General Services Administration, Region IX, San Francisco, California and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Authority decision, May 24, 1991)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority resolves an unfair labor practice complaint. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review of this final order in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). A petition does not stay the order unless the court orders a stay under § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

An unfair labor practice complaint alleged that GSA Region IX suspended an employee for two days because he filed grievances and used official time. An administrative law judge found that the allegation was not proven and recommended dismissal. The charging party excepted, but the Authority adopted the judge’s findings and dismissed the complaint. The official Authority text gives no further detail about the suspension.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1); 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(2).
• Outcome: Judge’s dismissal adopted; unfair labor practice complaint dismissed.
• Key point: The Authority accepted the judge’s finding that the suspension was not retaliation for grievances or official time use.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v40 p973 ]

40:0973(83)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

40 FLRA No. 83

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

REGION IX

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

(Respondent)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

AFL-CIO

(Charging Party)

9-CA-00160

DECISION AND ORDER

May 24, 1991

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 section 7116(a)(1) and (2) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) because the Respondent did not, as alleged, issue a two-day suspension to an employee because he filed grievances and used official time. The Judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The Charging Party filed exceptions to the Judge's decision. The Respondent did not file an opposition to the Charging Party's exceptions.

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge made at the hearing. Consistent with the foregoing discussion we find that no prejudicial error was committed and 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.

II. Order

The Complaint in this case is dismissed.

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