The Adjutant General-Georgia, Georgia National Guard, Department of Defense, Atlanta, Georgia (Respondent) and Georgia Association of Civilian Technicians, ACT, Inc. (Complainant) 

 



[ v02 p712 ]
02:0712(92)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 2 FLRA No. 92
 
 THE ADJUTANT GENERAL-GEORGIA,
 GEORGIA NATIONAL GUARD,
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
 ATLANTA, GEORGIA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN
 TECHNICIANS, ACT, INC.
 Complainant
 
                                            Assistant Secretary
                                            Case No. 40-9032(CA)
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    ON JUNE 18, 1979, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GARVIN LEE OLIVER ISSUED
 HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING,
 FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS AS
 SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED
 DECISION AND ORDER.  THEREAFTER, BOTH THE COMPLAINANT AND THE RESPONDENT
 FILED EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPORTING BRIEFS WITH RESPECT TO THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER.
 
    THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION
 PLAN NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
 IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
 (44 F.R. 44741, JULY 30, 1979).  THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE
 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN
 SECTION 7135(B) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
 
    THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HAS
 REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE HEARING
 AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED.  THE RULINGS ARE
 HEREBY AFFIRMED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S
 RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE SUBJECT
 CASE, INCLUDING THE EXCEPTIONS AND BRIEFS FILED BY BOTH PARTIES, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS,
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AS MODIFIED BELOW.
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD ADDED
 CERTAIN SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE POSITION DESCRIPTIONS FOR
 SOME 22 POSITIONS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS AT THE GEORGIA NATIONAL GUARD.
 THE POSITIONS WERE GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS SMALL SHOP SUPERVISORS.  THE
 CHANGES IN THE POSITION DESCRIPTIONS FOR THESE 22 JOBS WERE MADE AT THE
 DIRECTION OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, WHICH RETAINS CLASSIFICATION
 AUTHORITY FOR ALL CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS POSITIONS NATIONWIDE.  THE
 ACTIVITY NOTIFIED THE UNION REGARDING THE PROPOSED CHANGES WITHIN ITS
 JURISDICTION.  THE PARTIES DISCUSSED THESE PROPOSED CHANGES, WITH THE
 UNION MAINTAINING ITS POSITION THAT NONE OF THE CHANGES IN JOB
 RESPONSIBILITIES WARRANTED A CHANGE FROM NONSUPERVISORY TO SUPERVISORY
 STATUS FOR THE INCUMBENTS OF THESE 22 POSITIONS.  ON JUNE 26, 1978, THE
 ACTIVITY UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTED THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND IT NOTIFIED
 THE UNION OF ITS INTENTION TO REMOVE THE 22 POSITIONS FROM THE UNION'S
 EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING UNIT BASED ON THE CHANGE IN THEIR SUPERVISORY
 STATUS.  ON JULY 2, 1978, DUES WITHHOLDING FOR THE INCUMBENTS OF THESE
 22 POSITIONS WAS SUSPENDED.
 
    THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOUND THAT THE ACTIVITY HAD ACTED AT ITS
 PERIL WHEN IT UNILATERALLY SUSPENDED DUES WITHHOLDING PRIVILEGES FOR THE
 INCUMBENTS OF THE 22 AFFECTED POSITIONS.  THEREFORE, HE NOTED THAT, IN
 EFFECT, ANY DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE ACTIVITY HAD ACTED PROPERLY
 MUST BE BASED ON A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES
 HAD ACTUALLY ACQUIRED THE SUPERVISORY STATUS ASCRIBED TO THEM.  THE
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, AFTER REVIEWING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
 INCUMBENTS OF ALL 22 POSITIONS IN QUESTION HEREIN, CONCLUDED THAT SEVEN
 OF THE 22 EMPLOYEES WERE ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED TO HAVE BECOME
 SUPERVISORS ON JUNE 26, 1978, AND THAT BY REMOVING THESE EMPLOYEES FROM
 CHECKOFF, THE ACTIVITY HAD VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER.
 
    THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT ALL THE SMALL SHOP SUPERVISORS, WITH THE
 EXCEPTION OF ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD NO EMPLOYEES DIRECTLY ASSIGNED TO
 HIS SHOP, ARE SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ORDER.  THE SMALL
 SHOP CHIEFS' DUTIES AS NOTED IN THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION INCLUDE:
 PLANNING, ORGANIZING, AND SCHEDULING OF WORK ASSIGNMENTS AND THE
 ESTABLISHMENT OF PRODUCTION CONTROLS;  EXPLAINING WORK REQUIREMENTS,
 WORK METHODS, AND THE STANDARDS OF QUALITY AND QUANTITY TO BE MET;
 MONITORING WORK AND GIVING INSTRUCTION ON DIFFICULT OPERATIONS;  MAKING
 ADJUSTMENTS IN WORK ASSIGNMENTS AND METHODS AS NEEDED;  AND SCHEDULING
 LEAVE, APPRAISING PERFORMANCE, RECOMMENDING PROMOTIONS, AND INITIATING
 DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS NEEDED.  EACH SMALL SHOP SUPERVISOR HAS
 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTROL OVER WORK OPERATIONS PERFORMED BY THE OTHER
 CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS ASSIGNED TO HIS SHOP AND THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR
 THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF WORK PERFORMED.  WHILE SOME OF THE SMALL
 SHOP SUPERVISORS ASSUMED THEIR NEW RESPONSIBILITIES IMMEDIATELY AFTER
 THEIR CHANGE IN STATUS ON JUNE 26, 1978, OTHERS WAITED A PERIOD OF TIME
 BEFORE THEY BEGIN FULFILLING ALL OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES.
 NEVERTHELESS, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT ALL THE SMALL SHOP SUPERVISORS
 WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR PERFORMING THE SUPERVISORY DUTIES OUTLINED IN THEIR
 JOB DESCRIPTION AS OF JUNE 26, 1978, AND THAT THEY ARE ALL EXERCISING
 THESE RESPONSIBILITIES.
 
    UNDER ALL THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE SMALL
 SHOP SUPERVISORS HEREIN ARE SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
 2(C) OF THE ORDER.  /1/ THUS, THE RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT
 EMPLOYEES IN THESE POSITIONS ARE AUTHORIZED, AND EITHER HAVE OR WILL BE
 REQUIRED TO EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY, TO EFFECTIVELY DIRECT WORK FOR THEIR
 SUBORDINATES, TO INITIATE DISCIPLINARY ACTION, TO APPROVE LEAVE, TO
 EVALUATE EMPLOYEES, AND TO RECOMMEND THE HIRING OF EMPLOYEES.
 CONSEQUENTLY, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE ACTIVITY'S TERMINATION OF
 DUES WITHHOLDING FOR THE SMALL SHOP SUPERVISORS, WITH THE EXCEPTION
 NOTED BELOW, WAS PRIVILEGED, AND THE AUTHORITY SHALL ORDER THAT THE
 COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED IN THAT REGARD.
 
    AS FOUND BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, THE FABRIC WORKER POSITION
 (WG-11, JOB NO. F9214000) PRESENTLY HELD BY EMPLOYEE JAMES E. NEWMAN,
 HAS NO SUBORDINATE EMPLOYEES OVER WHOM HE EXERCISES ANY AUTHORITY.
 THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE INCUMBENT OF THE FABRIC WORKER,
 WG-11 POSITION IS NOT A SUPERVISOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF
 THE ORDER AND ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S CONCLUSION THAT THE
 ACTIVITY VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER BY WITHDRAWING DUES
 WITHHOLDING PRIVILEGES FOR THE INCUMBENT OF THIS POSITION SUBSEQUENT TO
 JULY 2, 1978.  /2/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7135 OF THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS
 THAT THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, GEORGIA NATIONAL GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF
 DEFENSE, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR COERCING UNIT EMPLOYEE JAMES E.
 NEWMAN BY ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINING THAT HE IS A SUPERVISOR WITHIN THE
 MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED;  BY
 REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE HIS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, GEORGIA ASSOCIATION
 OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS;  AND BY CANCELLING HIS DUES WITHHOLDING
 AUTHORIZATION EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF THAT LABOR ORGANIZATION.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:
 
    (A) ACCORD APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION TO GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN
 TECHNICIANS AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF UNIT EMPLOYEE JAMES E.
 NEWMAN.
 
    (B) COMMENCING WITH THE FIRST PAY PERIOD AFTER THE DATE OF THIS ORDER
 DEDUCT REGULAR AND PERIODIC DUES OF THE GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN
 TECHNICIANS FROM THE PAY OF JAMES E. NEWMAN, AND REMIT THE DUES TO THE
 ABOVE-NAMED LABOR ORGANIZATION, PROVIDED SUCH EMPLOYEE HAS MADE A
 VOLUNTARY ALLOTMENT FOR THAT PURPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING
 AGREEMENT COVERING VOLUNTARY ALLOTMENTS FOR PAYMENTS OF DUES WITH
 GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS.
 
    (C) POST AT ALL FACILITIES AND INSTALLATIONS OF THE GEORGIA NATIONAL
 GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, COPIES OF ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED APPENDIX
 ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON
 RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE ADJUTANT GENERAL,
 GEORGIA NATIONAL GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, AND SHALL BE POSTED AND
 MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER IN CONSPICUOUS
 PLACES, INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY
 POSTED.  THE ADJUTANT GENERAL SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INSURE THAT
 SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) NOTIFY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, IN WRITING, WITHIN
 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AS TO WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO
 COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT ALL OTHER ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT IN
 CASE NO. 40-9032(CA) BE, AND THEY HEREBY ARE, DISMISSED.  /3/
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 29, 1980.
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
        APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND
 
           ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN
 
          ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE
 
                5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE
 
                        LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE UNIT EMPLOYEE JAMES
 E. NEWMAN BY ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINING THAT HE IS A SUPERVISOR WITHIN THE
 MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED;  BY
 REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE HIS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, GEORGIA ASSOCIATION
 OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS;  AND BY CANCELLING HIS DUE WITHHOLDING
 AUTHORIZATION EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF THAT LABOR ORGANIZATION.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
                           (AGENCY OR ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . .  BY:  . . . (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, SUITE 501, NORTH
 WING, 1776 PEACHTREE STREET, NW., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309, AND WHOSE
 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (404) 881-2324.
 
    BENJAMIN H. BRUCE
 
    COLONEL, GEORGIA AIR NATIONAL GUARD
 
    PERSONNEL OFFICER
 
    P.O. BOX 17965
 
    ATLANTA, GEORGIA
 
                            FOR THE RESPONDENT
 
    NEIL A. BATES
 
    NATIONAL FIELD REPRESENTATIVE
 
    ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS
 
    165 W. WIEUCA ROAD, NE, ROOM 204
 
    ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30342
 
                            FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 
    BEFORE:  GARVIN LEE OLIVER
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
                      RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THIS CASE AROSE PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, AS A
 RESULT OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT FILED ON AUGUST 15, 1978 BY
 THE GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, ACT, INC. (HEREINAFTER
 CALLED THE COMPLAINANT OR UNION), AGAINST THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, GEORGIA
 NATIONAL GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA (HEREINAFTER
 CALLED THE RESPONDENT).
 
    THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED
 SECTIONS 19(A)(1), (2) AND (6) OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER BY MAKING A
 UNILATERAL CHANGE IN THE BARGAINING UNIT BY UNILATERALLY DETERMINING
 THAT TWENTY-FOUR EMPLOYEES WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE EXCLUSIVE UNIT AS
 SUPERVISORS AND TERMINATING THEIR UNION DUES WITHHOLDING.
 
    A HEARING WAS HELD IN THIS MATTER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED IN ATLANTA,
 GEORGIA.  BOTH PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED AND AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO
 BE HEARD, TO ADDUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND TO EXAMINE AND CROSS-EXAMINE
 WITNESSES.  POST-HEARING BRIEFS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM BOTH PARTIES AND
 DULY CONSIDERED.
 
    BASED ON THE ENTIRE RECORD HEREIN, INCLUDING MY OBSERVATION OF THE
 WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, THE EXHIBITS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE,
 ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, AND THE BRIEFS, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF
 FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
 
    THE COMPLAINANT IS THE EXCLUSIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
 OF A UNIT OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT.
 
    THE AUTHORITY TO CLASSIFY POSITIONS AND ESTABLISH PAY GRADES FOR BOTH
 THE ARMY AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD TECHNICIANS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
 CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, AND SUCH AUTHORITY HAS NOT BEEN DELEGATED
 TO THE VARIOUS STATES.  (MGT. EXH. Y-1).
 
    DURING THE PERIOD DECEMBER 10, 1974 TO MAY 16, 1978 IT WAS THE POLICY
 OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU THAT FIRST LEVEL SUPERVISION SHOULD NOT
 EXTEND BELOW THE FOREMAN (WS) LEVEL.  (MGT. EXH. Y-1).  CONSEQUENTLY, IT
 WAS THE POLICY OF THE RESPONDENT THAT ONLY WS'S COULD BE DESIGNATED AS
 SUPERVISORS, OR RENDER PERFORMANCE RATINGS.  (EXH. NO.  C-21).
 
    THE POLICY AS IT AFFECTED CERTAIN SMALL SHOP CHIEFS WAS CHANGED BY
 THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU ON MAY 16, 1978.  FOLLOWING A REVIEW OF AIR
 NATIONAL GUARD SMALL SHOP CHIEF POSITIONS, THE STATES WERE DIRECTED TO
 ADD TO CERTAIN SMALL SHOP CHIEF POSITION DESCRIPTIONS INFORMATION
 REFLECTING THAT THE INCUMBENT HAS "SUBSTANTIAL SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY",
 INCLUDING "SCHEDULES LEAVE, APPRAISES PERFORMANCE, RECOMMENDS
 PROMOTIONS, AND INITIATES DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS NEEDED." (JOINT EXH.
 1).  IN VIEW OF THIS CHANGE, THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU ALSO DIRECTED
 THAT THE STATES TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION:
 
    STATES ARE REQUESTED TO REVIEW DUTIES OF INCUMBENTS IN TYPE II, TYPE
 IIA, AND TYPE III
 
    SITUATIONS AND DISCUSS ANY CHANGES IN STATUS BASED ON THESE
 INSTRUCTIONS WITH THE LOCAL LABOR
 
    REPRESENTATIVE.  IF ANY DOUBT EXISTS AFTER REVIEW OR DISCUSSION ON
 INCUMBENT'S STATUS UNDER
 
    THE LMR (LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS) DEFINITION, THEN A CU
 (CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING UNIT)
 
    PETITION SHOULD BE FILED MUTUALLY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FOR
 
    RESOLUTION.  (EXH. NO. U-1).
 
    PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, THE
 RESPONDENT DETERMINED THE IDENTITIES OF THE INDIVIDUALS FILLING EACH OF
 24 AFFECTED POSITIONS, ADDED THE SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES TO THEIR
 POSITION DESCRIPTIONS, AND NOTIFIED THE UNION.  (TR. 34-35).
 
    THERE WERE TWO PERIODS OF DISCUSSION ON MAY 30 AND JUNE 15, 1978.
 (STIPULATION).  THE UNION OBJECTED TO THE INDIVIDUALS BEING REMOVED FROM
 THE BARGAINING UNIT.  RESPONDENT INDICATED THAT IF THERE WERE OBJECTIONS
 TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS, THESE WOULD BE RECONSIDERED.  (TR. 32-33).  THE
 UNION DID NOT CHALLENGE ANY INDIVIDUAL POSITIONS, BUT, RATHER,
 CHALLENGED ALL POSITIONS.  (STIPULATION).  THE UNION'S POSITION WAS THAT
 A WG, AS OPPOSED TO A WS, COULD NOT BE A SUPERVISOR.  (TR. 41).  UNDER
 CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS, AN INDIVIDUAL CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED WITH A WS
 PAY GRADE UNLESS HE HAS THREE OR MORE SUBORDINATES ASSIGNED.
 (STIPULATION).  NO DISCUSSIONS WERE HELD ON SPECIFIC NAMES OR POSITIONS,
 ONLY ON THE OVERALL MATTER.  (STIPULATION).
 
    IN THE PAST THE UNION, UPON BEING ADVISED OF CHANGES IN THE LIST OF
 MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS AND SUPERVISORS, HAD OBJECTED TO THE DESIGNATION OF
 CERTAIN POSITIONS AS SUPERVISORY.  THE UNION'S POSITION WAS THEN
 REVIEWED BY RESPONDENT, AND THE INDIVIDUAL WAS EITHER REINSTATED IN, OR
 REMOVED FROM, THE BARGAINING UNIT.  (TR. 33-34, RESP. EXH. V-1-X-3).
 
    SINCE THE UNION OBJECTED TO ALL 24 POSITIONS BEING DESIGNATED AS
 SUPERVISORY AND REMOVED FROM THE BARGAINING UNIT, INSTEAD OF MERELY
 SOME, RESPONDENT DID NOT CONSIDER FILING A CU PETITION.  (TR. 41).
 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT COMPLAINANT OFFERED TO FILE A CU PETITION, OR
 SUGGESTED THAT A JOINT CU PETITION BE FILED.
 
    FOLLOWING THE LACK OF RESOLUTION, RESPONDENT UNILATERALLY DECLARED
 EACH SMALL SHOP CHIEF A SUPERVISOR ON JUNE 26, 1978, AND REQUESTED THAT
 THE UNION DUES WITHHOLDING BE TERMINATED ON JULY 2, 1978, ON THE BASIS
 THAT THESE SUPERVISORS WERE OUTSIDE THE UNIT FOR WHICH THE LABOR
 ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN ACCORDED EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION.  TWENTY-FOUR
 EMPLOYEES WERE INCLUDED.  (JOINT EXH. 2;  COMP. EXH. C-2;  STIPULATION).
 
    THE UNION'S CHARGE AND COMPLAINT FOLLOWED.  SUBSEQUENTLY, ON JULY 31,
 1978 AND AUGUST 24, 1978, THE RESPONDENT RECINDED ITS LISTING OF TWO
 INDIVIDUALS AS BEING ERRONEOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE LISTING, LEAVING THE
 FOLLOWING 22 POSITIONS AFFECTED:  (TABLE OMITTED)
 
                                DISCUSSION
 
    THE ASSIGNMENT OF DUTIES IS A RESERVED MANAGEMENT RIGHT UNDER SECTION
 12(B) OF THE ORDER, AND JOB CONTENT IS EXCLUDED FROM THE OBLIGATION TO
 BARGAIN UNDER SECTION 11(B) OF THE ORDER.  SEE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
 OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL F-111 AND GRIFFIN AIR FORCE BASE, ROME, NEW
 YORK, 1 FLRC 322, FLRC NO. 71A-30 (1973) AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 987, AFL-CIO AND DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR
 FORCE, ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, 5 FLRC 441, FLRC NO. 76A-139 (1977).
 
    HOWEVER, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT WHEN AN AGENCY UNILATERALLY
 DETERMINES THE UNIT STATUS OF EMPLOYEES, IT ACTS AT ITS PERIL, SINCE AN
 ERRONEOUS DETERMINATION COULD SUPPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDER.  U.S.
 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, EL TORO, A/SLMR NO. 560, 4 FLRC 218, FLRC NO.
 75A-115 (1976).  THIS IS SO BECAUSE AN ERRONEOUS DETERMINATION WOULD BE
 VIEWED AS TANTAMOUNT TO A UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION WITH
 RESPECT TO A PART OF AN EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED UNIT.  DEPARTMENT OF THE
 NAVY, U.S. WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, A/SLMR NO.  827, 7
 A/SLMR 331 (1977).
 
    THE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION, THEN, IS WHETHER RESPONDENT CORRECTLY
 DETERMINED THAT THE 22 EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION WERE SUPERVISORS AND, THUS,
 EXCLUDED FROM THE EXISTING UNIT.
 
    SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER DEFINES "SUPERVISOR" AS FOLLOWS:
 
    'SUPERVISOR' MEANS AN EMPLOYEE HAVING AUTHORITY IN THE INTEREST OF AN
 AGENCY, TO HIRE,
 
    TRANSFER, SUSPEND, LAYOFF, RECALL, PROMOTE, DISCHARGE, ASSIGN,
 REWARD, OR DISCIPLINE OTHER
 
    EMPLOYEES, OR RESPONSIBILITY TO DIRECT THEM, OR ADJUST THEIR
 GRIEVANCES, OR EFFECTIVELY TO
 
    RECOMMEND SUCH ACTION, IF IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOREGOING THE
 EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IS NOT OF
 
    A MERELY ROUTINE OR CLERICAL NATURE, BUT REQUIRES THE USE OF
 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT;
 
    THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THE ORDER AS AMENDED, ARE CLEARLY STATED
 IN THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS COUNCIL
 ON THE AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, JANUARY 1975.
 
    THE COUNCIL AGREES WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED IN THE REVIEW THAT ONLY
 GENUINE SUPERVISORY
 
    POSITIONS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM BARGAINING UNITS.  THE COUNCIL
 WISHES TO NOTE THAT THE
 
    DEFINITION IN THE ORDER WAS DESIGNED TO DO THIS AND CONTAINS A NUMBER
 OF QUALIFICATIONS TO
 
    THIS END. FOR EXAMPLE-- 'IN THE INTEREST OF AN AGENCY,' 'RESPONSIBLY
 TO DIRECT
 
    (EMPLOYEES),' 'EFFECTIVELY TO RECOMMEND,' AND 'EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY
 . . . NOT OF A MERELY
 
    ROUTINE OR CLERICAL NATURE, BUT (REQUIRING) THE USE OF INDEPENDENT
 JUDGMENT-- ARE LIMITATIONS
 
    WHICH WERE DESIGNED TO ASSURE THAT PERSONS DETERMINED TO BE
 SUPERVISORS WOULD POSSESS ACTUAL
 
    AUTHORITY AS DISTINCT FROM WORK LEADERS, AND WOULD BE FOUND TO BE IN
 BONAFIDE CONFLICT OF
 
    INTEREST SITUATIONS IF NOT EXCLUDED FROM BARGAINING UNITS.  THE
 COUNCIL BELIEVES THAT THE
 
    CONTINUED CAREFUL APPLICATION BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THESE
 QUALIFICATIONS AND THE
 
    MAKING OF SUPERVISORY DETERMINATIONS WILL AID IN IDENTIFYING GENUINE
 SUPERVISORY POSITIONS.
 
    ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO POSSESSES THE AUTHORITY TO PERFORM A SINGLE
 FUNCTION DESCRIBED IN SECTION 2(C), PROVIDED HE DOES SO IN A MANNER
 REQUIRING THE USE OF INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, IS A SUPERVISOR AND MUST BE
 EXCLUDED FROM THE UNIT.  UNITED STATES NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER, CHINA LAKE,
 CALIFORNIA, FLRC NO. 72A-11 (1973).  SUPERVISORY STATUS WAS INTENDED TO
 BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, NOT ON
 THE PRECISE NUMBER OF SUBORDINATES.  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
 AGRICULTURE, NORTHERN MARKETING AND NUTRITION RESEARCH DIVISION, PEORIA,
 ILLINOIS, A/SLMR NO. 120, FLRC NO. 72A-4, 1 FLRC 294 (1973).  NOR DOES
 IT MATTER THAT SUCH AUTHORITY IS EXERCISED OVER MILITARY PERSONNEL.
 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE, KANSAS, A/SLMR
 NO. 134, FLRC NO. 72A-15 (1973).  HOWEVER, THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE OF
 ACTUAL SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY.  POSITION DESCRIPTIONS OR JOB
 CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH SUPERVISORY
 STATUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ORDER.  CF. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, A/SLMR NO. 1121 (1978);
 UNITED STATES ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, REDSTONE ARSENAL
 EXCHANGE, REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA, A/SLMR NO. 491, 5 A/SLMR 171
 (1975).
 
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11838 AMENDED EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491 TO ELIMINATE
 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AS A SOLE CRITERION FOR SUPERVISORY STATUS WHERE
 THE EMPLOYEE PERFORMS NO OTHER SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS.  HOWEVER, SUCH
 EVALUATIONS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER AUTHORITY VESTED
 IN AN INDIVIDUAL IN DETERMINING AN EMPLOYEE'S SUPERVISORY STATUS.
 UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, SALMON NATIONAL FOREST, SALMON, IDAHO,
 A/SLMR NO. 556, 5 A/SLMR 586 (1975), CITING THE REPORT AND
 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS COUNCIL (JANUARY 1975).
 
                   FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BY EMPLOYEES
 
    THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT NO SMALL SHOP CHIEF HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
 HIRE, TRANSFER, SUSPEND, LAY OFF, RECALL, PROMOTE OR DISCHARGE OTHER
 EMPLOYEES.  (STIPULATION).
 
                        116TH TACTICAL FIGHTER WING
 
    AIRCRAFT REFUELING VEHICLE OPERATOR F6417000 WG-09 MICHAEL F.
 GRIFFIN
 
    THE INCUMBENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO A GS-12 SUPPLY MANAGEMENT OFFICER AND
 HAS ONE WG-8 AND ONE FULL-TIME MILITARY PERSON REPORTING TO HIM.  HE
 DIRECTS AND ASSIGNS THESE EMPLOYEES TO REFUEL AIRCRAFT AND WORKS WITH
 THEM IN DRIVING A VEHICLE AND REFUELING AIRCRAFT.  HE APPROVES THEIR
 LEAVE, EVALUATES THEIR PERFORMANCE, AND SCHEDULES THE WORK HOURS OF THE
 ACTIVE DUTY PERSON.  HE EFFECTIVELY RECOMMENDED THE SELECTION OF THE
 ACTIVE DUTY AIRMAN.
 
    BASED ON THE FOREGOING, I FIND THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS A SUPERVISOR
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER.
 
    FABRIC WORKER F9214000 WG-11 CLARENCE R. JACKSON
 
    THE INCUMBENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO A GS-13 AIR OPERATIONS OFFICER AND
 HAS FOUR EMPLOYEES REPORTING TO HIM.  HE APPROVES LEAVE, EVALUATES THEIR
 PERFORMANCE, AND HAS, ON ONE OCCASION, REPRIMANDED AN EMPLOYEE, ALTHOUGH
 THERE WAS NO SHOWING OF WHETHER THIS WAS A MINOR OR SERIOUS MATTER.  IT
 WAS SHOWN THAT THE INCUMBENT WORKS WITH EACH OF THE OTHER EMPLOYEES UP
 TO 50 PERCENT OF THE TIME, AND THAT MOST OF THE WORK IS DONE ON A TIME
 PHASE INSPECTION CYCLE.
 
    THE RECORD FAILS TO SHOW THAT SUCH AUTHORITY AS IS EXERCISED BY AN
 EMPLOYEE IN THIS CLASSIFICATION REQUIRES THE EXERCISE OF INDEPENDENT
 JUDGMENT.  THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT SUCH DIRECTION AS IS EXERCISED IS
 OTHER THAN THAT OF A MORE EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEE ASSISTING LESS
 EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEES.  ACCORDINGLY, I FIND THAT AN EMPLOYEE IN THIS
 CLASSIFICATION IS NOT A SUPERVISOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C).
 
    INSTRUMENT MECHANIC F4492000 WG-12 WILLIAM D. LAVALLE
 
    AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE THE INCUMBENT WAS
 RESPONSIBLE TO A WS-11 AND HAD TWO WG-11S REPORTING TO HIM.  HE WORKED
 ALONGSIDE THE TWO WG-11S UP TO 50 PERCENT OF THE TIME.  HE REVIEWED
 THEIR POSITION DESCRIPTIONS AND RATED THEIR PERFORMANCE.  HE REPRIMANDED
 THEM FOR VERY MINOR THINGS, BUT REFERRED SERIOUS MATTERS TO HIS
 SUPERVISOR.  HE DID NOT APPROVE THEIR LEAVE.  TWO ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
 WERE ADDED TO THE SHOP IN OCTOBER 1978 AND INCUMBENT SELECTED THEM;
 HOWEVER, HE WAS PROMOTED TO A WS-8 FOREMAN POSITION AT ABOUT THIS SAME
 TIME ON OCTOBER 8.
 
    THE RECORD FAILS TO SHOW THAT SUCH AUTHORITY AS WAS EXERCISED BY AN
 EMPLOYEE IN THIS CLASSIFICATION AT THE TIME IT WAS DECLARED TO BE
 SUPERVISORY REQUIRED THE EXERCISE OF INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.  ACCORDINGLY,
 I FIND THAT AN EMPLOYEE IN THIS CLASSIFICATION WAS NOT A SUPERVISOR AT
 THE TIME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C).
 
    ELECTRICIAN MECH. (FLIGHT SIMULATION) F3415000 WG-14 LEON M. BRADY
 
    THE INCUMBENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO A WS-12 GENERAL FOREMAN AND HAS ONE
 WG-12 REPORTING TO HIM.  IN ADDITION TO WORKING WITH THE WG-12 ON THE
 FLIGHT SIMULATOR, THE INCUMBENT ESTABLISHES PRIORITIES FOR WORK, RATES
 THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WG-12, AND EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF
 LEAVE, CHANGES IN POSITION DESCRIPTIONS, AND THE HIRING OF PERSONNEL TO
 FILL VACANCIES IN HIS SHOP.
 
    BASED ON THE FOREGOING, I FIND THAT THE EMPLOYEE IN THIS
 CLASSIFICATION IS A SUPERVISOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE
 ORDER.
 
    AIRCRAFT ELECTRICIAN F4538000 WG-12 JAMES D. GARRISON
 
    AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE THE INCUMBENT WAS
 RESPONSIBLE TO AN AIRCRAFT MECHANIC FOREMAN WS-10 AND HAD ONE AIRCRAFT
 ELECTRICIAN WG-10 REPORTING TO HIM.  HE WORKED SIDE BY SIDE ON THE
 EQUIPMENT WITH THE EMPLOYEE FOR APPROXIMATELY 60-90% OF THE TIME WITH
 THE PRIORITY OF WORK BEING ESTABLISHED PRIMARILY BY MAINTENANCE CONTROL.
  INCUMBENT APPROVED THE LEAVE OF THE WG-10, REVIEWED HIS POSITION
 DESCRIPTION ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, AND EVALUATED HIS PERFORMANCE.
 
    IN OCTOBER 1978 TWO EMPLOYEES WERE ADDED TO THE SHOP, AND THE
 INCUMBENT EFFECTIVELY RECOMMENDED THEM FOR THE POSITION;  HOWEVER, THE
 INCUMBENT WAS PROMOTED TO A WS-7 AIRCRAFT ELECTRICIAN FOREMAN POSITION
 AT ABOUT THIS SAME TIME.
 
    THE RECORD FAILS TO SHOW THAT AT THE TIME THE WG-12 POSITION WAS
 DECLARED TO BE SUPERVISORY THE EMPLOYEE IN THIS CLASSIFICATION EXERCISED
 AUTHORITY REQUIRING INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS DISTINCT FROM THAT ROUTINELY
 EXERCISED BY A WORK LEADER.
 
                       165TH TACTICAL AIRLIFT GROUP
 
    PNEUMATIC SYSTEMS MECHANIC F4535000 WG-12 DONALD S. FANDRICH
 
    AIRCRAFT PNEUMATIC SYSTEMS MECHANIC F4541000 WG-12 FRANK W. STETSON
 
    THE INCUMBENT OF EACH OF THESE POSITIONS IS RESPONSIBLE TO AN
 AIRCRAFT MECHANIC GENERAL FOREMAN WS-12 AND HAS ONE PNEUMATIC SYSTEMS
 MECHANIC WG-10 REPORTING TO HIM.  INCUMBENT AND THE EMPLOYEE WORK SIDE
 BY SIDE.  THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF THE WORK IS ESTABLISHED BY
 WORKLOAD CONTROL AND PUBLISHED STANDARDS.  INCUMBENT HAS NEVER HAD
 OCCASION TO DISCIPLINE THE WG-10.  THE INCUMBENT FINALLY STARTED
 APPROVING THE WG-10'S LEAVE REQUESTS ONLY TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE HEARING.
 THE INCUMBENT IS SCHEDULED TO PREPARE THE EMPLOYEE'S NEXT PERFORMANCE
 EVALUATION;  HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT DONE SO IN THE PAST.  IN THE CASE OF
 THE PNEUMATIC SYSTEMS MECHANIC, THE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN DETAILED TO
 ANOTHER SHOP FOR APPROXIMATELY FOUR MONTHS SINCE INCUMBENT WAS
 DESIGNATED A SUPERVISOR AND STILL SPENDS A LARGE PORTION OF HIS TIME
 THERE.
 
    THE RECORD FAILS TO SHOW THAT SUCH AUTHORITY AS IS EXERCISED BY AN
 EMPLOYEE IN THESE CLASSIFICATIONS REQUIRES THE EXERCISE OF INDEPENDENT
 JUDGMENT.  ACCORDINGLY, I FIND THAT AN EMPLOYEE IN THESE CLASSIFICATIONS
 IS NOT A SUPERVISOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C).
 
    FABRIC WORKER F9214000 WG-11 JAMES E. NEWMAN
 
    AS OF THE TIME OF THE HEARING THE INCUMBENT WAS THE ONLY PERSON IN A
 SHOP WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION AND PREPARATION OF
 FLOTATION EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS LIFE RAFTS AND PRESERVERS.  TWO OTHER
 FABRIC WORKERS, A WG-11 AND WG-9, WERE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE
 MAINTENANCE SECTION, AND THEIR LEAVE WAS FINALLY APPROVED AND THEIR
 PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS PERFORMED BY A SUPERVISOR IN THAT SECTION.
 SINCE THESE EMPLOYEES ACTUALLY WORK ON FLOTATION EQUIPMENT, THEIR WORK
 IS INSPECTED BY THE INCUMBENT USING PUBLISHED DIRECTIVES AS A GUIDE.
 DUE TO THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP OF THE WORK, A REALIGNMENT IS PLANNED
 WHICH MAY RESULT IN THESE EMPLOYEES COMING UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE
 INCUMBENT SOMETIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
 
    THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT AT THE TIME THIS WG-11 POSITION WAS
 DETERMINED BY RESPONDENT TO BE THAT OF A SUPERVISOR, THE INCUMBENT DID
 NOT POSSESS THE AUTHORITY SET OUT IN SECTION 2(C), AND THE POSITION
 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE UNIT.
 
    INSTRUMENT MECHANIC F4492000 WG-12 JERRELL BAKER
 
    THE INCUMBENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO A FOREMAN WS-10 AND HAS ONE
 INSTRUMENT MECHANIC WG-11 REPORTING TO HIM.  INCUMBENT APPROVES THE
 LEAVE OF THE WG-11 AND EVALUATES HIS PERFORMANCE.  HE SPENDS 95% OF HIS
 TIME WORKING SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE HIGHLY QUALIFIED EMPLOYEE.  THE
 PRIORITIES, QUANTITY, AND QUALITY OF THE WORK ARE LARGELY DICTATED BY
 MAINTENANCE CONTROL AND PUBLISHED DIRECTIVES.  WHILE THE INCUMBENT
 SOMETIMES DIRECTS AND SCHEDULES WORK FOR THE SUBORDINATE, THIS DUTY IS
 SUFFICIENTLY ROUTINE IN NATURE AS TO BE MORE IN THE NATURE OF A WORK
 LEADER RATHER THAN A SUPERVISOR.
 
    IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND NOTING THAT THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THE
 DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF THE INSTRUMENT MECHANIC, WG-12, WITH RESPECT TO
 HIS SUBORDINATE ARE ROUTINE IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE THE USE OF
 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS HIS SUBORDINATE WORKS WITHIN WELL ESTABLISHED
 GUIDELINES, I FIND THAT THE EMPLOYEE IN THIS CLASSIFICATION WAS NOT A
 SUPERVISOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ORDER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
 REMOVED FROM THE UNIT.
 
                      117TH TACTICAL CONTROL SQUADRON
 
    ELECTRONIC MECHANIC (RADIO) F3071000 WG-14 JACK H. VINALL
 
    ELECTRONIC MECHANIC (RADAR) F3075000 WG-14 GEORGE F. CUNNINGHAM
 
    ELECTRONIC MECHANIC (POWER) F3079000 WG-13 JOSEPH H. WILHARM, JR.
 
    ELECTRONIC MECHANIC (TELEPHONE) F3083000 WG-14 DONALD E. PEPPER
 
    ELECTRONIC MECHANIC (COMPUTER) F3146000 WG-14 STEVE STAFFORD
 
    THE INCUMBENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO A MAINTENANCE OFFICER, GS-11, WHO
 HAS ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SIX OTHER EMPLOYEES.  EXCEPT FOR THE
 ELECTRONIC MECHANIC (COMPUTER), WHO HAS ONE WG-12 REPORTING TO HIM, THE
 OTHER FOUR SMALL SHOP CHIEFS EACH HAVE TWO EMPLOYEES REPORTING.  THE
 GS-11 HAS DELEGATED TO EACH OF THE SMALL SHOP CHIEFS FULL RESPONSIBILITY
 FOR THEIR SHOPS.  THEY EACH ATTEND A WEEKLY SUPERVISORS' MEETING.  THEY
 PLAN FOR, SCHEDULE, AND DIRECT THEIR EMPLOYEES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A
 SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF NON-ROUTINE WORK, APPROVE LEAVE, REVIEW POSITION
 DESCRIPTIONS, EVALUATE JOB PERFORMANCE, AND CAN EFFECTIVELY COUNSEL
 EMPLOYEES AND RECOMMEND DISCIPLINE.
 
    I FIND THAT EACH OF THESE EMPLOYEES IS A SUPERVISOR WITHIN THE
 MEANING OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER.
 
                    2830 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS SQUADRON
 
    ELECTRONIC MECHANIC (POWER) F3079000 WG-13 RICHARD P. CASHETT
 
    INCUMBENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO A SUPERVISORY ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN,
 GS-11, WHO HAS OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES.  INCUMBENT HAS TWO WG-11S
 REPORTING TO HIM.  HE SPENDS 60-70% OF HIS WORK WORKING WITH THE TWO
 MECHANICS AND THE REST OF THE TIME SUPERVISING THEIR WORK.  HE
 ESTABLISHES PRIORITIES ON NON-ROUTINE WORK, APPROVES LEAVE, REVIEWS
 POSITION DESCRIPTIONS, EVALUATES PERFORMANCE, AND HAS EFFECTIVELY
 RECOMMENDED AN APPLICANT TO FILL A VACANCY IN THE SHOP.
 
    BASED ON THE FOREGOING, AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE EXERCISE OF
 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, I FIND THAT THE EMPLOYEE IN THIS CLASSIFICATION IS
 A SUPERVISOR UNDER SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER.
 
                      129TH TACTICAL CONTROL SQUADRON
 
    ELECTRONIC MECHANIC (RADIO) F3071000 WG-14 FRANKIE D. WEST
 
    ELECTRONIC MECHANIC (RADAR) F3075000 WG-14 CLYDE E. HARPER
 
    POWERED SUPPORT SYSTEMS MECHANIC F4249000 WG-12 HAROLD G LIGHT
 
    THE INCUMBENT SMALL SHOP CHIEFS REPORT TO A MAINTENANCE OFFICER,
 GS-11, WHO HAS OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES IN ADDITION TO SUPERVISION OF
 THESE SHOPS.  THE POWER SUPPORT SYSTEMS MECHANIC HAS FOUR SUBORDINATE
 EMPLOYEES, THE ELECTRONIC MECHANIC (RADIO) THREE, AND THE ELECTRONIC
 MECHANIC RADIO TWO.  THE GS-11 HAS DELEGATED TO EACH OF THE SMALL SHOP
 CHIEFS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR SHOPS.  HE IS PHYSICALLY SEPARATED
 FROM THE POWER SUPPORT SYSTEMS MECHANIC AND VISITS HIS SHOP ON A WEEKLY
 BASIS, AND NORMALLY VISITS THE SHOP OF THE ELECTRONIC MECHANIC (RADIO)
 ONLY ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK.  EACH OF THE SMALL SHOP CHIEFS TESTIFIED THAT
 THEY SPEND APPROXIMATELY 80% OF THEIR TIME IN SUPERVISORY DUTIES.  THEY
 APPROVE LEAVE, EVALUATE THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND ASSIGN AND DIRECT THEIR
 WORK.
 
    THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THESE EMPLOYEES EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(C).  ACCORDINGLY, I FIND THAT THESE
 EMPLOYEES ARE SUPERVISORS.
 
    AUTO MECHANIC F47244000 WG-12 JAMES G. BENNETT
 
    THE INCUMBENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO THE DETACHMENT COMMANDER, GS-12, FOR
 OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP AND HAS THREE SUBORDINATE
 MECHANICS WHO ARE WG-10S.  THE DETACHMENT COMMANDER VISITS THE SHOP ONLY
 ONCE A WEEK AND HAS DELEGATED FULL RESPONSIBILITY TO THE INCUMBENT FOR
 SUPERVISION OF THE PERSONNEL IN HIS SHOP.  THE INCUMBENT ASSIGNS AND
 DIRECTS THE MECHANICS, DETERMINES THE PRIORITY OF THE WORK, APPROVES
 LEAVE, AND EFFECTIVELY EVALUATES THEIR PERFORMANCE AND RESOLVES
 PROBLEMS.
 
    I FIND THAT THIS EMPLOYEE IS A SUPERVISOR AS DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
                   224TH COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS SQUADRON
 
    POWERED SUPPORT SYSTEMS MECHANIC F4249000 WG-12 WILLIAM S. SLOAN
 
    INCUMBENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO THE DETACHMENT COMMANDER, GS-12, AND HAS
 ONE MECHANIC WG-10 REPORTING TO HIM.  INCUMBENT WORKS SIDE BY SIDE WITH
 THE OTHER EMPLOYEE APPROXIMATELY 70% OF THE TIME.  HE APPROVES THE LEAVE
 OF THE SUBORDINATE EMPLOYEE AND EVALUATES HIS PERFORMANCE.  THE RECORD
 ALSO SHOWS THAT HE HAS EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN DISCIPLINING
 THE EMPLOYEE.
 
    THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE EMPLOYEE EXERCISES INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN
 A KEY AREA UNDER SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER.  ACCORDINGLY, I CONCLUDE
 THAT HE IS A SUPERVISOR.
 
    AUTO MECHANIC F4724000 WG-12 ERNEST W. POPPELL
 
    INCUMBENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO THE DETACHMENT COMMANDER, GS-12, FOR
 OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP AND HAS TWO SUBORDINATE WG-10
 MECHANICS.  HE ASSIGNS PRIORITIES, DIRECTS THE WORK OF THESE EMPLOYEES,
 EVALUATES THEIR PERFORMANCE, APPROVES LEAVE, AND HAS EFFECTIVELY
 RECOMMENDED INDIVIDUALS FOR VACANCIES IN THE SHOP.
 
    I FIND THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS A SUPERVISOR AS DEFINED IN THE ORDER.
 
                  202D ELECTRONICS INSTALLATION SQUADRON
 
    AUTOMOBILE MECHANIC F4735000 WG-12 WALTER F. SHEFFIELD
 
    INCUMBENT IS RESPONSIBLE TO THE DETACHMENT COMMANDER, GS-12, FOR
 OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SHOP.  HE HAS TWO WG-10 MECHANICS
 REPORTING TO HIM.  INCUMBENT ASSIGNS PRIORITIES, RESPONSIBLY DIRECTS THE
 EMPLOYEES IN THEIR WORK, APPROVES LEAVE, EVALUATES PERFORMANCE, AND HAS
 AUTHORITY TO ADJUST THEIR GRIEVANCES AT THE FIRST LEVEL.
 
    I FIND THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS A SUPERVISOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF
 SECTION 2(C) OF THE ORDER.
 
                                CONCLUSION
 
    SEVEN OF THE 22 EMPLOYEES, CLARENCE R. JACKSON, WILLIAM D. LAVALLE,
 JAMES D. GARRISON, DONALD S. FANDRICH, FRANK W. STETSON, JAMES E.
 NEWMAN, AND JERRELL BAKER, WERE ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED TO BE SUPERVISORS
 ON JUNE 26, 1978.  THESE EIGHT EMPLOYEES REMAINED WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE
 BARGAINING UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE COMPLAINANT.  RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT IN
 THIS RESPECT CONSTITUTED AN IMPROPER WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION FROM
 COMPLAINANT WITH RESPECT TO A PART OF THE EXCLUSIVELY RECOGNIZED UNIT IN
 DEROGATION OF RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 7 AND 10 OF
 THE ORDER, TO ACCORD APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION TO A LABOR ORGANIZATION
 QUALIFIED FOR SUCH RECOGNITION.
 
    ALTHOUGH A VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(A)(5) OF THE ORDER WAS NOT ALLEGED
 IN THE COMPLAINT, SUCH CONDUCT CONSTITUTES AN INDEPENDENT VIOLATION OF
 SECTION 19(A)(1) IN THAT IT INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED AND COERCED
 EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE ORDER.  IT HAS BEEN
 PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO FORM, JOIN, AND ASSIST A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE ORDER WOULD BE RENDERED MEANINGLESS
 WHERE, AS HERE, AGENCY MANAGEMENT FAILS TO ACCORD APPROPRIATE
 RECOGNITION TO A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND, WITH THAT ACTION NEGATES THE
 BENEFITS WHICH FLOW FROM THE SELECTION OF AN EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE.
 /4/ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL
 AIR RESERVE TRAINING UNIT, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, A/SLMR NO. 106, 1 A/SLMR
 490 (1971).  ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE
 EXCHANGE, MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA, A/SLMR NO. 514, 5 A/SLMR 313
 (1975), REVIEW DENIED, 3 FLRC 831, FLRC NO. 75A-61 (1975).
 
    COMPLAINANT ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(6) BY ITS
 UNILATERAL CHANGE IN THE BARGAINING UNIT AND REVOCATION OF DUES
 WITHHOLDING.  HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT SUCH ACTIONS ARE
 PART AND PARCEL OF THE FAILURE TO CONTINUE TO ACCORD APPROPRIATE
 RECOGNITION AND ARE EMBRACED WITHIN VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 19(A)(5) AND
 19(A)(1) AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE INDEPENDENT ACTS BY THE RESPONDENT
 VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 19(A)(6).  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL AIR RESERVE TRAINING UNIT, MEMPHIS,
 TENNESSEE, SUPRA.
 
    COMPLAINANT REQUESTS THAT THE RESPONDENT BE ORDERED TO REIMBURSE THE
 UNION, AT NO EXPENSE TO THE EMPLOYEES, FOR BACK DUES IT WOULD OTHERWISE
 HAVE RECIEVED HAD THESE MEMBERS NOT BEEN REMOVED FROM DUES WITHHOLDING.
 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY REJECTED SUCH A REMEDY IN UNITED STATES
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL AIR RESERVE
 TRAINING UNIT, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, SUPRA.  THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY NOTED
 THAT THE OBLIGATIONS OF UNION MEMBERSHIP, SUCH AS THE PAYMENT OF DUES,
 ARE STILL THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EMPLOYEE, AND HELD THAT THE
 REINSTITUTION OF DUES DEDUCTION WOULD SATISFACTORILY REMEDY THE IMPROPER
 CONDUCT.
 
    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(2), AS
 ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.
 
                              RECOMMENDATIONS
 
    UPON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND THE ENTIRE
 RECORD, I RECOMMEND THAT THE AUTHORITY DISMISS THAT PART OF THE
 COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(2) AND (6) OF
 THE ORDER AND ADOPT THE FOLLOWING ORDER CONCERNING THAT CONDUCT FOUND
 TO
 BE VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 19(A)(1):
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(B) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, 29
 C.F.R. 203.26(B), AND SECTION 2400.2 OF THE TRANSITION RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, 5 C.F.R. 2400.2(1979), THE AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE
 ADJUTANT GENERAL, GEORGIA NATIONAL GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING UNIT EMPLOYEES
 CLARENCE R. JACKSON, DONALD S. FANDRICH, FRANK W. STETSON, JAMES E.
 NEWMAN, AND JERRELL BAKER BY ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINING THAT THEY ARE
 SUPERVISORS UNDER SECTION 2(C) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THEIR EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, GEORGIA
 ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, ACT, INC., AND CANCELLING THEIR
 DUES WITHHOLDING AUTHORIZATIONS EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF THAT LABOR
 ORGANIZATION.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MATTER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
 ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED:
 
    (A) ACCORD APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION TO GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN
 TECHNICIANS, ACT, INC., AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF UNIT
 EMPLOYEES CLARENCE R. JACKSON, DONALD S. FANDRICH, FRANK W. STETSON,
 JAMES E. NEWMAN, AND JERRELL BAKER.
 
    (B) COMMENCING WITH THE FIRST PAY PERIOD AFTER THE DATE OF THIS ORDER
 DEDUCT REGULAR AND PERIODIC DUES OF THE GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN
 TECHNICIANS, ACT, INC.  FROM THE PAY OF CLARENCE R. JACKSON, DONALD S.
 FANDRICH, FRANK W. STETSON, JAMES E. NEWMAN, AND JERRELL BAKER, AND
 REMIT THE DUES TO THE ABOVE-NAMED LABOR ORGANIZATION, PROVIDED SUCH
 EMPLOYEES HAVE MADE VOLUNTARY ALLOTMENTS FOR THAT PURPOSE IN ACCORDANCE
 WITH THE EXISTING AGREEMENT COVERING VOLUNTARY ALLOTMENTS FOR PAYMENT OF
 DUES WITH GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, ACT, INC.
 
    (C) POST AT ALL FACILITIES AND INSTALLATIONS OF THE 116TH TACTICAL
 FIGHTER WING AND THE 165TH TACTICAL AIRLIFT GROUP INSTALLATIONS COPIES
 OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE MARKED "APPENDIX" ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE
 AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS, THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE
 ADJUTANT GENERAL AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR 60
 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES, INCLUDING ALL
 BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE
 CUSTOMARILY POSTED.  THE ADJUTANT GENERAL SHALL TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO
 INSURE THAT SUCH NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY
 OTHER MATERIAL.
 
    (D) PURSUANT TO SECTION 203.27 OF THE REGULATIONS, NOTIFY THE
 AUTHORITY IN WRITING, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, AS TO
 WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH.
 
                             GARVIN LEE OLIVER
 
                         ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
 
    DATED:  JUNE 18, 1979
 
                             WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
        APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND
 
           ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN
 
            ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
 
            11491, AS AMENDED LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE
 
                              FEDERAL SERVICE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE UNIT EMPLOYEES
 CLARENCE R. JACKSON, DONALD S. FANDRICH, FRANK W. STETSON, JAMES E.
 NEWMAN, AND JERRELL BAKER BY ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINING THAT THEY ARE
 SUPERVISORS UNDER SECTION 2(C) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED,
 REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THEIR EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, GEORGIA
 ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS, ACT, INC., AND CANCELLING THEIR
 DUES WITHHOLDING AUTHORIZATIONS EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF THAT LABOR
 ORGANIZATION.
 
    WE WILL NOT IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MATTER INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN,
 OR COERCE OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS ASSURED BY
 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED.
 
                           (AGENCY OF ACTIVITY)
 
    DATED:  . . . BY:  . . . (SIGNATURE)
 
    THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
 OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
 MATERIAL.
 
    IF EMPLOYEES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE
 WITH ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEY MAY COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, SUITE 540, 1365
 PEACHTREE STREET, NE., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309.
 
    /1/ SEE U.S. AIR FORCE MILITARY AIRLIFT COMMAND, 76 MILITARY AIRLIFT
 WING, 76 AIR BASE GROUP, ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON, D.C., 2
 FLRA NO. 83, INVOLVING ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR EMPLOYEES.
 
    /2/ IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, WE CONCLUDE THAT
 THE ACTIVITY VIOLATED SECTION 19(A)(1) OF THE ORDER BY IMPROPERLY
 FAILING TO ACCORD APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION TO THE UNION HEREIN BY
 REVOKING DUES WITHHOLDING PRIVILEGES FOR THE EMPLOYEE IT IMPROPERLY
 CLASSIFIED AS SUPERVISORS.
 
    /3/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
 OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE PRESENT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS
 OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
 LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
  THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
 MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE
 RESULT WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN
 UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
 
    /4/ NO REMEDIAL ORDER IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY WITH RESPECT TO WILLIAM
 D. LAVALLE AND JAMES D. GARRISON.  THE RECORD REFLECTS, AND THE PARTIES
 AGREE, THAT THEY HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN PROMOTED TO SUPERVISORY
 POSITIONS OUTSIDE THE EXCLUSIVE RECOGNIZED UNIT.