43:0530(47)CA - - Justice, Litigation Division and Office of the Solicitor General, Washington, DC and AFSCME Council 26 - - 1991 FLRAdec CA - - v43 p530

Other Files: 


[ v43 p530 ]
43:0530(47)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


43 FLRA No. 47

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

LITIGATING DIVISIONS AND

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

WASHINGTON, D.C.

(Respondent)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE

COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

COUNCIL 26

(Charging Party/Union)

3-CA-10376

December 19, 1991

DECISION AND ORDER

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) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) because the Respondent had not, as alleged, unlawfully interrogated an employee. The Judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The General Counsel filed exceptions to the Judge's decision. The Respondent did not file an opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions.

The General Counsel 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. Department of the Air Force, Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan Air Force Base, California, 35 FLRA 345, 346 n.1 (1990).

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.)