22:0739(85)CO - AFSCME Local 2477 and Tyrone M. Bryant -- 1986 FLRAdec CO



[ v22 p739 ]
22:0739(85)CO
The decision of the Authority follows:


 22 FLRA No. 85
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, 
 AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2477, 
 AFL-CIO
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 TYRONE M. BRYANT, an INDIVIDUAL
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 3-CO-40033
 
                            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 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.
 
    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, the Authority adopts the Judge's
 findings, conclusions, and recommended Order.  /1/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority and section 7118 of the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority orders that
 the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local
 2477, AFL-CIO, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Refusing and/or failing to provide legal representation to Mr.
 Tyrone M. Bryant or any other unit employee in adverse action
 proceedings under the Library of Congress' regulations because Mr.
 Bryant and/or any other employee had exercised their statutory right to
 support a rival labor organization.
 
    (b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing Mr. Bryant or any
 other unit employee in the exercise of their right to support a rival
 labor organization freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal.
 
    (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing unit employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute.
 
    (a) Provide legal representation to Mr. Tyrone M. Byrant and all
 other unit employees in adverse action proceedings without
 discrimination and without regard to their activities in support of a
 rival labor organization.
 
    (b) Post at its business offices and its normal meeting places,
 including all places where notices to members and employees of the
 Library of Congress are customarily posted, copies of the attached
 Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms they shall be signed by the
 President of Local 2477, American Federation of State, County, and
 Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, or his designee, and they shall be posted
 and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
 including all places where notices to members and to other employees are
 customarily posted.  The President of Local 2477, American Federation of
 State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, shall take reasonable
 steps to ensure that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
 by any other material.
 
    (c) Submit appropriate signed copies of such Notices to the Library
 of Congress, for posting in conspicuous places where the respective unit
 employees are located, where they shall be maintained for a period of 60
 consecutive days from the date of posting.
 
    (d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
 Regulations, notify the Regional Director of Region III, 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. July 28, 1986.
 
                                       /s/ JERRY L. CALHOUN
                                       Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ HENRY B. FRAZIER III
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
  NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND OTHER 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
 MEMBERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT refuse or fail to provide legal representation to Mr.
 Tyrone M. Bryant or any other unit employee in adverse action
 proceedings under the Library of Congress' regulatins because Mr. Bryant
 or any other unit employee had exercised their statutory rights to
 support a rival labor organization.
 
    WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce Mr. Bryant or any
 other unit employee in the exercise of their right to freely and without
 fear of penalty or reprisal to support a rival labor organization.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL provide legal representation to Mr. Tyrone M. Bryant and
 other unit employees in adverse action proceedings without
 discrimination and without regard to their activities on behalf of a
 rival labor organization.
                                       (Labor Organization)
 
    Dated:
                                       By:  (Signature)
 
    This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
 of posting and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other
 material.
 
    If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
 with any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
 Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region III,
 whose address is:  1111 18th Street, NW., 7th Floor, P.O. Box 33758,
 Washington, D.C. 20033-0758 and whose telephone number is:  (202)
 653-8500.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Case No. 3-CO-40033
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND 
 MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2477, AFL-CIO
    Respondent
 
                                    and
 
 TYRONE M. BRYANT, An Individual
    Charging Party
 
    Carolyn J. Dixon, Esquire
    For the General Counsel
 
    Alice L. Bodley, Esquire
    James E. Mundy, Esquire
    For the Respondent
 
    Before:  BURTON S. STERNBURG
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C.
 Section 7101, et seq., and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder.
 
    Pursuant to a charge filed on September 20, 1984, by Tyrone M.
 Bryant, an individual, a Complaint and Notice of Hearing was issued on
 November 30, 1984, by the Regional Director for Region III, Federal
 Labor Relations Authority, Washington, D.C.  The Complaint alleges that
 the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local
 2477, AFL-CIO, (hereinafter called the Union or Respondent), violated
 Sections 7116(b)(1) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute (hereinafter called the Statute), by virtue of its
 actions in refusing to represent Mr. Tyrone M. Bryant in an adverse
 action proceeding under the Library of Congress Regulations because of
 Mr. Bryant's activities on behalf of a rival labor organization.
 
    A hearing was held in the captioned matter on February 14, 1985, in
 Washington, D.C.  All parties were afforded the full opportunity to be
 heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
 bearing on the issues involved herein.  The General Counsel and the
 Respondent submitted post hearing briefs on March 28, 1985, which have
 been duly considered.
 
    Upon the basis of the entire record, including my observation of the
 witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following findings of fact,
 conclusions and recommendations.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    The Union is the exclusive representative of the Library of Congress'
 nonprofessional employees, including the Special Police.  The Union is
 also a member of the District Council 26, which is an organization
 chartered by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
 Employees (AFSCME) to the service the members of its affiliated locals.
 /2/ The functions of the District Council 26 are set forth in its
 Constitution and include the following:  "to assist member locals with
 grievances, complaints, appeals, negotiations, contracts, organizational
 matters, recruiting, publicity and promotional work in general;  and to
 obtain and provide adequate legal representation for locals in the
 processing of grievances, complaints and other appropriate actions on
 behalf of members." In discharging these responsibilities District
 Council 26 utilizes the services of an executive director and other
 support staff.  /3/ The executive director is the administrative and
 executive officer of the Council.  The Constitution of District Council
 26 specifically mandates that the executive director's position be a
 full time one and further provides for a general description of job
 duties associated with that position.  The executive director and his
 support staff are paid by and employed by District Council 26.  District
 Council 26 is funded exclusively from the union dues collected from the
 various affiliated locals.
 
    Since November 1981, James E. Mundy has occupied the position of
 Executive Director of District Council 26.  /4/ As such, Mr. Mundy
 performs the duties enumerated for the executive director in the
 Constitution of District Council 26 which, in pertinent part, include
 the following:  represents unit employees in grievances and adverse
 actions;  represents the constituent locals in representation matters
 with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA);  and files unfair
 labor practice charges and appeals with the FLRA on behalf of member
 locals.  Specifically, with respect to adverse actions, Mr. Mundy has
 admittedly represented numerous unit employees since his tenure as
 Executive Director of District Council 26 including:  Shirley Whetstone,
 Marzella Rhodes, Roosevelt Davis and Pamela Paris.  Former District
 Council 26 Deputy Director Lynn Sylvester also represented unit
 employees in adverse actions during her tenure including:  Mary Geiger,
 Marzella Rhodes and Shirley Whetstone.  Thus, as described above, the
 Executive Director and Deputy Director of District Council 26 provides
 as a service to its member locals, representation for unit employees in
 grievances and adverse actions.  /5/ While the evidence establishes that
 the Union and/or Mr. Mundy and other agents of District Council have
 consistently represented unit employees in adverse actions held pursuant
 to the Library of Congress regulations, their representational status
 was personal to the unit employees involved and did not flow from the
 union's certification as exclusive representative.  In the absence of a
 request to the Union that it be an employee's personal representative in
 the adverse action proceeding, it is clear that the Union has no legal
 standing in adverse action proceeding.
 
    Since August 1968, Tyrone Bryant has been employed as a Special
 Police Officer at the Library of Congress and has been a member of
 Responde;t's bargaining unit.
 
    On May 31, 1983, Officer Bryant became involved in an incident with
 his supervisor, Captain Romanelli, over Officer Bryant's use of the
 Library of Congress parking lot.  This incident resulted in Officer
 Bryant's filing an oral grievance in early June 1983.  /6/ At Officer
 Bryant's request, Respondent's Steward Edward Jackson undertook
 representation of Officer Bryant in the grievance process.  The
 grievance was subsequently denied by the Library of Congress on June 14,
 1983.
 
    Two and one-half months after the parking lot incident, on August 15,
 1983, Officer Bryant was informed by the Library of Congress that he
 would receive a proposed adverse action, i.e., reprimand for his
 participation in the parking lot incident.  Officer Bryant immediately
 contacted Union Steward Edward Jackson and requested union
 representation.  Steward Jackson agreed and accompanied Officer Bryant
 to the Library of Congress' division office on August 16, 1983, where
 Officer Bryant was officially served notice of the proposed adverse
 action.  /7/ Steward Jackson was also given a copy of the letter of
 proposed adverse action against Officer Bryant.  Steward Jackson then
 told Officer Bryant that this proposed adverse action would be appealed
 because it was wrong and constituted nothing but retaliation against
 Officer Bryant for his involvement in union activities and his filing of
 complaints against the Library of Congress.  A response to the proposed
 adverse action was prepared and forwarded to the Agency on September 7,
 1983.  On October 4, 1983, Steward Jackson, forwarded to the Agency a
 request under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute for a copy of a
 counselling memorandum which had been placed in Officer Bryant's
 personnel file by Captain Romanelli sometime earlier.  The Library of
 Congress responded to Steward Jackson by letter dated October 11, 1983,
 and requested Officer Bryant's written permission for release of the
 requested document to Steward Jackson.  Officer Bryant then signed a
 letter prepared by Steward Jackson authorizing release of the document
 to Steward Jackson.  This letter dated October 20, 1983, to the Library
 of Congress also designated Respondent's Steward Jackson as Officer
 Bryant's representative in the proposed adverse action.  On October 21,
 1983, Officer Bryant received the Library of Congress' decision on the
 proposed adverse action which was the insertion of a reprimand in
 Officer Bryant's personnel file.  The Library of Congress also informed
 Officer Bryant of his appeal rights.  Specifically, Officer Bryant could
 appeal the reprimand under the Library of Congress' adverse action
 appeal procedures which would entitle Officer Bryant to a hearing before
 an independent arbitrator and give him the right to be represented by a
 representative of his choosing.  On October 28, 1983, Officer Bryant
 filed a notice of appeal of the adverse action and specifically
 designated Mr. Edward Jackson, AFSCME Local 2477, as his representative.
  Mr. Jackson also signed this notice of appeal acknowledging himself as
 representative of Officer Bryant.  Subsequently, the Library of Congress
 issued several communications to Mr. Edward Jackson in his capacity as
 Union Steward.  By letter dated December 27, 1983, the Library of
 Congress informed Steward Jackson that a list of arbitrators would be
 forwarded to him for selection in the adverse action hearing.  On
 January 20, 1984, the Library of Congress again wrote to Steward Jackson
 in order to schedule a time and place for selecting the arbitrator in
 Officer Bryant's adverse action hearing.  When Steward Jackson did not
 respond to the letter of January 20, 1984, /8/ the Library of Congress
 contacted Marzella Rhodes, the president of the Local Union.  In a
 letter dated April 5, 1984, the Library of Congress notified the Union
 Bryant's case would be placed on the inactive list.  Upon receiving a
 copy of the April 5, 1984 letter to the Union, Officer Bryant wrote to
 the Union on April 12, 1984, and requested continued representation in
 connection with his adverse action appeal.  /9/
 
    In his letter to Ms. Marzella Rhodes, Officer Bryant referred to
 evidence given to the Union during a Federal Labor Relations Authority
 representation hearing in January 1984, namely that the Union was
 representing him, Officer Bryant, in his appeal of the adverse action.
 The representation matter referred to by Officer Bryant concerned an RO
 petition filed with the Washington Regional Office by the Fraternal
 Order of Police (FOP) in Case No. 3-RO-40001.  The FOP was seeking in
 the RO petition exclusive recognition for a part of the bargaining unit,
 i.e., the Special Police, currently being represented by the Union.
 Officer Bryant had signed the RO Petition on behalf of the FOP which was
 initially filed on October 27, 1983.  A hearing on this petition was
 held before the Washington Regional Office on January 25, 26, 27 and 30,
 1984.  District Council 26 Executive Director James Mundy represented
 the Respondent Union at this hearing.  One of the issues addressed at
 the hearing was the adequacy of Respondent's representation of the
 Special Police as part of Respondent's bargaining unit.  Accordingly,
 Mr. Mundy elicited evidence at the hearing on Respondent's
 representation of the Special Police as part of Respondent's bargaining
 unit.  Accordingly, Mr. Mundy elicited evidence at the hearing on
 Respondent's representation of the Special Policy Officers.
 Specifically, evidence was adduced with respect to Respondent's
 representation of Special Police Officers in adverse action matters.  In
 this regard, Mr. Mundy called as a witness for the Respondent, Ms.
 Marzella Rhodes, president of the Local Union.  In response to questions
 proferred by Mr. Mundy, Ms. Rhodes testified that the Union, through its
 Steward, Edward Jackson, was currently representing Officer Bryant in
 the subject adverse action appeal.  Ms. Rhodes further testified that
 Respondent had just received a letter from the Library of Congress
 addressed to Steward Jackson concerning the scheduling of a time and
 place for the selection of an arbitrator for Officer Bryant's hearing.
 In order to further buttress the claim of Respondent's adequate
 representation of Special Police Officers, Mr. Mundy then called as a
 witness Banks Johnson, a former shop steward.  Mr. Johnson testified
 that the Union was representing Officer Bryant in the adverse action
 appeal and that he and Steward Jackson were working on it.  In addition,
 Mr. Mundy submitted into the record of the hearing the notice of appeal
 of the adverse action filed by Officer Bryant on October 28, 1983, which
 designated the Union and Steward, Edward Jackson, as his representative.
  Thus, based on these representations made by Respondent at the hearing,
 Officer Bryant stated in his letter of April 12, 1984, to Ms. Rhodes
 that he wanted the Union to pursue its representation of him in the
 adverse action appeal.  Officer Bryant further stated that the Union's
 failure to continue its representation of him would result in his filing
 an unfair labor practice charge against the Union.  A copy of the letter
 to Ms. Rhodes was also sent to Mr. Mundy.
 
    Within a week to ten days of the date of Officer Bryant's letter to
 Ms. Rhodes, the Union contacted Officer Bryant and informed him that Mr.
 Mundy wanted to meet with him for purposes of discussing his adverse
 action appeal.  /10/ A secretary employed by the Union then scheduled a
 date and time with Officer Bryant for his meeting with Mr. Mundy.
 Officer Bryant and Mr. Mundy met at the Union's office on or about April
 24, 1984.  /11/ Mr. Mundy began the meeting by asking Officer Bryant if
 he were a lawyer.  Officer Bryant told Mr. Mundy that he was not a
 lawyer but that he knew a little about the law.  Mr. Mundy then asked
 Officer Bryant why he did not represent himself in this case and Officer
 Bryant replied, "If I represent myself in this case, then I would have a
 fool for a client." Whereupon Mr. Mundy remarked that the Union did not
 have to represent unit members in adverse actions.  When Officer Bryant,
 then asked whose responsibility it was to represent him, Mr. Mundy did
 not respond.  Mr. Mundy then changed the subject and told Officer Bryant
 he was a traitor for signing the FOP petition.  Mr. Mundy further
 indicated he wanted Officer Bryant to sign some type of disclaimer of
 responsibility for Mr. Mundy in representing him in the adverse action.
 /12/ Mr. Mundy then asked Officer Bryant to withdraw the FOP petition.
 /13/ Officer Bryant replied, "That is a horse of a different color."
 Officer Bryant then informed Mr. Mundy that he was there asking for
 representation and was not there to discuss the petition.  At that
 point, Mr. Mundy dropped his discussion of the FOP petition and began
 reviewing the documents and discussing the merits of Officer Bryant's
 adverse action case.  He told Officer Bryant after reviewing the
 evidence that he had a strong case.  Mr. Mundy based his opinion on the
 fact that the Agency had waited two and one-half months after the
 incident to take the adverse action.  Mr. Mundy opined that an
 arbitrator would take a very hard look at the timeliness of the Agency's
 actions.
 
    Subsequently, Mr. Mundy initiated and held two more meetings with
 Officer Bryant in which they reviewed the evidence in the adverse action
 appeal.  During these meetings, Mr. Mundy told Officer Bryant to try to
 find some witnesses to the parking lot incident who would testify on his
 behalf at the adverse action hearing.  However, Mr. Mundy felt that
 based on the known facts alone, Officer Bryant's case had merit.  These
 meetings between Mr. Mundy and Officer Bryant occurred in May and June
 of 1984 and were held at the Union's office in the James Madison
 Building.
 
    Mr. Mundy was also in contact with the Library of Congress
 representatives during June and July of 1984, scheduling and
 rescheduling hearing dates for Officer Bryant's adverse action hearing.
 The first set of dates (July 26 and 27, 1984) selected by the Library of
 Congress and Mr. Mundy was cancelled well beforehand due to a scheduling
 conflict.  A second set of dates (August 16 and 17, 1984) were also
 cancelled.  Mr. Mundy and the Agency finally agreed to set the dates of
 October 4 and 5, 1984, for the adverse action hearing.
 
    During the time Mr. Mundy was representing Officer Bryant, as set
 forth above, the FOP representation petition was pending before the
 Washington Regional Office of the FLRA.  On July 18, 1984, Region III
 issued its decision, finding that the FOP petitioned for unit was
 appropriate and directed an election between the FOP and the Union for
 the individuals employed as Special Police.  The Region's decision was
 served on the Union's designated representative, Mr. Mundy.
 
    After the Region's decision was issued, Mr. Mundy decided that he
 would no longer represent Officer Bryant in his adverse action appeal.
 Mr. Mundy then called Officer Bryant and scheduled a meeting with him
 for September 12, 1984.  At the meeting in the Union's office, Mr. Mundy
 told Officer Bryant that since his (Mr. Mundy's) salary was paid by the
 District Council and he represented the Local Union, there was a
 conflict of interest in his representing Officer Bryant because of
 Officer Bryant's support of the FOP, a rival labor organization.  Mr.
 Mundy then told Officer Bryant he would no longer represent him in the
 appeal of his adverse action.  /14/ Officer Bryant, stunned, asked Mr.
 Mundy, "Who is going to represent me?" Mr. Mundy replied, "It doesn't
 matter to me who represent you.  I suggest you proceed forward with your
 case." Thereafter, on October 1 and 9, 1984, Officer Bryant requested
 the Library of Congress and the arbitrator to grant a postponement of
 the adverse action hearing as he was left without representation.
 Officer Bryant's case is currently on indefinite postponement.
 
    Mr. Mundy admits that in certain proceedings, namely those
 proceedings where the Union has authority to act as principal, Council
 26 acts as agent for the Union.  However, Mr. Mundy denies acting as
 agent for the Union in adverse actions since the Union has no standing
 as principal in such situations.  To the extent that he, in the past,
 represented unit employees in adverse actions under the Library of
 Congress adverse action regulations, he points out that he was merely
 acting as the designated representative of the affected employee and not
 the agent of the Union.  Mr. Mundy further admits that the Regional
 Director's "order of election" prompted him to cease representing Mr.
 Bryant.  In this latter context, he points out that the sole reason he
 withdrew was his opinion that he would be violating the Cannons of Legal
 Ethics by representing an individual who had taken a position contrary
 to that of the Union which employs him.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    The General Counsel takes the position that the District Council was
 the agent of the local Union and in such circumstances the Union was
 responsible for the actions of Mr. Mundy in refusing to represent Mr.
 Bryant under the Library of Congress' adverse action procedure.
 Further, according to the General Counsel, since Mr. Mundy, contrary to
 his past practice, refused to continue to represent Mr. Bryant in the
 adverse action proceeding because of his, Mr. Bryant's support of a
 rival union, the Union not only failed in its duty of fair
 representation, but also interfered with, restrained and coerced Mr.
 Bryant in the exercise of his rights accorded by the Statute and hence
 violated Sections 7116(b)(1) and (8) of the Statute.
 
    The Union takes the position that it has no obligation to represent
 employees in adverse actions under the Library of Congress regulations
 since its sole standing in such proceedings is that of the personally
 selected representative of the affected employee.  In support of this
 position the Union relies on the decision of the undersigned
 Administrative Law Judge in Library of Congress and American Federation
 of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 2910, Case No.
 3-CA-40116, OALJ-84-87, July 12, 1984.  To the extent that a contrary
 conclusion is reached, the Union takes the further position that it was
 not guilty of an unfair labor practice since the record evidence
 establishes that Mr. Mundy was not in any event acting as agent of the
 Union but rather as the employee's personal representative.  Finally,
 the Union takes the position that "even if the Union can or must
 represent employees in adverse action proceedings, no unfair labor
 practice occurred in this case" since the record evidence establishes
 that Mr. Mundy declined to further represent Mr. Bryant not because of
 his support of a rival labor organization but rather because of his
 opinion that he would be violating the Cannons of Legal Ethics imposed
 upon Attorneys if he continued representing an employee who had taken a
 position contrary to that of a Union which employs him.
 
    Contrary to the contention of the Union, I find that Mr. Mundy was
 acting as agent for the Union when he refused to continue representing
 Mr. Bryant.  The Union's sole basis for denying the existence of agency
 status for Mr. Mundy, the Executive Director of the Council, is the
 Union's absence of any independent standing in adverse action
 proceedings under the regulations of the Library of Congress.  However,
 the absence of standing in adverse action proceedings does not in and of
 itself negate a finding of agency.  An agency relationship is not
 determined by the forum that the alleged representative operates in but
 rather is determined by the powers conferred upon the alleged
 representative is by the principal, here the Union.  Where the alleged
 representative is empowered to act in the principal's stead, the
 representative becomes the principal's agent and the principal is
 responsible for the representative's actions.  The fact that the
 principal has no legal standing in a particular forum does not destroy
 the agency-principal relationship.  Of course, the agent standing in the
 stead of the principal is subject to any restrictions applicable to the
 principal.
 
    In the instant case, Mr. Bryant was originally represented in the
 adverse action proceeding by a union steward.  Thereafter, due to the
 retirement of the union steward, and pursuant to a letter from Mr.
 Bryant to the Union demanding another union representative in the
 adverse action proceeding under threat of a ULP, the Union, without any
 further contact with Mr. Bryant, arranged for Mr. Mundy, who was
 admittedly its agent in other proceedings, to represent Mr. Bryant.
 Thus, while it is true that no additional money over and above Mr.
 Mundy's salary as Executive Director of the District Council was charged
 for such representation, the fact remains that the Union, in accordance
 with its advertised services to union members, did provide Mr. Bryant
 with a representative in the adverse action proceeding, namely Mr.
 Mundy.  To the extent that the Union provided Mr. Bryant, as part of its
 services, Mr. Mundy stood in the Union's stead and became an agent of
 the Union.  Being an agent of the Union, the Union was responsible for
 Mr. Mundy's subsequent actions in the adverse action proceedings.
 
    The record establishes and I so find, that Mr. Mundy resented the
 fact that Mr. Bryant had exercised his statutory rights and sponsored
 and/or assisted a rival labor organization in an attempt to unseat the
 Union as the exclusive representative of the Special Police employed by
 the Library of Congress.  Subsequently, when the rival labor
 organization succeeded in its attempt to have an election scheduled, Mr.
 Mundy admittedly ceased representing Mr. Bryant in the adverse action
 proceeding on the alleged ground that the continued representation of
 Mr. Bryant would result in a breach of the Cannons of Legal Ethics.
 Thereafter, no attempt was made by the Union to secure an alternate
 representative for Mr. Bryant in his adverse action proceeding.
 
    While I do not quarrel or take issue with Mr. Mundy's conclusion that
 his continued representation of Mr. Bryant, due to his personal feelings
 concerning Mr. Bryant's actions in aiding and abetting a rival union,
 might well constitute a violation of the Cannons of Legal Ethics, the
 fact remains that Mr. Bryant because of his exercise of a statutory
 right to support a rival labor organization was, contrary to the past
 practice of the Union, denied by the Union's agent, Mr. Mundy,
 representation equal to that afforded by the Union to other unit
 employees in adverse action proceedings.  Inasmuch as Mr. Mundy was the
 Union's agent, Mr. Mundy's actions, namely refusing to represent a unit
 employee because of his dissident activity, are attributable to the
 Union.  The Union, cannot escape liability on the ground that its
 agent's refusal to continue to represent Mr. Bryant was because of the
 Cannons of Legal Ethics and not Mr. Bryant's dissident activity.  Being
 responsible for its agent's activity, it was incumbent upon the Union to
 secure the services of another representative for Mr. Bryant who would
 not be encumbered by loyalty to the Union and animosity to Mr. Bryant
 for his participation in activities protected by the Statute.
 
    Inasmuch as the record makes it clear that the reason Mr. Bryant was
 denied continued representation in his adverse action proceeding was his
 support for a rival union, I am constrained to find based upon
 applicable Authority precedent that the Union breached its duty of fair
 representation in violation of Sections 8(b)(1) and (8) of the Statute
 when it ceased giving Mr. Bryant representation in the adverse action
 proceedings being held pursuant to the Library of Congress' regulations.
  American Federation of Government Employees and SSA, 17 FLRA No. 72.
 
    To the extent that the Union relies on my recommended decision in
 Library of Congress and American Federation of State, County, and
 Municipal Employees, Local 2910, supra, as a defense to its actions, I
 find such case to be distinguishable.  The aforementioned case dealt
 solely with the question of whether the Union's right to information
 under Section 7114(b) of the Statute was applicable to an adverse action
 proceeding held pursuant to the Library of Congress' regulations wherein
 the Union's presence was not based upon its standing as the exclusive
 representative but rather its selection by the affected employee as his
 personal representative.
 
    Here the sole issue is the denial of fair representation because of a
 unit employee's activities on behalf of a rival union and not what
 statutory rights are available to a union once it undertakes the
 representation of an employee in a forum where its standing is merely
 that of a personal representative.  The fact that a union might not be
 able to utilize its statutory Section 7114(b) rights to information in
 such forum is no defense to its failure to abide by its past practice of
 providing legal counsel to unit employees in adverse actions.  A
 dissident unit employee is entitled to the same representation from its
 exclusive representative as a loyal unit employee.  To the extent that
 the union representative's status is confined to that of a personal
 representative with no Section 7114(b) rights, then, that is all the
 representation the affected employee is entitled to.
 
    Having found that the Union violated Sections 7116(b)(1) and (8) of
 the Statute, it is hereby recommended that the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority, issue the following:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority and Section 7118 of the Federal
 Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Authority hereby orders
 that the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,
 Local 2477, AFL-CIO, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Refusing and/or failing to provide legal representation to
       Mr. Tyrone M. Bryant or any other unit employee in adverse action
       proceedings under the Library of Congress' regulations because Mr.
       Bryant and/or any other employee had exercised their statutory
       right to support a rival labor organization.
 
          (b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing Mr. Bryant or
       any other unit employee in the exercise of their right to support
       a rival labor organization freely and without fear of penalty or
       reprisal.
 
          (c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing unit employees in the exercise of their
       rights assured by the Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute.
 
          (a) Provide legal representation to Mr. Tyrone M. Bryant and
       all other unit employees in adverse action proceedings without
       discrimination and without regard to their activities in support
       of a rival labor organization.
 
          (b) Post at its business offices and its normal meeting places,
       including all places where notices to members and employees of the
       Library of Congress are customarily posted, copies of the attached
       Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations
       Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms they shall be signed by the
       President of Local 2477, American Federation of State, County, and
       Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, or his designee and they shall be
       posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
       conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members
       and to other employees are customarily posted.  The President of
       Local 2477, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
       Employees, AFL-CIO, shall take reasonable steps to insure that
       such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
       material.
 
          (c) Submit appropriate signed copies of such Notices to the
       Library of Congress, for posting in conspicuous places where the
       respective unit employees are located, where they shall be
       maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days from the date of
       posting.
 
          (d) Pursuant to Section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
       Regulations, notify the Regional Director of Region III, 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.