Department of the Navy, Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, Keyport, Washington (Activity) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 48, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization/Petitioner); Department of the Navy, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington (Activity) and Bremerton Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization/Petitioner) 

 7 FLRA No. 78
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE
 ENGINEERING STATION,
 KEYPORT, WASHINGTON
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 LOCAL 48, AFL-CIO
 Labor Organization/Petitioner
 
                                            Case No. 9-CU-14
 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD,
 BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
 Activity
 
 and
 
 BREMERTON METAL TRADES COUNCIL,
 AFL-CIO
 Labor Organization/Petitioner
 
                                            Case No. 9-CU-16
 
                    DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNITS
 
    UPON PETITIONS DULY FILED UNDER SECTION 7111(B)(2) OF THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE), A CONSOLIDATED
 HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER OF THE AUTHORITY.  THE HEARING
 OFFICER'S RULINGS MADE AT THE HEARING ARE FREE FROM PREJUDICIAL ERROR
 AND ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.
 
    PETITIONERS IN BOTH CASES SEEK TO CLARIFY EXISTING EXCLUSIVELY
 RECOGNIZED UNITS TO INCLUDE THE INCUMBENTS OF POSITIONS COMMONLY
 REFERRED TO AS GUARD SERGEANTS.  THE ACTIVITY, IN EACH CASE, CONTENDS
 THAT THE INCUMBENTS IN THE SUBJECT POSITIONS ARE SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE
 MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE AND, ON THIS BASIS,
 OPPOSES THEIR INCLUSION IN THE RECOGNIZED UNITS.  SECTION 7103(A)(10)
 DEFINES "SUPERVISOR" AS FOLLOWS:
 
    "SUPERVISOR" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED BY AN AGENCY HAVING
 AUTHORITY IN THE INTEREST OF
 
    THE AGENCY TO HIRE, DIRECT, ASSIGN, PROMOTE, REWARD, TRANSFER,
 FURLOUGH, LAYOFF, RECALL,
 
    SUSPEND, DISCIPLINE, OR REMOVE EMPLOYEES, TO ADJUST THEIR GRIEVANCES,
 OR TO EFFECTIVELY
 
    RECOMMEND SUCH ACTION, IF THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY IS NOT MERELY
 ROUTINE OR CLERICAL IN
 
    NATURE BUT REQUIRES THE CONSISTENT EXERCISE OF INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT,
 EXCEPT THAT, WITH RESPECT
 
    TO ANY UNIT WHICH INCLUDES FIREFIGHTERS OR NURSES, THE TERM
 "SUPERVISOR" INCLUDES ONLY THOSE
 
    INDIVIDUALS WHO DEVOTE A PREPONDERANCE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT TIME TO
 EXERCISING SUCH
 
    AUTHORITY(.)
 
    THE ACTIVITIES ALSO CONTEND THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT BOTH UNITS
 INCLUDE FIREFIGHTERS, THE SEPARATE "PREPONDERANCE OF TIME" TEST
 CONTAINED WITHIN SECTION 7103(A)(10)'S DEFINITION OF SUPERVISOR SHOULD
 NOT APPLY TO GUARD SERGEANTS.  IN THIS REGARD, THEY ARGUE THAT THE
 "PREPONDERANCE OF TIME" TEST WAS INTENDED TO APPLY SPECIFICALLY TO
 FIREFIGHTERS AND NURSES AND NOT TO OTHER TYPES OF EMPLOYEES WHO HAPPEN
 TO BE IN UNITS WITH FIREFIGHTERS AND NURSES.
 
    THUS, THE THRESHOLD QUESTION PRESENTED IN BOTH CASES IS WHETHER THE
 PREPONDERANCE OF TIME TEST CONTAINED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SUPERVISOR
 APPLIES TO THE GUARD SERGEANTS HEREIN WHO ARE PRESENTLY IN UNITS THAT
 INCLUDE FIREFIGHTERS.  UNDER THE DEFINITION'S PRINCIPAL TEST FOR
 SUPERVISORS, AN INDIVIDUAL NEED ONLY EXERCISE ONE OF THE DEFINITION'S
 ENUMERATED CRITERIA IN A WAY THAT REQUIRES THE CONSISTENT EXERCISE OF
 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT TO BE DEEMED A SUPERVISOR.  /1/ THE PREPONDERANCE
 OF TIME TEST IS MORE RESTRICTIVE, INCLUDING AS SUPERVISORS ONLY THOSE
 INDIVIDUALS WHO DEVOTE A PREPONDERANCE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT TIME TO THE
 EXERCISE OF THE ENUMERATED CRITERIA.
 
    THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE DEFINITION OF SUPERVISOR DOES NOT
 PROVIDE A DIRECT ANSWER TO THE THRESHOLD QUESTION.  THE SENATE BILL, S.
 2640, DID NOT CONTAIN A MORE RESTRICTIVE PREPONDERANCE OF TIME TEST
 WITHIN ITS DEFINITION OF SUPERVISOR.  /2/ THE EARLIEST FORERUNNER OF THE
 PREPONDERANCE OF TIME TEST CONTAINED IN THE STATUTE APPEARS IN H.R. 13,
 INTRODUCED BY CONGRESSMAN CLAY ON JANUARY 4, 1977.  THE DEFINITION OF
 SUPERVISOR THEREIN CONTAINED A MORE RESTRICTIVE PREPONDERANCE TEST,
 INTRODUCED WITHIN THE DEFINITION BY THE CLAUSE "EXCEPT THAT WITH RESPECT
 TO FIREFIGHTERS AND NURSES . . . ." /3/ ON JANUARY 10, 1977, CONGRESSMAN
 FORD INTRODUCED H.R.  1589 WHICH ALSO CONTAINED A PREPONDERANCE TEST
 INTRODUCED BY THE CLAUSE "PROVIDED, THAT WITH RESPECT TO FIREFIGHTERS .
 . . ." /4/ ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1977, CONGRESSMAN CLAY AND FORD JOINTLY
 INTRODUCED THE THIRD AND FINAL FORERUNNER TO THE HOUSE BILL, H.R. 11280.
  THEIR BILL, H.R.  9094, CONTAINED A PREPONDERANCE OF TIME TEST WITHIN
 THE DEFINITION OF SUPERVISOR WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY THE CLAUSE "EXCEPT
 THAT WITH RESPECT TO FIREFIGHTERS AND NURSES . . . ." /5/ THUS, THESE
 EARLY BILLS CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE MORE RESTRICTIVE PREPONDERANCE OF
 TIME TEST WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SUPERVISOR SHOULD APPLY ONLY TO
 FIREFIGHTERS (IN H.R. 1589) AND ONLY TO FIREFIGHTERS AND NURSES (IN H.R.
 13 AND H.R. 9094).
 
    HOWEVER, EVEN THOUGH IT APPEARS CLEAR THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF TIME
 TEST WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SUPERVISOR WAS INITIALLY DEVELOPED FOR
 FIREFIGHTERS AND NURSES, THE COMMITTEE PRINT OF THE HOUSE BILL, H.R.
 11280, CHANGED WITHOUT EXPLANATION THE CLAUSE USED TO INTRODUCE THE
 PREPONDERANCE OF TIME TEST FROM "EXCEPT THAT WITH RESPECT TO
 FIREFIGHTERS AND NURSES" TO "EXCEPT THAT, WITH RESPECT TO ANY UNIT WHICH
 INCLUDES FIREFIGHTERS OR NURSES," RAISING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SUCH A
 CHANGE IN LANGUAGE INDICATES CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO APPLY THE
 PREPONDERANCE OF TIME TEST TO ANY TYPE OF EMPLOYEE WHO, BY HAPPENSTANCE,
 IS IN A UNIT WITH FIREFIGHTERS OR NURSES.  WERE THIS QUESTION TO BE
 ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, COUNTLESS NUMBERS OF FIRST LINE
 SUPERVISORS, WHILE NOT FIREFIGHTERS OR NURSES THEMSELVES, WOULD NOT BE
 DEEMED "SUPERVISORS" UNDER THE STATUTE BECAUSE THEY ARE IN BARGAINING
 UNITS WHICH INCLUDE FIREFIGHTERS OR NURSES.  /6/
 
    ALTHOUGH THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THE DEFINITION USED TO INTRODUCE THE
 PREPONDERANCE OF TIME TEST WAS CHANGED IN THE COURSE OF THE HOUSE
 ADOPTION OF A FEDERAL LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE, NOTHING IN THE
 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SPECIFICALLY INDICATES OR SUGGESTS THAT A CHANGE IN
 THE SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE TEST TO EXTEND TO PERSONS OTHER THAN
 FIREFIGHTERS AND NURSES WAS INTENDED.  IN THIS REGARD, SUCH A CHANGE
 COULD LEAD TO AN INCONSISTENT RESULT IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
 DEFINITION OF SUPERVISOR, I.E., FINDING AN INDIVIDUAL (WHO HAPPENS TO BE
 INCLUDED IN A BARGAINING UNIT CONTAINING FIREFIGHTERS OR NURSES) NOT TO
 BE A SUPERVISOR WHILE FINDING ANOTHER (PERFORMING THE IDENTICAL
 FUNCTIONS IN A UNIT NOT INCLUDING FIREFIGHTERS OR NURSES) TO BE A
 SUPERVISOR.  SUCH DIFFERENT RESULTS WOULD NOT HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP TO
 DIFFERENCES IN JOB FUNCTION OR SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY.  INSTEAD, THE
 DETERMINATION OF SUPERVISORY STATUS, WHICH IN TURN HAS IMPORTANT
 STATUTORY AND LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS, WOULD HINGE ON THE IRRELEVANT
 HAPPENSTANCE OF WHETHER FIREFIGHTERS OR NURSES ARE IN THE BARGAINING
 UNIT.
 
    ADDITIONALLY, SUCH A RESULT WOULD BE UNWORKABLE.  IT WOULD MEAN THAT,
 IN MAKING A SUPERVISORY DETERMINATION, NOT ONLY THE SPECIFIC DUTIES OF
 THE INDIVIDUAL, BUT ALSO THE CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES INCLUDED WITHIN THE
 UNIT MUST BE CONSIDERED.  FURTHER, THE STATUS OF ALL SUPERVISORS WOULD
 BE CONTINUOUSLY CHANGING BASED ON SUBSEQUENT UNIT CONSOLIDATIONS, /7/
 REORGANIZATIONS, OR THE ELECTION PREFERENCE OF EMPLOYEES IN A FUNCTIONAL
 UNIT WHO OPT TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE OVERALL RATHER THAN A SEPARATE
 UNIT.  /8/
 
    ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES
 THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF TIME TEST CONTAINED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF
 SUPERVISOR IN SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE APPLIES ONLY TO
 FIREFIGHTERS AND NURSES AND NOT TO OTHER TYPES OF EMPLOYEES WHO HAPPEN
 TO BE IN UNITS WITH FIREFIGHTERS OR NURSES.
 
                             CASE NO. 9-CU-14
 
    THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 48, AFL-CIO
 (PETITIONER) WAS RECOGNIZED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
 EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION ON FEBRUARY 10, 1969, FOR A UNIT OF APPROXIMATELY
 30 EMPLOYEES COMPRISED OF "ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE SECURITY DEPARTMENT,
 NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE ENGINEERING STATION, KEYPORT, WASHINGTON,"
 EXCLUDING "ALL SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, PROFESSIONALS, AND CIVILIAN
 PERSONNEL EMPLOYEES IN OTHER THAN A PURELY CLERICAL CAPACITY." THE
 PETITIONER SEEKS TO INCLUDE IN SAID UNIT THE FIVE POSITIONS REFERRED TO
 AS GUARD SERGEANT, GS-05, CONTENDING THE INCUMBENTS OF THESE POSITIONS
 ARE NOT SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE
 STATUTE.  THE ACTIVITY OPPOSES THEIR INCLUSION IN THE UNIT, CONTENDING
 THE INCUMBENTS ARE SUPERVISORS.
 
    THE GUARD SERGEANTS WORK IN THE ACTIVITY'S SECURITY DEPARTMENT.  THE
 DEPARTMENT, IN PART, PROVIDES PHYSICAL AND INFORMATION SECURITY AT THE
 ACTIVITY AND ENFORCES FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS, AND DIRECTIVES OF
 THE ACTIVITY.  THE PORTION OF THE SECURITY DEPARTMENT INVOLVED IN THIS
 CASE IS HEADED BY A GUARD CHIEF;  UNDER THE CHIEF IS A GUARD CAPTAIN,
 GS-07/08;  AND UNDER THE GUARD CAPTAIN ARE 5 GUARD SERGEANTS, GS-05, 15
 GUARDS (13 GS-04S, 2 GS-03S), AND 1 GUARD INSTRUCTOR.  THE GUARD CAPTAIN
 WORKS THE DAY SHIFT.  THREE DAYS A WEEK TWO GUARD SERGEANTS ALSO WORK
 THE DAY SHIFT;  THE OTHER TWO DAYS ONE GUARD SERGEANT WORKS THE DAY
 SHIFT.  ON THE DAY SHIFT, ONE GUARD SERGEANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
 SHIFT'S FOUR TO FIVE GUARDS AND WHEN THERE ARE TWO GUARD SERGEANTS, THE
 OTHER ONE OPERATES RADAR SPEED TRAPS.  ON THE EVENING AND GRAVEYARD
 SHIFTS, ONE GUARD SERGEANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SHIFT'S THREE TO FOUR
 GUARDS.  THE GUARD SERGEANTS ROTATE SHIFTS EVERY 90 DAYS.
 
    GUARD SERGEANTS OCCASIONALLY HAVE CONDUCTED HIRING INTERVIEWS IN THE
 GUARD CAPTAIN'S ABSENCE, AND THE GUARD CAPTAIN HAS ACCEPTED THEIR
 RECOMMENDATIONS.  GUARD SERGEANTS HAVE ALSO EFFECTIVELY RECOMMENDED
 THAT
 THE GUARD CAPTAIN CONSIDER AND ULTIMATELY HIRE CERTAIN OUTSIDE
 ACQUAINTANCES OF THE GUARD SERGEANTS.  GUARD SERGEANTS, HOWEVER, PLAY NO
 ROLE IN THE TRANSFER, FURLOUGH, LAYOFF, OR RECALL OF THE GUARDS.
 
    GUARD SERGEANTS, WHEN ACTING AS SHIFT SUPERVISORS, WHICH IS AT LEAST
 THREE-QUARTERS OF THEIR TIME, DIRECT AND ASSIGN GUARDS IN A MANNER WHICH
 REQUIRES THE GUARD SERGEANTS' CONSISTENT EXERCISE OF INDEPENDENT
 JUDGMENT.  GUARD SERGEANTS MAKE THE INITIAL POST ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE
 GUARDS, WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DURING THE DAY ON THE GUARD
 SERGEANTS' AUTHORITY.  ANY PROBLEMS OR INCIDENTS ON THE SHIFT ARE
 REFERRED DIRECTLY TO THE SERGEANT, AND HE HAS BEEN DELEGATED THE
 AUTHORITY TO REALIGN THE GUARD FORCE TO MEET SUCH OCCURRENCES.  GUARD
 SERGEANTS APPROVE LEAVE, WITH THE GUARD CAPTAIN IN 90% OF THE CASES ONLY
 KNOWING ABOUT A GUARD'S USE OF LEAVE AFTER IT HAS BEEN USED.  GUARD
 SERGEANTS ARE NOT ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DECIDING WHO SHOULD WORK
 OVERTIME, BUT ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INITIAL DETERMINATION THAT
 OVERTIME IS NEEDED.
 
    IN TERMS OF PROMOTION, GUARD SERGEANTS INITIALLY RECOMMEND SUCH
 ACTIONS.  GUARD SERGEANTS PREPARE THE GUARDS' PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS,
 WITH THESE EVALUATIONS BEING UNIFORMLY ADOPTED BY THE GUARD CAPTAIN.  IN
 THE AREA OF DISCIPLINE, GUARD SERGEANTS EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND THE FULL
 RANGE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS WITHOUT PRIOR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE GUARD
 CAPTAIN.  THE RECORD REVEALS THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN OCCASION IN WHICH THE
 GUARD CAPTAIN MODIFIED OR REVERSED SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS.
 
    UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE GUARD SERGEANTS
 ARE SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE
 BECAUSE THEY CONSISTENTLY EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN SUCH AREAS AS
 DIRECTING, ASSIGNING, AND DISCIPLINING THE SUBORDINATE GUARDS.
 ACCORDINGLY, THE INCUMBENTS IN THESE GUARD SERGEANT POSITIONS WILL
 CONTINUE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BARGAINING UNIT.
 
                             CASE NO. 9-CU-16
 
    THE BREMERTON METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO (PETITIONER) WAS
 RECOGNIZED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIVE
 RECOGNITION ON OCTOBER 12, 1962, IN A UNIT OF APPROXIMATELY 150
 EMPLOYEES COMPRISED OF "ALL ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES INCLUDING TEMPORARY AND
 PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES IN PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD," EXCLUDING
 "PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, THE EMPLOYEES IN THE PATTERNMAKER'S UNIT, THE
 EMPLOYEES IN THE TECHNICAL UNIT, THE EMPLOYEES IN THE PLANNERS,
 ESTIMATORS, AND PROGRESSMEN'S UNIT, ANY MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL OR
 SUPERVISOR OR AN EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN FEDERAL PERSONNEL WORK IN OTHER
 THAN A PURELY CLERICAL CAPACITY." THE PETITIONER SEEKS TO INCLUDE IN
 SAID UNIT THE 11 POSITIONS REFERRED TO AS GUARD SERGEANT, GS-06,
 CONTENDING THE INCUMBENTS OF THESE POSITIONS ARE NOT SUPERVISORS WITHIN
 THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE.  THE ACTIVITY OPPOSES
 THEIR INCLUSION IN THE UNIT, CONTENDING THAT THE INCUMBENTS ARE
 SUPERVISORS.
 
    THE GUARD SERGEANTS WORK IN THE ACTIVITY'S POLICE BRANCH.  THIS
 BRANCH PROVIDES SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE PUGET SOUND NAVAL
 SHIPYARD, INCLUDING THE HOUSING AREA.  THE POLICE BRANCH IS HEADED BY A
 CHIEF OF POLICE;  UNDER THE CHIEF OF POLICE IS A POLICE CAPTAIN;  AND
 UNDER THE POLICE CAPTAIN ARE THREE SHIFT LIEUTENANTS, GS-07.
 SUBORDINATE TO THE SHIFT LIEUTENANTS ARE THE 11 GUARD SERGEANTS AND 114
 LINE OFFICERS (61 GUARDS, GS-03 AND GS-04), 14 REACTIONARY POLICE
 OFFICERS, AND 39 POLICE OFFICERS (GS-04 AND GS-05).  THE SHIFT
 LIEUTENANTS AND THEIR SUBORDINATES WORK ONE OF THREE SHIFTS (DAY, SWING,
 MIDNIGHT) EACH WEEKDAY, SO THAT ON A NORMAL DAY SHIFT DURING THE WEEK
 THERE WILL BE ON DUTY 1 SHIFT LIEUTENANT, 3 GUARD SERGEANTS, 19 GUARDS
 AND REACTIONARY POLICE OFFICERS, AND 11 POLICE OFFICERS.
 
    THE GUARD SERGEANTS ROTATE FREQUENTLY (SOMETIMES EVERY FEW DAYS,
 SOMETIMES UP TO TEN WEEKS) BETWEEN WORKING WITH THE GUARDS AND
 REACTIONARY POLICE OFFICERS ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE POLICE OFFICERS ON
 THE OTHER.  ON THE DAY SHIFT, FOR EXAMPLE, 1 GUARD SERGEANT WILL BE
 WORKING WITH THE 19 GUARDS AND REACTIONARY POLICE OFFICERS, AND THE
 OTHER 2 GUARD SERGEANTS WILL BE WORKING WITH THE 11 POLICE OFFICERS.
 THE GUARDS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERIMETER SECURITY AT THE SHIPYARD
 AND THEY WORK AT THE PERIMETER GATES.  THE GUARD SERGEANT, WORKING WITH
 THE GUARDS AND THE REACTIONARY POLICE OFFICERS, MAKES TWO 45-MINUTE
 INSPECTION TOURS OF THESE PERSONNEL DURING THE DAY SHIFT, SPENDING THE
 REMAINDER OF HIS TIME IN A BUILDING ONE BLOCK AWAY FROM THE BUILDING IN
 WHICH THE SHIFT LIEUTENANT WORKS.  THE TWO GUARD SERGEANTS WORKING WITH
 THE POLICE OFFICERS ARE STATIONED IN THE SAME BUILDING AS THE SHIFT
 LIEUTENANT, BUT THEY SPEND MOST OF THEIR DAY OPERATING OUT OF TWO ROVING
 VEHICLES CHECKING ON THE VARIOUS POSTS AND THE PERIMETER FENCE, AS WELL
 AS ATTENDING TO ANY ABNORMAL SITUATIONS.  THE POLICE OFFICERS,
 THEMSELVES, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH NORMAL POLICE WORK AS WRITING
 TRAFFIC TICKETS, CHECKING BUILDINGS AND RESPONDING TO INCIDENTS.
 
    WHILE A GUARD SERGEANT'S DUTIES VARY DEPENDING UPON WHETHER HE IS
 WORKING WITH GUARDS AND REACTIONARY POLICE OFFICERS OR WITH POLICE
 OFFICERS, HIS RESPONSIBILITIES DO NOT VARY WITH RESPECT TO THOSE MATTERS
 ENUMERATED IN SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE WHICH DETERMINE
 SUPERVISORY STATUS.  GUARD SERGEANTS HAVE NO HAND IN THE HIRING,
 TRANSFERING, FURLOUGHING, LAYING OFF, OR RECALLING OF SUBORDINATE
 EMPLOYEES.  GUARD SERGEANTS DO DIRECT AND ASSIGN SUBORDINATE GUARDS TO
 SOME EXTENT, BUT NOT IN A MANNER WHICH REQUIRES THE CONSISTENT EXERCISE
 OF INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.  GUARD SERGEANTS DO ASSIGN GUARDS TO THE
 VARIOUS DUTY STATIONS, BUT SUCH ASSIGNMENTS ARE MADE ON AN EQUITABLE AND
 ROTATING BASIS.  GUARD SERGEANTS DO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ROTATIONAL
 SCHEDULE ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, SUCH AS WHEN UNEXPECTED ABSENCES OR THE
 DETAILING OF POLICE OFFICERS TO VEHICLE INSPECTIONS (AS ORDERED BY THE
 SHIFT LIEUTENANT) CAUSE A SHORTAGE OF EMPLOYEES FOR REGULAR DUTIES.
 YET, THESE ADJUSTMENTS DO NOT REQUIRE THE CONSISTENT EXERCISE OF
 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.  GUARD SERGEANTS MAY CONDUCT THE SHIFT ROLL CALL
 AND INSPECT THE GUARDS AT THEIR DUTY STATIONS, BUT NEITHER ACTIVITY
 REQUIRES THE CONSISTENT EXERCISE OF INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.  OVERTIME
 REQUIREMENTS ARE NORMALLY ESTABLISHED BY THE SHIFT LIEUTENANT, WITH THE
 GUARD SERGEANTS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING THE NECESSARY MANPOWER,
 USING A ROSTER WHICH IS ROTATED ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS.  ROUTINE LEAVE
 REQUESTS FOR GUARDS ARE SOMETIMES ACTED UPON BY GUARD SERGEANTS, BUT THE
 SHIFT LIEUTENANT HANDLES LEAVE FOR THE POLICE OFFICERS AND IN NO CASE
 CAN A GUARD SERGEANT APPROVE OVER TWO WEEKS OF LEAVE FOR A GUARD.
 
    IN TERMS OF PROMOTION, GUARD SERGEANTS MAY OFTEN BE INVOLVED IN
 INITIALLY RECOMMENDING SUCH AN ACTION, BUT OFTEN ONLY AFTER CONSULTATION
 WITH THE SHIFT LIEUTENANT, AND EVEN THEN THE RECOMMENDATION IS NOT
 UNIFORMLY FOLLOWED.  CURRENTLY, SHIFT LIEUTENANTS PREPARE THE
 SUBORDINATES' PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS, ALTHOUGH IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT
 IN THE FUTURE EACH GUARD SERGEANT WILL DO SUCH EVALUATIONS ON
 SUBORDINATES WITH WHOM HE WORKED JUST PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE
 EVALUATION.
 
    FURTHER, GUARD SERGEANTS DO NOT EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND SUSPENSION,
 DISCIPLINE OR REMOVAL OF EMPLOYEES.  GUARD SERGEANTS HAVE PROPOSED
 LETTERS OF REPRIMAND, BUT BEFORE THEIR ISSUANCE THEY ARE DISCUSSED AND
 MUST BE APPROVED BY THE SHIFT LIEUTENANT.  HENCE, THE GUARD SERGEANTS'
 RECOMMENDATIONS CANNOT BE DEEMED EFFECTIVE.  WITH REGARD TO MORE SERIOUS
 DISCIPLINE, THE GUARD SERGEANT MAY INITIALLY REPORT THE INFRACTION, BUT
 THE SHIFT LIEUTENANT CONDUCTS AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION BEFORE
 PURSUING SUCH DISCIPLINE.  THE SHIFT LIEUTENANT IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE
 NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.
 
    THUS, THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, AS CONTRASTED TO CASE NO. 9-CU-14,
 REVEALS THAT IT IS THE SHIFT LIEUTENANT, AND NOT THE GUARD SERGEANT, WHO
 POSSESSES THE NECESSARY INDICIA OF FIRST LINE SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY.
 THIS IS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE ONE POSITION DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED FOR
 ONE OF THE POSITIONS IN DISPUTE, WHICH INDICATES THAT GUARD SERGEANTS
 ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TECHNICAL DIRECTION OF PATROLMEN BUT "ARE NOT
 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF THE EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED
 TO THEIR WORK SHIFT."
 
    UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHILE IT IS NOTED THAT GUARD SERGEANTS
 PLAY SOME ROLE IN THE AREAS OF DIRECTING AND ASSIGNING, THEIR EXERCISE
 OF THIS AUTHORITY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONSISTENT EXERCISE OF
 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.  FURTHER, ALTHOUGH THEY ALSO PLAY A ROLE IN THE
 AREAS OF PROMOTING AND DISCIPLINING, THEY DO NOT EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND
 APPROPRIATE ACTIONS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE INCUMBENTS IN THESE GUARD
 SERGEANT POSITIONS ARE NOT SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE, AND WILL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE BARGAINING
 UNIT.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE UNIT
 IN WHICH EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION WAS ORIGINALLY GRANTED TO THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 48, AFL-CIO, ON FEBRUARY 10,
 1969, AT THE SECURITY DEPARTMENT, NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE ENGINEERING
 STATION, KEYPORT, WASHINGTON, BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.  FURTHER,
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT TO BE CLARIFIED, IN WHICH
 EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION WAS ORIGINALLY GRANTED TO THE BREMERTON METAL
 TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, ON OCTOBER 12, 1962, AT THE PUGET SOUND NAVAL
 SHIPYARD, BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, CLARIFIED BY INCLUDING IN SAID UNIT
 THOSE INCUMBENTS CLASSIFIED AS GUARD SERGEANT, GS-06.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., DECEMBER 31, 1981
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ SEE, E.G., ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, BASE EXCHANGE,
 FORT CARSON, FORT CARSON, COLORADO AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL NO. 1345, 3 FLRA NO. 95(1980);  DEPARTMENT OF
 TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FLIGHT STANDARDS
 NATIONAL FIELD OFFICE AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT STANDARDS
 EMPLOYEES, IND., 4 FLRA NO. 104(1981);  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL WEATHER
 SERVICE, SOUTHERN REGION AND NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE EMPLOYEES
 ORGANIZATION, MEBA, AFL-CIO, 5 FLRA NO. 16 (1981).
 
    /2/ S. 2640, 95TH CONG.,2D SESS. SECTION 7202(A)(11)(1978).
 
    /3/ H.R. 13, 95TH CONG.,1ST SESS. SECTION 7103(A)(9)(1977).
 
    /4/ H.R. 1589, 95TH CONG.,1ST SESS. SEC. 3(F)(1977).
 
    /5/ H.R. 9094, 95TH CONG.,1ST SESS. SEC. 7103(A)(12)(1977)
 
    /6/ SEE, E.G., VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. AND NATIONAL
 OFFICE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, 1 FLRA
 457(1979) (WHERE APPROXIMATELY 116,000 EMPLOYEES WERE CONSOLIDATED INTO
 A SINGLE UNIT CONTAINING FIREFIGHTERS AND NURSES AMONG OTHER JOB
 CLASSIFICATIONS).
 
    /7/ SEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. AND AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3313, AFL-CIO (AND OTHER CASES
 CONSOLIDATED THEREWITH), 5 FLRA NO. 89(1981), FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE
 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED IN UNIT CONSOLIDATIONS.
 
    /8/ SEE, E.G., PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1805, AFL-CIO (AND OTHER CASES CONSOLIDATED
 THEREWITH), 5 FLRA NO.  20(1981);  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS
 SCHOOLS AND OVERSEAS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, NEA (AND OTHER CASES
 CONSOLIDATED THEREWITH), 6 FLRA 297(1981).