U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 243 (Authority decision, August 12, 1992)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority dismissing an unfair labor practice complaint. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). Filing a petition does not stay the Authority's order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

NTEU Chapter 243 brought a complaint against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office concerning an Inspector General representative's conduct during an interview with a bargaining unit employee. An administrative law judge found that the agency was not responsible for the representative's actions and therefore had not violated the federal labor statute. The General Counsel challenged that decision. The Authority found no prejudicial error in the judge's hearing rulings, adopted the judge's findings and conclusions, and dismissed the complaint.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7118.
• Outcome: Administrative law judge's dismissal adopted; complaint dismissed.
• Key point: The agency was not held responsible for the Inspector General representative's interview conduct.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v45 p886 ]

45:0886(83)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

45 FLRA No. 83

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

(Respondent/Activity)

and

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION

CHAPTER 243

(Charging Party/Union)

3-CA-10521

DECISION AND ORDER

August 12, 1992

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent did not violate the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) because it was not responsible for the actions of an Office of Inspector General representative during an interview of a unit employee. The General Counsel filed exceptions to the Judge's decision and the Respondent filed an opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions.

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, we have reviewed the Judge's rulings made at the hearing and find that no prejudicial error was committed. We affirm the rulings. Upon consideration of the Judge's decision and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommended Order, and will dismiss the complaint.

II. Order

The complaint is dismissed.

FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)