08:0649(114)RO - NAGE Local R12-35 and Navy, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA -- 1982 FLRAdec RP



[ v08 p649 ]
08:0649(114)RO
The decision of the Authority follows:


 8 FLRA No. 114
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R12-35
 Labor Organization/Petitioner
 
 and
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
 NAVAL OCEAN SYSTEMS CENTER
 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. 8-RO-40
 
         DECISION AND ORDER ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION OF UNIT
 
    UPON A PETITION DULY FILED WITH THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION
 7111(B)(1) OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE
 (THE STATUTE), A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER OF THE
 AUTHORITY.  THE AUTHORITY HAS REVIEWED THE HEARING OFFICER'S RULINGS
 MADE AT THE HEARING AND FINDS THAT THEY ARE FREE FROM PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
  THE RULINGS ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.
 
    UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE,
 INCLUDING THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS, /1/ AND IN AGREEMENT WITH THE
 ACTIVITY, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE UNIT OF WAGE GRADE EMPLOYEES
 WHICH THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R12-35
 (NAGE) SEEKS TO REPRESENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION
 UNDER SECTION 7112(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.  /2/ THUS, THE RECORD
 ESTABLISHES THAT THE APPROXIMATELY 47 WAGE GRADE EMPLOYEES DO NOT HAVE A
 CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM
 THE OTHER APPROXIMATELY 2,000 GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES OF THE
 ACTIVITY.  ALTHOUGH THE WAGE GRADE EMPLOYEES ARE INVOLVED IN MANUAL,
 MORE PHYSICALLY DEMANDING TASKS, THEY FOR THE MOST PART WORK SIDE BY
 SIDE AND ARE FUNCTIONALLY INTEGRATED WITH THE GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES
 IN CARRYING OUT THE MISSION OF THE ACTIVITY, HAVE A SIMILARITY OF SKILLS
 WITH SOME GENERAL SCHEDULE TECHNICIANS AT THE ACTIVITY, AND PRESENTLY,
 /3/ WITH MINOR DEVIATIONS, ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME PERSONNEL POLICIES
 AND PRACTICES AS THE GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES.  FURTHER, DUE TO THIS
 SIMILARITY OF SKILLS, WAGE GRADE EMPLOYEES ARE INCLUDED IN THE AREA OF
 CONSIDERATION FOR FILLING GENERAL SCHEDULE JOB VACANCIES AND, IN FACT,
 HAVE BEEN PROMOTED INTO GENERAL SCHEDULE JOB CLASSIFICATIONS.  HENCE,
 THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT WAGE GRADE EMPLOYEES DO NOT SHARE CONDITIONS OF
 EMPLOYMENT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM OTHER ACTIVITY EMPLOYEES AND THUS
 DO NOT SHARE A SEPARATE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST.
 
    FURTHER, THE PROPOSED UNIT OF 47 EMPLOYEES WOULD NOT PROMOTE
 EFFECTIVE DEALINGS OR EFFICIENCY OF AGENCY OPERATIONS SINCE IT WOULD
 RESULT IN UNWARRANTED FRAGMENTATION.  NOTED IN THIS REGARD IS THAT, AT
 THE PRESENT TIME, PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PRACTICES ARE CENTRALLY
 ESTABLISHED AND UNIFORMLY IMPLEMENTED FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.
 
    THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE
 UNIT PETITIONED FOR IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR EXCLUSIVE RECOGNITION UNDER
 SECTION 7112(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE PETITION IN CASE NUMBER 8-RO-40 BE, AND
 IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
 
    ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 19, 1982
 
                       RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
                       HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
                       LEON B. APPLEWHAITE, MEMBER
                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------- FOOTNOTES: ---------------
 
 
    /1/ AS THE BRIEF FILED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R12-35 WAS UNTIMELY FILED, IT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED
 HEREIN.
 
    /2/ SECTION 7112(A)(1) PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART THAT THE AUTHORITY
 SHALL:
 
    . . . DETERMINE ANY UNIT TO BE AN APPROPRIATE UNIT ONLY IF THE
 DETERMINATION WILL INSURE A
 
    CLEAR AND IDENTIFIABLE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AMONG THE EMPLOYEES IN
 THE UNIT AND WILL PROMOTE
 
    EFFECTIVE DEALINGS WITH, AND EFFICIENCY OF THE OPERATIONS OF, THE
 AGENCY INVOLVED.
 
    /3/ THE AUTHORITY IS AWARE THAT THE ACTIVITY IS PRESENTLY ENGAGED IN
 A 5 YEAR PERSONNEL SYSTEM EXPERIMENT WHICH MAY RESULT IN SEPARATE
 TREATMENT OF WAGE GRADE EMPLOYEES.  HOWEVER, THE DECISION HEREIN MUST
 REFLECT THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE
 HEARING RATHER THAN WHAT M