24:0653(66)CA - Defense Property Disposal Region, Ogden, UT and Defense Property Disposal Office, Camp Pendleton, Oceanside, CA and Leighton Thomas Leavitt -- 1986 FLRAdec CA



[ v24 p653 ]
24:0653(66)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 24 FLRA No. 66
 
 DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION 
 OGDEN, UTAH AND DEFENSE PROPERTY 
 DISPOSAL OFFICE (DPDO), CAMP 
 PENDLETON, OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 LEIGHTON THOMAS LEAVITT, An Individual
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 8-CA-50227
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This case is before the Authority based on exceptions to the attached
 Administrative Law Judge's Decision filed by the Defense Property
 Disposal Region -- Ogden (DPDR) and the Defense Property Disposal Office
 -- Pendleton (DPDO) (Respondent).  The General Counsel filed an
 opposition to the exceptions.  The complaint, as amended, alleged that
 Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute by engaging in
 surveillance and/or monitoring of a bargaining unit employee because he
 engaged in representational activities.
 
                              II.  Background
 
    The facts, more fully set out in the Judge's Decision, indicate that
 the Charging Party, Leighton Thomas Leavitt, was employed by Respondent
 at the Pendleton DPDO until April 1985 as a preceiver, Sorter,
 Classifier.  The Pendleton DPDO receives various materials from units at
 Pendleton and other locations which it stores and subsequently arranges
 for disposition.  Some of the materials coming to the facility are
 hazardous substances.  From late December 1984 until April 1985 Leavitt
 served as Shop Steward for the Ogden Regional Council of AFGE Locals
 (the Council), which represents various employees at the Pendleton DPDO.
  During this period he filed several unfair labor practice charges
 against Respondent and several "Notice(s) of Alleged Unsafe or
 Unhealthful Working Conditions" with his foreman.
 
    The circumstances giving rise to this action occurred on March 11,
 1985, when Leavitt noticed unit employees loading allegedly hazardous
 materials onto military vehicles, which in Leavitt's view violated the
 collective bargaining agreement between the Council and Respondent.
 Leavitt went to a roadway adjacent to the storage site during his
 afternoon break and took photographs of the activity in the site and
 returned to work.  Leavitt's actions were observed by another employee
 who informed Leavitt's supervisor, Mac Bojorquez.  Bojorquez immediately
 telephoned Base Security to inquire whether Leavitt's actions
 constituted a breach of security regulations since Leavitt was observed
 near a high security area where taking photographs was restricted.
 
    The officer assigned to security duty, Marine Sergeant Jones,
 informed Bororquez that he did not think that photographs were permitted
 on the site, but he would have to check the regulations to make sure.
 Meanwhile Jones told Staff Sergeant Phillips of his conversation with
 Bojorquez.  Phillips decided to go to the DPDO to investigate the
 matter.  Upon arriving at Leavitt's work site, Phillips questioned
 Leavitt about the incident.  Leavitt denied taking pictures or having a
 camera.  Leavitt did admit to having pretended to take pictures of the
 disposal site.  When Phillips asked Leavitt why he was taking pictures,
 Phillips testified that Leavitt "said something about being a member of
 the union." Phillips told Leavitt that he had nothing to do with this
 "field" (presumably referring to labor relations) but Leavitt could
 explain to the Military Police.  Phillips then phoned the Base Military
 Police and informed them that they should handle the matter.  However,
 because of the unavailability of a Military Police Investigator,
 Phillips was requested by the Military Police to "observe" Leavitt and
 ask Leavitt not to leave the base.
 
    Phillips decided to wait for the Military Police Investigator and was
 talking to Leavitt at his desk when Commander of the Guard Jones arrived
 with his driver, another guard.  The guards remained within 25 feet of
 Leavitt when he was at his desk.  Leavitt continued to work, sometimes
 walking around but closely followed by Jones or Phillips.  Jones asked
 Leavitt whether he had taken pictures, and Leavitt indicated that he had
 only pretended to take pictures.  Leavitt gave no further explanation of
 his actions.
 
    When Leavitt's workday ended at 3:30 p.m., he asked the guards if he
 could leave to pick up a "carpooler," and received no response.  He then
 went to his car, which was blocked in its space by the security guard's
 vehicle.  Jones denied knowing that the security vehicle was blocking
 Leavitt's car.  Shortly after 4:00 p.m., Leavitt went to his car, Jones
 moved the security vehicle, and Leavitt left.
 
    After 4:15 p.m., Bojorquez received a call from Colonel Kirkham who
 related that research had disclosed that photography was prohibited in
 numerous areas in Camp Pendleton, but no such restriction applied to the
 DPDO.  Bojorquez then told Phillips that the DPDO would take care of the
 situation and Phillips telephoned the Military Police to let them know
 the state of affairs after which the security guards left the DPDO.
 
    Before the Judge, Jones testified that he was perplexed as to why
 anyone would want to pretend to take pictures and was concerned about
 possible espionage or sabotage.  Leavitt testified that he took the
 photographs to record alleged violations of Occupational Safety and
 Health Administration (OSHA) requirements and to show that the agency
 had not fulfilled its commitments to OSHA regarding the hazardous waste.
 
    Leavitt also asserted that he acted consistent with Article 15,
 Section 8 of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, which
 provides:
 
          In the course of performing normally assigned work, employees
       acting in the capacity of Union representatives will be alert to
       observe unsafe practices, equipment and conditions . . . .  If an
       unsafe or unhealthy condition is observed, the representative
       should report to the cognizant immediate supervisor.  If the
       safety question is not settled by the representative and the
       immediate supervisor, or the DPDO . . . , the representative will
       refer the matter promptly to . . . the Region Safety and Health
       Manager who will act on behalf of the Employer(s).
 
                 III.  Administrative Law Judge's Decision
 
    The Judge found that Leavitt was engaged in activity protected by the
 Statute when he took photographs of the disposal site.  The Judge
 rejected Respondent's contention that it lacked knowledge that Leavitt
 was engaged in union activity when he photographed the disposal site and
 found that Leavitt's actions on March 11, 1985, reasonably should have
 alerted foreman Bojorquez that Leavitt was engaged in union activity.
 The Judge concluded that under the circumstances, Leavitt's being kept
 under surveillance by security guards for almost two hours constituted
 interference, restraint and coercion of Leavitt for having engaged in
 conduct protected by the Statute.  The Judge found that the agency's
 actions, by their very nature, would tend to intimidate and inhibit a
 shop steward from engaging in activity protected by the Statute.
 
                       IV.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Respondent excepts to the Administrative Law Judge's decision
 that "there does not appear to be any dispute that Leavitt was engaged
 in activity protected by the Statute when he took photographs of the
 disposal site." Respondent argues that Leavitt's conduct was in
 violation of the parties' agreement and, therefore, was not protected by
 the Statute.  Respondent also objects to the Judge's decision that
 circumstances should have alerted Respondent's foreman Bojorquez that
 Leavitt was engaged in union activity;  the Respondent argues that
 employees of the DPDO are permitted to take photographs only with the
 express consent of the Defense Property Disposal Officer and Leavitt
 failed to notify the appropriate authority that he was going to take
 photographs on behalf of the union.  Finally, Respondent excepts to the
 Administrative Law Judge's findings that control over the DPDO and
 security guards' activities remained with foreman Bojorquez at all times
 and that the security guards' belief that regulations prohibited taking
 pictures at the DPDO and their actions were not reasonable.
 
    The General Counsel filed a brief in response to the Respondnet's
 exceptions in which it agreed with the Judge's findings and recommended
 Order.
 
                               V.  Analysis
 
    The question here is whether the Respondent's conduct in observing
 Leavitt for a two-hour period tended to interfere with, restrain, or
 coerce Leavitt in the exercise of his rights under the Statute.
 
    We find first, and in agreement with the Judge, that Leavitt's
 conduct in photographing what he viewed as a possible contract violation
 was protected by the Statute.  The Authority has previously found that
 protected activity under section 7102 of the Statute encompasses an
 employee's right to conduct an investigation on his own time to support
 a grievance or in contemplation of filing a grievance.  Department of
 Defense Dependents Schools, Mediterranean Region, Naples American High
 School (Naples, Italy), 21 FLRA No. 103 (1986);  Department of Justice,
 Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, North
 Carolina, 18 FLRA No. 100 (1985).  Leavitt's action is protected by the
 Statute because the photographs were taken in contemplation of filing
 grievances relating to the Respondent's noncompliance with safety
 requirements and its alleged violation of the collective bargaining
 agreement.  /1/ However, in the circumstances of this case, we find that
 the Respondent's subsequent conduct in observing Leavitt was not a
 violation of the Statute.  Rather, the Respondent's action was based on
 security considerations.
 
    The record indicates that Leavitt's actions took place within the
 confines of a military installation and were subject to certain
 restrictions, including restrictions on taking photographs, imposed by
 the military host activity on the tenant activity employing him.  The
 restrictions were imposed to secure the installation and to prevent
 sabotage or espionage.  The record further shows that Leavitt was
 suspected of taking photographs in a prohibited area.  Even though
 Bojorquez did not witness the incident, when he received the report of
 photographing, he called Base Security because of a possible security
 breach.  The guards who subsequently observed Leavitt were doing so
 pending a determination on the security breach issue.  Under these
 circumstances, the Respondent's conduct was not unreasonable and did not
 interfere with Leavitt's rights under the Statute or in any other way
 violate section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute.
 
                              VI.  Conclusion
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Statute, the Authority has reviewed the rulings
 of the Judge made at the hearing, finds that no prejudicial error was
 committed, and thus affirms those rulings.  We have considered the
 Judge's decision, the positions of the parties and the entire record,
 and adopt the Judge's findings and conclusions only to the extent
 consistent with the above.  We conclude that the Respondent did not
 violate section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute by "monitoring" Leavitt's
 activity after he was observed taking photographs of the facility and by
 questioning Leavitt about a suspected breach of security.  Accordingly,
 the complaint shall be dismissed in its entirety.  /2/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    The complaint in Case No. 8-CA-50227 is hereby dismissed.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., December 19, 1986.
 
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       /s/ Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Case No. 8-CA-50227
 
 DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL REGION, OGDEN, 
 UTAH AND DEFENSE PROPERTY DISPOSAL OFFICE 
 (DPDO), CAMP PENDLETON, OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
    Respondent
 
                                    and
 
 LEIGHTON THOMAS LEAVITT
    Charging Party
 
    Thomas E. Fehr, Esq.
    For the Respondent
 
    Jonathan S. Levine, Esq.
    For the General Counsel
 
    Before:  SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This case arose 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.
 
    Upon an unfair labor practice charge filed by Leighton Thomas
 Leavitt, an individual, against the above captioned Respondent, /3/ the
 General Counsel of the Authority, by the Regional Director for Region
 VIII, issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing alleging Respondent
 violated section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute by engaging in surveillance
 and/or monitoring a bargaining unit employee because of his having
 engaged in representational activities.
 
    A hearing on the Complaint was conducted in Vista, California at
 which Respondent and the General Counsel were represented by counsel /4/
 and afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, call, examine and
 cross-examine witnesses and argue orally.  Briefs were filed by counsel
 for the General Counsel and counsel for Respondent and have been
 carefully considered.
 
    Upon the entire record in this case, my observation of the witnesses
 and their demeanor and from my evaluation of the evidence, I make the
 following:
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    At all times material herein various of Respondent's employees
 located at the Camp Pendleton facility of the Defense Property Disposal
 Office (herein DPDO) have been represented for collective bargaining
 purposes by the Ogden Regional Council of AFGE Locals (herein called the
 Council).  The Charging Party, Leighton Thomas Leavitt, was employed by
 Respondent at the Pendleton DPDO for approximately four years until
 being transferred to another facility in April 1985.  While at Pendleton
 Leavitt was employed as a Receiver, Sorter, Classifier.  The Pendleton
 DPDO receives various materials from units at Pendleton and other
 locations which it stores and subsequently arranges for disposition.
 Some of the materials coming to the facility are hazardous substances.
 
    From late December 1984 until sometime in April 1985 Leavitt served
 as Shop Steward for the Council at the Pendleton DPDO.  During this
 period Leavitt filed five unfair labor practice charges against
 Respondent and five "Notice(s) of Alleged Unsafe or Unhealthful Working
 Conditions" with his foreman.  Even before becoming Shop Steward Leavitt
 was concerned with health and safety in the work place.  Thus, a
 complaint from Leavitt to the Occupational Safety and Health
 Administration (OSHA) gave rise to an inspection of the Pendleton DPDO
 by OSHA in September 1984.  /5/ Part of OSHA'S findings reported on
 December 28, 1984 indicated:  that the Pendleton DPDO had changed its
 procedures for handling hazardous substances in that hazardous materials
 would no longer be handled by DPDO employees;  a contractor was to
 remove all such materials within a week, and;  thereafter hazardous
 materials would not be sent to the Pendleton DPDO.
 
    Subsequently Leavitt observed that Respondent did not fulfill its
 commitments made to OSHA.  Thus, hazardous material continued to be
 stored at the DPDO.  On March 11, 1985 Leavitt noticed unit employees
 loading the hazardous material onto military vehicles.  In his opinion
 management's conduct in this regard was violative of the collective
 bargaining agreement between the Council and Respondent which was in
 effect at all times material herein and required compliance with OSHA
 standards.  /6/ Accordingly, Leavitt went to a roadway adjacent to the
 storage site around 2:00 p.m. during his afternoon break and took some
 photographs of the activity in the site and returned to work.  Leavitt's
 actions had been observed by another employee, Randall Beck, who
 informed Leavitt's supervisor, Mac Bojorquez, Property Management
 Foreman, that he saw Leavitt about 30 to 40 feet away from the storage
 site apparently taking pictures of the men in the storage site loading
 the hazardous material onto a truck.  /7/
 
    Foreman Bojorquez immediately telephoned Base Security and spoke to
 U.S. Marine Corps Staff Sergeant David Jones who was the Commander of
 the Guard that day.  Bojorquez informed Jones that Leavitt was observed
 taking pictures and wished to know if this constituted a breach of
 security regulations since Bojorquez was aware that purchasers of DPDO
 equipment who came to the site were required to have written
 authorization from the Base Commanding Officer before taking pictures.
 Jones informed Bojorquez that he didn't think anyone was permitted to
 take photographs without written authorization.  /8/ Bojorquez then
 talked to Leavitt and told him that he had been observed taking pictures
 of the site and had called Security and inquired as to regulations
 concerning photographing.  Bojorquez informed Leavitt that he was not to
 be taking pictures much less being near the hazardous area because his
 assignment was working in the warehouse.
 
    Foreman Bojorquez then called Defense Property Disposal Region (DPDR)
 in Ogden and conveyed what had thus far transpired concerning Leavitt to
 U.S. Air Force Colonel Thomas Kirkham, commander of DPDR, and Security
 Officer Chuck Lambert.  After Bojorquez told Lambert of having been told
 by the Security Guard office that regulations against taking pictures
 existed, Lambert indicated he would call someone else on the base about
 this matter.  Thereafter, according to Bojorquez, he remained by his
 telephone in the event Colonel Kirkham called and, although he was aware
 when security guards arrived, he did not know of their conduct at the
 DPDO, infra.
 
    Meanwhile Commander of the Guard Jones told Guard Officer Staff
 Sergeant William Phillips of his conversation with Bojorquez.  Phillips
 decided to go to the DPDO to investigate the matter and arrived at the
 warehouse shortly after 2:15 p.m. on that same day.  /9/ Phillips
 testified when he arrived at the DPDO Bojorquez told him that he saw
 Leavitt taking pictures of the disposal site.  From Bojorquez's
 description of where Leavitt was standing when he took the pictures
 Phillips concluded there would have been a clear view of the Pendleton
 airfield and this concerned Phillips.  /10/
 
    Guard Officer Phillips then went to Leavitt who was at his work desk
 in the receiving area.  /11/ In response to Phillips' questions, Leavitt
 denied taking pictures or having a camera.  However, Leavitt did admit
 to having pretended to take pictures of the disposal site.  Phillips
 left Leavitt and went to Bojorquez's work site and told him of Leavitt's
 denial.  Bojorquez insisted that Leavitt had a camera and Phillips
 responded that he did not have the right to make a search.  Phillips
 went back to Leavitt's work area where Leavitt was standing by a
 doorway.  Phillips related to Leavitt that Bojorquez said he had a
 camera and was taking pictures and Phillips asked Leavitt why he was
 taking pictures.  Leavitt then said something about being a member of
 the Union and began talking about having cancer.  /12/ Phillips
 indicated he had nothing to do with this "field" but would let Leavitt
 explain to the military police.  Phillips then telephoned the Base
 Military Police and informed them they should handle the matter.
 However, the Military Police investigator was not available at the time.
  Accordingly, Military Police requested that Phillips "observe" Leavitt
 and ask Leavitt not to leave the base.
 
    Guard Officer Phillips decided to wait for the Military Police
 investigator and was talking to Leavitt at his desk when Commander of
 the Guard Jones arrived around 2:40 p.m. with his driver, another Guard.
  Phillips told Leavitt he should wait for the Military Police and
 related the stare of affairs to Jones.  The three guards remained in
 Leavitt's work area frequently very close by but always within 25 feet
 from Leavitt when he was at his desk.  /13/ Leavitt continued to work,
 sometimes walking around but always closely followed by either Phillips
 or Jones.  /14/ After coming on the scene Jones questioned Leavitt at
 his desk as to whether he had taken pictures and Leavitt indicated he
 had only pretended to take pictures.  Jones acknowledged that when
 Leavitt left his desk to go to other areas, he followed Leavitt "trying
 to get some answers." He further testified he was perplexed as to why
 anyone would want to pretend to take pictures and was concerned about
 possible espionage or sabotage.  Leavitt gave no further explanation of
 his actions but told Jones about various aspects of his work.  In any
 event, it is apparent that Leavitt was kept under open surveillance at
 all times the security guard was at the DPDO.
 
    Leavitt's work day ended at 3:30 p.m.  Around that time Leavitt told
 the security guards he had a "carpooler" to pick up and asked if he
 could leave but received no response.  He then went to the loading dock
 where he observed that his automobile was blocked in its parking space
 by the security guard's vehicle.  /15/ Shortly after 4:00 p.m. Leavitt
 went to his car, Jones moved the security vehicle and Leavitt left.
 
    After 4:15 p.m. Foreman Bojorquez received a telephone call from
 Colonel Kirkham who related that research into the matter disclosed that
 although photography was prohibited in numerous areas at Camp Pendleton,
 there was no such restriction applicable to the DPDO.  Upon receiving
 this information Bojorquez told Sergeant Phillips that the DPDO would
 take care of the situation and Phillips telephoned the Military Police
 to let them know the state of affairs after which the security guards
 left the DPDO.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    Counsel for the General Counsel essentially contends that by having
 Shop Steward Leavitt placed in custody and/or monitoring his activities
 for having engaged in activities protected by the Statute, Respondent
 coerced and restrained Leavitt in the performance of his
 representational duties in violation of section 7116(a)(1) of the
 Statute.
 
    Counsel for Respondent contends no violation of the Statute has been
 established since:  Respondent had no knowledge that Leavitt was engaged
 in union activity;  no agency relationship exists between Respondent and
 the security guards and;  even if the conduct of the security guards was
 attributable to Respondent, such conduct was reasonable under the
 circumstances and was therefore privileged.
 
    There does not appear to be any dispute that Leavitt was engaged in
 activity protected by the Statute when he took photographs of the
 disposal site and I so find.  Thus, Leavitt was the Shop Steward;
 Respondent had made certain commitments to OSHA regarding the storage
 and disposal of hazardous waste;  Article 15 of the collective
 bargaining agreement addressed the matter of safe and healthful working
 conditions and compliance with OSHA standards;  and Leavitt's
 photographing the disposal site was related to the enforcement of
 Article 15 of the agreement.
 
    I reject Respondent's contention that it lacked knowledge that
 Leavitt was engaging in union activity when he photographed the disposal
 site and therefore no violation of the Statute can stand.  Respondent
 cannot deny knowledge of the terms of its collective bargaining
 agreement, specifically the section relating to OSHA requirements, and
 of the OSHA inspection, supra.  Moreover, Respondent was also well aware
 that Leavitt was the Shop Steward and was particularly concerned with
 health and safety in the work place, matters of normal union interest.
 /16/ Thus, Leavitt's actions on March 11, 1985 with regard to the
 hazardous material, in these circumstances, reasonably should have
 alerted foremen Bojorquez that Leavitt was engaged in union activity.
 Indeed, if Bojorquez was in doubt of whether Leavitt was photographing
 the removal of hazardous waste at the DPDO for personal reasons or for
 union related reasons, he could have asked Leavitt, but he did not.
 Accordingly, in these circumstances knowledge of union activity must be
 inferred.
 
    I also conclude that in the circumstances herein Shop Steward
 Leavitt's being kept under open surveillance by security guards for
 almost two hours constituted interference, restraint and coercion of
 Leavitt for having engaged in conduct protected by the Statute.
 Employee Beck, who observed the photographing by Leavitt, informed
 foreman Bojorquez that Leavitt was taking a picture of the disposal
 site.  Bojorquez was aware of Leavitt's concern as Shop Steward over
 health and safety matters and that Leavitt was the person who complained
 to OSHA over hazardous materials at the site.  Although Beck testified
 that from Leavitt's position when taking pictures he could not have been
 photographing the airfield, he did not convey this fact to Bojorquez.
 However, neither did Bojorquez inquire of Beck as to what Leavitt could
 observe from his position.  True, Bojorquez did not ask the security
 guards to investigate the matter and was given information from Sergeant
 Jones that subsequently appeared to be incorrect as to regulations
 prohibiting photography on the base.  But when security guard Sergeant
 Phillips investigated the matter Bojorquez, perhaps inadvertently,
 conveyed that it was he who observed the photographing and misled
 Phillips into believing that from where Leavitt was seen with a camera
 he could have been photographing the airfield.  Phillips acknowledged
 that this triggered his concern and prompted his continued inquiry into
 the matter.  Thus, it was Bojorquez's failure to make a thorough inquiry
 of Beck as to the complete circumstances of Leavitt's actions and
 misleading Phillips which set into motion a two hour episode which might
 have been disposed of in two minutes if Sergeant Phillips was satisfied
 that photographing the airfield was not involved in the incident.
 
    I reject Respondent's contentions that the security guards' conduct
 cannot be attributed to Respondent.  While foreman Bojorquez did not ask
 the security guards to investigate the matter, he provided them with the
 misleading information which prompted the investigation and was aware of
 their continued presence at the DPDO and with due diligence could have
 observed the nature and extent of their activities.  Further, it is
 clear from the record that control over the DPDO and the security
 guards' activities remained with Bojorquez at all times.  Thus, when
 Bojorquez, after being told by his Commander that Respondent concluded
 there were no regulations against Leavitt's activities, informed
 Sergeant Phillips that DPDO would handle the matter, the security guards
 ceased their inquiry and departed.  In my view the facts herein
 demonstrate that during this incident Respondent retained sufficient
 control over the activities of the security guards to have created an
 agency relationship which cannot now be denied.
 
    Nor do I find that the security guards' belief that regulations
 prohibited taking pictures at the DPDO and their actions with regard to
 Leavitt were reasonable under the circumstances thereby precluding a
 finding of violation of the Statute.  Leavitt's denial of having taken
 pictures may well have exacerbated the situation, but this is
 speculative.  However, as stated above, Respondent ultimately concluded
 Leavitt engaged in no prohibited conduct and accordingly Leavitt should
 not have been questioned by the security guards or have had his actions
 monitored from the very beginning.  Indeed, it was Respondent's
 misleading information to Sergeant Phillips and failure to know which
 gave rise to a course of events which never should have occurred.  In
 such circumstances, the security guards conduct may not be regarded as
 reasonable and thereby serve to excuse actions which by their very
 nature would tend to intimidate and inhibit a shop steward from engaging
 in activity protected by the Statute.  In view of the entire foregoing I
 conclude Respondent, by the conduct described herein, violated section
 7116(a)(1) of the Statute and recommend the Authority issue the
 following:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to Section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is
 hereby ordered that the Defense Property Disposal Region, Ogden, Utah
 and Defense Property Disposal Office (DPDO), Camp Pendleton, Oceanside,
 California shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a).  Monitoring the actions of and keeping under surveillance
       Leighton Thomas Leavitt, or any other employee, for engaging in
       union representational activities.
 
          (b).  In any like or related manner interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing 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 polici