[ v05 p216 ]
05:0216(27)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
5 FLRA No. 27
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL
CENTER, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, INTERDEPARTMENTAL
LOCAL UNION 2000, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case No. 6-CA-261
DECISION AND ORDER
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING ISSUED
HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
ENGAGED IN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND
RECOMMENDING THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER. NO EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDG'ES RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
(5 CFR 2423.29) AND SECTION 7118 OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS STATUTE (5 U.S.C. 7101-7135), 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, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS MODIFIED BELOW.
IN REACHING ITS DETERMINATION HEREIN THE AUTHORITY ADOPTS THE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENT'S REPRIMAND OF
LUCAS WAS IN RETALIATION FOR HER ACTIVITY AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
UNION AND THAT THE EXPRESSED REASON FOR SUCH DISCIPLINE WAS PRETEXTUAL.
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE AUTHORITY FINDS IT IS UNNECESSARY TO PASS
UPON, AND SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT ADOPT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
CONCLUSION AT P. 7 OF HIS DECISION THAT THE LANGUAGE "OTHER APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITIES" IN SECTION 7102(1) OF THE STATUTE APPLIES TO REPORTERS.
ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE RESPONDENT'S REPRIMAND OF
LUCAS INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED AND COERCED HER IN VIOLATION OF
SECTION 7116(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE AND SUCH DISCIPLINE CONSTITUTED
DISCRIMINATION IN CONNECTION WITH HER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN
VIOLATION OF SECTION 7116(A)(2) 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 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, SHALL:
1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(A) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING MS. GEORGIE P. LUCAS,
OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE,
IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIST THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 2000, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY
OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
(B) DISCIPLINING OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MS. GEORGIE P.
LUCAS, OR ANY OTHER
EMPLOYEE, WITH REGARD TO HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER
TO DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN, OR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 2000, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER LABOR
ORGANIZATION.
(C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY SECTION 7102 OF THE STATUTE;
OR IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED
MANNER ENCOURAGING OR DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION
BY DISCRIMINATING IN
CONNECTION WITH HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
(A) RESCIND AB INITIO, AND EXPUNGE FROM ALL PERSONNEL RECORDS, THE
REPRIMAND OF MS. GEORGIE
P. LUCAS, DATED JUNE 8, 1979.
(B) POST AT ITS MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA,
COPIES OF THE ATTACHED
NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORITY.
UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH
FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
MEDICAL CENTER,
SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE
DIRECTOR FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE
DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS
AND OTHER PLACES WHERE
NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED. THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE
REASONABLE STEPS TO
INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
OTHER MATERIAL.
(C) NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION 6, 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., FEBRUARY 23, 1981
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, 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 INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE MS. GEORGIE P.
LUCAS, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIST THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL
2000, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY
OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
WE WILL NOT DISCIPLINE OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MS. GEORGIE
P. LUCAS, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, WITH REGARD TO HIRING, TENURE,
PROMOTION, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE
MEMBERSHIP IN, OR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 2000, AFL-CIO, OR ANY
OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION.
WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY SECTION
7102 OF THE STATUTE; OR IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER ENCOURAGE OR
DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION BY DISCRIMINATION IN
CONNECTION WITH HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT.
WE WILL RESCIND AB INITIO, AND EXPUNGE FROM ALL PERSONNEL RECORDS,
THE REPRIMAND OF MS. GEORGIE P. LUCAS DATED JUNE 8, 1979.
(ACTIVITY)
DATED: BY: (SIGNATURE) (TITLE)
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, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 6, WHOSE
ADDRESS IS: ROOM 450, OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING, BRYAN & ERVAY STREETS,
DALLAS, TEXAS 75221, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (214) 767-4996.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
IRENE JACKSON, ESQUIRE
FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
MARK GALLINGHOUSE, ESQUIRE
FOR THE RESPONDENT
BEFORE: WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. CHAPTER 71, /1/ AND THE FINAL RULES AND
REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER, FED. REG., VOL. 45, NO. 12, JANUARY 17,
1980, 5 C.F.R. SEC. 2415.1, ET SEQ. THE CHARGE HEREIN WAS FILED ON
SEPTEMBER 29, 1979, AND A COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED ON
FEBRUARY 4, 1980, PURSUANT TO WHICH A HEARING WAS DULY HELD BEFORE THE
UNDERSIGNED ON APRIL 15, 1980, IN SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA. EACH PARTY WAS
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, WAS AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE AND
CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND TO PRESENT EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE ISSUES
INVOLVED HEREIN. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY, THE PARTIES WERE
AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT; MAY 15, 1980, WAS
FIXED AS THE DATE FOR MAILING POST HEARING BRIEFS, WHICH TIME WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED, AT THE REQUEST OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL WITH THE
CONCURRENCE OF COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN AND
SPECIFICALLY DELAY IN RECEIPT OF THE TRANSCRIPT, TO MAY 29, 1980; AND
BRIEFS, TIMELY MAILED, HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND BY
RESPONDENT AND HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. UPON THE BASIS OF THE
ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE WITNESSES AND THEIR
DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 16(A)(1) AND (2) OF THE
STATUTE AS THE RESULT OF THE WRITTEN REPRIMAND OF MS. GEORGIE P. LUCAS
ON, OR ABOUT, JUNE 8, 1979. THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE FACT OF THE
REPRIMAND OR THAT MS. LUCAS WAS THEN CHIEF STEWARD OF AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL UNION 2000,
AFL-CIO (HEREINAFTER ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE "UNION"). THE REPRIMAND
WAS FOR THE PURPORTED REASON THAT MS. LUCAS, ON MAY 25, 1979, "PROVIDED
AID AND ASSISTANCE TO A NEWSCASTER IN TAKING TELEVISION FILMS IN THE 1
EAST AND 4 WEST SECTIONS OF THE MEDICAL CENTER." (G.C. EXH. 2); THAT
"THESE FILMS SHOWED PATIENTS AND EMPLOYEES WITHOUT OBTAINING THEIR
PERMISSION," ALL OF WHICH WAS IN VIOLATION OF RESPONDENT'S REGULATIONS.
FOR REASONS SET FORTH HEREINAFTER, THE SELECTION OF MS. LUCAS FOR
DISCIPLINE, AND NO OTHER EMPLOYEE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE,
BORDERS ON THE ABSURD AND WAS CLEARLY PRETEXTURAL IN NATURE.
A. EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE MAY 25, 1980, INCIDENT
1. MS. LUCAS IS A GS-6 PURCHASING AGENT AND, AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL,
WAS CHIEF STEWARD OF THE UNION. MS. LUCAS TESTIFIED, WITHOUT
CONTRADICTION, THAT A DISPUTE HAD ARISEN CONCERNING RADIOLOGY
TECHNICIANS AND, MORE SPECIFICALLY, STAFFING OF RADIOLOGY. BECAUSE OF
APPARENT UNDERSTAFFING, TECHNICIANS WERE REGULARLY "CALLED BACK" FOR
DUTY OUTSIDE THEIR NORMAL WORKING HOURS, INCLUDING THE EXTENSION OF
SHIFTS AS WELL AS BEING CALLED BACK FOR DUTY AFTER THEY HAD LEFT THE
MEDICAL CENTER. EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCTIVE
AND, ABOUT APRIL, 1979, THE TECHNICIANS REFUSED TO ACCEPT FURTHER CALL
BACKS AND GRIEVANCES THEREAFTER FOLLOWED. MS. LUCAS WAS DESIGNATED TO
REPRESENT THE GRIEVANTS AND MET WITH RESPONDENT TO DISCUSS THE
GRIEVANCES. WITH THE PROSPECT OF FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL CUTS IN THE
BUDGET, MS. LUCAS CALLED MR. CALVIN WRAY POST, A REPORTER FOR KSLA-TV
AND SUGGESTED THAT HE DO A STORY ON THE STAFFING PROBLEM AT THE MEDICAL
CENTER.
B. THE INCIDENTS OF MAY 25, 1980
2. MS. JOYCE NAUTEL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE MEDICAL CENTER,
TESTIFIED THAT ON MAY 25, 1980, SHE RECEIVED A CALL FROM MR. POST IN
WHICH HE TOLD HER HE INTENDED TO DO A STORY AND WANTED TO INTERVIEW
CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING MS. LUCAS. MS. NAUTEL TESTIFIED THAT SHE
CALLED THE VA PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICE IN DALLAS AND WASHINGTON AND
CALLED MR. POST BACK BUT, IN THE MEANTIME, MR. POST HAD ALREADY ARRIVED
AT THE MEDICAL CENTER, WITH A TV CAMERAMAN, AND HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THE
OFFICE OF MR. KERMIT K. WESTMORELAND, HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR AND PUBLIC
RELATIONS OFFICER.
3. WHEN MR. POST ARRIVED WITH HIS TV CAMERAMAN, MR. DONALD GOODNER,
CHIEF OF RESPONDENT'S HOSPITAL POLICE, TOLD MR. POST HE COULD NOT TAKE
PICTURES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION AND TOOK MR. POST TO MR. WESTMORELAND'S
OFFICE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT MR. POST TOLD MR. WESTMORELAND HE
WANTED TO INTERVIEW CERTAIN EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING MS. LUCAS, OUTSIDE THE
HOSPITAL; THAT MR. WESTMORELAND TOLD MR. POST HE COULD TAKE PICTURES
OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL, PROVIDED ONLY THAT NO PATIENTS WERE PHOTOGRAPHED.
MR. WESTMORELAND DID NOT TELL MR. POST HE COULD NOT TAKE PICTURES INSIDE
THE HOSPITAL. MR. POST HAD BEEN TOLD THAT MS. LUCAS WOULD NOT BE
GRANTED OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE INTERVIEW AND MR. WESTMORELAND ALLOWED MR.
POST TO CALL MS. LUCAS' SUPERVISOR, OR MR. WESTMORELAND HAD HIS
SECRETARY CALL. IN ANY EVENT, MS. LUCAS' SUPERVISOR ADVISED MS. LUCAS
THAT MR. POST WAS PRESENT; THAT HE WANTED TO INTERVIEW HER; AND THAT
SHE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ANNUAL LEAVE. ONE HOUR ANNUAL LEAVE WAS
REQUESTED BY MS. LUCAS AND APPROVED BY MS. NAUTEL.
4. MR. WESTMORELAND TESTIFIED THAT CHIEF GOODNER WAS PRESENT DURING
HIS DISCUSSION WITH MR. POST; BUT CHIEF GOODNER PROFESSED TOLD
IGNORANCE OF ANY STATEMENT BY MR. WESTMORELAND THAT MR. POST COULD FILM
OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL.
5. MR. POST THEN INTERVIEWED A MS. FAY THURMOND, A RADIOLOGY
TECHNICIAN, OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL, WITH THE HOSPITAL AS A BACKDROP; AND
THEN INTERVIEWED MS. LUCAS. WHEN THE INTERVIEW OF MS. LUCAS WAS
COMPLETED, MR. POST TOLD MS. LUCAS HE WAS GOING TO GET SOME PICTURES
INSIDE THE HOSPITAL AND ASKED MS. LUCAS TO GO WITH HIM.
6. CHIEF GOODNER SAW MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY MS.
LUCAS, ENTER THE HOSPITAL AND SAW THEM TAKING PICTURES INSIDE THE
HOSPITAL BUT DID NOTHING BECAUSE HE "ASSUMED" MR. POST WAS AUTHORIZED TO
DO SO BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN TO MR. WESTMORELAND'S OFFICE.
7. SOME SECURITY OFFICER, APPARENTLY NOT CHIEF GOODNER, CALLED MS.
NAUTEL AND INFORMED HER THAT A TV CAMERAMAN WAS TAKING PICTURES INSIDE
THE HOSPITAL AND MS. NAUTEL TESTIFIED THAT SHE INSTRUCTED HIM NOT TO
INTERFERE BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T WANT A CONFRONTATION WITH THE PRESS. MS.
NAUTEL'S TESTIMONY THAT SHE WAS TOLD THAT THE TV CAMERAMAN WAS FILMING
PICTURES ON THE WALLS IS IMPLAUSIBLE TO SAY THE LEAST. FROM MS. LUCAS'
TESTIMONY, WHICH WAS WHOLLY CREDIBLE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE POINT OF
INTEREST TO MR. POST WAS THE FIRST FLOOR RADIOLOGY FACILITY WHICH WAS
CLOSED AND THE "PICTURE" BEING FILMED WAS THE NOTICE THAT PATIENTS GO TO
THE 4TH FLOOR FOR ALL RADIOLOGY. MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN;
ACCOMPANIED BY MS. LUCAS, THEN WENT TO THE 4TH FLOOR AND PICTURES WERE
TAKEN OF THE 4TH FLOOR RADIOLOGY SECTION. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT BOTH
EMPLOYEES AND PATIENTS APPEARED IN SHOTS TAKEN AND SUBSEQUENTLY
TELEVISED; HOWEVER, MR. POST CREDIBLY TESTIFIED THAT, WITH FULL
AWARENESS OF THE POLICY AGAINST PICTURES OF PATIENTS OR EMPLOYEES
WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, THEY HAD NOT INTENDED TO PHOTOGRAPH PATIENTS OR
EMPLOYEES AND THAT THEY APPEARED ONLY SOMEWHAT INDISTINCTLY IN PICTURES
OF OTHER SPECIFIC SUBJECTS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY THAT MS.
LUCAS PLAYED ANY PART WHATEVER IN THE FILMING BEYOND BEING PRESENT.
8. MS. NAUTEL WAS ALSO ADVISED BY A SECURITY GUARD THAT MR. POST AND
HIS CAMERAMAN WERE ON THE 4TH FLOOR.
9. AFTER MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN LEFT THE 4TH FLOOR, THEY
RETURNED TO MS. NAUTEL'S OFFICE.
10. ON THE AFTERNOON OF MAY 25, MS. NAUTEL TESTIFIED THAT SHE BEGAN
TO SEARCH THE REGULATIONS TO SEE IF MS. LUCAS COULD BE CHARGED WITH ANY
VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS. SHE ASSERTED, HOWEVER, THAT MS. LUCAS WAS
GIVEN A REPRIMAND BECAUSE PICTURES HAD BEEN TAKEN OF PATIENTS AND
EMPLOYEES WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, A CONSIDERATION SHE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
AWARE OF WHEN SHE UNDERTOOK HER SEARCH OF THE REGULATIONS ON THE
AFTERNOON OF MAY 25 AS THE TELECAST WAS NOT MADE UNTIL THE EVENING OF
MAY 25.
11. MR. JOHN E. MALONE, THEN CHIEF OF PERSONNEL AT THE MEDICAL
CENTER, TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS ANXIOUS TO SEE THE TELECAST TO SEE WHAT
WAS SAID ABOUT THE STAFFING PROBLEM.
C. CONCLUSIONS
MS. LUCAS CALLED TV REPORTER POST AND SUGGESTED THAT HE DO A STORY ON
THE STAFFING OF THE MEDICAL CENTER. WHEN MR. POST CALLED MS. NAUTEL ON
MAY 25, 1979, AND TOLD HER HE INTENDED TO DO A STORY ON THE HOSPITAL AND
WANTED TO INTERVIEW MS. LUCAS, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT MS. NAUTEL SURMISED
THAT MS. LUCAS WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MR. POST'S INTEREST; BUT WHETHER SHE
DREW THIS INFERENCE, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT SHE VERY CORRECTLY ASSUMED
THAT MR. POST WAS COMING TO DO A STORY ON THE STAFFING PROBLEM OF THE
HOSPITAL. FIRST, SHE KNEW OF MS. LUCAS' INVOLVEMENT IN THE GRIEVANCES
OF THE RADIOLOGY TECHNICIANS. SECOND, SHE KNEW MS. LUCAS WAS CHIEF
STEWARD. THIRD, SHE, IN CONSULTATION WITH MR. MALONE, DETERMINED THAT
MS. LUCAS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE INTERVIEW BECAUSE
MR. POST HAD DECLINED TO DISCLOSE THE REASON FOR INTERVIEWING MS. LUCAS
(THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE WHETHER MS. THURMOND WAS ON DUTY WHEN
INTERVIEWED; WHETHER SHE WAS ALLOWED OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE INTERVIEW;
OR WHETHER RESPONDENT KNEW THAT SHE WAS TO BE INTERVIEWED), AND,
THEREFORE, NO "REPRESENTATIONAL" PURPOSE HAD BEEN SHOWN. FOURTH, I
FULLY CREDIT THE TESTIMONY OF MS. LUCAS THAT FILMING ON THE FIRST FLOOR
HAD BEEN TO SHOW THAT THE FIRST FLOOR RADIOLOGY SECTION WAS CLOSED AND
THAT THE SIGN POSTED ON THE DOOR DIRECTED PATIENTS TO THE FOURTH FLOOR
FOR ALL RADIOLOGY. FIFTH, MR. MALONE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS FULLY AWARE
THAT MS. LUCAS' INTERVIEW CONCERNED THE STAFFING ISSUE. THUS, HE
TESTIFIED THAT,
"WELL, I KNEW THAT PRIOR TO THAT TIME THERE HAD BEEN A GRIEVANCE
AMONGST THE X-RAY
EMPLOYEES IN WHICH MISS LUCAS WAS THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. I
NATURALLY WITH A LOT OF
GREAT INTEREST WENT HOME TO WATCH TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING TO BE ON
TELEVISION NEWS THAT
NIGHT." (TR. 182).
SIXTH, PRIOR TO ANY POSSIBLE KNOWLEDGE THAT ANY EMPLOYEE OR PATIENT
HAD BEEN PHOTOGRAPHED, MS. NAUTEL ADMITTED THAT SHE HAD SEARCHED THE
REGULATIONS TO SEE IF MS. LUCAS COULD BE CHARGED WITH SOME VIOLATION.
OF COURSE, MS. LUCAS HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECURITY AND NO DIRECT
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RESPONDENT'S POLICIES CONCERNING THE
TAKING OF PICTURES. ALTHOUGH THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT MS. LUCAS
INVITED MR. POST TO TAKE PICTURES INSIDE THE HOSPITAL, INDEED, THE
WHOLLY CREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF MR. POST AND MS. LUCAS IS TO THE CONTRARY,
EVEN IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT SHE DID, SHE, OBVIOUSLY, WAS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE ENTRY OF MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN TO THE
HOSPITAL. EVEN CHIEF GOODNER RECOGNIZED THAT AUTHORIZATION FOR TAKING
PICTURES MUST BE GIVEN BY MR. WESTMORELAND.
BY CONTRAST, THE ARRAY OF PERSONS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURITY
AND FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RESPONDENT'S POLICIES CONCERNING THE TAKING OF
PICTURES, SHOWS EITHER TOTAL ACQUIESCENCE OR A STUDIED INDIFFERENCE.
BEYOND HIS INITIAL ACTS OF TELLING MR. POST THAT NO PICTURES COULD BE
TAKEN WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION BY MR. WESTMORELAND AND HIS TAKING MR. POST
TO MR. WESTMORELAND'S OFFICE, CHIEF GOODNER WHOLLY ABDICATED HIS
RESPONSIBILITY; DID NOT BOTHER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER MR. WESTMORELAND
HAD GRANTED ANY AUTHORIZATION AND/OR, IF HE HAD, THE PRECISE
AUTHORIZATION GRANTED; AND ASSUMED, BECAUSE MR. POST HAD GONE TO MR.
WESTMORELAND'S OFFICE, HE MUST HAVE BEEN GIVEN AUTHORIZATION. MR.
WESTMORELAND, WHILE THE LEAST CULPABLE, AND, WHO, I AM FULLY CONVINCED,
ACTED IN COMPLETE GOOD FAITH, NEVERTHELESS, TOLD MR. POST ONLY THAT HE
COULD FILM OUTSIDE AND DID NOT TELL MR. POST THAT HE COULD NOT FILM
INSIDE THE HOSPITAL. AS A RESULT, MR. POST CONCLUDED, AS HE TESTIFIED,
THAT MR. WESTMORELAND AUTHORIZED FILMING ANYWHERE, PROVIDED THAT NEITHER
PATIENTS NOR EMPLOYEES BE PHOTOGRAPHED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. SOME
SECURITY EMPLOYEE HAD THE PRESENCE OF THE HOSPITAL. FINALLY, MS.
NAUTEL, WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT TV PICTURES WERE BEING TAKEN ON THE FIRST
FLOOR, OF PICTURES ON THE WALL, AS SHE TESTIFIED, NEVERTHELESS, TOLD THE
EMPLOYEE NOT TO INTERFERE BECAUSE SHE DID NOT WANT A CONFRONTATION WITH
THE PRESS.
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESENCE OF MS. LUCAS PLAYED NO PART WHATEVER IN
MR. POST'S ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL WITH HIS CAMERAMAN. THUS, CHIEF
GOODNER TESTIFIED THAT, WHEN HE SAW MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN ENTER THE
HOSPITAL, HE DID NOTHING BECAUSE HE ASSUMED MR. POST HAD BEEN GIVEN
AUTHORIZATION TO FILM INSIDE THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE HE HAD GONE TO MR.
WESTMORELAND'S OFFICE. OBVIOUSLY, THE PRESENCE OF MS. LUCAS WAS
IMMATERIAL. NOR WAS THE PRESENCE OF MS. LUCAS A FACTOR IN MS. NAUTEL'S
ACQUIESCENCE IN THE FILMING INSIDE THE HOSPITAL. SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE
TOLD THE SECURITY EMPLOYEE WHO CALLED HER NOT TO INTERFERE BECAUSE SHE
DID NOT WANT A CONFRONTATION WITH THE PRESS. AGAIN, THE PRESENCE OF MS.
LUCAS WAS IMMATERIAL. NOR, OF COURSE, CAN IT POSSIBLY BE CONTENDED THAT
MS. LUCAS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH MR. WESTMORELAND'S STATEMENT TO MR.
POST SINCE SHE WAS NOT PRESENT.
TO HAVE SELECTED MS. LUCAS FOR ANY DISCIPLINE, MUCH LESS THE SEVERITY
OF THE REPRIMAND GIVEN, AND NO OTHER PERSON, FOR THE ALLEGED REASON THAT
SHE "AIDED AND ABETED" THE PHOTOGRAPHING OF PATIENTS AND EMPLOYEES
WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT WAS, OBVIOUSLY, PRETEXTURAL. MS. LUCAS: A) WAS
PRESENT; AND B) DID TAKE MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN TO THE FIRST FLOOR
RADIOLOGY FACILITY, WHICH WAS CLOSED, AND, I HAVE NO DOUBT, POINTED TO
THE SIGN ON THE DOOR; AND C) DID ACCOMPANY MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN
TO THE FOURTH FLOOR RADIOLOGY SECTION. SHE PLAYED NO MORE PART IN THE
FILMING THAN MR. WESTMORELAND, CHIEF GOODNER OR MS. NAUTEL. BY
CONTRAST, THE PERSONS WHO DIRECTLY "AIDED AND ABETED" THE PHOTOGRAPHING
OF PATIENTS AND EMPLOYEES WERE: A) MR. WESTMORELAND WHO COMMITTED TWO
CARDINAL SINS. FIRST, HE MADE THE VERY HUMAN ASSUMPTION THAT CHIEF
GOODNER HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD THE KING'S ENGLISH; SECOND, HE ASSUMED
THAT HIS AFFIRMATIVE AUTHORIZATION TO MR. POST TO FILM INTERVIEWS
OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL IMPLIED A DENIAL OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILM INSIDE
THE HOSPITAL. B) CHIEF GOODNER, WHOSE HOSPITAL POLICE WERE DIRECTLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT RESPONDENT'S POLICY CONCERNING FILMING, WAS
GUILTY OF GROSS DERELICTION OF DUTY. IF HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND, OR HEAR,
MR. WESTMORELAND'S STATEMENT TO MR. POST, MOST ASSUREDLY, IN ORDER TO
CARRY OUT HIS RESPONSIBILITY, HE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO INQUIRE. FOR HIM
MERELY TO ASSUME THAT MR. POST HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED TO FILM ANYWHERE
SIMPLY BECAUSE MR. POST HAD GONE TO MR. WESTMORELAND'S OFFICE WAS
ASTOUNDING; BUT FOR RESPONDENT TO BLANDLY ASSERT THAT CHIEF GOODNER HAD
FULFILLED HIS RESPONSIBILITY AND WAS WHOLLY WITHOUT FAULT IS A PATENT
ABSURDITY. C) MS. NAUTEL WHO, WHEN INFORMED THAT FILMING WAS TAKING
PLACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, ORDERED THAT THERE BE NO INTERFERENCE BECAUSE
SHE DID NOT WANT A CONFRONTATION WITH THE PRESS.
MR. POST WAS TOLD BY MR. WESTMORELAND, AND MR. POST ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
HE WAS FULLY AWARE, THAT NEITHER PATIENTS NOR EMPLOYEES WERE TO BE
PHOTOGRAPHED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. MR. WESTMORELAND, CHIEF GOODNER,
THE HOSPITAL POLICE IN GENERAL, AND MS. NAUTEL TOOK NO ACTION TO SEE
THAT MR. POST AND HIS CAMERAMAN DID NOT PHOTOGRAPH PATIENTS OR
EMPLOYEES. TO PRESUME THAT MS. LUCAS, WHO HAD NO AUTHORITY, MUCH LESS
RESPONSIBILITY, TO DO WHAT RESPONDENT'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES
FAILED OR REFUSED TO DO IS ABSURD. INDEED, WHAT WOULD RESPONDENT HAVE
HAD MS. LUCAS DO? NOTIFY SOMEONE THAT MR. POST WAS FILMING INSIDE? AS
MS. NAUTEL, ACTING DIRECTOR, HAD, WHEN NOTIFIED BY A SECURITY EMPLOYEE,
ORDERED "NO INTERFERENCE" WHAT POSSIBLE EFFECT WOULD THIS HAVE HAD?
THE MERE RECITATION OF CONTENTIONS THAT MIGHT BE ASSERTED IN SUPPORT
OF RESPONDENT'S DECISION TO DISCIPLINE OF MS. LUCAS EXPOSES THE
ABSURDITY OF EACH. TRUE, HAD MS. LUCAS NOT BEEN PRESENT, RESPONDENT
WOULD NOT HAVE HAD EVEN A PRETEXTUAL JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS ACTION. WAS
THERE SOME OTHER REASON FOR THE DISCIPLINING OF MS. LUCAS? VERY
DEFINITELY. THE RECORD, DESPITE RESPONDENT'S DENIALS, SHOWS THAT
RESPONDENT'S TRUE MOTIVE WAS TO PUNISH MS. LUCAS FOR INSTIGATING THE TV
STORY. AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, FROM THE MOMENT MR. POST INDICATED THAT HE
WANTED TO INTERVIEW MS. LUCAS, MS. NAUTEL KNEW THAT THE STAFFING MATTER
WAS INVOLVED. THE FILMING OF THE CLOSED RADIOLOGY FACILITY ON THE FIRST
FLOOR, WHICH MS. NAUTEL DISINGENUOUSLY SOUGHT TO OBSCURE BY STATING THAT
PICTURES ON THE WALL OF THE HOSPITAL WERE BEING FILMED, AGAIN SHOWED
THAT THE FOCAL POINT OF MR. POST'S STORY WAS STAFFING OF RADIOLOGY.
THIS WAS FURTHER EMPHASIZED BY THE FILMING ON THE FOURTH FLOOR OF THE
RADIOLOGY SECTION. FINALLY, MR. MALONE ADMITTED THAT, WITH FULL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE GRIEVANCE "AMONGST X-RAY EMPLOYEES IN WHICH MISS LUCAS
WAS THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE . . . WITH A LOT OF GREAT INTEREST
WENT HOME TO WATCH TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING TO BE ON TELEVISION NEWS THAT
NIGHT" AND, AS HE ANTICIPATED, "MR. POST PRESENTED A STORY INDICATING
SOME DIFFICULTIES SEEN BY THE EMPLOYEES REGARDING TREATMENT OF THE
PATIENTS IN THE RADIOLOGY DEPARTMENT." ALTHOUGH THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW
THAT MS. NAUTEL WAS INFORMED AT THE TIME THAT MR. POST ALSO INTERVIEWED
A RADIOLOGY TECHNICIAN, THE INFERENCE IS INESCAPABLE THAT SHE WAS
INFORMED AT SOME POINT.
NEVERTHELESS, THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER MS. LUCAS' ACTIVITY
IN CALLING MR. POST AND BEING INTERVIEWED WITH REGARD TO THE STAFFING
MATTER WAS ENGAGING IN ACTIVITY PROTECTED BY THE STATUTE. SECTION 2 OF
THE STATUTE PROVIDES, IN PART, THAT,
"EACH EMPLOYEE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST ANY
LABOR ORGANIZATION
. . . FREELY AND WITHOUT FEAR OF PENALTY OR REPRISAL, AND EACH
EMPLOYEE SHALL BE PROTECTED IN
THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHT. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED UNDER THIS
CHAPTER, SUCH RIGHT
INCLUDES THE RIGHT-
"(1) TO ACT FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION IN THE CAPACITY OF A
REPRESENTATIVE AND THE RIGHT, IN
THAT CAPACITY, TO PRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION TO
HEADS OF AGENCIES AND OTHER
OFFICIALS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE CONGRESS, OR
OTHER APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITIES . . . ."
THE TERM "OTHER APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES" IS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT,
BUT I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT SUCH TERM INCLUDES REPORTERS, WHATEVER THE
MEDIUM. OTHERWISE EMPLOYEES ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF A REPRESENTATIVE
OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION WOULD BE DENIED PROTECTION UNDER THE STATUTE
WHEN PRESENTING THE VIEWS OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION TO THE PRESS, A
RESULT CLEARLY NOT CONTEMPLATED BY CONGRESS. MS. LUCAS WAS CHIEF
STEWARD OF THE UNION AND SHE CONTACTED MR. POST IN HER CAPACITY AS CHIEF
STEWARD. RESPONDENT DENIED MS. LUCAS OFFICIAL TIME FOR THE INTERVIEW
BUT APPROVED AN HOUR OF ANNUAL LEAVE. AS MS. LUCAS WAS, ACCORDINGLY, ON
HER OWN TIME, SHE QUITE PROPERLY ASSERTED THAT SHE WAS ACTING AS A
"PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL"; BUT SHE DID NOT CEASE TO BE A UNION
REPRESENTATIVE AND HER ACTIVITY DID NOT CEASE TO BE PROTECTED ACTIVITY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 OF THE STATUTE. VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION, NORTH CHICAGO VETERANS HOSPITAL, NORTH CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS, A/SLMR NO. 1024, 8 A/SLMR 430(1978) (SEE, IN PARTICULAR ALJ
DECISION 8 A/SLMR AT 440-441). CF., DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
HEADQUARTERS, MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT COMMAND, 2 FLRA NO. 72(1980);
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, BREMERTON,
WASHINGTON, 2 FLRA NO. 7(1979). ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE THAT
RESPONDENT'S ACT OF DISCIPLINING MS. LUCAS IN RETALIATION FOR HER
ACTIVITY, AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION, IN CONTACTING A TELEVISION
REPORTER AND GIVING A TELEVISION INTERVIEW VIOLATED SEC. 16(A)(1).
FURTHER, THE DISCRIMINATORY AND DISPARATE TREATMENT OF THE UNION'S CHIEF
STEWARD, MS. LUCAS, CONSTITUTED ACTION WHICH INHERENTLY TENDED TO
ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION BY
DISCRIMINATION IN CONNECTION WITH HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 16(A)(2) OF THE STATUTE.
HAVING FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED AND IS ENGAGING IN CERTAIN
CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 16(A)(1) AND (2) OF THE STATUTE, IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 18(A)(7) OF THE STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. 7118(A)(7), AND
SECTION 2423.26 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. CHAPTER
XIV; SEC. 2423.26, FED. REG., VOL. 45, NO. 12, JANUARY 17, 1980, THE
AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, SHALL:
1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(A) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING MS. GEORGIE P. LUCAS,
OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE,
IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIST AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 2000, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR ANY
OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
(B) DISCIPLINING OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MS. GEORGIE P.
LUCAS, OR ANY OTHER
EMPLOYEE, WITH REGARD TO HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER
TO DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN, OR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF,
INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 2000,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER
LABOR ORGANIZATION.
(C) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY SEC. 2 OF THE STATUTE; OR IN
ANY LIKE OR RELATED
MANNER ENCOURAGING OR DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION
BY DISCRIMINATING IN
CONNECTION WITH HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER CONDITION OF
EMPLOYMENT.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
(A) RESCIND AB INITIO, AND EXPUNGE FROM ALL PERSONNEL RECORDS, THE
REPRIMAND OF MS. GEORGE
P. LUCAS, DATED JUNE 8, 1979.
(B) POST AT ITS MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA,
COPIES OF THE ATTACHED
NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE AUTHORITY.
UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH
FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
MEDICAL CENTER,
SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE
DIRECTOR FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE
DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS
AND OTHER PLACES WHERE
NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED. THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE
REASONABLE STEPS TO
INSURE THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
OTHER MATERIAL.
(C) PURSUANT TO SEC. 2423.30 OF THE FINAL RULES AND REGULATIONS,
NOTIFY THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF REGION 6, ROOM 450, OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING, BRYAN &
ERVAY STREETS, DALLAS, TEXAS
75221, IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO
WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN
TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DATED: JUNE 29, 1980
WASHINGTON, D.C.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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 RESCIND AB INITIO, AND EXPUNGE FROM ALL PERSONNEL RECORDS,
THE REPRIMAND OF MS. GEORGIE P. LUCAS DATED JUNE 8, 1979.
WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE MS. GEORGIE P.
LUCAS, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO ASSIST
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL
2000, AFL-CIO, THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY
OTHER EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
WE WILL NOT DISCIPLINE OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MS. GEORGIE
P. LUCAS, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE, WITH REGARD TO HIRING, TENURE,
PROMOTION, OR OTHER CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE
MEMBERSHIP IN, OR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF, INTERDEPARTMENTAL LOCAL 2000,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, OR ANY OTHER LABOR
ORGANIZATION.
WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY SEC. 2 OF
THE STATUTE; OR IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE
MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION BY DISCRIMINATION IN CONNECTION
WITH HIRING, TENURE, PROMOTION, OR OTHER CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.
(AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
DATED: BY: (SIGNATURE) (TITLE)
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 QUESTION CONCERNING THIS NOTICE, OR COMPLIANCE
WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 6, WHOSE
ADDRESS IS: ROOM 450, OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING, BRYAN & ERVAY STREET,
DALLAS TEXAS 75221 AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (214) 767-4996.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ FOR CONVENIENCE OF REFERENCE, SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE ARE ALSO
REFERRED TO HEREINAFTER WITHOUT INCLUSION OF THE INITIAL "71", E.G.,
SECTION 7116 WILL BE REFERRED TO AS "SEC. 16"; HOWEVER, UNLESS
OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY INDICATED ALL SUCH REFERENCES ARE TO CHAPTER 71
OF THE STATUTE.