESS
 SHORTAGES THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES.  WITH RESPECT TO CHARGING DIFFERENT
 PRICES FOR THE SAME DRINK, MS. MCGINNIS TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAD BEEN
 CHARGING A DIFFERENT PRICE FOR A GIN FIZZ ON THE NIGHT OF DECEMBER 5,
 THAN THAT CHARGED BY ANOTHER BARTENDER.  ACCORDING TO MS. MCGINNIS THE
 DIFFERENCE IN PRICE WAS DUE TO THE METHOD OF PREPARATION AND THAT SHE
 HAD BROUGHT THE MATTER TO THE ATTENTION OF MR. WATKINS, THE CLUB
 MANAGER.  ACCORDING TO MR. BRYANT, WHILE HE WAS INFORMED OF THE PRICING
 PROBLEM, HE NEVER MADE AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTER.  WITH RESPECT TO
 BEING LATE ONE AND THREE AND ONE-HALF HOURS, RESPECTIVELY, ON TWO
 OCCASIONS, MS. MCGINNIS ADMITS THE ALLEGATIONS.  HOWEVER, SHE ATTRIBUTES
 THE THREE AND ONE-HALF HOUR OCCASION TO CAR TROUBLE AND POINTS OUT THAT
 SHE CALLED IN.  MR. BRYANT ANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT SHE DID CALL IN AND
 ATTRIBUTED HER TARDINESS TO CAR TROUBLE.  WITH RESPECT TO THE OCCASION
 WHEN SHE WAS ONE HOUR LATE, MS. MCGINNIS TESTIFIED THAT WHILE SHE HAD
 BEEN LATE, SHE HAD AMPLE TIME TO SET UP HER BAR IN PREPARATION FOR THE
 EVENING'S SCHEDULED FESTIVITIES.
 
    MR. BRYANT FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS AWARE AS OF JANUARY 5, 1981,
 THAT MS. MCGINNIS HAD GONE TO THE UNION FOR HELP WITH HER GRIEVANCE.
 /7/ ALTHOUGH MR. BRYANT TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD GIVEN AT LEAST ONE OTHER
 EMPLOYEE A REPRIMAND DURING HIS TENURE AS CCMS MANAGER, HE ACKNOWLEDGED
 THAT IN AN EARLIER STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL HE HAD DENIED
 EVER GIVING A REPRIMAND.
 
    AROUND JANUARY 10, 1981, MS. MCGINNIS WAS EVALUATED BY SERGEANT HENRY
 JUNE, THE NEW MANAGER OF THE "O" CLUB.  SERGEANT JUNE GAVE MS. MCGINNIS
 AN EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE RATING IN ALL CATEGORIES.
 
    ON JUNE 13, 1981, MS. MCGINNIS, USING UNION LETTERHEAD STATIONERY,
 FILED GRIEVANCES WITH COLONEL SPEVETZ CONCERNING HER CHANGE IN STATUS
 AND HER LETTER OF REPRIMAND.  COLONEL SPEVETZ TOOK NO IMMEDIATE ACTION
 ON THE GRIEVANCE BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO "INFLUENCE IN ANY WAY" THE
 IMPENDING ELECTION.  COLONEL SPEVETZ DID NOT INFORM MS. MCGINNIS THAT HE
 WAS INTENTIONALLY WITHHOLDING ANY ACTION ON HER GRIEVANCES.
 
    ON JUNE 16, 1981, SERGEANT JUNE INFORMED MS. MCGINNIS THAT HER
 EVALUATION HAD BEEN REJECTED BY HIS SUPERIORS AND THAT HE WAS UNDER
 ORDERS TO RATE HER NON-OBSERVED.  ACCORDING TO MS. MCGINNIS, SERGEANT
 JUNE TOLD HER THAT HE HAD BEEN TOLD BY OTHER MANAGERS THAT IF HE GAVE
 MS. MCGINNIS AN EXCELLENT EVALUATION IT WOULD MAKE MANAGEMENT LOOK BACK
 IN LIGHT OF "MCGINNIS' GRIEVANCES, APPEALS AND UNION ACTIVITY." SERGEANT
 JUNE TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT ATTRIBUTE THE CHANGE TO MS. MCGINNIS'
 UNION ACTIVITY.  ACCORDING TO SERGEANT JUNE HE CHANGED THE EVALUATION
 AFTER TALKING TO MR. BRYANT AND BEING INFORMED THAT INASMUCH AS HE HAD
 ONLY OBSERVED HER FOR SHORT PERIOD OF TIME HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO GIVE
 MS. MCGINNIS A YEARLY EVALUATION.  HE WAS ALLOWED, HOWEVER, TO GIVE
 EVALUATIONS TO PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES, I.E. THOSE EMPLOYED UNDER 90
 DAYS.
 
    ON JANUARY 28, 1981, UNION PRESIDENT WARE FILED AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT ALLEGING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MS.
 MCGINNIS BECAUSE OF HER PARTICIPATION IN THE CIRCULATION OF THE RO
 PETITION.
 
    ON FEBRUARY 19, 1981, A REPRESENTATION ELECTION WAS HELD.  MS.
 MCGINNIS ACTED AS THE UNION'S OBSERVER AT THE ELECTION WHICH RESULTED IN
 A VOTE OF 11 TO 8 AGAINST UNION REPRESENTATION.
 
    ON FEBRUARY 23, 1981, UNION PRESIDENT WARE SUBMITTED TO COLONEL
 SPEVETZ A LETTER ADDRESSED TO COLONEL SPEVETZ WHEREIN MS. MCGINNIS
 REQUESTED A LEAVE OF ABSENCE.  COLONEL SPEVETZ GRANTED MS. MCGINNIS THE
 LEAVE OF ABSENCE ON FEBRUARY 26, 1981.
 
    AROUND THE BEGINNING OF APRIL 1981, SERGEANT JUNE CALLED MS.
 MCGINNIS WITH RESPECT TO A CHECK SHE HAD NOT PICKED UP.  ACCORDING TO
 THE UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY OF MS.  MCGINNIS, WHEN SHE SUBSEQUENTLY PICKED
 UP HER CHECK, SERGEANT JUNE INQUIRED AS TO WHEN SHE PLANNED TO RETURN TO
 WORK.  UPON BEING INFORMED BY MS. MCGINNIS THAT SHE HAD NO INTENTION OF
 RETURNING BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN HER BEST INTERESTS TO WORK AN INDEFINITE
 AMOUNT OF HOURS, SERGEANT JUNE SUGGESTED THAT SHE CALL COLONEL SPEVETZ
 SINCE HE WAS SURE THAT IF MS. MCGINNIS INDICATED TO THE COLONEL THAT SHE
 WANTED TO "DROP ALL OF THIS UNION BUSINESS AND CHARGES AND ALL THAT,
 HE'LL BE SURE TO GIVE YOU YOURS HOURS BACK".  /8/ WHEN MS. MCGINNIS
 ASKED HIM WHY HE WAS SO SURE AND POINTED OUT THAT DESPITE THE OUTCOME OF
 HER ORIGINAL GRIEVANCE SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE PROMISED HOURS OF WORK,
 SERGEANT JUNE TOLD HER THE MANAGERS WERE JUST WAITING THE WORD TO HIRE
 HER.
 
    FOLLOWING SERGEANT JUNE'S SUGGESTION, MS. MCGINNIS CONTACTED COLONEL
 SPEVETZ, WHO INVITED MS. MCGINNIS OUT TO LUNCH.  DURING THE COURSE OF
 THE LUNCH DATE, MS.  MCGINNIS INFORMED THE COLONEL AND MS. HELEN LEACH,
 RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEE-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS OFFICER, WHO WAS ALSO IN
 ATTENDANCE AT THE LUNCHEON THAT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SHE WAS PLANNING TO
 MOVE TO LOS ANGELES AND WOULD "LIKE TO DROP EVERYTHING BECAUSE SHE WAS
 VERY TIRED OF IT".  WHEN MS. MCGINNIS INDICATED THAT MOVING TO LOS
 ANGELES WAS NOT HER FIRST PREFERENCE, COLONEL SPEVETZ ASKED HER WHETHER
 SHE WOULD LIKE HER JOB BACK.  IN ANSWER TO MS. MCGINNIS' INQUIRY
 CONCERNING WHAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO DO TO GET HER JOB BACK, COLONEL
 SPEVETZ REPLIED THAT SHE WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BUT GIVE HIM A
 CALL.
 
    SUBSEQUENT TO THE LUNCHEON MEETING, MS. MCGINNIS, AFTER CONSIDERING
 THE MATTER, TELEPHONED COLONEL SPEVETZ AND INFORMED HIM THAT SHE WANTED
 TO COME BACK TO WORK.  ACCORDING TO MS. MCGINNIS, COLONEL SPEVETZ TOLD
 HER TO CONTACT MR. VERN HUBBARD WHO HAD SUCCEEDED MR. BRYANT AS CCMS
 MANAGER.  UPON CONTACTING MR. HUBBARD, SHE WAS INFORMED THAT HE COULD
 NOT GIVE HER ANY HOURS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS SHE SIGNED SOME DOCUMENTS IN
 COLONEL SPEVETZ POSSESSION.  SUBSEQUENTLY, MS. MCGINNIS WENT TO SEE
 COLONEL SPEVETZ AND SIGNED TWO DOCUMENTS.  UPON LEAVING THE COLONEL'S
 OFFICE SHE WENT TO MR. HUBBARD AND SHOWED HIM THE SIGNED DOCUMENTS.  MR.
 HUBBARD INFORMED MS. MCGINNIS THAT HE WOULD BE IN TOUCH WITH HER IN A
 FEW DAYS.  TRUE TO HIS WORD MR. HUBBARD SUBSEQUENTLY CONTACTED MS.
 MCGINNIS AND ASSIGNED HER AT LEAST 20 PER WEEK OF WORK.  /9/
 
    ACCORDING TO THE RECORD, MS. MCGINNIS CONTINUED WORKING AT THE
 LOGISTICS BASE UNTIL JULY 6, 1981, WHEN SHE LEFT TOWN.
 
    ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS, ADDRESSED "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN" AND SIGNED
 BY MS. MCGINNIS ON APRIL 8, 1981, READ AS FOLLOWS:
 
    ANY DISAGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE EXISTED BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED AND
 MR. BRYANT AND OTHERS
 
    WAS BASED UPON PERSONAL DISAGREEMENTS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS OR
 PERSONALITY CONFLICTS UNRELATED TO
 
    ANY UNION ACTIVITIES.
 
    ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED SUCH AS THE REDUCTION IN MY
 HOURS AND OTHER PROBLEMS
 
    I HAD WERE NOT AS THE RESULT OF MY UNION ACTIVITIES.  I WAS NOT A
 UNION ORGANIZER IN THE CLUBS
 
    SYSTEM.
 
    I AM NOT AWARE OF THE BASIS FOR THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
 RECENTLY HELD FOR THE
 
    NONAPPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES.
 
    THE SECOND DOCUMENT, A MEMO FROM BOTH COL. SPEVETZ AND MS. MCGINNIS
 ENTITLED "LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING" AND SIGNED APRIL 8, 1981, READ AS
 FOLLOWS:
 
    1.  IT IS THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES TO DROP ALL MATTERS ONE AGAINST
 THE OTHER AND TO START
 
    AGAIN AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP FREE FROM ANY PREJUDICE
 RESULTING FORM THE PAST
 
    ACTIONS OF EITHER PARTY.
 
    2.  TOWARD THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE ABOVE INTENT, THE BASE AGREES TO
 CANCEL THE LETTER OF
 
    REPRIMAND DATED 5 JANUARY 1981;  CANCEL THE CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT
 STATUS LETTER DATED 7 JANUARY
 
    1981;  TERMINATE ALL ACTION ON THE SUSPECTED MARIJUANA POSSESSION
 INCIDENT OF 15 FEBRUARY
 
    1981;  AND ANY OTHER MATTER INVOLVING SUSAN E. MCGINNIS.  AS A
 PERMANENT PART-TIME EMPLOYEE,
 
    SUSAN E. MCGINNIS WILL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 20 HOURS PER WEEK.
 
    3.  TOWARD THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE ABOVE INTENT, SUSAN E.  MCGINNIS
 AGREES TO WITHDRAW ALL
 
    APPEALS AND GRIEVANCES.
 
    COLONEL SPEVETZ AUTHORED THE ABOVE TWO DOCUMENTS.  SOME OF THE
 LANGUAGE WAS RECOMMENDED TO HIM BY RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIVE GRIEM AS
 RELAYED BY LEACH FROM THE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OFFICE.
 
    A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER MS. MCGINNIS SIGNED THE ABOVE TWO DOCUMENTS,
 SHE CONTACTED THE UNION AND IN A VERY DISTRAUGHT MANNER TOLD THE UNION
 OFFICIAL ABOUT HER ACTIONS IN SIGNING THE TWO DOCUMENTS.
 
                        DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 
    THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE, I.E. THAT MS.
 MCGINNIS RECEIVED A REPRIMAND, HAD HER HOURS OF WORK REDUCED BY HAVING
 HER STATUS CHANGED FROM PERMANENT PART-TIME TO INTERMITTENT, HAD HER
 "EXCELLENT" EVALUATION CHANGED TO "NON-OBSERVED", AND THAT MS. MCGINNIS
 EXECUTED A WRITTEN DISAVOWAL OF ALL HER ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE
 OUTSTANDING ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND OBJECTIONS TO THE
 ELECTION.  HOWEVER, THERE IS A DISPUTE AS TO THE MOTIVATION FOR SUCH
 ACTIONS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HER EXECUTION OF THE
 DISAVOWAL.
 
    THUS, THE GENERAL COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT THE CHANGES, REPRIMAND, ETC.,
 WERE ALL MOTIVATED BY MS. MCGINNIS' UNION ACTIVITY AND THAT SUCH CHANGES
 AND/OR ACTIONS WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED BUT FOR HER UNION ACTIVITY.  WITH
 RESPECT TO THE DISAVOWAL OF ANY KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS UNDERLYING THE UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICES AND THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION, THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 CONTENDS THAT SUCH ACTION WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO MS. MCGINNIS
 OBTAINING FURTHER WORK IN THE CLUB SYSTEM.
 
    THE RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, TAKES THE POSITION THAT MS.
 MCGINNIS' UNION ACTIVITY AND/OR AFFILIATION DID NOT ENTER INTO ITS
 DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE REPRIMAND, CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND
 CHANGE IN EVALUATION.  WITH RESPECT TO THE DISAVOWAL, RESPONDENT TAKES
 THE POSITION THAT SUCH ACT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF ANY COERCION, BUT
 RATHER WAS THE PRODUCT OF THE PARTIES MUTUAL DESIRES TO WIPE THE SLATE
 CLEAN AND IMPROVE MS. MCGINNIS' EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP.
 
    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT RESOLUTION OF THE
 INSTANT CONTROVERSY TURNS ON CREDIBILITY.  IF MS. MCGINNIS' TESTIMONY IS
 DISCREDITED THEN DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINTS WOULD BE IN ORDER SINCE
 WITHOUT HER TESTIMONY, THE GENERAL COUNSEL WILL NOT HAVE ESTABLISHED HIS
 CASE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.  HOWEVER, SUCH IS NOT THE CASE.
 
    BASED PARTICULARLY ON HER DEMEANOR WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WAS
 MARKED BY DIRECT ANSWERS AND EXCELLENT RECALL, I FIND MS. MCGINNIS TO BE
 A HIGHLY CREDIBLE WITNESS AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS A VARIANCE
 BETWEEN HER TESTIMONY AND THAT OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING IN BEHALF OF THE
 RESPONDENT, I CREDIT MS. MCGINNIS.  IN THIS LATTER CONNECTION, NOTE IS
 TAKEN OF THE CONFLICTS BETWEEN MR. BRYANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING AND
 HIS PRETRIAL SWORN STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO HIM DURING THE APRIL AND HIS
 PRE-TRIAL SWORN STATEMENT, THE ABSENCE OF ANY DENIAL FROM SERGEANT JUNE
 CONCERNING VARIOUS STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM DURING THE APRIL 1981
 CONVERSATION WITH MS. MCGINNIS ABOUT POSSIBILITY OF MS.  1981
 CONVERSATION WITH MS.MCGINNIS' RETURN TO WORK, AND THE MCGINNIS'
 CONTRADICTION APPEARING IN COLONEL SPEVETZ' TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO
 WHETHER OR NOT MS. MCGINNIS APPROACHED HIM ONLY AFTER BEING INFORMED BY
 MR. HUBBARD THAT SIGNING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN COLONEL SPEVETZ'
 POSSESSION WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO BEING ASSIGNED WORK.
 
    HAVING CREDITED MS. MCGINNIS, I FIND, BASED UPON THE RECORD AS A
 WHOLE, THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS IN GIVING MS. MCGINNIS ON OR ABOUT
 JANUARY 7, 1981, A NOTICE OF CHANGE IN STATUS FROM PERMANENT PART-TIME
 TO INTERMITTENT AND A REPRIMAND VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (2) OF
 THE STATUTE SINCE SUCH ACTIONS WERE PREDICATED ON MS. MCGINNIS' OPEN AND
 KNOWN UNION ACTIVITY, NAMELY SOLICITING MEMBERSHIP IN, OR SUPPORT FOR,
 THE UNION.  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, I FIND THE REASONS OFFERED BY
 RESPONDENT IN DEFENSE OF ITS ACTIONS TO BE A PRETEXT.  WITH RESPECT TO
 THE REPRIMAND, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT CASH DRAWER SHORTAGES AND
 OVERAGES WERE A COMMON OCCURRENCE AMONG ALL BARTENDERS AND THAT MS.
 MCGINNIS' MISTAKES IN HANDLING CASH RECEIPTS WERE NO MORE PRONOUNCED
 THAN THOSE OF HER FELLOW BARTENDERS;  THAT THE DIFFERENT PRICE CHARGED
 FOR A GIN FIZZ ON THE NIGHT IN QUESTION WAS DUE TO THE METHOD OF
 PREPARATION, I.E. BLENDER MACHINE RATHER THAN HAND STIRRED, A FACT THAT
 MR. BRYANT NEVER SAW FIT TO INVESTIGATE.  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT MS.
 MCGINNIS WAS LATE ON TWO OCCASIONS, I FIND, CONSIDERING THE
 CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING SUCH INCIDENTS OF TARDINESS, A WRITTEN
 REPRIMAND TO BE A PUNISHMENT FAR EXCEEDING THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRIME.
  THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE IN VIEW OF THE RECORD EVIDENCE INDICATING
 THAT MR. BRYANT SELDOM, IF EVER, UTILIZED A WRITTEN REPRIMAND AS A
 DISCIPLINARY TOOL.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO THE REDUCTION IN STATUS, I FIND SUCH ACTION TO BE
 CONTRARY TO RESPONDENT'S ESTABLISHED POLICY OF REDUCING EMPLOYEE STATUS
 ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY.  HOWEVER, IN THIS REGARD, I CREDIT MS.
 MCGINNIS' TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN
 BUSINESS AS CONTENDED BY MR. BRYANT AND THAT WHILE SHE WAS SUFFERING A
 REDUCTION IN STATUS, ALLEGEDLY DUE TO LOSS OF BUSINESS, RESPONDENT WAS
 HIRING INTERMITTENTS AND PROMOTING OTHER INTERMITTENTS TO PERMANENT
 PART-TIME STATUS.  ADDITIONALLY, INASMUCH AS MS. MCGINNIS HAD NOT, IN
 ANY EVENT BEEN RECEIVING THE 20 HOURS PER WEEK THAT HER PERMANENT
 PART-TIME STATUS ENTITLED HER TO, THE IMPOSITION OF A REDUCTION IN
 STATUS TO INTERMITTENT WAS UNNECESSARY AND APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DESIGNED
 TO PUNISH MS. MCGINNIS FOR HER PROTECTED UNION ACTIVITY AND CONVEY A
 WARNING TO HER FELLOW EMPLOYEES AS TO THE POSSIBLE REPERCUSSION OF UNION
 SUPPORT.
 
    I FURTHER FIND THAT THE REVOCATION OF MS. MCGINNIS' "EXCELLENT"
 PERFORMANCE RATING WAS PREDICATED UPON HER PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES
 PROTECTED BY THE STATUTE, NAMELY, SOLICITATION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE
 UNION, AND HENCE VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (2) OF THE STATUTE.
  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION I RELY ON THE CREDITED TESTIMONY OF MS.
 MCGINNIS THAT SHE WAS INFORMED BY SERGEANT JUNE THAT HE WAS UNDER ORDERS
 TO REVOKE THE EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE RATING BECAUSE OF MS. MCGINNIS'
 "GRIEVANCES, APPEALS AND UNION ACTIVITY".  /10/ IF, AS CONTENDED BY
 RESPONDENT, THE REVOCATION WAS PREDICATED UPON AN INADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY
 TO OBSERVE MS. MCGINNIS, I QUESTION WHY THE EVALUATIONS OF A NUMBER OF
 PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES, WHO ALSO HAD ONLY BEEN OBSERVED BY SERGEANT JUNE
 FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, WERE ALLOWED TO STAND.
 
    ADDITIONALLY, I FIND THAT SERGEANT JUNE'S STATEMENT, STANDING ALONE,
 TO CONSTITUTE AN INDEPENDENT VIOLATION SECTION 7116(A)(1) SINCE IT
 INTERFERES WITH, RESTRAINS AND COERCES AN EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF
 THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE STATUTE TO JOIN AND SUPPORT A UNION.  CF.
 UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW,
 CALIFORNIA, 5 FLRA NO. 97 WHERE A SIMILAR CONCLUSION WAS REACHED.
 
    FINALLY, I FIND THAT MS. MCGINNIS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE WORK WAS FORCED
 TO SIGN THE APRIL 8, 1981, DOCUMENTS DISAVOWING (1) ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE
 BASIS FOR THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION AND (2) THAT THE CHANGES IN HER
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND/OR REPRIMANDS, ETC., WERE IN ANYWAY
 CONNECTED WITH HER, UNION ACTIVITY.  INASMUCH AS SIGNING OF THE
 AFOREMENTIONED DISAVOWAL WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO ACHIEVING WORK
 WITH RESPONDENT, I FIND THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTION WAS VIOLATIVE OF
 SECTION 7116(A)(4) OF THE STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITS DISCIPLINE OR OTHER
 DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE HAS FILED A
 COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT, OR PETITION, OR HAS GIVEN GIVEN ANY INFORMATION OR
 TESTIMONY UNDER THE STATUTE.  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, I AGAIN
 CREDIT MS. MCGINNIS WITH RESPECT TO THE APRIL 8TH EVENTS AND NOTE
 COLONEL SPEVETZ' TESTIMONY THAT FOLLOWING THE SIGNING OF THE DOCUMENTS
 HE CALLED MR. HUBBARD AND INFORMED HIM THAT MS. MCGINNIS WAS ON HER WAY
 BACK UP AND INSTRUCTED HIM TO PUT HER TO WORK.
 
    INASMUCH AS THE OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION IS BASED UPON RESPONDENT'S
 ACTIONS IN REDUCING MS. MCGINNIS' HOURS OF WORK, REPRIMANDING MS.
 MCGINNIS AND REVOKING THE EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION GIVEN MS.
 MCGINNIS BY SERGEANT JUNE, ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND SUPRA TO
 CONSTITUTE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT THE
 SUCH OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION BE SUSTAINED SINCE SUCH IMPROPER CONDUCT
 COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO HAVE AFFECTED THE RESULTS OF THE
 ELECTION.
 
    HAVING FOUND AND CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT HAS VIOLATED SECTIONS
 7116(A)(1), (2) AND (4) OF THE STATUTE, I RECOMMEND THAT THE AUTHORITY
 ISSUE THE FOLLOWING ORDER DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE
 STATUTE.  /11/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118(A)(7)(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. SECTION 118(A)(7)(A), AND
 SECTION 2423.29(B)(1) OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. SECTION
 2423.29(B)(1), THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE MARINE CORPS
 LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) EFFECTING CHANGES IN THE EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF ITS EMPLOYEES OR
 OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATING
 
    AGAINST EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO.
 
    (B) REPRIMANDING OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST EMPLOYEES
 BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES
 
    ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
 1482, AFL-CIO.
 
    (C) REDUCING OR OTHERWISE CHANGING EMPLOYEES' "EXCELLENT" EMPLOYMENT
 EVALUATIONS BECAUSE
 
    OF THEIR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482,
 
    AFL-CIO.
 
    (D) MAKING STATEMENTS TO EMPLOYEES THAT THEIR "EXCELLENT" EMPLOYMENT
 EVALUATIONS ARE BEING
 
    CHANGED BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 
    EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO.
 
    (E) DENYING EMPLOYMENT TO SUSAN MCGINNIS OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE UNLESS
 THEY DISAVOW (1) THAT
 
    THEIR UNION ACTIVITIES PLAYED ANY PART IN CHANGES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
 
    EMPLOYMENT;  OR (2) THAT THEY HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE BASIS FOR
 OBJECTIONS TO AN ELECTION.
 
    (F) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
 
    THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) RESCIND AND REMOVE FROM SUSAN MCGINNIS' OFFICIAL PERSONNEL FOLDER
 THE JANUARY 5, 1981,
 
    REPRIMAND.
 
    (B) RESTORE SUSAN MCGINNIS' JANUARY 10, 1981, "EXCELLENT" EMPLOYMENT
 EVALUATION AND PLACE
 
    A COPY OF SUCH EVALUATION IN HER OFFICIAL PERSONNEL FOLDER.
 
    (C) POST AT ITS MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA,
 SERVICE CLUB FACILITIES
 
    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 DIRECTOR,
 
    PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION AND THEY SHALL BE POSTED FOR 60
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
 
    THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL 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.
 
    (D) 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.
 
                         BURTON S. STERNBURG
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  MARCH 12, 1982
            WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
        NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF
 
           THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO
 
          EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE
 
            UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 
              RELATIONS WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUSAN MCGINNIS BY REDUCING HER
 STATUS FROM PERMANENT PART-TIME TO INTERMITTENT ON-CALL BECAUSE OF HER
 PROTECTED UNION ACTIVITY ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO
 
    WE WILL NOT REPRIMAND OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUSAN
 MCGINNIS BECAUSE OF HER PROTECTED UNION ACTIVITY ON BEHALF OF THE
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO.
 
    WE WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUSAN MCGINNIS BY CHANGING HER
 JANUARY 10, 1981, EVALUATION FROM EXCELLENT TO NON-OBSERVED BECAUSE OF
 HER PROTECTED UNION ACTIVITY ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO.
 
    WE WILL NOT MAKE STATEMENTS TO SUSAN MCGINNIS THAT HER EVALUATION IS
 BEING CHANGED FROM EXCELLENT TO NON-OBSERVED BECAUSE OF HER PROTECTED
 UNION ACTIVITY ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO.
 
    WE WILL NOT PUNISH OR RETALIATE AGAINST SUSAN MCGINNIS BECAUSE OF HER
 PROTECTED ACTIVITY, INCLUDING FILING A COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT, OR
 PETITION, OR GIVING ANY INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY UNDER THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, BY REQUIRING HER TO SIGN A
 STATEMENT, AS A CONDITION OF HER REEMPLOYMENT, THAT SHE HAS NOT ENGAGED
 IN CERTAIN UNION ACTIVITIES AND IS UNAWARE OF THE BASIS FOR ELECTION
 OBJECTIONS FILED WITH THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.
 
    WE WILL RESCIND AND REMOVE FROM SUSAN MCGINNIS' OFFICAL PERSONNEL
 FOLDER THE JANUARY 5, 1981, REPRIMAND.
 
    WE WILL RESTORE MS. MCGINNIS' JANUARY 10, 1981, "EXCELLENT"
 EVALUATION AND PLACE A COPY IN HER OFFICIAL PERSONNEL FOLDER.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY 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
 MATERIALS.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THE NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 8,
 WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  350 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES,
 CA 90071, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (213) 688-3805.
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ IN HIS DECISION, THE JUDGE INADVERTENTLY REFERS TO 1981 RATHER
 THAN 1980 ON PAGE 4 AND TO JUNE 1981 RATHER THAN JANUARY 1981, ON PAGE
 7.  THESE ERRORS ARE HEREBY CORRECTED.
 
    /2/ ALLEGATIONS ENUMERATED 1 THRU 3 SUPRA, ARE IDENTICAL TO THE
 GROUNDS RELIED UPON IN THE OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION SET DOWN FOR
 HEARING BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR IN HIS MAY 4, 1981, REPORT AND
 FINDINGS.
 
    /3/ IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OBJECTION, THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S MOTION TO
 CORRECT TRANSCRIPT, SHOULD BE, AND HEREBY IS, GRANTED.
 
    /4/ ACCORDING TO MS. MCGINNIS, DESPITE THE NOVEMBER 26TH LETTER, SHE
 STILL DID NOT RECEIVE 20 HOURS WORK PER WEEK, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS
 AVAILABLE.  MR. BRYANT, TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD TOLD THE MANAGERS OF THE
 CLUBS TO MAKE 20 HOURS PER WEEK AVAILABLE TO MS.  MCGINNIS, BUT THAT MS.
 MCGINNIS FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR WORK ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
 
    /5/ CLUB MANAGERS LOUIS BRYANT, CHARLIE WATKINS, DAVE DAVIS, MARSHALL
 WILLIAMS AND SERGEANT LEWIS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE PARTY.
 
    /6/ ACCORDING TO THE UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY OF MS. MCGINNIS, DRINKING
 ON THE JOB WAS NOT UNCOMMON, AND THAT SHE FREQUENTLY MIXED DRINKS FOR
 THE CLUB MANAGERS.  WITH RESPECT TO THE FAILURE TO KEEP AN ACCURATE CASH
 DRAWER, MS. MCGINNIS TESTIFIED THAT SHORTAGES AND OVERAGES WERE A COMMON
 OCCURRENCE AMONG BARTENDERS.  THIS LATTER TESTIMONY OF MS. MCGINNIS IS
 CORROBORATED BY SERGEANT JUNE WHO BECAME MANAGER OF THE OFFICER'S CLUB
 IN DECEMBER OF 1980.
 
    /7/ IN THIS CONNECTION, COLONEL SPEVETZ TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD LEFT IT
 UP TO MR. BRYANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER MS. MCGINNIS SHOULD BE
 DISCIPLINED.  HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT BECAUSE OF THE PENDING UNION
 ELECTION HE CAUTIONED MR. BRYANT TO BE SURE THAT ANY ACTION TAKEN
 AGAINST MS. MCGINNIS WAS DONE PROPERLY.
 
    /8/ SERGEANT JUNE WAS NOT QUESTIONED ABOUT THE APRIL CONVERSATION.
 ACCORDINGLY, MS. MCGINNIS' TESTIMONY IN THIS REGARD STANDS UNCONTESTED.
 
    /9/ COLONEL SPEVETZ' TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO THE MEETING WHEREIN
 THE TWO DOCUMENTS WERE SIGNED DIFFERS IN ANY CERTAIN RESPECTS FROM THAT
 OF MS. MCGINNIS.  THUS, HE TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT TELL HER THAT THE
 SIGNING OF THE TWO DOCUMENTS WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO MS. MCGINNIS'
 RETURN TO WORK.  HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT MS. MCGINNIS CAME TO HIM
 BEFORE SHE WENT TO HUBBARD.  HOWEVER, IN THIS LATTER CONNECTION, HE ALSO
 TESTIFIED THAT FOLLOWING THE SIGNING OF THE DOCUMENTS HE CALLED MR.
 HUBBARD AND TOLD HIM THAT MS. MCGINNIS WAS "ON HER WAY BACK UP" AND TO