08:0764(128)CU - Defense Communications Agency, HQ, Arlington, Virginia and AFGE Local 2 -- 1982 FLRAdec RP



[ v08 p764 ]
08:0764(128)CU
The decision of the Authority follows:


 8 FLRA No. 128
 
 DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS
 AGENCY, HEADQUARTERS, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
 Agency/Petitioner
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO
 Labor Organization
 
                                            Case No. 3-CU-50
 
                           SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY ON A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 OF THE AUTHORITY'S DECISION IN DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY,
 HEADQUARTERS, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, 8 FLRA NO. 128(1982), FILED BY THE
 AGENCY/PETITIONER.
 
    ON MAY 26, 1982, THE AUTHORITY ISSUED ITS DECISION AND ORDER
 CLARIFYING UNIT IN THE ABOVE CASE.  AMONG OTHER FINDINGS, IT FOUND,
 UNDER THE HEADING COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYST, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
 SYSTEM, DCA OPERATIONS CENTER (DCAOC), GS-334-13, THAT "FOUR COMPUTER
 SYSTEMS ANALYSTS" ARE NOT SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.
  THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION POINTS OUT THAT THERE ARE IN FACT
 FIFTEEN COMPUTER SPECIALISTS IN DCAOC, WHOM THE AUTHORITY APPEARS TO
 ADDRESS, AND ASKS US TO RECONSIDER OUR CONCLUSION WITH REGARD TO THEIR
 SUPERVISORY STATUS.  THE MOTION ALSO POINTS OUT THAT THERE ARE IN FACT
 FOUR COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYSTS IN DCAOC, BUT THAT THE AGENCY/PETITIONER
 HAD ALLEGED THAT THEY ARE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, NOT SUPERVISORS.  HENCE,
 IT ASKS THE AUTHORITY TO ALSO PASS UPON THIS ALLEGATION.  THE AUTHORITY
 SHALL HERE DETERMINE THE STATUS OF BOTH THOSE CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES.
 THUS, THE AUTHORITY GRANTS THE MOTION OF THE AGENCY/PETITIONER AND
 ISSUES THIS SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION.
 
         COMPUTER SPECIALIST, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, DCA
 
                   OPERATIONS CENTER (DCAOC), GS-334-13
 
    THERE ARE FIFTEEN COMPUTER SPECIALISTS WHO SERVE AS TEAM LEADERS IN
 THE ADP AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION OF THE NATIONAL
 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (NCS).  THE AGENCY/PETITIONER ALLEGED THAT THESE
 EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE UNIT AS SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE
 MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE STATUTE.  THE SUPERVISORY STATUS
 OF THESE TEAM LEADERS WAS INCORRECTLY CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITY UNDER
 THE HEADING COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYST (SEE BELOW).
 
    AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT IN THIS CASE, THE AUTHORITY
 FINDS THAT ITS STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT TEAM LEADERS' ESTIMATES "ARE
 APPROVED BY EITHER THE BRANCH CHIEF OR DIVISION DIRECTOR, WHO CHOOSES
 WHICH EMPLOYEES WILL CARRY OUT THE WORK," IS A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION OF
 THE TESTIMONY.  WHILE TEAM LEADERS MAKE SOME DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD,
 ESPECIALLY IN CASES OF URGENCY, IT IS NONETHELESS TRUE THAT, AS PART OF
 THEIR ESTIMATES AS TO HOW A TEAM ASSIGNMENT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED,
 INCLUDING ASSIGNMENT OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONNEL, FINAL APPROVAL COMES FROM
 THE BRANCH CHIEF OR THE DIVISION DIRECTOR.  THE AUTHORITY RECONFIRMS THE
 PREVIOUS FINDINGS AS TO THESE INDIVIDUALS.
 
    UPON RECONSIDERATION, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE ABOVE TEAM LEADERS
 ARE NOT SUPERVISORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(10) OF THE
 STATUTE AND THEY MUST THEREFORE BE INCLUDED IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.
 
         COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYST, NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM,
 
                 DCA OPERATIONS CENTER (DCAOC), GS-334-13
 
    THERE ARE FOUR COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYSTS IN DCAOC, WHO THE
 AGENCY/PETITIONER ALLEGES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE UNIT AS MANAGEMENT
 OFFICIALS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(11) OF THE STATUTE AND
 WHOSE STATUS THE AUTHORITY HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY PASSED UPON.  IN THE LEAD
 CASE OF DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING SELECTION
 OFFICE, 7 FLRA NO. 24(1981), THE AUTHORITY INTERPRETED THE STATUTORY
 DEFINITION OF "MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL" TO INCLUDE THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO:
 (1) CREATE, ESTABLISH OR PRESCRIBE GENERAL PRINCIPLES, PLANS, OR COURSES
 OF ACTION OF AN AGENCY;  (2) DECIDE UPON OR SETTLE UPON GENERAL
 PRINCIPLES, PLANS OR COURSES OF ACTION FOR AN AGENCY;  OR (3) BRING
 ABOUT OR OBTAIN A RESULT AS TO THE ADOPTION OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES, PLANS
 OR COURSES OF ACTION FOR AN AGENCY.  APPLYING THESE CRITERIA TO THE
 INSTANT CASE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE WORK OF ALL FOUR INCUMBENTS
 IS RELATED AND INVOLVES THE DEVELOPING, ANALYZING AND MAINTAINING OF
 BOTH HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE SYSTEMS SUCH AS DATA BASE CIRCULAR SYSTEMS,
 CONFIGURATION CONTROL, INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE BY CONTRACTS OFFICERS WHO
 PURCHASE EQUIPMENT, SITE PREPARATION FOR INCOMING EQUIPMENT AND LONG
 RANGE COST ANALYSIS OF SUCH SYSTEMS.  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT WORK
 PERFORMED BY THESE ANALYSTS AFFECTS THE WORK OF MANAGEMENT, THE WORK
 PRODUCT OF THE INCUMBENTS AND THEIR SUGGESTIONS ARE NO MORE THAN A
 STARTING POINT FOR THOSE MAKING FINAL DECISIONS.  THE AUTHORITY FINDS
 THAT THE INCUMBENTS IN THESE POSITIONS ARE NOT MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS, AS
 THEY DO NOT FORMULATE, DETERMINE OR INFLUENCE THE POLICIES OF THE AGENCY
 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7103(A)(11) OF THE STATUTE, AND THEY MUST
 THEREFORE BE INCLUDED IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    ACCORDINGLY, THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS HEREBY GRANTED, AND,
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE UNIT SOUGHT TO BE CLARIFIED HEREIN, FOR
 WHICH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2, AFL-CIO,
 WAS PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED AS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AND WHICH THE
 AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE CLARIFIED ON MAY 26, 1982, BE, AND IT HEREBY IS,
 FURTHER CLARIFIED TO INCLUDE THE POSITIONS OF COMPUTER SPECIALIST AND
 CO