14:0499(80)CA - SSA, Baltimore, MD and AFGE -- 1984 FLRAdec CA



[ v14 p499 ]
14:0499(80)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 14 FLRA No. 80
 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case Nos. 8-CA-1187 
                                                      8-CA-1188
                                                      8-CA-1190
                                                      8-CA-1219 
                                                      8-CA-1223 
                                                      8-CA-20048
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 certain of the 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 further found
 that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair
 labor practices and recommended dismissal of the complaint with respect
 to them.  The General Counsel filed timely exceptions limited to the
 recommended remedy set forth in the Judge's Decision.
 
    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
 Judge's Decision and the entire record, and noting the absence of any
 exceptions to the Judge's unfair labor practice determinations, the
 Authority hereby adopts the Judge's findings, /1/ conclusions, /2/ and
 recommended Order.  /3/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the
 Authority hereby orders that the Social Security Administration,
 Baltimore, Maryland, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Preventing representatives of the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of its
 employees, from meeting with unit employees on representational matters,
 or ordering them out of offices, or threatening to have them thrown out.
 
    (b) Threatening unit employees by telling them that action would not
 have been taken against them, or they would have been left alone, if
 they had not sought the assistance of the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, or that as long as the employee continues
 to request the assistance of the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, the employee would continue to receive memoranda
 criticizing the employee's performance.
 
    (c) Threatening unit employees by telling them that they would "pay"
 for having gone to the American Federation of Government Employees,
 AFO-CIO, or that management would "get even" with any employee who went
 to the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, or that
 management would never allow the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, in its offices.
 
    (d) Threatening unit employees by telling them that management will
 not help them because they had filed unfair labor practice charges.
 
    (e) Discriminating against unit employees by reassigning
 redetermination caseloads to other employees, by placing memoranda in
 any employee's personnel file admonishing the employee about the quality
 of his or her work, or by giving the employee unsatisfactory ratings on
 his or her performance evaluation because the employee seeks the
 assistance of a union representative or gives information or testifies
 in connection with the investigation of unfair labor practices.
 
    (f) Changing the working conditions of employees in the Indio,
 California, Branch Office by altering the procedures to be followed in
 working overtime on Saturdays without first notifying the American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and affording it an
 opportunity to negotiate over that change.
 
    (g) Holding formal discussions with unit employees concerning
 grievances, personnel policies and practices or other conditions of
 employment without first notifying the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, and affording it an opportunity to be present.
 
    (h) 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) Remove from employee Carol Cofflin's personnel file a memorandum
 dated October 21, 1981, admonishing her for the quality of her work, and
 rescind her performance evaluation for the period October 1, 1980, to
 September 30, 198,.
 
    (b) Prepare a new performance evaluation for employee Carol Cofflin
 for the period October 1, 1980, to September 30, 1981, without taking
 into consideration any of her protected activities guaranteed by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    (c) Rescind the requirement established on May 22, 1981, that
 employees submit written requests each Friday in order to work overtime
 on Saturday.
 
    (d) Upon request, negotiate with the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, over any intended changes in the
 procedures to be followed in working overtime on Saturday.
 
    (e) Post at its Social Security Branch Office facility in Indio,
 California, 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 an appropriate official, 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.  Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that
 such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
    (f) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VIII, 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.
 
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining allegation in Case No.
 8-CA-1223 of the consolidated complaint, that the Respondent disparaged
 a former Union representative, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.  
 
 Issued, Washington, D.C., May 11, 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 prevent representatives of the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of our
 employees, from meeting with unit employees on representational matters,
 or order them out of our offices, or threaten to have them thrown out.
 
    WE WILL NOT threaten unit employees by telling them that action would
 not have been taken against them, or they would have been left alone, if
 they had not sought the assistance of the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, or that as long as the employee continues
 to request the assistance of the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, the employee would continue to receive memoranda
 criticizing the employee's performance.
 
    WE WILL NOT threaten unit employees by telling them that they would
 "pay" for having gone to the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, or that we would "get even" with an employee who
 went to the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, or
 that we would never allow the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, in our offices.
 
    WE WILL NOT threaten unit employees by telling them that we will not
 help them because they had filed unfair labor practice charges.
 
    WE WILL NOT discriminate against unit employees by reassigning
 redetermination caseloads to other employees, by placing memoranda in
 any employee's personnel file admonishing the employee about the quality
 of his or her work, or by giving the employee unsatisfactory ratings on
 his or her performance evaluation because the employee seeks the
 assistance of his or her union representative or gives information or
 testifies in connection with the investigation of unfair labor
 practices.
 
    WE WILL NOT change the working conditions of employees in the Indio,
 California, Branch Office by altering the procedures to be followed in
 working overtime on Saturdays without first notifying the American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and affording it an
 opportunity to negotiate over that change.
 
    WE WILL NOT hold formal discussions with unit employees concerning
 grievances, personnel policies and practices or other conditions of
 employment without first notifying the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, and affording it an opportunity to be present.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under
 the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL remove from employee Carol Cofflin's personnel file a
 memorandum dated October 21, 1981, admonishing her for the quality of
 her work, and will rescind her performance evaluation for the period
 October 1, 1980, to September 30, 1981.
 
    WE WILL prepare a new performance evaluation for employee Carol
 Cofflin for the period October 1, 1980, to September 30, 1981, without
 taking into consideration any of her protected activities guaranteed by
 the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL rescind the requirement established on May 22, 1981, that
 employees submit written requests each Friday in order to work overtime
 on Saturday.
 
    WE WILL, upon request, negotiate with the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, over any intended changes in the
 procedures to be followed in working overtime on Saturday.
                                       (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 VIII, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address
 is:  350 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, and
 whose telephone number is:  (213) 688-3805.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
 
                                       Case No.: 8-CA-1187, 8-CA-1188,
                                       8-CA-1190,
                                       8-CA-1219, 8-CA-1223, 8-CA-20048
    Patricia Mayer, Esq.
    Joseph Swerdzewski, Esq.
       For the General Counsel
 
    Wilson Schuerholz
       For the Respondent
 
    Jeffrey Dasteel
       For the Charging Party
 
    Before:  ELI NASH, JR.
       Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, hereinafter referred to as the Statute, 92 Stat.
 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.  It was instituted on December 11, 1981, by
 the Regional Director for Region 8 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority, herein called the Authority, pursuant to charges filed on
 June 29, 1981, in Case Nos. 8-CA-1187, 8-CA-1188, and 8-CA-1190;  on
 July 7, 1981 in Case No. 8-CA-1219;  originally filed on July 10, 1981,
 and amended on July 30, 1981, in Case No. 8-CA-1223;  and on November 3,
 1981, in Case No. 8-CA-20048, by the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, by an Amended Order
 Consolidating Cases, Amended Consolidated Complaint and Notice of
 Hearing, alleging that the Social Security Administration, herein called
 Respondent, had engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
 in violation of section 7116(a)(1), (2), (4), (5), and (8), by the
 following acts and conduct:  Respondent through its agents and
 supervisors made a unilateral change in working conditions of unit
 employees in its Indio, California, Branch Office by requiring that
 employees submit a written request to work overtime on Saturdays;
 Respondent, through its agents, made statements to a unit employee who
 was also a Union representative which threatened the Union
 representative and prevented the Union representative from meeting with
 a unit employee on a representation matter;  Respondent, through its
 supervisor and agent, threatened unit employees with retaliatory action
 for seeking Union assistance;  Respondent, through its agent told a unit
 employee that harsher working conditions had been and would be applied
 to those who sought the assistance of the Union, and refused to assist
 the unit employee because that employee had sought the assistance of the
 Union;  Respondent, through its agent, made disparaging remarks about a
 prior Union representative to a unit employee and threatened the
 employee if she continued to request the assistance of the Union;
 Respondent, through its agents, met with a unit employee and discussed
 grievances and unfair labor practice charges which concerned that
 employee, all in the absence of the Union representative;  Respondent,
 through its agents, discriminated against a unit employee because of her
 actions in seeking the assistance of the Union, in filing several
 grievances pursuant to the negotiated procedure, and for giving
 testimony to the Authority in connection with unfair labor practice
 investigations, by reassigning that employee's existing redeterminations
 caseload to another unit employee;  by issuing that employee a
 memorandum, criticizing the quality of her work, and, by giving that
 employee an unsatisfactory performance evaluation for the 1980-81 year.
 /4/
 
    Respondent filed Answers denying the commission of any unfair labor
 practice.
 
    On January 13, 1982, and February 2, 1982, respectively, a hearing
 was held before the undersigned in Palm Springs, California, at which
 all parties were represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to
 adduce evidence and call, examine and cross-examine witnesses and argue
 orally.  Briefs were filed by all parties concerned and have been duly
 considered.
 
    Upon consideration of the entire record in this matter, including my
 evaluation of the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, and
 my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following
 findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended order.
 
                            Statement of Facts
 
    There is no question of jurisdiction in these matters.
 
    A. The June 10, 1981, Incident
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-1190)
 
    In early June 1981, Charlotte Mendes, a unit employee in the Indio
 Branch Office, was informed that she might be disciplined because she
 was experiencing difficulties at work.  Mendes requested assistance of a
 Union representative Patricia Randles, particularly for a June 10, 1981
 meeting which Mendes was to attend to discuss possible discipline with
 her managers.  Mendes also requested that employee Carol Cofflin
 accompany her to the meeting with Randles in order to discuss problems
 which Cofflin had experienced with Indio office supervisors Ramon
 Velarde and Robert Fitzgerald.  Cofflin arranged to meet with Randles
 who thereupon submitted a separate official time form to meet with
 Cofflin on June 10, 1981.  Randles obtained permission to meet with
 Cofflin and attend the meeting from District Manager Martin Semel.  She
 then proceeded to the Indio office on the morning of June 10.
 
    When Randles arrived at the Indio office on the morning of June 10,
 she approached Branch Manager Ramon Velarde.  Randles told him she was
 there for the meeting and that she wished to speak with Cofflin and
 Mendes.  Velarde told Randles he wanted to meet with Randles and Mendes
 immediately and that Randles was not going to be allowed to meet ahead
 of time with Cofflin and Mendes.  Randles again stated her need to speak
 with the two employees because Mendes had received two additional
 memoranda in her file the previous day.  At this point, Velarde yelled
 at Randles, "get the hell out of my office," and "get the hell out of my
 office or I'll have you thrown out." Although Randles reminded Velarde
 that she was on official business and had a right to see Mendes, Velarde
 continued to yell and repeated his threat several times.  Randles then
 asked Velarde to telephone District Manager Semel to verify her
 permission, and when Velarde refused, she asked to use the telephone so
 she could call Semel to resolve the problem.  Velarde again refused her
 request.  This conversation occurred in the middle of the Indio office,
 within hearing of the other office employees.  The comments Velarde made
 to Randles were partly corroborated by Cofflin who testified that she
 observed Randles and Velarde engage in a discussion about five feet
 behind her desk in the center of the office.  She also heard Velarde
 tell Randles she was limited to one-half hour of discussion and when
 Randles objected to this, Velarde told her, "get the hell out of my
 office." She further testified that Velarde locked the door behind
 Randles.
 
    Randles left the Indio office and returned to the Palm Springs
 District Office.  There Randles explained what had occurred to District
 Manager Semel and later that day Semel set up the Indio meeting once
 again.  Randles thereupon returned to Indio and met with Mendes and
 Cofflin and supervisors, Velarde and Fitzgerald, to discuss the
 discipline of Mendes.
 
    Velarde testified that his instructions from his supervisor were to
 allow Randles 30 minutes only.  He also asserts he did not call Semel
 because Semel previously informed him he would be absent.  It is noted
 Velarde took no other action to resolve the dispute such as calling
 other officials in the Palm Springs District Office or Randles'
 supervisor who signed her official time form, nor did Velarde ask to see
 Randles' official time form.  Velarde's response was simply that no one
 could act on Semel's behalf on labor relations matters.  Velarde did not
 deny that he ordered Randles to leave the office.
 
    B.  The June 24, 1981 Incident
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-1188)
 
    Shortly before June 24, Mendes received additional negative memoranda
 in her file and was told to attend another disciplinary meeting with
 Velarde on June 24.  Mendes also asked Randles to represent her at this
 disciplinary meeting.  Velarde and Fitzgerald were also at that meeting
 which took place in Fitzgerald's office.  At the meeting, Fitzgerald
 read a memorandum which was to be placed in Mendes' personnel file, and
 then left the room to photocopy the document.
 
    While Fitzgerald was out of the room, Velarde and Randles engaged in
 a discussion, in the presence of Mendes.  Randles told Velarde she was
 surprised that he was treating Mendes so harshly.  Velarde replied by
 first stating that he wanted to go "off the record." He then told
 Randles he felt she was out to "get him," that he was "surprised at
 (Mendes) for requesting (Randles') assistance," and that it upset him
 that Mendes went to Randles for help.  He also stated he would "see to
 it that life was miserable for (Mendes) because she had gone to the
 Union," that Mendes would "pay" for going to the Union, and that she
 would be sorry that she did.  Velarde continued by stating that the
 "district was a laughingstock because they had allowed the union," that
 Semel was a "fool" for letting the Union into his office and, that
 Velarde was "not going to allow the Union in his office." At that point,
 Fitzgerald returned to the office, distributed the photocopies of the
 memorandum and the meeting ended.
 
    Velarde stated that he was at the June 24 meeting as an observer
 only.  Velarde denies making any of the statements attributed to him.
 He later admits that he had "been told" that Randles is out to get him
 and believed it to be so.  I credit Randles account of this meeting.
 
    C. The July 2, 1981, Discussion between Velarde and Cofflin
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-1219)
 
    On July 2, Fitzgerald had a meeting with Cofflin during which he
 handed her several memoranda criticizing her performance.  During that
 meeting, Cofflin asked for a Union representative, and Fitzgerald denied
 the request.  Cofflin refused to sign the memoranda Fitzgerald gave her
 and the meeting ended.  Soon thereafter, both Velarde and Fitzgerald
 approached Cofflin, telling her she had to sign the memoranda.  Cofflin
 agreed to talk with Velarde, so Velarde and Cofflin continued the
 discussion in Velarde's office.  No one else was present.
 
    Cofflin began the discussion by explaining her view of the memoranda
 Fitzgerald had given her.  The discussion turned when Velarde asked
 Cofflin why she had filed unfair labor practice charges.  Cofflin asked
 Velarde to keep Fitzgerald from harassing her.  Velarde responded that
 he could not do that, and when Cofflin asked why not, he said the
 following:  "Well, after all you've done for me, how do you expect me to
 be good to you?  . . .  You went to the Union and you started all these
 unfair labor practices . . .  As long as you go to the Union you will
 continue to receive memos." Velarde also told Cofflin that if she had
 not gone to the Union, he would have left her alone, and then said " . .
 . You set out to get me but I am going to get you instead." Velarde
 denied making any of these statements.  I credit Cofflin.
 
    D.  The July 6, 1981 Formal Discussion and Bypass
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-1223)
 
    During the month of June 1981, several grievances were filed on
 Mendes behalf.
 
    On the morning of July 6, Union representative Randles met with
 Mendes and Cofflin.  During her meeting with Mendes, Randles learned
 that prior to July 6, Velarde had approached Mendes and asked her to
 withdraw her grievances and unfair labor practice charges, adding that
 if she did so, all the adverse memoranda previously issued to her would
 be withdrawn.  Mendes told Randles she did not wish to withdraw her
 charges or grievances.  Never, at any time during the meeting with
 Randles, did Mendes indicate that she was dissatisfied with Randles as
 her Union representative or the Union's actions on her behalf.
 
    Velarde apparently contacted Cofflin during this same period and
 attempted to obtain her cooperation in withdrawing the unfair labor
 practice charges, and further attempted to discourage her from seeking
 out the Union.
 
    Shortly after her meeting with Randles, Mendes was summoned into
 Velarde's office where she found Semel and Velarde.  Semel stated that
 he thought they could resolve the problems without the necessity of
 having the Union involved.  Semel and Mendes then discussed resolving
 her grievances.
 
    Cofflin was also called into Velarde's office by Semel and Velarde on
 July 6, 1981.  Semel said to Cofflin, "I see we have a problem here,
 what do you think is the problem?" When Cofflin responded, Semel asked
 her if she wanted to discuss it, and Cofflin told Semel that if he
 wanted to discuss some kind of settlement or the unfair labor practice
 charges, she would not do so without a Union representative.
 
    According to Mendes, Semel initiated the idea of her submitting a
 written request to withdraw her grievances, in her own handwriting.  /5/
 
    Semel denies making any arrangement with Mendes to remove the AWOL
 and the memoranda, but did admit he suggested she write the letter.
 When asked if Semel told Mendes to "drop the grievances," Velarde stated
 that the meeting was about clearing her file.  He also corroborates that
 it was Semel who suggested Mendes write a letter withdrawing her
 grievances.  Although at trial, Mendes denied she wrote the letter in
 order to get the memoranda out of her file and eight hours of AWOL
 removed, her affidavit clearly set forth these facts.  As they discussed
 the grievances, Semel referred to a former Union representative, Vicky
 Doyle, and told Mendes that Doyle's name was known throughout the region
 and Doyle would never again be employed by Social Security.  He also
 left Mendes with the impression that if she continued to be represented
 by the Union, her name would be "mud" like Doyle's.
 
    Semel denies making the statements about Doyle.  He admitted,
 however, that Doyle was the Union representative for a long while, that
 he had had significant disagreements with her and that he had testified
 in an unfair labor practice case brought by her.
 
    Within two days after this meeting Mendes wrote a letter requesting
 withdrawal of her grievances.  After she had written the letter, her
 hours of AWOL were reinstated and the memoranda removed, but Mendes was
 not certain of the date these acts occurred.  It is noted that in her
 affidavit, Mendes explained that Velarde directed her writing of the
 letter by telling her what words to use and how she should phrase it.
 Velarde admittedly reviewed the letter before it was put into final
 form.  Mendes also admitted at the hearing that she showed the letter to
 Velarde before submitting it to Semel.
 
    No union representative was present at any time during the meeting.
 Mendes did not, either before or during the meeting, disaffirm Randles
 as her representative.  Semel, at the hearing, agreed that the meeting
 was improperly conducted because of the absence of the Union
 representative.  A letter from Area Director McClure to Union
 Representative Burrows also admits the error Respondent committed under
 the Master Agreement by holding a meeting to adjust Mendes' grievances
 in the absence of the Union.
 
    E.  Respondent's Unlawful Treatment of Carol Cofflin
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-20048)
 
    1.  Incidents of May 12, 1981
 
    On May 12, 1981, Supervisor Robert Fitzgerald called employee Carol
 Cofflin, a Title XVI Claims Representative, into his office where he
 proceeded to hand her, and discuss with her, six memoranda concerning
 her job performance.  The first memorandum he gave Cofflin concerned
 hours of duty and the necessity of informing management of absences
 during the day.  Upon giving her this memorandum, Fitzgerald accused
 Cofflin of returning too late from lunch earlier that day.  There were
 no formal procedures set up in the Indio office on lunches, and Cofflin
 as well as others had previously taken late lunches without incident.
 Cofflin tried to explain to Fitzgerald that because it was payday, and
 employees were allotted 45 minutes for lunch that she was within the
 given time.  That explanation had no visible effect on Fitzgerald.  That
 same day another employee, Chuck Landis, took lunch at the same time as
 Cofflin.  Cofflin had never before been counseled by a supervisor that
 she had taken too much time for lunch nor had she ever received such a
 memorandum in her file.
 
    Fitzgerald admitted he had never counseled Cofflin orally prior to
 this date about her being late from lunch and that he had never
 documented any other employee for taking too long a lunch despite the
 fact that other employees had been late on their lunch hours.
 
    Fitzgerald then handed Cofflin two other memoranda, one dated May 12
 and one dated March 12, each containing several attachments.  These
 memoranda criticized Cofflin's work on the case of a claimant, Maria
 Aguilar.  Cofflin and Fitzgerald had disagreed on how to handle a
 redetermination claim for Aguilar, and because Branch Manager Velarde
 could not resolve the dilemma, Velarde instructed Cofflin to contact
 Respondent's Baltimore headquarters.  Cofflin was in contact with the
 Baltimore office until the date Fitzgerald ordered Cofflin to resolve
 the matter.  Baltimore headquarters confirmed Cofflin's decision on the
 Aguilar claim.  Cofflin had not seen either of these memoranda prior to
 that day.  When Cofflin asked Fitzgerald why he had written a note to
 himself on the Aguilar claim, he replied it was because she previously
 had failed to do things he had asked of her.  When she asked him to be
 specific, Fitzgerald was not, stating it was the first time such an
 instance had occurred.
 
    Fitzgerald handed Cofflin two more memoranda, one dated February 26,
 1981, and the other dated March 9, 1981, both entitled "Interpersonal
 Relations." Despite their dates, Cofflin had never before seen the
 documents.  The February memorandum cited instances in which unit
 employees Pat Black and Melva Aceves had complained about Cofflin's
 behavior and accused her of being "harsh." The March memoranda recited
 that both Service Representatives had complained that Cofflin had been
 "abusive" to them.  These instances were repeated on the previous
 memorandum Fitzgerald handed Cofflin earlier that day.  None of these
 incidents were ever discussed with Cofflin prior to May 12, 1981.
 
    Nonetheless, Fitzgerald apparently started keeping notes on Cofflin
 on his desk calendar as early as February 26, one month after he began
 supervising work in Indio.  Although Fitzgerald admitted Black's
 complaint was the first incident drawn to his attention concerning
 Cofflin, he documented his calendar on Cofflin and only Cofflin, as
 compared with other employees, because Cofflin's problems were allegedly
 "ongoing." At their May 12 meeting, Fitzgerald also handed Cofflin a
 copy of her February desk audit which he had conducted and which he had
 originally given her on February 6, 1981.  Cofflin was never counseled
 on any of the subjects addressed in that document, a fact which
 Fitzgerald denies.  I credit Cofflin.
 
    Cofflin further testified that she felt threatened by the meeting,
 the memoranda, Fitzgerald's harsh and nasty tone, and his telling her to
 sit down and shut up.  Because of the setting and content of the
 meeting, Cofflin requested a union representative.  Fitzgerald denied
 the request.  Cofflin states that she did not understand why all of this
 was occurring, particularly since Fitzgerald had been at the Indio
 office for only a few months, she knew nothing about Fitzgerald when he
 came to Indio, and had never had any previous confrontation with him.
 According to Cofflin, her contact with him prior to this day was almost
 exclusively limited to her desk audit and the Aguilar case.
 
    Subsequent to her discussion, and in order to remedy the criticisms
 Fitzgerald had made of her, Cofflin spoke with Service Representatives
 Black and Aceves.  Black told Cofflin she recalled an instance when
 Cofflin had appeared to be in a bad mood and had made a remark in the
 breakroom, but that it had been an insignificant remark, certainly not
 meant as a complaint.  Fitzgerald insists Aceves indeed complained to
 Black and that Aceves would be "wrong" if she denied that she had.
 Fitzgerald admits, however, that he never discussed the truth of the
 matter with Aceves.  Although one of her memoranda had stated that
 Aceves had complained about her, when Cofflin spoke to Aceves, Aceves
 said she had never complained to Fitzgerald and did not know what the
 memorandum was referring to.  Aceves herself confirmed that she never
 complained to Fitzgerald about Cofflin and that the February 26, 1981,
 memorandum was not true.  I credit Aceves.  Aceves, who had worked as
 Cofflin's secretary for several lengthy periods over the last two years
 did not have difficulty working with her, and Cofflin has never kept
 Aceves from doing her job.  Nevertheless, in the summer of 1981, Velarde
 approached Aceves and asked her how she was getting along with Cofflin.
 Although Aceves admittedly had arguments with several other Indio
 employees, there is no indication that she ever engaged in an argument
 with Cofflin.  Aceves testified that Velarde and Fitzgerald treat
 Cofflin more harshly than other employees in that they did not allow
 Cofflin the same latitude accorded to other employees.
 
    Cofflin explained, with regard to the complaints from the Service
 Representatives that she had, on occasion, questioned them as to whether
 they were correctly assigning particular cases to her or whether they
 should have retained the case as a Service Representative case.  Juanita
 Cruz and Bernie Flores, both Service Representatives, recalled
 discussing Cofflin with Fitzgerald around the time that Fitzgerald wrote
 the March 9 memorandum.  Cruz also noted that she did not recall
 Cofflin's claimants waiting longer for interviews in comparison with
 waiting times for claimants interviewed by the other claims
 representatives.  Similarly, Flores recalled Cofflin questioning whether
 he was correctly referring cases to her.  The Service Representatives
 were covering the front or reception desk, as well as completing their
 own duties, and the office workload was extremely heavy.  The
 redeterminations had recently come in (a caseload of approximately 500
 cases for each claims representative), and the office was extremely
 busy.  Although she questioned the case assignments, Cofflin apparently
 never refused to take a case.  Cruz' particular concern and her reason
 for going to Fitzgerald was that Cofflin's complaints were loud and
 could be heard by the public.  Otherwise, Cruz did not think much about
 the problem personally.  Cruz testified that she and Cofflin get along
 fairly well and she has had no difficulty with her personality, but has
 always been able to complete her work with Cofflin, and indeed found her
 to be cooperative and helpful.  According to Cruz, her intent in
 mentioning the incident was to alert management to Cofflin's situation
 so that Cofflin could receive assistance with interviews.  Cruz stated
 that this would be consistent with normal procedures used in Indio when
 an employee was experiencing a problem.  Neither Cruz nor Flores had
 experienced any problem with Cofflin since March and both noticed
 improvement in Cofflin's behavior thereafter.  I credit Cruz, Black and
 Flores.
 
    2.  Events of May 31, 1981
 
    On May 13, Cofflin arrived at work at 7:59 a.m., arriving at the
 employees' entrance at 8:00 a.m., the only entrance open between 8:00
 and 9:00 a.m.  Fitzgerald, the only individual with keys to the
 employees' entrance locked the door at 8:00 a.m.  Upon arriving, Cofflin
 knocked loudly to gain entrance.  Several minutes later the door was
 opened by Fitzgerald, who told Cofflin, "You're late." Later that same
 day, Cofflin received a memorandum reciting the incident and ordering
 her to take 1/4 hour annual leave.
 
    Flores, who witnessed this incident, related it as an example of how
 management treated Cofflin differently from any other employees.
 According to Flores, Fitzgerald had never dealt with any other employee
 in this fashion.  I credit Flores.
 
    Fitzgerald admitted he locked the door for the express purpose of
 catching Cofflin and that he had never locked the door against any other
 employee, although other employees had also been late.  Velarde, as
 well, had never locked out any other employee in any of his offices
 except Cofflin, although he too agreed other employees had been late.
 
    The evidence reveals that employees Aceves, Flores, and Cruz have all
 been late to work several times during 1981, particularly during the
 first six months of 1981, and had never been locked out or received
 memoranda in their files.  Although Flores was once warned that in the
 future he could be penalized for being late, neither Cruz nor Flores was
 ever required to take 1/4 hour annual leave because of tardiness.
 Aceves once took annual leave for being tardy in 1981.  No employee,
 other than Cofflin, was required to take annual leave for tardiness in
 the Spring of 1981.
 
    3.  Other Events of May, June, July 1981
 
    Later during the day of May 13, Cofflin met with Union representative
 Hallin concerning the upcoming May 12 meeting, the memoranda, and her
 difficulties with Fitzgerald.
 
    On May 15, during another meeting with Fitzgerald, Cofflin was handed
 yet another memorandum criticizing her job performance.  Fitzgerald's
 reason for issuing this May 15 memorandum, only three days after issuing
 Cofflin six memoranda on May 12, was that Cofflin's problem was
 "persisting." Although Cofflin again asked for a union representative,
 Fitzgerald denied her request telling her to "sit down and shut up." The
 memorandum Fitzgerald gave her during the meeting contained no new
 criticism of her work, but was merely a restatement of what was said to
 her on May 12 and what was contained in the memoranda previously issued
 to her on May 12, a point which Fitzgerald admits.
 
    In mid-June, Cofflin spoke and met with Union representative Randles
 and employee Mendes on Mendes' behalf.  On June 29, unfair labor
 practice charge numbers 8-CA-1187, 1188, and 1190 were filed.  On July
 2, Cofflin was again called into a meeting with Fitzgerald and handed
 two more memoranda.  One of these memoranda, criticized Cofflin for her
 failure to complete certain paperwork rejecting the Title XVI claim of a
 Francisco Ponce, a Title II Spanish-speaking claimant who was referred
 to Cofflin even though she did not take Spanish-speaking claimants and
 even though Title II Claims Representatives were working in the Indio
 office that day.  Further, Ponce was not in Cofflin's alpha breakdown.
 Due to the specialization between Title II and Title XVI Claims
 Representatives, Cofflin had taken, at the most, two Title II claims
 while in Indio.  Moreover, Cofflin should not have interviewed Ponce for
 eligibility, for the receptionist should have determined whether Ponce
 met the Title XVI criteria and thus, should never have referred the case
 to a Claims Representative.
 
    Fitzgerald maintains that it is "office policy" to have the SSA L991
 form completed.  He admitted, however, that where a Service
 Representative makes an error in a referral, the Title XVI claims
 representative would not complete the paperwork and an L991 form would
 not be required.
 
    Also during the July 2, 1981, meeting with Fitzgerald, Cofflin was
 handed a memorandum criticizing her rate of completion of her assigned
 redeterminations.  Cofflin, who completed on an average of 15
 redeterminations each week, exceeded the national standards for the
 completion of redeterminations in each month of 1981.  In particular,
 the par (goal) for the end of May was 21 percent, and Cofflin's June 3
 redeterminations report shows that she completed 52.3 percent.  The par
 for the end of June was 30 percent, and Cofflin had completed 62.14
 percent by July 3, 1981.  Although Cofflin had discussed progress on her
 redeterminations with her supervisors prior to July 2, she had never
 been admonished or warned that her performance was unsatisfactory.
 Cofflin had never previously received any negative documentation
 concerning progress on her redeterminations and, in fact, was told at
 one time her performance was improving.  Fitzgerald admits that Cofflin
 was improving in June.  During the meeting with Fitzgerald, his tone,
 according to Cofflin, was hard and abusive.  He ordered Cofflin to sit
 down and shut up.  Again Cofflin made a request for a union
 representative which was denied.  When Cofflin refused to sign the
 memoranda and left the meeting, she encountered Velarde who held the
 discussion with her detailed, supra, p. 5.
 
    4.  The August 28, 1981 Incident
 
    On July 7 and 10, the unfair labor practice charges in Case Nos.
 8-CA-1219 and 8-CA-1223 were filed.  The Authority investigation on
 these cases was conducted in August.  As part of that investigation,
 Cofflin gave a rather lengthy statement to Authority investigators.
 Again on August 28, Fitzgerald reprimanded Cofflin for taking her lunch
 hour at the wrong time.  He ordered her abruptly and loudly back to work
 before she had finished her lunch.  Cofflin returned to her desk after
 taking 20 minutes of her allotted 30-minute lunch.  That day Cofflin had
 a late interview and in order to get a "zero-day" claim, which is
 helpful for office statistics, she processed the claim through
 immediately, and, following that went to lunch at 1:20 p.m.  Although
 Cofflin attempted to explain the circumstances to Fitzgerald, the
 incident resulted in her receiving:  on August 28, a memorandum
 informing her that discipline was being contemplated;  a second
 memorandum dated September 3, reciting the incident, accusing her of
 insubordination, and stating discipline was being considered;  a meeting
 attended by Fitzgerald, Cofflin and Randles at which discipline was
 discussed;  /6/ a September 8 memorandum advising Cofflin of an
 admonishment interview;  and a September 9 admonishment memorandum.
 
    Cofflin filed a grievance on all the above memoranda and received the
 relief she requested (removal of memoranda from her file and an extra 15
 minutes for lunch) at the third step.  It should also be noted that
 between September 3, when she received the first disciplinary memorandum
 concerning the August 28 incident and September 9, when she received the
 second memorandum, Cofflin was not criticized for any other instances of
 alleged abuse of her lunch time.  The action of Fitzgerald in
 disciplining Cofflin was subsequently overturned by Respondent's Area
 Director.  When questioned about the fact that his actions in
 disciplining Cofflin were deemed by the Area Director to be improper,
 Fitzgerald's only comment was that the Area Director was "wrong" to
 overturn him, a belief also held by Velarde.
 
    5.  September Transfer of Cofflin's Redetermination Case Load
 
    On September 2, Fitzgerald handed Cofflin a memorandum ordering her
 to transfer her outstanding redeterminations cases to employee Robert
 Nunez.  This action was given with no warning that it was being
 contemplated by management.  When Cofflin tried to arrange the transfer
 with Nunez, both employees were unsure as to whether to actually
 transfer the cases and record the transfer that week, or record the
 transfer on the following week's work report (DOWR).  Nunez checked with
 Velarde who instructed them to show the transfer on the DOWR the
 following week.  The DOWR was completed in accordance with Velarde's
 instruction.  Later that morning, Cofflin was loudly admonished by
 Fitzgerald and Velarde in the presence of a claimant for processing the
 transfer incorrectly.  Nunez explained to the supervisors that Cofflin
 had acted in accordance with Velarde's instruction, and the conversation
 ceased.  At the time the redeterminations were transferred to Nunez,
 Cofflin had 37 remaining redeterminations, having completed over 90
 percent of her redetermination caseload of approximately 490 cases.  The
 national par for the end of August was 48 percent.  /7/ On September 8,
 the consolidated complaint was issued in Cases Nos. 8-CA-1187,
 8-CA-1190, 8-CA-1219, and 8-CA-1223.
 
    6.  Memoranda of October 1981
 
    During the month of October, the month she was to receive her
 performance appraisal for the 1980-81 year, Cofflin received a series of
 critical memoranda.  The first, dated October 2, warned Cofflin to
 conserve her leave, advised her of her sick and annual leave balances
 and alerted her to the possibility of further action.  /5/ Cofflin
 allegedly had several bouts of illness (flu, tonsillitis) during the
 1981 year which caused her to use her sick leave.  Cofflin also has
 colitis which requires the care of specialists.  Cofflin had never, in
 Indio or at any other Social Security Office, been previously admonished
 or disciplined for taking leave.  Her leave record, in fact, for the
 1981 year was the same as it had been in prior years, including the
 first year she worked in the Indio office.  There had never been any
 rule in Indio as to what constituted abuse of leave and Cofflin was not
 aware of a single other instance when an employee was disciplined for
 improper use of leave.  Several other Indio employees took substantial
 amounts of leave including Rebecca Espinosa who took more hours of sick
 leave than Cofflin and never received documentation for abuse of leave;
 Melva Aceves, who was never issued any memoranda disciplining her for
 abuse of leave although she had to take leave without pay in 1980 and
 was out of work for over a month in 1981;  and, Juanita Cruz, who used
 140 hours of sick leave in 1981 and received no memoranda in her file.
 
    Fitzgerald admits that he never made any determination as to whether
 Cofflin's sick leave use was legitimate.  He never asked Cofflin for
 documentation such as a leave excuse, and stated he based the issuance
 of the October 2 document solely on the number of hours used.  He
 insists that Cofflin had a chronic leave problem, but admits that prior
 to this time he had never issued her a letter indicating even the
 possibility that abuse existed.  Fitzgerald also admits that no other
 employee ever received a sick leave letter like the one issued to
 Cofflin.  Velarde admits that the restriction on Cofflin occurred just
 after her grievances were filed.
 
    On October 21, Cofflin received another memorandum which restricted
 her use of leave and required that she comply with several sets of
 procedures before taking leave.  Cofflin was not reprimanded, either
 formally or informally, or otherwise apprised of any new problem with
 her use of leave between October 2, the date she received the warning
 memorandum, and October 21, the date Fitzgerald issued her the sick
 leave restriction letter.  /9/ Cofflin filed grievances through the
 Union, on both the October 2 and October 21 leave restriction memoranda.
 
    That same day, October 21, Cofflin received another memorandum to her
 personnel file criticizing her performance on a redetermination case.
 Unknown to Cofflin, correspondence had come into the office reporting
 the receipt of funds, which had the effect of placing the case in an
 overpayment status.  Cofflin's clerk placed the check in the case file
 in a drawer without calling it to Cofflin's attention.  The case was
 transferred to Nunez and five weeks later he discovered the
 correspondence.  Fitzgerald issued the memorandum to Cofflin without
 discussing it with her or allowing her to present her side of the
 matter.  Fitzgerald maintains he did discuss this matter with Cofflin.
 I credit Cofflin that he did not.
 
    On October 16, also Cofflin received a memorandum from Fitzgerald
 recommending that she seek psychological counseling.  Cofflin had never
 discussed any psychological or personal problems with Fitzgerald, in
 fact had never discussed her mental state with him.  According to her,
 the only problem she ever mentioned to Fitzgerald was financial.  She
 had no warning that this memorandum was being contemplated and was
 unaware of any incident or action on her part which would have caused
 Fitzgerald to issue such a memorandum.  Cofflin filed a grievance on
 this memorandum shortly after receiving it.
 
    Respondent's reasoning for issuing the October 16 psychological
 counseling memorandum was apparently based on the fact that on one
 occasion Cofflin told Fitzgerald her ex-husband wished to see her
 children.  This, in addition to the fact that Cofflin had colitis,
 "indicated a problem" to Fitzgerald.  Fitzgerald maintained that the
 Personnel Guide for Supervisors supported the issuance of the October 16
 letter.  That guide, however, provides no such support.  Section E(2) it
 states only that:
 
          . . . employees with emotional or physical problems which would
       require detailed medical attention should be referred to
       counselors in the servicing personnel office if available.
 
    Nowhere does it provide authority for referring an employee for
 psychological counseling.  On cross-examination, Fitzgerald admitted
 that the reason he contacted the Regional office to refer Cofflin for
 counseling was because he and Velarde were having problems with Cofflin.
  Velarde was aware of the issuance of the October 16 memorandum and
 thought counseling was "appropriate", but at the same time did not know
 why she was referred for psychological counseling and stated he did not
 know whether she had a mental problem.
 
    7.  Cofflin's Performance Appraisal
 
    On October 30, Cofflin received her performance appraisal for 1981.
 Cofflin's ratings were remarkably dissimilar to those she received in
 each of the prior years she worked for the Respondent.  Her ratings show
 a sudden drop from the previous year's ratings as follows:
 
          Interviewing Skills:  From E to B
 
          Functioning in Interpersonal Situations:  From D to A
 
          Negotiating:  From D to A
 
          Quantity and Timeliness:  From D to B
 
          Quality and Work Products:  From E to B
 
          Job Knowledge:  From E to D
 
          Initiative:  From E to C
 
          Adaptability:  From D to C
 
          Resourcefulness:  From E to C
 
          Planning, Organizing, Priorities:  From D to C
 
          Writing Skills:  From E to D
 
          Analytical Reasoning:  From E to D
 
    While her overall rating was "satisfactory," the existence of "A"
 ratings normally signal that an employee can be terminated, and because
 each category carries "points" toward promotion, a poor appraisal would
 almost assuredly prevent her from being promoted.
 
    The narrative comments appearing in the appraisal restate exactly the
 matters which formed the basis of the memoranda previously handed to and
 discussed with Cofflin in May.  It is these upon which Fitzgerald, the
 rater, based his rating of "A" in categories 7 and 13, "Functioning in
 Interpersonal Relationships," and "Negotiating." Cofflin had never
 previously received any comments from her supervisors that her
 timeliness or the quality of her work were unsatisfactory.
 
    While Fitzgerald and Velarde had received interpersonal complaints
 about other Indio employees there is no evidence that these were
 referred to on the performance appraisals of those employees or that
 memoranda was ever issued to those employees.  For example, employees
 Flores and Cruz had made separate complaints to their supervisors about
 employee Aceves;  Flores to Fitzgerald in summer 1981, when he felt
 Aceves was interfering with his work, and Cruz to Velarde in 1980 when
 Aceves was degrading and criticizing another employee, Espinosa.  Aceves
 was never criticized by Fitzgerald or Velarde about her personal
 relations, and never received any negative memoranda about her behavior
 or her work.  On her performance appraisal for 1981, Aceves received the
 rating of "D" in the categories of "Interpersonal Relations" and
 "Negotiating." No negative comments appeared on her evaluation.
 Fitzgerald denied ever receiving any complaints about Aceves from
 Flores, stating that if Flores said he had complained, he would be
 lying.  Fitzgerald stated he based Cofflin's ratings on interpersonal
 relationships on the two documented instances in February and March and
 on a third, but undocumented, incident in May.  He admits he received no
 other complaints from employees about Cofflin after May.  In the face of
 this, he maintained, however, that Cofflin did not improve her
 performance in the "interpersonal relationships" category.  Regarding
 the category "Negotiating," Cofflin's rating was due to the fact that
 she and the Service Representatives could not agree among themselves on
 who would handle a particular interview.  Fitzgerald rated Cofflin
 poorly because she did not come to him, her supervisor, to resolve the
 problem.
 
    Cofflin's claimant interviewing and employee training evaluations
 from as far back as October 1980 were "good" evaluations.  Fitzgerald
 confirms that the training Cofflin gave was "outstanding", "above
 average," and that her interview audit was "superior" and "positive."
 Fitzgerald, however, rated Cofflin with a "B" in interviewing.
 
    Fitzgerald also asserted that Claims Representatives who interview
 more quickly do better work.  He then retracted that statement but
 insisted Cofflin's slow speed in interviewing was the basis for her low
 rating (B) in the category of "interviewing." According to Cofflin, her
 practice is to take as thorough an initial interview as possible, a
 practice which she has found effective in assisting her in obtaining all
 necessary information while eliminating repeat interviews.  She
 consequently has fewer interviews than other claims representatives.
 While Fitzgerald insisted that her speed in interviewing was the basis
 for her rating, he admitted that he kept no statistics on Cofflin's
 number of return interviews, on the length of her interviews, or how
 they compared with those of other Claims Representatives.  He also
 admits that interviews must vary in length due to complexity and that
 the lower the number of return interviews, the more efficient the
 interviewer.  He insists that Cofflin's prior evaluator was "wrong" when
 he rated her as "E" in interviewing.
 
    Cofflin's desk audit of February 9, 1981, was similar to those she
 had received in the past.  When Fitzgerald gave it to her he made no
 comments indicating her audit or performance were poor in any area.
 Because four of the cases audited were of claims taken by other Claims
 Representatives, many of the comments were regarding actions taken by
 others.
 
    In late October or early November, Velarde had a conversation with
 Cofflin during which he told her that her processing times on disability
 claims for the months of July and August of 1981 were the best among all
 the Claims Representatives, and that if it were not for her performance
 the office would not have met its goals, facts which Respondent
 concedes.  The par or goal for disability claims at that time was 45 or
 48 days and 18 days for aged claims.  Cofflin's processing times for
 disability claims was 19.5 days in July and 38.33 days in August.  Her
 processing time for aged claims, calculated by management in August
 only, was 11.5 days.  Although Respondent maintains Cofflin's initial
 claim performance was inferior, a review of Respondent's Exhibit 3
 demonstrates the opposite:  From the period January through September
 1981, clearances for initial claims (aged plus disability) were as
 follows:  Cofflin 96, Black 88, Nunez 130, Landis 144.
 
    Contrary to Cofflin, Fitzgerald testified that he spoke to Cofflin
 about her work speed at this time, which Cofflin denies.  In late
 November or early December, when Velarde discovered that Cofflin was
 noting or tallying, and then working on unscheduled overpayment cases
 and that other employees were not, he used her example to tell all the
 other employees to tally their unscheduled overpayment cases.  Despite
 the fact that Cofflin exceeded the national pars for completion of her
 redeterminations caseload, Fitzgerald based his "B" rating, in part, in
 the category of "Timeliness" on her redetermination performance and on
 the fact she had not completed them by August.  Her redetermination
 performance also influenced his assessment of her ratings overall.  I
 credit Cofflin.
 
    Fitzgerald admits that of a total of 19 memoranda issued to
 employees, Cofflin received 16.  Fitzgerald admits also that Cofflin and
 Mendes were the only employees who filed grievances against him and
 sought Union representation, and were also the only employees who
 received numerous letters, in their files.  Velarde insists that the
 evaluation completed by Cofflin's previous supervisor Freeland was valid
 even though it was vastly different from the one issued by Fitzgerald
 just one year later.  Velarde's explanation was that such a discrepancy
 is acceptable to him because "that was the way the supervisor worked."
 Velarde notified Freeland that he disagreed with him on the appraisal,
 but admits he never told Cofflin she was not performing adequately.  In
 spite of all prior evaluations and despite the fact Cofflin was never
 documented prior to May 1981, Velarde now believes the ratings on
 Cofflin's 1980-81 evaluation were those she should have received all
 along.
 
    F. Saturday Overtime Procedures and the May 22, 1981, Memorandum
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-1187)
 
    Since at least November 1979, the procedure followed by Indio, office
 supervisors to organize overtime work on Saturdays was for some
 supervisor to informally announce the Saturday overtime to the staff,
 and orally and informally inquire of employees whether they intended to
 work the following Saturday.  If an employee had indicated he or she
 would work on Saturday, and failed to appear, there was no problem;
 conversely, if the employee had not previously told the supervisor he or
 she would work Saturday overtime, and then appeared to work on Saturday,
 such work was allowed.  The employees were not required to fill out
 anything in writing.
 
    Fitzgerald confirmed this, but contradicted Cofflin by asserting that
 prior to May 22, overtime was announced at staff meetings.  Fitzgerald
 admitted that previously no punitive action was taken against an
 employee who indicated they would perform overtime work, but who then
 failed to appear at the appointed time.
 
    On May 22, 1981, during a staff meeting conducted by Velarde and
 attended by Fitzgerald, Saturday overtime was discussed.  A memorandum
 dated May 22, 1981 was distributed to the employees.  The employees were
 then told that they would thereafter have to fill out that memorandum
 and submit it to management by Friday afternoon whenever they wished to
 work overtime on Saturdays.  If an employee failed to complete and
 submit the form for Saturday overtime work they would not be permitted
 to work that Saturday and would not be paid if they did work.  The
 document itself, entitled, "Change in Policy, Saturday Overtime"
 reaffirms the above.  This procedure remained in effect after May 22,
 1981, and was never altered or abandoned.  Both Fitzgerald and Velarde
 testified that their reason for changing the procedures for Saturday
 over time work was because previously employees would respond
 affirmatively that they would work Saturday, but then would fail to
 appear or conversely, would not respond and would appear for work.  The
 managers wanted to extract a commitment in advance from the employees.
 Although Fitzgerald purported to say management had made exceptions to
 the new requirement, he could not recall when he informed the staff of
 this fact.  The decision to make this change was Velarde's.  The Union
 was not notified in advance of the issuance of the May 22, 1981,
 memorandum that employees in the Indio office would be required to
 submit a written request for Saturday overtime work.
 
    G.  Unfair Labor Practice History of Velarde
 
    Because of the remedy requested by the General Counsel, it is
 necessary to review the labor relations history of the Indio office and
 specifically the actions of Branch Manager Velarde.
 
    In 1979, the Union filed unfair labor practice charges with the
 Authority against Velarde concerning the Indio office which involved
 alleged harassment of a Union representative, intimidation of unit
 employees, and threats against employees for seeking the assistance of
 the Union.  After investigation by the Authority, the matter was
 settled, a Notice was posted and Settlement Agreement signed in that
 matter.  Velarde apparently admits that he made the alleged statements
 against the Union and that he attempted to bypass the Union as charged
 in that matter.
 
    Velarde also testified at a hearing in another unfair labor practice
 matter, Case No. 8-CA-366, in which a decision was rendered by an
 administrative law judge on May 19, 1981, finding that the Respondent
 had violated the Statute by instituting a unilateral change, bypassing
 the Union and discussing the change directly with unit employees.
 
    H.  Connection between Fitzgerald and Velarde
 
    Ramon Velarde has been the Branch Manager in the Indio office since
 March 1979.  Robert Fitzgerald, who reports to Velarde, became the
 operations supervisor in Indio on January 26, 1981, having previously
 been a unit employee, but never a supervisor.  Velarde insisted that
 "how the operations runs" was Fitzgerald's responsibility and that he
 has never instructed any of his supervisors, including Fitzgerald, to
 take a specific action or "do it his way." Contrary to this, Velarde
 also explained that it was his responsibility to train Fitzgerald
 because he was new.  Velarde noted that in the beginning, Fitzgerald was
 "wet behind the ears," and needed a lot of direction, guidance and
 instruction from Velarde on taking various personnel and supervisory
 actions.  Although he maintains that Fitzgerald took responsibility for
 all personnel actions, when questioned further, Velarde disclosed that
 Fitzgerald discussed all supervisory and personnel actions he took with
 Velarde, including each of the memoranda given to Cofflin.  Fitzgerald
 confirms that he conferred with Velarde on every action he took
 concerning the Indio employees, and that Velarde fully supported him in
 every action against Cofflin up through September 2, 1981.  Fitzgerald
 added that he and Velarde discussed the letter referring Cofflin to
 counseling prior to issuing it.  However, beginning with the May
 memoranda, Fitzgerald, not Velarde, issued each of the memoranda
 received by Cofflin with one exception, where Velarde issued the
 memorandum because Fitzgerald was in San Francisco.  Without question,
 Fitzgerald and Velarde were in frequent communication regarding the
 running of the Indio office.  This was confirmed by the unit employees
 who described Fitzgerald and Velarde variously as "always together" that
 "a path is run between the two offices" and "Velarde as the head and
 Fitzgerald as the hand."
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    1.  Credibility Determination of Charlotte Mendes
 
    Charlotte D. Mendes, is a Data Review Technician at the Indio Office
 and critical witness in the General Counsel's case.  Her testimony is
 necessary in either establishing or corroborating events which would
 show violations of the Statute.  Mendes, although under subpoena,
 refused to appear at the hearing when it was initially convened on
 January 13, 1981.  However, without any real explanation she
 involuntarily appeared and testified at the February 2, 1981 hearing.
 Because her testimony, at that time, was contrary to the sworn statement
 given to an Authority agent, in Mendes' own home under circumstances
 which appear on the surface rather ordinary, on or about August 13,
 1980, the General Counsel moved to have Mendes' sworn statement given to
 the Authority agent "utilized and credited as substantive evidence."
 Citing Alvin J. Bart and Co., Inc., 236 NLRB No. 242 (1979).  Respondent
 objected at the hearing to admission of the sworn statement and
 conducted a voir dire examination to determine whether or not Mendes was
 perhaps under pressure when she signed the documents.  Based on her
 responses, the undersigned saw no reason to find that the statement was
 given under duress or that any pressure was applied in order to obtain
 that statement.
 
    At the hearing, Mendes was carefully observed.  On the basis of her
 demeanor;  the evasive nature of her answers to both the General Counsel
 and myself;  and the sudden shift in her character when responding to
 questions from Respondent's Counsel;  her shifting reasons for some
 actions taken by her and management officials;  her apparent concern not
 to offend Respondent;  and, above all her frank admission that she had
 lied about certain areas in the sworn statement, I cannot credit her
 testimony or the sworn statement.  Even if these observations were only
 partially correct, they would result only in the impeachment of Mendes'
 general capacity for truth and veracity.  It would not warrant, however,
 a further inference that any statement made by her, whether at or before
 the hearing was true, for here her credibility is in serious doubt, and
 there is no reason to believe that her earlier statements are more
 accurate than her later testimony.  Moreover, she admittedly lied with
 respect to certain areas of the sworn statement.  Accordingly, I find
 only that Mendes cannot be credited in this matter and that her sworn
 statement, although admitted into evidence, serves only to substantiate
 my view that she is not a credible witness.  Thus, I am unwilling to
 credit a sworn statement in which the witness giving the statement
 maintains that it contains statements which are absolutely not true.
 
    2.  Saturday Overtime
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-1187)
 
    It is well established in the public sector that an employer may not
 change personnel policies, practices or working conditions without first
 providing an exclusive representative advance notice of the change and
 an opportunity to negotiate concerning the change and the impact of such
 change.  Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Jacksonville
 District and National Treasury Employees Union, 3 FLRA 631 (1980);  78th
 Division (Training), Kilmer USAR Center, Edison, New Jersey, 1 FLRA 836
 (1979).
 
    It is undisputed that no formal procedure existed at the Indio office
 prior to May 22, 1981 for the organization of Saturday overtime work.
 Employees prior to that time were admittedly free to show up or stay
 away as desired, whether or not they had previously indicated they would
 work on the Saturday.  It is also undisputed that after May 22,
 employees were required to fill out a slip indicating that they would
 perform Saturday overtime work or they were not admitted to work or paid
 for the work even though they altered.
 
    Clearly, employees here had a certain amount of flexibility with
 regard to whether or not they would work on Saturday overtime.
 Requiring employees to submit a slip informing management whether they
 would work most certainly restricted that flexibility.  This restriction
 without question constitutes a change in the procedures for reporting
 Saturday overtime work.  Such a change under existing law requires
 advance notification to the exclusive representative and at least an
 opportunity to bargain on the impact of the change.  Failure to give
 such notification and the opportunity to bargain violates section
 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.  Accordingly, it is found that
 Respondent's conduct in changing the procedure for organization of
 Saturday overtime, violates section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute as
 alleged.
 
    3.  June 10, 1981 Incident
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-1190)
 
    The following account of this particular incident is based on the
 credited testimony of Union representative Patricia Randles and partial
 corroboration by Carol Cofflin.  As previously noted, Charlotte Mendes,
 around whom much of the incident involved, is specifically discredited.
 Furthermore, based on the demeanor of other witnesses and the many
 conflicts in statements, I am unable to credit such witnesses as Ramon
 Velarde and Robert Fitzgerald.
 
    In early June, Mendes asked the Union for assistance because she was
 experiencing difficulties at work and had been informed by management
 that she might be disciplined.  Randles, the Union representative then
 requested, from District Manager Martin Semel permission to meet with
 Mendes and to attend a meeting with Mendes' managers to discuss the
 situation.
 
    On the morning of June 10, Randles went to the Indio office and
 informed Office Manager Velarde of her purpose for being there.
 Although she requested to speak with Mendes prior to their meeting with
 management and had received permission to do so from Semel, Velarde
 refused.  Velarde yelled at Randles telling her to "get the hell out of
 my office," and "get the hell out of my office or I'll have you thrown
 out." Randles reminded him that she was on official business and
 requested that he telephone Semel to verify her permission.  Velarde
 refused this request and also refused to allow Randles to use the
 telephone to call Semel.  According to Randles, this entire conversation
 occurred in the middle of the Indio office, within the earshot of other
 office employees.
 
    Randles subsequently returned to the Palm Springs Office, talked with
 Semel and the meeting set for that morning was eventually held that
 afternoon in the Indio office.  Semel states that the original agreement
 for official time with Randles was for less time, but that she decided
 that she needed or wanted more time and that he, because of an awful lot
 of confusion did not notify Velarde of the change.
 
    There is no dispute that Velarde verbally threw Randles out of his
 office on this occasion.  Respondent argues only that it was a mistake.
 In my view, the mistake herein offers no excuse for the violation.  As
 the record shows, this occurrence is not an isolated incident but, part
 of a larger problem in the Indio office.  Randles sought to have Velarde
 telephone Semel and even offered to do so herself to rectify this
 misunderstanding.  Velarde refused, but in a tone and before other unit
 members that unquestionably belittled Randles.
 
    I agree with the General Counsel that Velarde's actions in preventing
 the grievance meeting, limiting Randles to 30 minutes and throwing her
 out of his office interfered with protected rights and constitutes a
 violation of section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute.  Cf. Internal Revenue
 Service and Brooklyn District Office, 6 FLRA No. 111 (1981);  United
 States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California, 5
 FLRA No. 97 (1981).
 
    4.  June 24, 1981 Incident
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-1188)
 
    Again, the credited testimony of Randles must be relied upon to
 establish a violation, if any.  For the same reasons already stated, the
 testimony of both Mendes and Velarde is not credited.  Fitzgerald, while
 not specifically discredited, testified only that while he was at the
 meeting he did not hear certain things said.  Such testimony is of
 little value in resolving the issue at hand.  Moreover, Randles'
 credited testimony is, that Fitzgerald was not present at the time
 several statements pertinent to this violation were made.
 
    The credited evidence reveals that in "off the record" statements,
 Velarde told Randles that he felt she was out to "get him", that he was
 "surprised at (Mendes) for requesting assistance," and that it upset him
 that Mendes went to Randles for help.  He further stated that he would
 "see to it that life was miserable for (Mendes) because she had gone to
 the Union," that Mendes would "pay" for going to the Union, and that she
 would be sorry that she did.
 
    During this conversation Velarde added that the "District was a
 laughingstock because they had allowed the union," that semel was a
 "fool" for letting the Union into his office and that he was "not going
 to allow the Union in his office."
 
    The substance of the above comments, although "off the record", were
 made to Randles, the Union representative, and to a unit employee.  The
 statements contain threats of reprisal because an employee had gone to
 the Union and threats of future reprisal for further contact with the
 Union.  Such conduct must be assumed to have influenced on Mendes, and
 no doubt on other bargaining unit employees.  Soon thereafter Mendes
 apparently became involved in a scheme to extricate herself from this
 unpleasant situation and Velarde's anger, as she sought to place a
 considerable amount of distance between herself and the Union.
 
    Based on the foregoing, it is found that Velarde's comments to
 Randles and Mendes were impermissible and constitutes a violation of
 section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute.
 
    5.  July 2, 1981 Incident
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-1219)
 
    Sometimes during the day of July 2, Cofflin met with Fitzgerald and
 refused to sign a memorandum criticizing her work.  Through Fitzgerald's
 efforts Cofflin subsequently met with Velarde.
 
    During their discussion, Velarde inquired of Cofflin, why she had
 filed unfair labor practice charges.  She asked Velarde to keep
 Fitzgerald from harassing her.  Velarde at one point told Cofflin,
 "Well, after all you've done for me, how do you expect me to do good to
 you?  . . .  You went to the Union and you started all these unfair
 labor practices . . .  As long as you go to the Union you will continue
 to receive (memoranda)." Such a statement of future actions to be taken
 against an employee on the heels of questioning her about having filed
 unfair labor practice charges is without doubt threatening and coercive
 in nature.
 
    Accordingly, it is found that Velarde did indeed threaten Cofflin
 with adverse memoranda for her participation in the filing of unfair
 labor practice charges and that such conduct violates section 7116(a)(1)
 of the Statute.
 
    6.  Whether Anti-Union Considerations Were a Motivating Factor in
 Respondent's Actions Concerning Carol Cofflin
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-20048)
 
    Against the above background of unfair labor practices we turn to the
 incidents involving Carol Cofflin.  The record reveals that Carol
 Cofflin is a Claims Representative in Respondent's Indio office and,
 that Cofflin held several positions in other Social Security offices
 before transferring to Indio in 1980.  The record also disclosed that
 prior to that time Cofflin had few complaints about her work
 performance, absences, etc.  In fact, Cofflin's performance evaluations,
 prior to October 1981 revealed that she received no poor ratings in any
 categories.  Furthermore, the record did not establish, and Respondent
 did not attempt to prove, that Cofflin's work was unsatisfactory prior
 to her supervision by Robert Fitzgerald in the Indio office.  Finally,
 there is no question that Cofflin was engaged in protected activity for
 sometime and that respondent's agents were aware of all of these
 activities including testimony at a hearing on an unfair labor practice
 case involving that office, grievances, unfair labor practice charges,
 and giving statements to Authority agents.
 
    The credited facts establish that starting around February 1981,
 Cofflin could apparently do nothing right in the eyes of Fitzgerald.  I
 view many of the actions issued by Fitzgerald under Velarde's auspice,
 such as constant memoranda to her personnel file, complaints about
 interpersonal relations (particularly where the record reveals several
 other such personal disputes between employees), complaints about her
 work load, shifting redeterminations of Cofflin to another employee,
 without any previous warning or for that matter without any particular
 logic as an indication that someone in that office had a problem with
 Cofflin, for some reason.  These actions, as set out above, are indeed
 punitive in nature but could well be management tools used to straighten
 out Cofflin's work performance.  I note in this respect that Fitzgerald
 on one occasion locked Cofflin out of the building for being, as the
 credited evidence shows, one minute late.  On another occasion,
 Fitzgerald recommended psychological counseling for Cofflin although
 there is no apparent evidence on the record to indicate a justification
 for such an extreme measure, particularly where Fitzgerald had been her
 supervisor for only a very short period of time.  A careful examination
 of the record disclosed no reason for Respondent's motivation in
 pursuing Cofflin with such diligence other than that she was engaged in
 protected activity.
 
    Respondent, of course, urges that Cofflin was being documented
 because of work related shortcomings, including her performance, but
 that no action was ever taken against her because of her performance or
 lack of performance.  In response to this, one need only point to
 Cofflin's most recent performance evaluation by Fitzgerald and ask only,
 what is her promotion or transfer potential with such a performance
 evaluation.
 
    Without recounting the numerous actions taken against Cofflin by a
 supervisor who had only recently come into the office in that position
 and who had only recently begun to supervise Cofflin, it is clear that
 the record as a whole in this matter establishes a prima facie case that
 Cofflin had engaged in protected activities, that Respondent was aware
 of those activities and that, at least some of its actions against her
 were motivated by anti-union consideration.
 
    However, under Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C. 6 FLRA 23
 (1981) Respondent has the opportunity to show by a preponderance of the
 evidence that it would have taken the actions against Cofflin even in
 the absence of union or protected activities.  It is found that
 Respondent did not, on this record, meet that burden.  There are
 numerous instances, in the record of interpersonal relationship
 difficulties, tardiness, lateness, absences by other unit employees,
 none of whom were documented, or locked out of the office or even
 demeaned by a suggestion, on the record, that they undergo psychological
 counseling.  Only Cofflin and Mendes were documented during this period,
 and when Mendes finally succumbed to Velarde's berating, even she was no
 longer documented.  In further support, it is noted, that Cofflin's
 record differed little from her previous work and leave record in Indio
 and that record, although not found to be exemplary by her previous
 supervisor, was no reason to show the type concern that Fitzgerald found
 with her work or absences almost immediately after he assumed his
 position in Indio.  Moreover, the timing of all Fitzgerald's actions in
 relation to Cofflin's participation in protected activities leaves
 little doubt that such actions were in retaliation for Cofflin's
 engaging in some form of protected activity.
 
    While it is true that Cofflin experienced difficulties in work
 performance, and in her personal and medical life during 1981,
 Respondent did not present one iota of evidence to suggest that her work
 performance was affected to the extent that she should have been treated
 any differently than any of the other employees who were late or absent
 or even deficient in one work area or another.  Record testimony of
 other employees clearly indicates that Cofflin was indeed treated
 differently.  Furthermore, her supervisor Fitzgerald admittedly had not
 documented other employees in his short tenure as a supervisor in Indio.
  The question thus becomes whether she was treated differently because
 of her union or protected activities or for some other reason, i.e.,
 Fitzgerald did not like her personally.  It is noted that Cofflin and
 others testified at the unfair labor practice proceeding alleged to be
 one of her protected activities, but that no action was taken against
 the other employees who testified.  Cofflin, however, is the only one of
 those employees who continued to participate in protected activities
 during 1981 and this made her a target for management retaliation.
 
    The total circumstances of this matter leave no doubt that Respondent
 has failed to demonstrate any real basis for many of its actions taken
 against Cofflin.  Further, it has failed in its attempt to show that
 "but for" her protected activity, Cofflin would have received the
 memoranda or the poor performance appraisal.  Absent such a showing, it
 is incumbent on the undersigned to find that Respondent's actions taken
 against Cofflin were violative of section 7116(a)(1), (2), and (4) of
 the Statute.
 
    7.  Disparaging Remarks about Union Representative
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-1223)
 
    It is alleged that Mendes met with District Manager Semel on July 6,
 1981 and that during the course of that meeting Semel made disparaging
 remarks about a prior union representative who was no longer employed by
 Respondent and, in addition, told Mendes that if she continued to
 request union assistance she would not be treated well.
 
    Semel denies that either of these statements was made during the
 course of the meeting.  Mendes, of course, has not been credited in this
 matter.  Based on the record evidence this allegation of the complaint
 must be dismissed.  Accordingly, it is found that the evidence is
 insufficient to establish that Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) by
 the statements alleged above.
 
    8.  Formal Discussion of July 6, 1981, Mendes Withdraws Her Grievance
 
    (Case No. 8-CA-1223)
 
    Semel testified that he held that meeting pursuant to a request from
 Mendes.  Semel also stated that Mendes never disavowed her Union
 representative but that he "received word that (Mendes) was interested
 in talking to me about some grievances" and, that while in Indio on
 other matters he met with Mendes and Velarde, in Velarde's office.
 According to Semel, Mendes merely stated that she wanted to withdraw the
 grievances that she had at that time.  He told Mendes that "if that's
 all she wanted, she should put it in writing in a (memorandum) to me."
 
    Several days thereafter Mendes with the help of Velarde prepared a
 memorandum to Semel which was subsequently accepted.  Mendes memorandum
 apparently accomplished what she had set out to do.
 
    Velarde's testimony reveals that Mendes had become dissatisfied with
 the Union.  Absent her testimony we can only suspect Mendes motives.
 Had her dealings with Velarde, in which he expressed his disdain for the
 Union, convinced her that it really was unsound to deal with management
 through the Union.  This is one plausible explanation for Mendes action
 in approaching management, on her own, after she had become heavily
 involved with the Union.  Could Mendes have advanced a scheme to
 ingratiate herself with Velarde, her Branch Manager?  If so, where did
 she start?  With the benevolent Semel, who, after all, Velarde had
 labeled a "fool".  In any event this entire scenario was without doubt
 orchestrated by Mendes.  Semel used bad judgment in dealing with her
 directly, as he was subsequently informed by other Respondent officials
 and Velarde, was also a willing pawn in Mendes scheme to extricate
 herself from a situation which had, probably in her mind gotten out of
 hand.
 
    Even if the actions of Velarde and Semel were good intentioned, it is
 found that based on their testimony they did indeed deal directly with
 Mendes concerning a grievance.
 
    The General Counsel alleges that Mendes' discussion of her grievance
 with Semel and Velarde without the presence of her Union representative
 was a formal discussion and that the discussion was indeed violative of
 the Statute.
 
    Section 7114(a)(2)(A) states:
 
          An exclusive representative of an appropriate unit in an agency
       shall be given the opportunity to be represented at--
 
          (A) any formal discussion between one or more representatives
       of the agency and one or more employees in the unit or their
       representatives concerning any grievance or any personnel policy
       or practices. . . .
 
    Discussion of a grievance with an employee where the exclusive
 representative is not afforded an opportunity to be present although
 that representative initiated the process is in derogation of its status
 as the employees' representative.  Conduct such as occurred between the
 employee and management officials where management officials offer to
 resolve a pending grievance without the presence of the exclusive
 representative also in my view, constitutes a bypass of the Union as
 exclusive representative.  Furthermore, the method by which Mendes
 agreed to write a memorandum to Semel constituted negotiations on how
 her grievance would be resolved.  Negotiations such as occurred here are
 expressly prohibited by the Statutory language found in 7114(a)(2)(A).
 
    This discussion dealt with a specific employee grievance and to
 proceed without the exclusive representative being involved contravenes
 section 7114(a)(2)(A) and clearly evidenced the need for the exclusive
 representatives presence.  As such the discussion constituted a formal
 discussion without the Union's presence in violation of section
 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute.  Such a violation would lie
 even where the discussion or request for discussion is initiated by an
 employee.
 
                                  REMEDY
 
    Having found that Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (2), (4),
 (5), and (8) of the Statute, an appropriate remedy must be considered.
 
    The General Counsel urges that an extraordinary remedy is necessary
 because of the serious nature of repeated conduct by Branch Manager
 Ramon Velarde.  In support of its position the General Counsel cites
 what it considers repetitive and blatant acts of misconduct by Velarde,
 including a breach of a Settlement Agreement and Notice Posting
 involving violative statements similar to those in this matter and an
 administrative law judge's decision finding the Indio office in
 violation of the Statute, by making a unilateral change in working
 conditions and by conducting a formal discussion.  The General Counsel
 contends that the normal remedies afforded by the Statute would not
 deter Velarde from repeated misconduct.
 
    The General Counsel also requests a broader posting than the Indio
 office and other extraordinary actions ostensibly to correct the
 violations herein.
 
    I see no necessity for such a remedy at this time.  It is noted that
 the General Counsel cites such cases as J.P. Stevens and Co., Inc., 157
 NLRB No. 869, 61 LRRM 1437 (1966) to support its position.  Surely the
 General Counsel is aware that the National Labor Relations Board took
 many years and many violations by J.P. Stevens to arrive at a remedy of
 the significance and impact which it finally approved in the J.P.
 Stevens, case, supra.
 
    Taking this matter in its proper focus, there have indeed been
 numerous unfair labor practices committed, in my view, in the Indio,
 California office.  Rather severe violations, but over a short period of
 time and all with an outgrowth from a limited number of incidents.  I
 see no violations of the magnitude or in a time frame set out in the
 cases cited by the General Counsel.  It has not been established that
 Velarde is a recidivist or that such actions will indeed recur.  Thus, I
 see no reason to treat this matter as other than a consolidated group of
 cases which occurred during a short period of time and which do not
 establish any clear tendency to violate the Statute by Velarde or any
 other management member of the Indio office.
 
    In any event, the Indio office should be clearly aware that such
 extraordinary remedies are available;  that employee rights will indeed
 be protected;  and, that a continued course of conduct such as found in
 this matter could result in the imposition of an extraordinary remedy to
 prevent recurrence of such violations in its Indio office.
 
    Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Authority adopt
 the following Order.  /10/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the
 Authority hereby orders that the Social Security Administration,
 Baltimore, Maryland:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Preventing representatives of the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of our
 employees from meeting with unit employees on representational matters,
 or ordering them out of offices, or threatening to have them thrown out.
 
    (b) Threatening unit employees by telling them that action would not
 have been taken against them, or they would have been left alone, if
 they had not sought the assistance of the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, or that as long as the employee continues
 to request the assistance of the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, the employee would continue to receive memoranda
 criticizing the employee's performance.
 
    (c) Threatening unit employees by telling them that they would "pay"
 for having gone to the American Federation of Government Employees,
 AFL-CIO, or that we would "get even" with any employee who went to the
 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, or that we would
 never allow the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, in
 our offices.
 
    (d) Threatening unit employees by telling them we will not help them
 because they had filed unfair labor practice charges.
 
    (e) Discriminating against unit employees by reassigning
 redetermination caseloads to other employees, by placing memoranda in
 the employee's personnel file admonishing the employee about the quality
 of his or her work, or by giving the employee unsatisfactory ratings on
 her performance evaluation because the employee seeks the assistance of
 a union representative or gives information or testifies in connection
 with the investigation of unfair labor practices.
 
    (f) Changing the working conditions of employees in the Indio,
 California, Branch Office by altering the procedures to be followed in
 working overtime on Saturdays without first notifying the American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and affording it an
 opportunity to negotiate over that change.
 
    (g) 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) Remove from employee Carol Cofflin's personnel file a memorandum
 dated October 21, 1981, admonishing the quality of her work, and rescind
 her performance evaluation for the period October 1, 1980 to September
 30, 1981.
 
    (b) Prepare a new performance appraisal for employee Carol Cofflin
 for the period October 1, 1980 to September 30, 1981, without taking
 into consideration any of her protected activity guaranteed by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    (c) Rescind the requirement established on May 22, 1981, that
 employees submit written requests each Friday in order to work overtime
 on Saturday.
 
    (d) Upon request, negotiate with the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, over any intended changes in the
 procedures to be followed in working overtime on Saturday.
 
    It is further Ordered, that the allegation in Case No. 8-CA-1223,
 that Respondent disparaged a former Union representative, be and it
 hereby is Dismissed.
                                       ELI NASH, JR.
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
 Date:  September 30, 1982
 
       Washington, D.C.
 
 
 
 
 
                                APPENDIX A
 
                          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
 STATUTE WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT prevent representatives of the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of our
 employees from meeting with unit employees on representational matters,
 or order them out of our offices, or threaten to have them thrown out.
 
    WE WILL NOT threaten unit employees by telling them that action would
 not have been taken against them, or they would have been left alone, if
 they had not sought the assistance of the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, or that as long as the employee continues
 to request the assistance of the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, the employee would continue to receive memoranda
 criticizing the employee's performance.
 
    WE WILL NOT threaten unit employees by telling them that they would
 "pay" for having gone to the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, or that we would "get even" with an employee who
 went to the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, or
 that we would never allow the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, in our offices.
 
    WE WILL NOT threaten unit employees by telling them we will not help
 them because they had filed unfair labor practice charges.
 
    WE WILL NOT discriminate against unit employees by reassigning
 redetermination caseloads to other employees, by placing memoranda in
 the employee's personnel file admonishing the employee about the quality
 of his or her work, or by giving the employee unsatisfactory ratings on
 his or her performance evaluation because the employee seeks the
 assistance of his or her union representative or gives information or
 testifies in connection with the investigation of unfair labor
 practices.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
 employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL NOT change the working conditions of employees in the Indio,
 California, Branch Office by altering the procedures to be followed in
 working overtime on Saturdays without first notifying the American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and affording it an
 opportunity to negotiate over that change.
 
    WE WILL NOT hold meetings with unit employees concerning grievances,
 personnel policies, or practices or other conditions of employment and
 thereby deal directly with employees concerning settlement of grievances
 or complaints without first notifying the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, and affording it an opportunity to be
 present.
 
    WE WILL remove from employee Carol Cofflin's personnel file a
 memorandum dated October 21, 1981, admonishing the quality of her work,
 and will rescind her performance evaluation for the period October 1,
 1980 to September 30, 1981.
 
    WE WILL prepare a new performance appraisal for employee Carol
 Cofflin for the period October 1, 1980 to September 30, 1981, without
 taking into consideration any of her protected activities guaranteed by
 the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL rescind the requirement established on May 22, 1981, that
 employees submit written requests each Friday in order to work overtime
 on Saturday.
 
    WE WILL, upon request, negotiate with the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, over any intended changes in the
 procedures to be followed in working overtime on Saturday.
                                       (Agency or Activity)
 
 Dated:  . . .  By:  (Signature)
 
    This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
 of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
 material.
 
    If employees have any question concerning this Notice or compliance
 with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional
 Director, Region 8 for the Federal Labor Relations Authority whose
 address is:  350 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA,
 90071, and whose telephone number is:  (213) 688-3805.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ Noting particularly the absence of any exceptions thereto, the
 Authority adopts the Judge's conclusion in Case No. 8-CA-1223 that the
 Respondent failed to comply with section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute by
 holding a formal discussion with a unit employee concerning her
 grievance without notifying her exclusive representative of the meeting
 and affording the latter an opportunity to be present.  In this regard,
 however, we do not adopt the Judge's additional statements concerning
 the existence of a bypass and prohibited negotiations which he made in
 connection with his finding that the Respondent had failed to comply
 with section 7114(a)(2)(A) in the circumstances of this case.
 
 
    /2/ The Authority agrees with the Judge that while a recurrence of
 the unlawful conduct found to have been committed by the Respondent may
 warrant in some future case, the issuance of an extraordinary remedy
 pursuant to the Authority's broad remedial discretion under the Statute,
 such a remedy as sought by the General Counsel is not warranted in the
 circumstances herein where such a recurrence is not involved.
 
 
    /3/ The Judge's recommended Order has been amended to correct certain
 inadvertent omissions and to modify the Judge's recommended Order and
 Notice to be consistent with his findings.
 
 
    /4/ The Amended Consolidated Complaint also consolidated Case No.
 8-CA-20054, however, that matter was settled prior to hearing.
 
 
    /5/ Mendes' affidavit points out that she was still under the belief
 that the letter she had written was ineffective in getting the memoranda
 removed from her file and the AWOL removed from her record.  It was not
 until November 1981 that Mendes learned that these corrective actions
 had been taken.
 
 
    /6/ The memorandum Fitzgerald issued Cofflin dated September 3 was
 inaccurate in that it stated Cofflin remained at lunch in the breakroom
 for the entire 30 minutes, completed her lunch and that no interview
 prevented her from going to lunch earlier.
 
 
    /7/ Cofflin estimated that she would have been able to complete these
 redeterminations within one and a half to two months.  Nunez started the
 redeterminations four weeks after they were transferred and was still
 working on them the week before the trial.  Fitzgerald, first testified
 that there is no specific percentile goal for redetermination completion
 which an employee must meet.  He admitted that Cofflin exceeded the
 national goals, but that Semel had set a goal of 100 percent completion
 of redeterminations by the end of August, and because she failed to
 complete her redeterminations by August she was therefore not ti