Opinion ID: 184422
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wildberger's Claims

Text: Appellant Wildberger was employed by the SBA as aprogram analyst from June 1980 until September 1992 whenhis employment was terminated. In the year immediatelypreceding his termination, Wildberger, a former president ofthe American Federation of Government Employees localthat represents SBA employees, formed a rival union, Solidarity, USA (Solidarity). Wildberger spent considerabletime that year trying to recruit SBA employees to joinSolidarity. Wildberger engaged in his Solidarity-related union organizing activities during work hours, using agencyresources and equipment such as the SBA e-mail system andSBA telephones. Due to clashes between Wildberger and SBA managementover the manner in which he carried out his Solidarity-relatedactivities, Wildberger filed unfair labor practice chargesagainst the SBA, which resulted in the FLRA's issuance ofthe three complaints at issue here. The threat complaint,issued July 29, 1992, addressed Wildberger's claim that SBAsupervisor James Charney had threatened to deny Wildber- ger's training requests and to fire him unless the conflictcreated by the labor organization Wildberger had formedstopped. See Complaint and Notice of Hearing (No. 20821),J.A. 294-96. The proposed removal complaint, issued October 13, 1992, challenged the SBA's issuance on August 3,1992, of a letter proposing to terminate Wildberger on numerous grounds, including his willful refusal to comply with SBAdirectives not to use SBA equipment and official work time toconduct Solidarity-related business. See Complaint and Notice of Hearing (No. 21010), J.A. 326-28. The disparatetreatment complaint, issued November 20, 1992, alleged thatthe SBA had discriminated against Wildberger for engagingin protected activity by inundating him with memoranda,prohibiting him from using SBA equipment for personal use,and imposing other restrictions on him, even though otheremployees in his bargaining unit were not subject to suchrestrictions. See Complaint and Notice of Hearing (No.21060), J.A. 330-33. On September 16, 1992, the SBA terminated Wildbergerfor the reasons specified in the notice of proposed removal. See Final Removal Letter, J.A. 494-519. Wildberger appealed his termination to the MSPB. Wildberger argued to theMSPB that his termination was unlawful because, inter alia,(1) the termination was indicative of retaliation and discrimination based on his exercise of statutorily protected rights, asalleged in the disparate treatment and proposed removalcomplaints, and (2) the SBA official who proposed his removal, James Charney, was motivated by personal animus againstWildberger. In alleging animus on the part of Charney,Wildberger referenced the same incidents alleged in thethreat complaint. On February 7, 1994, an Administrative Law Judge for theFLRA (FLRA-ALJ) held hearings on Wildberger's unfairlabor practice complaints. The FLRA-ALJ recommendedthat the threat complaint and the disparate treatment com- plaint be dismissed on the merits, based on his findings thatthe evidence presented as to each failed to prove by apreponderance of the evidence that the SBA had engaged inan unfair labor practice. J.A. 116, 124-28. The FLRA-ALJ recommended that the proposed removal complaint be dismissed pursuant to section 7116(d) for lack of jurisdiction. J.A. 119-20 (citing Department of Commerce, Bureau of theCensus v. FLRA, 976 F.2d 882 (4th Cir. 1992)). Both Wildberger and the General Counsel for the FLRA filed exceptions to the FLRA-ALJ's recommendations.
On May 4, 1995, the Administrative Law Judge hearingWildberger's MSPB appeal (MSPB-ALJ) concluded thatthe SBA had just cause for terminating Wildberger's employ- ment. See J.A. 558-95. The Board affirmed the MSPBALJ's decision, in relevant part, on March 6, 1996. Wildberger v. SBA, 69 M.S.P.R. 667 (1996) (modifying in part andaffirming in part). One of the bases for termination upheldby the MSPB-ALJ was Wildberger's willful refusal to complywith SBA directives not to use SBA equipment and officialwork time to conduct Solidarity-related business. J.A. 569-72(upholding charge 2 (insubordination)); J.A. 574-75 (upholding charge 4 (unauthorized use of government property)). The MSPB-ALJ also considered and rejected Wildberger'saffirmative defenses, including his claim that the proposingofficial, James Charney, was motivated by personal animus,see J.A. 580-82, and his claim that the removal action wastaken in retaliation for protected union activity. J.A. 587-90.
On October 31, 1995, the Authority reviewed the FLRAALJ's recommendations and dismissed all three unfair laborpractice complaints on jurisdictional grounds. After firstreviewing its own precedents as well as circuit law interpreting section 7116(d), the Authority clarified its test for determining whether the jurisdictional bar imposed by the firstsentence of section 7116(d) applies: when the factual predicate and the legal theory underlying an unfair labor practicecomplaint and a MSPB appeal are the same, the Authoritywill decline to assert jurisdiction over the unfair labor practice complaint. Wildberger [FLRA], 1995 WL 648828, at . The Authority clarified that, because the FLRACunlike theMSPBChas jurisdiction to review unfair labor practice charges brought by labor organizations as well as individuals,it would retain jurisdiction over charges brought by labororganizations that focus on the organization's institutionalinterests, as opposed to the rights of an individual employee,notwithstanding any related MSPB appeals brought by individual employees. Id. The Authority then dismissed allthree of Wildberger's consolidated complaints as subject tosection 7116(d)'s jurisdictional bar. Id. at -9. Wildberger, acting pro se, appealed the Authority's decisions to this court, and the court appointed amicus curiae(Amicus) to present arguments on his behalf.