Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Rocky Mountain Area Exchange No. 4125, Fort Carson, Colorado (Respondent) and Ann Palmer (Charging Party)
[ v08 p432 ]
08:0432(94)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
8 FLRA No. 94
ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE
(AAFES), ROCKY MOUNTAIN AREA
EXCHANGE NO. 4125
FORT CARSON, COLORADO
Respondent
and
ANN PALMER
Charging Party
Case No. 7-CA-554
DECISION AND ORDER
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED THE ATTACHED DECISION IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING, FINDING THAT RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN
CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UNDER SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE
AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED. NO EXCEPTIONS WERE
FILED BY EITHER PARTY.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
(5 CFR 2423.29) AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE), THE AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED THE RULINGS
OF THE JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS
COMMITTED. THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED. UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE
JUDGE'S DECISION AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE SUBJECT CASE, AND NOTING
PARTICULARLY THE ABSENCE OF EXCEPTIONS, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE
JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 7-CA-554 BE, AND
IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 30, 1982
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE
(AAFES), ROCKY MOUNTAIN AREA
EXCHANGE NO. 4125
FORT CARSON, COLORADO
RESPONDENT
AND
ANN PALMER
CHARGING PARTY
LUTHER G. JONES, III, ESQUIRE
FOR THE RESPONDENT
ANN PALMER, PRO SE
JAMES J. GONZALES, ESQUIRE
FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
BEFORE: WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
CASE NO.: 7-CA-554
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THIS PROCEEDING, UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. 7101, ET SEQ. /1/, AND THE FINAL RULES AND
REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER, FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 45, NO. 12,
JANUARY 29, 1980, 5 C.F.R. 2415.1, ET SEQ., WAS INITIATED BY A CHARGE
FILED ON MAY 2, 1980, AND AN AMENDED CHARGE FILED ON JULY 2, 1980. THE
COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED ON JULY 29, 1980, PURSUANT TO
WHICH A HEARING WAS DULY HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1980, IN DENVER, COLORADO,
BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED.
ALL PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED, WERE AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
BEARING ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED HEREIN, AND WERE AFFORDED FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY.
AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING, NOVEMBER 17, 1980, WAS FIXED AS THE DATE
FOR MAILING POST HEARING BRIEFS WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED,
PURSUANT TO RESPONDENT'S TIMELY MOTION AND FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, TO
DECEMBER 8, 1980, AND RESPONDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL HAVE TIMELY FILED
EXCELLENT BRIEFS WHICH HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. UPON THE BASIS
OF THE ENTIRE RECORD /2/ INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND
THEIR DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
MS. ANN PALMER, WHO IS NOW EMPLOYED BY THE EXCHANGE SERVICE AT
PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE AS SECRETARY TO THE EXCHANGE MANAGER, GRADE 6,
AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS WHICH GAVE RISE TO THIS DISPUTE WAS EMPLOYED
BY THE EXCHANGE SERVICE AT FORT CARSON AS A CLERK-TYPIST, GRADE 3. HER
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR WAS MS. CATHERINE M. VADER. ON FEBRUARY 22, 1980,
MS. VADER COUNSELED MS. PALMER REGARDING HER JOB PERFORMANCE AND A
"SUMMARY OF COUNSELING" WAS PREPARED. MS. PALMER OBJECTED TO THE
ENTRIES IN HER COUNSELING RECORD, WHICH CONCERNED MEETING OF SUSPENSE
DATES ON TYPING AND OTHER DUTIES, AND SUBMITTED A THREE PAGE REFUTATION,
OR EXPLANATION OF COMMENTS, ON FEBRUARY 25, 1980, AND ON FEBRUARY 26,
1980, FILED A GRIEVANCE. THE FIRST STEP OF THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE
PROCEDURE PROVIDES FOR A MEETING WITH THE GRIEVANT'S IMMEDIATE
SUPERVISOR AND MS. VADER MET WITE MS. PALMER, WHO WAS ACCOMPANIED BY HER
UNION REPRESENTATIVE, MS. MARLENE MOOSMAN, TO DISCUSS THE GRIEVANCE ON
FEBRUARY 26, 1980. THERE IS A SHARP CONFLICT IN TESTIMONY CONCERNING
THE FEBRUARY 26 MEETING. MS. PALMER TESTIFIED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS: ".
. . MRS. MOOSMAN MENTIONED TO MISS VADER THAT I WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE
ENTRIES THAT SHE HAD MADE AND SHE--
. . . .
"A. MISS VADER. MISS VADER SAID WELL, SHE DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THERE
THAT I COULD OBJECT TO AND I SAID THAT I DID NOT AGREE WITH MOST OF THAT
AND SHE SAID, 'WHY DID YOU GO THIS ROUTE?' AND I TOLD HER, I SAID,
'THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY I COULD GO EXCEPT THROUGH THE UNION.'
"Q. WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE TO THAT?
"A. SHE JUST SAID, 'WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU THINK I'M AGAINST
YOU. I'M ONLY HERE TO HELP YOU.'" (TR. 32).
MS. MOOSMAN TESTIFIED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
"A. THEN DURING THE CONVERSATION, SHE SAID TO ANNE, SHE SAID, 'ANNE,
I WISH YOU HADN'T WENT THIS ROUTE.' AND I SAID, 'JUST A MINUTE, MISS
VADER,' I SAID, 'MRS. PALMER HAS THE RIGHT TO GO WHICH EVER WAY SHE
WANTS TO GO.' SHE SAYS, 'WELL, ANNE, I WISH YOU HADN'T DONE THIS. MY
DOOR IS OPEN. YOU CAN COME TALK TO ME.'" (TR. 85).
MS. VADER DENIED HAVING MADE ANY STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT OF "WHY DID
YOU GO THIS ROUTE" AND/OR "I'M ONLY HERE TO HELP YOU." (TR. 107). I
FOUND MS. VADER A VERY CREDITABLE WITNESS AND SHE PREPARED A MEMORANDUM
OF THE MEETING (RES. EXH. 3); BUT WITHOUT RESOLVING THE CONFLICT IN
TESTIMONY, WHETHER, AS MS. VADER TESTIFIED, SHE STATED: "I ASKED HER
WHY, WHAT LED UP TO THIS" (TR. 105) OR WHETHER, AS MS. PALMER TESTIFIED,
MS. VADER HAD SAID "WHY DID YOU GO THIS ROUTE?", I FIND NOTHING IN
EITHER STATEMENT, IN THE COURSE OF A GRIEVANCE MEETING, WHICH IN ANY
MANNER INTERFERED WITH MS. PALMER'S EXERCISE OF ANY PROTECTED RIGHT,
INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO FILE AND PROCESS GRIEVANCES, IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
16(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE. A GRIEVANCE MEETING IS NOT SO STERILE THAT TO
ASK, IN EFFECT, WHAT ARE YOU GRIEVING ABOUT, WHETHER PHRASED AS "WHAT
LED UP TO THIS" OR "WHY DID YOU GO THIS ROUTE" BECOMES AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE. CF., NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, REGION 1, BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS, 5 FLRA NO. 87 (1981). INDEED, ANY IMPLICATION OF
INTERFERENCE WAS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED BY MS. PALMER WHO ADMITTED, ON
CROSS-EXAMINATION, THAT WHEN SHE MENTIONED THE GRIEVANCE, MS. VADER HAD
SAID, "THAT'S YOUR RIGHT" (TR. 71), AND FURTHER, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION,
STATED THAT THERE WAS NO THREATENED PUNISHMENT FOR FILING THE GRIEVANCE
(TR. 67). NOR, OF COURSE, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE WHATEVER OF ANY
INTERFERENCE WITH MS. PALMER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE STATUTE. TO THE
CONTRARY, MS. PALMER SUBSEQUENTLY MOVED TO ANOTHER JOB WITH THE EXCHANGE
SERVICE AT A HIGHER GRADE.
NOR DO I FIND ANY BASIS FOR A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE IN MS.
PALMER'S TESTIMONY THAT MS. VADER ON FEBRUARY 26 ALSO SAID, "WELL, I
DON'T KNOW WHY YOU THINK I'M AGAINST YOU. I'M ONLY HERE TO HELP YOU."
/3/ ASSUMING, BUT WITHOUT RESOLVING THE CONFLICT OF TESTIMONY AS BETWEEN
MS. PALMER AND MS. VADER, THAT MS. VADER MADE THE STATEMENT ON FEBRUARY
26, 1980, ATTRIBUTED TO HER BY MS. PALMER, NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE
STATEMENT CONSTITUTED INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF MS. PALMER
IN THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHT ASSURED UNDER THE STATUTE, AND,
SPECIFICALLY, HER RIGHT TO FILE AND TO PROCESS GRIEVANCES UNDER THE
NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT. FROM MS. PALMER'S RESPONSE TO THE COUNSELING
ENTRIES AND FROM HER TESTIMONY, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT, IN SUBSTANTIAL PART,
HER POSITION WAS THAT, ALTHOUGH SHE CONCEDED VARIOUS FAILURES TO
COMPLETE ASSIGNED TASKS, SHE ASSERTED SHE WAS PREVENTED FROM DOING SO BY
OTHER PRIORITIES. CONSEQUENTLY, IF SUCH STATEMENT WERE MADE, IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE GRIEVANCE, IT MOST PROBABLY WAS MADE IN
RESPONSE TO MS. PALMER'S CONTENTION THAT SHE HAD OTHER PRIORITIES OR AS
MS. VADER'S MEMORANDUM STATED," . . . I TOLD HER THAT SHE HAD NOT
INFORMED ME. . . . " AND "IF WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO KEEP ME
INFORMED OF ANY UNFORSEEN REQUESTS OR PROBLEMS SHE MIGHT ENCOUNTER . . .
." (RES. EXH. 3). BUT THE STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MS. VADER, EVEN
WHOLLY REMOVED FROM CONTEXT, SIMPLY DID NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 16(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE. INDEED, EVEN MS. MOOSMAN'S
VERSION, WHICH I HAVE NOT CREDITED, WOULD NOT HAVE CONSTITUTED A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 16(A)(1). STANDING ALONE, A STATEMENT, EVEN IF MADE,
THAT "I WISH YOU HADN'T WENT THIS ROUTE," OR EVEN "I WISH YOU HADN'T
FILED A GRIEVANCE" DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE ANY
EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEE OF ANY RIGHT ASSURED BY THE
STATUTE FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH STATEMENT CONTAINS NO THREAT AND DOES
NOTHING TO DISCOURAGE THE FILING OF GRIEVANCES. COMPARE, FOR EXAMPLE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, BREMERTON,
WASHINGTON, A/SLMR NO. 582, 5 A/SLMR 700 (1975); NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, REGION 17, AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, A/SLMR
NO. 671, 6 A/SLMR 333, 6 A/SLMR SUPP. 102 (1976). NOT ONLY IS THE
RECORD DEVOID OF ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY THREAT OR COERCION OF MS. PALMER,
BUT, AS NOTED ABOVE, MS. PALMER STATED THAT THERE WAS NO THREATEN
PUNISHMENT FOR FILING THE GRIEVANCE.
ON MARCH 19, 1980, MS. VADER HAD A FURTHER COUNSELLING MEETING WITH
MS. PALMER IN WHICH SHE COMPLEMENTED MS. PALMER FOR HER JOB ON THE 1980
HANDICAPPED PLANS OF ACTION (TR. 36, 38; RES. EXH. 2). MS. PALMER
FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT MS. VADER BROUGHT UP THE SUBJECT OF FILING WHICH
MS. PALMER HAD NOT ACCOMPLISHED AND WHEN MS. PALMER PROMISED SHE WOULD
CATCH UP WITH THE FILING, MS. VADER SAID SHE WOULD TAKE HER AT HER WORD
AND WOULD NOT WRITE HER UP. (TR. 36-38). IN VIEW OF MS. PALMER'S
POSITIVE STATEMENTS THAT: A) THERE WAS NOT FURTHER DISCUSSION (TR. 39);
AND B) THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT HER GRIEVANCE (TR. 39), TOGETHER
WITH MS. VADER'S WHOLLY CREDIBLE TESTIMONY AND THE WRITTEN SUMMARY OF
COUNSELING, SIGNED BY MS. PALMER (RES. EXH. 2), I DO NOT CREDIT MS.
PALMER'S PROMPTED STATEMENT WHICH MS. VADER SPECIFICALLY DENIED, THAT
MS. VADER ON MARCH 19, 1980, SAID "WHY DO YOU THINK I'M ALWAYS AGAINST
YOU? WHY DID YOU GO THAT ROUTE?"
ON MAY 1, 1980 (RES. EXH. 4), MS. PALMER TESTIFIED THAT MS. VADER
TOLD HER" . . . WHEN MR. SCHUNK RETURNS FROM DALLAS, I WILL BE MOVING
YOUR DESK" (TR. 51) TO WHICH SHE MADE NO REPLY (TR. 51). MS. PALMER
STATED THAT MS. VADER SAID THAT MOVING HER DESK WOULD PERMIT "A BETTER
WORKING RELATIONSHIP" (TR. 52). THE MOVE CONSISTED OF MOVING MS.
PALMER'S DESK SIX OR SEVEN FEET (TR 132-133), IN ESSENCE TO PLACE HER
DESK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF A PARTITION (TR. 87) IN MS. VADER'S WORK AREA.
ON MAY 9, 1980, MS. MOOSMAN REQUESTED A MEETING ON THE PROPOSED
MOVEMENT OF THE DESK AND A MEETING WAS HELD AT ABOUT 3:00 P.M. ON MAY 9,
1980. PRESENT WERE MS. VADER, MS. PALMER AND MS. MOOSMAN. MS. PALMER
TESTIFIED THAT MS. MOOSMAN OPENED THE MEETING BY STATING, "I HAVE COME
HERE TO DISCUSS THE IMPACT OF THE MOVE OF THE DESK." (TR. 54). I DID
NOT FIND THE TESTIMONY OF EITHER MS. PALMER OR MS. MOOSMAN CONVINCING.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I FOUND MS. VADER'S TESTIMONY ENTIRELY CREDIBLE.
FOLLOWING THE MEETING, MS. VADER PREPARED A MEMORANDUM OF THE MEETING
(RES. EXH. 4) WHICH FULLY SUPPORTS HER TESTIMONY. ACCORDINGLY, I FIND,
AS MS. VADER TESTIFIED, SHE SAID, IN EFFECT, "I HAVE YOU HERE TO TELL
YOU THAT I AM, IN THE PRESENCE OF YOUR UNION REPRESENTATIVE, I AM TRYING
TO GIVE YOU A DATE THAT I AM GOING TO MOVE YOUR DESK AROUND INTO MY WORK
AREA" (TR. 116). MS. MOOSMAN GAVE SEVERAL VERSIONS OF WHAT SHE ASSERTED
MS. VADER SAID, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
"A. SHE SAID THAT SHE WAS GOING TO MOVE ANNE'S DESK 'IN FRONT OF
YOUR UNION REPRESENTATIVE, EVEN WITH YOUR UNION REPRESENTATIVE HERE.'"
(TR. 97).
MS. LAMER ALSO GAVE SEVERAL VERSIONS, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
" . . . MS. VADER SAID AGAIN THAT, 'I'M GOING TO MOVE YOU WHETHER YOU
LIKE IT OR NOT.'" (TR. 54).
" . . . 'IN SPITE OF YOUR UNION REPRESENTATIVE BEING HERE.'" (TR.
55)
GENERAL COUNSEL STATES IN HIS BRIEF, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
"RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO RELOCATE AN EMPLOYEE IS NOT IN CONTROVERSY."
(G.C. BRIEF, P. 5).
AS THE RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT TO MOVE MS. PALMER'S DESK WAS A MANAGEMENT
RIGHT UNDER SEC. 6(A) OF THE STATUTE, THE CHANGE IN CONDITION OF
EMPLOYMENT, I.E., THE DECISION TO MOVE THE DESK INTO MS. VADER'S WORK
AREA, WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, AND PURSUANT TO SEC. 6(B)(2) AND (3) OF THE
STATUTE, RESPONDENT WAS OBLIGATED TO BARGAIN ONLY AS TO "(2) PROCEDURES
WHICH MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY WILL OBSERVE IN EXERCISING ANY
AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION; OR (3) APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR
EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE EXERCISE OF ANY AUTHORITY UNDER THIS
SECTION . . . ." ALTHOUGH I DO NOT CREDIT EITHER MS. PALMER'S OR MS.
MOOSMAN'S STATEMENTS, EVEN IF MS. VADER HAD TOLD MS. PALMER, AS MS.
PALMER ASSERTED, THAT "I'M GOING TO MOVE YOU WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT"
OR I'M GOING TO MOVE YOU "IN SPITE OF YOUR UNION REPRESENTATIVE BEING
HERE" OR HAD STATED, AS MS. MOOSMAN ASSERTED," . . . SHE WAS GOING TO
MOVE ANNE'S DESK 'IN FRONT OF YOUR UNION REPRESENTATIVE, EVEN WITH YOUR
UNION REPRESENTATIVE HERE,'" NEITHER STATEMENT, EVEN IF MADE, WOULD HAVE
CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF SEC. 16 (A)(1) OF THE STATUTE. THE DECISION
TO MOVE MS. PALMER'S DESK, AS A RESERVED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT, WAS A FAIT
ACCOMPLI, SUBJECT ONLY TO NEGOTIATIONS ON IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION.
DELAWARE ARMY AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD, CASE NO. 23-CA-104 (ALJ, APRIL
10, 1981). THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT MS. PALMER WAS UNHAPPY ABOUT THE
DECISION; BUT RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF ITS DECISION TO EXERCISE A
MANAGEMENT RIGHT, WHETHER MS. PALMER LIKED IT OR NOT, OR IN SPITE OF
HER UNION REPRESENTATIVE BEING PRESENT, DID NOTHING TO SUGGEST
"INEFFICACY OF SUCH REPRESENTATION," AS GENERAL COUNSEL ASSERTS, SINCE
THE DECISION WAS A CONCEDED RIGHT OF MANAGEMENT. AS TO NEGOTIATIONS
PURSUANT SEC. 6(B)(2) AND (3), THEY WERE NOT REACHED ON MAY 9, INDEED,
NOT EVEN THE DATE FOR THE MOVE WAS GIVEN OR DISCUSSED BECAUSE MS. PALMER
WAS UPSET AND MS. VADER AND MS. MOOSMAN AGREED TO GET TOGETHER ANOTHER
TIME (TR. 98, 116).
HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT VIOLATE SEC. 16(A)(1) OF THE
STATUTE AS ALLEGED, I RECOMMEND THAT THE AUTHORITY ADOPT THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 7-CA-554 BE, AND
THE SAME IS HEREBY, DISMISSED.
WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DATED: JUNE 3, 1981
WASHINGTON, D.C.
--------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
/1/ FOR CONVENIENCE OF REFERENCE, SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE ARE, ALSO,
REFERRED TO HEREINAFTER WITHOUT INCLUSION OF THE INITIAL "71" OF THE
STATUTE REFERENCE, E.G. SECTION 7116(A)(1) WILL BE REFERRED TO SIMPLY
AS "16(A)(1)."
/2/ AS PART OF ITS BRIEF, RESPONDENT HAS NOTED "ERRATUM IN
TRANSCRIPT" (RES. BRIEF, P. 29) WHICH I SHALL TREAT AS A MOTION CORRECT
TRANSCRIPT WHICH IS GRANTED AND THE TRANSCRIPT IS HEREBY CORRECTED AS
FOLLOWS:
(1) PAGE 29, 1. 17, THE WORD "NOT" IS INSERTED BETWEEN "I'M AND
"GOING," TO READ, "I'M NOT GOING TO DECIDE THE GRIEVANCE."
(2) PAGE 29, 1. 24 (NOT LINE 22) THE FIRST WORD "BUYING" IS DELETED
AND THE WORD "BARRING" IS INSERTED THEREFOR.
(3) PAGE 89, L. 24, THE FIRST WORD "MINE" IS DELETED AND THE WORD
"MIND" IS INSERTED THEREFOR.
/3/ I DID NOT FIND MS. MOOSMAN'S TESTIMONY CONVINCING IN MANY
RESPECTS. FOR EXAMPLE, SHE STATED, "WELL, MAYBE I DIDN'T QUITE SAY IT
THE WAY I WAS SUPPOSED TO . . ." (TR. 93). MS. PALMER'S TESTIMONY AS
TO HER VERSION OF MS. VADER'S FEBRUARY 26, 1980, STATEMENT IS
ESSENTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH HER AMENDED CHARGE "I'M ONLY HERE TO HELP
YOU, WHY DID YOU GO THIS ROUTE?" AND NEITHER HER TESTIMONY NOR HER
AMENDED CHARGE SUPPORTS MS. MOOSMAN'S GLOSS. ". . . ANNE, I WISH YOU
HADN'T WENT THIS ROUTE" (TR. 85, 93). CONSEQUENTLY, I DO NOT CREDIT MS.
MOOSMAN'S TESTIMONY IN THIS REGARD AND ACCEPT MS. PALMER'S VERSION BUT
WITHOUT RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT OF HER TESTIMONY VERSUS THE
TESTIMONY, AND WRITTEN MEMORANDUM, OF MS. VADER.