16:0257(37)CA - Navy, Navy Resale System, Field Support Office, Commissary Store Group, Norfolk, Virginia and William J. Tatem -- 1984 FLRAdec CA



[ v16 p257 ]
16:0257(37)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 16 FLRA No. 37
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 NAVY RESALE SYSTEM, FIELD SUPPORT
 OFFICE, COMMISSARY STORE GROUP
 NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 WILLIAM J. TATEM
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 43-CA-1116
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint and
 recommending that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take
 certain affirmative action.  Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
 to the Judge's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
 filed an opposition to such exceptions.  /1/
 
    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.  /2/ The rulings are hereby affirmed.  Upon consideration of
 the Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts
 the Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommended Order.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered that Department of the Navy, Navy Resale System, Field
 Support Office, Commissary Store Group, Norfolk, Virginia, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Suspending without pay employee William J. Tatem based on his
 participation in the filing of unfair labor practice charges with the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority, and his giving information in
 connection with those charges.
 
    (b) 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 Statute:
 
    (a) Make whole employee William J. Tatem for the pay lost during his
 suspension of April 23, 24 and 25, 1980.
 
    (b) Remove any record of the suspension of March 28, 1980 from the
 personnel file of employee William J. Tatem.
 
    (c) Post at its facilities copies of the attached Notice on forms to
 be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority.  Upon receipt of
 such forms, they shall be signed by an authorized representative of the
 Respondent and shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days
 thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and
 other places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
 Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such Notices are not
 altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
 
    (d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region IV, 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.  
 
 Issued, Washington, D.C., October 24, 1984
 
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
                                       Chairman
                                       Ronald W. Haughton, 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 suspend without pay William J. Tatem based on his
 participation in the filing of unfair labor practice charges with the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority, and his giving information in
 connection with those charges.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL make employee William J. Tatem whole for any loss of pay
 suffered by his suspension of April 23, 24 and 25, 1980.
 
    WE WILL remove any record of the suspension of March 28, 1980 from
 the personnel file of employee William J. Tatem.
                                       (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 IV, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address
 is:  1776 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 501, North Wing, Atalanta, Georgia
 30309, and whose telephone number is:  (404) 881-2324.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
    NAVY RESALE SYSTEM, FIELD SUPPORT OFFICE,
    COMMISSARY STORE GROUP, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
                                Respondent
 
    and
 
    WILLIAM J. TATEM
                              Charging Party
 
                                       Case No. 43-CA-1116
 
    Barbara S. Liggett, Esq.
    For the General Counsel
 
    Mr. Walter B. Bagby
    For the Respondent
 
    Mr. George L. Reaves
    For the Charging Party
 
    Before:  ALI NASH, JR.
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, 82 Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.  It was
 instituted by the issuance of a complaint on March 6, 1981.  The
 complaint alleges that the Department of the Navy, Navy Resale System
 Field Support Office, Commissary Store Group, Norfolk, Virginia,
 hereinafter called the "respondent", violated section 7116(a)(1) and (4)
 of the Statute by suspending employee William J. Tatem because he filed
 a complaint, affidavit, or petition or had given information or
 testimony under the Statute.  In its answer respondent denied the
 commission of any unfair labor practice.
 
    A hearing was held in this matter on May 20, 1981, in Norfolk,
 Virginia.  /3/ All parties were represented and afforded full
 opportunity to adduce evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
 argue orally.  Briefs were filed by all parties.
 
    Upon consideration of the entire record, including my observation of
 the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following findings of fact,
 conclusions of law, and recommended order.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    At all times material herein, respondent has been and is now an
 agency within the meaning of section 7103(a)(3) of the Statute.
 Respondent and the union are parties to a collective bargaining
 agreement.
 
    William J. Tatem is a Meat Cutter Helper, WG-5, employed at
 respondent's Commissary.  Edward Sadler is a Meat Foreman, WS-8 at the
 same facility and is Tatem's immediate supervisor.
 
    Around September 17, 1979, the union filed a charge in Case No.
 3-CA-493 on behalf of Tatem.  On January 21, 1980, the union filed a
 second charge in Case No. 3-CA-814 against respondent on behalf of
 Tatem.  A withdrawal request in Case No. 3-CA-814 was approved by the
 Regional Director, Region IV on June 30, 1980.
 
    On January 30, 1980, Sadler called Tatem and another employee, Eddie
 Cason, who also is a union representative, into his office and had a
 discussion with them concerning the failure of both to wear safety
 shoes.  Sadler told them that this would be the last time for not
 wearing their safety shoes and the next time he was going to write a
 letter of reprimand.  Cason responded that he did not wear the shoes
 because they hurt his feet and Tatem told Sadler that his shoes had been
 lost.  Despite Sadler's contention to the contrary, I find that he
 called both employees in to admonish them.
 
    The record is replete with evidence that all employees in the meat
 processing department, both part-time and full-time committed safety
 violations regularly with impunity.  While Tatem denies any further
 violations regarding not wearing safety shoes, /4/ Cason states that
 even after this discussion with Sadler, that Sadler spoke to him again
 on more than one occasion about his failure to wear safety shoes.
 However, Cason was not disciplined nor is there any record evidence that
 Sadler sought to discipline Cason for repeated safety violations.
 
    Sadler then contacted the personnel office and spoke with Ms. Connie
 Reinking.  Sadler told her, in essence, that he was having difficulty
 with Tatem and that he was considering disciplinary action.  Reinking
 suggested that Sadler talk with Tatem, inform him that disciplinary
 action was planned and give him his rights to have a union
 representative.  While Sadler maintains in his deposition that Cason was
 in the January 30, 1981 meeting as Tatem's union representative he
 obviously was not sure what Cason's position was at the time he talked
 with Reinking.  In a subsequent meeting with Ms. Reinking, Labor
 Relations Specialist Joseph Lee Griggs and Lt. William Russell,
 Officer-In-Charge of the Commissary, the January 30, 1980 incident was
 discussed.  It was then discovered that Tatem had been issued a letter
 of reprimand for a safety violation in February 1978.  Griggs
 recommended, based on the fact that this was a second violation within a
 2-year period, that Tatem be suspended for three days.  /5/
 
    Per instructions Sadler submitted a disciplinary form on February 14,
 1980 which stated that on "1-30-80" Tatem was "not wearing safety
 equipment when required to wear it, safety toe shoes-- was wearing a
 type of tennis shoes." Another form indicated that an informal
 discussion with Tatem was held on "1-30-80 and 2-27".
 
    Since Sadler could not recall whether he had told Tatem that he
 planned disciplinary action and was not certain that Cason was there as
 the union representative Reinking suggested that he hold another meeting
 with the same people present and explain what he was planning to Tatem.
 Although Cason and Tatem did not testify concerning such a meeting
 Sadler submitted the informal discussion slip referred to infra to
 Reinking.  /6/ Tatem, however, did testify that he heard no more from
 Sadler concerning the incident.  In any event, I find that whether a
 second meeting was held is irrelevant since this meeting was allegedly
 held only to correct an oversight concerning union representation.
 
    After Sadler told Reinking that the second meeting had been held she
 prepared a proposed suspension letter based on the January 30 incident.
 The letter was prepared for Lt. Russel's signature.  This suspension
 letter was the issue of March 10, 1980.
 
    On March 12, 1980, Tatem and others were interviewed by an agent from
 the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region 3 at the worksite in
 connection with Case No. 3-CA-493.  On March 13, 1980, Tatem received
 the notice of proposed suspension.  On March 29, 1980, Tatem received a
 final notice of decision to suspend him for three days from April 23,
 1980 through April 25, 1980.
 
    The record shows a long standing feud between Tatem and Sadler with
 which most of those who testified were familiar.  Sadler was also
 involved in the 1978 disciplinary action against Tatem.  Cason states
 "it seemed like Sadler had something personal against Mr. Tatem before
 he even came over to the Oceana place." Labor Relation Specialist Griggs
 also confirmed that he was aware that personal problems existed between
 the two.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    Section 7116(a)(4) makes it an unfair labor practice to "discipline
 or otherwise discriminate against an employee because the employee has
 filed a complaint, affidavit, or petition, or has given any information
 or testimony under this chapter." The General Counsel contends that the
 filing of a charge is encompassed within the meaning of this section and
 that the discriminatee, Tatem was disciplined because of several charges
 filed on his behalf by the Union.  I agree with the General Counsel that
 if Tatem was disciplined because he filed charges with the Authority
 such conduct would violate the Statute.
 
    Respondent asserts that Mr. Tatem was suspended for cause, without
 regard for his giving information under the Statute.  In defense it
 urges that Tatem was a frequent offender against the requirement to wear
 safety equipment;  and his failure to observe this requirement on
 January 30, 1980, after having been warned on several occasions, left it
 with no other recourse other than to impose disciplinary action against
 him in an effort to correct his behavior and maintain the morale of
 other employees.
 
    The record clearly demonstrates that Tatem was a chronic violator of
 the safety standards, but so was almost every other meat cutter in the
 shop.  Tatem's conduct and that of other employees was tolerated without
 disciplinary action until the union began filing charges on Tatem's
 behalf.  Furthermore, the record clearly establishes that such
 violations as the one for which Tatem was suspended occurred on a
 regular basis even after the January 30, 1980 counseling session and not
 one single employee at the shop except Tatem was ever disciplined.
 There is also very little support on the record to justify respondent's
 feeling that Tatem did not "heed" the advice or warning of supervisors
 or that he was a disruptive employee.
 
    While the procedural aspects of the suspension are not questions, it
 is clear that inconsistencies exist as to what actually occurred and the
 real reason for Tatem's discipline.  At the hearing, Labor Relations
 Specialist Griggs admitted had he known the entire story that he might
 have "second thoughts about the matter."
 
    In my view the General Counsel made a prima facie showing that Tatem
 had engaged in protected activity and that this conduct was a motivating
 factor in Sadler's decision to recommend a suspension.  Cf. Internal
 Revenue Service, 6 FLRA No. 23 (1981).  Here the union had filed several
 charges in Tatem's behalf, albeit at least one of the charges was
 withdrawn.  Sadler was named in at least one of the charges which
 involved his having an altercation with Tatem about a hair net.  Shortly
 after the filing of the second charge Sadler decided to discipline
 Tatem, although he allegedly did not know what form the discipline would
 take.  The discipline involved a suspension for violation of safety
 standards which had been committed with frequency by almost every other
 employee in the meat cutting shop without disciplinary action, both
 before and after Tatem's suspension action was initiated.  Moreover,
 respondent and Sadler were aware of the filing of charges at the time
 discipline was proposed.  Thus, although Sadler had repeatedly warned
 Tatem and other employees to adhere to safety standards, no disciplinary
 action was taken until after Tatem's unfair labor practice charges had
 been filed.  In such circumstances, the disparate treatment of Tatem
 must be refuted.
 
    The burden thus shifts to respondent to establish by a preponderance
 of the evidence that its decision to suspend Tatem would have been the
 same even in the absence of unfair labor practice charges being filed on
 his behalf.  Respondent vigorously defends its disciplinary system and
 its decision to suspend Tatem because of a second violation but, offered
 little evidence with respect to employee discipline for similar
 violations in the meat cutting shop.  Such lack of evidence leaves the
 Tatem incident standing in isolation.  What is in question here is
 Sadler's motivation for recommending any disciplinary action for Tatem
 notwithstanding the fact that he had never suggested discipline for
 other employees who regularly committed the identical safety violations
 for which Tatem was charged and that even Tatem's conduct was tolerated
 until he filed charges with the Authority.  Without doubt Tatem had some
 personal problems with Sadler.  Further, Sadler was party to the earlier
 reprimand of Tatem for failure to wear a safety vest.  As Sadler
 testified in his deposition he was completely frustrated with Tatem and
 a part of that frustration, as the record demonstrates, was Tatem's
 unfair labor practice charge filed with the Authority when Sadler
 approached him concerning wearing a "hair net," another safety feature.
 
    As already stated, Sadler and Tatem had been at odds for years and
 Tatem had been reprimanded on at least one other occasion.  Oddly enough
 others committed the same violations without discipline, so the question
 is promptly raised, why Tatem?
 
    The sessions Sadler held with agency management are illuminating and
 form the basis for credibility findings contrary to respondent's
 position.  Sadler was not entirely candid in his dealings with
 management employees Griggs, Reinking and Russell whose decision to
 suspend was influenced by Sadler's input.  In my view, had the entire
 matter been revealed at these sessions and properly taken into
 consideration, Tatem would not have been suspended.  First, Sadler was
 aware of disciplinary procedures contrary to what he relayed to Reinking
 since he had previously been involved in a reprimand of Tatem.  Second,
 Sadler was not certain what action had been taken in the January 30
 meeting with Tatem and Cason which is made clear by his initial contact
 with Reinking.  Third, the timing of discipline, shortly after a second
 charge was filed lends credence to the proposition that had Tatem not
 filed charges he would not have been disciplined.  Fourth, as is
 repeatedly shown in the record safety violations occurred on what
 appeared to be a daily basis by most employees without discipline.
 Fifth, Sadler's attempt to document Tatem's safety violation and the
 absence of such records for any other meat cutting employees.  And,
 finally, there is no showing that Tatem was a disruptive force or had
 made problems among other employees by violating safety standards.  In
 all these circumstances, the conclusion that Sadler took action against
 Tatem because he had filed a charge is inescapable.
 
    In light of the foregoing, it is found that respondent did not rebut
 by a preponderance of the evidence that General Counsel's position that
 Tatem was suspended in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (4) of the
 Statute.  Accordingly, it is found that Respondent's suspension of Tatem
 was unlawful in that it was based, at least in part, on union
 considerations and had agency management known the entire story Tatem
 would not have been suspended.
 
    Having found that respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (4) of
 the Statute, it is recommended that the Authority adopt the following
 order.  /7/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7118(a)(7) and section 2423.27 of the Final
 Rules and Regulations of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, U.S.
 Fed. Reg. 3482, 3510 (1980), it is hereby ordered that Department of the
 Navy, Navy Resale System, Field Support Office, Commissary Store Group,
 Norfolk, Virginia, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from;
 
          (a) Suspending without pay employee William J. Tatem based on
       his participation in the filing of unfair labor practice charges,
       with the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and his giving
       information in connection with those charges.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing any employee in the exercise of any right
       assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action designed and found
 necessary to effectuate the policies of the Statute:
 
          (a) Make whole employee William J. Tatem for the pay lost
       during his suspension of April 23, 24 and 25, 1980.
 
          (b) Remove the suspension record of March 28, 1980 from the
       personnel file of employee William J. Tatem.
 
          (c) Post at its Department of the Navy, Navy Resale System,
       Field Support Office, Commissary Store Group, Norfolk, Virginia,
       copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said
       notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 4,
       after being signed by an authorized representative, shall be
       posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and thereafter, in
       conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
       employees are customarily posted.  Reasonable steps shall be taken
       to insure said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
       other material.
 
          (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing,
       within 30 days from the date of this order, what steps it had
       taken to comply herewith.
 
                                       ELI NASH, JR.
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  January 7, 1982
    Washington, D.C.
 
 
 
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
 
  PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
 OF TITLE
 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS
 We hereby notify our employees that:
 
    WE WILL NOT suspend without pay William J. Tatem based on his
 participation in the filing of unfair labor practice charges with the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority, and his giving information in
 connection with those charges.
 
    WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the
 exercise of any right assured by the Federal Labor-Management Relations
 Statute.
 
    WE WILL make employee William J. Tatem whole for any loss of pay
 suffered by his suspension of April 23, 24 and 25, 1980.
 
    WE WILL remove from the personnel file of employee William J. Tatem
 the disciplinary action of March 28, 1980.
                                       (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 for the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region 4, whose
 address is:  1776 Peachtree Street, NW., Suite 501, North Wing, Atlanta,
 Georgia 30309, and whose telephone number is:  (404) 881-2324.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    /1/ As the Respondent neither requested nor was granted leave to file
 a document such as the Respondent's Response to General Counsel's
 Opposition pursuant to section 2429.26 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, such document has not been considered.
 
 
    /2/ The Respondent excepts to the Judge's denial of its request for a
 continuance of the hearing due to the illness of its supervisor, Sadler.
  The record indicates that the Respondent knew that Sadler was ill for
 more than a week before it informed the Judge of the witness'
 unavailability on the morning of the hearing.  The Judge granted the
 Respondent's alternative request that the hearing remain open until the
 witness could testify.  Subsequently a deposition was taken.  The
 parties had the opportunity to question and to cross-examine the witness
 under oath, and a record thereof was forwarded to the Judge.  Thus, the
 Authority concludes that no prejudicial error was committed simply
 because the Judge was unable to observe Sadler's demeanor.
 
 
    /3/ At the hearing, respondent represented that its supervisor Edward
 Sadler was unable to attend because he was either ill or was still in
 the hospital.  Respondent moved for a continuance in order to allow it
 to have Mr. Sadler's presence as a witness.  The General Counsel opposed
 any continuance or the delay of the closing of the record for the taking
 of a deposition of Mr. Sadler on the grounds that such delay would
 create undue delay and expense.  Under Sec. 2423.19(d) of the Rules and
 Regulations of the Authority the undersigned ordered the taking of a
 deposition from Mr. Sadler.  Subsequently, at the deposition the General
 Counsel renewed the objection to the deposition on the original grounds
 and further objected that the deposition denied due process and, in
 effect, granted pre-trial discovery in the matter.  In its brief the
 General Counsel expanded the matter contending that it had no
 opportunity to present rebuttal witnesses.  With respect to the latter
 argument the General Counsel at no time filed a motion to reopen the
 record in the matter nor did counsel in any other way indicate to the
 administrative law judge prior to closing of the record that it had
 additional evidence to present or indicate the nature and type of
 further evidence necessary to complete the instant record.  In such
 circumstances, and after reviewing the record, I find that reopening the
 record for additional evidence is unnecessary.  Moreover, the General
 Counsel had an opportunity at the deposition to cross-examine Mr. Sadler
 rather extensively and further evidence by way of rebuttal would merely
 burden the record.  Concerning the question of credibility resolutions
 also raised by the General Counsel, it is my view that such
 determinations can be made on the basis of testimony of other witnesses
 and need not depend entirely on my viewing direct testimony of Mr.
 Sadler.  While there is a clear conflict of evidence such credibility
 determinations can be made on the basis of the entire record herein.
 
    With regard to the General Counsel's argument that the granting of a
 deposition after the hearing allows pre-trial discovery I find no merit.
  In this regard, where circumstances dictate the granting of a
 continuance as set out in Sec. 2423.19(m) of the Rules and Regulations
 as a duty or power of the administrative law judge, such a restriction
 could preclude the granting of a continuance on almost all occasions
 thereby diminishing the judge's authority in this respect.  I,
 therefore, find that the General Counsel was not denied due process by
 the taking of the deposition in the instant matter and accordingly, deny
 its request to strike the deposition of Edward Sadler and the exhibit
 introduced at the deposition.
 
 
    /4/ R. Exhibit 5, presented at the deposition is a record kept by
 Sadler indicating that he spoke to Tatem on February 13, 1980 about not
 wearing safety shoes.  I specifically discredit this exhibit based on
 the credited testimony of Ms. Reinking and other respondent witnesses
 that the discipline was based exclusively on the January 30, 1980
 incident and not on any subsequent violation of safety standards.
 Therefore, there was no reason for Sadler to keep such a record.
 Further, respondent presented no records kept by Sadler on other
 employees who violated safety standards making this single effort
 suspect.  Furthermore, Reinking states that in a subsequent discussion
 with Sadler, occurring after February 13, 1980 Sadler stated that "he
 hadn't any additional infractions, but he would like to continue with
 the action because his previous oral remarks had not been taken
 seriously." Tatem's testimony is consistent with that of Reinking in
 this respect, and I credit Tatem.
 
 
    /5/ According to respondent's witnesses a 3-day suspension is about
 mid-range in severity for such an offense.
 
 
    /6/ Both Griggs and Reinking were aware that Tatem had two unfair
 labor practice charges filed on his behalf during the period in
 question.
 
 
    /7/ The General Counsel's motion to strike portions of respondent's
 brief, because it introduced facts which were not a part of the record
 is granted. 
 
 
 


<