16:0093(21)CA - Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, NH and Portsmouth FEMT Council -- 1984 FLRAdec CA



[ v16 p93 ]
16:0093(21)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 16 FLRA No. 21
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD
 PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 PORTSMOUTH FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 1-CA-427
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Regional
 Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority" in accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules
 and Regulations.
 
    Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, including the
 stipulation of facts, accompanying exhibits, and the contentions of the
 parties, the Authority finds:
 
    The complaint alleges that the Department of the Navy, Portsmouth
 Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire (the Respondent), violated
 section 7116(a)(1) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute) when it issued a two-day suspension notice and
 then suspended Lionel A. Gravel, a supervisor within the meaning of the
 Statute, because of his participation in the processing of an employee's
 grievance by the Portsmouth Federal Employees Metal Trades Council (the
 Union).  It is alleged that the Respondent's conduct had a chilling
 effect on the exercise of the protected rights of employees.  /1/
 
    The events culminating in Gravel's suspension began when unit
 employee Morin and another employee were observed away from their duty
 stations shortly before the end of their shift.  This was brought to the
 attention of superintendent Dostie, who instructed their supervisor,
 Gravel, to discuss the matter with the two men and to discipline them.
 About a month later, Morin was notified of a proposed five-day
 suspension without pay because of his unexcused absence from his post of
 duty.  The notice was signed by his supervisor, Gravel.  Shortly
 thereafter, however, Gravel signed a memorandum, prepared by the Union,
 stating that he had signed the suspension notice only because he was
 directed to do so;  that he did not agree the suspension was necessary
 or proper;  that Morin had been punished enough by losing potential
 overtime because of the same infraction;  and that the loss of potential
 overtime was itself sufficient to prevent another infraction and to
 serve as an example to other employees.
 
    Gravel's memorandum was submitted to Dostie by the Union's Chief
 Steward in connection with an oral reply to the proposed disciplinary
 action, and Morin's proposed five-day suspension was later reduced to
 one day.  Shortly thereafter, Gravel was n