---

39 FLRA No. 118

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

MEDICAL CENTER

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

(Respondent)

and

ROBERT L. MOORE

(Charging Party)

8-CA-00014

DECISION AND ORDER

March 22, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent did not violate section 7116(a)(1) and (2) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) because the Respondent did not, as alleged, discharge the Charging Party because he sought assistance from a labor organization. The Judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The Charging Party filed exceptions to the Judge's decision. The Respondent filed an opposition to the Charging Party's exceptions.^(*)

In effect, the Charging Party excepts to the credibility resolutions of the Judge on which his findings of fact are based. The demeanor of witnesses is an important factor in resolving issues of credibility. Only the Judge has had the benefit of observing the witnesses while they testified. We will not overrule a judge's determination regarding credibility of witnesses unless a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence demonstrates that the determination was incorrect. We have examined the record carefully and find no basis for reversing the Judge's credibility findings. Antilles Consolidated School System, 39 FLRA 496 (1991).

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge made at the hearing. Consistent with the foregoing discussion we find that no prejudicial error was committed and we affirm the rulings.

Upon consideration of the Judge's Decision and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions and recommended Order.

II. Order

The Complaint in this case is dismissed.

---

---

---

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
 

*/ The Respondent asserts in its opposition that the Charging Party's exceptions "fail to conform to the requirements of 5 CFR 2423.26" because of the "lack of specific references to the transcript and other relevant citations." Opposition at 1. It appears that the Respondent is arguing that the Charging Party's exceptions are procedurally defective under section 2423.27 of our Rules and Regulations. We conclude that the Charging Party's exceptions are sufficiently clear so as to satisfy the requirements of section 2423.27.

---