11:0066(22)CU - Adjutant General of Michigan, Air NG, Battle Creek, MI and Michigan State Council, ACT -- 1983 FLRAdec RP

 11 FLRA No. 22
 
 ADJUTANT GENERAL OF MICHIGAN,
 AIR NATIONAL GUARD,
 BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN
 Activity/Petitioner
 
 and
 
 MICHIGAN STATE COUNCIL,
 ASSOCIATION OF CIVILIAN TECHNICIANS /1/
 Labor Organization
 
                                            Case No. 5-CU-33
 
                    DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNIT
 
    Upon a petition duly filed with the Authority under section
 7111(b)(2) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
 (the Statute), a 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 careful consideration of the entire record, including the
 parties' contentions, the Authority finds:  The Michigan State Council,
 Association of Civilian Technicians, was recognized on May 28, 1969 as
 the exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of all technician
 personnel employed by the Michigan Air National Guard.  Essentially, the
 petition seeks to clarify the bargaining unit status of six employees
 based on the Activity/Petitioner's contention that they are supervisors.
  The Activity/Petitioner contends that Mark Harris, Ground Power Support
 Systems Mechanic, WG-5378-11;  David R. Webb, Electronics Mechanic,
 WG-2614-12;  William Humphreys, Instrument Mechanic, WG-3359-12;  Clyde
 W. Sells, Fabric Worker, WG-3105-11;  Charles G. Wait, Aircraft
 Refueling Vehicle Operator, WG-5701-09 /2/ and Raymond Cross, Production
 Controller, GS-1152-09, are supervisors /3/ and should be excluded from
 the bargaining unit.  Of these, the record establishes that Harris
 assigns and directs work and has effectively recommended hiring of a
 subordinate, and Webb assigns and directs work.  Further, the Authority
 finds that the above duties are not merely routine or clerical in
 nature, but require the consistent exercise of independent judgment.
 Accordingly, these incumbents are supervisors within the meaning of
 section 7103(a)(10) of the Statute, and shall be excluded from the unit.
 
    The Authority further finds that Humphreys is not a supervisor within
 the meaning of section 7103(a)(10) of the Statute since he does not
 exercise any of the statutory indicia of supervisory authority.  Thus,
 he shall remain in the unit.
 
    Further, the record indicates that Sells, Wait, and Cross, supervise
 only active duty military personnel.  As noted, section 7103(a)(10) of
 the Statute defines a "supervisor" as an individual having certain
 authority over "employees." Section 7103(a)(2) defines an "employee" for
 the purposes of the Statute as an individual "employed in an agency,"
 but specifically excludes from that definition "a member of the
 uniformed services." The Authority finds that the individuals supervised
 by the incumbents are members of the uniformed services and thus are not
 "employees" within the meaning of the Statute.  /4/ Therefore, the
 Authority finds that the above incumbents are not supervisors as defined
 in the Statute and shall order that they remain in the unit.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    IT IS ORDERED that the unit sought to be clarified