OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20424-0001
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 911TH AIRLIFT WING,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2316,
Case No. BN-CA-70249
Gary J. Lieberman, Esq. For the General Counsel of the FLRA
Christopher Mason For the Charging Party
Before: SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ Chief Administrative Law Judge
Statement of the Case
This case arose under the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C.
§ 7101 et seq. (Statute), and the Rules and Regulations of
the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA or Authority), 5 C.F.R.
§ 2411 et seq.
Based upon an unfair labor practice charge filed, and
amended, by American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE),
Local 2316, AFL-CIO (AFGE Local 2316 or Union), a Complaint and
Notice of Hearing was issued on behalf of the General Counsel (GC)
of the FLRA by the Regional Director for the Boston Region of the
FLRA. The complaint alleges that the Department of the Air Force,
911th Airlift Wing, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania (911th Airlift Wing or
Respondent) violated section 7116(a)(1) and (2) of the Statute by
lowering the performance appraisal for the period of July 1, 1995
to June 30, 1996 of Christopher Mason because of his activities as
an AFGE Local 2316 steward. Respondent filed an Answer denying it
had violated the Statute.
A hearing was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, at which all
parties were afforded a full opportunity to be represented, to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce
evidence and to argue orally. The 911th Airlift Wing and GC of the
FLRA filed post hearing briefs, which have been fully
Based upon the entire record, including my observation of
the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following findings of
fact, conclusions and recommendations.
Findings of Fact
The primary mission of the 911th Airlift Wing is to provide
support for C-130 cargo planes at the 911th Air Force Reserve Base,
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. At all material times AFGE Local 2316 has
been the certified exclusive representative of a unit of employees
appropriate for collective bargaining at 911th Airlift Wing,
representing WG and GS employees.
Mason is an employee within the meaning of section
7103(a)(2) of the Statute and is in the above described collective
bargaining unit. Mason began his employment with the 911th Airlift
Wing in April 1994 as a Maintenance Worker Helper, WG-5, in the
Civil Engineering Division. During his tenure at 911th Airlift Wing
Mason's immediate supervisor, and the individual responsible for
completing his performance evaluations, has been Merle Barry,
B. The Civil Engineering Division and Mason's Duties
The primary mission of the Civil Engineering Division is to
provide routine maintenance to the 911th Airlift Wing's roads,
grounds and buildings. Robert Moeslein is the Base Civil Engineer;
Thomas Kutchenriter is the Chief of Operations and Maintenance.
Barry, the Structural Maintenance Supervisor in the Civil
Engineering Division, oversees about 12 employees including
carpenters, painters, laborers, and heavy equipment operators,
Mason's primary responsibilities as a Maintenance Worker
Helper are landscaping/grass cutting during the summer and snow
removal during the winter months. The position also requires Mason
to perform general maintenance work in accomplishing minor repairs
and support higher graded workers in accomplishing major repairs.
These maintenance duties range from road repair, concrete work,
painting, trash pickup, and the cleaning of storm drains. Mason
performs these duties all across the base and is permitted to carry
out his assignments with minimal reporting requirements or
C. Mason's First Appraisal
During Mason's first appraisal period, April 17, 1994 to
July 15, 1994, the majority of his assignments were grass cutting
and landscaping. Mason, who had prior painting experience at the
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard before being hired, also assisted David
Wuenstel, a Maintenance Worker, WG-9, in several painting projects
during the first appraisal period.(1)
The Performance Plan for a Maintenance Worker Helper
contains nine performance elements and indicates whether the
individual performance elements are critical or
non-critical.(2) The six critical
elements include: (1E) makes repairs to facilities such as roofs,
walls, floors, ceilings, doors, locksets, etc.; (2E) repaints all
traffic lines and arrows, airplane taxiways and flightline, base
parking lots and all other structural recurring maintenance tasks;
(3E) performs snow and ice removal basewide; (4E) performs various
landscaping, gardening and chemical-type duties basewide; (5E)
places and rough finishes concrete and asphalt; and (6E) operates
various types of mowers, saws, pumps and air-cooled engine
The three non-critical elements for the position include
preventive maintenance and minor repairs on tools, observes all
safety rules and regulations and uses total quality principles and
In order to receive an overall appraisal of "Excellent" an
employee must exceed more than one-half of the critical elements,
and meet all other elements of the performance plan. A "Fully
Successful" rating requires an employee to meet the requirements of
all the elements of the Performance Plan. Employees are also rated
on their manner of performance with a rating of 1, 2 and 3 being a
Low Range; 4, 5 and 6 being a central range; and 7, 8 and 9 being a
High Range. A rating of 5 is designated "fully successful"; 6 is
"slightly above fully successful"; 7 is "above fully successful"; 8
is "far above fully successful" and 9 is "outstanding." Mason
received an overall appraisal rating of "Fully Successful" from
Barry for the abbreviated appraisal period April 17, 1994 to July
15, 1994. At the time Mason received this appraisal Barry informed
him that his work was excellent, and that he would have given him a
higher overall rating had it not been for the shortened rating
D. Mason's 2nd Appraisal Period, July 1, 1994 to June
During Mason's second appraisal period, which covered the
period July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995, Mason continued to perform
his normal duties, including grass cutting, trash pickup and,
during the winter months, snow removal. Barry also assigned Mason
numerous painting jobs during this period, including the painting
of boiler rooms, buildings, pipe lines, restrooms and offices.
1. Mason is assigned to paint Building
In April 1995, Barry assigned Mason to paint Building 129
located on the flight deck.(3)
Building 129 is a large aircraft hangar that has adjacent rooms
where maintenance activities are performed. This was a very large
task, involving painting many rooms, some of which were very large,
with 20-foot ceilings.
Building 129 was in bad shape and needed a paint job. There
had been prior attempts by the building manager to secure a paint
job, however, the requests were not acted on by the Civil
Engineering Division. However, on April 18, 1995, after a planner
reviewed the project, Kutchenriter signed off on a work order for
materials to be ordered for the painting of Building 129. The work
order estimated that the job should have two employees, and should
take 129 labor hours.(4) When the
work order was drafted the job was given a low priority, as was the
case with most paint jobs at the base.
Barry selected Mason for the assignment of painting Building
129 because of his prior painting experience. When Barry assigned
Mason the job in April or May 1995, he informed Mason that it was a
big job, and that he should take his time and make sure he did a
good job. Barry also informed Mason that he would be performing
this job until he "retired." Mason was told the painting job was
not a priority assignment and was not given a deadline. Barry
emphasized that Mason still had his other priority assignments,
grass cutting and snow and ice removal.
The complex nature of the job Mason was assigned to perform
alone in Building 129 became apparent to him in May 1995 during his
initial visit to the building.(5)
After the preparation work, and a delay in the availability of
materials, Mason began painting in May or June of 1995.
Mason used a 20-foot ladder to paint and after painting 3 or
4 feet to his left and right from the ladder, Mason had to gather
and move his paint, poles, and other equipment, move the ladder,
and methodically work his way around the room. In addition to the
size of the structure, painting in the building was complicated by
the fact that the beams, vents, and piping were situated close to
the walls near the ceiling.
Shortly after Mason began the painting job in Building 129,
the supervisor in Building 129, Harvey Nelson, discussed with
Wuenstel the possibility of assisting Mason in the painting job.
Both Wuenstel and Nelson believed that the job was too difficult
for one person, and that Mason should receive assistance. Wuenstel
asked Barry on two or three occasions to let Wuenstel volunteer to
assist Mason in the painting job. Barry responded not to worry
about Mason, and that Wuenstel had other job orders to do. Lou Fix,
a WG-9 painter, who had informed Mason that assigning one employee
to the job was ridiculous, also asked Barry if he could assist
2. Mason receives 2nd appraisal, "Excellent"
rating and a performance award.
On August 2, 1995, Mason received his second appraisal from
Barry for the period July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995. The appraisal
was drafted by Barry, and reviewed by Kutchenriter. Mason received
an overall appraisal of "Excellent," exceeding performance
standards in 4 out of the 6 critical elements. The narratives to
justify the elements that were exceeded were as follows:
3E All snow removal tasks were performed flawlessly
4E All duties were performed professionally and
expeditiously. No complaints registered
5E All tasks were performed I.A.W. given specifications. All finishes were done expertly without
6E All equipment was operated very skillfully with no call-backs noted. All work was done on or
ahead of schedule.
The two critical elements that Mason met, but did not
exceed, were 1E (repairs to facilities) and 2E (repainting and
recurring maintenance tasks). In the appraisal Barry rated Mason in
the high range (7's, 8's and 9's) in all the categories in the
manner of performance.
Mason was told by Barry at the end of this appraisal period
that he was doing a good job in Building 129, and to continue his
On August 1, 1995, Moselein, the Base Civil Engineer,
approved an award of 1 percent of Mason's salary for his
performance. During this appraisal period Mason was not a steward
for the Union, nor did he engage in any protected activity under
E. Mason's 3rd Appraisal Period, July 1, 1995 to
June 30, 1996
During the appraisal period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996,
Mason regularly performed his other duties in addition to the
painting of Building 129. He would work two or three times a week
in Building 129, and continued with his usual duties of grass
cutting, ice and snow removal, and other paint jobs. Due to a
shortage of personnel in the summer months, Mason usually worked on
grass cutting to cover for the staff shortage.
According to Barry, the winter of 1996 was the "worst winter
in history." Because snow removal was the first priority during
inclement weather, employees under Barry's supervision were pulled
from their jobs to conduct snow removal duties as part of a team.
Mason was often pulled from his job in Building 129 to perform snow
removal duties, and there was never an occasion where Mason
remained in the building painting when his team was performing snow
removal. Mason was never instructed to continue painting when snow
removal duties were required.
From July 1995, the start of the appraisal period, until
shortly after Mason became a Union Steward on March 14, 1996, Barry
never counseled Mason concerning his performance in Building 129 or
on any other aspect of his performance. Barry never even questioned
Mason about the painting project until after he became Union
Steward in March 1996.
1. Mason becomes Steward and requests official
time to represent employees in grievances.
On March 14, 1996, Mason was appointed a steward by Union
President Harry Davis. AFGE Local 2316 notified the 911th Airlift
Wing of Mason's appointment by letter, and the notification was
distributed to all supervisors and posted in work areas.
On the same day, March 14, 1996, Mason submitted a steward's official time request form to Barry for the purposes of meeting with Donna Hajduk, the Civilian Personnel Director. Barry approved the official time request after confirming Mason's appointment as a steward.
As Union Steward, Mason represented three employees in
grievances under the parties' collective bargaining agreement. In
addition to two security police guards who had overtime grievances,
Mason represented John Rothoff, who also worked in the Civil
Engineering Division under the supervision of Kutchenriter and
Moeslein. Mason filed thirteen grievances on Rothoff's behalf
ranging from safety concerns, changes in Rothoff's position
description, and harassment.
Mason requested official time from Barry to attend grievance
meetings with Rothoff's supervisor and Moeslein. Initially, Barry
permitted Mason to verbally request official time, or simply leave
a steward request form on his desk.
2. Barry "counsels" Mason on performance in
Building 129 and Mason completes project the same week.
Mason was nearing the completion of the project in Building
129 after being appointed steward. The only remaining room that
needed to be cleaned and painted was the men's bathroom. About the
third week of March 1996, while working in the bathroom, Mason had
a discussion with Barry about the project. Barry asked Mason how
long it was going to take him to finish the job. Mason responded
that it should be finished by Friday of that week. After Barry
asked Mason what still needed to be done, Mason led him around the
bathroom pointing out the dirtiness and the peeling paint. Mason
informed Barry that before painting the room he first needed to
wash the walls to remove the dirt. Barry suggested that Mason
should not worry, and that he should paint on top of the dirt and
peeling paint. Mason, concerned about the quality of the job,
convinced Barry that the preparation work should be done properly
or the paint job would only be temporary. Barry agreed, and
commented that the rooms looked great and much brighter. The
meeting lasted several minutes.
Sometime thereafter, Barry entered on Mason's AF 971, a form
used by the Respondent to record personnel actions, counseling
sessions, awards, and kept in the personnel folder, the
March 1996 Counseled employee on length of time he has taken to complete a
painting job order in Bldg 129. No improvement shown.
The painting of Building 129 had to be completed prior to an
Operational Readiness Exercise, that was to take place in June
1996. Mason testified that he did not consider the meeting with
Barry in the bathroom to be a counseling session and that he was
unaware of the entry in his AF 971 form until a few weeks before
the subject hearing.
Mason completed the painting job in Building 129 later that
week, a day earlier than he told Barry it would be finished.
Nelson, who had never complained at all to Barry about Mason's
performance while on the job and was never asked about Mason's
performance by Barry, complimented Mason that he had done a good
After Mason told Barry that the job was finished he was given another assignment. The painting project was finished by Mason in March 1996, well before the Operational Readiness Exercise scheduled for June 1996. Barry had no problems with the quality of the job Mason did in Building 129.
3. Procedure changes for Mason's use official
time as Steward.
In April 1996, Barry informed Mason that he could no longer
verbally request official time, or leave an official time request
form on Barry's desk. Barry told Mason that Barry was getting heat
from above. Instead, Mason would be required to hand the form to
Barry or, if he was not available, to Kutchenriter. The reason for
the change, according to Barry, was because of the frequency of
Mason's official time requests.
Although Mason had not been counseled about not reporting to
Barry before Mason left the job site on Union business, Barry,
apparently, filled out an AF 971 to that affect on April 16,
On May 1, 1996, Mason submitted to Barry a steward request
form to attend a grievance meeting scheduled for the next day. Upon
submitting the form, Barry commented to Mason that he was using a
lot of official time, doing a lot of union business, and that Barry
needed Mason to do his job assign-ments. Barry stated that Mason
was not spending enough time on the job. Mason explained that his
presence was necessary because it was a scheduled grievance
meeting. Barry proposed the establishment of an official time
tracking system, and limiting Mason's official time to one hour per
week. After Mason said that Barry's proposal was unworkable, Barry
demanded that Mason decide whether it was going to be his job, or
was it going to be the union. Mason then had the official time
request approved by Kutchenriter.
Thereafter, Barry continued to try to limit Mason's official
time to one hour per week, apparently at the request of Moeslein,
the Base Civil Engineer, until the matter was resolved through the
intervention of the personnel department.
4. Mason's performance during the appraisal period.
Other than the "counseling" session in March 1996 concerning
Building 129, Mason was not counseled at all about his performance
during the year, nor did Barry inform him that his work was somehow
deficient or below the efforts of the previous year.
In the appraisal period ending June 30, 1996, Mason
performed grass cutting, snow removal and trash pick up, as was the
case in the prior period, and was never told by Barry that his
performance had slipped, or that he was not producing as much. No
specific complaints were registered by other supervisors concerning
Mason's performance during the appraisal year.
5. Mason receives his performance
On August 9, 1996, Barry presented Mason with his appraisal for the period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996. The appraisal, completed by Barry and reviewed by Kutchenriter, was lower than the previous year's appraisal. Mason received an overall appraisal of "Fully Successful," and did not exceed any of the critical elements. In the manner of performance section of the appraisal, six out of nine of the factors were in the central range, three were in the high range. Mason did not receive a performance award for the year.
After Barry furnished Mason with his appraisal Mason
retrieved the previous year's appraisal and questioned Barry on
each of the elements in which Mason was rated lower. Mason
attempted to go through each element and specifically ask Barry
what he did and how he needed to improve. Barry became agitated,
and said that Mason knew what he had to do to improve. Mason asked
whether it was getting out of the Union, and Barry did not respond.
Mason raised the element of "Productivity," which had dropped from
a 7 to a 5, and Barry commented that Mason did not produce as much
this year. Mason asked whether it had to do with his Union
activities. Barry became irritated, and Mason signed the appraisal
and the meeting ended.(6)
Barry testified about his rationale for giving Mason a lower
appraisal, and why he was rated lower on the critical elements.
Barry asserted that in order to rate Mason as having exceeded
performance standards Barry would need to see a performance that is
over and above a sustained period of time, and that Mason's
performance could not justify a higher rating than he received.
Specifically, Barry raised the painting project in Building 129 as
a project that Mason did not perform at the exceptional level. The
painting assignment was evaluated under element 1E of Mason's
Compared to the prior year's appraisal, Barry rated Mason lower in elements 3E, 4E, 5E, and 6E. Barry offered explanations for lower ratings in elements 3E (landscaping), 4E (snow and ice removal) and 6E (operations of mowers). With regard to 4E and 6E, Barry maintained that Mason was not as professional and "it just seemed like there was a lot of times when the weed whacker was like apart. . ." As a rationale for rating Mason lower in element 4E (snow removal), Barry offered two explanations. First, Barry raised an instance in which Mason did not show up for the 3:00 a.m. snow removal because of car trouble and road conditions, and because his performance seemed to be dropping off.
Barry also testified that he could not site any specific
errors made by Mason, and that Mason's snow removal duties are
performed with a team. I find these justifications offered by Barry
to be unpersuasive.(8)
Discussion and Conclusions of Law
The GC of the FLRA alleges that the 911th Airlift Wing
violated section 7116(a)(1) and (2) of the Statute by lowering the
performance appraisal of Mason because he had engaged in activity
protected by the Statute.
A. Analytical Framework
In Letterkenny Army Depot, 35 FLRA 113 (1990)
(Letter-kenny), the Authority set out its framework for
deciding discrimination cases under section 7116(a)(2) of the
Statute. See also, Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins
Air Logistics Center, Warner Robbins Air Force Base, Georgia,
52 FLRA 602, 605, (1996) (Warner Robins); Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 52 FLRA 486, 490 n.2 (1996); and
United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado,
52 FLRA 874, 878 (1997) (Air Force Academy).
Under the Authority's analytical framework for resolving
complaints of alleged discrimination in violation of section
7116(a)(2) of the Statute, the GC of the FLRA has, at all times,
the overall burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence
that: (1) the employee against whom the alleged discriminatory
action was taken was engaged in protected activity; and (2) such
activity was a motivating factor in the treatment of the employee
in connection with hiring, tenure, promotion, or other conditions
of employment. As a threshold matter the GC of the FLRA must offer
sufficient evidence on these two elements to withstand a motion to
dismiss. However, satisfying this threshold burden establishes a
violation of the Statute only if the respondent offers no evidence
in its defense. The respondent has the burden to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence, as an affirmative defense that: (1)
there was a legitimate justification for its action; and (2) the
same action would have been taken even in the absence of the
protected activity. Air Force Academy, at 878-79, and
Warner Robins, at 605.
B. The Prima Facie Case
1. Mason was engaged in protected
Mason became an AFGE Local 2316 Steward on March 14, 1996
and immediately began to participate in Union activities, including
representing employees in a number of grievances. On the day of his
appointment as Steward, Mason submitted a steward's official time
request to Barry for the purposes of meeting with the Civilian
Union Steward Mason represented three employees in
grievances under the parties' contract, including an employee in
the Civil Engineering Division. In the course of representing these
employees, Mason informed Barry, or Kutchenriter, either verbally
or in writing, of his requests for official time. Moreover, Mason
attended grievance meetings with the Base Civil Engineer Robert
Moeslein, who attempted to limit Mason's official time to one hour
Thus Mason was engaging in union activity protected by the
2. Mason's Union activity was the reason his
rating was lowered
Soon after Mason became a Union steward and started engaging
in the activities on behalf of the Union, all of which was known to
Barry and other management officials, Barry gave Mason a yearly
appraisal which, although "fully success-ful", was lower than
Mason's appraisal for the prior year. This timing is suspicious and
is evidence that the protected activity was a motivating factor for
Barry's action, taken on behalf of the 911th Airlift Wing. See
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Northampton,
Massachusetts, 51 FLRA 1520 (1996); U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Frenchburg Job Corps, Mariba,
Kentucky, 49 FLRA 1020 (1994) (Forest Service); and
United States Customs Service, Region IV, Miami District, Miami,
Florida, 36 FLRA 489 (1990).
b. Union Animus
The record herein establishes Barry's hostility to Mason's
union activity and to his use of official time to perform these
protected activities. Barry, and his superiors, at first gave Mason
time to perform his union activities with little interference. But,
as Mason began spending more time on these activities Barry put
more obstacles in Mason's way, until Barry and Moeslein attempted
to limit Mason's official time to one hour a week. Finally, Barry
apparently became so frustrated at Mason's use of official time
that on May 1, 1996 Barry told Mason that Mason had to choose
between the Union and his job.(9)
In light of the foregoing, I conclude that the timing of the
lowered appraisal and Barry's expressed hostility to Mason's union
activity establishes a prima facie case that Mason's
appraisal was lowered because he had engaged in protected activity.
See Letterkenny at 119.
c. 911th Airlift Wing's reasons are
911th Airlift Wing has failed to establish by any credible
evidence that there was a legitimate reason for lowering Mason's
appraisal from the previous year. During the appraisal period prior
to Mason's involvement in protected activity he received an overall
appraisal of "Excellent," exceeding performance standards in 4 out
of the 6 critical elements, and was given a performance award. In
this appraisal, Barry wrote glowing comments about Mason's work
performance. The following year, after Mason became a steward,
Mason's appraisal dropped dramatically. Mason was rated lower in
almost all critical elements, four out of six(10), and in manner of performance, eight out of
One of the primary reasons offered to justify why Barry
lowered Mason's appraisal was his performance in painting Building
129. An examination of this assignment reveals that Mason
effectively performed a difficult job that should have been
assigned to more than one employee. Mason finished well before the
deadline concerns of Barry, and yet was still "counseled."
Furthermore, Mason's rating was not lower than the prior year's
rating in this element.
When Mason was assigned the job of painting Building 129 in
April or May of 1995, Barry was aware of the magnitude of the job,
and that Mason had other priority assignments, i.e. grass cutting
and snow removal. Barry informed Mason to take his time, that the
painting job was not a priority and that he would be painting the
building until he "retired." The complexity of the job, caused by
the proximity of the piping and vents to the high ceilings, and the
overall size of the building, made the job ill-suited, for one
employee. Mason had to work methodically around the two largest
rooms, painting off a 20-foot ladder.
David Wuenstel, a thirteen year veteran, an experienced
painter, and a higher graded employee, had never been assigned by
Barry to complete a painting job of the nature of Building 129 by
himself. Wuenstel asked Barry on two or three occasions to assist
Mason in the painting job and was denied. Harvey Nelson, the
supervisor in the building, concurred with Wuenstel that the job
was very difficult for one person and that Mason should have
received assistance. The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that
Mason was assigned a job that he should not have been doing alone.
To justify a lower rating because of this assignment is
The record also revealed that Mason's ability to complete
the job was hindered by his other priority assignments, grass
cutting and snow removal. Mason worked only two or three days a
week on the painting project. Shortages in staff during the summer
months required Mason to perform extensive landscaping duties.
During the winter months, the worst winter in history according to
Barry, Mason was often pulled from his job to perform the priority
job of snow removal.
The "counseling" that Barry asserted that he had with Mason
about the project, and the subsequent notes made in Mason's AF 971
form, does not withstand scrutiny. As stated above, I find Barry to
be a totally unreliable witness and do not credit any of his
testimony with respect to the quality and timeliness of Mason's
work. In this regard I note that Nelson, the supervisor in the
building, complimented Mason on the job and never told Barry
Furthermore Mason's performance in Building 129 should not
have had any impact on his overall appraisal because Mason's
performance did not drop in this critical element from the previous
year's appraisal. The painting job in Building 129 falls under
critical element 1E. Barry rated Mason as having "met" this element
for the period ending June 30, 1996. The year before, Barry also
rated Mason as having "met" this element. Thus, Mason's performance
in Building 129, and other painting jobs, could not have had any
impact on Mason's performance being lower than the previous
The critical elements that Mason were rated lower in
compared to the prior year, were 3E, 4E, 5E and 6E. The 911th
Airlift Wing has failed to establish that there were legitimate
basis for lowering Mason's ratings in these areas. Other than
Barry's unreliable bare assertions, the record reveals no
corroborating testimony, or documentary evidence, to support
Barry's justification for the lower appraisal.
In light of the foregoing, I conclude the 911th Airlift Wing
has failed to rebut the prima facie showing that Mason's
appraisal was lowered because he had engaged in protected activity
and thus violated section 7116(a)(1) and (2) of the
Letterkenny. Further I conclude that the 911th Airlift Wing's
submitting false reasons to justify the action taken against Mason,
is itself evidence of an unlawful motivation. See St. Mary's
Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 2749 (1993); Furnco
Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577 (1978); See
also Victoria A. Cundiff and Ann E. Chaitovitz, St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks: Lots of Sound and
Fury, But What Does it Signify, 19 Employee Relations Law
Journal No. 3 (1993-1994).
I conclude that the 911th Airlift Wing violated section
7116(a)(1) and (2) of the Statute when it gave Mason a lower
appraisal in 1996 than it had given him in 1995 because he had
engaged in protected activity on behalf of the Union.
The GC of the FLRA requests that a nontraditional remedy is
appropriate in this case. The traditional remedy in a case like
this, when an agency lowered an employee's performance appraisal
because the employee engaged in protected activity under the
Statute, is to require the agency to rescind the appraisal,
properly reappraise the employee without taking into consideration
the employee's protected activity, and to provide the employee with
any benefits as a result of the reappraisal. Forest Service,
at 1036-37; Ogden Air Logistics Center, at 901-02.
The GC of the FLRA argues that the traditional remedy would
not effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute, including
the deterrence of future violations. He argues that a supervisor,
after being named in an unfair labor practice, cannot properly
reappraise an employee's work. Inevitably, the supervisor's
evaluation of the employee would be tainted by the unfair labor
practice case process and the reappraisal of the employee would not
be very different. Moreover, the GC of the FLRA argues that
allowing the supervisor another opportunity to reappraise an
employee without unlawfully taking into consideration the
employee's protected activity, would not deter the supervisor from
taking the same course of action in the future. In completing
another employee's appraisal in the future, the supervisor would be
secure in the knowledge that if he gets it wrong the first time,
and is motivated by an employee's protected activity, he or she
would always have another shot to reappraise the employee with only
A more appropriate remedy, argues the GC of the FLRA, would
be for 911th Airlift Wing to be ordered to rescind the appraisal
received by Mason for the appraisal period July 1, 1995 to June 30,
1996. In its place, the GC of the FLRA argues that the 911th
Airlift Wing should be ordered to furnish Mason with the same
appraisal he received for the appraisal period July 1, 1994 to June
30, 1995, before he engaged in protected activity, and provide
Mason with any benefits to which he would be entitled as a result
of the reappraisal.
In requesting this non-traditional remedy, the GC of the
FLRA relies on the Authority's approach and discussion of
non-traditional remedies in F.E. Warren Air Force Base,
Cheyenne, Wyoming, 52 FLRA 149 (1996); and United States
Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Safford, Arizona, 35
FLRA 431, 444-45 (1990).
These arguments, although persuasive, must be rejected.
Thus, although it was established that Mason's protected activity
was a cause for the lowering of the appraisal in 1996, and the
911th Airlift Wing did not establish that it would have lowered
Mason's appraisal even if he had not engaged in the protected
activity, nevertheless, GC of the FLRA did not establish that
Mason, in fact, was entitled to the same appraisal he had received
Further, there has been no showing that there was a pattern
of unlawful conduct either by the agency or Barry. Nothing in the
record establishes that, when instructed to re-evaluate Mason using
only lawful considerations, Mason's supervisors could not or would
not do so. Accordingly, I conclude that the traditional remedy, as
set forth in U.S. Forest Service and Ogden Air Logistics
Center, is appropriate in this case.
Having concluded that the 911th Airlift Wing violated
section 7116(a)(1) and (2) of the Statute, it is recommended that
the Authority issue the following Order:
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute,
the Department of the Air Force, 911th Airlift Wing, Coraopolis,
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discriminating against Christopher Mason, or any
other employee, by unlawfully taking into consideration in
appraising his performance his activities on behalf of the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 2316, AFL-CIO, the
exclusive representative of its employees.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights assured them by the Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute:
(a) Rescind the appraisal received by Christopher
Mason for the appraisal period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996, and
furnish Mason with a new and fair appraisal for the appraisal
period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996, without taking into
consideration Mason's activities on behalf of American Federation
of Government Employees, Local 2316, AFL-CIO; and provide Mason
with any benefits to which he would be entitled as a result of the
(b) Post at its facilities copies of the attached
Notice To All Employees on forms to be furnished by the Federal
Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall
be signed by the Wing Commander, Department of the Air Force, 911th
Airlift Wing, Coraopolis, Pennsyl-vania, and shall be posted and
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all bulletin boards and other places where
notices to 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) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's
Rules and Regulations, notify the Regional Director of the Boston
Region, Federal Labor Relations Authority, in writing, within 30
days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken
Issued, Washington, DC, September 17, 1997
SAMUEL A. CHAITOVITZ
Chief Administrative Law Judge
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
The Federal Labor Relations Authority has found that the
Department of the Air Force, 911th Airlift Wing, Coraopolis,
Pennsylvania, violated the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute and has ordered us to post and abide by this
We hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discriminate against Christopher Mason, or any other
employee, by unlawfully taking into consideration in appraising his
performance his activities on behalf of the American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 2316, AFL-CIO, the exclusive
representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with,
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights assured by
WE WILL rescind the appraisal received by Christopher Mason for
the appraisal period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996.
WE WILL furnish Christopher Mason with a new and fair appraisal
for the appraisal period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996, without
taking into consideration Mason's activities on behalf of American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 2316, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL provide Mason with any benefits to which he would be
entitled as a result of the new appraisal.
Date: _____________________________ By: _________________________________
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any
If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or
compliance with any of its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority, Boston Region, 99 Summer Street, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02110-1200, and whose telephone number is: (617)
1. In the thirteen years that Wuenstel has worked at the base, and under Barry's supervision, he was normally assigned to perform painting jobs alone. Although, on larger jobs he has always been given assistance by another employee.
3. Barry testified that Mason was
not assigned the task of painting Building 129 until January 1996.
The overwhelming evidence, including the candid testimony of Mason,
and the testimony of the supervisor in Building 129, Harvey Nelson,
demonstrated that the assignment was made much earlier. Barry's
recollection of the circumstances surrounding this assignment, and
other events relating to Mason's appraisals are suspect.
I find Barry's overall testimony at the hearing to be
unreliable. In addition to his demeanor, I do not credit his
testimony because it is inconsistent with that of other witnesses
and surrounding circumstances. He seemed to come up with
justifications for his actions too conveniently and there was no
Mason's testimony, on the other hand, was believable and generally consistent with surrounding circumstances and the testimony of other witnesses.
7. Mason's performance in this element, the only element in which Mason was allegedly "counseled," did not decline from the prior year's evaluation. Barry rated Mason as having "met" this critical element during both the appraisal periods July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995 and July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996.
8. They are more of an attempt to rationalize an act already taken than as the reasons the act was taken. Accordingly, I do not credit Barry's testimony that these were the reasons for his ratings of Mason.
9. This statement is evidence of Barry's union animus and of the reason he lowered Mason's appraisal. It is not considered as a separate and independent violation of the Statute. See Kaumagraph Corporation and United Steelworkers of America, 316 NLRB 793 (1995). Further, this statement clearly was not an attempt to reach an accommodation between Mason's job and union activity. See Department of the Air Force, Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, 35 FLRA 891, 897 (1990)(Ogden Air Logistics Center).
11. In this case, where there is direct evidence of union animus and unlawful motivation for the agency's act, it is not necessary to analyze whether there had been disparate treatment. See, Department of the Air Force, Grissom Air Force Base, Indiana, 51 FLRA 7 (1995) and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, 50 FLRA 583, 586-87 (1995); but see, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, 51 FLRA 1427, 1439 n.11 (1996).