Opinion ID: 184422
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Proposed Removal Complaint

Text: The SBA's final letter of removal terminating Wildberger'semployment essentially reiterated the same charges and specifications set forth in its letter proposing to remove him. Compare Final Removal Letter, J.A. 494-519 with ProposedRemoval Letter, J.A. 298-325. Thus, the factual predicateunderlying Wildberger's proposed removal complaint and hisMSPB appeal are the same. See Local 1411, 960 F.2d at 178(holding that the distinction between proposed and actualagency action is a distinction without a difference which, ifcredited for the purposes of applying s 7116(d), would drains 7116(d) of much of its utility). The proposed removal complaint alleges that the SBAcommitted an unfair labor practice in violation of 5 U.S.C.s 7116(a)(1) (prohibiting federal employers from interferingwith, restraining, or coercing any employee in the exercise ofany right under chapter 71 of Title 5) by referencing Wildberger's protected activity as a union organizer. In addressingWildberger's affirmative defense that his employment wasterminated in retaliation for protected union activity in violation of 5 U.S.C. s 2302(b)(9), the MSPB-ALJ applied theanalysis articulated by the Board in Ireland, 34 M.S.P.R. at618-19. Under the Ireland analysis, to establish a claim ofreprisal for union activities in violation of section 2302(b)(9),an employee must demonstrate that he engaged in an activityprotected by statute, that he subsequently was subject to anadverse action, that the proposing and deciding officials knewthat the employee was engaged in the protected activity, andthat there was a causal connection between the protectedactivity and the adverse action. Id. The MSPB-ALJ foundthat, contrary to Wildberger's assertion, he did not possess astatutorily-protected right to utilize official time or other SBAresources for his union organizing activity. J.A. 587-88. Moreover, the MSPB-ALJ determined that Wildberger hadfailed to show a sufficient causal connection between anystatutorily-protected activities in which he was engaged andthe termination decision. J.A. 589-90. Thus, the same legaltheoryCthat the termination was in retaliation for Wildberger's protected activitiesCwas argued to both the FLRA andthe MSPB, and this theory was rejected by the MSPB in the context of considering Wildberger's affirmative defenses. Accordingly, the Authority's determination that it was barred bythe first sentence of section 7116(d) from exercising jurisdiction over Wildberger's proposed removal complaint was notarbitrary and capricious.