10:0502(86)RA - NFFE Local 1 Independent and Western Regional Office, National Park Service, San Francisco, CA -- 1982 FLRAdec RP



[ v10 p502 ]
10:0502(86)RA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 86
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1, INDEPENDENT
 Labor Organization
 
 and
 
 WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
 Petitioner
 
                                            Case Nos. 9-RA-8
                                                      9-RA-9
 
                      DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REVIEW
 
    THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW SEEKS A REVERSAL OF THE ACTING
 REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S DISMISSAL OF THE REPRESENTATION PETITIONS FILED
 HEREIN.  IN THE PETITIONS, WHICH WERE FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION
 2422.1(C) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, THE PETITIONER
 (ACTIVITY) SOUGHT AN ELECTION TO DETERMINE IF THE INCUMBENT LABOR
 ORGANIZATION (UNION) CONTINUES TO REPRESENT A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES
 IN THE EXISTING EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING UNITS AND A DETERMINATION AS TO
 WHETHER A RECENT REORGANIZATION SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED THE SCOPE AND
 CHARACTER OF SUCH UNITS.
 
    SECTION 2422.1(C) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND REGULATIONS STATES
 THAN AN ACTIVITY OR AGENCY MAY FILE A PETITION SEEKING TO CLARIFY A
 REPRESENTATION MATTER "WHERE (IT) HAS A GOOD FAITH DOUBT, BASED ON
 OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS, THAT THE CURRENTLY RECOGNIZED OR CERTIFIED
 LABOR ORGANIZATION REPRESENTS A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
 EXISTING UNIT OR THAT, BECAUSE OF A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER
 AND SCOPE OF THE UNIT, IT HAS A GOOD FAITH DOUBT THAT SUCH UNIT IS NOW
 APPROPRIATE." THUS, THE ISSUES WHICH MUST BE DECIDED IN THIS CASE ARE
 WHETHER THE ACTIVITY, BASED ON OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS, HAD A GOOD
 FAITH DOUBT WITH REGARD TO EITHER THE UNION'S MAJORITY STATUS OR THE
 CURRENT APPROPRIATENESS OF THE UNITS.
 
    IN SUPPORT OF ITS PETITIONS, THE ACTIVITY ASSERTS, INTER ALIA, THAT:
 (1) THE UNION WAS CERTIFIED FOR TWO UNITS IN 1971, ONE INCLUDING
 ESSENTIALLY ALL PROFESSIONALS, AND THE SECOND INCLUDING ALL
 NONPROFESSIONALS EMPLOYED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS) IN SAN
 FRANCISCO;  (2) WHILE THE PARTIES THEREAFTER ENTERED INTO A DUES
 WITHHOLDING AGREEMENT, ONLY FIVE OF A TOTAL OF OVER 200 EMPLOYEES FROM
 BOTH UNITS ARE PRESENTLY ON DUES WITHHOLDING;  (3) A REORGANIZATION WAS
 EFFECTED ON JUNE 30, 1972, ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATING MORE THAN ONE HALF OF
 THE TOTAL EMPLOYEE COMPLEMENT AND, SPECIFICALLY, REDUCING THE
 PROFESSIONAL UNIT BY 80 PER CENT;  (4) ANOTHER REORGANIZATION WAS
 EFFECTED ON FEBRUARY 9, 1981, MERGING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE HERITAGE
 CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE WITH THE WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
 EMPLOYEES, THEREBY INCREASING THE SIZE OF BOTH UNITS AND CAUSING CHANGES
 IN JOB FUNCTIONS AND PHYSICAL LOCATIONS;  (5) THE UNION HAS NEVER
 NEGOTIATED A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR EITHER UNIT;  (6)
 NEGOTIATIONS HAVE NEVER TAKEN PLACE CONCERNING THE IMPACT ON THE UNITS
 OF CHANGES IN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT;  (7) THERE ARE NO STEWARDS
 REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEES OF EITHER UNIT AND NO GRIEVANCES HAVE BEEN
 FILED;  AND (8) NONE OF THE UNION'S OFFICERS ARE EMPLOYED BY THE NPS.
 
    THE ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BASED ON AN INVESTIGATION, CONCLUDED
 THAT "THE PETITIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED WITH ADEQUATE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE
 TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE BASIS FOR DOUBTING THE UNION'S LOSS OF
 MAJORITY STATUS AND THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT A RECENT
 REORGANIZATION SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED THE SCOPE AND CHARACTER OF THE
 UNITS TO THE EXTENT THAT THE UNITS NO LONGER REMAIN APPROPRIATE." AMONG
 OTHER THINGS, THE ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR CONCLUDED THAT WHILE THE 1981
 REORGANIZATION AFFECTED THE UNITS, IN HIS VIEW IT "DID NOT MAKE A
 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE SCOPE AND CHARACTER OF THE UNITS SO AS TO MAKE
 THEM NO LONGER APPROPRIATE.  . . . " FURTHER, HE CONCLUDED THAT SINCE
 THE UNION "HAS SHOWN ACTIVITY, ALTHOUGH OF A LIMITED NATURE, IN
 REPRESENTATIONAL MATTERS AND EMPLOYEES CONTINUE TO REMAIN ON DUES
 WITHHOLDING," THAT THE "OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS AS PRESENTED BY THE
 (P)ETITIONER ARE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT T