Pennsylvania Army National Guard (Respondent) and Association of Civilian Technicians (Complainant) 

 



[ v01 p528 ]
01:0528(60)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 1 FLRA No. 60
 
 PENNSYLVANIA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 20-06675(CA)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    ON FEBRUARY 26, 1979, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ROBERT J. FELDMAN
 ISSUED HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED
 PROCEEDING, FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR
 LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER AND
 RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 ALSO FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN CERTAIN OTHER ALLEGED
 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDED THAT THOSE PORTIONS OF THE
 COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED.  NO EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION
 PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
 IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION RULES AND
 REGULATIONS (44 F.R. 7).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
 THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7135(B) OF THE
 FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION
 RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY
 HAS REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE
 HEARING AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS
 ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE
 SUBJECT CASE, AND NOTING PARTICULARLY THAT NO EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS,
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.  /1/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS OF
 THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7135 OF THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS
 THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REFERRING, IN THE COURSE OF ANY INTERVIEWS FOR PROMOTION, TO ANY
 APPLICANT'S OR OTHER EMPLOYEE'S MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION OF
 CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, OR TO THE PRESENCE OF A UNION STEWARD IN ANY SHOP
 FOR WHICH SUCH ASSOCIATION IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT AND IN
 WHICH THE APPLICANT BEING INTERVIEWED IS EMPLOYED.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER:
 
    (A) POST AT ITS FACILITIES AT THE PENNSYLVANIA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD,
 107 FIELD ARTILLERY BATTALION, HUNT ARMORY, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA,
 COPIES OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED
 BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS,
 THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY COMMANDING GENERAL, PENNSYLVANIA ARMY NATIONAL
 GUARD, AND THEY SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE
 DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE
 NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE COMMANDING GENERAL,
 PENNSYLVANIA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE
 THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    (B) NOTIFY THE 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 HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT IN
 ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE NO. 20-06675(CA) FOUND NOT TO BE VIOLATIVE OF
 THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 14, 1979
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
        APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL 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
 
                             EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT REFER, IN THE COURSE OF ANY INTERVIEWS FOR PROMOTION, TO
 ANY APPLICANT'S OR OTHER EMPLOYEE'S MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION OF
 CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, OR TO THE PRESENCE OF A UNION STEWARD IN ANY SHOP
 FOR WHICH SUCH ASSOCIATION IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT AND IN
 WHICH THE APPLICANT BEING INTERVIEWED IS EMPLOYED.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                                (SIGNATURE)
 
    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
 MATERIALS.
 
    IF ANY EMPLOYEE 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,
 WHOSE ADDRESS IS:  ROOM 509, VANGUARD BUILDING, P.O. BOX 19257, 1111--
 20TH STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C.  20036.
 
    LEONARD SPEAR, ESQ.
 
    LEWIS TOWER BUILDING
 
    PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19102
 
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    MAJOR GEORGE M. ORNDOFF
 
    DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS
 
    ANNVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17003
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    BEFORE:  ROBERT J. FELDMAN
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THIS IS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING IN WHICH A FORMAL HEARING
 OF RECORD WAS HELD PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE ORDER") AND 29 C.F.R. PART 203.  THE
 DECISION AND ORDER BELOW ARE ISSUED FOR THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS
 PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 44, NO. 1, JANUARY 2, 1979, PP.
 5-8.
 
                           STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 
    THE COMPLAINT, AS AMENDED, CHARGES RESPONDENT WITH VIOLATIONS OF
 SECTION 19(A)(1) AND (2) OF THE ORDER.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT IN THE COURSE
 OF INTERVIEWING APPLICANTS FOR A FOREMAN'S POSITION, LT. COL. ARMSTRONG,
 A STAFF ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESPONDENT, QUESTIONED SOME OF THEM WITH
 RESPECT TO THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND ALSO ASKED WHETHER THEY OBJECTED
 TO THE WEARING OF THE MILITARY UNIFORM.
 
    IN HIS TRANSMITTAL LETTER ACCOMPANYING THE NOTICE OF HEARING, THE
 REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR STATED THE ISSUE AS FOLLOWS:
 
    DID THE CONDUCT OF THE ACTIVITY'S REPRESENTATIVES AT THE PROMOTION
 INTERVIEWS HELD DECEMBER
 
    17, 1977 AT THE HUNT ARMORY, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, VIOLATE
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (2) OF
 
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED?
 
    COMPLAINANT CONTENDS THAT AT LEAST THREE OF THE APPLICANTS WERE ASKED
 WHETHER ALL OF THE MEN IN THE SHOP WERE MEMBERS OF THE UNION AND WHETHER
 THEY KNEW WHO THE UNION SHOP STEWARD WAS;  AND THAT THEY WERE ALSO ASKED
 WHETHER THEY OBJECTED TO WEARING THE UNIFORM.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT
 LT. COL. ARMSTRONG DID NOT ASK ANY OF THE APPLICANTS ABOUT HIS UNION
 AFFILIATION, BUT MERELY MADE THE STATEMENT THAT HE (ARMSTRONG) WAS AWARE
 OF THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE
 SHOP WERE UNION MEMBERS, AND THAT HE HAD ALSO BEEN INFORMED THAT ONE OF
 THEM WAS A SHOP STEWARD, SUCH STATEMENT HAVING BEEN MADE BY WAY OF
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS OR GENERAL BACKGROUND PRELIMINARY TO ASKING
 HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS.
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    PURSUANT TO DESIGNATION OF RESPONDENT'S TECHNICIAN PERSONNEL OFFICE,
 LT. COL ARMSTRONG CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS ON DECEMBER 17, 1977 AT THE HUNT
 ARMORY IN PITTSBURGH OF SEVEN APPLICANTS FOR THE POSITION OF GENERAL
 MECHANIC FOREMAN.  HE WAS ACCOMPANIED AT EACH INTERVIEW BY LT. COL.
 REYNOLDS, THE BATTALION COMMANDER, BUT THE INTERVIEWING WAS DONE
 EXCLUSIVELY BY LT. COL. ARMSTRONG.  SIX OF THE APPLICANTS WERE CIVILIAN
 TECHNICIANS EMPLOYED IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE SHOP AND WERE
 MEMBERS OF COMPLAINANT UNION, THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT FOR THE
 UNIT.  THE SEVENTH APPLICANT CAME FROM ANOTHER SHOP AND WAS NOT A UNION
 MEMBER.
 
    WHETHER BY WAY OF INTERROGATORY OR DECLARATIVE STATEMENT, LT. COL.
 ARMSTRONG INTRODUCED INTO EACH INTERVIEW THE SUBJECT OF THE EMPLOYEES IN
 THE SHOP BEING UNION MEMBERS AND ONE OF THEM BEING A SHOP STEWARD.
 WHATEVER HIS INTENTIONS IN DOING SO, HE CONVEYED TO EACH APPLICANT AN
 IDEA THAT UNION MEMBERSHIP AND THE PRESENCE OF THE SHOP STEWARD WERE
 SOMEHOW CONSIDERED AS FACTORS IN THE INTERVIEW, IF NOT IN THE ULTIMATE
 SELECTION.
 
    EACH APPLICANT WAS REQUESTED BY LT. COL. ARMSTRONG TO GIVE HIS
 REACTION TO TWO HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS:  ONE DEALING WITH A RIF
 (REDUCTION IN FORCE) INVOLVING A CHOICE BETWEEN EMPLOYEES OF DISPARATE
 SENIORITY STATUS, AND THE OTHER A DISCIPLINARY PROBLEM INVOLVING
 REPEATED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH BREAK-TIME RULES.  EACH APPLICANT WAS
 ALSO ASKED WHETHER HE HAD ANY OBJECTION TO WEARING THE UNIFORM ON THE
 JOB.
 
    THE ONE APPLICANT WHO WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE UNION WAS SELECTED TO
 FILL THE VACANCY OF GENERAL MECHANIC FOREMAN.
 
                            CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
 
    SECTION 1 OF THE ORDER PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:
 
    POLICY.  (A) EACH EMPLOYEE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL
 GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT,
 
    FREELY AND WITHOUT FEAR OF PENALTY OR REPRISAL, TO FORM, JOIN, AND
 ASSIST A LABOR ORGANIZATION
 
    OR TO REFRAIN FROM ANY SUCH ACTIVITY, AND EACH EMPLOYEE SHALL BE
 PROTECTED IN THE EXERCISE OF
 
    THIS RIGHT . . . .
 
    THE HEAD OF EACH AGENCY SHALL TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED TO ASSURE THAT
 EMPLOYEES IN THE
 
    AGENCY ARE APPRISED OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THIS SECTION, AND THAT NO
 INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT,
 
    COERCION, OR DISCRIMINATION IS PRACTICED WITHIN HIS AGENCY TO
 ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE
 
    MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION.
 
    IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT A PRIME OBJECTIVE OF THE ORDER IS TO GUARANTEE
 THAT UNION MEMBERSHIP OR PARTICIPATION IN UNION ACTIVITIES WILL IN NO
 WAY OPERATE TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF ANY EMPLOYEE, AND THAT IT IS THE
 FIRST OBLIGATION OF EACH AGENCY TO REFRAIN FROM TAKING ANY ACTION LIKELY
 TO CAUSE AN EMPLOYEE TO BE AFRAID THAT SOME PENALTY OR REPRISAL MIGHT
 RESULT FROM SUCH MEMBERSHIP OR PARTICIPATION.  WHAT TRANSPIRED AT THE
 INTERVIEWS IN QUESTION MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THESE
 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES.
 
    IN ANSWER TO THE DIRECT QUESTION OF WHETHER HE HAD ASKED ANY OF THE
 APPLICANTS IF THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THE UNION, LT. COL. ARMSTRONG
 TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
 
    I DID NOT.  I STATED TO EACH ONE OF THEM THAT I WAS AWARE THAT THE
 MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE
 
    THERE BELONGED TO THE UNION, AND IN FACT, THERE WAS A UNION STEWARD
 IN THE JOB.  THE ONLY
 
    REASON I MENTIONED THE UNION AT THE TIME WAS TO BRING OUT ALL ASPECTS
 OF HYPOTHETICAL
 
    SITUATIONS THAT I WAS GOING TO SURFACE TO THEM.  (TR. P. 29)
 
    WHEN LATER ASKED WHY HE HAD MADE SUCH A STATEMENT, HE RESPONDED:
 
    SIMPLY THIS.  I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A GOOD-- THERE
 WERE GOOD COMMUNICATIONS
 
    IN THE SHOP BETWEEN LABOR AND MANAGEMENT IF A RIF WERE TO COME, AND I
 WANTED EVERY
 
    INTERVIEWEE, A PROSPECTIVE SUPERVISOR, TO INSURE THAT ALTHOUGH IT MAY
 NOT BE REQUIRED, IT IS
 
    NOT ONLY COMMON COURTESY TO GO TO THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE AND SAY
 THIS IS WHAT IS IMPENDING
 
    AND WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS ON THIS.  (TR. P. 46)
 
    THE INTERVIEWER'S OWN VERSION OF HIS REFERENCE TO THE UNION, HOWEVER,
 DOES NOT EXPRESS THE INTENTION HE NOW ASCRIBES TO IT.  BY SAYING "I AM
 AWARE THAT MOST OF THE MEN BELONG TO THE UNION", OR "I UNDERSTAND THAT
 THERE IS A UNION STEWARD ON THE JOB", ONE CERTAINLY DOES NOT CONVEY THE
 IDEA THAT HE IS STATING HYPOTHETICAL FACTS.  NO APPLICANT COULD BE
 REASONABLY EXPECTED TO PERCEIVE THAT LT. COL. ARMSTRONG'S AWARENESS OF
 ANY FACTS (REGARDING THE UNION OR OTHERWISE) HAD ANY CONNECTION
 WHATSOEVER WITH A SUPPOSITITIOUS PROBLEM INVOLVING RIF OR BREAK-TIME.
 THE STATEMENT AS HE HIMSELF PHRASED IT APPEARS TO BE COMPLETELY
 EXTRANEOUS TO THE SUBJECT OF THE INTERVIEW.  EVEN IF UNINTENTIONAL, IT
 WAS LIKELY TO, AND IN FACT DID, CAUSE SOME NOT UNREASONABLE CONCERN OR
 FEAR ON THE PART OF SOME APPLICANTS THAT THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP OR
 ACTIVITY MIGHT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THEIR CHANGES OF GETTING THE FOREMAN'S
 JOB.  CONSEQUENTLY, I CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1)
 OF THE ORDER BY INTERFERING WITH OR RESTRAINING SOME APPLICANTS FOR THE
 POSITION OF GENERAL MECHANIC FOREMAN IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS
 ASSURED BY SECTION 1(A) OF THE ORDER.
 
    WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(2), IT IS
 REASONABLE TO INFER THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED ACTION DISCOURAGES
 MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION, BUT THE QUESTION IS:  DID IT DO SO
 BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER
 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT?  THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE INTERVIEWS
 INVOLVED POTENTIAL PROMOTION FOR ALL APPLICANTS.  THE FACT THAT THE ONLY
 NON-UNION APPLICANT WAS SELECTED FOR THE JOB, HOWEVER, DOES NOT OF
 ITSELF PROVE DISCRIMINATION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AS TO THE
 COMPARATIVE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPLICANTS, IT IS JUST AS REASONABLE
 TO INFER FROM THE RECORD HEREIN THAT THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICANT WAS
 SELECTED SOLELY BECAUSE HE WAS THE BEST QUALIFIED, AS IT IS TO INFER
 THAT THE REMAINING SIX APPLICANTS WERE REJECTED BECAUSE OF UNION
 CONNECTIONS.  IN MY VIEW, COMPLAINANT HAS FAILED TO SUSTAIN ITS BURDEN
 OF PROVING DISCRIMINATION, AND HENCE I CONCLUDE THAT NO VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 19(A)(2) HAS BEEN SHOWN.  SEE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MARE
 ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD, A/SLMR NO. 775(1976).
 
    SINCE THE APPLICANTS WERE BEING INTERVIEWED FOR A SUPERVISORY
 POSITION AND MIGHT BE CALLED UPON TO ENFORCE AN UNPOPULAR REGULATION
 WITH RESPECT TO WEARING UNIFORMS, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THEY HAD
 ANY OBJECTIONS TO WEARING UNIFORMS ON THE JOB APPEARS TO BE ENTIRELY
 APPROPRIATE.  EVEN THOUGH COMPLAINANT MAY HAVE TAKEN A POSITION CONTRARY
 TO THAT OF RESPONDENT ON SUCH ISSUE, WHICH HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF
 EXTENSIVE CONTROVERSY, I CONCLUDE THAT SUCH QUESTION WAS NOT VIOLATIVE
 OF ANY PROVISION OF THE ORDER.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AND
 SECTION 203.26(B) OF THE REGULATIONS, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ON BEHALF OF
 THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA ARMY
 NATIONAL GUARD SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) REFERRING, IN THE COURSE OF ANY INTERVIEWS FOR PROMOTION, TO ANY
 APPLICANT'S OR OTHER EMPLOYEE'S MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION OF
 CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, OR TO THE PRESENCE OF A UNION STEWARD IN ANY SHOP
 FOR WHICH SUCH ASSOCIATION IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT AND IN
 WHICH THE APPLICANT BEING INTERVIEWED IS EMPLOYED.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:  POST AT THE
 FACILITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD,107 FIELD ARTILLERY
 BATTALION, HUNT ARMORY, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, COPIES OF THE ATTACHED
 NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  ON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY
 THE COMMANDING GENERAL, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR
 SIXTY (60) CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING
 ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE COMMANDING GENERAL SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS
 TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (C) PURSUANT TO SECTION 203.27 OF THE REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE 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.
 
                             ROBERT J. FELDMAN
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  FEBRUARY 26, 1979
 
    WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
        APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND
 
           ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN
 
            ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
 
            11491, AS AMENDED LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE
 
           FEDERAL SERVICE WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT IN THE COURSE OF ANY INTERVIEW FOR PROMOTION, REFER TO
 ANY APPLICANT'S OR OTHER EMPLOYEE'S MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION OF
 CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, OR TO THE PRESENCE OF A UNION STEWARD IN ANY SHOP
 FOR WHICH SUCH ASSOCIATION IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT AND IN
 WHICH THE APPLICANT BEING INTERVIEWED IS EMPLOYED.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
                     PENNSYLVANIA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . .
 
                      COMMANDING GENERAL (SIGNATURE)
 
    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
 MATERIALS.
 
    IF ANY EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OF
 COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY
 WITH THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, WHOSE
 ADDRESS IS:  ROOM 509, VANGUARD BUILDING, P.O. BOX 19257, 1111-- 20TH
 STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C.  20036
 
    /1/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
 OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224) THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS
 OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
  THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
 MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE
 RESULT WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN
 UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.