36:0748(78)CA - - Air Force, Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill AFB, UT and Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH and AFGE Local 1592 - - 1990 FLRAdec CA - - v36 p748
[ v36 p748 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
36 FLRA No. 78
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
OGDEN AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE LOGISTICS COMMAND
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
August 22, 1990
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah (Respondent Hill AFB) violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Statute (the Statute) by requiring a bargaining unit employee to take part in a pre-arbitration interview that constituted a formal discussion within the meaning of section 7114(a)(2) of the Statute, and failing to notify the Union and afford it an opportunity to be present. The Judge also found that Respondent Hill AFB committed an independent violation of section 7116(a)(1) by conducting coercive questioning of the Union witness concerning matters known to be at issue in an upcoming arbitration hearing. The Judge dismissed the portions of the complaint alleging violations of the Statute by the Respondent Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
The Respondents did not file an exception to the Judge's Decision. The General Counsel filed an exception only to the Judge's recommended Order. The Respondents did not file an opposition to the General Counsel's exception.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge made at the hearing and find that no prejudicial error was committed. We affirm the rulings. Upon consideration of the Judge's Decision and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommended Order, as modified below.
II. General Counsel's Exception
The General Counsel excepts to the Judge's failure to include in "his Recommended Order and in his Notice to All Employees appropriate language corresponding to his conclusion that Respondent [Hill AFB] independently violated Section 7116(a)(1) [of the Statute] by coercively questioning . . . a known Union witness, prior to arbitration." Exception at 3. The General Counsel argues that "[a]lthough the Judge found an independent Statutory violation based on Respondent [Hill AFB's] questioning of [a Union witness], he omitted that violation from his Recommended Order and Notice to All Employees." Id. at 4.
III. Analysis and Conclusion
We agree with the General Counsel that the Judge's recommended Order and Notice should be modified. Accordingly, we will modify the recommended Order to address the Judge's finding that Respondent Hill AFB independently violated section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute by conducting a coercive interview of a Union arbitration witness. See, for example, Department of the Air Force, Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan Air Force Base, California, 35 FLRA 345, 346 (1990) (Judge's order modified to reflect his finding that the activity's refusal to permit the union an opportunity to attend certain meetings constituted violations of the Statute).
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Requiring any bargaining unit employee to take part in a pre-arbitration interview that constitutes a formal discussion without notifying and allowing the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1592, the exclusive representative of its employees, the opportunity to be present.
(b) Coercively questioning Union witnesses concerning matters known to be at issue at scheduled arbitration hearings.
(c) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the purposes and