[ v01 p367 ]
01:0367(46)CO
The decision of the Authority follows:
1 FLRA No. 46
TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Respondent
and
LOUIS T. FAISON
Complainant
Assistant Secretary
Case No. 22-08567(CO)
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 OF THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT 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. 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 THIS
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 TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL,
AFL-CIO, SHALL:
1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(A) INTERFERING WITH LOUIS T. FAISON'S, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE'S,
NON-WORK TIME SOLICITATION
ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, OR ANY
OTHER LABOR
ORGANIZATION, AT THE NAVAL PUBLIC WORKS CENTER, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:
(A) POST AT ITS LOCAL BUSINESS OFFICE AND AT ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES
TO MEMBERS ARE
CUSTOMARILY POSTED, INCLUDING FACILITIES PROVIDED FOR IT AT THE NAVAL
PUBLIC WORKS CENTER,
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, 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
THE PRESIDENT OF THE TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL
TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, AND
SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS
THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS
PLACES. THE PRESIDENT SHALL TAKE STEPS TO INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES
ARE NOT REMOVED, 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.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 30, 1979
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES
CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR MEMBERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES AT THE
NAVAL PUBLIC WORKS CENTER, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, THAT:
WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH LOUIS T. FAISON'S, OR ANY OTHER
EMPLOYEE'S, NON-WORK TIME SOLICITATION ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION, AT
THE NAVAL PUBLIC WORKS CENTER, NORFOLK , VIRGINIA.
TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
DATED: BY: PRESIDENT
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 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, WHOSE
ADDRESS IS: ROOM 509, VANGUARD BUILDING, P.O. BOX 19257, 1111 - 20TH
STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036.
APPEARANCES:
ROBERT MATISOFF, ESQ.
O'DONOGHUE & O'DONOGHUE
1912 SUNDERLAND PLACE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
FOR THE RESPONDENT
LOUIS T. FAISON
944 TIFTON STREET
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23513
COMPLAINANT PRO SE
RONALD B. ZEDD, ESQ., OBSERVING
BEFORE: ROBERT J. FELDMAN
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
CASE NO. 22-8567(CO)
DECISION AND ORDER
THIS IS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING IN WHICH A FORMAL HEARING
OF RECORD WAS HELD PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491
AS AMENDED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO "ORDER") AND 29 C.F.R. PART 203. IN
THE LIGHT OF REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 AND TITLE VII OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978, THE DECISION AND ORDER HEREIN ARE
ISSUED PURSUANT TO TRANSITION RULES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED IN
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, 1, JANUARY 2, 1979, PP. 5-8.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THE COMPLAINT AS FILED ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 19(B)(1), (2) &
(3) OF THE ORDER BASED UPON THE CHARGE THAT AN OFFICIAL OF THE
RESPONDENT HAD PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED COMPLAINANT AND HAD TAKEN A
CLIPBOARD CONTAINING PETITIONS OBTAINED BY HIM IN AN EFFORT TO CAUSE AN
ELECTION CHALLENGING RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIONAL STATUS; AND ALSO
THAT SUCH OFFICIAL HAD TOLD ASSEMBLED EMPLOYEES THAT IF THEY SIGNED THE
PETITION, RESPONDENT WOULD FILE CHARGES AGAINST THEM. PRIOR TO ISSUING
THE NOTICE OF HEARING, THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR DISMISSED THE 19(B)(2)
& (3) PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT COMPLAINANT HAD
FAILED TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
THOSE SECTIONS. IN HIS LETTER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL, THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN ADDUCED THAT RESPONDENT'S
REPRESENTATIVES ATTEMPTED TO INDUCE AGENCY MANAGEMENT TO COERCE AN
EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS UNDER THE ORDER, NOR WAS THERE ANY
EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENT COERCED, ATTEMPTED TO COERCE, DISCIPLINE, FINE
OR TAKE OTHER ECONOMIC SANCTION AGAINST A MEMBER OF THE ORGANIZATION AS
PUNISHMENT OR REPRISAL, OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF HINDERING OR IMPEDING THE
MEMBER'S WORK PERFORMANCE, PRODUCTIVITY OR DISCHARGE OF DUTIES. IT DOES
NOT APPEAR THAT ANY APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM THE PARTIAL DISMISSAL.
IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE SOLE ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED IS WHETHER THE
RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION INFERRED WITH, RESTRAINED OR COERCED AN
EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE ORDER IN VIOLATION
OF SECTION 19(B)(1).
FINDINGS OF FACT
ON AUGUST 11, 1977, RESPONDENT WAS THE RECOGNIZED EXCLUSIVE
BARGAINING AGENT FOR THE EMPLOYEE UNIT IN QUESTION. COMPLAINANT WAS
THEN AN EMPLOYEE IN THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVAL PUBLIC
WORKS CENTER IN NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AND WAS ALSO A NATIONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
(NAGE). SHORTLY BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE DAY SHIFT THAT MORNING,
COMPLAINANT WAS SOLICITING SIGNATURES ON A PETITION IN A PARKING LOT AT
THE NAVAL PUBLIC WORKS CENTER. THE PETITION THAT COMPLAINANT WAS
CIRCULATING CONSISTED OF A NUMBER OF SHEETS OF AN AUTHORIZATION PETITION
ATTACHED TO A CLIPBOARD. EACH SHEET CONTAINED A STATEMENT AT THE TOP TO
THE EFFECT THAT THE SIGNATORIES AUTHORIZED NAGE TO REPRESENT THEM AS
BARGAINING AGENT, THE OBJECTIVE BEING TO CREATE A SHOWING OF INTEREST TO
WARRANT AN ELECTION CHALLENGING RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATION OF THE UNIT.
DURING THE COURSE OF COMPLAINANT'S SOLICITATION, ONE WALTER R.
GATLING, THEN RESPONDENT'S LOCAL CHAIRMAN OR ACTIVITY REPRESENTATIVE,
AFTER LISTENING TO COMPLAINANT'S REQUEST TO EMPLOYEES TO SIGN THE
PETITION, ASKED COMPLAINANT TO TELL SUCH EMPLOYEES THE TRUTH AS TO WHAT
IT WAS HE WAS ASKING THEM TO SIGN, IMPLYING THAT COMPLAINANT WAS
MISREPRESENTING THE CONTENTS OF THE PETITION. COMPLAINANT ASKED MR.
GATLING NOT TO BOTHER HIM AND TURNED AWAY. AS HE DID SO, MR. GATLING
TOOK POSSESSION OF THE CLIPBOARD WITH THE PETITION SHEETS ATTACHED TO
IT. WHEN COMPLAINANT ASKED HIM TO RETURN THE CLIPBOARD, MR. GATLING
REFUSED TO DO SO UNLESS COMPLAINANT WOULD TELL THE PEOPLE THAT IT WAS A
NAGE PETITION HE WAS ASKING THEM TO SIGN, INSTEAD OF A PETITION AGAINST
THE CONTRACTING-OUT OF SOME OPERATIONS. COMPLAINANT THEN CALLED A
NEARBY BASE POLICEMAN, BUT BY THEN MR. GATLING HAD LEFT THE AREA, SO
COMPLAINANT REPORTED THE INCIDENT TO THE BASE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AN HOUR OR TWO LATER, MR. GATLING RETURNED THE CLIPBOARD TO THE BASE
POLICE OFFICE. COMPLAINANT INSISTED, HOWEVER, THAT SEVERAL SHEETS OF
SIGNATURES HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CLIPBOARD, AS A RESULT OF WHICH MR.
GATLING WAS CHARGED WITH THEFT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY OF A VALUE OF LESS
THAN $100.00 AND WAS GIVEN A SUMMONS TO APPEAR IN COURT. SUBSEQUENTLY
THE CHARGE WAS DISMISSED.
ON OTHER OCCASIONS, SEVERAL EMPLOYEES HAD SIGNED COMPLAINANT'S
PETITIONS UNDER A MISTAKEN IMPRESSION AS TO THE CONTENTS AND PURPOSE
THEREOF, CLAIMING THAT THEY DID NOT SEE, OR DID NOT READ, THE
TYPEWRITTEN PARAGRAPH AT THE TOP OF THE SHEET AND THAT THEY WERE TOLD IT
WAS A PETITION AGAINST CONTRACTING-OUT CERTAIN WORK OR A PETITION TO
INCREASE WAGES. ON AUGUST 31, 1977, NAGE FILED A LABOR ORGANIZATION
PETITION (RO) FOR CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE. ON OCTOBER 20, 1977,
NAGE WITHDREW SUCH PETITION.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
RESPONDENT RECOGNIZES THAT UNDER SECTION 1(A) OF THE ORDER,
COMPLAINANT AS AN EMPLOYEE HAD AN ASSURED OR PROTECTED RIGHT TO ASSIST A
LABOR ORGANIZATION BY SOLICITING SIGNATURES ON AN AUTHORIZATION
PETITION. IT CONTENDS HOWEVER THAT COMPLAINANT MISREPRESENTED THE
CONTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE PETITION TO SOME PROSPECTIVE SIGNATORIES AND
THEREBY NOT ONLY LOST WHATEVER PROTECTION THE ORDER HAD GIVEN HIM, BUT
CONFERRED UPON THE RESPONDENT THE RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH HIS ACTIVITY,
CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 19(B)(1).
I AM NOT PERSUADED THAT THERE IS ANY VALIDITY TO SUCH A CONTENTION.
THE ADJUDICATIONS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENT HAVE
LITTLE OR NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ORDER. IN THE
FIRST PLACE, SECTION 8(B)(1) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (29
U.S.C. 158(B)(1)) PROHIBITS A LABOR ORGANIZATION ONLY FROM RESTRAINING
OR COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS; IT OMITS ANY
REFERENCE TO "INTERFERING WITH" EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF SUCH
RIGHTS. IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE CASES CITED BY RESPONDENT ARE
FACTUALLY INAPPOSITE, SINCE WITH A SINGLE EXCEPTION OF A DECISION
INVOLVING DISCHARGES FOR VIOLENCE AND HOLDING THAT FIGHTING IS NOT A
PROTECTED ACTIVITY EVEN IF UNION ACTIVITY GAVE RISE TO IT, THEY DEAL
EXCLUSIVELY WITH EMPLOYER OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION 8(A). SEE, E.G.,
WHITIN MACHINE WORKS, 100 N.L.R.B. 279(1952).
FROM THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED IN THE INSTANT CASE, I CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT
RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS AMOUNTED TO ANY RESTRAINT OR COERCION UPON ANY
EMPLOYEE, BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT SUCH ACTIONS CONSTITUTED INTERFERENCE
WITH COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO ASSIST NAGE, A LABOR ORGANIZATION, BY
CIRCULATING PETITIONS WITH A VIEW TO OBTAINING A REPRESENTATIONAL
ELECTION. RESPONDENT'S SUGGESTION THAT THE STATUTORY BAN UPON SUCH
INTERFERENCE BE NEGATED ON EQUITABLE GROUNDS IS WITHOUT FOUNDATION. ANY
MISREPRESENTATION ON COMPLAINANT'S PART IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
COMMITTING AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE ORDER.
THE DEFENSE AGAINST AND REMEDY FOR SUCH MISREPRESENTATION IS THE
INVALIDATION IN REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS OF PETITIONS SO OBTAINED, AND
IT IS APPARENT THAT RESPONDENT WAS WELL AWARE OF SUCH DEFENSE AND
REMEDY, AND WAS GATHERING EVIDENCE TO EFFECTUATE SUCH INVALIDATION (SEE
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS C, D &E.)
COMPLAINANT'S CONDUCT IN SOLICITING SOME SIGNATURES WITHOUT
DISCLOSING THE TRUE NATURE OF THE PETITION IS WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE AND IS
HEREBY IN NO WAY CONDONED. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, HOWEVER, I AM
CONSTRAINED TO FIND THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(B)(1) OF THE
ORDER BY INTERFERING WITH COMPLAINANT'S EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHT TO SEEK
SIGNATORIES TO THE NAGE AUTHORIZATION PETITION.
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 TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO SHALL:
1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM INTERFERING WITH THE SOLICITATION BY LOUIS
T. FAISON OR OTHERS OF SIGNATURES ON AUTHORIZATION PETITIONS ON BEHALF
OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES; AND FROM 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
NAVAL PUBLIC WORKS CENTER, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, 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 THE PRESIDENT OR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND
MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR SIXTY (60) CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN
CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES OF SAID COUNCIL
TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED. THE PRESIDENT OR CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER SHALL TAKE STEPS TO INSURE THAT THE NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED,
DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
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.
RJF:LE
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 ALL EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE SOLICITATION BY LOUIS T. FAISON OR
OTHERS OF SIGNATURES ON AUTHORIZATION PETITIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
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.
TIDEWATER VIRGINIA FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL,
AFL-CIO
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 EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
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.