19:0520(66)CO - AFGE Local 1738 and VA Medical Center, Salisbury, NC -- 1985 FLRAdec CO
[ v19 p520 ]
19:0520(66)CO
The decision of the Authority follows:
19 FLRA No. 66
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1738, AFL-CIO
Respondent
and
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
Charging Party
Case No. 4-CO-47
DECISION AND ORDER
The Chief Administrative Law Judge issued his Decision 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. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Chief Judge's Decision and a
supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an opposition thereto.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (the Statute), the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the
Chief Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon consideration of the
Chief Judge's Decision and the entire record in this case, the Authority
hereby adopts the Chief Judge's findings, conclusions and
recommendation, as modified herein.
The Complaint alleged that the Respondent, American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 1738, AFL-CIO, violated section 7116(b)(1)
and (3) of the Statute when it removed unit employee Kenneth Poteat from
his position as Union steward because he discharged his duties as an
employee by reporting to the Agency in compliance with Agency policy
that another employee engaged in patient abuse.
The Chief Judge found that "there is every reason to suspect that
Poteat violated Union policy and that he was removed, in effect, for
conduct unbecoming an officer." He further found that while the report
of alleged patient abuse by a fellow employee caused his removal as
steward, he could not find that the Union's motive in removing Poteat
was punishment or reprisal. Section 7116(b)(1) of the Statute makes it
an unfair labor practice for a labor organization "to interfere with,
restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise by the employee of any
right under this chapter(.)" In agreement with the conclusion of the
Chief Judge, the Authority finds that the section 7116(b)(1) allegation
has not been established. Thus, reporting alleged patient abuse is not
itself a protected right under the Statute, and the section 7116(b)(1)
allegation must therefore be dismissed.
However, contrary to the Chief Judge, the Authority finds that
removing Poteat from his position as Union steward after he reported
alleged patient abuse violated section 7116(b)(3) of the Statute.
Section 7116(b)(3) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor
organization to "coerce, discipline, fine, or attempt to coerce a member
of the labor organization as punishment, reprisal, or for the purpose of
hindering or impeding the member's work performance or productivity as
an employee or the discharge of the member's duties as an employee(.)"
As found by the Judge, all agency employees are required to sign a
memorandum which provides that an employee who "witnesses any
unkindness, rudeness, or violence of any kind toward a patient and does
not promptly report it to the proper authority is subject to
disciplinary action," including discharge. Poteat filed such a report
which led to his removal as steward. The Authority finds that the
Union's action in removing Poteat as steward in the circumstances of
this case had the effect of coercing him or disciplining him for the
purpose of hindering or impeding his work performance or the discharge
of his duties as an employee. The Union's removal of Poteat thus
violated section 7116(b)(3) of the Statute.
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, it is hereby ordered that
the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1738, AFL-CIO,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercing or disciplining a member of the labor organization for
the purpose of hindering or impeding the member's work performance or
productivity as an employee or the discharge of the member's duties as
an employee by removing the member from the position of Union steward
because he made a report in accordance with Agency policy.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute:
(a) Reinstate Kenneth Poteat to his position as Steward-Building
Management Service, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Salisbury,
North Carolina.
(b) Post at the business office of the American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 1738, AFL-CIO, and in normal meeting places,
including places where notices to members and unit employees represented
by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1738, AFL-CIO,
are customarily posted, copies of the attached Notice on forms to be
furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of
such forms, they shall be signed by the President of the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1738, AFL-CIO, or his
designee, and shall be posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members and
other employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
to insure that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Submit appropriate signed copies of said Notice to the Veterans
Administration Medical Center for posting in conspicuous places where
unit employees of AFGE, Local 1738, AFL-CIO, are located, where they
shall be maintained for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting.
(d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region IV, Federal Labor
Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the complaint alleging
violation of section 7116(b)(1) of the Statute be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1985
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
William J. McGinnis, Jr., Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS
AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
OF TITLE
5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR MEMBERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT coerce or discipline a member of the labor organization for
the purpose of hindering or impeding the member's work performance or
productivity as an employee or the discharge of the member's duties as
an employee by removing the member from the position of Union steward
because he reported patient abuse in accordance with Agency policy. WE
WILL reinstate Kenneth Poteat to his position as Steward-Building
Management Service, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Salisbury,
North Carolina.
(Union)
Dated: . . . By: (Signature) (Title) This Notice must remain posted
for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have
any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions,
they may communicate directly with the Regional Director, Region IV,
Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is: 1776 Peachtree
Street, NW, Suite 501, North Wing, Atlanta, Georgia, 30309 and whose
telephone number is: (404) 881-2324.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Case No. 4-CO-47
Jane P. Danowitz, Esq. and
Jimmy R. Whitman
For the Respondent
William H. Hardwick
For the Charging Party
Barbara S. Liggett, Esq.
For the General Counsel
Before: JOHN H. FENTON
Chief Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Preliminary Statement
This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, 92 Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.
On December 30, 1980, the Acting Regional Director for Region IV,
issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing, alleging that Respondent, in
violation of Section 7116(b)(1) and (3) of the Statute, /1/ removed
employee Kenneth Poteat from his position as Steward-Building Management
Service, because Poteat discharged his duties as an employee by
reporting to the Agency in compliance with Agency policy, that another
employee of the Agency engaged in patient abuse.
Respondent admitted removing Poteat as Steward, but denied that
Poteat was removed as Steward for reporting the incident of patient
abuse and denied the commission of any unfair labor practice.
The matter was heard on March 24, 1981, in Salisbury, North Carolina.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to examine witnesses, to
introduce evidence and to file briefs.
On the basis of the entire record, including my observations of the
witnesses and their demeanor, I hereby make the following findings of
fact and conclusions:
Findings of Fact
Local 1738 represents over 1000 employees of the Salisbury Veterans
Administration Medical Center, in units of professional and
nonprofessional people. About 40 or 50 Building Management employees,
including Kenneth D. Poteat, are in the nonprofessional unit. Poteat
was hired as a housekeeper in December, 1979 and was assigned to the
psychiatric ward in August.
Shortly after his transfer into the psychiatric ward, one of the two
Union stewards servicing the Building Management employees was promoted
out of the unit, and the search for a successor was begun by Local
1738's Steward Committee, which consisted of Executive Vice-President
Bobby Wilhelm and Chief Steward William Yost. At least three people
were considered: Poteat, Ralph Fleming and Jimmy Cureton. After
interviewing Poteat, the committee recommended him, notwithstanding his
lack of experience, with the understanding he would learn on the job by
observing other stewards. On August 7 the Committee recommended to
Local President Jimmy Whitman that Poteat be appointed, noting that a
"poll of building management service employees on several candidates
showed a majority of support for Mr. Poteat." On August 15, Whitman
appointed him steward. /2/
Poteat never took any part in any representational duties. His Union
activities consisted of attendance of one Union meeting. Early in
September, Chief Steward Yost received complaints about Poteat's
appointment as Steward, and his relationship with management,
particularly that he spent a great deal of time "cultivating" Building
Manager Darrell Moore. At that time, Chief Steward Yost discussed these
complaints with Local President Whitman and Executive Vice-President
Wilhelm. Whitman advised the others that since Poteat had been a
Steward for such a short time, they ought to give him a chance to work
into being a good one.
At about 10:30 a.m. on September 29, Poteat observed a Nursing
Assistant punching and kicking a patient in the psychiatric ward. After
telling another witness to the incident that he did not know whether he
was going to say anything about it, he went to lunch. /3/ Upon his
return he visited Building Manager Darrell Moore, told him of the
incident, and asked what he should do. Moore told him he had to be the
judge of that. Poteat then returned to the ward and confronted the
Nursing Assistant, who told him that they were in a psychiatric ward,
that you had to let those people know who was boss, and that he didn't
come there to get hurt and he didn't care who knew it. Poteat then
determined that he would make the report, but before leaving the ward
was visited by Moore who told him that he had signed the memorandum
promising to make such reports, and therefore had no alternative but to
do it. He thereupon reported the incident to the Hospital Assistant
Director.
On the following morning Executive Vice-President Wilhelm and Chief
Steward Yost visited him in the ward. They informed him that the
telephone had been ringing all morning long with employee complaints.
As recounted by Poteat, they told him:
that people wanted me out of the union wanting to know what the
heck I was doing, and I told them what had happened, and they let
me sit there and tell them what had happened; and then after I
got through telling them what I had reported, they told me that
they didn't come up there for that, that they felt like I had
"rendered myself useless" by reporting it, and that I didn't have
the support of the Building Management employees.
So I asked them, they told me that I should have come to them
first being as I was a steward, and I asked them why, and they
said they would have given me examples of employees that had been
abused by patients and tried to make it more clear to me what
position the employees was in . . . .
They then invited him to take a poll to see how the Building
Management employees felt about him. He suggested they take their own
poll. They then took a sampling and reported back to Poteat the
following day that it confirmed their view that nobody wanted him there
anymore, and that he "could resign or be resigned." He refused to resign
and on the following day, October 2, he received a letter from Local
President Whitman removing him, effective immediately, from his
position. The letter recited that the decision was based on the request
of a large number of employees, that an overwhelming majority of
Building Management employees did not trust him to properly represent
them, and that it was necessary for the Union to have stewards who can
represent employees. While Whitman's letter made no mention of the
incident, it was based on a written recommendation from Steward
Committee members Yost and Wilhelm, who said that they had talked to
Poteat "concerning his action on September 29, 1980, and the effect this
would have on his credibility and effectiveness" as a steward, and that
they had concluded from their survey that he could no longer be
effective. /4/ Removal from stewardship was the only respect in which
Poteat's membership was affected.
From this, Respondent argues that it did not attempt to interfere
with Poteat's work performance. Noting the absence of evidence that any
agent ever told Poteat that he should not have reported the alleged
incident of patient abuse, and that Yost and Wilhelm told him they were
not interested in his involvement in the incident, it argues that its
only interest in the matter was its impact on his performance as steward
and not on his performance as an employee. General Counsel argues that
the purpose was punishment or reprisal for having reported the incident,
as the swift removal of Poteat from his position would naturally
discourage him and other employees from doing so, and the Union must be
found to have intended the natural and foreseeable consequences of its
actions.
There is here no hard evidence that the Union was motivated to punish
Poteat for breach of a policy against reporting patient abuse. There
is, in fact, no evidence of such a policy, strongly as one suspects
that, even if the Union does not openly buck the "regulation", it
strongly disputes its implementation in some cases. Patient abuse, like
police brutality, has much emotional freight, and it is clear that some
staff members are fearful of it, if not victims of, the violence of
patients. Since one man's application of necessary restraint may be
viewed by another as unprovoked abuse, it is to be expected that there
would be disagreement over what constitutes a reportable incident as
opposed to defensive measures to be overlooked, and that ward staff,
like policemen, would tend to unite in the effort to avoid
second-guessing by authorities not directly involved in dealing with
patients. Certainly the immediate and strong reaction of employees
against Poteat which the Union here claims, suggests that a Union
responsive to its members would disapprove of Poteat's conduct in this
instance. Whatever happened, and we have no version but Poteat's, there
is every reason to suspect that Poteat violated Union policy and that he
was removed, in effect, for conduct unbecoming an officer. Nevertheless
the Union, whether for reasons of conscience or of care and caution in a
risky enterprise, evinced no concern, as such, with Poteat's report. At
most, it told him that he should have first afforded it an opportunity
to provide him (a man new to the ward) with examples of patient abuse of
employees and to make clear to him the position the employees were in.
Obviously, of course, Poteat's report caused his removal, for it led to
the complaints which led to his removal.
The facts of this record will not support a finding that the Union's
motive in removing Poteat from office was punishment or reprisal.
Rather, the evidence comports with the Union's professed purpose of
removing an official who could no longer be effective. Nevertheless, if
the Statute is viewed as prohibiting removal from office as punishment
or reprisal, application of the common law principle that a person is
held to intend the natural and foreseeable consequences of his actions
would support an inference that such was the Union's purpose, for a
clear consequence of such removal would be to discourage employees from
complying with the patient abuse directive. /5/ Alternatively, it might
be found that the nature of the conduct here renders motive irrelevant
because it inherently tends to discourage employees/members from
discharging their responsibilities as employees, i.e., that the Union's
action is so destructive of the statutorily recognized obligation to the
government that it cannot be tolerated, even where otherwise lawful
objectives were at play.
I need not resolve the question whether such an inference can
appropriately be drawn, in view of my conclusion and recommendation that
neither Section 7116(b)(1) or (3) was intended to curb a labor
organization's power over its officers.
Discussion and Conclusions
There is a threshold question whether VA has standing to file this
charge. That matter was resolved by the Authority in NTEU and NTEU
Chapter 53, and IRS, 6 FLRA No. 37, in which it adopted the Judge's
conclusion that any person may file a charge.
As to the merits, the General Counsel contends that the removal of
Poteat from appointive office violated Section 7116(b)(1) because it
interfered with, coerced and restrained him in the exercise of the right
to assist the Union as a steward by placing an impermissible price on
such activity: a requirement that he reject a statutorily recognized
duty owed his employer. He further argues that such conduct violated
Section 7116(b)(3) because it had the natural and foreseeable effect of
discouraging Poteat from discharging his duties to his employer, and is
therefore to be viewed as having the purpose of hindering or impeding
his work performance and of punishing him for doing his duty.
Respondent counters that the Statute is designed to protect employees,
as such, and members, as such, but not union officials or
representatives, as to whom it has absolute power of appointment and
removal.
The Statute is silent in this context, with respect to Union
officials. Explicitly, it protects employees in their right to form,
join or assist labor organizations or to refrain therefrom, and members
in their right to be free of coercion, discipline or fine "as punishment
or reprisal, or for the purpose of hindering or impeding the member's
work performance or productivity as an employee or the discharge of the
member's duties as an employee." The legislative history does not
indicate whether Congress intended, in providing such protection, to
intrude into the relationship between a labor organization and its
representatives.
In National Treasury Employees Union and National Treasury Employees
Union, Chapter 53, supra, the Federal Labor Relations Authority held
that the Union violated Section 7116(b)(1) when it removed a steward
from office because he gave testimony in a proceeding before the
Authority. In doing so, the Authority cautioned that its holding
"should not be construed as abrogating the union's control of its own
internal affairs in the absence of a statutory violation such as here
involved," and noted that its "order that the union steward be
reinstated to his union position is, of course, confined to the
circumstances of this case where . . . the union steward, except for his
testimony at the Authority proceeding, would not have been removed from
that position."
The General Counsel, of course, argues that this case establishes
that the protection literally accorded employees and members is not
limited to shielding an individual from improper union conduct affecting
employment or membership status as such, but extends to such persons in
their capacity as union representatives. There is however, as discussed
below, reason to believe that the protection afforded those who invoked
the Agency's processes, or cooperate with it, is sui generis. The
analog to this holding under the National Labor Relations Act may be
helpful, although the parallel is somewhat weak for two reasons. While
that Act, like this one, protects employees from union restraint and
coercion in the exercise of their right to "form, join or assist labor
organizations," Section 8(b)(1)(a) provides, in literal terms, for much
greater deference to the right of a labor organization to manage its own
internal affairs than is the case under our Statute. Thus the famous
proviso to Section 8(b)(1)(a) states that the proscription of union
restraint or coercion of employees in their fundamental right to form,
join or assist contained in that "paragraph shall not impair the right
of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the
acquisition or retention of membership therein . . . . " Our Statute, in
Section 7116(b)(4) and 7116(c), contains elaborate constraints on a
union's right to discriminate with regard to the terms or conditions of
memberships, and recognizes as privileged management of internal affairs
only the right of a union to enforce "discipline in accordance with
procedures under its constitution or bylaws to the extent consistent
with the provisions of this chapter." In addition, there is in the NLRA
no counterpart to Section 7116(b)(3)'s prohibition of union interference
with its members' discharge of their duties as employees or Section
7101(b)'s command that "the provisions of this chapter should be
interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements of an effective
and efficient government."
Notwithstanding these distinctions, examination of private sector
cases can be instructive. Unlike the Authority, the NLRB has made it
clear that the right to file a charge, or to give testimony in a Board
proceeding serves a public interest of overriding importance, and must
be protected even in the case of supervisors /6/ and of union members
subjected to discipline which is ordinarily beyond the Statute's reach.
/7/ Thus, to preserve unimpeded access to the very machinery Congress
created for the vindication of statutory rights, the Board with Court
approval, has extended its protection to categories of employees not
normally protected and to matters which are normally considered internal
union affairs. The Board has consistently protected union officers from
removal based upon the filing of a charge, /8/ whereas it will not
protect them where the removal is based, for example, upon criticism of
the union's handling of a grievance /9/ or support for a defeated
candidate. /10/ On the other hand, it has found the fining of a member
for opposing incumbent union officers violative of Section 8(b)(1)(a) on
the ground the union has no legitimate interest to protect. /11/
Whatever the balance struck between the rights of members and the
organization, it is clear that the rights of officers are more limited
because they must be accommodated to the organization's interest in
effective and cohesive leadership. In Industrial Union of Marine and
Shipbuilding Workers, supra, the Supreme Court, in addressing a member's
expulsion for filing a charge, held that "(a)ny coercion used to
discourage, retard or defeat that access (to the Board) is beyond the
legitimate interests of a labor organization . . . . (T)he overriding
public interest makes unimpeded access to the Board the only healthy
alternative, except and unless plainly internal affairs of the union are
involved." Notwithstanding this strong policy, and the Board's adherence
to it in cases involving removal of officers for invoking its processes,
the only such case to reach U.S. Circuit Court review was reversed. In
NLRB v. Boilermakers (99 LRRM 2855, CCA 5), a divided Court held the
union was privileged to remove a steward because of his failure to
pursue his discharge grievance under the collective bargaining contract
before filing an unfair labor practice charge against his employer. An
important consideration in that case was that the union policy which the
officer defied was one of adherence to negotiated processes, and thus
was in harmony with the national labor policy of achieving industrial
peace through collective bargaining. That element is missing here.
/12/ Nevertheless, the distinction drawn between the rights of officers
is a strong one, as is obvious from its application in circumstances
where a "natural and foreseeable consequence" of the union's action was
to impair free access to the Board.
The instant case also has certain parallels to the law elaborated
under the LMRDA, 29 USC 411(a)(2) and Sec. 529. The first of these
grants union members the "right to meet and assemble freely with other
members; and to express any views, arguments or opinions; and to
express at meetings . . . views, upon candidates in an election or upon
any business properly before the meeting," with certain limitations.
The latter makes it unlawful for a union or its agent "to fine, suspend,
expel or otherwise discipline any of its members for exercising any
right to which he is entitled . . . under this chapter." Two lines of
court authority developed, one holding that a union could not discharge
an officer or employee for such political activity, and the other
holding that a union can compel political loyalty from its officials.
The conflict was resolved by the Supreme Court on May 17, in Finnegan v.
Leu (110 LRRM 2321). The Court unanimously held that the term
"discipline" referred only to retaliatory actions affecting a member's
rights as a member, and therefore did not protect business agents fired
for supporting an unsuccessful candidate for local union president.
Noting that the Statute referred to members, the Court found that both
the language and the legislative history of the "bill of rights" showed
that Congress sought to protect rank and file union members-- not union
officers or employees as such. In so holding, the Court observed that
the three disciplinary sanctions specifically enumerated in Section
529-- "fine, suspension and expulsion-- are all punitive actions taken
against union members as members."
It is to be noted that our Act, in addition to enumerating two forms
of traditional union sanctions against members-- discipline and fines--
also prohibits coercion-- a term not necessarily limited to the
customary internal sanctions such as fines, suspension or expulsion.
Thus it is not so easy here, as it was in Finnegan, to conclude that
Congress intended to limit the prohibited conduct to such punitive
actions as unions take against their members as members.
In sum, I find no clear guidance in the language of the Statute, in
its legislative history or in decisions construing this law or the
somewhat similar provisions of the NLRA and the LMRDA. I think it is
clear that cases protecting the right of union officials to file a
charge or give testimony before the NLRB are unique and of no
precedential value in this matter, as this agency is not here confronted
with the compelling need to protect its own processes. Put otherwise,
an agency charged by Congress with vindicating statutory rights is also
charged with protecting access to, as well as cooperation in, those
processes, if they are to be effective. /13/ It would seem that the
Authority's NTEU case is, for like reasons, subject to the same
limitation.
Persuasive arguments can be made for finding a violation or for
dismissal. The right to hold office is an incident of membership, and
interference by an employer would surely not be countenanced. On the
other hand, a union's right to circumscribe the conditions in which a
member may hold office must also be recognized. Here Congress used the
word "member," and clearly sought to insulate membership from union
action based on the member's discharge of his duties to his employer. I
am reluctant, in the absence of any indication that Congress meant to
intrude into the relationship between a labor organization and its
officers, to conclude that Section 7116(b)(3) was intended to protect
members from anything more than the traditional sanctions used against
members: threats, violence, fines, suspension and expulsion. Several
considerations fortify this conclusion: it would appear that Congress'
purposes are served altogether adequately by assuring that membership,
as such, will not be affected by considerations of work performance;
the Supreme Court's Finnegan decision suggests that Congress' use of the
word members indicates that it sought to protect rank and file members
as opposed to officers or employees of the union; and extending the
word to cover the right to hold office would constitute an intrusion
into the thicket of internal union politics which may be not only
unnecessary, but mischievous in the extreme.
In Finnegan, the Supreme Court found no indication that Congress, in
protecting members from union discipline based on the exercise of their
rights of free speech and assembly, sought "to establish a system of job
security or tenure for appointed union employees." If, as certainly
appears to be the case, the membership of Local 1738 does not want
Poteat as a representative, its desire to remove him could be frustrated
indefinitely. So long as he wished to hold the position and no
convincing independent and justifiable reason for his removal
intervened, action to replace him would arguably be based on the
impermissible ground that he snitched on a fellow employee. This could
involve the Authority in further litigation concerning the motives in
any subsequent removal. The consequences for effective and cohesive
leadership of the Local are obvious, whereas the usefulness of issuing
and policing such a remedy is questionable.
Accordingly, I recommend that this complaint, alleging violations of
Section 7116(b)(1) and (3) be dismissed in its entirety.
JOHN H. FENTON
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Dated: June 16, 1982
Washington, D.C.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Sec. 7116. Unfair Labor Practice
(b) . . . it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor
organization--
(1) to interfere with, restrain or coerce any employee in the
exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter;
. . . .
(3) to coerce, discipline, fine, or attempt to coerce a member
of the labor organization as punishment, reprisal, or for the
purpose of hindering or impeding the member's work performance or
productivity as an employee or the discharge of the member's
duties as an employee.
/2/ Stewards are not designated as "officers" in Respondent's
Constitution and By-laws, which are silent with respect to their duties.
responsibilities, term of office and removal. The President is
responsible for their appointments and the Chief Steward is responsible
for directing their activities. The latter are elective positions.
/3/ All employees are required to sign a VA memorandum outlining
Agency policy regarding patient abuse. It provides that an employee
"who witnesses any unkindness, rudeness or violence of any kind toward a
patient and does not promptly report it to the proper authority is
subject to disciplinary action," including discharge. (G.C. Exh. 3).
/4/ Mary Jordan, the other steward for Building Management employees,
had grown to distrust Poteat, particularly what she viewed as his close
relationship with Moore. Apparently after the incident she informed top
Union officials that she was unwilling to serve as steward if they had
to be associated with Poteat.
/5/ See Radio Officers Union v. NLRB, 347 US 17 (1954).
/6/ Oil City Brass Workers v. NLRB, 357 F.2d 466 (CCA 5), 61 LRRM
2318.
/7/ Local 138, International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers, 148
NLRB 679 (fine) and NLRB v. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers, 391 US 418 (expulsion).
/8/ Local Union No. 204, Sheet Metal Workers International
Association, 246 NLRB 318 and similar cases cited therein.
/9/ New York City Taxi Drivers' Union, Local 3036, 231 NLRB 965.
/10/ United Steelworkers of America, Local 2687, 237 NLRB 1355.
/11/ Carpenters Local 22, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, 195 NLRB 1. For a general discussion of the balance
to be struck as between members and the organization, see Scofield v.
NLRB, 394 US 423, 70 LRRM 3105.
/12/ It should be noted that the Court found this was not a case of
an officer being penalized for compliance with a legal duty, such as
testifying before the NLRB in an already initiated action and that there
was no evidence that the union was trying to regulate access to
effective enforcement of employee rights.
/13/ See Pedersen v. NLRB, 234 F.2d 417 (CCA 2), 38 LRRM 2227, where
a supervisor fired for testifying in a Board proceeding, under subpoena,
was held (by the Court) to be covered by that Act's protection of
employees who give testimony, even though the Board has subsequently
altered its discretionary jurisdictional standards and would not
ordinarily have asserted jurisdiction over his employer.