46:1115(100)RP - - HHS, Adm. for Children and Families, Washington, DC and NTEU - - 1993 FLRAdec RP - - v46 p1115
[ v46 p1115 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
46 FLRA No. 100
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
January 7, 1993
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority on an application for review of the Regional Director's (RD's) decision and order filed by the Petitioner under section 2422.17(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.
The Activity, a principal operating division of the Department of Health and Human Services, was created in 1991 as a result of a reorganization which combined all of the functions and employees of the Family Support Administration (FSA) with a portion of the functions and employees of the Office of Human Development/Office of the Secretary (OHDS). Following the reorganization, program offices in FSA and OHDS remained, for the most part, intact. Staff functions, including policy and program evaluation, legislation, communications, and financial management, were combined.
The Petitioner was certified in 1986 as the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit including all professional and nonprofessional FSA employees. The Petitioner was certified in 1983 and 1984 as the exclusive representative of separate bargaining units of professional and nonprofessional employees in the Office of the Secretary. The separate units included, but were not confined to, the OHDS employees involved in the reorganization.
The Petitioner filed an amendment of certification (AC) petition contending that the Activity "is a successor employer with respect to the former FSA employee unit and that the former employees of OHDS who transferred to [the Activity] have accreted to the former FSA employee unit . . . ." RD's Decision at 2.(1) The RD dismissed the petition based on his conclusion that, as relevant here, the Activity was "in effect, a new organizational entity which includes employees from all or part of three previously recognized bargaining units" and which had no successorship obligations with respect to the former FSA unit. Id. at 5. According to the RD, as a result of the reorganization, "the former [Petitioner] represented employees have been reorganized into a new unit or units . . . which may be established only by the filing of a petition or petitions for an election or elections . . . ." Id. at 5-6.(2)
The Union seeks review of the RD's decision and requests a stay of the decision under section 7105(f) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute)(3) and section 2422.17(g) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.(4) The Activity did not file an opposition to the application for review.(5)
We find that the Petitioner has demonstrated that compelling reasons exist for granting its application for review of the RD's decision under section 2422.17(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.(6) Accordingly, we grant the application for review of the RD's decision on the following issue:
Whether the Petitioner may be certified as the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit of the Activity's employees without an election.
In accordance with section 2422.17(g) of our Rules and Regulations, the parties may, within 10 days after issuance of this Order, submit briefs on the issue raised by the application for review. Briefs should be directed to:
Ms. Alicia Columna
Director, Case Control Office
Federal Labor Relations Authority
500 C Street S.W., Room 213
Washington, D.C. 20424-0001
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
1. The record reflects that the Petitioner initially filed a clarification of unit (CU) petition but that after certain changes were made in the Activity reorganization, the CU petition was withdrawn. At the conclusion of the hearing in this case, the Petitioner "requested, in the event that the Authority determines that the AC petition is not the appropriate vehicle through which the petitioned-for unit certification could be granted, that the Authority consider the petition as a CU petition, or as a joint AC/CU petition." Application for Review at 2 (footnote omitted).
2. The RD stated that a CU petition also "would be an inappropriate vehicle to establish [Petitioner's] representative status at [the Activity] since it also is not a petition for an election . . . ." RD's Decision at 6 n.2.
3. Section 7105(f) of the Statute provides, in relevant part, that:
If the Authority delegates any authority to any reg