Opinion ID: 407565
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violation of Section 7116(b)(7)(A)

Text: 125 In this case it fully appears that the record before the FLRA provided a rational justification for its finding that PATCO call(ed), or participate(d) in, a strike, an unfair labor practice prohibited by 5 U.S.C. § 7116(b)(7)(A) (Supp. IV 1980). 61 As described above, the record contained evidence of simultaneous picketing by striking air traffic controllers at five separate FAA facilities. In each case the picketers carried signs indicating that they were on strike and that they belonged to a particular PATCO Local. In several cases FAA officials, viewing photographs taken during the strike, identified individual picketers as air traffic controllers (including certain PATCO Local officers); many of the persons identified were controllers who were scheduled for work at the times when the photographs were taken. In addition, FAA records also established massive absenteeism on August 3 and thereafter by air traffic controllers nationwide. 126 PATCO objects to the adequacy of this evidence, contending that it establishes only that strikes were conducted by certain PATCO Local unions, while the Respondent before the FLRA was the PATCO National union. Whatever weight PATCO's contention might otherwise have is seriously diminished by the evidence of the simultaneous picketing at numerous work locations and by the evidence of the nationwide scope of absenteeism by controllers on and after August 3. However the evidence is interpreted, it certainly cannot be characterized as a wildcat strike on the part of one of (PATCO's) Locals. PATCO Reply Brief at 12. The weight of PATCO's contention is even further diminished by the fact that the PATCO National union was the exclusive bargaining agent for all bargaining unit members. For several months prior to August 3, the PATCO National union, and not the Locals, had engaged in collective bargaining with the FAA for a national agreement. The FLRA was entitled to draw a reasonable inference from the national bargaining unit and from the nationwide picketing and absenteeism-viz., that the PATCO National union, and not merely a collection of PATCO Locals, was on strike. 62 127 Moreover, the FAA introduced into evidence two videotapes of PATCO National union President Robert Poli making statements regarding the strike at news conferences. 63 In the first videotape, Poli is recorded as announcing that the strike would begin on the morning of August 3 if no satisfactory settlement proposal was reached and if tallying of a strike vote revealed the necessary support. PATCO notes that this statement was not an actual strike call, but at most a prediction or a suggestion of conditions precedent to a strike. While what PATCO notes is indeed true, the statement nonetheless carries significant weight in light of the fact that Poli's predicted time of the strike exactly coincided with the extensive picketing and massive absenteeism. In the second videotape, Poli was recorded as making the simple statement: The question is will the strike continue. The answer is yes. PATCO again contends that the statement is no more than a prediction-a speculation about future events. PATCO Brief at 22-23. While the characterization given Poli's statement by PATCO is not totally inaccurate, it does not undercut the FLRA's finding. Poli's acknowledgement of the strike and his quite certain prediction that it would continue negate any attempt by PATCO to disassociate the PATCO National union from the widespread and simultaneous strike activity by PATCO members nationwide. 128 In these circumstances-simultaneous and widespread absenteeism by union members, picketing announcing various union locals as being on strike, and accurate statements by the union president that a strike would take place under certain conditions and then that that strike would continue-we have no difficulty concluding that the FLRA's finding was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Our conclusion is made more certain by the total absence of record evidence offered by PATCO in refutation. Thus, we affirm the FLRA's finding that PATCO call(ed), or participate(d) in, a strike in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 7116(b)(7)(A) (Supp. IV 1980).