File 3: ALJ's Decision

[ v59 p233 ]


Office of Administrative Law Judges

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Respondent

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 3953
Charging Party

Case No. AT-CA-00310

David Norris, Esquire
Major Thomas J. Nied, U.S.A.F.
For the Respondent

Mr. Michael Johnson
For the Charging Party

Brent Hudspeth, Esquire
For the General Counsel

Before:      WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
Administrative Law Judge

DECISION

Statement of the Case

      This proceeding, under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the United States Code, 5 U.S.C. § 7101, et seq.  [n1] , and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder, 5 C.F.R. § 2423.1 et seq., concerns whether Respondent questioned Chief Steward Michael Johnson as to why he questioned employee Tara Michelle Wagner about her possible transfer and/or Mr. Johnson's two day suspension, ". . . for contemptuous behavior and abusive or offensive language during . . ." his questioning by Respondent and/or whether Respondent made, ". . . several threatening and intimidating statements to Johnson regarding his role as a Chief Steward . . .", as alleged in Pars. 13b., 14, 15 and 16 of the Complaint, in violation of §§ 16(a)(1) and (2) of the Statute.

      This case was initiated by a charge filed on February 4, 2000 (G.C. Exh. 1(a)) which alleged violations of §§ 16(a)(1), (2) and (5) of the Statute and by an Amended Charge, filed on July 14, 2000 (G.C. Exh. 1(c)) which alleged violations of §§ 16(a)(1) and (2) of the Statute. The Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued on July 31, 2000; alleged violations of §§ 16(a)(1) and (2) of the Statute; and set the hearing for October 27, 2000, pursuant to which a hearing was duly held on October 27, 2000, in Orlando, Florida, before the undersigned. All parties were represented at the hearing, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues involved, and were afforded the opportunity to present oral argument which Respondent exercised. At the conclusion of the hearing, November 27, 2000, was fixed as the date for mailing post-hearing briefs and General Counsel and Respondent each timely mailed an excellent brief, received on, or before, December 5, 2000, which have been carefully considered. Upon the basis of the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following findings and conclusions:

FINDINGS

      1. The American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3953 (hereinafter, "Union") is the exclusive representative of employees of the Defense Contract Management Agency, Orlando, Florida (hereinafter, "Respondent").

      2. Mr. William Aman, herein referred to by his nickname, "Rick" (Tr. 64), has been a Steward for four or five years (Tr. 64), was Vice President in Melbourne for two or three years and was President of the Union for the State of Florida for about six months (Tr. 65). Mr. Aman explained the organization of Respondent as follows:

Commander (Captain, U.S.N., Robert L. Williams) Deputy Commander (Joan White)

File 1: Authority's Decision in 59 FLRA No. 36
File 2: Opinion of Chairman Cabaniss
File 3: AKJ's Decision


Footnote # 1 for 59 FLRA No. 36 - ALJ's Decision

   For convenience of reference, sections of the Statute hereinafter are, also, referred to without inclusion of the initial, "71", of the statutory reference, i.e., Section 7116(a)(2) will be referred to, simply, as, "§ 16(a)(2)".


Footnote # 2 for 59 FLRA No. 36 - ALJ's Decision

   Later, Mr. Aman testified, ". . . I think it was maybe a week later" (Tr. 68) that he informed Mike Johnson. Mr. Johnson testified that Mr. Aman met with him, ". . . on the last day of November 1999, or on the morning of December 1st." (Tr. 21)


Footnote # 3 for 59 FLRA No. 36 - ALJ's Decision

   This case involved two very distinct incidents, and charges, each of which involved the union president. One resulted from the investigation of an alleged assault by the union president after adjournment of a union meeting. The other concerned a dispute between the union president and an associate warden over the assignment of overtime, a counseling meeting of the union president over her use of profane and disrespectful language during the overtime incident, and