13:0415(70)CA - VA Medical and Regional Office Center, Cheyenne, WY and AFGE Local 1014 -- 1983 FLRAdec CA
[ v13 p415 ]
13:0415(70)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
13 FLRA No. 70
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
AND REGIONAL OFFICE CENTER
CHEYENNE, WYOMING
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1014
Charging Party
Case No. 7-CA-967
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Regional
Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Federal Labor Relations
Authority" in accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules
and Regulations.
Upon consideration of the entire record, including the stipulation of
facts and the parties' contentions, /1/ the Authority finds:
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section
7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute (the Statute) when its agent, Chief Nurse Sally
McCreary, conducted an "exit interview" with unit employee Connie
Richards concerning conditions of employment. Such conduct is alleged
to constitute both a bypass of the exclusive representative in violation
of section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute and a formal discussion
within the meaning of section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute which was
held without the exclusive representative having been given prior notice
and an opportunity to be present, in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and
(8) of the Statute.
The stipulated record reflects that the day after Richards submitted
her resignation, McCreary and Richards met at McCreary's request to
discuss the reasons for the resignation. Among the matters discussed
were Richards' dissatisfaction with elements of her job and McCreary's
response thereto, Richards' work experience in the hemodialysis unit,
and Richards' comment regarding what she perceived as "over supervision"
by a specific RN which resulted in McCreary later advising that RN of
Richards' comment.
In a recently issued decision, Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration, Bureau of Field Operations,
San Francisco, California, 10 FLRA No. 24 (1982), the Authority
dismissed a complaint which alleged, in part, a violation of section
7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute by the holding of formal discussions
with bargaining unit employees concerning assignment and distribution of
work following an employee's detail to another city, without providing
the Union prior notice and an opportunity to be present. /2/ In that
case, the Authority, after noting some of the factors relevant to a
determination of whether meetings are "formal" in nature, concluded that
the General Counsel had failed to meet the burden of proving that the
meetings in question were "formal discussions" within the meaning of
section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute. In so finding, the Authority
noted that the stipulated record did not contain enough specific
evidence about the meetings to enable the Authority to determine whether
they were in fact "formal" in nature. In the instant case, the
Authority similarly concludes that the General Counsel has not met its
burden of proving that the meeting in question was a formal discussion.
Thus, the stipulated facts do not reveal, among other things, (1)
whether the individual who held the discussions was merely a first-level
supervisor or was higher in the management hierarchy; (2) how long the
meeting lasted; (3) how the meeting was called; (4) whether a formal
agenda was established for the meeting; or (5) whether the employee's
attendance at the meeting was mandatory. Therefore, the Authority finds
that the General Counsel has failed to establish that the Respondent
violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute. /3/
As to the allegation that the meeting also constituted a violation of
section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute, the Authority concludes that
the General Counsel has failed to establish a bypass of the exclusive
representative. In so finding, the Authority notes particularly that
the interview was held by the supervisor solely to ascertain the reasons
for the employee's resignation and that the stipulated record contains
no evidence that the Respondent attempted to undermine the Union or to
negotiate with the employee. /4/
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 7-CA-967 be, and it
hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
Issued, Washington, D.C., November 17, 1983
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ The Respondent's untimely brief has not been considered.
/2/ See also Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration, Bureau of Field Operations, San Francisco Region, 10
FLRA No. 25 (1982).
/3/ In view of this determination, the Authority finds it unnecessary
to decide and specifically does not pass upon whether the "exit
interview" involved herein concerned "any grievance or any personnel
policy or practices or other general condition of employment" within the
meaning of section 7114(a)(2)(A) of the Statute.
/4/ See Internal Revenue Service (District, Region, National Office
Unit), 11 FLRA No. 23 (1983); Kaiserslautern American High School,
Department of Defense Dependents Schools, Germany North Region, 9 FLRA
No. 28 (1982).