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 ]
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. Issued, Washington, D.C., March 30, 1984 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ The Activity's post-hearing brief was untimely and has not been considered by the Authority in reaching its decision herein. /2/ Section 7112(a)(1) provides: Sec. 7112. Determination of appropriate units for labor organization representation (a)(1) The Authority shall determine the appropriateness of any unit. The Authority shall determine in each case whether, in order to ensure employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed under this chapter, the appropriate unit should be established on an agency, plant, installation, functional or other basis and shall determine any unit to be an appropriate unit only if the determination will ensure 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.