[ v13 p661 ]
13:0661(108)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
13 FLRA No. 108
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE
SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER, (ALC)
KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617
Charging Party
Case No. 6-CA-1273
DECISION AND ORDER
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action. The
Judge further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other
alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the
complaint with respect to them. Exceptions to the Judge's Decision were
filed by the Respondent /1/ with the General Counsel filing an
opposition.
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
Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon consideration of the
Judge's Decision and the entire record, the Authority hereby adopts the
Judge's findings, conclusions and Recommended Order. Cf. Oklahoma City
Air Logistics Center (AFLC) Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, 6 FLRA
159(1980) and Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Ft. Carson,
Colorado, 9 FLRA No. 69 (1982) (pertaining to certain management
statements found to be protected by section 7116(e) of the Statute).
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the
Authority hereby orders that the United States Department of Defense,
Department of Air Force, San Antonio Air Logistics Center, (ALC), Kelly
Air Force Base, Texas, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with closing Kelly Air Force Base because
of the activities of the American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO, Local 1617, the employees' exclusive collective bargaining
representative.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of awards because of articles
published in the "Labor News, "a publication of the employees' exclusive
collective bargaining representative.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute:
(a) Post at its Kelly Air Force Base facility, 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
Commanding Officer, or his designee, and shall be posted and maintained
by him 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.
(b) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, notify that Regional Director, Region VI, Federal Labor
Relations Authority, P. O. Box 2640, Dallas, Texas 75221, in writing
within 30 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the remaining allegation of the complaint
in Case No. 6-CA-1273 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Issued, Washington, D.C., January 13, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
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 threaten employees with closing Kelly Air Force Base
because of activities of the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1617, the employees' exclusive collective
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of awards because of
articles published in the "Labor News," a publication of the employees'
exclusive collective bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
(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
material.
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, Region VI,
whose address is: P. O. Box 2640, Dallas, Texas 75221, and whose
telephone number is (214) 767-4996.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE,
SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER, (ALC)
KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1617
Charging Party
Case No. 6-CA-1273
Glenn H. Schlabs, Esq. and
Lewis G. Brewer, Esq.
For the Respondent
Steven M. Angel, Esq.
For the Charging Party
James E. Dumerer, Esq.
For the General Counsel
BEFORE: Salvatore J. Arrigo
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
This is a proceeding under the Federal Labor-Management Relations
Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.
Upon an unfair labor practice charge filed by the American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1617 (herein referred to as the
Union) on July 8, 1981, and thereafter amended on August 26 and
September 25, 1981, the General Counsel of the Authority, by the
Regional Director of Region VI, issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing
on June 11, 1982 alleging Respondent, on March 30, 1981: (1) told
employees that Respondent might close its Air Freight Terminal and/or
Kelly Air Force Base because of Union activities; (2) told employees
that their performance awards might be affected because of Union
activities; and (3) made remarks which denigrated, disparaged and
showed disdain for Union officials and employees assisting the Union.
In its response to Respondent's May 21, 1982 Motion to Compel a More
Definite Statement, counsel for the General Counsel, on June 11, 1982,
clarified the third allegation, supra, by alleging that Respondent's
agent, Lt. Col. William Rohleder, stated: (1) he felt sorry for the
children of the people who wrote and supported the type of article which
appeared in a Union newspaper which was critical of the Air Freight
Terminal because such people were sick and demented; (2) only a chosen
few run the Union and dictate its views; and (3) the people should not
permit this.
A hearing on the Complaint was conducted on October 28, 1982 in San
Antonio, Texas, at which time all parties were represented by counsel
and afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, call, examine and
cross-examine witnesses and argue orally.
Upon the entire record in this matter, /2/ including my observation
of the witnesses and their demeanor, and my evaluation of the evidence
and briefs timely received, I make the following:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The Alleged Unlawful Conduct
At all times material herein the Union has been the collective
bargaining representative of various of Respondent's Air Freight
Terminal Branch within the Transportation Operations Division at Kelly
Air Force Base.
Sometime in January or February 1981 an article appeared in the
Union's newspaper, "Labor News," which was highly critical of working
conditions in the Air Freight Terminal (herein AFT or the Terminal).
The article, widely publicized and posted throughout the AFT, referred
to the AFT as "Alcatraz", characterized it as "one of the most, if not
the worst" place to work at Kelly Air Force Base, and alleged such
conditions were caused by "mismanagement and the working environment."
The article indicated that the Union was investigating "numerous
complaints," concerning: improper work hours and compensatory time-off;
sexual harrassment; safety hazards; lack of coffee and lunch breaks
and hazardous duty pay; no radio playing; logs specifying nature of
employee's illness; low grade structure; and management abuse of
authority. When the article came to the attention of Lt. Col. William
Rohleder, Chief of the Transportation Operations Division, he asked AFT
Branch Chief, Theo Gerlich to investigate the charges. Rohleder was
informed that there was no truth to the allegations and indeed,
management had not received any such complaints from employees.
In March 1981 another article critical of Terminal management
appeared in the Labor News. The article referred to three supervisors
as "prison guards of Alcatraz," labeling each as "sick". One supervisor
was termed a "Romeo" who invited "new girls" to lunch and subjected
those who refused to "cheap lunch" to "reprisal, intimidation, and
coercion in every aspect of their job." The supervisor was described as
having a "hang up," believing he was a "great lover," and was further
accused of getting "more dangerous," having allegedly "gone to the
extent of physically touching a new female employee while pretending to
show her how to operate a machine."
A second supervisor was labeled "Little Ceasar". According to the
column, the supervisor had a "hang up" regarding his height, "builds up
his ego by giving 'direct orders' to helpless females trapped in a
counseling session with more than one supervisor . . . (and) . . .
exerci(es) his authority . . . by firing anyone (especially females) who
dare to defy him."
A third supervisor was characterized as ". . . one whose hang-up
seems to be his feminine mannerism . . . the butt of many a joke in
Alcatraz . . ." The column alleged this supervisor attempted to become a
". . . Macho Man by handing out disciplinary actions against
Mexican-Americans and upholding decisions to fire defenseless females."
Upon the publication of the newspaper several supervisors and
employees came to Branch Chief Gerlich on March 29 or 30, 1981 and
expressed their concern. /3/ Gerlich considered the article to have
"slandered" supervisors and was "furious." Gerlich immediately notified
Division Chief Rohleder of the article. Rohleder discerned that his
supervisors were "visibly upset" and was "particularly concerned"
himself over what he termed "the slanderous attack" on his supervisors.
Accordingly, on March 30, 1981 Rohleder called a meeting of all Terminal
employees.
Between 60 and 80 employees attended the meeting which lasted about
10 minutes. Counsel for the General Counsel called two witnesses to
testify in support of the allegations of the Complaint that Lt. Col.
Rohleder's speech violated section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute. /4/ One
employee, Bernabe Jorge, a Union steward, testified that Rohleder first
introduced himself /5/ and then spent the "bulk" of his speech praising
"the Terminal and individuals" for performing an outstanding job.
Rohleder concluded the congratulatory portion of his speech by
indicating that the Terminal and several employees were "up for awards."
At this point, according to Jorge, Rohleder stated "these awards are in
jeopardy because of the article" and he would be surprised if a copy of
the article was not already at the Pentagon. Jorge further testified
that Rohleder then said he received a call from an officer in Washington
earlier that day who stated that "with as much trouble that Kelly Air
Force Base has had with the Union, he (was) surprised that they hadn't
closed the Base." Rohleder then made a statement to the effect that he
felt sorry for the children of the people who write and support "these
articles" because they had to be "sick and demented." Rohleder thanked
the employees and concluded the speech.
According to Jorge, immediately after the speech he approached
Rohleder and a group of supervisors and expressed the opinion that "a
lot of people took offense" at Rohleder's speech and a brief
conversation ensured between Jorge, Gerlich, and Genevieve Idar, Deputy
Chief of the Operations Division. /6/
Sandra Brown, the other witness called by counsel for the General
Counsel, had been employed at the Terminal just three months at the time
of the speech. She testified that during the speech Lt. Col. Rohleder
explained and praised the work performed at the Terminal; commented on
the outstanding job everyone was doing; stated there was an article
referring to the Terminal in the "Labor News or Union paper;" mentioned
he had a call from Washington; stated that due to the article, the
amount of awards "issued to the people" were jeopardized; indicated the
writers of the article were "trash," stating he didn't know how they
could bring up their children in such an environment; and finally, made
reference to the Union being "no good" and referred to stewards "being
not of a good nature, more or less." On further examination Brown
recalled that Rohleder also said that the writer or writers of the
article had "small minds" and he received a call from someone in
Washington who ". . . had received or read this article, and due to the
article, . . being the union was causing so much trouble, . . . wondered
why the Terminal hadn't been closed down." Thereupon, Brown concluded:
"So this is when I found out or put two and two together that he was
referring to the union article."
Col. Rohleder, two supervisors and a Non-Commissioned Officer In
Charge (NCOIC) at the Terminal gave testimony on behalf of Respondent.
While it is not clear from his testimony precisely how his speech was
ordered, /7/ Rohleder testified that he began the speech by
congratulating employees on the outstanding work and "tremendous strides
and improvements" made at the Terminal and specified various areas where
improvements were made. Rohleder stated that "unfortunately" some
unfavorable articles had been written in a "local periodical" that cast
an unfavorable light on the employees' efforts, or words to that effect.
According to Rohleder, he enumerated some of the charges contained in
the earlier Union article, supra, indicated they were invalid, and
related his desire not to have "this type of publicity" interfering with
efforts at the Terminal. At the meeting Rohleder noted that it was the
time of the year for the annual organizational awards to be given to the
outstanding performance air terminal in the Command and said he was
submitting the Terminal for an award. He indicated there would be some
recommendations for individual awards as well. Rohleder thanked the
employees for their support and according to his affidavit:
"I then stated there had been some adverse publicity which I
felt was unfounded and unfair. I stated this type of publicity
degraded the accomplishments of this unit and penalized the
efforts of the individuals. I stated I felt sorry for the
individuals who supported this type of publicity because it served
no useful purpose." /8/
When questioned as to whether he related the receipt of awards to the
"article," Rohleder responded that he didn't recall doing so but ". . .
might have made the comment that . . . this type of publicity . . .
can't possibly help the good efforts of the employees in your efforts
down here in the Terminal." Rohleder continued; "From that an inference
can be drawn that . . . if somebody sees this on the selection
committee, it will jeopardize our award. . . . But, specifically, I did
not say that it would jeopardize the award."
Col. Rohleder specifically denied having made reference to numerous
matters testified to by Jorge and Brown, including making any reference
to "children," "sick and demented" or the author of the article, "the
Union," "steward," the "Pentagon," or closing Kelly AFB.
Supervisor Gerlich testified that Rohleder, in his speech,
congratulated and thanked employees for the good job they were doing,
indicating they had "come a long way" since he was first assigned to the
Transportation Division; stated he was recommending the Terminal be
submitted for the air terminal of the year award; said he was also
recommending that individuals be nominated for awards; stated that an
article (or articles) had appeared in a "local periodical," the article
was not true and should not be believed, and said something to the
effect that he could not understand how a individual could write such an
article and face himself in the mirror each morning; indicated he hoped
that this type of article or publicity did not adversely affect the
workforce or morale of the air terminal; and encouraged employees to
keep up the good work.
Gerlich specifically denied that Rohleder made any reference to Kelly
Air Force Base or the Terminal closing, the Pentagon, the Union, Union
Stewards, children, or a small group running the Union. Thus, Gerlich
generally supported Rohleder's version on the speech. However, while
denying that Rohleder indicated that the type of articles referred to in
the speech might adversely affect unit or individual awards, Gerlich
acknowledged that ". . . if the people weren't listening, they could
twist it around." Further, Gerlich testified he had no recollection of
Rohleder saying anything to the effect that the "adverse publicity"
mentioned in the speech "degraded the accomplishments of (the) unit and
penalized the efforts of the individuals," a statement Rohleder admitted
having made in the affidavit given during the investigative stage of
this matter.
Jose Devora, Air Terminal Operations Section Chief, was also called
to testify by counsel for Respondent. /9/ Devora acknowledged not
remembering Rohleder's speech in every detail but recalled that
Rohleder: was concerned about the articles that were published in the
"local paper;" said "he felt sorry for the children of whoever would
publish or would go along with such tactics;" stated he wanted to make
sure that employees at the Terminal realized he appreciated their fine
work and efforts; and indicated individual employees were being
recognized through individual awards and the overall efforts of Terminal
employees was being recognized since the Terminal was "up and running"
for the air freight terminal of the year award. Devora denied Rohleder
mentioned Kelly Air Force Base closing or the Pentagon questioning the
continued operation of the Terminal; made remarks about Union officers
or stewards; mentioned a small group controlling the Union; referred
to people supporting or not supporting the Union or used the word
"demented." Devora also denied that Rohleder said that employees would
not receive awards because of the articles. When asked if Rohleder
mentioned anything to the effect that the bad publicity (from the Union
article) might have degraded the accomplishments of the unit and perhaps
penalized the efforts of the individuals, Devora was evasive and
vacillated, first admitting and then denying that the statement was
made. /10/
The last witness to testify on behalf of Respondent was Sidney
Hebert, NCOIC of special handling and material handling equipment.
Hebert testified in conclusionary terms that Rohleder "talked about"
awards and supervisors recommend employees for awards; indicated the
Terminal was being submitted for terminal of the year award for the Air
Force Logistics Command; and said the "article in the paper" was
untruthful and the employees were doing a good job and shouldn't pay
much attention to the article. Hebert denied Rohleder made reference to
the article affecting awards; the Terminal closing; Kelly Air Base
closing; the Union, Union officers, stewards, or the people running or
supporting the local Union.
Discussion
The basis issues herein are whether Lt. Col. Rohleder, on March 30,
1981: (1) informed employees, in effect, that Union "trouble" at Kelly
Air Force Base could result in the closing of the base; (2) told
employees that performance awards might be adversely affected because of
an article published in the Union newspaper; and (3) denigrated,
disparaged and showed disdain for Union officials and employees
assisting the Union.
As was apparent throughout the litigation of this matter, disposition
of this case turns primarily on how credibility resolutions are made.
However, as counsel for Respondent points out in his brief, all
witnesses suffered from a common disability, namely, the passage of a
substantial period of time between the events and testimony with regard
thereto. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the testimony given herein
is somewhat divergent.
Having carefully considered the testimony of record and observed the
witnesses at the hearing, I credit Union steward Jorge's version of the
Rohleder speech based substantially upon Jorge's demeanor and indeed my
evaluation of the demeanor of all those who testified herein. His
answers were direct, responsive and precise both on direct and
cross-examination. Further, his comment to Rohleder and other
supervisors immediately after the speech that "a lot of people took
offense" at Rohleder's remarks is supportive of his version and is a
reaction one might expect of a Union steward after hearing such
comments. Indeed, Rohleder substantially supported Jorge's testimony on
the confrontation when he testified that after the speech, Jorge asked
Rohleder if it was his intent to "run down the union," which Rohleder
denied. I also note that if Rohleder's innocuous version of his speech
is credited, there would have been little apparent reason for Jorge's
post-speech comment on Rohleder's discourse.
In addition, Jorge is corroborated in essentials by employee Brown.
However, I credit Brown only to the extent that Brown and Jorge's
testimony is mutually corroborative. Brown's testimony was, in large
measure, given in a blurting, jumbled, fashion. She was a relatively
new employee in March 1981 and perhaps blended recollections of the
speech with post-speech conversations with others. Moreover, while
Brown testified that Rohleder in his address referred to the "Labor News
or union paper" when discussing the article in question, she also
testified that she had to "put two and two together" to conclude
Rohleder was referring to the article in the Union paper. In this
regard, I further note that Jorge had no recollection of the word
"union" being used by Rohleder, a matter which, as a Union steward,
would not have readily escaped Jorge.
Turning now to Lt. Col. Rohleder, while his testimony on direct
examination was responsive, on cross-examination he was, at times,
rather evasive. For example, Rohleder testified at first that during
his speech he made no reference to the author of the article in the
Labor News. After being confronted with his affidavit, supra, wherein
Rohleder acknowledged that during the speech he ". . . stated (he) felt
sorry for the individuals who supported this type of publicity, because
it served no useful purpose," Rohleder was asked what he meant by the
"individuals who supported this type of publicity." Rohleder replied:
"Well, somebody that would chastise my supervisors." When asked to
repeat his answer, Rohleder responded:
"Okay. Somebody that would chastise my supervisors in articles
like this and in other articles, demeaning to the work force. You
know, I just felt that that type of publicity had no useful
purpose in the organization and accomplished nothing."
Examination on this matter by counsel for the General Counsel
continued:
"Q. So then you now recall that you did, in fact, refer to the
author of the article in this meeting.
A. Well --
Q. In terms of those people who supported this type of
activity?
A. I am sorry. I don't see any reference there to any author.
I say in reference to the material contained in the article.
Q. Okay. In other words, what you mean is those who would
make changes like this about the organization. Is that what you
mean?
A. Anyone that would believe that those charges were true. I
believe the reference there is I felt sorry for anybody that
supported this type publicity. If it is unfavorable publicity,
unfair publicity, you know, it is that type of thing, not an
individual, that I felt sorry for."
In assessing Rohleder's reliability as a witness I also note he
testified he made no reference to "children" during the speech.
However, Supervisor Devora, whose testimony is corroborative of Jorge's
and Brown's in this regard, recalls Rohleder saying "he felt sorry for
the children of whoever would publish or go along with such tactics."
The general reliability of Gerlich, Devora, and Hebert as witnesses
is similarly questionable. Thus, with regard to the newspaper article,
all three witnesses denied hearing Rohleder state during the speech that
"this type of publicity degraded the accomplishments of this unit and
penalized the efforts of the individuals." However, Rohleder in his
affidavit acknowledged having made the statement, and the remark is one
of substantial significance in view of the unfair labor practice charges
being considered herein.
Accordingly, based upon the credibility findings made herein, I find
and conclude that Lt. Col. Rohleder's statement during his March 30,
1981 speech to the effect that he received a call from an officer in
Washington who stated that with as much trouble Kelly Air Force Base has
had with the Union, he was surprised that they hadn't closed the base,
violated section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute. The remark constitutes an
implied threat of reprisal against employees for engaging in protected
activity.
I further find and conclude that Lt. Col. Rohleder's statement when
referring to the article that appeared in the Union's newspaper "Labor
News" during his speech on March 30, to the effect that awards were in
jeopardy because of the article, violated section 7116(a)(1) of the
Statute. /11/ The statement is tantamount to threatening employees with
reprisals for the conduct, or perhaps the misconduct, of a Union
publication. It is entirely possible that Rohleder said, as he admitted
in effect, that the article "penalized" the efforts of individuals and
he did not say "jeopardize" the awards. In any event, I find that by
cleverly juxtaposing phrases concerning awards and the article, Rohleder
clearly conveyed the impression that the objectionable newspaper article
would or could result in adverse consequences to employees regarding
awards.
However, I reject the contention that Lt. Col. Rohleder denigrated,
disparaged and showed disdain for Union officials and employees
assisting the Union in violation of section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute by
his remarks of March 30, 1981. As stated above, I find, according to
Bernabe Jorge's credited testimony, that Rohleder's comment in this
regard was to the effect that he felt sorry for the children of the sick
and demented people who write and support these articles. I do not
conclude that such a statement violates section 7116(a)(1) of the
Statute, especially if one considers the provocation occasioned by the
abusive, vulgar, and disparaging nature of the article in the Labor News
to which Rohleder was responding. Accordingly, this allegation of the
Complaint is dismissed. /12/
Therefore, in view of the entire foregoing I recommend that the
Authority issue the following:
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2430.20 of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the
Authority hereby orders that the United States Department of Defense,
Department of Air Force, San Antonio Air Logistics Center, (ALC), Kelly
Air Force Base, Texas, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with closing Kelly Air Force Base
because of the activities of the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1617, the employees' exclusive
collective bargaining representative.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of awards because of
articles published in the "Labor News," a publication of the
employees' exclusive collective bargaining representative.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute:
(a) Post at its Kelly Air Force Base facility, 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 Commanding Officer and shall be posted and
maintained by him for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. The Commanding
Officer shall take reasonable steps to insure that such Notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, notify that Regional Director, Region VI, Federal
Labor Relations Authority, P. O.
Box 2640, Dallas, Texas 75221, in writing, within 30
days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken
to comply herewith.
SALVATORE J. ARRIGO
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: April 28, 1983
Washington, DC
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 STATUTE
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with closing Kelly Air Force Base
because of activities of the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1617, the employees' exclusive collective
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of awards because of
articles published in the "Labor News," a publication of the employees'
exclusive collective bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
(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
material.
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, Region VI,
whose address is: P. O. Box 2640, Dallas, Texas 75221, and whose
telephone number is: (214) 767-4996.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ The Respondent excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Judge. The demeanor of witnesses is a factor of consequence in
resolving issues of credibility, and the Judge has had the advantage of
observing the witnesses while they testified. The Authority will not
overrule a Judge's resolution with respect to credibility unless a clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence demonstrates that such
resolution is incorrect. The Authority has examined the record
carefully, and finds no basis for reversing the Judge's credibility
findings.
/2/ Respondent's unopposed motion to correct the transcript as to
minor matters is hereby granted.
/3/ The article had also been posted on a bulletin board in the
Terminal.
/4/ All witnesses were sequestered.
/5/ While Rohleder had been the Division Chief for three years, there
had been a substantial turnover of employees at the Terminal.
/6/ The substance of this conversation was not alleged by the General
Counsel to constitute a violation of the Statute and accordingly was not
fully developed at the hearing and shall not be treated herein.
/7/ In reconstruction this version, I have relied on Rohleder's
testimony and his prehearing affidavit received in evidence at the
hearing.
/8/ On cross-examination Rohleder at first denied saying he "felt
sorry for the individuals who supported this type of publicity." After
being shown his prehearing affidavit, Rohleder acknowledged making the
statement which included ". . . because it served no useful purpose."
/9/ Devora is responsible to Gerlich in Respondent's supervisory
hierarchy.
/10/ See Transcript at 127-130.
/11/ Although this allegation of the Complaint refers to
"performance" awards, I view the Complaint as broad enough to encompass
a finding of violation regardless of whether Rohleder was specifically
referring to unit awards, individual awards or performance awards.
/11/ Counsel for the Charging Party seeks, as part of the remedy of
the unfair labor practices involved herein, that employees at Kelly Air
Force Base be assembled and the Commanding Officer be obliged to read
them the "Notice to All Employees" to dispel any rumors which might have
started as a result of Respondent's statements. I do not find such an
unusual remedy is warranted on the state of the record before me.