09:1046(149)CA - Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, CA and AFGE Local 1482 -- 1982 FLRAdec CA
[ v09 p1046 ]
09:1046(149)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
9 FLRA No. 149
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE,
BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO
Charging Party/Petitioner
Case Nos. 8-CA-891
8-CA-1048
8-RO-35
DECISION AND ORDER AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ISSUED HIS DECISION IN THE ABOVE
ENTITLED PROCEEDING ON MARCH 12, 1982, FINDING THAT, IN CASE NOS.
8-CA0891 AND 8-CA-1048, THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN THE ALLEGED UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE RESPONDENT CEASE AND DESIST
THEREFROM AND TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. IN ADDITION, THE JUDGE
FOUND THAT AN OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION IN CASE NO. 8-RO-35 SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED.
SINCE NO TIMELY EXCEPTIONS TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION WERE FILED, AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2423.29 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS, AS AMENDED, THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 8-CA-891 AND 8-CA-1048 CONSTITUTE,
WITHOUT PRECEDENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE, THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, DECISION
AND ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY, AND ALL OBJECTIONS THERETO ARE DEEMED WAIVED
FOR ALL PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE RESPONDENT SHALL CEASE AND DESIST
FROM THE VIOLATIONS FOUND BY THE JUDGE AND TAKE THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS
SET FORTH IN THE ORDER.
WITH RESPECT TO CASE NO. 8-RO-35, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2422.20 OF THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7111 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 ENTIRE RECORD, AND NOTING PARTICULARLY THE
ABSENCE OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY
ADOPTS THE JUDGE'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AS
MODIFIED HEREIN. /1/
AS FOUND BY THE JUDGE, THE REPRESENTATION ELECTION IN CASE NO.
8-RO-35 WAS HELD ON FEBRUARY 19, 1981, AND RESULTED IN 8 VOTES BEING
CAST FOR THE PETITIONER, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO (THE UNION) AND 11 VOTES BEING CAST AGAINST
EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION. THE UNION FILED FOUR OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT
ALLEGED TO HAVE AFFECTED THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION. ON MAY 4, 1981,
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ISSUED HIS REPORT AND FINDINGS WHEREIN HE
OVERRULED THREE OF THE OBJECTIONS AS BEING WITHOUT MERIT. WITH RESPECT
TO THE FOURTH OBJECTION, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED
THEREIN WERE IDENTICAL TO THOSE ALLEGED IN CASE NO. 8-CA-891 TO
CONSTITUTE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. ACCORDINGLY, HE ORDERED A
CONSOLIDATED HEARING.
WITH REGARD TO CASE NO. 8-RO-35, THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THE
RESPONDENT'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CONDUCT WHICH OCCURRED AFTER THE
UNION FILED ITS REPRESENTATION PETITION BUT BEFORE THE ELECTION WAS HELD
CONSTITUTED IMPROPER CONDUCT WHICH COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO HAVE
AFFECTED THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION. IN ACCORDANCE" WITH SECTION
2422.20(G)(1) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, HOWEVER, THE
JUDGE MADE NO RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO ANY REMEDIAL ACTION.
AS THE AUTHORITY HAS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED, WHILE IT IS OFTEN
DIFFICULT TO ASSESS HOW PERVASIVE THE IMPACT OF AN AGENCY'S IMPROPER
ACTIONS MIGHT BE ON VOTERS, THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CONDUCT
IS OF AN OBJECTIONA4LE NATURE SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT AN ELECTION BE SET
ASIDE IS ITS POTENTIAL FOR INTERFERING WITH THE FREE CHOICE OF THE
VOTERS. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION
AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, 9 FLRA NO. 36(1982). ACCORDINGLY,
MANAGEMENT'S CONDUCT WHICH INTERFERES WITH THE EMPLOYEES' FREEDOM OF
CHOICE IN THE ELECTION REQUIRES THAT THE ELECTION BE SET ASIDE. ID.
SEE ALSO DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AIR FORCE PLANT REPRESENTATIVE
OFFICE, DETACHMENT 27, FORT WORTH, TEXAS, 5 FLRA NO. 62(1981).
THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES THAT THE RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT IN THIS CASE
INTERFERED WITH THE EMPLOYEES' FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN THE ELECTION AND
THEREFORE REQUIRES THAT THE ELECTION BE SET ASIDE. THUS, THE RECORD
INDICATES THAT THE RESPONDENT, DURING THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD,
IMPROPERLY CHANGED THE STATUS, REDUCED THE HOURS OF WORK, REPRIMANDED,
AND REVOKED THE "EXCELLENT" PERFORMANCE RATING OF AN EMPLOYEE, SUSAN
MCGINNIS, WHO HAD BEEN EXTREMELY OPEN AND ACTIVE IN SUPPORTING THE UNION
AND IN SOLICITING OTHER EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE UNION. THE RECORD FURTHER
INDICATES THAT MCGINNIS, WHO WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE UNION PRESIDENT,
NOTIFIED THE LATTER OF THESE OCCURRENCES DURING THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD.
GIVEN THE RELATIVELY SMALL SIZE OF THE UNIT (65 EMPLOYEES), THE
CENTRALIZED WORK LOCATIONS OF THE UNIT EMPLOYEES, THE HIGH VISIBILITY OF
MCGINNIS AS AN ACTIVE AND VOCAL SUPPORTER OF THE UNION, THE AUTHORITY
CONCLUDES THAT THE RESPONDENT'S IMPROPER CONDUCT HAD A REASONABLY
FORESEEABLE NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE VOTERS' ATTITUDE TOWARD THE UNION AND
THUS INTERFERED WITH THE EMPLOYEES' FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN THE ELECTION.
ACCORDINGLY, THE ELECTION MUST BE SET ASIDE AND THE EMPLOYEES GIVEN A
SECOND OPPORTUNITY TO EXERCISE THEIR PROTECTED RIGHTS.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 2422.20(I) AND 2429.16 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES
AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7105 OF THE STATUTE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT THE ELECTION CONDUCTED IN CASE NO. 8-RO-35 BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
SET ASIDE, AND THAT A SECOND ELECTION BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION SET FORTH BELOW.
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
AN ELECTION BY SECRET BALLOT SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN CASE NO. 8-RO-35
IN THE UNIT SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENT FOR CONSENT OR DIRECTED ELECTION
ALREADY EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION
CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 19, 1981, AS SOON AS FEASIBLE, BUT NOT EARLIER
THAN SIXTY (60) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING OF THE NOTICE TO ALL
EMPLOYEES IN CASE NOS. 8-CA-891 AND 8-CA-1048. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
SHALL SUPERVISE OR CONDUCT THE ELECTION, AS APPROPRIATE, SUBJECT TO THE
AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS. ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ARE THOSE IN THE
UNIT WHO WERE EMPLOYED DURING THE PAYROLL PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING
THE DATE BELOW, INCLUDING EMPLOYEES WHO DID NOT WORK DURING THE PERIOD
BECAUSE THEY WERE OUT ILL, ON VACATION, OR ON FURLOUGH, INCLUDING THOSE
IN THE MILITARY SERVICE WHO APPEAR IN PERSON AT THE POLLS. INELIGIBLE
TO VOTE ARE EMPLOYEES WHO QUIT OR WERE DISCHARGED FOR CAUSE SINCE THE
DESIGNATED PAYROLL PERIOD AND WHO HAVE NOT BEEN REHIRED OR REINSTATED
BEFORE THE ELECTION DATE. THOSE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE SHALL VOTE WHETHER OR
NOT THEY DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE
RECOGNITION BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
1482, AFL-CIO.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 20, 1982
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
MITCHELL ARKIN, ESQUIRE
MS. HELEN LEACH
FOR THE RESPONDENT
E. A. JONES, ESQUIRE
DEBORAH S. WAGNER, ESQUIRE
FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL
MR. CHARLIE WARE
FOR THE CHARGING PARTY
AND PETITIONER
BEFORE: BURTON S. STERNBURG
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DECISION
THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS STATUTE, CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE U.S. CODE, 5 U.S.C.
SECTION 7101, ET SEQ., AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER,
FED. REG., VOL. 45, NO. 12, JANUARY 17, 1980 AND VOL. 46, NO. 154,
AUGUST 11, 1981, 5 C.F.R. CHAPTER XIV, PART 2411, ET SEQ.
PURSUANT TO CHARGES FIRST FILED ON JANUARY 28, 1981 IN CASE NO.
8-CA-891, AND APRIL 23, 1981, IN CASE NO. 8-CA-1048, AND OBJECTIONS TO
ELECTION FILED ON FEBRUARY 23, 1981 IN CASE NO. 8-RO-35, BY LOCAL 1482,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, AFL-CIO (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AFGE OR
THE UNION), AN "ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, CONSOLIDATED AMENDED
COMPLAINT, AND AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING WITH OUTSTANDING REPRESENTATION
HEARING" WAS ISSUED ON JUNE 11, 1981, BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR
REGION VIII, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.
THE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS
BASE, BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE RESPONDENT OR MARINE
CORPS), VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1), (2) AND (4) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE STATUTE), BY
VIRTUE OF ITS ACTIONS IN (1) REPRIMANDING EMPLOYEE SUSAN MCGINNIS
BECAUSE OF HER UNION ACTIVITY, (2) REDUCING MS. MCGINNIS HOURS OF WORK
BECAUSE OF HER UNION ACTIVITY, (3) REVOKING MS. MCGINNIS' EXCELLENT
PERFORMANCE RATING BECAUSE OF HER UNION ACTIVITY AND INFORMING HER OF
SAME, AND (4) FORCING MS. MCGINNIS AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO
OBTAINING WORK TO SIGN A STATEMENT IN WHICH SHE DENIED BOTH
PARTICIPATING IN CERTAIN UNION ACTIVITY OR HAVING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE
BASIS OF THE OUTSTANDING OBJECTIONS TO AN ELECTION.
IN CONNECTION WITH THE OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION, THE RECORD
INDICATES THAT AN ELECTION WAS HELD IN CASE NO. 8-RO-35 ON FEBRUARY 19,
1981, WHICH RESULTED IN 8 VOTES BEING CASE FOR LOCAL 1482 AND 11 VOTES
BEING CASE AGAINST EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION BY LOCAL 1482, AFGE.
SUBSEQUENTLY, LOCAL 1482, AFGE, FILED FOUR TIMELY OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT
AFFECTING RESULTS OF ELECTION. ON MAY 4, 1981, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
FOR REGION VIII ISSUED HIS "REPORT AND FINDINGS" ON THE OBJECTIONS
WHEREIN HE CONCLUDED THAT THREE OF THE FOUR OBJECTIONS WERE WITHOUT
MERIT AND OVERRULED SAME. WITH RESPECT TO THE FOURTH OBJECTION, HE
CONCLUDED THAT SUCH OBJECTION RAISED ISSUES AND/OR ALLEGATIONS IDENTICAL
TO THOSE SET FORTH IN CASE NO. 8-CA-891 AS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. /2/
ACCORDINGLY, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ISSUED AN "ORDER DIRECTING HEARING ON
OBJECTION" AND LATER CONSOLIDATED THE MATTER WITH THE HEARING SET ON THE
COMPLAINTS IN CASE NOS. 8-CA-891 AND 8-CA-1048.
A HEARING WAS HELD IN THE CAPTIONED MATTER ON OCTOBER 14, 1981, IN
BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA. ALL PARTIES WERE AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD, TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
BEARING ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED HEREIN. THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND THE
RESPONDENT SUBMITTED POST HEARING BRIEFS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY
CONSIDERED.
UPON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, /3/ INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF
THE WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
FINDINGS OF FACT
RESPONDENT OPERATES A COMBINED CLUB SYSTEM (COMMAND CLUBS MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS, CCMS) AT BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA, WHICH CONSISTS OF AN OFFICER'S
CLUB (THE "O" CLUB), AND ENLISTED MEN'S CLUB (THE "E" CLUB) AND A
NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER'S CLUB (THE "NCO" CLUB). THE MANAGER OF THE
CCMS REPORTS TO LT. COL. SPEVETZ, DIRECTOR, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
DIVISION. BENEATH THE CCMS MANAGER ARE THE SUB-MANAGERS OF THE THREE
CLUBS.
SUSAN MCGINNIS, THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATEE HEREIN, BEGAN WORKING IN
THE CLUB SYSTEM IN 1975. MS. MCGINNIS, AT LEAST UP TO EARLY 1980,
WORKED IN THE CLUB SYSTEM AS A PERMANENT PART-TIME BARTENDER. IN SUCH
CAPACITY SHE WAS ENTITLED TO A MINIMUM OF 20 HOURS OF WORK PER WEEK IN
ADDITION TO PRORATED SICK AND ANNUAL LEAVE ACCRUAL. THE CLUB SYSTEM
ALSO EMPLOYS INTERMITTENT EMPLOYEES WHO WORK AS BARTENDERS AND
WAITRESSES. SUCH INTERMITTENT EMPLOYEES, HOWEVER, WERE NOT GUARANTEED
ANY MINIMUM HOURS OF WORK AND DID NOT ACCRUE SICK AND ANNUAL LEAVE.
IN EARLY 1980, MS. MCGINNIS WAS WORKING IN THE "E" CLUB AS A
BARTENDER. AFTER TAKING TWO MONTHS' LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, SHE TRANSFERRED
TO THE "O" CLUB UNDER THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION OF SERGEANT EVANS. AT
THE TIME OF HER TRANSFER TO THE "O" CLUB, MS. MCGINNIS' STATUS,
UNBEKNOWNST TO HER, WAS CHANGED FROM PERMANENT PART-TIME TO
INTERMITTENT. ACCORDING TO MS. MCGINNIS, SHE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION
THAT SHE HAD AN UNDERSTANDING WITH SERGEANT EVANS, THE "O" CLUB MANAGER,
THAT SHE WOULD BE WORKING AT LEAST 20 HOURS PER WEEK. MR. BRYANT, WHO,
AT THE TIME OF MS. MCGINNIS' RETURN, WAS ACTING AS BOTH THE "O" CLUB
MANAGER AND CCMS MANAGER, TESTIFIED THAT SERGEANT EVANS WAS SUPPOSED TO
HAVE EXPLAINED TO MS. MCGINNIS HER CHANGE IN STATUS.
IN LATE AUGUST AND EARLY SEPTEMBER 1980, MS. MCGINNIS BEGAN
EXPERIENCING PROBLEMS IN OBTAINING HER GUARANTEED 20 HOURS OF WORK PER
WEEK TO WHICH SHE BELIEVED SHE WAS ENTITLED AS A PERMANENT PART-TIME
EMPLOYEE. MS. MCGINNIS THEN WROTE A GRIEVANCE WHICH WAS DIRECTED TO
COLONEL SPEVETZ THROUGH CCMS MANAGER BRYANT, WHO IN HIS CAPACITY AS
ACTING MANAGER OF THE "O" CLUB ALLOCATED THE THE BARTENDER ASSIGNMENTS.
MS. MCGINNIS' GRIEVANCE REQUESTED REINSTATEMENT OF HER PERMANENT
PART-TIME STATUS AND A TRANSFER TO ONE OF THE OTHER CLUBS ON THE BASE.
ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1980, MS. MCGINNIS WENT TO THE UNION HALL FOR
PURPOSES OF MAKING A COPY OF HER GRIEVANCE ON THE UNION'S DUPLICATING
MACHINE. WHILE AT THE UNION HALL MS. MCGINNIS SPOKE TO CHARLIE WARE,
THE UNION PRESIDENT, AND RECEIVED PERMISSION TO USE THE UNION'S
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT. DURING AN ENSUING DISCUSSION MS. MCGINNIS
EXPLAINED HER PROBLEM TO MR. WARE, AGREED TO JOIN THE UNION AND WENT SO
FAR AS TO SIGN A UNION DUES DEDUCTION FORM. THEY ALSO DISCUSSED THE
PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING THE UNION AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
RESPONDENT'S NON-APPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES AND THE ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN
WHICH WOULD BE NEEDED. MS. MCGINNIS VOLUNTEERED TO HELP IN THE
ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN AND MR. WARE ARRANGED FOR MS. MCGINNIS TO ATTEND THE
UNION'S WEEKLY STEWARD TRAINING CLASSES WHICH WERE HELD ON WEDNESDAY
EVENINGS. ACCORDING TO THE UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY OF MS. MCGINNIS SHE
ANNOUNCED HER MEMBERSHIP IN THE STEWARD TRAINING CLASSES TO CLUB
MANAGERS TOP LEWIS AND CHARLIE WATKINS.
ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 9, 1981, MS. MCGINNIS' GRIEVANCE WAS FORWARDED
THROUGH MR. BRYANT TO COL. SPEVETZ. THE SIGNATURE PAGE OF THE GRIEVANCE
CONTAINED THE NOTATION "CC AFGE". SUBSEQUENTLY, FAILING TO RECEIVE A
RESPONSE TO THE GRIEVANCE, MR. OSCAR CARR, A STEWARD AND ORGANIZER FOR
THE UNION, MADE AN APPOINTMENT WITH COL. SPEVETZ TO DISCUSS THE
GRIEVANCE. DURING THE MEETING, MR. CARR, WHO WAS ACTING IN THE CAPACITY
OF MS. MCGINNIS' PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, INFORMED COL. SPEVETZ OF THE
AGREEMENT MS. MCGINNIS HAD MADE WITH "O" CLUB MANAGER SERGEANT EVANS
BEFORE SERGEANT EVANS HAD RETIRED, NAMELY THAT MS. MCGINNIS WOULD BE
RECEIVING AT LEAST 20 HOURS WORK PER WEEK AT THE "O" CLUB. THE MEETING
ENDED WITH COLONEL SPEVETZ AGREEING TO CONTACT SERGEANT EVANS AND CHECK
OUT THE MATTER.
ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1981, UNION PRESIDENT WARE SENT A LETTER TO COLONEL
SPEVETZ WHEREIN HE REQUESTED A LIST OF "ALL EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY YOUR
FACILITY WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REPRESENTATION BY AN EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE AND WHO ARE NOT NOW BEING REPRESENTED BY A LABOR
ORGANIZATION WITH EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION RIGHTS". BY LETTER DATED
OCTOBER 8, 1980, COLONEL SPEVETZ FORWARDED THE ROSTERS OF EMPLOYEES
EMPLOYED IN THE VARIOUS FACILITIES UNDER HIS COMMAND. THEREAFTER, MS.
MCGINNIS, UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF MR. CARR, DISTRIBUTED UNION LITERATURE
AND SPOKE TO A NUMBER OF NAMED EMPLOYEES IN THE CLUB SYSTEM ABOUT THE
MERITS OF THE UNION. OF THE 65 NON-APPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED
BY RESPONDENT, 30 WORKED IN THE CLUB SYSTEM. THE REMAINING 35 EMPLOYEES
WHO WORKED IN SUCH PLACES AS THE COMMISSARY STORE AND DAY-CARE CENTER,
WERE CONTACTED BY MR. CARR.
ACCORDING TO MR. CARR, WHOSE TESTIMONY IN THIS RESPECT IS
UNCONTESTED, DURING THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER THROUGH NOVEMBER 1980 WHEN HE
AND MS. MCGINNIS WERE CONDUCTING THEIR ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN, HE SPOKE TO
COLONEL SPEVETZ SOME SIX TIMES ABOUT MS. MCGINNIS' GRIEVANCE AND ALSO
INFORMED HIM OF MS. MCGINNIS' INVOLVEMENT IN THE UNION ORGANIZING
CAMPAIGN. IN THIS LATTER REGARD, COLONEL SPEVETZ ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE
WAS AWARE THAT MS. MCGINNIS WAS A UNION ADVOCATE BUT STATED THAT HE DID
NOT CONSIDER HER UNION ADVOCACY TO BE UNION ACTIVITY.
ON NOVEMBER 26, 1980, COLONEL SPEVETZ MET WITH MS. MCGINNIS AND MR.
CARR AND GAVE MS. MCGINNIS A LETTER WHICH STATED, IN PERTINENT PART AS
FOLLOWS:
IT IS MY DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPER STEPS WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND
THAT YOUR CHANGE OF
STATUS IS, IN FACT, INVALID. THE REFERENCE SETS FORTH THE
REQUIREMENTS BEFORE AN ADVERSE
ACTION MAY BE TAKEN.
ACCORDINGLY, THE TREASURER/MANAGER, COMMAND CLUB MANAGEMENT SYSTEM,
BARSTOW, IS DIRECTED TO
REINSTATE YOU TO PERMANENT PART-TIME STATUS AND CREDIT YOUR SICK AND
ANNUAL LEAVE ACCOUNT FOR
THE HOURS WORKED SINCE YOUR INVALIDATED CHANGE WAS EFFECTED. /4/
ON DECEMBER 5, 1980, MS. MCGINNIS WORKED A CHRISTMAS PARTY AT THE "O"
CLUB. /5/ DURING THE COURSE OF THE EVENING, ACCORDING TO HER
UNCONTROVERTED TESTIMONY, SHE CIRCULATED AN ELECTION PETITION FOR THE
UNION AND SOLICITED SIGNATURES THEREON FROM THE EMPLOYEES WORKING THE
PARTY. AT THE END OF THE EVENING, WHILE SHE WAS IN MR. WATKINS' OFFICE
COUNTING HER CASH DRAWER, SHE ASKED MR. WATKINS TO SIGN THE PETITION.
MR. WATKINS INFORMED HER THAT HE WAS AWARE OF HER SOLICITATION
ACTIVITIES BUT THAT HE COULD NOT SIGN THE PETITION BECAUSE HE WAS A
MEMBER OF MANAGEMENT.
DURING THE COURSE OF THE PARTY ON DECEMBER 5, 1980, MR. BRYANT GAVE
MS. MCGINNIS A WARNING LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 26, 1980, FROM COLONEL
SPEVETZ. COLONEL SPEVETZ' LETTER INFORMED MS. MCGINNIS THAT DURING HIS
INVESTIGATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONCERNING HER CHANGE IN STATUS FROM
PERMANENT TO INTERMITTENT, HE BECAME AWARE OF SEVERAL INCIDENTS
CONCERNING HER INABILITY TO KEEP AN ACCURATE CASH DRAW AND DRINKING
WHILE ON THE JOB. COLONEL SPEVETZ FURTHER INFORMED MS. MCGINNIS THAT
INASMUCH AS SHE HAD NOT HAD ANY PRIOR COUNSELING CONCERNING SUCH
INDISCRETIONS NO ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AT THE PRESENT TIME, BUT THAT THE
LETTER WOULD REMAIN IN HER PERSONNEL FILE FOR SIX MONTHS. IF NO OTHER
SIMILAR INDISCRETIONS OCCURRED WITHIN THE 6-MONTH PERIOD, THE LETTER
WOULD BE DESTROYED. /6/ THE RECORD CONTAINS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE
DELAY IN PRESENTING THE NOVEMBER 26TH LETTER TO MS. MCGINNIS.
ON DECEMBER 15, 1980, UNION PRESIDENT WARE FILED A RO PETITION
SEEKING A REPRESENTATION ELECTION FOR A UNIT OF RESPONDENT'S
NON-APPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES.
ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 7, 1981, MR. BRYANT GAVE MS. MCGINNIS TWO
DOCUMENTS, A "LETTER OF REPRIMAND" DATED JANUARY 5, 1981, AND A "CHANGE
IN EMPLOYMENT STATUS" FROM PERMANENT PART-TIME TO INTERMITTENT ON CALL.
THE CHANGE IN STATUS WAS PREDICATED ON THE LACK OF PARTIES AND FUNCTIONS
DURING THE UPCOMING MONTHS AND THE REDUCTION IN HOURS THAT THE VARIOUS
CLUBS WOULD BE IN OPERATION. IN THIS LATTER CONNECTION, MS. MCGINNIS
TESTIFIED, AGAIN WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, THAT THERE WERE PARTIES
SCHEDULED IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY AND THAT NEW EMPLOYEES WERE BEING
HIRED AS INTERMITTENTS TO WORK IN THE VARIOUS CLUBS. MS. MCGINNIS
FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT OTHER PERMANENT PART-TIME EMPLOYEES WITH LESS
SENIORITY THAN HER WERE RETAINED BY THE RESPONDENT DESPITE A POLICY OF
LAYING OFF BY SENIORITY. ADDITIONALLY, MS. MCGINNIS TESTIFIED, WITHOUT
CONTRADICTION, THAT WHILE SHE WAS BEING DEMOTED TO INTERMITTENT ANOTHER
EMPLOYEE WITH LESS SENIORITY WAS PROMOTED FROM INTERMITTENT TO PERMANENT
PART-TIME STATUS.
MR. BRYANT ACKNOWLEDGES BOTH THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH SENIORITY POLICY
AND THE RETENTION OF LESS SENIOR PERMANENT PART-TIME EMPLOYEES, BUT
JUSTIFIES HIS ACTION IN SELECTING MS. MCGINNIS FOR DEMOTION ON THE
GROUND THAT THE CLUB MANAGERS HAD INDICATED DISSATISFACTION WITH MS.
MCGINNIS' WORK AND HABITS, A REASON NOT SPELLED OUT OR RELIED UPON ON
THE DATE NOTICE OF REDUCTION OF STATUS WAS PRESENTED TO MS. MCGINNIS.
THE "LETTER OF REPRIMAND" WAS PREDICATED ON MS. MCGINNIS' ACTION IN
(1) CHARGING DIFFERENT PRICES FOR THE SAME DRINK AND HAVING CASH DRAWER
OVERAGE OF $1.75 ON DECEMBER 5; (2) HAVING A CASH DRAWER SHORTAGE OF
$1.10 ON DECEMBER 6, 1980; (3) HAVING ARRIVED ONE HOUR LATE FOR WORK ON
DECEMBER 7; AND HAVING ARRIVED SOME THREE AND ONE-HALF HOURS LATE ON
DECEMBER 12, 1980.
WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH SHORTAGES, MS. MCGINNIS, WHOSE TESTIMONY IN
THIS REGARD IS SUPPORTED BY THE CLUB MANAGER SERGEANT JUNE, TESTIFIED
THAT CASH SHORTAGES OR OVERAGES ARE NOT UNCOMMON AND THAT OTHER
EMPLOYEES ALSO EXPERIENCED CASH SHORTAGES AND OVERAGES. MR. BRYANT
CONCEDED IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT SHORTAGES AND OVERAGES WERE NOT UNCOMMON
BUT CLAIMED THAT MS. MCGINNIS EXPERIENCED MORE OF THE SHORTAGES AND
OVERAGES THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES. MR. BRYANT FURTHER CONCEDED THAT IN AN
EARLIER AFFIDAVIT OR STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL HE HAD
STATED THAT HE COULD NOT REMEMBER WHETHER MS. MCGINNIS HAD MORE OR LESS
SHORTAGES THAN OTHER EMPLOYEES. WITH RESPECT TO CHARGING DIFFERENT
PRICES FOR THE SAME DRINK, MS. MCGINNIS TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAD BEEN
CHARGING A DIFFERENT PRICE FOR A GIN FIZZ ON THE NIGHT OF DECEMBER 5,
THAN THAT CHARGED BY ANOTHER BARTENDER. ACCORDING TO MS. MCGINNIS THE
DIFFERENCE IN PRICE WAS DUE TO THE METHOD OF PREPARATION AND THAT SHE
HAD BROUGHT THE MATTER TO THE ATTENTION OF MR. WATKINS, THE CLUB
MANAGER. ACCORDING TO MR. BRYANT, WHILE HE WAS INFORMED OF THE PRICING
PROBLEM, HE NEVER MADE AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTER. WITH RESPECT TO
BEING LATE ONE AND THREE AND ONE-HALF HOURS, RESPECTIVELY, ON TWO
OCCASIONS, MS. MCGINNIS ADMITS THE ALLEGATIONS. HOWEVER, SHE ATTRIBUTES
THE THREE AND ONE-HALF HOUR OCCASION TO CAR TROUBLE AND POINTS OUT THAT
SHE CALLED IN. MR. BRYANT ANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT SHE DID CALL IN AND
ATTRIBUTED HER TARDINESS TO CAR TROUBLE. WITH RESPECT TO THE OCCASION
WHEN SHE WAS ONE HOUR LATE, MS. MCGINNIS TESTIFIED THAT WHILE SHE HAD
BEEN LATE, SHE HAD AMPLE TIME TO SET UP HER BAR IN PREPARATION FOR THE
EVENING'S SCHEDULED FESTIVITIES.
MR. BRYANT FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS AWARE AS OF JANUARY 5, 1981,
THAT MS. MCGINNIS HAD GONE TO THE UNION FOR HELP WITH HER GRIEVANCE.
/7/ ALTHOUGH MR. BRYANT TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD GIVEN AT LEAST ONE OTHER
EMPLOYEE A REPRIMAND DURING HIS TENURE AS CCMS MANAGER, HE ACKNOWLEDGED
THAT IN AN EARLIER STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL HE HAD DENIED
EVER GIVING A REPRIMAND.
AROUND JANUARY 10, 1981, MS. MCGINNIS WAS EVALUATED BY SERGEANT HENRY
JUNE, THE NEW MANAGER OF THE "O" CLUB. SERGEANT JUNE GAVE MS. MCGINNIS
AN EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE RATING IN ALL CATEGORIES.
ON JUNE 13, 1981, MS. MCGINNIS, USING UNION LETTERHEAD STATIONERY,
FILED GRIEVANCES WITH COLONEL SPEVETZ CONCERNING HER CHANGE IN STATUS
AND HER LETTER OF REPRIMAND. COLONEL SPEVETZ TOOK NO IMMEDIATE ACTION
ON THE GRIEVANCE BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO "INFLUENCE IN ANY WAY" THE
IMPENDING ELECTION. COLONEL SPEVETZ DID NOT INFORM MS. MCGINNIS THAT HE
WAS INTENTIONALLY WITHHOLDING ANY ACTION ON HER GRIEVANCES.
ON JUNE 16, 1981, SERGEANT JUNE INFORMED MS. MCGINNIS THAT HER
EVALUATION HAD BEEN REJECTED BY HIS SUPERIORS AND THAT HE WAS UNDER
ORDERS TO RATE HER NON-OBSERVED. ACCORDING TO MS. MCGINNIS, SERGEANT
JUNE TOLD HER THAT HE HAD BEEN TOLD BY OTHER MANAGERS THAT IF HE GAVE
MS. MCGINNIS AN EXCELLENT EVALUATION IT WOULD MAKE MANAGEMENT LOOK BACK
IN LIGHT OF "MCGINNIS' GRIEVANCES, APPEALS AND UNION ACTIVITY." SERGEANT
JUNE TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT ATTRIBUTE THE CHANGE TO MS. MCGINNIS'
UNION ACTIVITY. ACCORDING TO SERGEANT JUNE HE CHANGED THE EVALUATION
AFTER TALKING TO MR. BRYANT AND BEING INFORMED THAT INASMUCH AS HE HAD
ONLY OBSERVED HER FOR SHORT PERIOD OF TIME HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO GIVE
MS. MCGINNIS A YEARLY EVALUATION. HE WAS ALLOWED, HOWEVER, TO GIVE
EVALUATIONS TO PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES, I.E. THOSE EMPLOYED UNDER 90
DAYS.
ON JANUARY 28, 1981, UNION PRESIDENT WARE FILED AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT ALLEGING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MS.
MCGINNIS BECAUSE OF HER PARTICIPATION IN THE CIRCULATION OF THE RO
PETITION.
ON FEBRUARY 19, 1981, A REPRESENTATION ELECTION WAS HELD. MS.
MCGINNIS ACTED AS THE UNION'S OBSERVER AT THE ELECTION WHICH RESULTED IN
A VOTE OF 11 TO 8 AGAINST UNION REPRESENTATION.
ON FEBRUARY 23, 1981, UNION PRESIDENT WARE SUBMITTED TO COLONEL
SPEVETZ A LETTER ADDRESSED TO COLONEL SPEVETZ WHEREIN MS. MCGINNIS
REQUESTED A LEAVE OF ABSENCE. COLONEL SPEVETZ GRANTED MS. MCGINNIS THE
LEAVE OF ABSENCE ON FEBRUARY 26, 1981.
AROUND THE BEGINNING OF APRIL 1981, SERGEANT JUNE CALLED MS.
MCGINNIS WITH RESPECT TO A CHECK SHE HAD NOT PICKED UP. ACCORDING TO
THE UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY OF MS. MCGINNIS, WHEN SHE SUBSEQUENTLY PICKED
UP HER CHECK, SERGEANT JUNE INQUIRED AS TO WHEN SHE PLANNED TO RETURN TO
WORK. UPON BEING INFORMED BY MS. MCGINNIS THAT SHE HAD NO INTENTION OF
RETURNING BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN HER BEST INTERESTS TO WORK AN INDEFINITE
AMOUNT OF HOURS, SERGEANT JUNE SUGGESTED THAT SHE CALL COLONEL SPEVETZ
SINCE HE WAS SURE THAT IF MS. MCGINNIS INDICATED TO THE COLONEL THAT SHE
WANTED TO "DROP ALL OF THIS UNION BUSINESS AND CHARGES AND ALL THAT,
HE'LL BE SURE TO GIVE YOU YOURS HOURS BACK". /8/ WHEN MS. MCGINNIS
ASKED HIM WHY HE WAS SO SURE AND POINTED OUT THAT DESPITE THE OUTCOME OF
HER ORIGINAL GRIEVANCE SHE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE PROMISED HOURS OF WORK,
SERGEANT JUNE TOLD HER THE MANAGERS WERE JUST WAITING THE WORD TO HIRE
HER.
FOLLOWING SERGEANT JUNE'S SUGGESTION, MS. MCGINNIS CONTACTED COLONEL
SPEVETZ, WHO INVITED MS. MCGINNIS OUT TO LUNCH. DURING THE COURSE OF
THE LUNCH DATE, MS. MCGINNIS INFORMED THE COLONEL AND MS. HELEN LEACH,
RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEE-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS OFFICER, WHO WAS ALSO IN
ATTENDANCE AT THE LUNCHEON THAT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SHE WAS PLANNING TO
MOVE TO LOS ANGELES AND WOULD "LIKE TO DROP EVERYTHING BECAUSE SHE WAS
VERY TIRED OF IT". WHEN MS. MCGINNIS INDICATED THAT MOVING TO LOS
ANGELES WAS NOT HER FIRST PREFERENCE, COLONEL SPEVETZ ASKED HER WHETHER
SHE WOULD LIKE HER JOB BACK. IN ANSWER TO MS. MCGINNIS' INQUIRY
CONCERNING WHAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO DO TO GET HER JOB BACK, COLONEL
SPEVETZ REPLIED THAT SHE WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BUT GIVE HIM A
CALL.
SUBSEQUENT TO THE LUNCHEON MEETING, MS. MCGINNIS, AFTER CONSIDERING
THE MATTER, TELEPHONED COLONEL SPEVETZ AND INFORMED HIM THAT SHE WANTED
TO COME BACK TO WORK. ACCORDING TO MS. MCGINNIS, COLONEL SPEVETZ TOLD
HER TO CONTACT MR. VERN HUBBARD WHO HAD SUCCEEDED MR. BRYANT AS CCMS
MANAGER. UPON CONTACTING MR. HUBBARD, SHE WAS INFORMED THAT HE COULD
NOT GIVE HER ANY HOURS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS SHE SIGNED SOME DOCUMENTS IN
COLONEL SPEVETZ POSSESSION. SUBSEQUENTLY, MS. MCGINNIS WENT TO SEE
COLONEL SPEVETZ AND SIGNED TWO DOCUMENTS. UPON LEAVING THE COLONEL'S
OFFICE SHE WENT TO MR. HUBBARD AND SHOWED HIM THE SIGNED DOCUMENTS. MR.
HUBBARD INFORMED MS. MCGINNIS THAT HE WOULD BE IN TOUCH WITH HER IN A
FEW DAYS. TRUE TO HIS WORD MR. HUBBARD SUBSEQUENTLY CONTACTED MS.
MCGINNIS AND ASSIGNED HER AT LEAST 20 PER WEEK OF WORK. /9/
ACCORDING TO THE RECORD, MS. MCGINNIS CONTINUED WORKING AT THE
LOGISTICS BASE UNTIL JULY 6, 1981, WHEN SHE LEFT TOWN.
ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS, ADDRESSED "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN" AND SIGNED
BY MS. MCGINNIS ON APRIL 8, 1981, READ AS FOLLOWS:
ANY DISAGREEMENT THAT MAY HAVE EXISTED BETWEEN THE UNDERSIGNED AND
MR. BRYANT AND OTHERS
WAS BASED UPON PERSONAL DISAGREEMENTS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS OR
PERSONALITY CONFLICTS UNRELATED TO
ANY UNION ACTIVITIES.
ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED SUCH AS THE REDUCTION IN MY
HOURS AND OTHER PROBLEMS
I HAD WERE NOT AS THE RESULT OF MY UNION ACTIVITIES. I WAS NOT A
UNION ORGANIZER IN THE CLUBS
SYSTEM.
I AM NOT AWARE OF THE BASIS FOR THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
RECENTLY HELD FOR THE
NONAPPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES.
THE SECOND DOCUMENT, A MEMO FROM BOTH COL. SPEVETZ AND MS. MCGINNIS
ENTITLED "LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING" AND SIGNED APRIL 8, 1981, READ AS
FOLLOWS:
1. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES TO DROP ALL MATTERS ONE AGAINST
THE OTHER AND TO START
AGAIN AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP FREE FROM ANY PREJUDICE
RESULTING FORM THE PAST
ACTIONS OF EITHER PARTY.
2. TOWARD THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE ABOVE INTENT, THE BASE AGREES TO
CANCEL THE LETTER OF
REPRIMAND DATED 5 JANUARY 1981; CANCEL THE CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT
STATUS LETTER DATED 7 JANUARY
1981; TERMINATE ALL ACTION ON THE SUSPECTED MARIJUANA POSSESSION
INCIDENT OF 15 FEBRUARY
1981; AND ANY OTHER MATTER INVOLVING SUSAN E. MCGINNIS. AS A
PERMANENT PART-TIME EMPLOYEE,
SUSAN E. MCGINNIS WILL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 20 HOURS PER WEEK.
3. TOWARD THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE ABOVE INTENT, SUSAN E. MCGINNIS
AGREES TO WITHDRAW ALL
APPEALS AND GRIEVANCES.
COLONEL SPEVETZ AUTHORED THE ABOVE TWO DOCUMENTS. SOME OF THE
LANGUAGE WAS RECOMMENDED TO HIM BY RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIVE GRIEM AS
RELAYED BY LEACH FROM THE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OFFICE.
A COUPLE OF DAYS AFTER MS. MCGINNIS SIGNED THE ABOVE TWO DOCUMENTS,
SHE CONTACTED THE UNION AND IN A VERY DISTRAUGHT MANNER TOLD THE UNION
OFFICIAL ABOUT HER ACTIONS IN SIGNING THE TWO DOCUMENTS.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE, I.E. THAT MS.
MCGINNIS RECEIVED A REPRIMAND, HAD HER HOURS OF WORK REDUCED BY HAVING
HER STATUS CHANGED FROM PERMANENT PART-TIME TO INTERMITTENT, HAD HER
"EXCELLENT" EVALUATION CHANGED TO "NON-OBSERVED", AND THAT MS. MCGINNIS
EXECUTED A WRITTEN DISAVOWAL OF ALL HER ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE
OUTSTANDING ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND OBJECTIONS TO THE
ELECTION. HOWEVER, THERE IS A DISPUTE AS TO THE MOTIVATION FOR SUCH
ACTIONS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HER EXECUTION OF THE
DISAVOWAL.
THUS, THE GENERAL COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT THE CHANGES, REPRIMAND, ETC.,
WERE ALL MOTIVATED BY MS. MCGINNIS' UNION ACTIVITY AND THAT SUCH CHANGES
AND/OR ACTIONS WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED BUT FOR HER UNION ACTIVITY. WITH
RESPECT TO THE DISAVOWAL OF ANY KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS UNDERLYING THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES AND THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION, THE GENERAL COUNSEL
CONTENDS THAT SUCH ACTION WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO MS. MCGINNIS
OBTAINING FURTHER WORK IN THE CLUB SYSTEM.
THE RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, TAKES THE POSITION THAT MS.
MCGINNIS' UNION ACTIVITY AND/OR AFFILIATION DID NOT ENTER INTO ITS
DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE REPRIMAND, CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND
CHANGE IN EVALUATION. WITH RESPECT TO THE DISAVOWAL, RESPONDENT TAKES
THE POSITION THAT SUCH ACT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF ANY COERCION, BUT
RATHER WAS THE PRODUCT OF THE PARTIES MUTUAL DESIRES TO WIPE THE SLATE
CLEAN AND IMPROVE MS. MCGINNIS' EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT RESOLUTION OF THE
INSTANT CONTROVERSY TURNS ON CREDIBILITY. IF MS. MCGINNIS' TESTIMONY IS
DISCREDITED THEN DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINTS WOULD BE IN ORDER SINCE
WITHOUT HER TESTIMONY, THE GENERAL COUNSEL WILL NOT HAVE ESTABLISHED HIS
CASE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, SUCH IS NOT THE CASE.
BASED PARTICULARLY ON HER DEMEANOR WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WAS
MARKED BY DIRECT ANSWERS AND EXCELLENT RECALL, I FIND MS. MCGINNIS TO BE
A HIGHLY CREDIBLE WITNESS AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS A VARIANCE
BETWEEN HER TESTIMONY AND THAT OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING IN BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT, I CREDIT MS. MCGINNIS. IN THIS LATTER CONNECTION, NOTE IS
TAKEN OF THE CONFLICTS BETWEEN MR. BRYANT'S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING AND
HIS PRETRIAL SWORN STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO HIM DURING THE APRIL AND HIS
PRE-TRIAL SWORN STATEMENT, THE ABSENCE OF ANY DENIAL FROM SERGEANT JUNE
CONCERNING VARIOUS STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM DURING THE APRIL 1981
CONVERSATION WITH MS. MCGINNIS ABOUT POSSIBILITY OF MS. 1981
CONVERSATION WITH MS.MCGINNIS' RETURN TO WORK, AND THE MCGINNIS'
CONTRADICTION APPEARING IN COLONEL SPEVETZ' TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO
WHETHER OR NOT MS. MCGINNIS APPROACHED HIM ONLY AFTER BEING INFORMED BY
MR. HUBBARD THAT SIGNING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN COLONEL SPEVETZ'
POSSESSION WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO BEING ASSIGNED WORK.
HAVING CREDITED MS. MCGINNIS, I FIND, BASED UPON THE RECORD AS A
WHOLE, THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS IN GIVING MS. MCGINNIS ON OR ABOUT
JANUARY 7, 1981, A NOTICE OF CHANGE IN STATUS FROM PERMANENT PART-TIME
TO INTERMITTENT AND A REPRIMAND VIOLATED SECTIONS 7116(A)(1) AND (2) OF
THE STATUTE SINCE SUCH ACTIONS WERE PREDICATED ON MS. MCGINNIS' OPEN AND
KNOWN UNION ACTIVITY, NAMELY SOLICITING MEMBERSHIP IN, OR SUPPORT FOR,
THE UNION. IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, I FIND THE REASONS OFFERED BY
RESPONDENT IN DEFENSE OF ITS ACTIONS TO BE A PRETEXT. WITH RESPECT TO
THE REPRIMAND, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT CASH DRAWER SHORTAGES AND
OVERAGES WERE A COMMON OCCURRENCE AMONG ALL BARTENDERS AND THAT MS.
MCGINNIS' MISTAKES IN HANDLING CASH RECEIPTS WERE NO MORE PRONOUNCED
THAN THOSE OF HER FELLOW BARTENDERS; THAT THE DIFFERENT PRICE CHARGED
FOR A GIN FIZZ ON THE NIGHT IN QUESTION WAS DUE TO THE METHOD OF
PREPARATION, I.E. BLENDER MACHINE RATHER THAN HAND STIRRED, A FACT THAT
MR. BRYANT NEVER SAW FIT TO INVESTIGATE. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT MS.
MCGINNIS WAS LATE ON TWO OCCASIONS, I FIND, CONSIDERING THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING SUCH INCIDENTS OF TARDINESS, A WRITTEN
REPRIMAND TO BE A PUNISHMENT FAR EXCEEDING THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRIME.
THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE IN VIEW OF THE RECORD EVIDENCE INDICATING
THAT MR. BRYANT SELDOM, IF EVER, UTILIZED A WRITTEN REPRIMAND AS A
DISCIPLINARY TOOL.
WITH RESPECT TO THE REDUCTION IN STATUS, I FIND SUCH ACTION TO BE
CONTRARY TO RESPONDENT'S ESTABLISHED POLICY OF REDUCING EMPLOYEE STATUS
ON THE BASIS OF SENIORITY. HOWEVER, IN THIS REGARD, I CREDIT MS.
MCGINNIS' TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN
BUSINESS AS CONTENDED BY MR. BRYANT AND THAT WHILE SHE WAS SUFFERING A
REDUCTION IN STATUS, ALLEGEDLY DUE TO LOSS OF BUSINESS, RESPONDENT WAS
HIRING INTERMITTENTS AND PROMOTING OTHER INTERMITTENTS TO PERMANENT
PART-TIME STATUS. ADDITIONALLY, INASMUCH AS MS. MCGINNIS HAD NOT, IN
ANY EVENT BEEN RECEIVING THE 20 HOURS PER WEEK THAT HER PERMANENT
PART-TIME STATUS ENTITLED HER TO, THE IMPOSITION OF A REDUCTION IN
STATUS TO INTERMITTENT WAS UNNECESSARY AND APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DESIGNED
TO PUNISH MS. MCGINNIS FOR HER PROTECTED UNION ACTIVITY AND CONVEY A
WARNING TO HER FELLOW EMPLOYEES AS TO THE POSSIBLE REPERCUSSION OF UNION
SUPPORT.
I FURTHER FIND THAT THE REVOCATION OF MS. MCGINNIS' "EXCELLENT"
PERFORMANCE RATING WAS PREDICATED UPON HER PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES
PROTECTED BY THE STATUTE, NAMELY, SOLICITATION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE
UNION, AND HENCE VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 7116(A)(1) AND (2) OF THE STATUTE.
IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION I RELY ON THE CREDITED TESTIMONY OF MS.
MCGINNIS THAT SHE WAS INFORMED BY SERGEANT JUNE THAT HE WAS UNDER ORDERS
TO REVOKE THE EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE RATING BECAUSE OF MS. MCGINNIS'
"GRIEVANCES, APPEALS AND UNION ACTIVITY". /10/ IF, AS CONTENDED BY
RESPONDENT, THE REVOCATION WAS PREDICATED UPON AN INADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY
TO OBSERVE MS. MCGINNIS, I QUESTION WHY THE EVALUATIONS OF A NUMBER OF
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES, WHO ALSO HAD ONLY BEEN OBSERVED BY SERGEANT JUNE
FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, WERE ALLOWED TO STAND.
ADDITIONALLY, I FIND THAT SERGEANT JUNE'S STATEMENT, STANDING ALONE,
TO CONSTITUTE AN INDEPENDENT VIOLATION SECTION 7116(A)(1) SINCE IT
INTERFERES WITH, RESTRAINS AND COERCES AN EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF
THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE STATUTE TO JOIN AND SUPPORT A UNION. CF.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW,
CALIFORNIA, 5 FLRA NO. 97 WHERE A SIMILAR CONCLUSION WAS REACHED.
FINALLY, I FIND THAT MS. MCGINNIS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE WORK WAS FORCED
TO SIGN THE APRIL 8, 1981, DOCUMENTS DISAVOWING (1) ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE
BASIS FOR THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION AND (2) THAT THE CHANGES IN HER
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND/OR REPRIMANDS, ETC., WERE IN ANYWAY
CONNECTED WITH HER, UNION ACTIVITY. INASMUCH AS SIGNING OF THE
AFOREMENTIONED DISAVOWAL WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO ACHIEVING WORK
WITH RESPONDENT, I FIND THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTION WAS VIOLATIVE OF
SECTION 7116(A)(4) OF THE STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITS DISCIPLINE OR OTHER
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE HAS FILED A
COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT, OR PETITION, OR HAS GIVEN GIVEN ANY INFORMATION OR
TESTIMONY UNDER THE STATUTE. IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, I AGAIN
CREDIT MS. MCGINNIS WITH RESPECT TO THE APRIL 8TH EVENTS AND NOTE
COLONEL SPEVETZ' TESTIMONY THAT FOLLOWING THE SIGNING OF THE DOCUMENTS
HE CALLED MR. HUBBARD AND INFORMED HIM THAT MS. MCGINNIS WAS ON HER WAY
BACK UP AND INSTRUCTED HIM TO PUT HER TO WORK.
INASMUCH AS THE OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION IS BASED UPON RESPONDENT'S
ACTIONS IN REDUCING MS. MCGINNIS' HOURS OF WORK, REPRIMANDING MS.
MCGINNIS AND REVOKING THE EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION GIVEN MS.
MCGINNIS BY SERGEANT JUNE, ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND SUPRA TO
CONSTITUTE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT THE
SUCH OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION BE SUSTAINED SINCE SUCH IMPROPER CONDUCT
COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO HAVE AFFECTED THE RESULTS OF THE
ELECTION.
HAVING FOUND AND CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT HAS VIOLATED SECTIONS
7116(A)(1), (2) AND (4) OF THE STATUTE, I RECOMMEND THAT THE AUTHORITY
ISSUE THE FOLLOWING ORDER DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE
STATUTE. /11/
ORDER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 7118(A)(7)(A) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, 5 U.S.C. SECTION 118(A)(7)(A), AND
SECTION 2423.29(B)(1) OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. SECTION
2423.29(B)(1), THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE MARINE CORPS
LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA SHALL:
1. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
(A) EFFECTING CHANGES IN THE EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF ITS EMPLOYEES OR
OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO.
(B) REPRIMANDING OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST EMPLOYEES
BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
1482, AFL-CIO.
(C) REDUCING OR OTHERWISE CHANGING EMPLOYEES' "EXCELLENT" EMPLOYMENT
EVALUATIONS BECAUSE
OF THEIR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482,
AFL-CIO.
(D) MAKING STATEMENTS TO EMPLOYEES THAT THEIR "EXCELLENT" EMPLOYMENT
EVALUATIONS ARE BEING
CHANGED BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO.
(E) DENYING EMPLOYMENT TO SUSAN MCGINNIS OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE UNLESS
THEY DISAVOW (1) THAT
THEIR UNION ACTIVITIES PLAYED ANY PART IN CHANGES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT; OR (2) THAT THEY HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE BASIS FOR
OBJECTIONS TO AN ELECTION.
(F) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR
COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE STATUTE.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
(A) RESCIND AND REMOVE FROM SUSAN MCGINNIS' OFFICIAL PERSONNEL FOLDER
THE JANUARY 5, 1981,
REPRIMAND.
(B) RESTORE SUSAN MCGINNIS' JANUARY 10, 1981, "EXCELLENT" EMPLOYMENT
EVALUATION AND PLACE
A COPY OF SUCH EVALUATION IN HER OFFICIAL PERSONNEL FOLDER.
(C) POST AT ITS MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE, BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA,
SERVICE CLUB FACILITIES
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 DIRECTOR,
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION AND THEY SHALL BE POSTED FOR 60
CONSECUTIVE DAYS
THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES
TO EMPLOYEES ARE
CUSTOMARILY POSTED. THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO
INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE
NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
(D) 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.
BURTON S. STERNBURG
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DATED: MARCH 12, 1982
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 CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE
UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUSAN MCGINNIS BY REDUCING HER
STATUS FROM PERMANENT PART-TIME TO INTERMITTENT ON-CALL BECAUSE OF HER
PROTECTED UNION ACTIVITY ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO
WE WILL NOT REPRIMAND OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUSAN
MCGINNIS BECAUSE OF HER PROTECTED UNION ACTIVITY ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUSAN MCGINNIS BY CHANGING HER
JANUARY 10, 1981, EVALUATION FROM EXCELLENT TO NON-OBSERVED BECAUSE OF
HER PROTECTED UNION ACTIVITY ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT MAKE STATEMENTS TO SUSAN MCGINNIS THAT HER EVALUATION IS
BEING CHANGED FROM EXCELLENT TO NON-OBSERVED BECAUSE OF HER PROTECTED
UNION ACTIVITY ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT PUNISH OR RETALIATE AGAINST SUSAN MCGINNIS BECAUSE OF HER
PROTECTED ACTIVITY, INCLUDING FILING A COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT, OR
PETITION, OR GIVING ANY INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY UNDER THE FEDERAL
SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, BY REQUIRING HER TO SIGN A
STATEMENT, AS A CONDITION OF HER REEMPLOYMENT, THAT SHE HAS NOT ENGAGED
IN CERTAIN UNION ACTIVITIES AND IS UNAWARE OF THE BASIS FOR ELECTION
OBJECTIONS FILED WITH THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.
WE WILL RESCIND AND REMOVE FROM SUSAN MCGINNIS' OFFICAL PERSONNEL
FOLDER THE JANUARY 5, 1981, REPRIMAND.
WE WILL RESTORE MS. MCGINNIS' JANUARY 10, 1981, "EXCELLENT"
EVALUATION AND PLACE A COPY IN HER OFFICIAL PERSONNEL FOLDER.
WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
OR COERCE ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED 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
MATERIALS.
IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THE NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, REGION 8,
WHOSE ADDRESS IS: 350 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, 10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES,
CA 90071, AND WHOSE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (213) 688-3805.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ IN HIS DECISION, THE JUDGE INADVERTENTLY REFERS TO 1981 RATHER
THAN 1980 ON PAGE 4 AND TO JUNE 1981 RATHER THAN JANUARY 1981, ON PAGE
7. THESE ERRORS ARE HEREBY CORRECTED.
/2/ ALLEGATIONS ENUMERATED 1 THRU 3 SUPRA, ARE IDENTICAL TO THE
GROUNDS RELIED UPON IN THE OBJECTION TO THE ELECTION SET DOWN FOR
HEARING BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR IN HIS MAY 4, 1981, REPORT AND
FINDINGS.
/3/ IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OBJECTION, THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S MOTION TO
CORRECT TRANSCRIPT, SHOULD BE, AND HEREBY IS, GRANTED.
/4/ ACCORDING TO MS. MCGINNIS, DESPITE THE NOVEMBER 26TH LETTER, SHE
STILL DID NOT RECEIVE 20 HOURS WORK PER WEEK, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS
AVAILABLE. MR. BRYANT, TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD TOLD THE MANAGERS OF THE
CLUBS TO MAKE 20 HOURS PER WEEK AVAILABLE TO MS. MCGINNIS, BUT THAT MS.
MCGINNIS FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR WORK ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
/5/ CLUB MANAGERS LOUIS BRYANT, CHARLIE WATKINS, DAVE DAVIS, MARSHALL
WILLIAMS AND SERGEANT LEWIS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE PARTY.
/6/ ACCORDING TO THE UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY OF MS. MCGINNIS, DRINKING
ON THE JOB WAS NOT UNCOMMON, AND THAT SHE FREQUENTLY MIXED DRINKS FOR
THE CLUB MANAGERS. WITH RESPECT TO THE FAILURE TO KEEP AN ACCURATE CASH
DRAWER, MS. MCGINNIS TESTIFIED THAT SHORTAGES AND OVERAGES WERE A COMMON
OCCURRENCE AMONG BARTENDERS. THIS LATTER TESTIMONY OF MS. MCGINNIS IS
CORROBORATED BY SERGEANT JUNE WHO BECAME MANAGER OF THE OFFICER'S CLUB
IN DECEMBER OF 1980.
/7/ IN THIS CONNECTION, COLONEL SPEVETZ TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD LEFT IT
UP TO MR. BRYANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER MS. MCGINNIS SHOULD BE
DISCIPLINED. HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT BECAUSE OF THE PENDING UNION
ELECTION HE CAUTIONED MR. BRYANT TO BE SURE THAT ANY ACTION TAKEN
AGAINST MS. MCGINNIS WAS DONE PROPERLY.
/8/ SERGEANT JUNE WAS NOT QUESTIONED ABOUT THE APRIL CONVERSATION.
ACCORDINGLY, MS. MCGINNIS' TESTIMONY IN THIS REGARD STANDS UNCONTESTED.
/9/ COLONEL SPEVETZ' TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO THE MEETING WHEREIN
THE TWO DOCUMENTS WERE SIGNED DIFFERS IN ANY CERTAIN RESPECTS FROM THAT
OF MS. MCGINNIS. THUS, HE TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT TELL HER THAT THE
SIGNING OF THE TWO DOCUMENTS WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO MS. MCGINNIS'
RETURN TO WORK. HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT MS. MCGINNIS CAME TO HIM
BEFORE SHE WENT TO HUBBARD. HOWEVER, IN THIS LATTER CONNECTION, HE ALSO
TESTIFIED THAT FOLLOWING THE SIGNING OF THE DOCUMENTS HE CALLED MR.
HUBBARD AND TOLD HIM THAT MS. MCGINNIS WAS "ON HER WAY BACK UP" AND TO
PUT HER TO WORK.
/10/ SERGEANT JUNE'S STATEMENT TO MS. MCGINNIS ADDS FURTHER SUPPORT
TO THE CONCLUSIONS SET FORTH SUPRA WITH RESPECT TO THE REASONS FOR THE
REDUCTION IN MS. MCGINNIS' STATUS AND THE REPRIMAND. SINCE SERGEANT
JUNE TOOK HIS ORDERS FROM MR. BRYANT, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MS.
MCGINNIS' REDUCTION IN STATUS AND REPRIMAND. IF, AS CONTENDED BY MR.
BRYANT, MS. MCGINNIS' UNION ACTIVITY PLAYED NO PART IN HIS DECISION, WHY
DID HE CITE SUCH UNION ACTIVITY TO SERGEANT JUNE AS THE BASIS FOR
ORDERING THE REVOCATION.
/11/ INASMUCH AS MS. MCGINNIS HAS MOVED FROM THE AREA AND IS NO
LONGER EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT, I SHALL NOT ORDER RESPONDENT TO
REINSTATE MS. MCGINNIS TO HER FORMER STATUS AS A PERMANENT PART-TIME
EMPLOYEE.