33:0478(64)CU - - Army, HQ Presidio Of San Francisco (PSF), Directorate of Engineering and Housing (DEH), San Francisco, CA and AFGE Local 1457 - - 1988 FLRAdec RP - - v33 p478
[ v33 p478 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
33 FLRA No. 64
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO
DIRECTORATE OF ENGINEERING AND HOUSING
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1457, AFL-CIO
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
October 27, 1988
Before Chairman Calhoun and Member McKee.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority on an application filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1457, AFL-CIO (AFGE) under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations. AFGE seeks review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order that the General Schedule (GS) employees of the Housing Division did not become part of the AFGE unit of all Wage Grade (WG) employees of the Directorate of Engineering and Housing (DEH) as a result of the reorganization implemented in April 1983. The Regional Director found, among other things, that the GS employees of the Housing Division are functionally and organizationally integrated with all the other unrepresented GS employees of DEH and that they do not share a community of interest separate and distinct from other DEH GS employees who are excluded from the AFGE WG unit. The application only seeks review of that finding. The Agency did not file an opposition.
For the reasons discussed below, we deny the application for review.
II. Regional Director's Decision
In February 1983, the U.S. Army Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia (FORSCOM) approved the transfer of the Headquarters, Presidio of San Francisco (PSF) Housing Division from the Directorate of Industrial Operations (DIO) to the Directorate of Facilities Engineering (DFAE) and the simultaneous redesignation of the DFAE as DEH. This change was accomplished without alteration of existing manpower requirements, allotments and grades. The PSF Commander subsequently implemented the approved transfer and redesignation effective April 1, 1983, without change in Housing Division employees or employees' positions, grades and pay.
AFGE was recognized as the exclusive representative of all WG employees of DFAE by Letter of Recognition dated October 20, 1967. AFGE filed a Clarification of Unit (CU) petition in order to clarify the status of certain groups of employees as the result of the transfer of Housing Division to DEH. AFGE contends that the transfer of the Housing Division in 1983 resulted in the accretion of the GS employees in Housing to its WG unit and is seeking to clarify its unit to reflect the change. The Activity contends that such employees have never been and are not now covered by exclusive recognition of the AFGE or any other labor organization.
At the time of the transfer of the Housing Division, there were approximately 75 unrepresented GS employees in DFAE. Since the transfer, all non-firefighter GS employees have shared and continue to share common terms and conditions of employment, common lines of supervision, identical benefits and similar hours of work. Thus, the Regional Director found that the GS employees of the Housing Division share a community of interest with the other unrepresented GS employees of DEH. Decision at 5.
The Regional Director found no evidence of collective bargaining between AFGE and PSF concerning the working conditions of DEH GS employees since the 1983 transfer. He further found that the Housing Division GS employees utilize the agency grievance procedure as opposed to AFGE's negotiated grievance procedure. Although AFGE representatives have, on occasion, assisted employees in processing grievances under the agency grievance procedure, AFGE has provided such employees with personal representatives, not with union representation. Further, AFGE representatives involved have used their own time rather than official time to engage in such representation. Decision at 5.
The Regional Director noted that despite the fact that six GS employees of DEH were currently on automatic dues allotment to AFGE, there was no history of bargaining between the parties with respect to the GS employees and no history of representation of such employees by AFGE. Decision at 5. Further, the Regional Director noted that the DEH Deputy Director testified that inclusion in the unit of only a portion of the GS employees in DEH would cause confusion for both management and employees and would result in inefficient operations within DEH. Id.
In these circumstances, and noting that the GS Housing Division employees are functionally and organizationally integrated with all the other unrepresented GS employees of DEH, the Regional Director found that such employees do not share a community of interest separate and distinct from other DEH GS employees who are excluded from the AFGE DEH WG unit. In addition, the Regional Director found that the inclusion of a portion of the DEH GS employees in the WG unit would lead to unwarranted fragmentation, ineffective dealings with and inefficient operations of the Activity. Therefore, the Regional Director found that the clarification sought by AFGE which would include the Housing Department GS employees in its DEH WG unit was inappropriate and that the unit may not be so clarified. Decision at 5.
III. AFGE's Application for Review
AFGE contends that compelling reasons exist under section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations for the Authority to grant its application. AFGE contends that the Regional Director erred in finding that AFGE has not represented GS employees in PSF and in fact there is a long bargaining history of union representation of GS employees in the Housing Division. AFGE contends that there are GS employees of the Housing Division who are members of AFGE and who are on dues withholding.
Upon careful consideration of the application for review, we conclude that compelling reasons do not exist within the meaning of section 2422.17(c) of our Rules and Regulations, for granting review of the Regional Director's decision. Rather, the application expresses nothing more than disagreement with the Regional Director's findings and conclusions, which are based on record evidence developed at a hearing and have not been shown to be clearly erroneous or to have prejudicially affected the rights of any party. Such contentions do not provide a basis for granting review of the Regional Director's decision.
Accordingly, we deny the application for review.
The application for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order is denied.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)