41:0363(38)CA - - HUD, Region X, Seattle, WA and AFGE Local 3294 - - 1991 FLRAdec CA - - v41 p363

Other Files: 


[ v41 p363 ]
41:0363(38)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


41 FLRA No. 38

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT, REGION X

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

(Respondent)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 3294, AFL-CIO

(Charging Party)

9-CA-90655

DECISION AND ORDER

June 25, 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 violated section 7116(a)(1) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by telling a unit employee that the Respondent would retaliate against him for filing a grievance. The Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's decision and the General Counsel filed an opposition to the exceptions.

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, we have reviewed the rulings made by the Judge and find that no prejudicial error was committed. We affirm the rulings. In particular, we affirm the Judge's ruling that the complaint was not barred by section 7118(a)(4)(A) of the Statute. See generally U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Allenwood Federal Prison Camp, Montgomery, Pennsylvania, 40 FLRA 449, 454-455 (1991). We affirm also the Judge's denial of the Respondent's motion to supplement the record with a post-hearing affidavit allegedly bearing on the credibility of the General Counsel's witness. The Judge presiding at the hearing has discretion to determine whether the record should be reopened for additional evidence or argument. See 5 C.F.R. §§ 2423.19, 2423.19(k), 2423.22(a). We conclude that the Judge did not abuse his discretion by refusing to reopen the record in this case.

Finally, we reject the Respondent's exception that the Judge erred in crediting the uncontradicted testimony of the General Counsel's witness because the General Counsel provided no corroborating evidence to substantiate the testimony. The demeanor of witnesses is an important factor in resolving issues of credibility, and the Judge has the benefit of observing the witnesses. We will not overrule a Judge's determination regarding credibility of witnesses unless a clear preponderance of all relevant evidence demonstrates that the determination was incorrect. We have examined the record carefully and find no basis for reversing the Judge's credibility finding. See Antilles Consolidated School System, 39 FLRA 496 (1990).

Upon consideration of the Judge's decision and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings