Source: http://www.flra.gov/decisions/v51/51-074.html
Timestamp: 2015-02-02 01:54:52
Document Index: 140808248

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7116', '§\n7116', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7422', '§ 7421', '§ 7422', '§ 2423']

51:0896(74)CA - - VA Medical Center, Washington, DC &amp; District of Columbia Nurses Association - - 1996 FLRAdec CA - - v51 p896 | FLRA.GOV
Authority Chairman and Members Find Types of Cases, Biographical Data, and Contact Information.Office of the General Counsel Regional Offices, Guidances, Policies, Manuals, ULP Process, Forms, Representation, ADR Services, and Training.Federal Service Impasses Panel Find Jurisdiction, Statute, Work Schedules Act, Biographical Data, and Contact Information.Solicitor, Administrative Law Judges, IG & Others Find General Information about these Offices and Contact Information.training & alternative dispute resolutionFind FLRA Training Information and ADR Services. 51:0896(74)CA - - VA Medical Center, Washington, DC & District of Columbia Nurses Association - - 1996 FLRAdec CA - - v51 p896 [ v51 p896 ] 51:0896(74)CA
The decision of the Authority follows: 51 FLRA No. 74 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. _____ DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER WASHINGTON, D.C. (Activity/Respondent) And DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NURSES
ASSOCIATION (Union/Charging Party) WA-CA-30584 _____ ORDER REMANDING CASE February 28, 1996 _____ Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; Tony Armendariz
of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) when a
supervisor told an employee that she would not recommend the employee for an
incentive award because the employee had previously sought Union assistance.
The complaint also alleges that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and
(2) of the Statute when the employee did not receive an incentive award. No exceptions were filed to the Judge's finding that the Respondent
violated section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute.(1) The General Counsel excepts to the Judge's dismissal of the
complaint insofar as it alleges the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and
(2) when the employee did not receive the incentive award. The Respondent filed
an opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions. For the following reasons, we find that the portion of the complaint
alleging a violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (2) of the Statute based on
the employee's failure to receive an incentive award must be remanded to the
Judge for further proceedings consistent with this decision. II. Judge's Decision The facts, which are fully set forth in the Judge's decision, are
briefly summarized here. Barbara Shackleford, a nurse hired under title 38 of the U.S.
Code, was told by her immediate supervisor that she would receive an incentive
award if she undertook certain training responsibilities. Subsequently,
Shackleford was issued a letter of counseling in an unrelated matter.
Shackleford sought Union assistance in challenging the letter and her
supervisor was aware that Shackleford had sought such assistance. "When
Shackleford later asked whether she would receive an incentive award, [the
supervisor] replied that there was 'no way I can write you an incentive step
because you talk too much. You went outside.'" Judge's Decision at 7-8.
Shackleford was not recommended for, and did not receive, an incentive
award. At the hearing, the Respondent introduced a letter from the Acting
Under Secretary for Health addressing the allegations in the complaint. As
relevant here, the Acting Under Secretary determined, under authority delegated
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, that 38 U.S.C. § 7422(b) does not
affect the Authority's jurisdiction to resolve the allegation in the complaint
concerning the supervisor's statement.(2) However, the Acting Under Secretary determined that the other
allegation--"concerning an employee's failure to receive a special advancement
for performance"--is not subject to review because it involved professional
conduct or competence within the meaning of section 7422(b). Letter at 1.
The Judge sustained the allegation in the complaint concerning the
supervisor's statement to Shackleford. He determined that the supervisor's
"statement implie[d] that things would have gone smoother for Shackleford if
she had kept the matter of the . . . incident within the Respondent
instead of going 'outside' to the Union and others." Judge's Decision
at 8. The Judge concluded that the supervisor's statements "were coercive
and constituted interference with the protected right of a bargaining unit
employee in violation of section 7116(a)(1), as alleged." Id. However, the Judge determined, based on the Acting Under Secretary's
letter, that the allegation concerning the employee's failure to receive an
incentive award could not be sustained. The Judge found that the allegation did
not "involve discrimination with respect to a 'condition of employment' as the
matters specifically exempted from collective bargaining by
[section] 7422(b) are not properly considered to be 'conditions of
employment' as defined in the Statute."(3) Id. at 7. Accordingly, he dismissed the complaint as
it pertained to the employee's failure to receive an incentive award. III. Positions of the Parties A. General Counsel's Exceptions The General Counsel excepts to "the ALJ's receipt into evidence and
consideration of . . . the determination of the Acting Under Secretary for
Health, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. section 7422(d)[.]" Exceptions at 3. The General
Counsel also excepts to the Judge's failure to find that the supervisor's
conduct in failing to recommend Shackleford for an incentive award
violated section 7116(a)(2) of the Statute. The General Counsel argues that the
complaint is sufficiently broad and clear to encompass this violation, and that
the Judge erred in deciding only whether Shackleford's failure to
receive the award violated the Statute. The General Counsel asserts that
the Authority has "consistently held that where both parties understood the
subject of the dispute and, at hearing, presented evidence and witnesses
relevant to the issue of the dispute, a mere ambiguity in the language of the
complaint does not remove the issue from being encompassed by the complaint."
Id. at 5-6. B. Respondent's Opposition The Respondent argues that receipt into evidence of the Acting Under
Secretary's letter "was properly accomplished . . . ."
Opposition at 3. The Respondent also argues that the Acting Under
Secretary's letter "takes the discrimination issue of 5 U.S.C.
[s]ection 7116(a)(2) out of the jurisdiction of the Authority[,]" and,
therefore, "the Authority may not adjudicate a discrimination issue over such
award." Id. at 5. IV. Analysis and Conclusions A. The Judge Did Not Err in Admitting Into Evidence the Acting Under
Secretary's Letter Although the General Counsel objects to the Judge's receipt and
consideration of the letter from the Acting Under Secretary for Health, his
brief contains no statement of the grounds for this exception and no arguments
supporting it. Accordingly, the General Counsel has not demonstrated that the
Judge erred, and we deny the exception. See United States Department
of Justice, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, El Paso
District Office and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1210, 34 FLRA 1035, 1039 (1990). B. The Alleged Section 7116(a)(2) Violation Is Remanded for Further
Proceedings The complaint states that the section 7116(a)(2) violation
occurred when Shackleford "did not receive the incentive award promised to her
by [her supervisor] in November 1991." Complaint at 2, paragraph 13. This
allegation does not clearly encompass a failure of the employee's supervisor to
recommend her for an incentive award, which is the first step necessary for an
employee's receipt of such award. In this case, Shackleford was not recommended
for an incentive award by her supervisor. As a result, Shackleford had no
opportunity to be considered by the peer review board that confers such awards.
In U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. and National Council
(AFL-CIO), 51 FLRA 462, 467 (1995) (DOL), the Authority adopted
and applied private sector precedent whereby a violation not contained in a
complaint may be found "'if all issues surrounding the violation have been
litigated fully and fairly.'" Id. (quoting National Labor Relations
Board v. Coca Cola Bottling Company of Buffalo, Inc., 811 F.2d 82, 87
(2d Cir. 1987)). The test is one of "'fairness'" under the circumstances
of each case, that is, whether the respondent knew what conduct was at issue
and had "'a fair opportunity'" to present a defense. DOL, 51 FLRA
at 467 (quoting Soule Glass and Glazing Co. v. NLRB, 652 F.2d
1055, 1074 (1st Cir. 1981)). In this case, Counsel for the General Counsel stated in his opening
statement that the supervisor's "failure to recommend . . . Shackleford for a
step incentive award was in reprisal for a protected activity in seeking
representation" from the Union. Tr. at 10. He also stated that, as part of the
remedy, the supervisor should be directed to recommend the employee
"retroactively for a step incentive award . . . ." Id.
These statements may reasonably be interpreted as putting the Respondent on
notice of this argument by the General Counsel. Counsel for the Respondent
responded, in her opening statement, that the reason the supervisor did not
recommend Shackleford for an incentive award "was not because of Ms.
Shackleford's Union involvement but because Ms. Shackleford failed to provide
training . . . to sufficient operating room staff." Tr. at 11.
Respondent's Counsel also attempted to establish, through the supervisor's
testimony, that the supervisor did not recommend Shackleford for the incentive
award because she had not provided sufficient staff training, rather than as a
result of Shackleford's seeking Union assistance. In these circumstances, we
find that the Respondent had notice and fully litigated the issue concerning
whether the supervisor's failure to recommend Shackleford for an incentive
award violated section 7116(a)(2) of the Statute. The Judge did not resolve whether the supervisor's failure to recommend
the employee for an incentive award violated the Statute. Moreover, for the
following reasons, the record is insufficient for the Authority to resolve that
issue. It is not clear what position the Acting Under Secretary has taken
concerning the supervisor's failure to recommend Shackleford for an award,
since his letter does not directly address this point. Instead, it addresses
only: (1) the employee's failure to receive an award, and (2) the alleged
statements by the supervisor. As the Acting Under Secretary has concluded that
statements regarding the reasons the supervisor decided not to recommend
Shackleford are not removed from the Authority's jurisdiction, it is not clear
that, or on what ground, he would conclude that the supervisor's actions
based on those reasons would be removed. As the Acting Under Secretary's letter
is unclear, we are unable to determine whether, or to what extent, an issue
remains concerning the effect of 38 U.S.C. § 7422(b) on whether the
failure to recommend Shackleford for an award violated the Statute. Therefore,
the Judge should take the appropriate steps to clarify the Respondent's
position on this matter. In addition, the Judge specifically declined to make a credibility
determination "with respect to the conflicting testimony concerning whether
Shackleford competently trained other nurses" to operate a particular item of
medical equipment. Judge's Decision at 7 n.4. Such determination may be
necessary for the Judge to resolve whether the supervisor's decision not to
recommend Shackleford for an award violated the Statute. Finally, on remand, we direct the Judge's and the parties' attention to
two Authority decisions that issued after the Judge's decision in this case and
relate to matters raised in that decision: International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Franklin Lodge No. 2135 and U.S. Department
of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 50 FLRA 677, 681-85
(1995) (BEP), petition for review filed sub nom. U.S.
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing v. FLRA,
No. 95-1499 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 28, 1995); and Department of Veterans
Affairs, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hampton, Virginia and American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 2328, AFL-CIO, 51 FLRA 84,
87-88 (1995) (VA, Hampton). In BEP, the Authority clarified the
approach to determining whether a matter is specifically provided for by
Federal statute. In VA, Hampton, the Authority examined the relationship
between the Statute and 38 U.S.C. § 7422. V. Order Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relation Authority's
Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute, it is hereby ordered that the Department of Veterans
Affairs, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, D.C., shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Making statements to employees which interfere with, restrain, or
coerce them in the exercise of their rights under the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
Statute: (a) Post at its facilities copies of the attached Notice on forms to be
they shall be signed by the director, and shall be posted and maintained for 60
defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Regulations, notify
the Regional Director of the Washington Regional Office, Federal Labor
Relations Authority, 1255 22nd Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.
20037-1206, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order as to what
steps have been take to comply herewith. The part of the complaint alleging that the Respondent violated section
7116(a)(1) and (2) of the Statute is remanded to the Judge for action
consistent with this Decision. NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE WE NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT: WE WILL NOT make statements to employees which interfere with, restrain,
or coerce them in the exercise of their rights under the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. ______________________________ (Activity) Date: _____________ By: ______________________________ (Signature) (Title)
Director of the Washington Regional Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority,
1255 22nd Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20037-1206, and whose
telephone number is: (202) 653-8500. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20424-0001 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C. Respondent and DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NURSES' ASSOCIATION Charging Party/ Union Case No. WA-CA-30584 Dianne N. Parlow Counsel for the Respondent Susan E. Scheider Counsel for the Charging Party Christopher M. Feldenzer Counsel for the General Counsel, FLRA Before: GARVIN LEE OLIVER Administrative Law Judge DECISION I. Statement of the Case The unfair labor practice complaint alleges that Respondent violated
Statute (the Statute), 5 U.S.C. §§ 7116(a)(1) and (2). The
complaint alleges that Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) when a supervisor
advised an employee that because the employee had gone to the Union for
assistance the supervisor would not recommend the employee for an incentive
award as promised. The complaint alleges that Respondent violated section
7116(a)(1) and (2) because the employee did not receive the promised award.
Respondent's answer denied any violation of the Statute. A hearing was held in Washington, D.C. The Respondent, Union, and the
General Counsel were represented by counsel and afforded full opportunity to be
post-hearing briefs. The parties filed helpful briefs. Based on the entire
conclusions of law, and recommendations. II. Findings of Fact The Union is the certified exclusive representative of an appropriate
unit of employees, professional nurses, at Respondent. Barbara Shackleford is an employee of Respondent, hired pursuant to
Title 38 of the United States Code, and has been an operating room staff nurse
at Respondent since 1983. Her immediate supervisor is Marie Riggins, Operating
Room Head Nurse. Shackleford's second-level supervisor is Geri Feaster,
Assistant Chief of Clinical Practice for Surgical Services. The Chief of
Nursing is Sue Hudec. In November 1991, Shackleford received her annual performance rating
from Marie Riggins. The overall rating was "highly satisfactory." While
discussing the performance rating Head Nurse Riggins told Shackleford that if
she would assume certain responsibilities for training staff nurses and
documenting such training, Riggins would reward her with an incentive step
award. Specifically, Riggins wanted Shackleford to provide training for
operating room nurses in the "Cell Saver" apparatus, a device that collects and
filters blood products from a patient during surgery for return to the patient.
Shackleford testified that Riggins never mentioned a particular number
of nurses to be trained. Riggins testified that they agreed that six nurses
would have to be trained to independently operate the device. On May 24, 1992, Shackleford and Riggins were working together in
connection with a Saturday morning operation. While discussing Shackleford's
training, Riggins told Shackleford that she was "doing a good job" and that she
still intended to put her in for a "step" award. On June 5, 1992, Shackleford was involved in a disagreement with
another nurse over the professional care of a patient. Part of the disagreement
took place in front of the patient. As a result, Shackleford received a letter
of counseling. Riggins advised Shackleford that her conduct could be viewed as
patient abuse and, if the patient complained, would be dealt with accordingly.
Shackleford felt she had acted professionally under the circumstances
and advised Riggins, upon receipt of the letter of counseling, that she was
"going to the Union about it."(2) Shackleford met with the Union representative at Respondent, Mary
Gaines, and an attorney for the Union, Sue Scheider, and a July 8, 1992
memorandum was prepared for Shackleford rebutting Riggins' letter of
counseling. It was delivered by Shackleford to the Chief of Personnel as well
as Hudec, Feaster, and Riggins. Riggins, upon receiving her hand-delivered
copy, shoved the memorandum back into Shackleford's hands and told her she
could not accept it. Shackleford also sought the assistance of Congresswoman Connie
Morella's office in July 1992 concerning the letter of counseling. Respondent
had to respond to the Congresswoman's inquiry concerning the matter. Geri
Feaster was involved in preparing the response. On August 12, 1992, Shackleford was informed that Geri Feaster wanted
to see her. When Shackleford telephoned Feaster and stated she would have a
Union representative with her and to let her know what time, Feaster said,
"Well, that's o.k." and abruptly ended the conversation. On August 18, 1992, Shackleford was advised that Sue Hudec, Chief of
Nursing, wanted to see her right away. Shackleford telephoned Hudec and
inquired whether some arrangement could not be made in order for Union
representative Mary Gaines to be present. Hudec was immediately hostile to this
suggestion and screamed at Shackleford that she didn't need a Union
representative, it was not a disciplinary action, and she would not meet with
her. In late November 1992, Shackleford received her annual performance
appraisal from Head Nurse Riggins and reviewed the appraisal in her presence.
Shackleford received an overall rating of "highly satisfactory." The appraisal
mentioned, in part, that Shackleford had taught "two nursing staff to operate
the Cell Saver" and should teach more staff to operate the Cell Saver if needed
in 1993. The appraisal also included the following comment by the approving
official, Geri Feaster: [D]uring this rating period there was a practice issue in which Mrs.
Shackleford had a difference in perception and much effort was expended to
clarify these perceptions with documentation of the situation and to clarify
expected behavior and to bring a closing to the incident
conflict. Shackleford discussed these matters with Riggins and asserted that she
had trained the nurses in the Cell Saver. When Shackleford asked whether she
would receive the incentive award, Riggins replied that there was "no way I can
write you an incentive step because you talk too much. You went outside." When
Shackleford asked Riggins why shouldn't she go "outside," Riggins told her that
Geri Feaster would have to "write it" and Shackleford should "Just let things
die down."(3) Riggins testified that she did not recommend Shackleford for any type
of advancement because she needed to continue to work with the staff. According
to Riggins, Shackleford only "proficiently trained three people" in the use of
the Cell Saver. Shackleford testified that she trained six or seven nurses to
proficiency in the use of the Cell Saver during the period. Yvonne Moody, an
operating room nurse, now retired, who was Respondent's in-service training
coordinator in 1992, testified that she received training from Shackleford and
had the opportunity to use the Cell Saver independently approximately 10-12
times during her last year. She also testified that four other operating room
nurses, with whom Moody had regular and ongoing contact during the relevant
time period, were capable of using the Cell Saver on their own during
operations. Head Nurse Riggins does not have independent authority to grant an
incentive award, also called by Respondent a "special advancement for
performance award." Her recommendation would go to Geri Feaster, Assistant
Chief of Clinical Practice for Surgical Services, for concurrence and then to
the Nurse Professional Standards Board for determination. On February 16, 1994, John T. Farrar, M.D., Acting Under Secretary for
Health, issued a letter to Mr. Timothy Williams, Respondent's Director,
concerning the issues involved in this case. Dr. Farrar stated that, pursuant
to the authority delegated to him by the Secretary, he determined that the
issue raised in this unfair labor practice with respect to the employee's not
receiving a special advancement for performance is outside the scope of
bargaining under the Department of Veterans Affairs Labor Relations Improvement
Act of 1991 because it concerns a matter or question arising out of
professional competence and conduct which affects direct patient care, peer
review, and compensation. Dr. Farrar added that the allegation that Head Nurse
Riggins told Nurse Shackleford that she would not recommend Shackleford for a
special advancement for performance because of Shackleford's outside activities
(including the union contact) does not itself involve professional conduct or
competence, peer review, or compensation and is not excluded. III. Discussion and Conclusions A. Alleged Violation of Section 7116(a)(1) and (2) for Failure to
Receive Award The complaint alleges in paragraph 13 that "Shackleford did not receive
the incentive award promised to her by Riggins in November 1991." Paragraph 15
of the complaint alleges that "By the conduct described in paragraph 13, the
Respondent committed an unfair labor practice in violation of 5 U.S.C. §
7116(a)(1) and (2)." Section 7116(a)(2) provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice
for an agency to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization
conditions of employment. Section 7103(a)(14) defines "conditions of employment," in relevant
part, to mean "personnel policies, practices, and matters, whether established
by rule, regulation, or otherwise, affecting working conditions, except that
such term does not include policies, practices, and matters -- . . . (C) to the
extent such matters are specifically provided by Federal statute[.]" The authority of the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to
prescribe by regulation the hours and conditions of employment of bargaining
unit employees is subject to their right to engage in collective bargaining in
accordance with chapter 71 of title 5. 38 U.S.C. § 7422(a).
However, 38 U.S.C. § 7422(b) provides that "[s]uch collective
bargaining . . . may not cover, or have any applicability to, any
matter or question concerning or arising out of (1) professional conduct
or competence, (2) peer review, or (3) the establishment,
determination, or adjustment of employee compensation under this title." 38
U.S.C. § 7422(c) provides that "professional conduct or competence" means
direct patient care or clinical competence. An issue of whether a matter or question concerns or arises out of
professional conduct or competence, peer review, or employee compensation
"shall be decided by the Secretary and is not itself subject to collective
bargaining and may not be reviewed by any other agency." 38 U.S.C.
§ 7422(d). See Wisconsin Federation of Nurses and Health
Professionals, Veterans Administration Staff Nurses Council, Local 5032 and
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Clement J. Zablocki Medical Center,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 47 FLRA 910 (1993). Based on section 7103(a)(14)(C) of the Statute and 38 U.S.C.
§ 7422, I conclude that where the Secretary has determined, as in
this case, that the issue raised in this unfair labor practice with respect to
the employee's not receiving a special advancement for performance is outside
the scope of bargaining under the Department of Veterans Affairs Labor
Relations Improvement Act of 1991, because it concerns a matter or question
arising out of professional competence and conduct which affects direct patient
care, peer review, and compensation, the Secretary's determination is not
substantively reviewable in an unfair labor practice proceeding. Cf.
Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, D.C. and Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Center, Canandaigua, New York, 46 FLRA 805 (1992),
petition for review dismissed sub nom. AFGE, Local 3306 v. FLRA and
Department of Veterans Affairs, 2 F.3d 6 (2d Cir., 1993). Further, in light
of this determination, the allegation in the complaint does not involve
discrimination with respect to a "condition of employment" as the matters
specifically exempted from collective bargaining by 38 U.S.C. § 7422(b)
are not properly considered to be "conditions of employment" as defined in the
Statute. Accordingly, the allegation in the complaint in this respect must be
dismissed.(4) B. Alleged Violation of Section 7116(a)(1) by Statement Section 7102 of the Statute protects each employee in the exercise of
the right to form, join, or assist a labor organization, or to refrain from any
such activity, without fear of penalty or reprisal. Section 7116(a)(1) provides
that it is an unfair labor practice for an agency to interfere with, restrain,
or coerce any employee in the exercise by the employee of such right. The Authority has held that the standard for determining whether
management's statement or conduct violates section 7116(a)(1) of the Statute is
an objective one. The question is whether, under the circumstances, the
statement or conduct would tend to coerce or intimidate the employee, or
whether the employee could reasonably have drawn a coercive inference from the
statement. Although the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement
perceptions of the employee or the intent of the employer. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Frenchburg Job Corps, Mariba,
Kentucky, 49 FLRA 1020, 1034 (1994). The record reflects that Nurse Shackleford sought and secured the
assistance of the Union, in addition to her Congresswoman, in protesting a
written counseling. Head Nurse Riggins was aware of her protected activity.
When Shackleford later asked whether she would receive an incentive award,
Riggins replied that there was "no way I can write you an incentive step
because you talk too much. You went outside." When Shackleford asked Riggins
why shouldn't she go "outside," Riggins told her that Geri Feaster would have
to "write it" and Shackleford should "Just let things die down." Riggins' statement implies that things would have gone smoother for
Shackleford if she had kept the matter of the June 5 incident within the
Respondent instead of going "outside" to the Union and others. The statement
carries with it the additional implication that Shackleford should think twice
about exercising her statutory right to seek the Union's assistance in the
resolution of an employment problem. Riggins' statements were coercive and
constituted interference with the protected right of a bargaining unit employee
in violation of section 7116(a)(1), as alleged. See Navy Resale
System Field Support Office Commissary Store Group, 5 FLRA 311 (1981). Based on the above findings and conclusions, it is recommended that the
that Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, D.C. shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Making statements to employees which interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to form, join, or assist any
labor organization, including the right to seek the labor organization's
assistance in the resolution of an employment problem, or to refrain from any
such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or
Regulations, notify the Regional Director, of the Washington Region, 1255 22nd
Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20037-1206, in writing, within 30 days
herewith. 3. The allegation that Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (2)
of the Statute because Nurse Shackleford did not receive an incentive award is
dismissed. Issued, Washington, DC, January 13, 1995 ____________________________ GARVIN LEE OLIVER Administrative
WE WILL NOT make statements to employees which interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to form,
join, or assist any labor organization, including the right to seek the labor
organization's assistance in the resolution of an employment problem, or to
reprisal. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. __________________________(Activity) Date:_____________ By:________________________ (Signature)
Regional Director of the Washington Region, 1255 22nd Street, NW, 4th Floor,
Washington, DC 20037-1206, and whose telephone number is: (202) 653-8500. Authority's Footnotes Follow: 1. We will issue an appropriate Order
with respect to this matter, and not address it further except as necessary to
resolve the exceptions. 2. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7422(b),
collective bargaining and the negotiated grievance procedures for employees of
the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs listed
in 38 U.S.C. § 7421(b), including registered nurses, may not involve
matters or questions "concerning or arising out of (1) professional conduct or
competence, (2) peer review, or (3) the establishment, determination, or
adjustment of employee compensation under this title." Section 7422(d)
provides: An issue of whether a matter or question concerns or arises out of
(1) professional conduct or competence, (2) peer review, or (3) the
establishment, determination, or adjustment of employee compensation under this
title shall be decided by the Secretary and is not itself subject to collective
bargaining and may not be reviewed by any other agency. 3. The Judge relied on section
7103(a)(14)(C) of the Statute, which excepts those matters "specifically
provided for by Federal statute" from the definition of "'conditions of
employment[.]'" ALJ's Footnotes Follow: 1. Counsel for the General Counsel
moved to strike attachments A and B to Respondent's brief. The motion to strike
attachment A, Respondent's letter to the Regional Attorney concerning the
pre-complaint investigation, is granted. It is also granted with respect to the
"Decision Paper" in attachment B. However, the motion is denied with respect to
the determination of the Acting Under Secretary for Health, pursuant to 38
U.S.C. § 7422(d), dated February 16, 1994, in attachment B. This
determination was discussed at the hearing in terms of jurisdiction or remedy.
The ruling was that it could be submitted as part of the Respondent's brief.
(Tr. 10-13). It will be considered infra. See also 5
C.F.R. § 2423.19(o) (official notice). 2. Head Nurse Riggins testified that
Shackleford did not mention going to the Union over the issue. I credit
Shackleford on this point. Riggins also initially claimed she was unaware that
there was a union for professional nurses at Respondent. She later acknowledged
that she had heard of the Union, or seen articles about its presence at
Respondent, and had heard that Mary Gaines was the Union representative. 3. Head Nurse Riggins testified that
she did not tell Shackleford that she would not be recommended for an incentive
award because she had gone "outside." I credit Shackleford. 4. In view of this determination, no