United States Army Aviation Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama (Respondent) and Wiregrass Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO (Complainant) 

 



[ v01 p857 ]
01:0857(98)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 1 FLRA NO. 98
 
 UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION CENTER,
 FORT RUCKER, ALABAMA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 WIREGRASS METAL TRADES COUNCIL,
 AFL-CIO
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 40-8806(CA)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    ON MARCH 29, 1979, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MILTON KRAMER ISSUED HIS
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING, FINDING
 THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
 ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMPLAINT BE
 DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.  NO EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED TO THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION
 PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
 IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 (44 F.R. 44741, JULY 30, 1979).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE
 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN
 SECTION 7135(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HAS
 REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING
 AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE
 HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, AND
 NOTING PARTICULARLY THAT NO EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY
 ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
 RECOMMENDATION.  /1/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE
 ON. 40-8806(CA) BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 15, 1979
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    DAVID M. SMITH
 
    OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE
 
    U.S. ARMY AVIATION CENTER
 
    FORT RUCKER, ALABAMA 36362
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    MAURICE E. CONWAY
 
    INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
 
    INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
 
    ELECTRICAL WORKERS
 
    P.O. BOX 253
 
    LINDEN, ALABAMA 36748
 
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    BEFORE:  MILTON KRAMER
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THIS CASE AROSE UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491 AS AMENDED.  IT WAS
 INITIATED WITH A COMPLAINT DATED APRIL 14, 1978 AND FILED APRIL 26, 1978
 BY THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD VIOLATED SECTIONS
 19(A)(1), (5), AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  THE VIOLATIONS WERE
 ALLEGED TO RESULT FROM THE RESPONDENT ALLEGEDLY HAVING COERCED AN
 EMPLOYEE IN THE BARGAINING UNIT INTO WITHDRAWING A GRIEVANCE HE HAD
 FILED AND WHICH HAD PROGRESSED TO THE STAGE OF COMPLAINANT HAVING
 INVOKED ARBITRATION UNDER THE PARTIES' NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE AND
 ARBITRATION PROCEDURE, AND IN THE RESPONDENT HAVING REFUSED TO PROCEED
 WITH THE ARBITRATION AFTER THE GRIEVANCE HAD BEEN COERCEDLY WITHDRAWN.
 ON JUNE 28, 1978 THE COMPLAINANT WITHDREW ITS ASSERTION THAT SUCH
 CONDUCT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(5) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
 
    THE ACTING REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED A NOTICE OF HEARING.  A
 HEARING WAS HELD IN OZARK, ALABAMA AT WHICH BOTH PARTIES WERE
 REPRESENTED.  BOTH PARTIES PRODUCED WITNESSES WHO WERE EXAMINED AND
 CROSS EXAMINED AND OFFERED EXHIBITS WHICH WERE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.
 BOTH PARTIES MADE CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND FILED BRIEFS.
 
                                   FACTS
 
    THE COMPLAINANT IS THE EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED BARGAINING
 REPRESENTATIVE OF A UNIT OF WAGE GRADE EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT.
 LESTER A. PARAMORE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE UNIT AS A
 FURNITURE REPAIRMAN.  IN JULY 1977 HE FILED A GRIEVANCE WITH HIS
 SUPERVISOR, JOHN C. KELLEY, CONTENDING THAT HE WAS IMPROPERLY ASSIGNED
 WORK OF A CARPENTER, WORK OUTSIDE HIS JOB CLASSIFICATION.  IN
 PROSECUTING HIS GRIEVANCE PARAMORE WAS REPRESENTED BY THE COMPLAINANT.
 THE GRIEVANCE WAS DENIED THROUGH THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE PRECEDING
 ARBITRATION AND ON OCTOBER 4, 1977 THE COMPLAINANT INVOKED ARBITRATION.
 THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT ONLY THE COMPLAINANT OR THE
 RESPONDENT MAY INVOKE ARBITRATION.  AN ARBITRATOR WAS AGREED ON AND A
 DATE FOR THE ARBITRATION HEARING WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION.
 
    LATE IN NOVEMBER 1977, PARAMORE TOLD ONE OF THE COMPLAINANT'S
 STEWARDS HE WAS CONSIDERING WITHDRAWING HIS GRIEVANCE.  LATER IN
 NOVEMBER, PARAMORE ENTERED A HOSPITAL IN MOBILE FOR EXTENSIVE WORK UP OF
 MYOPATHY.  EARLY IN DECEMBER, WHILE STILL IN THE HOSPITAL, A FELLOW
 WORKER ADVISED KELLEY THAT PARAMORE NEEDED SICK LEAVE ADVANCED TO HIM TO
 REMAIN IN A PAY STATUS.  WHAT FOLLOWED IS THE SUBJECT OF SHARPLY
 CONFLICTING TESTIMONY.
 
    PARAMORE TESTIFIED THAT ON DECEMBER 6, KELLEY CALLED HIM AT THE
 HOSPITAL AND TOLD HIM HE NEEDED SOME INFORMATION FROM PARAMORE'S DOCTOR
 TO OBTAIN ADVANCED SICK LEAVE FOR HIM.  HE TESTIFIED FURTHER THAT A FEW
 MINUTES LATER KELLEY CALLED HIM AGAIN AND TOLD HIM THAT OBTAINING
 ADVANCE SICK LEAVE WOULD BE EASIER IF PARAMORE DROPPED "THIS OTHER
 THING", IMPLYING THAT DROPPING THE PENDING GRIEVANCE WOULD FACILITATE
 OBTAINING THE LEAVE.  PARAMORE'S WIFE, WHO, WAS IN THE HOSPITAL ROOM
 WITH HIM AND HEARD HIS END OF THE CONVERSATION, CORROBORATED HIS
 TESTIMONY.
 
    KELLEY, ON THE OTHER HAND, TESTIFIED THAT WHEN ROY F. WATSON, A
 FELLOW WORKER OF PARAMORE'S TOLD KELLEY ABOUT PARAMORE'S NEED FOR
 ADVANCE SICK LEAVE, KELLEY CALLED PARAMORE AT THE HOSPITAL TO TELL HIM
 ABOUT TWO DOCUMENTS KELLEY NEEDED TO OBTAIN THE LEAVE FOR HIM.  HE
 TESTIFIED HE CALLED TWICE, THAT THE FIRST TIME PARAMORE WAS NOT IN THE
 ROOM BUT WAS OUT TAKING A TEST, AND THAT IN THE SECOND CALL A FEW
 MINUTES LATER HE SPOKE WITH PARAMORE AND EXPLAINED THE TWO DOCUMENTS HE
 NEEDED, A WRITTEN REQUEST BY PARAMORE AND A DOCTOR'S CERTIFICATE.  HE
 TESTIFIED FURTHER THAT PARAMORE ASKED HIM WHETHER THE PENDENCY OF HIS
 GRIEVANCE WOULD INFLUENCE HIS BEING GRANTED ADVANCE SICK LEAVE AND THAT
 KELLEY ANSWERED THAT IT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE.  WATSON, WHO WAS WITH
 KELLEY WHEN HE MADE THE TWO TELEPHONE CALLS AND HEARD KELLEY'S END OF
 THE CONVERSATION, CORROBORATED HIS TESTIMONY.
 
    I FIND THAT PARAMORE WAS CONCERNED THAT THE PENDENCY OF HIS GRIEVANCE
 MIGHT AFFECT HIS BEING GRANTED ADVANCE SICK LEAVE, AND THAT HIS CONCERN
 WAS NOT ENGENDERED BY ANYTHING ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT SAID
 OR DID.
 
    AFTER THE PARAMORE-KELLEY CONVERSATION OR CONVERSATIONS, PARAMORE
 CALLED HIS DAUGHTER IN OZARK (NEAR FORT RUCKER) AND ASKED HER TO WRITE A
 LETTER WITHDRAWING HIS GRIEVANCE AND TO SIGN HIS NAME TO IT AND TO
 DELIVER IT TO KELLEY, AND T