U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Agency/Petitioner) and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization); HUD, San Diego Service Office (Activity) and AFGE (Labor Organization/Petitioner) and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1954 (Labor Organization/Intervenor); HUD Los Angeles Area Office, Los Angeles, California (Agency) and NFFE, Local 477 (Labor Organization/Petitioner) and AFGE (Labor Organization/ Intervenor)

 



[ v08 p176 ]
08:0176(34)CU
The decision of the Authority follows:


 8 FLRA No. 34
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
 URBAN DEVELOPMENT
 Agency/Petitioner
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Labor Organization
 
                                            Case Nos. 3-CU-1 
                                                      3-CU-2 

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
 URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SAN DIEGO SERVICE
 OFFICE
 Activity
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Labor Organization/Petitioner
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1954
 Labor Organization/Intervenor

                                            Case No. 38-RO-1 
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
 DEVELOPMENT LOS ANGELES AREA OFFICE,
 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
 Activity
 
 and
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 477
 Labor Organization/Petitioner
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Labor Organization/Intervenor
 
                                           Case No. 38-CU-6 

                DECISION, ORDER AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNITS
 
    UPON PETITIONS DULY FILED WITH THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 UNDER SECTION 7111(B)(2) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS 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.
 
    UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE CONSOLIDATED CASES, THE AUTHORITY
 FINDS:  IN CASE NOS. 3-CU-1 AND 3-CU-2, THE AGENCY/PETITIONER SEEKS TO
 SEVER CERTAIN EMPLOYEES FROM, AND ACCRETE CERTAIN OTHER EMPLOYEES TO,
 THE EXISTING NATIONWIDE CONSOLIDATED PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL
 UNITS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) EMPLOYEES
 REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO (AFGE).  THE AGENCY CONTENDS THAT THESE CHANGES ARE
 REQUIRED BY A REORGANIZATION WHICH TOOK PLACE ON JULY 1, 1978, AND
 THEREAFTER.  IN CASE NO. 38-RO-1, THE AFGE SEEKS TO ADD TO ITS
 NATIONWIDE UNITS OF HUD EMPLOYEES ALL GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES OF THE
 HUD'S SAN DIEGO SERVICE OFFICE.  IN CASE NO. 38-CU-6, THE NATIONAL
 FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 477 (NFFE), SEEKS TO ACCRETE TO
 ITS EXISTING UNIT OF ALL PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF
 THE AGENCY'S LOS ANGELES AREA OFFICE THE EMPLOYEES OF HUD'S SANTA ANA,
 SAN DIEGO, PHOENIX AND TUCSON SERVICE OFFICES, WHICH IT CLAIMS ARE NOW
 PART OF ITS LOS ANGELES AREA OFFICE UNIT PURSUANT TO THE AGENCY'S JULY
 1, 1978 REORGANIZATION.  THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SANTA ANA, PHOENIX AND
 TUCSON SERVICE OFFICES ARE PRESENTLY REPRESENTED AS PART OF THE AFGE'S
 NATIONWIDE UNITS.  THE EMPLOYEES IN THE SAN DIEGO SERVICE OFFICE, WHO
 ARE PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY NFFE LOCAL 1954, ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE
 AFGE'S PETITION IN CASE NO. 38-RO-1 HEREIN.
 
    THE MISSION OF THE HUD IS TO FACILITATE, THROUGH A SERIES OF
 FINANCING DEVICES - GRANTS, LOANS, GUARANTEES, MORTGAGE INSURANCE, AND
 SIMILAR ARRANGEMENTS, THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING,
 COMMUNITY FACILITIES, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.  ON JULY 1,
 1978, HUD EFFECTED A REORGANIZATION OF ITS FIELD STRUCTURE SO AS TO
 BETTER IMPLEMENT ITS MISSION.  PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION, HUD'S TEN
 REGIONAL OFFICES HAD LINE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTIVITIES TAKING PLACE
 IN THEIR SUBORDINATE FIELD OFFICES.  THEY MONITORED THE ACTIVITIES OF
 THEIR SUBORDINATE FIELD OFFICES ON A DAILY BASIS, PROVIDED TECHNICAL
 ASSISTANCE AND PROGRAM GUIDANCE, AND ALLOCATED FISCAL AND STAFF
 RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAMS IN THE FIELD OFFICES.  SUBSEQUENT TO
 THE REORGANIZATION, THE REGIONAL OFFICES NO LONGER HAVE LINE
 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBORDINATE FIELD
 ACTIVITIES.  ALLOCATION OF FISCAL AND STAFF RESOURCES BY THE REGIONAL
 OFFICES IS NOW LIMITED TO AN ANNUAL BASIS, WITH THE SUBORDINATE FIELD
 ACTIVITIES ASSUMING DAILY RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH DECISIONS.  THE
 REGIONAL OFFICES HAVE ASSUMED A GREATER OVERSIGHT AND MONITORING
 FUNCTION VIS-A-VIS THEIR SUBORDINATE FIELD OFFICES.  AS A RESULT OF THE
 REORGANIZATION, THE DALLAS REGIONAL OFFICE WAS RELOCATED TO FORT WORTH,
 TEXAS, WITH DALLAS RETAINING AN AREA OFFICE.  IN DENVER, THERE IS A
 FULLY COMBINED REGIONAL/AREA OFFICE, SERVING THE FUNCTION OF BOTH
 LEVELS, WHICH IS HEADED BY A REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR.  THE OTHER EIGHT
 REGIONAL OFFICES WERE NOT AFFECTED BY THE REORGANIZATION, EXCEPT AS
 NOTED ABOVE.
 
    PRIOR TO THE 1978 REORGANIZATION, THERE WAS ESSENTIALLY ONE LEVEL OF
 SUBORDINATE FIELD OFFICE WHICH REPORTED TO HUD'S REGIONAL OFFICES,
 CONSISTING OF BOTH AREA OFFICES AND INSURING OFFICES.  THEY PERFORMED
 ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR FUNCTIONS AUTONOMOUSLY WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
 GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTIONS.  THE MAIN DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM WAS IN THE
 VOLUME OF BUSINESS THEY WERE REQUIRED TO HANDLE.  AREA AND INSURING
 OFFICES WERE BOTH HEADED BY INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS, WHO REPORTED TO THE
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR.  THERE WERE ADMINSTRATIVE PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO BOTH
 AREA AND INSURING OFFICES, AND MOST OF THEM HAD PERSONNEL RESPONSIBLE
 FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, FAIR HOUSING PROGRAMS, AND HUD'S
 EQUAL HOUSING FUNCTION, AS WELL AS FOR HUD'S BASIC HOUSING
 RESPONSIBILITIES.
 
    AS A RESULT OF THE REORGANIZATION, PRIMARY DECISION MAKING WITHIN
 HUD'S FIELD STRUCTURE WAS CENTRALIZED IN THE AREA OFFICES.  THE AREA
 OFFICES BECAME FULLY SELF-CONTAINED, GAINING SOME OF THE PERSONNEL FROM
 THE REGIONAL OFFICES WHO HAD BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING AREA AND
 INSURING OFFICE ACTIVITIES.  AREA MANAGERS ARE NOW AUTHORIZED TO CONSULT
 DIRECTLY WITH HUD HEADQUARTERS PERSONNEL CONCERNING PROGRAM MATTERS
 WITHOUT SEEKING REGIONAL OFFICE APPROVAL.  THERE WERE 42 AREA OFFICES
 PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION.  THERE ARE NOW 39 RECONSTITUTED AREA
 OFFICES.  THE AREA MANAGERS ARE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE
 AND PERSONNEL FUNCTIONS WITHIN THEIR OFFICES AND WITHIN THE SERVICE
 OFFICE AND VALUATION AND ENDORSEMENT STATIONS WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION.
  HOWEVER, IN ALL THE REGIONAL OFFICE CITIES, EXCEPT FORT WORTH AND
 DENVER, THERE IS A SINGLE "COLLOCATED" ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE WITHIN THE
 REGIONAL OFFICE WHICH PROVIDES ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONNEL SERVICES FOR
 BOTH THE REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE AREA OFFICE WITHIN THAT CITY, AS WELL
 AS FOR THE AREA OFFICE'S SUBORDINATE SERVICE OFFICES AND VALUATION AND
 ENDORSEMENT STATIONS.  THE AREA MANAGERS HAVE OPERATIONAL CONTROL OVER
 THE SERVICES WHICH ARE PROVIDED FOR THEIR FACILITIES BY THE "COLLOCATED"
 ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONNEL OFFICES.
 
    THE PRIMARY IMPACT OF THE REORGANIZATION WAS THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE
 FORMER INSURING OFFICES.  IN ESSENCE, THEY LOST THEIR PREVIOUS STATUS AS
 INDEPENDENT OPERATING ENTITIES.  NOW DESIGNATED AS SERVICE OFFICES, THEY
 ARE CONSIDERED TO BE SUBELEMENTS OF THE AREA OFFICE TO WHICH THEY ARE
 ASSIGNED.  WHILE THE INSURING OFFICES WERE HEADED BY A SUPERVISOR, WHO
 REPORTS EITHER TO THE AREA MANAGER IN THE CASE OF THE SIX SERVICE
 OFFICES WHICH RETAIN MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING RESPONSIBILITIES, OR TO THE
 DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSING DIVISION WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE AREA OFFICE IN
 THE CASE OF THE REMAINING 27 SERVICE OFFICES WHICH HAVE ONLY
 SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING CAPABILITY. ALL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, FAIR
 HOUSING AND EEO FUNCTIONS WHICH WERE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PREVIOUS
 INSURING OFFICE DIRECTOR HAVE BEEN REASSIGNED TO THE APPROPRIATE AREA
 OFFICE.  THUS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY WHICH HAD BEEN VESTED IN THE INSURING OFFICE DIRECTOR NO
 LONGER EXISTS IN THE NEW SERVICE OFFICES.  SUCH FUNCTIONS ARE NOW
 DIRECTED BY THE APPROPRIATE AREA OFFICE.  WHILE THE DAILY FUNCTION OF
 ADMINISTERING PERSONNEL SERVICES IN MANY OF THE SERVICE OFFICES IS
 CARRIED OUT BY A PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE WHO IS PHYSICALLY LOCATED WITHIN
 THAT OFFICE, THESE EMPLOYEES REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION IN
 THE APPROPRIATE AREA OFFICE AND THEY ARE CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES OF THAT
 AREA OFFICE.  ALL PERSONNEL AUTHORITY FOR THE SERVICE OFFICES RESIDES
 WITH THE APPROPRIATE AREA MANAGER, ALTHOUGH IN MOST INSTANCES IT IS
 REDELEGATED TO THE SERVICE OFFICE SUPERVISOR FOR MATTERS WITHIN THEIR
 JURISDICTION.  IN ESSENCE, ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SERVICE OFFICES ARE
 CONSIDERED TO BE EMPLOYEES OF AN AREA OFFICE, AND IT IS AREA OFFICE
 MANAGEMENT WHICH HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN, REASSIGN, OR DETAIL
 INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE AREA OFFICE'S JURISDICTION TO DIFFERENT
 POSITIONS, INCLUDING THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE EMPLOYEES FROM ONE SERVICE
 OFFICE TO ANOTHER, OR TO THE AREA OFFICE OR VICE VERSA. THE VALUATION
 AND ENDORSEMENT STATIONS ARE EVEN SMALLER THAN THE SERVICE OFFICES AND
 THEY HAVE EVEN LESS AUTHORITY TO MAKE FUNDING COMMITMENTS.  LIKE THE
 SERVICE OFFICES, THEY ARE CONSIDERED TO BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
 PARTICULAR AREA OFFICES.  THEY REPORT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR
 DEVELOPMENT IN THE HOUSING DIVISION OF AN AREA OFFICE.
 
    THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN CASE NOS. 38-RO-1 AND
 38-CU-6 ARE IN MANY WAYS EXEMPLARY OF THE FACTS OUTLINED ABOVE.  PRIOR
 TO THE HUD'S JULY 1, 1978 REORGANIZATION HUD HAD AN AREA OFFICE IN LOS
 ANGELES, INSURING OFFICES IN SANTA ANA, SAN DIEGO, AND PHOENIX, AND A
 SERVICE OFFICE IN TUCSON WHICH WAS A SUBOFFICE OF THE PHOENIX INSURING
 OFFICE.  THE LOS ANGELES AREA OFFICE AND THE THREE INSURING OFFICES WERE
 INDEPENDENT ENTITIES WHICH REPORTED DIRECTLY TO THE REGIONAL OFFICE IN
 SAN FRANCISCO.  SUBSEQUENT TO THE REORGANIZATION, LOS ANGELES RETAINED
 ITS STATUS AS AN AREA OFFICE.  HOWEVER, THE INSURING OFFICES IN SANTA
 ANA, SAN DIEGO, AND PHOENIX WERE REDESIGNATED AS SERVICE OFFICES, WHILE
 TUCSON BECAME AN INDEPENDENT SERVICE OFFICE.  ALL OF THE NEW SERVICE
 OFFICES ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE LOS ANGELES AREA OFFICE.  AS A RESULT OF
 THE REORGANIZATION, THE LOS ANGELES AREA OFFICE IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
 ALL COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FUNCTIONS WITHIN ITS
 JURISDICTION, SOME OF WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY HANDLED BY EMPLOYEES IN
 THE SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE.  ADDITIONALLY, THE LOS ANGELES AREA
 OFFICE ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, FAIR
 HOUSING, AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACTIVITIES WHICH HAD BEEN WITHIN THE
 JURISDICTION OF THE FORMER INSURING OFFICES.  THE NEW SERVICE OFFICES
 ARE ALSO WITHOUT FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITY AS THAT FUNCTION WAS
 CONSOLIDATED WITHIN THE AREA OFFICE.  THE POSITIONS OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES
 WHO PERFORMED THE TRANSFERRED FUNCTIONS WERE REASSIGNED TO THE AREA
 OFFICE, WITH A TOTAL OF 38 POSITIONS INVOLVED.  FINALLY, ALTHOUGH SOME
 EMPLOYEES WERE REASSIGNED TO THE LOS ANGELES AREA OFFICE AND THEY NOW
 REPORT TO SUPERVISORS THERE RATHER THAN TO OFFICIALS WITHIN THE OFFICE
 WHERE THEY ARE PHYSICALLY LOCATED, THEY ARE, IN EFFECT, CONTINUING TO
 PERFORM THE SAME MULTI-FAMILY OR ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION IN THE SAME
 LOCATION AS PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION.  THERE ARE 18 OF THESE
 SO-CALLED "OUTSTATIONED" EMPLOYEES WHO CONTINUE TO PERFORM THEIR
 FUNCTION AT A SERVICE OFFICE ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN REASSIGNED TO LOS
 ANGELES.
 
    THE AFGE WAS CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR SEPARATE
 PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL NATIONWIDE CONSOLIDATED UNITS OF HUD
 EMPLOYEES ON OCTOBER 23, 1978.  THE AFGE UNITS WHICH WERE CONSOLIDATED
 INCLUDED ALL OF HUD'S NONPROFESSIONAL HEADQUARTERS EMPLOYEES AND RANGED
 FROM REGION-WIDE UNITS TO UNITS AT A VALUATION AND ENDORSEMENT STATION.
 (AFGE'S UNITS AS SET FORTH IN THEIR CERTIFICATIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN THE
 ATTACHMENT.) THE HUD, BY ITS PETITIONS IN CASE NOS. 3-CU-1 AND 3-CU-2 IS
 ATTEMPTING TO RESHAPE THE CONSOLIDATED UNITS REPRESENTED BY THE AFGE SO
 THAT THEY CONFORM TO ITS NEW ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.  THEY CONTEND
 THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN THE PRESENT SERVICE OFFICES AND VALUATION AND
 ENDORSEMENT STATIONS SHOULD HAVE THEIR REPRESENTATIONAL STATUS
 DETERMINED BY THE REPRESENTATIONAL STATUS OF THE AREA OFFICES TO WHICH
 THEY ARE NOW SUBORDINATED, AS THE SERVICE OFFICES AND VALUATION AND
 ENDORSEMENT STATIONS NO LONGER HAVE INDEPENDENT OPERATING AUTHORITY AND
 THEREFORE THE EMPLOYEES OF THOSE OFFICES HAVE A MERGED COMMUNITY OF
 INTEREST WITH ALL OTHER AREA OFFICE EMPLOYEES, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT
 TO ADMINISTRATIVE, PERSONNEL, AND LABOR RELATIONS MATTERS.  THUS, THEY
 WOULD, FOR EXAMPLE, ACCRETE EMPLOYEES FROM ELEVEN (11) FIELD OFFICES WHO
 ARE PRESENTLY UNREPRESENTED INTO AFGE'S NATIONWIDE UNIT AS THOSE OFFICES
 ARE NOW SUBORDINATE TO AN AREA OFFICE WHOSE EMPLOYEES ARE REPRESENTED
 WITHIN THE AFGE UNIT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE HUD SEEKS TO SEVER FROM
 THE AFGE'S NONPROFESSIONAL UNIT THE EMPLOYEES IN FIVE OFFICES WHICH ARE
 NOW SUBORDINATE TO AREA OFFICES WHOSE EMPLOYEES ARE REPRESENTED BY THE
 NFFE.  MOREOVER, SUBSEQUENT TO THE REORGANIZATION, THERE ARE, AS NOTED
 ABOVE, SINGLE "COLLOCATED" ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES IN EACH OF THE EIGHT
 CITIES WHICH HAVE BOTH REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES WHICH SERVE THE
 EMPLOYEES OF BOTH THE REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES WITHIN THOSE CITIES AS
 WELL AS EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICES WHICH ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE AREA
 OFFICE.  THE HUD IS ALSO SEEKING BY ITS PETITIONS TO CLARIFY THE STATUS
 OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN THOSE CITIES SO THAT THEIR REPRESENTATION WITHIN THE
 AFGE'S UNITS WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE PRIOR STATUS OF THE REGIONAL
 OFFICE UNIT.  THUS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HUD WOULD SEVER THE NONPROFESSIONAL
 EMPLOYEES OF ITS ATLANTA AREA OFFICE FROM THE AFGE'S UNIT AS, IN THE
 HUD'S VIEW, THEIR STATUS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE UNREPRESENTED
 EMPLOYEES OF THE ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE.
 
    IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT, PURSUANT TO THE
 REORGANIZATION IMPLEMENTED BY THE HUD ON JULY 1, 1978, AND SOON
 THEREAFTER, THE EMPLOYEES OF THE HUD'S SERVICE OFFICES AND VALUATION AND
 ENDORSEMENT STATIONS HAVE BEEN ORGANIZATIONALLY AND OPERATIONALLY
 INTEGRATED INTO THE AREA OFFICES TO WHICH THEY ARE SUBORDINATE, AND THAT
 THE EMPLOYEES IN THESE OFFICES SHOULD HAVE THEIR REPRESENTATIONAL STATUS
 CONTROLLED BY THE REPRESENTATIONAL STATUS OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE AREA
 OFFICE TO WHICH THEY ARE SUBORDINATE.  THUS, THE AUTHORITY CONCLUDES
 THAT, AS A RESULT OF THE REORGANIZATION WHICH CONSOLIDATED
 ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONNEL SERVICES, COMMUNITY PLANNING AND
 DEVELOPMENT, FAIR HOUSING, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, AND MOST MULTI-FAMILY
 HOUSING RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN THE AREA OFFICES, THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
 SERVICE OFFICES AND THE VALUATION AND ENDORSEMENT STATIONS NO LONGER
 CONTINUE TO SHARE A SEPARATE CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE COMMUNITY OF
 INTEREST, BUT THAT, INSTEAD, THEY ARE A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WITH ALL
 THE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE AREA OFFICES AND OTHER SUBORDINATE
 OFFICES.  IN THIS REGARD, AS NOTED ABOVE, WHILE SOME OF THE SERVICE
 OFFICE AND VALUATION AND ENDORSEMENT STATION EMPLOYEES CONTINUE TO WORK
 IN THE SAME LOCATION AND PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTIONS UNDER THE SAME
 IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION AS PRIOR TO THE REORGANIZATION, THEY ARE NOW
 INTEGRATED INTO THE AREA OFFICE'S OPERATION AND ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME
 PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES APPLICABLE TO ALL OTHER AREA OFFICE
 EMPLOYEES. AS ALL PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY FOR THE
 EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE AREA OFFICE'S JURISDICTION IS VESTED WITH THE AREA
 MANAGER, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT IT WILL PROMOTE EFFECTIVE DEALINGS AND
 THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AGENCY'S OPERATIONS TO MAKE THE AREA OFFICES THE
 LOCI OF REPRESENTATION FOR EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE HUD FIELD ORGANIZATION
 BELOW THE REGIONAL OFFICES.  SEE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL SUPPLY
 CENTER, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, 5 FLRA NO. 103(1981) AND DEFENSE CONTRACT
 ADMINISTRATION SERVICES REGION, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, 5 FLRA NO.
 37(1981).
 
    THE AUTHORITY FURTHER FINDS THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE "COLLOCATED"
 REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES DO NOT SHARE A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST WHICH
 WOULD WARRANT THE SEVERANCE AND ACCRETION OF AFFECTED EMPLOYEES FROM
 AFGE'S NATIONWIDE UNITS AS REQUESTED BY THE HUD.  THE WEIGHT OF THE
 TESTIMONY ADDUCED IN THESE CASES LED TO THE AUTHORITY'S CONCLUSION ABOVE
 THAT THE REGIONAL OFFICES OF THE HUD NO LONGER HAD LINE AUTHORITY OVER
 THE AREA OFFICES SUBSEQUENT TO THE JULY 1, 1978 REORGANIZATION, AND THAT
 THE MAJOR PURPOSE OF THE REORGANIZATION WAS TO CENTRALIZE OPERATIONAL
 AND ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FOR HUD'S FIELD OFFICE OPERATIONS AT THE
 LEVEL OF THE AREA OFFICES.  GIVEN THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE AREA MANAGERS
 DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO
 ASSOCIATE THE REPRESENTATION STATUS OF AREA OFFICE EMPLOYEES WITH THAT
 OF "COLLOCATED" REGIONAL OFFICE EMPLOYEES BASED MERELY ON THE FACT THAT
 THEY SHARE A SINGLE PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.  ALTHOUGH THE
 EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONNEL EMPLOYEES ARE
 EMPLOYED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE, THE AREA MANAGER IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES
 IN EFFECT CONTRACTS FOR THEIR SERVICES, OVER WHICH HE HAS INDEPENDENT
 OPERATIONAL AUTHORITY.  MOREOVER, IT WOULD NOT PROMOTE EFFECTIVE
 DEALINGS AND THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AGENCY'S OPERATIONS TO ASSOCIATE THE
 REPRESENTATION STATUS OF AREA OFFICE EMPLOYEES WITH THOSE OF REGIONAL
 OFFICE EMPLOYEES IN "COLLOCATED" CITIES, GIVEN THE INDEPENDENT PERSONNEL
 AND LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WHICH EXISTS AT BOTH THE REGIONAL OFFICE
 AND AREA OFFICE LEVELS.
 
    ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY SHALL CLARIFY THE SEPARATE PROFESSIONAL
 AND NONPROFESSIONAL UNITS OF HUD EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED EXCLUSIVELY BY
 THE AFGE TO INCLUDE IN SUCH UNITS EMPLOYEES IN THE SERVICE OFFICES AND
 VALUATION AND ENDORSEMENT STATIONS WHO ARE PRESENTLY EMPLOYEES OF AREA
 OFFICES WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THOSE UNITS, AND TO EXCLUDE FROM SUCH
 UNITS EMPLOYEES IN THE SERVICE OFFICES AND VALUATION AND ENDORSEMENT
 STATIONS WHO ARE NOW EMPLOYEES OF AREA OFFICES WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE
 AFGE'S UNITS.
 
    FOR THE SAME REASONS, THE AUTHORITY SHALL CLARIFY THE UNIT OF
 PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE HUD'S LOS ANGELES AREA
 OFFICE EXCLUSIVELY REPRESENTED BY NFFE LOCAL 477 TO INCLUDE IN SUCH UNIT
 THE EMPLOYEES OF THE HUD'S SAN DIEGO AND SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, AND
 PHOENIX AND TUCSON, ARIZONA SERVICE OFFICES WHICH CAME UNDER THE
 JURISDICTION OF THE LOS ANGELES AREA OFFICE AS A RESULT OF A
 REORGANIZATION INITIATED BY THE HUD ON JULY 1, 1978.  /1/ ACCORDINGLY,
 THE AUTHORITY SHALL FURTHER ORDER THAT THE AFGE'S PETITION IN CASE NO.
 38-RO-1 BE DISMISSED, AS THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SAN DIEGO SERVICE OFFICE
 DO NOT SEPARATELY CONSTITUTE A UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATION PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED ABOVE IN
 DISCUSSING THE STATUS OF SERVICE OFFICES SUBSEQUENT TO THE HUD'S JULY 1,
 1978 REORGANIZATION.
 
    IN THE AUTHORITY'S VIEW, IT WOULD SERVE THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF
 THE STATUTE NOT ONLY TO CLARIFY THE UNITS AS DETERMINED HEREIN, BUT TO
 AMEND THE CERTIFICATIONS SO AS TO CLARIFY FOR ALL CONCERNED WHICH
 EMPLOYEES ARE REPRESENTED IN THE UNITS CLARIFIED.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT TO BE CLARIFIED IN CASE NO.
 3-CU-1, IN WHICH EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION WAS GRANTED TO THE AMERICAN
 FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON OCTOBER 23, 1978, AT THE
 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
 CLARIFIED AND AMENDED SO AS TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
 
    INCLUDED:  ALL PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT HOUSING
 AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
 
    HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; BOSTON REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES;
 HARTFORD AREA OFFICE;  NEW
 
    YORK REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES;  BUFFALO, NEW YORK AREA OFFICE;
 CARIBBEAN AREA
 
    OFFICE;  PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES;
 BALTIMORE AREA
 
    OFFICE;  PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA AREA OFFICE;  RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
 AREA OFFICE;  WASHINGTON,
 
    D.C. AREA OFFICE;  ATLANTA, GEORGIA AREA OFFICE;  BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
 AREA OFFICE;  GREENSBORO,
 
    N.C. AREA OFFICE;  JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA AREA OFFICE;  LOUISVILLE,
 KENTUCKY AREA
 
    OFFICE;  CHICAGO, ILLINOIS REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES;  COLUMBUS, OHIO
 AREA OFFICE;  MILWAUKEE,
 
    WISCONSIN AREA OFFICE;  MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL AREA OFFICE;  FT.
 WORTH, TEXAS REGIONAL
 
    OFFICE;  DALLAS, TEXAS AREA OFFICE;  NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA AREA
 OFFICE;  OKLAHOMA CITY AREA
 
    OFFICE;  SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS AREA OFFICE;  OMAHA, NEBRASKA AREA
 OFFICE;  AND THE SEATTLE,
 
    WASHINGTON, REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
 SERVICE OFFICES,
 
    VALUATION/ENDORSEMENT STATIONS AND VALUATION STATIONS WHICH REPORT TO
 THE AREA OFFICES LISTED
 
    ABOVE, EXCLUDING ALL PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT
 OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES
 
    DESCRIBED IN SECTION 7112(B)(2), (3), (4), (6) AND (7) OF THE
 STATUTE.
 
    IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT TO BE CLARIFIED IN
 CASE NO. 3-CU-2, IN WHICH EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION WAS GRANTED TO THE
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON OCTOBER 23, 1978, AT THE
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
 CLARIFIED AND AMENDED SO AS TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
 
    INCLUDED:  ALL PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
 HOUSING AND URBAN
 
    DEVELOPMENT BOSTON AREA OFFICE;  HARTFORD AREA OFFICE;  NEW YORK
 REGION;  PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL
 
    AND AREA OFFICES;  PITTSBURGH AREA OFFICE;  RICHMOND AREA OFFICE;
 WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA
 
    OFFICE;  ATLANTA AREA OFFICE;  COLUMBIA AREA OFFICE;  GREENSBORO AREA
 OFFICE;  JACKSONVILLE AREA
 
    OFFICE;  MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL AREA OFFICE, AND THE SAN ANTONIO AREA
 OFFICE, EXCLUDING ALL
 
    NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, SUPERVISORS, MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS AND
 EMPLOYEES DESCRIBED IN
 
    SECTION 7112(B)(2), (3), (4), (6) AND (7) OF THE STATUTE.
 
    IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT TO BE CLARIFIED IN
 CASE NO. 38-CU-6, IN WHICH EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION WAS GRANTED TO THE
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 477, AT THE DEPARTMENT
 OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, LOS ANGELES AREA OFFICE, BE AND IT
 HEREBY IS, CLARIFIED AND AMENDED SO AS TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
 
    INCLUDED:  ALL PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE LOS
 ANGELES AREA OFFICE,
 
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYEES
 OF THE SANTA ANA, SAN
 
    DIEGO, PHOENIX AND TUCSON SERVICE OFFICES, EXCLUDING SUPERVISORS,
 MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS AND
 
    EMPLOYEES DESCRIBED IN SECTION 7112(B)(2), (3), (4), (6) AND (7) OF
 THE STATUTE.
 
    IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PETITION IN CASE NO. 38-RO-1
 BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 3, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
 
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
 
                        LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
 
                     FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
    ATTACHMENT
 
                                ATTACHMENT
 
    THE CONSOLIDATED UNITS FOR WHICH AFGE WAS CERTIFIED ON OCTOBER 23,
 1978.
 
    THE NONPROFESSIONAL UNIT
 
    INCLUDED:  ALL NON-PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. HOUSING AND
 URBAN DEVELOPMENT HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D.C.; BANGOR, MAINE
 VALUATION STATION;  BURLINGTON, VERMONT VALUATION STATION;  NEW YORK
 REGION;  PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES;
 PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA AREA OFFICE;  RICHMOND, VIRGINIA AREA OFFICE;
 ATLANTA, GEORGIA AREA OFFICE;  GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA AREA OFFICE;
 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA AREA OFFICE;  JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA AREA OFFICE;
 CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA SERVICE OFFICE;  TAMPA, FLORIDA SERVICE OFFICE;
 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES;  MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN AREA
 OFFICE;  ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA AREA OFFICE, CLEVELAND OHIO SERVICE OFFICE;
  DALLAS, TEXAS AREA OFFICE;  FORT WORTH, TEXAS SERVICE OFFICE;  OKLAHOMA
 CITY, OKLAHOMA AREA OFFICE;  SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS AREA OFFICE;  OMAHA,
 NEBRASKA AREA OFFICE;  HELENA, MONTANA SERVICE OFFICE;  CASPER, WYOMING
 VALUATION STATION;  SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH SERVICE OFFICE;  SEATTLE,
 WASHINGTON REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES;  SPOKANE, WASHINGTON SERVICE
 OFFICE;  AND ALL NON-PROFESSIONAL GS EMPLOYEES OF THE BOSTON,
 MASSACHUSETTS REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES;  HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT AREA
 OFFICE;  MANCHESTER NEW HAMPSHIRE AREA OFFICE;  PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND
 SERVICE OFFICE;  BALTIMORE, MARYLAND AREA OFFICE;  WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA
 OFFICE;  LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY AREA OFFICE;  COLUMBUS, OHIO AREA OFFICE;
 DALLAS, TEXAS REGIONAL OFFICE;  NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA AREA OFFICE;  DES
 MOINES, IOWA INSURING OFFICE;  SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA SERVICE OFFICE;
 AND PHOENIX, ARIZONA SERVICE OFFICE.
 
    EXCLUDED:  ALL PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, SUPERVISORS;  MANAGEMENT
 OFFICIALS;  CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES;  EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FEDERAL
 PERSONNEL WORK IN OTHER THAN A PURELY CLERICAL CAPACITY;  AND THOSE
 EMPLOYEES WITH APPOINTMENTS NOT TO EXCEED 6 MONTHS OR LESS AND ALL
 TEMPORARY DISASTER EMPLOYEES;  AND NON-PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE
 NEWARK, NEW JERSEY AREA OFFICE.
 
    THE PROFESSIONAL UNIT
 
    INCLUDED:  ALL GS PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. HOUSING AND
 URBAN DEVELOPMENT, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS AREA OFFICE;  HARTFORD,
 CONNECTICUT AREA OFFICE;  MANCHESTER NEW HAMPSHIRE AREA OFFICE;  NEW
 YORK REGION;  PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICE;
 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA AREA OFFICE;  WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA OFFICE;  ATLANTA,
 GEORGIA AREA OFFICE;  GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA AREA OFFICE;
 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY AREA OFFICE;  COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA AREA OFFICE;
  JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA AREA OFFICE;  CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA SERVICE
 OFFICE;  CHICAGO, ILLINOIS REGIONAL AND AREA OFFICES;  MILWAUKEE,
 WISCONSIN AREA OFFICE;  ST. PAUL,