United States, Department of the Army, Military Traffic Management Command, Alexandria, Virginia (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 909/2, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization/Petitioner) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2855, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization/Applicant) and United States, Department of the Army, Military Traffic Management Command, Alexandria, Virginia (Agency) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2855, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization/Petitioner/Applicant) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 909/2, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization)

[ v60 p709 ]

60 FLRA No. 134

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
MILITARY TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT COMMAND
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 909/2, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization/Petitioner)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 2855, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization/Applicant)

WA-RP-02-0063

AND

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
MILITARY TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT COMMAND
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
(Agency)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 2855, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization/Petitioner/Applicant)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 909/2, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)

WA-RP-03-0018

_____

DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

March 9, 2005

_____

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and
Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members [n1] 

I.      Statement of the Case

      This matter is before the Authority pursuant to the Authority's decision in United States Dep't of the Army, Military Traffic Mgmt. Command, Alexandria, Va., 60 FLRA 390 (2004) (MTMC) (Chairman Cabaniss concurring in part and dissenting in part). In MTMC, the Authority granted in part and denied in part an application for review of a decision of the Regional Director (RD) filed by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 2855 (Local 2855).

      For the reasons that follow, we vacate our decision in MTMC to grant the application for review in part, and we deny the application.

II.     Background and Decision in MTMC

      As set forth in detail in MTMC, a reorganization occurred that combined the Military Traffic Management Command Headquarters, whose unit employees were represented by the AFGE Local 909/2 (Local 909/2), with one of its subordinate commands, the Deployment Support Command, whose unit employees were represented by Local 2855. Both Locals filed petitions seeking a determination of the effect of the reorganization on their respective units. The RD determined, as relevant here, that following the reorganization, the former separate units represented by the Locals were no longer appropriate and, instead, a new unit comprised of all formerly represented employees was appropriate. He determined that Local 909/2 was the representative of that unit.

      Local 2855 filed an application for review of the RD's decision, claiming, as relevant here, that an election was required to determine which Local represented the new unit because Local 909 was not "sufficiently predominant." MTMC, 60 FLRA at 395 (citing Application at 8). On review, the Authority concluded, in pertinent part, that the application raised "a genuine issue over whether the RD has failed to apply established law" by failing to order an election between Local 2855 and Local 909/2. Id. at 396. Noting that the disputing unions are locals of the same union, a majority of the Authority found it "unclear from the Authority's established law" whether this dispute raised a question of representation for which an election is required under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute [ v60 p710 ] (the Statute). Id. at 396. Accordingly, the Authority "directed" the parties to address the following:

Under what circumstances, if any, does § 7111(b) of the Statute provide for an election to be directed where two groups of employees represented by separate locals of the same union are combined into a single bargaining unit?
What standard should be applied to determine whether, in circumstances following an agency reorganization, an election should be held when competing claims of recognition are made by two locals of the same national labor organization?

Id. at 396.

      No briefs were filed in response to the Authority's decision in MTMC.

III.     Analysis and Conclusion

      In response to the Authority's decision in MTMC, none of the parties provided any argument that the Statute requires an election in the circumstances of this case, or offered any argument on what standard would determine whether an election is required -- the specific questions that the Authority, in MTMC, directed the parties to address. More specifically, in response to the Authority's decision in MTMC, Local 2855 -- the party filing the application and requesting an election -- has provided no argument or evidence that the RD erred in failing to direct an election. We note, in this regard, that § 2422.15(c) of the Authority's Regulations requires parties to "cooperate in every aspect of the representation process." We also note that the Authority has held, in a related context, that an Authority-run election should not be undertaken "where there is no reasonable assurance that a genuine representation question exists[.]" United States Dep't of Transp., United States Coast Guard Fin. Ctr., Chesapeake, Va., 34 FLRA 946, 949 (1990). Accord Dep't of the Army, United States Army Aviation Missile Command (AMCOM) Redstone Arsenal, Ala., 56 FLRA 126, 131 (2000).

      In these circumstances, we find that Local 2855 has, in effect, abandoned the claim in its application for review that the RD erred by failing to direct an election and that the parties no longer have sufficient interest in that issue. Cf. Fed. Serv. Impasses Panel, 46 FLRA 1335, 1337 (1993) (Authority denied request for ruling on major policy issue based, in part, on fact that no comments were filed in response to Authority's request). Accordingly, without addressing the issue further, we vacate our initial, partial grant of the application, and we deny the application. [n2] 

IV.     Decision

      The partial grant of the application for review in MTMC is hereby vacated, and the application for review is denied. [ v60 p711 ]


Concurring opinion of Chairman Cabaniss:

<