14:0311(58)CA - Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH and AFGE Local 1138 -- 1984 FLRAdec CA



[ v14 p311 ]
14:0311(58)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 14 FLRA No. 58
 
 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
 AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
 WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE
 BASE, OHIO
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1138
 
                                            Case Nos. 5-CA-519 
                                                      5-CA-521
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued his Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 certain unfair labor practices alleged in the consolidated complaint,
 and recommending that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
 take certain affirmative action.  The Judge found further that the
 Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
 alleged in the consolidated complaint, and recommended dismissal of
 those portions of the consolidated complaint.  Thereafter, the General
 Counsel, the Respondent and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the
 Judge's Decision and supporting briefs.
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 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
 entire record in this case, the Authority hereby adopts the Judge's
 findings, /1/ conclusions and recommended Order.  /2/ In adopting the
 Judge's conclusion that Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) of the
 Statute when its supervisor took into consideration an employee's union
 activity in developing her annual appraisal, the Authority notes the
 Judge's finding that Respondent failed to show that there was any
 explanation other than union activity for the employee's lower rating.
 In adopting the Judge's conclusion that the Respondent did not violate
 the Statute when its supervisor talked to unit employees over the
 telephone concerning their purpose in attempting to reach the Union
 steward under his supervision, it is concluded that under the
 circumstances the supervisor's actions cannot reasonably be said to have
 tended to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise
 of their rights under the Statute.  Thus, after asking the employees
 whether their business with the steward was union-related, he informed
 each employee of the proper procedure under the parties' negotiated
 agreement for contacting the steward.  This was done in a matter-of-fact
 manner, accompanied by no anti-union comments.  No limits regarding
 employee access to the Union were suggested other than to inform
 employees of the proper procedure, and no impression reasonably could
 have been created that they should not seek union assistance.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered that the United States Air Force, Air Force Logistics
 Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Permitting supervisors and managers to consider union activities
 of Betty Jean Carroll, or any other employee, in the development of
 their performance appraisals.
 
    (b) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing Betty Jean, Carroll,
 or any other employee, in the exercise of rights assured by the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    (c) In any like or related manner 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
 purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute:
 
    (a) Rescind the March 1, 1980, appraisal of Betty Jean Carroll,
 expunge it from her personnel file, and prepare a new appraisal which
 does not take into consideration her lawful activity as a union
 representative.
 
    (b) Post at its facilities copies of the attached Notice on forms to
 be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority.  Upon receipt of
 such forms, they shall be signed by the Commanding General of the
 Respondent, or his designee, and shall be posted and maintained for 60
 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
 bulletin 0oards and other places where notices to employees are
 customarily posted.  Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such
 Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
    (c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region V, in writing, within
 30 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to
 comply herewith.
 
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of the consolidated
 complaint in Case Nos. 5-CA-519 and 5-CA-521 found not to have violated
 the Statute, be, and they hereby are, dismissed.  
 
 Issued, Washington, D.C., April 26, 1984
 
                                       Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, Member
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, 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 permit supervisors and managers to consider union
 activities of Betty Jean Carroll, or any other employee, in the
 development of their performance appraisals.
 
    WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, and coerce Betty Jean Carroll,
 or any other employee, in the exercise of rights assured by the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL rescind the March 1, 1980, appraisal of Betty Jean Carroll,
 expunge it from her personnel file and prepare a new appraisal which
 does not take into consideration her lawful activity as a union
 representative.
                                       (Activity)
 
 Dated:  . . .  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, Region V, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is:
  Suite 1359-A, 175 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and
 whose telephone number is:  (312) 353-6306.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
                                       Case Nos. 5-CA-519, 5-CA-521
    Fred Hustad, Counsel
                            For the Respondent
 
    Judith A. Ramey, Esq.
                          For the General Counsel
 
    Before:  FRANCIS E. DOWD
                         Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute (Statute), 92 Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.  It
 was instituted by the Regional Director of Region 5 by the issuance of
 an Order Consolidating Cases, Complaint and Notice of Hearing on July
 30, 1980 based upon charges filed by American Federation of Government
 Employees, Local 1138, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Union or Local
 1138.
 
    The original charge as well as the first and second amended charges
 in Case No. 5-CA-519 and the original and first amended charges in Case
 No. 5-CA-521 were served, by certified mail, on "Base Commander, 2750th
 Air Base Wing, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433, Attn:  Col. James E.
 Rigney Jr." (Jt. Exh. 1(b), (d), (f), (h), (j)).  The dates of service
 were May 5, 1980, May 23, 1980, June 26, 1980 and July 23, 1980.  The
 second amended charge (the final document of the series) was served by
 certified mail on Col. Rigney as well as on "General Bryce Poe, AFLC
 Commander, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433," on July 26, 1980 (Jt. Exh.
 1(1)).
 
    The "Order Consolidating Cases, Complaint and Notice of Hearing" was
 served on July 30, 1980, by certified mail, on "James R. George, Labor
 Relations Officer, 2750th Air Base Wing, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
 45433," and on "Fred Hustad, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, 2750th
 Air Base Wing, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433" (Jt. Exh. 1(h)).  The
 Complaint was answered on August 18, 1980 by Mr. Fred Hustad who attests
 by his signature to the title of "Counsel for Respondent" (Jt. Exh.
 1(o), p. 3).
 
    The Complaint alleges that Respondent, herein also referred to as
 AFLC violated Section 7116(a)(1) by interrogating employees and
 interfering with the Union activities of Vice President Betty Jean
 Carroll;  violated Section 7116(a)(1) and (2) by suspending James W.
 Griffin for 3 days because of his membership and activities on behalf of
 the Union;  and violated Section 7116(a)(1) by substantially lowering
 the performance appraisal of Vice-President Betty Jean Carroll from the
 preceding appraisal year.  Respondent denies committing any unfair labor
 practices and asserts that the Authority does not properly have
 jurisdiction over AFLC or the 2750th Air Base Wing.  /3/
 
    A hearing was held in Dayton, Ohio at which the parties were
 represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence
 and call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses and argue orally.  Briefs
 filed by Respondent and the General Counsel have been duly considered.
 
    Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, including my
 evaluation of the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, and
 from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
 following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended order.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    1.  The Air Force Logistics Command has a number of subordinate field
 facilities throughout the United States.  The 2750th Air Base Wing,
 herein the 2750th, is one of those field facilities and, at all times
 material herein, has been an independent organizational structure,
 subordinate in the military structure at AFLC.
 
    2.  The 2750th Air Base Wing is located at Wright-Patterson Air Force
 Base, Ohio.  Also located there is Headquarters, AFLC.  Both AFLC and
 the 2750th are serviced by the Civilian Personnel Office of the 2750th
 and by the Office of Staff Judge Advocate.  The latter employs Fred
 Hustad, Respondent's counsel in this proceeding.
 
    3.  At all times material herein, the following named persons
 occupied positions set opposite their names:
 
    Anthony Pansza - Supervisor, Resources Control Division, HQ,
 AFLC/LMDR
 
    Jan Webb - Supervisory Clerk Typist HQ AFLC/LMD
 
    John Ritner - Assistant to Directorate of APD Resources, HQ AFLC/LMD
 
    Terry Bockhorn - Computer Equipment Analyst (at occasional
 undetermined times material herein, Acting Supervisor, Resources Control
 Division), HQ AFLC/LMDR
 
    James H. Rigney, Jr. - Colonel, USAF, Commander 2750th Air Base Wing
 
    Patrick Fleming - Employee Relations Specialist, Civilian Personnel
 Branch, 2750/DPCER
 
    Carl E. Clay - Chief, Operations Branch, Security Police Division,
 2750/SPA
 
    4.  On January 13, 1978, the National Office, American Federation of
 Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO, a labor organization within the
 meaning of 5 U.S.C. 7103(a), was designated the certified bargaining
 agent for a consolidated bargaining unit of the employees of AFLC, as
 set forth in Articles I and II of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
 which was entered into between these parties.  Accordingly, the National
 Office, AFGE is the exclusive representative.
 
    5.  Local 1138, AFGE, a labor organization within the meaning of
 Section 7103(a)(4) of the Statute is the designated representative for
 approximately 4700 employees of AFLC at Wright-Patterson.  Some of these
 employees work for AFLC Headquarters;  some of them work for the 2750th
 Air Base Wing.  The relationship of the parties is governed by two
 documents, the AFLC-AFGE Master Labor Agreement effective April 1979
 (Jt. Exh. 3) and a preceding local labor agreement, parts of which have
 carried over and are effective at the present time (Jt. Exh. 4).  Local
 1138 is an agent of National Office, AFGE.
 
    6.  Article 4 of the Master Agreement concerns the subject of
 "Official Time/Union Representation." Section 4:01 states, inter alia,
 that the "Employer agrees to recognize a total number of stewards at
 each activity equal to one steward to 80 employees in the bargaining
 unit or fraction thereof." Section 4:02 states that the Union will
 furnish the Employer with a list of the names of designated stewards
 "along with organizational symbols, designated area of representation
 and work station if appropriate, and base telephone extension(s)."
 Article 4:05 provides that if no shop steward is designated for a
 particular organization element, the steward at the next higher
 organizational element or the nearest available steward shall serve in
 that capacity for purposes of representing employees in Step 1
 grievances.  Article 4:07 provides a grant by the Employer for official
 government time to recognized stewards and elected officers to
 accomplish specified functions, including release from their work
 station.  Article 4:08 grants each shop steward 25 hours official time
 on the first successive two-month period to assist employees in the shop
 steward's designated area in the preparation of informal grievances.
 Article 4:09 grants "a reasonable amount of official time" to stewards
 and elected officials for what may be characterized as more formal
 matters such as participation in grievance and arbitration proceedings,
 negotiations, serving on committees and attending meetings arranged by
 management.
 
    7.  Other relevant contractual provisions concerning official time
 for employees and union representatives are set forth below:
 
          SECTION 4:11:  RESTRICTIONS ON OFFICIAL TIME
 
          No official time shall be authorized for functions not listed
       or referenced in this Article, unless otherwise mutually agreed by
       the parties.  Moreover, official time is prohibited for any
       activity performed by an employee relating to the internal
       business of the Union (including the solicitation of membership,
       elections of Union officials, collection of membership dues, etc.
 
          SECTION 4:12:  OFFICIAL TIME FOR EMPLOYEES
 
          Employees will be granted official time to prepare and present
       appeals and grievances under the Negotiated Grievance Procedure in
       accordance with Article 6.
 
          SECTION 4:13:  OFFICIAL TIME RELEASE PROCEDURE
 
          The following procedures shall apply to employees and Union
       representatives who wish to leave their assigned work area on
       official time, as authorized under this Agreement.
 
          a.  When a Union representative desires to leave his assigned
       work station to conduct authorized Union-Management business, that
       Union representative must first report to and obtain permission of
       his immediate supervisor.  In requesting release, the Union
       representative will inform the supervisor of the nature of the
       function to be performed, destination, name(s) of employee(s) to
       be contacted, estimate duration, etc.
 
          b.  Subject to the provision of this Article, and if work load
       conditions permit, the Union representative shall be released.  If
       release cannot be granted because of work load considerations, the
       supervisor shall advise the Union representative when release
       would be appropriate.
 
          c.  When the Union representative intends to meet with
       employees in another work area, the representative's supervisor
       shall make arrangements for such meeting with the first level
       supervisor of the employees involved, subject to work load
       conditions.
 
          d.  Upon release, applicable portions of the AFLC Form 949 will
       be completed by the supervisor and the Union representative (see
       Appendix 1).
 
          e.  Upon entering a work area other than his own to meet with
       unit employees, the Union representative shall advise the
       immediate supervisor of this presence, the employees to be
       contacted, and estimated duration.
 
          f.  Upon completion of authorized Union-Management business,
       the Union representative shall advise the immediate supervisor of
       the contacted employees of his departure.
 
          g.  Upon return to his work area, the Union representative
       shall advise his supervisor of his return.  The supervisor shall
       sign the representative in on AFLC Form 949 and retain the form
       for accounting purposes.  The Union representative shall be given
       a copy of the form when it is completed.
 
          h.  For meetings called or approved by Management officials
       which require the presence of a steward, the management official
       arranging such meeting shall arrange for the steward's release
       through contact with the steward's supervisor.  The management
       official arranging such meeting shall provide to that supervisor
       the information necessary for release.  All other provisions of
       this section shall apply.  This paragraph shall also apply to
       grievance presentation meetings held in accordance with Article 6,
       Grievance Procedure.
 
    8.  Also of relevance to this case is Article XXVIV, Sections B and
 C, of Joint Exhibit No. 4 dealing with carry-over provisions of the
 Master Agreement:
 
          Section B.  Union representatives will be permitted to use
       Government telephones for local use, when necessary to conduct
       proper labor-management relations activities.  The use of
       Government telephones for long distance calls (either through
       AUTOVON for commercial facilities) is not authorized.  The
       telephone number of the AFGE Fairborn office will be listed in the
       WPAFB telephone directory.
 
          Section C. When a member of the bargaining unit desires to
       discuss a personal matter in private with the Union, existing
       space, suitable for a private discussion, will be made available
       as near the work site as practical.  Arrangements for such space
       will be conducted by the Union representative with the supervisor
       concerned.
 
    Thus, Section B permits use of telephones by Union representatives
 during working hours, but does not specify what restrictions exist, if
 any, with respect to the amount of time to be used in such use.  Section
 C permits a Union representative to make arrangements for space with the
 supervisor concerned but does not specify whether arrangements must be
 made orally (in person or over the telephone) or in writing.
 
    9.  Betty Jean Carroll was a computer specialist general in the
 Directorate of Resources Management during the pertinent period from
 December 1, 1979 through May, 1980 when the alleged events occurred,
 which are alleged unfair labor practices.  Carroll was assigned to a
 Funds Management Work Group under the supervision at that time by
 Anthony Pansza.  Carroll's work site is one large room, without
 partitions, populated by about 40 to 45 persons sitting at desks lined
 up in 8 rows, with about 5 desks in each row.  She was in the middle of
 the room in the front of the 5th row of desks.  The record does not
 disclose the size of the room or the distance between desks.
 
    10.  Carroll testified that she served as shop steward or chief
 steward, as well as being the Local Vice-President.  Her major
 responsibility is to appoint and train shop stewards and supervise their
 activities.  She also testified that in the past couple of years she has
 taken on the responsibility of prosecuting arbitration cases, testifying
 in unfair labor practice hearings, developing arguments for the FSIP,
 meeting with the FMCS, and negotiating at the local levels and for
 Council No. 214.  She is chief steward for organizational entities
 without a designated steward and she handles a heavy grievance caseload.
  She represents about 3,000 employees, many of whom are located in her
 building.  However, as vice-president she also services the base
 hospital, the Air Force Institute of Technology, and the AFALD
 organization, which are located throughout the area.  She described her
 Union workload as extremely demanding and emphasized that management had
 the responsibility to communicate with her (and not the Local president)
 - as the contact point for all managers in the organization - for all
 briefings on reorganizations, changes in employment conditions,
 training, and any matters covered by the contract.  Altogether, the
 Local represents about 4700 employees.  To assist her, she has 9 other
 shop stewards.
 
    11.  Section 6:07 of the Master Agreement contains procedures for
 employee grievances.  Step One requires an informal discussion between
 the employee and his or her supervisor.  If the employee desires the
 assistance of a steward, the employee "will inform his supervisor of the
 nature of the grievance and request the assistance of the Area Shop
 Steward so that arrangements may be made to informally discuss the
 grievance." Upon being informed of the nature of the grievance, the
 supervisor may determine that it is not within his authority to resolve
 the matter, in which case he shall make arrangements with the
 appropriate management official with requisite authority to informally
 discuss the grievance with the employee and steward.
 
    12.  According to Carroll, bargaining unit employees were not
 familiar with the contract terms and procedures and for this reason she
 would receive telephone calls directly from employees, rather than from
 the employee's supervisor, as required in Section 6:0007(a)(1).  When this
 happened she would ascertain the nature of the complaint or grievance
 and advise the employee that he or she should have their supervisor
 contact Carroll directly to arrange a meeting at a mutually acceptable
 time for all concerned.  Carroll would complete a Form 949 Official
 Release Permit containing the names of the grievant, the supervisor, the
 building location, the work area, and the amount of time required.
 After her supervisor, Tony Pansza, approved her release, the form 949
 would be placed on a clip board outside his office where it could be
 readily seen by the women working in what was called the "Administrative
 cluster." /4/
 
    13.  The four women who worked in the administrative cluster, under
 the immediate supervision of Jan Webb, had the responsibility of
 answering the telephones.  When they were not on the phone, they had
 typing duties to perform.
 
    14.  Supervisor Pansza testified that around October 1, 1979 a
 decision was made to upgrade their telephone capabilities and relocate
 phones, if necessary.  So, at some time after that, he instituted a
 survey to ascertain how many telephone calls were being received and by
 which employees.  He instructed Jan Webb to instruct the administrative
 cluster to make a record of all telephone calls for a period of two
 weeks.  According to Pansza, the survey showed that Carroll, received a
 large number of calls, 3 to 5 times as many as any other employee.  He
 stated that on some days there would be 25 phone calls in contrast to
 other employees receiving 2 to 4 calls.  Pansza then examined the survey
 more closely, looking only at the 3-member group of which Carroll was a
 part.  The GS-13 ADP Funds Manager received 18 or 19 calls, the GS-12
 Journeyman received 34 or 35 calls, and Betty Jean Carroll received
 somewhere in the neighborhood of 118 or 119 calls.
 
    15.  Pansza also testified that he had received complaints from
 cluster employees to the effect that the excessive number of calls to
 Carroll interfered with their own work.  Also, Carroll's own colleagues
 in her work group complained that when she was away from her desk or on
 the phone, they had to answer her intercom to explain that she was
 absent or on the phone and that this interfered with their work.
 
    16.  Carroll's excessive use of the telephone is also demonstrated by
 two witnesses for the General Counsel, Leslie Henderson and Lora Fite,
 both being cluster employees.  Thus, Henderson testified that Carroll
 received a lot of calls, some of which lasted 20 minutes and that while
 Carroll was on the phone, other calls sometimes were waiting for her.
 Furthermore, Henderson admitted that she had spoken to her supervisor
 about this, that other cluster employees had complained, and that
 callers asking for Carroll were sometimes upset when Carroll had not
 returned their call or that Henderson did not know Carroll's
 whereabouts.
 
    17.  Lora Fite testified that Carroll received a large number of
 calls ranging from 1 to 20 minutes in length, that some callers were
 irritated when Fite couldn't explain Carroll's whereabouts, and that
 Carroll was still receiving, as of the date of the hearing, 10 to 20
 calls each day.  Further, Fite stated that sometimes there would be
 calls for Carroll on three lines at the same time.  Fite admitted that
 she had mentioned this situation to her colleague and her supervisor.
 
    18.  On January 16, Carroll arrived at work at 8:55 a.m. and found
 that her supervisor had not approved her release to attend a 9:00
 meeting with a grievant and Mrs. Mesher, who is in charge of workmen's
 compensation.  She went to the meeting anyway.  Upon her return, Pansza
 told her he wanted to discuss this matter as well as some other things.
 In their meeting, Carroll refused to take either annual leave or LWOP
 for the 1 1/2 hours she was gone.  The record is silent as to what
 eventually resulted from this deviation from the contractual procedure.
 According to Carroll, it was during this January 16 meeting when Pansza
 told her of the survey and the fact that it showed she was receiving 90
 percent of the calls.  Carroll acknowledged that this was probably the
 right percentage because she admittedly had a very heavy telephone
 audience.  Pansza inquired whether it was Union business and she replied
 that "for the most part," it was Union business.  /3/ Carroll admits
 that Pansza told her that her excessive receipt of phone calls was
 working a hardship on the women in the cluster and that other employees
 were complaining.  He also told her she was not carrying her share of
 the workload.  Her response was that she was entitled by law to
 represent people and had to have time in her workday for such duties.
 His response was that she might do some of it at night.  The record does
 not indicate whether Pansza and Carroll actually discussed how much time
 would be a reasonable amount of time or how much time represented
 compliance with the contractual provisions previously recited in this
 decision.
 
    19.  The complaint alleges that on January 18, 23, 25, 29, and at
 other times material herein, Pansza unilaterally scheduled and/or
 rescheduled meetings of Carroll in violation of Section 7116(a)(1).
 During this same January 16 meeting which commenced at 11:00, Pansza
 called in Terry Bockhorn and said he would like Bockhorn, Carroll, Ken
 Kora and the funds manager to meet with him at 1:00 that afternoon to
 discuss a new project.  He then realized he had a conflict and instead
 set the meeting for the following morning.  When Carroll pointed out
 that she had a conflicting meeting on a 3-hour negotiation session on
 transfer of workload schedules, Pansza replied, "Well, we will just
 cancel that." Although this particular meeting was cancelled and
 rescheduled, Carroll was permitted to attend two other meetings she had
 scheduled the afternoon of January 16.  In summary, Carroll actually
 attended three meetings on January 16 concerning Union business, two
 with management's approval, and one without such approval.
 
    20.  Carroll testified that on January 18 she was advised she could
 only have one meeting per day and, since she had two scheduled, her
 meeting with Larry Charter on a grievance was rescheduled to January 23.
  However, on January 23 Carroll had a meeting with an FLRA investigator,
 which began in the morning and lasted until 3:00 thus preventing her
 from attending her 1:00 meeting with Charter.  Instead of having her
 supervisor reschedule the Charter meeting, she herself called Crimm,
 Charter's supervisor and rescheduled the meeting for January 25, the
 same day she already had a meeting scheduled with workmen's
 compensation.  So, since Carroll now had two meetings scheduled for the
 same day, January 25, acting supervisor Bockhorn rescheduled the latter
 one to January 29 at 9:00 a.m.  As it happened, Carroll already had a
 negotiation session on ground rules scheduled for January 29 with Union
 President Cook, at 9:30 a.m.  Since the meeting times conflicted, and
 since the 21-day time limit for grievances was running out, she chose to
 attend the meeting with Charter.  Cook cancelled his meeting with
 Carroll and the record does not indicate whether it was rescheduled.  In
 terms of past practice, Carroll testified that she used to make her own
 meeting arrangements and thus avoid any scheduling conflicts.  Panzsa's
 involvement was to talk to other management officials about the nature
 of the meeting and the amount of time to be authorized.  He did not have
 contact with the grievants themselves.
 
    21.  After the January 16 meeting at which Carroll was told about the
 survey, Carroll received some telephone calls at home and in this way
 learned that employees who called her at the office were being asked the
 purpose of their call.  Actually, Carroll received calls dealing with a
 number of subjects, including grievances, classification appeals,
 promotion actions and back pay claims.  Pansza admits that over a 2-day
 period he asked Webb to instruct the girls in the cluster to inquire
 with respect to anyone calling Carroll, whether the purpose of the call
 was to discuss Union business and if it was, the caller was referred to
 Pansza.  Henderson, a cluster employee, did this 2 or 3 times;  Fite
 didn't state how often she did it.  Fite did say that if Pansza was not
 there she would ask the caller to leave a message which, of course,
 required the caller to identify himself or herself.
 
    a.  One of the callers during this period was Betty Jane Malavich.
 She said that Pansza identified himself to her as Carroll's supervisor
 and inquired "Is this a personal call or a Union call?  She replied
 "Union business" and Pansza said, "Well, according to the contract, I
 cannot allow you to speak to Miss Carroll." Malavich apologized, hung
 up, and called Carroll at home.
 
    b.  Another caller, Mary Evelyn Hacker also testified as to her
 experience.  When she first called Carroll she talked for 20 to 25
 minutes, was told to obtain the job series from personnel and call back.
  On one of the occasions when she called back, she was told she would
 have to talk to Carroll's supervisor, who wasn't there at the moment.
 Later, Pansza called her, identified himself and, according to Hacker,
 asked her the nature of her complaint, which she began to relate.
 Pansza apparently thought she wanted to arrange a meeting with Carroll
 and told Hacker that he couldn't release Carroll to meet with her.
 Pansza also told her that she should see her supervisor who could call
 him and arrange for Carroll's release.  She then went to her immediate
 supervisor, Major Johnson, who called Pansza and arranged for Carroll's
 release.  Based upon my observation of Hacker, and her demeanor while
 testifying, I cannot accept her characterization of Panzsa's tone of
 voice as "threatening." She obviously is a sensitive person who may be
 upset easily, as shown by her reaction to the incident which triggered
 her grievance in the first place (and which I have not related herein).
 That she felt Pansza was "talking down" to her is probably more accurate
 and closer to the truth.
 
    c.  Pansza stated that altogether there were about 8 to 12 calls
 referred to him during the 2-day period.  His procedure was to first
 identify himself as Carroll's supervisor, then explain that under the
 provisions of the Master Agreement he could only release her on official
 business under certain conditions and that he would have to talk to the
 employee's supervisor.  He recalled his conversations with both Malavich
 and Hacker.  In the case of the latter, he needed to know a bit more
 about the reason she needed to see Carroll in order for him to decide
 whether it was proper to authorize official time.  He finally concluded
 Hacker hadn't talked to her own supervisor and suggested she do so.
 
    22.  In March 1980, all employees in Carroll's work area (except
 herself and an employee who was soon to retire) received their annual
 appraisals.  Panzsa's explanation for this delay was unsatisfactory and
 cannot be accepted.  Eventually, on April 24, Carroll met with Pansza
 for a performance appraisal interview.  Upon receipt of her written
 appraisal, Carroll quickly computed her "score" of 89 percent and
 remarked to Pansza that he had lowered her score considerably.  (She
 received 93 percent in 1978 and 1979).  According to Carroll, Pansza
 said that he felt it was justifiable, because she had a heavy Union
 workload all year, and had not carried her full load of the work.  The
 foregoing testimony by Carroll was undenied by Pansza and unexplained in
 any manner.  Pansza credibly testified, however, that there is no
 cut-off-score per se;  rather, when a panel meets to establish a
 register it is influenced by the number of vacancies and prospective
 vacancies to be filled in determining the number of persons to be
 interviewed.  Thus if 25 persons are needed, a line will be drawn on the
 list after the 25th name, regardless of the score.  Of course, the lower
 one's score, the lower one's placement on the list.  Therefore, if only
 a few names were needed, the scores of those selected would be "in the
 90's or 95's." I find that the lowered score had the effect of limiting
 Carroll's opportunities to be considered for promotion.  However, the
 record does not establish that but for the lowered rating, she would
 have been promoted.
 
                             Case No. 5-CA-521
 
    23.  Don Cook became President of AFGE Local 1138 in January, 1980.
 Also, in January 1980, Local 1138 won a decertification election in a
 separate unit involving the Security Police which, until then, had been
 represented by Local 526, International Brotherhood of Police Officers
 (IBPO).  Shortly after the election, James W. Griffin, the President of
 IBPO was appointed by AFGE as unit vice-president of AFGE.
 
    24.  On January 29, Griffin was on duty at a gatehouse at Gate 1-C.
 The gatehouse is a small building, about 5 x 9 feet in size, located at
 one of the entrance/exits to the base.  Two lanes of traffic passed by
 the gatehouse entering the base;  two additional lanes carried traffic
 leaving the base.  The gatehouse was located in the middle of the
 street.  The duties of the police officer assigned to Gate 1-C are set
 forth in Special Security Instruction Number 25 (Jt. Exh. 7(g)) which is
 posted in the gatehouse.  The duties set forth therein were
 substantially more than merely checking cars for identification decals,
 as testified by Griffin.  Moreover, the instruction clearly states that,
 with certain exceptions, the police officer is to remain outside of the
 gatehouse.  More specifically, paragraph "m" states that loitering is
 not permitted and that visitor's questions will be answered without
 requiring them to enter the gatehouse.  At approximately, 8:00 p.m.
 Griffin received a visitor at Gate 1-C while on duty.  The visitor was
 AFGE Local President Don Cook who parked in his car near the gatehouse
 in a "no parking" area and left his emergency flasher on.  He was in the
 gatehouse for 10 to 15 minutes.  While there, he was seen by Patrick
 Fleming, an employee relations specialist, who was departing the base
 after having tutored a group of individuals in Social Studies at Bldg.
 110.  His written report (Jt. Exh. 7(a)) stated that the discussion
 between Cook and Griffin was so involved that Griffin "seemed to totally
 ignore the fact that a vehicle was leaving the base.  The next day,
 Chief Clay called Griffin to his office and verified that Griffin
 permitted a visitor to enter the gatehouse.  He asked the identity of
 the visitor and Griffin denied knowing his identity.  Of course this was
 not true.  In Joint Exhibit 7(d), Griffin stated that the visitor was
 asking for directions.  This also was not true.  At approximately 4:00
 that same day, Chief Clay had Griffin report to his office and told him
 that "investigation" revealed the identity of the visitor as Union
 President Cook.  Griffin declined to answer any further questions
 without union representation and the meeting was terminated.  On
 February 1, a meeting was held with Chief Clay, Griffin, Union
 representative Betty Carroll and two other persons.  Joint Exhibit 7(d)
 is a transcript of that meeting wherein Griffin states that Cook asked
 for directions concerning the positions of other gate shacks.  At the
 hearing herein, Cook testified that he was making a safety inspection.
 What Griffin and Cook were talking about for 10 to 15 minutes is not
 particularly crucial to the outcome of this case.  Suffice to say, I am
 unable to credit the testimony of Griffin and Cook in any respect.
 Griffin tried to cover up for Cook by not disclosing his identity when
 first confronted by Chief Clay and lied about the purpose of Cook's
 visit.  Cook, tried to help Griffin (and himself), by attempting to have
 me believe that he was engaged in some sort of official business.  Of
 course, if Cook really had a right to be there while Griffin was on duty
 and without some management official accompanying him, there was no need
 for Griffin to lie to Clay on January 30 or not to disclose this
 information during the February 1 meeting.  In any event, Article 25,
 Section 14, states that safety inspections will be conducted by the
 employer, but the Union may accompany the inspection, which shall be
 conducted in a manner so as to preclude any disruption with the
 operations at a work site.
 
    25.  On February 21, Respondent issued a Proposal to Suspend Griffin
 for 5 days.  A previous offense resulting in a 5-day suspension was
 considered in arriving at this proposed decision.  Griffin replied in
 writing.  The final decision was a 3-day suspension which was carried
 out on April 16-18.
 
    26.  Apart from Griffin and Cook, whom I do not credit, the General
 Counsel offered no other witnesses to support a theory of disparate
 treatment in the enforcement of the regulations described above.
 
                     Discussion and Conclusions of Law
 
 Jurisdiction
 
    Respondent contends that Air Force Logistics Command is not an agency
 within the meaning of Section 7103(a)(3) of the Statute, but even if it
 is an agency, it is entitled to be separately named and served both in
 the charge and the complaint.  Respondent appears to be contending that
 AFLC is independent from the 2750th Air Base Wing and, therefore, the
 two organizations should not be joined in the same charge and complaint.
  Stated differently, Respondent contends that AFLC is "entitled" to be
 separately named and separately served both in the charge and the
 complaint.  The foregoing contentions eventually lead to the main
 contention that service of a charge as the 2750th as an "agent" of AFLC
 is improper service and, in a vain effort to show prejudice, Respondent
 alleges that it was "deprived" of an opportunity to be involved in
 pre-complaint settlement discussions.
 
    In resolving the foregoing contentions, I conclude first of all that
 Respondent, whether an agency or an activity, was properly named in the
 complaint and properly served.  Secondly, Respondent is not "entitled"
 as a matter of right to be separately named in charges and complaints,
 such matters being within the discretion of the charging party and the
 General Counsel, respectively.  Thirdly, having concluded that
 Respondent was properly served, I further conclude that it was not
 deprived of any pre-complaint settlement opportunity.  Assuming,
 arguendo, that Respondent did not have a pre-complaint settlement
 opportunity, it nevertheless still could have elected to settle this
 case subsequent to issuance of complaint and chose not to.  In my
 opinion, Respondent has not in any event demonstrated that it has been
 prejudiced by any actions by the Region.  Accordingly, Respondent's
 contentions are rejected.
 
    Finally, in view of my decision herein to dismiss the allegations in
 Case No. 5-CA-521 concerning the acts attributed to agents of the 2750th
 Wing, I need not resolve the question of whether the General Counsel
 erred in not naming the 2750th Wing as a co-respondent.  On the one
 hand, employees of the 2750th appears to be included in the same unit as
 AFLC employees (Jt. Exh. No. 4) and both AFLC and 2750th employees are
 served by the same personnel office and labor attorneys.  On the other
 hand, it is not clear from the evidence in this record whether the
 2750th is a separate and distinct entity and so operationally
 independent from the AFLC that it can stand alone for purposes of
 Section 7116(a)(1) and (2) violations.  /6/ This same issue involving
 these same parties was raised by Respondent before Judge Sternburg and
 rejected by him in Case No. 5-CA-390 (OALJ-80-89, Sept. 12, 1980).  /7/
 That decision, which is still pending before the Authority on appeal,
 held that the 2750th was an agent of its parent organization, AFLC, and
 did not specifically have to be named as a co-respondent.  /8/
 
    In summary, and for the reasons stated above, Respondent's motion to
 dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is hereby denied.  Monitoring of
 Telephone Calls to a Union Official
 
    There is no dispute that a telephone survey of incoming calls
 revealed that Betty Carroll received a substantial number of telephone
 calls, when compared with other employees.  There is no dispute that
 Carroll's colleagues as well as the employees who had to answer the
 phones, complained to management that the excessive number of calls was
 a problem.  Whether these calls were related to (1) business, (2) the
 union, or (3) personal matters, could only be determined by asking the
 caller to state the purpose of the call.  In these circumstances, I
 believe it was reasonable for Respondent to instruct the employees who
 answered telephones to inquire whether the purpose of the call was Union
 business.  The Respondent had justification for its action and by so
 doing did not violate Section 7116(a)(1).  I also find that when the
 telephone caller was asked whether the purpose of the call was Union
 business, that this did not constitute interrogation within the meaning
 of Section 7116(a)(1).  In the circumstances of this case, Respondent
 had justification for its conduct because this was a reasonable method
 of policing the contract which specifically limits the use of official
 time for Union activity to "a reasonable amount." I further find no
 violation of Section 7116(a)(1) in requiring employees who answered the
 phones to refer callers to the supervisor who could explain to the
 caller the proper procedures to follow in being released to see their
 steward, and vice versa.  This is particularly so in this case where
 Carroll did not agree with the contractual procedure and had formulated
 her own procedure simply because she thought it was better and more
 convenient.  As authority for the foregoing conclusions of law, see
 Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service and IRS Richmond
 Office, 3 FLRA 18.
 
    With respect to the allegation that Pansza scheduled and rescheduled
 meetings of Betty Carroll, all he did was to establish a policy of
 limiting her meetings to one per day and then tried to enforce this
 policy.  From the testimony of Carroll it seems obvious that her first
 priority was attending to her Union business no matter how many meetings
 were scheduled the same day.  Nor was she the least bit concerned that
 90 percent of the telephone calls were for her.  I don't believe that
 Respondent's conduct was unlawful in the circumstances of this case.
 Furthermore, this situation must be viewed in terms of what could happen
 if Pansza continued to permit Carroll to deviate from the terms of the
 contract with management's acquiescence.  Such condonation by management
 could mean that Carroll's release procedures would ripen into a past
 practice and become a condition of employment.  But management has a
 right to prevent this from happening by taking appropriate steps to
 reaffirm established policy and assure uniformity in enforcement.  HEW,
 Region 5, Chicago, 4 FLRA No. 98.  Cf. Norfolk Naval Shipyard, 4 FLRA
 No. 91.
 
    Finally, with respect to all the alleged violations shown above the
 evidence does not establish an anti-union intent by Respondent.  In
 fact, I agree with Respondent that what we really have here is a running
 dispute between Carroll and Pansza concerning her use of official time
 to conduct Union business.  In this regard, it is the Respondent's view
 that such differences would be better resolved through the negotiated
 grievance procedure.  However, I make no commend on this point.
 Lowering Carroll's Appraisal Rating
 
    The General Counsel contends, and there is no dispute, that Carroll
 received a lower performance appraisal rating than in previous years.
 According to the General Counsel, the reason for the lowered rating was
 Carroll's protected activity of representing the Union in a variety of
 ways as a steward and Union official.  To establish a causal
 relationship between the lowered rating, on the one hand, and Carroll's
 protected activity, on the other hand, Carroll testified that she asked
 Pansza for an explanation at the time he handed her the appraisal and
 his answer was that she had had a heavy Union work load all year, and
 that had not carried her full load of the work.  This testimony presents
 a prima facie case that Carroll's protected Union activity was a factor,
 perhaps even the sole factor, in her lowered rating.  As noted
 previously, Carroll's testimony is undenied and, although Pansza
 testified at the hearing, he failed to explain the reasons for the
 lowered rating, and failed to show that rating was unconnected with
 Carroll's Union activities.  There might well have been other
 explanations for the lowered rating but, if there were, Pansza failed to
 explicate them.  Also, I conclude that his explanation for the unusual
 delay in giving her a rating was unsatisfactory and not credible.
 Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section 7116(a)(1) when it
 lowered her performance rating from previous years because, in my
 opinion, such conduct interfered with, restrained and coerced an
 employee in the exercise of her statutory right to engage in Union
 activity.  U.S. Army, Corpus Christi Army Depot, Corpus Christi, Texas,
 4 FLRA No. 80 and cases cited therein;  Department of the Navy, Norfolk
 Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, OALJ-81-161 (August 28, 1981).
 
    It is also my view that this violation can only be remedied by
 ordering Respondent to rescind and withdraw the 1980 appraisal which was
 tainted by considering Carroll's lawful Union activities, and by
 ordering a reappraisal without consideration of such lawful activities.
 San Antonio Air Logistics Center, 5 FLRA No. 22.
 
    Suspension of Griffin
 
    The General Counsel has the burden of proving that, in fact, the
 suspension of James Griffin was because of his membership in and his
 activities on behalf of the Union.  That burden has not been satisfied
 herein.  The fact of the matter is that Respondent had good cause to
 discipline Griffin because he violated regulations.  The General Counsel
 may suspect that Griffin was being singled out because he was a Union
 official or because his "visitor" was a Union official, but suspicion is
 not enough.  Likewise, Respondent may have suspected that Griffin and
 Cook were engaged in internal Union business on official time, but they
 couldn't prove that either.  The credited evidence does not establish
 that Griffin was the subject of disparate treatment, nor am I able to
 find any anti-union animus on the part of Respondent.  Accordingly, I
 recommend dismissal of this allegation in the complaint.
 
    Having found and concluded that Respondent violated Section
 7116(a)(1) of the Statute, I recommend that the Authority issue the
 following order:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7118(a)(7) and Section 2423.26 of the Final
 Rules and Regulations of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, U.S.
 Fed. Reg. 3842, 3510 (1980), it is hereby ordered that United States Air
 Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
 Ohio, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Permitting supervisors and managers to consider union
       activities of any employee in the development of their performance
       appraisals.
 
          (b) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing Betty Jean
       Carroll or any other employee in the exercise of rights assured by
       the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
          (c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of 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) Rescind the March 1, 1980 appraisal of Betty Jean Carroll,
       withdraw it from her personnel file, and prepare a new appraisal
       which does not take into consideration her lawful activity as a
       union representative.
 
          (b) Post at the Air Force Logistics Command facility at
       Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio 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 Base Commander and shall be posted and maintained
       for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
       including bulletin boards and other places where notices to
       employees are customarily posted.  The Base Commander shall take
       reasonable steps to insure that such notices are not altered,
       defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
          (c) Pursuant to Section 2423.30 of the Final Rules and
       Regulations, 45 Fed.Reg.at 3511, notify the Regional Director of
       Region V, Suite A-1359, 175 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
       Illinois 60604, in writing, within thirty days from the date of
       this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
                                       FRANCIS E. DOWD
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
 Dated:  March 11, 1982
 
          Washington, D.C.
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
  PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER TO 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 rescind the March 1, 1980 appraisal of Betty Jean Carroll,
 withdraw it from her personnel file, and prepare a new appraisal which
 does not take into consideration her lawful activity as a Union
 representative.
 
    WE WILL not permit supervisors or managers to consider the Union
 activities of any employee in the development of performance appraisals
 of those employees.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce Betty Jean Carroll of any other employee in the exercise of
 rights assured 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
 material.
 
    If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
 with any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
 Regional Director, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Suite A-1359, 175
 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ The Charging Party excepted to certain credibility findings made
 by the Judge.  The demeanor of witnesses is a factor of consequence in
 resolving issues of credibility, and the Judge has had the advantage of
 observing the witnesses while they testified.  The Authority will not
 overrule a Judge's resolution with respect to credibility unless a clear
 preponderance of all the relevant evidence demonstrates such resolution
 was incorrect.  The Authority has examined the record carefully, and
 finds no basis for reversing the Judge's credibility findings.
 
 
    /2/ In its exceptions, the Respondent renewed its argument that it
 was not properly served with the charges or with the consolidated
 complaint herein and therefore the Authority lacks jurisdiction over it
 in this matter.  In regard to the allegation found to have merit herein,
 the second amended charge in Case No. 5-CA-521 was served properly on
 the Commanding General of the Respondent and it was properly named as
 the Respondent therein.  Further, the Respondent's agent, Fred Hustad,
 was properly served with the consolidated complaint.  Thus, as material
 herein, the Authority finds that the Respondent's contention lacks
 merit.
 
 
    /3/ The original charge in Case No. 5-CA-521 named the Activity in
 Section 1.A. as 2750th Air Base Wing, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
 but in Section 1.F. stated that the Activity was part of an agency
 called Air Force Logistics Command, United States Air Force.  All other
 charges named the 2750th as well as the Air Force Logistics Command in
 Section 1.A.
 
 
    /4/ Carroll testified that prior to the Master Agreement, she had an
 arrangement whereby she "was free to come and go" as she pleased.  From
 her testimony I conclude that she resented and resisted efforts by
 management to require her to follow the contractual procedure.  She
 characterized management's actions as a diff