14:0174(36)CU - NAGE Local R3-76 and Navy Publication and Printing Service Detachment Office; IFPTE Local 3 and Navy Publication and Printing Service Detachment Office -- 1984 FLRAdec RP



[ v14 p174 ]
14:0174(36)CU
The decision of the Authority follows:


 14 FLRA No. 36
 
 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R3-76
 Labor Organization
 
 and
 
 NAVY PUBLICATIONS AND PRINTING
 SERVICE DETACHMENT OFFICE
 Activity/Petitioner
 
                                            Case Nos. 2-CU-20002
                                                      2-AC-20002
 
 INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
 PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL
 ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 3
 Labor Organization/Petitioner
 
 and
 
 NAVY PUBLICATIONS AND PRINTING
 SERVICE DETACHMENT OFFICE
 Activity
 
                                            Case No. 2-RO-20002
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    Upon petitions filed with the Authority under section 7111(b)(1) and
 (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 the entire record, including the parties' contentions at the
 hearing, /1/ the Authority finds:  The National Association of
 Government Employees, Local R3-76 (NAGE) has been recognized since 1969
 as the exclusive representative of a unit consisting of all civilian
 employees, except supervisors and management officials of the Navy
 Publications and Printing Service Office, Northern Division,
 Philadelphia, Pa. and the Navy Publications and Printing Service Branch
 Office, Philadelphia, Pa.  In 1980, the Department of the Navy
 determined that its publishing, printing, duplicating and reproduction
 functions should be centralized within a more fully integrated and
 enlarged organization.  To accomplish this, it undertook a
 reorganization which included the administrative transfer in October
 1980 of a duplicating and reproduction facility from the control and
 direction of the Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, Pa. (NADC) to
 the control and direction of the Activity.  The reorganization also led
 to an administrative transfer in October 1981 of a reproduction and
 graphics facility at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (the Shipyard) to
 the control and direction of the Activity.  In addition, the Activity's
 name was changed from "Navy Publications and Printing Service Office,
 Northern Division, Philadelphia, Pa." to "Navy Publications and Printing
 Service Detachment Office."
 
    The Activity filed the petition in Case No. 2-CU-20002 to clarify the
 above-described unit of its employees, represented by NAGE, so as to
 accrete the approximately eight employees who were administratively
 transferred in place to the Activity's control from NADC in 1980.  The
 Activity also filed the petition in Case No. 2-AC-20002 to amend NAGE's
 recognition so as to reflect the change in the Activity's name.  These
 petitions are not opposed.
 
    The petition in Case No. 2-RO-20002 was filed by the International
 Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local 3
 (IFPTE).  IFPTE has represented a bargaining unit at the Philadelphia
 Naval Shipyard which included approximately 44 employees who were
 transferred in place to the control and direction of the Activity in
 1981.  IFPTE seeks certification as the exclusive representative for a
 unit of these 44 former Shipyard employees separate from the Activity's
 other employees.  This petition is opposed by the Activity and NAGE on
 the grounds that these administratively transferred employees do not
 share a community of interest which is separate and distinct from the
 Activity's other employees, and that such a unit would not promote
 effective dealings or efficiency of the Activity's operations as
 required by Section 7112(a)(1) of the Statute.  /2/
 
    The record reflects that all facets of the operation of the
 facilities at NADC and the Shipyard respectively, which were transferred
 to the Activity as a result of the Navy's reorganization in 1980 and
 1981 are now within the control and direction of the Activity, including
 the determination and administration of the personnel policies,
 practices and matters affecting the working conditions of the
 administratively transferred employees.  The responsibility of NADC and
 the Shipyard correspond to and are integrated with the equipment and
 duties performed by employees at the Activity's other facilities.  The
 job classifications of these employees are the same as many of the job
 classifications of the Activity's other employees.  The transferred
 employees are now subject to the same personnel policies and practices
 as the Activity's other employees, as administered by the Activity's
 central personnel and labor relations staff.  Thus, the opportunities of
 the employees at NADC and the Shipyard with respect to promotions,
 transfers, details, retention rights during reductions-in-force,
 reclassifications of their positions and like matters are now determined
 on an Activity-wide basis.
 
    Based on these facts, the Authority concludes that the Activity's
 petition in case No. 2-CU-20002, which seeks to clarify the existing
 unit of its employees represented by NAGE so as to accrete the employees
 at the NADC facility, should be granted.  These employees have ceased to
 be employees of their former employer, the Naval Air Development Center
 at Warminster, and by the nature of their integration into the
 Activity's operations they have accreted to the existing bargaining unit
 of the Activity's employees.  See United States Department of the Navy,
 Naval Avionics Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, 11 FLRA No. 98(1983);
 Department of the Navy, Naval Civilian Personnel Command, Pacific Field
 Division, 8 FLRA No. 113(1982).  Similarly, the Authority has concluded
 that the Activity's petition in Case No. 2-AC-20002, which seeks an
 amendment to NAGE's recognition in order to reflect a change in the
 Activity's name should also be granted.
 
    However, the Authority concludes that the petition of IFPTE in Case
 No. 2-RO-20002, which seeks certification for a unit of the employees
 transferred to the Activity from the Shipyard separate from an
 Activity-wide unit, must be dismissed.  Upon the above findings
 regarding the integration of the Shipyard facility into the Activity's
 operations, the similarities of the employees' equipment and work with
 the equipment and work of the Activity's other employees, and the
 centralization of control over their conditions of employment, these
 employees do not share a clear and identifiable community of interest
 separate and distinct from the Activity's other employees which would
 justify their inclusion in a separate unit.  See Mississippi National
 Guard Mates Shop, Camp Shelby, Mississippi, 12 FLRA No. 117(1983);
 Department of the Navy, Navy Publications and Printing Service Branch
 Office, Vallejo, California, 10 FLRA No. 108(1982).
 
    Accordingly, the Authority concludes that the unit IFPTE seeks to
 represent is not appropriate under section 7112(a)(1) of the Statute,
 and such petition shall be dismissed.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    In Case No. 2-AC-20002, IT IS ORDERED that the unit of employees of
 the Activity for which the National Association of Government Employees,
 Local R3-76 was recognized as the exclusive representative in 1969 be
 amended by changing the name of the Activity from "Navy Publications and
 Printing Service Office, Northern Division, Philadelphia, Pa." to "Navy
 Publications and Printing Service Detachment Office."
 
    In Case No. 2-CU-20002, IT IS ORDERED that the unit of employees of
 the Activity for which the National Association of Government Employees,
 Local R3-76 holds exclusive recognition, be clarified by including
 within such unit all eligible employees of the Navy Publications and
 Printing Service Department Detachment Office located at Warminster,
 Pennsylvania.
 
    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 2-RO-20002 be,
 and it hereby is, dismissed.