UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

iZRIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SPECIAL COUNSEL, ) DOCKET NUMBER

Petitioner, ) HQ12068910029

)

) DEC 2 6 «89

BRENDA S. JUDSON, ) DATE: _

Respondent . )

Catherine A. McMullen. Esquire, Washington, D.C.,

for petitioner.

Ronald M. Gaswirth. Esquire, and David T. Fenton.

Esquire, Gardere & Wynne, Dallas, Texas, for

respondent .

BEFORE

Daniel R. Levinson, Chairman

Maria L. Johnson, Vice Chairman

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

This is a disciplinary action under 5 U.S.C. § 1206

(1982). The case originated with a complaint brought by

the Special Counsel against respondent, an employee of

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),

Department of Labor. On August 23, 1989, the Chief

Administrative Lav Judge issued a Recommended Decision,

recommending that the Board grant a Joint Motion For

Approval Of Settlement submitted by the parties. Under
2

the settlement agreement the Special Counsel moves for

the dismissal of Counts II, III and IV, and the

respondent admits the allegations of Count I. Count I

charges a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(5), which makes

it a prohibited personnel practice for an employee who

has authority to 'take, direct others to take, recommend,

or approve any personnel action* to * influence any person

to withdraw from competition for any position for the

purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any

other person for employment.* Respondent was charged

with violating this statutory provision by influencing an

eligible candidate, Glenn Wright, to withdraw from

competition for the position of clerk-typist, for the

purpose of improving trie prospects of another candidate.

The settlement provides for the respondent to be

suspended from duty, without pay, for thirty days. In

making the recommendation to approve the settlement the

Chief Administrative Law Judge considered the penalty in

light, of the factors described in Douglas v. Veterans

Administration, 5 N.S.P.R. 280 (1981), and concluded that

the penalty is within the bounds of reasonableness. No

exceptions to the Recommended Decision were filed by the

parties.

The Board has authority to adjudicate this matter

under 5 U.S.C. §§ 1205, 1207 (1982). Respondent has

admitted that, by virtue of her position, she has
authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or

approve personnel actions. Record, Tab 11, paragraph 2.

Therefore she is subject to the prohibitions of 5*U.S.C.

§ 2302 (b) (5) «,

The Board agrees with the Chief Administrative Law

Judge that the agreed upon penalty is within the bounds

of reasonableness. The proposed settlement also

accommodates the need to penalize those who violate merit

employment principles, and the approval of the motion

will result in a conservation of time, effort and

expense. Thus no reasonable purpose would be served by

insisting upon continued processing of this case.

Accordingly, the Board ADOPTS the Recommended

Decision and GRANTS the Joint Motion For Approval Of

Settlement. Counts II, III and IV are hereby DISMISSED.

Within 30 days from the date of this order, OSHA shall

SUSPEND the respondent without pay for a period of thirty

days. The Special Counsel shall submit proof of

compliance within 60 days of the date of the Board's

order.
This is the final order of the Merit Systems

Protection Board in this case. The respondent ie hereby

notified of the right to Eieek judicial review of the

Board's action as provided in 5 U.S.C. § 1207(c) (1982).

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C

Lerk of the Board